I don't understand how you can be christian and support Rumsfeld/Bush/Torture

[ballfan]

noone responded because the hypothetical is innane and hopelessly biased.
the correct action would be to try to stop it by telling them that this was unacceptable. if the force of 100 men refused the demands of the 3, there would be no other choice but to leave. is this an iraqi manned but u.s. installation? do we have authority in this mystical prison?
rather than come up with a scenario that would make being proactive about stopping torture a suicide mission, why not address what is really going on over there? there are plenty of situations you could concoct that had more application to the current realities the rest of us on here are trying to address.

Ok what if there were only three Iraqi's running that jail. Would you advise a firefight then or to make the report.

The question in the OP was how could you be a Christian and let something like this go on. The a small part was reposted which indicated if a soldier saw torture he should take what ever steps were needed then and there to stop it. If they didn't they were somehow condoning torture. You didn't attempt to address it. Neither has anyone else.

 

[LsforLove]

Ok what if there were only three Iraqi's running that jail. Would you advise a firefight then or to make the report.

The question in the OP was how could you be a Christian and let something like this go on. The a small part was reposted which indicated if a soldier saw torture he should take what ever steps were needed then and there to stop it. If they didn't they were somehow condoning torture. You didn't attempt to address it. Neither has anyone else.

In English?

 

[ballfan]

The article says that Bush and Co. didn't specifically recommend what was done. They just sought legal cover for whatever might happen, by saying that no rules of war would apply and by placing detainees in areas they thought would be outside the law.

At last some progress. Little at a time though.

Does it not also say the rules were written for trained CIA agents but were misused by some army troops?

 

[TheReasoner]

You say you back it up when you call Bush's actions evil, then you offer this:

That's it? That's your back up?

I really do not think I need to back it up that much. Bush has done a great job at that already. But, there's this;
Bush claimed he did not know about the leveys in New Orleans, which was a lie.
He backed his war with Iraq with references to links between Al-Quaeda and Ansar Al Islaam specifically, which was an obvious lie.
He said he knew there were WMDs in Iraq, which was a lie (he assumed there might be but he had no reason to claim he knew)
He has imprisoned people without a trial, tortured and brutally killed through torture several people. Many have been imprisoned without a trial and many were innocent. The man has run a policy which certainly seems to favor the strong at the expense of the weak, he has run policies which facilitate the abuse of land for profit. His administration has committed many evil acts, and followed evil policies.
The fact that I have to back this up at all is quite scary, considering that all the facts are out there for everyone to read.

 

[reverend B]

Have you yourself not said or implied the President condones torture?

Yet the President has made it clear he doesn't. Do you accept that he means it?

Now apply the above to Clinton. Clinton definitely lied about his adultry. Got full backing from Democrats. Then admitted it and said he doesn't condone it. Do you accept that he means it?

Keep in mind that Clinton actually did what he was accused of. Bush though has not tortured anyone nor is there any proof he ordered any torture.

you don't seem to understand. noone in the clinton era said that adultery was ok. clinton lied about it. he didn't try to defend it. he didn't try to legitamize adultery. when he was caught in the lie, he did not try to legitamize lying. he didn't try to rewrite statutes that would claim messing around as necessary or lying as noble.
the memos that came down from the DOD were not done in a vacuum. all the legal minds working late night hours to find a legal excuse to pursue torture that would insulate the president were not done because he had no knowledge of it.
as to whether i believe something when a politician says it, the sad answer is no. it requires alot more for a statement to gain legitimacy than the say-so of a hack, from any party. when clinton looked in the camera and said "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" i knew he was lying. didn't you? same thing when bush and cheney refused to appear before congress individually. they needed to keep their stories straight, and everyone knows it. they are a bunch of serpents, and to throw your allegiance behind any of them is a suckers game. stick to the issue, which isn't bush, it's torture. can we as Christians reasonably support the behavior. i come down on the side of no.

 

[SummerMadness]

I feel sorry for the people that are supporting the environments that will coddle torture. I've always wondered what it would be like to be on the wrong side of history, I imagine it must be horrible to be one of those people opposed to the Civil Rights Movement (and there were A LOT of those people).

 

[ballfan]

you don't seem to understand. noone in the clinton era said that adultery was ok.

I understand fully well. You're right that no one (there is no such word as noone) in the Clinton era said adultery was ok. But still there was adultry right at the Oval Office.

Likewise no one in the Bush era has said torture is ok. Yet there are instances of it. And more there are false charges that Bush authorized it.

 

[ballfan]

At last some progress. Little at a time though.

Does it not also say the rules were written for trained CIA agents but were misused by some army troops?

Yep, that was in the article you referenced.

 

[LsforLove]

At last some progress. Little at a time though.

Does it not also say the rules were written for trained CIA agents but were misused by some army troops?

This below would be backwards progress.

