Ali
11-15-2005, 04:23 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415132.stm
More lies (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20051115/sbs051114.gif)
The Senate has passed legislation banning torture, but the Bush administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA spy agency.
:rolleyes:
"We do not torture and therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it more possible to do our job," Mr Bush said.What he meant was: "we do not torture. We do, however, use 'coercive interrogation methods' on 'enemy combatants' in torture chambers located in black sites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4434876.stm) in countries where US law does not apply".
Burn in hell, Bush and every single person who still supports you. Your lies get worse and worse each time you open your mouth.
Word to John McCain (http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2005/11/15/opinion/opinion/doc4379695b9ff6f948655132.prt)... someone who knows how little good torture actually does and who's not afraid to stand up and say something about it.
And FUCK YOU Henry Mark Holzer (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9965), you useless piece of lying shit. Let's subject YOU to the kind of treatment that McCain and countless other people have endured and see if you can still say: By torturing, we do not “become like them” (any more than by imposing capital punishment)—because the “cause” for which terrorist guerillas maim and kill is evil. Flat out unequivocally evil! We, however, if we use coercive interrogation methods, do so in order to defend ourselves in the noble cause of freedom, democracy, individual rights, and the dignity of mankind. It matters—a lot—who is doing what to whom, and why.I see you served in Korea with military intelligence, holding top secret security clearance. No doubt you were on the other side of the torture rack to John McCain, which makes you kind of an expert on torture, doesn't it. It entitles you to say things like:
There is no moral reason for this country not to torture. If in self defense, we can lie, cheat, deceive, firebomb cities, shoot spies, defoliate jungles, assassinate enemies, annihilate armies, steal secrets, and even use atomic weapons—all of which are perfectly appropriate responses in a just war when a democracy has been attacked— it stands to reason that it is not only optional, but a moral imperative, to employ “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” in the name of defending ourselves and perhaps saving our civilization. and It is not true that torture does not produce useful results. It does. There has been no attack on the United States in four years. Many anti-terrorism experts attribute this to our having acquired essential intelligence—the same intelligence that has allowed us to roll up much of the al-Qaeda network yeah, like capture Bin Laden, stop the bombings in Spain, UK, Turkey, Iraq, Bali, etc. etc. I have a single question for John McCain: If in, say, 1965, the United States had announced that it would accord “enemy combatants” (i.e. terrorist guerillas) Geneva Convention status, and not use against them “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” would McCain’s communist captors not have tortured him, his cellmates, and the hundreds of other prisoners they held in captivity?And that is why the United States is behaving in exactly the same way as "the subhumans that tortured him to obtain propaganda".
So, Mr Torture Fan with a BA degree, your President says that "We" don't torture, but YOU say by reserving our right to torture enemy combatants to obtain intelligence, we have nothing to lose—and perhaps our very survival to gain.So, which one is it? Evil bastard.
More lies (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20051115/sbs051114.gif)
The Senate has passed legislation banning torture, but the Bush administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA spy agency.
:rolleyes:
"We do not torture and therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it more possible to do our job," Mr Bush said.What he meant was: "we do not torture. We do, however, use 'coercive interrogation methods' on 'enemy combatants' in torture chambers located in black sites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4434876.stm) in countries where US law does not apply".
Burn in hell, Bush and every single person who still supports you. Your lies get worse and worse each time you open your mouth.
Word to John McCain (http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2005/11/15/opinion/opinion/doc4379695b9ff6f948655132.prt)... someone who knows how little good torture actually does and who's not afraid to stand up and say something about it.
And FUCK YOU Henry Mark Holzer (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9965), you useless piece of lying shit. Let's subject YOU to the kind of treatment that McCain and countless other people have endured and see if you can still say: By torturing, we do not “become like them” (any more than by imposing capital punishment)—because the “cause” for which terrorist guerillas maim and kill is evil. Flat out unequivocally evil! We, however, if we use coercive interrogation methods, do so in order to defend ourselves in the noble cause of freedom, democracy, individual rights, and the dignity of mankind. It matters—a lot—who is doing what to whom, and why.I see you served in Korea with military intelligence, holding top secret security clearance. No doubt you were on the other side of the torture rack to John McCain, which makes you kind of an expert on torture, doesn't it. It entitles you to say things like:
There is no moral reason for this country not to torture. If in self defense, we can lie, cheat, deceive, firebomb cities, shoot spies, defoliate jungles, assassinate enemies, annihilate armies, steal secrets, and even use atomic weapons—all of which are perfectly appropriate responses in a just war when a democracy has been attacked— it stands to reason that it is not only optional, but a moral imperative, to employ “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” in the name of defending ourselves and perhaps saving our civilization. and It is not true that torture does not produce useful results. It does. There has been no attack on the United States in four years. Many anti-terrorism experts attribute this to our having acquired essential intelligence—the same intelligence that has allowed us to roll up much of the al-Qaeda network yeah, like capture Bin Laden, stop the bombings in Spain, UK, Turkey, Iraq, Bali, etc. etc. I have a single question for John McCain: If in, say, 1965, the United States had announced that it would accord “enemy combatants” (i.e. terrorist guerillas) Geneva Convention status, and not use against them “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” would McCain’s communist captors not have tortured him, his cellmates, and the hundreds of other prisoners they held in captivity?And that is why the United States is behaving in exactly the same way as "the subhumans that tortured him to obtain propaganda".
So, Mr Torture Fan with a BA degree, your President says that "We" don't torture, but YOU say by reserving our right to torture enemy combatants to obtain intelligence, we have nothing to lose—and perhaps our very survival to gain.So, which one is it? Evil bastard.