Who's "WE", Pres. Bush

from JoeUser Forums
There is a current proposal by the Senate to ban torture. Most people agree that torturing someone is a bad thing. Now, we are not talking about the police interrogation techniques that have passed legal muster, what I am talking about its torture.

Let’s say. For example, taking a hammer and whacking the boys a few times.

In general most people don’t like torture, so the Republican controlled Senate says, “OK, we’ll pass a law. No torture.”

And Bush just said recently that “We do not torture!” So this should be an easy pass. We don’t like torture, Bush says we don’t torture. Slam Dunk. Right?

No. The shot is rejected by Richard “hidden location” Cheney who wants an exemption for the CIA from the new law.

My question is, “If the president is saying we don’t torture, and Cheney wants an exemption, who is this “WE” the President is talking about?

IG
8,886 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think they should define it, but if it does not include chemicals (not acid!  truth stuff), it has already been demonstrated that physical torture is not effective.  If they want answers, there are chemicals to get it.  Violence is not necessary.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.

Still, why?  They dont need to hear you scream.  Just dope them up.  There is no shortage of SP. (dont ask me to spell it!)

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.



Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
well IG it should be limited to one simple act with Muslim terrorists, Roll them up in fresh pigskin and threaten to let them die that way if they do not talk.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.

It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it.  It is for gathering information!  torture is just pure Sadism!  Nothing more. It accomplishes nothing well, and other methods are more effective.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it.


You don't think they use some "unusual" methods to control the population?

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

IG
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
amytal or scopolamine are considered more effective than pentathol as so-called truth serum. i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique, especially since i don't imagine the inquisitors would worry much about me contracting aids, hep c, etc.

furthermore, truth drugs and hypnotic regression have a lot in common when it comes to generating reliable results. add in the trauma of 'rendition' (what we south americans call 'disappearred'*) to a comfy former soviet bloc prison cell, and you may, at best, discover a way to put 'st francis'--the loving christian pacifist personality who's been in hiding all these years--to emerge and take control of mpd victims who've been giving too much sway to their inner saladin.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

Royal.  Sorry to stray.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
here's a fresh idea. why not recruit and train several companies of qualified personnel who could then be offered instead of cash or other material goods in return for information? admittedly, giving each person of interest his own personal 73 virgins may be overkill, but upping the ante--even by 1--has worked well in most other negotiation situations.

after all, 73 virgins in the converted fema trailor in romania has gotta be worth 72 in the bus...umm heavenly hareem, no?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique,

No one ever said it was not.  However it is not torture.  We are not talking due process here.  We are talking extracting information from known terrorist. and as much as you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.  As IG said, stay on topic.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry to stray.


No problem. It was an interesting discussion.

IG
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
if you think #11 is out in space, hopefully you can see it's nowhere near as far out in space as passing a ban on torture that exempts the cia.

admittedly it would help to prevent the recurring problem of torture abuses by the department of the interior as well as most local weights & measures authorities, but still...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
torture abuses by the department of the interior


Or the Department of Agriculture! Mr. President, we must defend ourselves from a an attack! An attack by a new enemy!

(get ready for it)

An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!

IG
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!


force feed suspects surplus sorhgum mixed with cayenne over subsidized prunes. i guarantee they'll soon be spilling their guts.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's Bush and I. That's the only we. We're tight.

Dan
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.


Oh but yes it does! That is unless they are American citizens. Other than that they do NOT get the protection of the constitution.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.


unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.

No, the supreme Court has never said that "We the People" applies to French, Germans or Arabs.  You are wrong.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Or the Department of Agriculture! Mr. President, we must defend ourselves from a an attack! An attack by a new enemy!

(get ready for it)

An attack by the Killer Tomatoes!!!!!

Now watching that movie is torture!

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh but yes it does! That is unless they are American citizens. Other than that they do NOT get the protection of the constitution.


No, the supreme Court has never said that "We the People" applies to French, Germans or Arabs. You are wrong.


you're both outta your depth. the prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment in the 8th amendment and its extenstion to the states and therefore all government agencies does not make an exception for non-citizens.

furthermore, the us is party to treaties and conventions which ban torture of anyone anywhere.

the whole point of gonzales memo was to assert the executive is not bound by the constitution in those regards and anyone he delegates to do whatever to non-citizen prisoners is protected from prosecution.

in case you've forgotten, the surpreme court didn't buy it.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

you're both outta your depth. the prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment in the 8th amendment and its extenstion to the states and therefore all government agencies does not make an exception for non-citizens.

Wrong again.  It is constrained by the preamble.  As in who is defined.  As in unless you want to amend it.  Yes it does.  Sorry, you lose.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

furthermore, the us is party to treaties and conventions which ban torture of anyone anywhere.

the whole point of gonzales memo was to assert the executive is not bound by the constitution in those regards and anyone he delegates to do whatever to non-citizen prisoners is protected from prosecution.

in case you've forgotten, the surpreme court didn't buy it.

First, the SCOTUS has not ruled.  Second, Treaties do not usurp the Constitution.  Third, you are not on SCOTUS so you cannot make law.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
bush, cheney & gonzales have no problem with ignoring the constitutional protection afforded to citizens either btw.

at least one us citizen--jose padilla--is being illegally denied due process at the moment.