Many Bush fans cling to the idea that if Bush never had a policy that specified torture, then the systematic wide spread acts of torture, that occurred in Gitmo, Abu Graib and other locations, weren’t his fault.

And Bush and his supporters cling to another myth. That it was just a few bad apples acting on their own. “Only a handful” as Bush is fond of saying and his supporters are fond of believing.


The Bush administration deliberately created a policy that went out of its way to ignore the Geneva conventions. And Bush being typically irresponsible now reuses to acknowledge his policy snowballed and lead to widespread and more intense acts of prisoner abuse and torture. It’s much more convenient to blame a few bad apples.

But the key is, that the systematic prisoner abuse and torture emanated from the top, with Bush, Rumsfeld and Justice department lawyers. Interesting to note Colin Powell was deliberately kept out of the loop of the new policies disregarding the Geneva Conventions until they were already rolled out.. Of course, why would you let a decent person like Powell in on torture policies?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989436/site/newsweek/


THE ROOTS OF TORTURE

The road to Abu Ghraib began after 9/11, when Washington wrote new rules to fight a new kind of war. A NEWSWEEK investigation
By John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff






The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone—or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Cut out of the process, as usual, was Colin Powell's State Department. So were military lawyers for the uniformed services. When State Department lawyers first saw the Yoo memo, "we were horrified," said one. As State saw it, the Justice position would place the United States outside the orbit of international treaties it had championed for years.

The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future
Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions.

Thanks.

But you must remember that you are dealing with some people so ploddingly dim that even were George at the foot of their bed, personally extracting their toe-nails with a pliers...still, still they would stretch their aching reason, contorting and contriving, that possibly, yes, perhaps, yeah...maybe he was just 'fixing the sheets' ((*)(*)(*)(*) Karl, make something up quick which explains the 'pliers-sheets' incongruity!)

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Either the rank and file Bush supporters are ploddingly dim, or in a desperate state of denial.

I didnt see a copy of the memo in that link.

I have not seen any evidence so far that this was Bush policy.

JP5 doesn't want to hear about it...

See no evil, I guess.

Just further re-inforces that fact that when you create "gray area" in whether torture is allowed while simulataneously saying no laws or treaties apply and providing exemption from prosectution to the people involved, then bad things will happen.

And what does this show, it shows that George Bush is NOT a moral person. And the fact that he rated high on morality in the last election just shows how f'ed up the right wing religious groups are. To allow the freedom for two gay people to marry is a sin, but to render a person off the street and without any trial or legal recourse send them to a third party government to get tortured is just fine.

What is kinda sad is that there was an environment directly created by these orders from the white house that condoned abuse and that envoronment made it's way via the CIA and Military police to Abu Ghraid prison. This England girls boyfriend with a sadistic streak took that environment as a blank check to abuse people and this dumb girl went along and ended up with her face is all these photos. Now she is going to get screwed. Sure she was dumb and should not have participated and there are many things that she should have done different. And yes she deserves to be punished for not having the fortitude to say this is wrong in a fubar of a situation. But she is also a pawn in a chess mess where the Administation is setting the rules and she is the one being sacraficed.

I personaly think the secret doctrines by President Bush are a criminal act and if someone deserves to be before a court for abusing prisoners, it is Bush himself for ordering it to happen.

I dont see the point in such treaties if we are the only ones who have to follow them...

Conveiently ambiguous. If you can prove this was Bush policy, I will jump on the bandwagon of condemnation.

Bush is innocent until you can PROVE he is guilty. He is not guilty by default. I have seen no evidence so far that this was Bush policy.

And I am all for punishing them severely. I have said in the past that what they did is equivilent to treason IMO. Torture in that context should be punishable by life at best, death at worst. If we do not enforce such penalties it wont discourage such behavior in the future.

I would agree if you can prove it. I am not going to assume so by default though.

and of course there is nothing here that even remotely proves such, I wouldn't shed a tear because some Al Qaeda members were abused. In fact I frankly could care less, if it leads to information on other terrorist acts then great.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

I mean, fair's fair. If you think it is okay to torture them, then don't EVER complain about another single instance of it happening to one of our guys...

Al Qaeda HAS been torturing our guys and our citizens. If they agree to stop then I also would be more willing. I certainly don't accept that hypocritical point of view that it's ok for them to do it, but we should not. The Geneva Conventions should only apply to those who practice it themselves. Not those who consistently violate it and then ask for its protections.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

...it first?

What is this? Grade school?

If Al-Queda jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge would you?

Ridiculous logic....

And btw, the USA is NOT abiding by the Geneva conventions so THAT argument is moot...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.