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=318021

Three photos not for the faint of heart.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/06/those_images_of_abuse_have_hit_us_hard/

A response to the above photos

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=30020

I know war is stressful but do you really need to take it out on another living breathing person.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211509,00.html

I guess all you need is a good knuckle sandwich. (eyewitness account of some of the beatings).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070002

The far right love torture so it must be good for all of us.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100014/

Well I guess because Americans are doing it, things have to be fine.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bush-dictator.zip

I don’t really need to say anything Bush can say it for himself
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"
G.W. Bush 12/18/2000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wtort209.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/09/ixnewstop.html

Victims account of US torture

http://www.sundayherald.com/41906

It kind of sucks when your super secret torture plan back fires on you, 2+ years of planning just down the drain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3034031.stm

well at least it is just not Americans.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2004/05/video-republican-senator-says-iraqis.html

GOP stance Iraqis deserve torture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04209.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289818093.html

Well I guess we had to use the rape rooms for something

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0611,hentoff,72497,6.html

Treaties, and the Constitution are over-rated

Well I don’t think I can read one more article, they make me sick, like physically sick.

 

[Eryk]

Yep, that was in the article you referenced.

You missed something:

Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

 

[ballfan]

You missed something:

Maybe you ought to look again. I already posted that. It could have been picked up on TV. I've never tortured anybody, with maybe the exception of a Liberal or two on forums, and I knew the information you posted. I wasn't taught that by Bush , Cheney, or Rumsfeld either. Too much TV I guess.

 

[Eryk]

Two interesting things from an Amnesty International report on torture:

The military investigation in Iraq headed by Major General Antonio Taguba found "systemic and illegal abuse of detainees" in the Abu Ghraib facility (Baghdad Central Confinement Facility, BCCF) between August 2003 and February 2004, and concluded that soldiers had "committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/BCCF and Camp Bucca, Iraq".

"The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example".
--George W. Bush, on the occasion of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

This is how the Bushies "define" "torture": The Justice Department's August 1, 2002, legal memo concluded that "the ban on torture is limited to only the most extreme forms of physical and mental harm," which the document defined as akin to "death or organ failure." Behaviors other than that -- non-lethal beatings, threats to kill their families, humiliations, near-drownings, etc. -- might be "abuse," and certainly are outlawed under international treaties on torture and prisoner-care, but they are not "torture" under the Bush Administration definition.

Back to the Amnesty International document:

At the Department of Defense news briefing on 4 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that he was "stunned" by the allegations. In one of several statements apparently downplaying the seriousness of the allegations, however, he added that his "impression is that what has been charged so far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture". Amnesty International stresses that the "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuse" found by the Taguba investigation constitute acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 147, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949) lists "torture or inhuman treatment", without distinguishing among the two in terms of gravity, among their "grave breaches".

 

[Eryk]

Maybe you ought to look again. I already posted that. It could have been picked up on TV. I've never tortured anybody, with maybe the exception of a Liberal or two on forums, and I knew the information you posted. I wasn't taught that by Bush , Cheney, or Rumsfeld either. Too much TV I guess.

So we're on the same page--the MPs were taught how to torture.

 

[LsforLove]

So we're on the same page--the MPs were taught how to torture.

Wonderful posting. Great evidence.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

How can you be a Chrisitan and support abortion? Pre-marital sex? Drunkenness? Slothfullness? Hypocrisy? Adultery? Rape? Murder? Blasphemy?

How can you call yourself a Christian if you support or condone these types of actions?

Apparently you guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I wasn't specifically targeting the author of the OP, but unfortunately it appears people were confused and thought I was. I was refereincing in general to all people not just the OP. The ''you" in the response is a generic term, not personal. Therefore, if you feel I have offended you in any way or have crossed the line, feel free to report me to the mods.

 

[Eryk]

Personally, Kal, I think your allright, and I like discussing stuff with you.

 

[LsforLove]

Apparently you guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I wasn't specifically targeting the author of the OP, but unfortunately it appears people were confused and thought I was. I was refereincing in general to all people not just the OP. The ''you" in the response is a generic term, not personal. Therefore, if you feel I have offended you in any way or have crossed the line, feel free to report me to the mods.

No need I read you five by five. Christians support a wide variety of things with in the false dichotomy the two party system has created, which do seem to violate the doctrine of Christianity. I would like to believe however that torture is one that both sides could agree is just not tolerable, especially when one side want to claim to ‘champion’ the ideals of Christianity.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

No need I read you five by five. Christians support a wide variety of things with in the false dichotomy the two party system has created, which do seem to violate the doctrine of Christianity. I would like to believe however that torture is one that both sides could agree is just not tolerable, especially when one side want to claim to ‘champion’ the ideals of Christianity.

Of course, I don't condone torture.

 

[LsforLove]

Of course, I don't condone torture.

No I don’t think that you do. I was just trying to qualify the original post outside of the two party mindset.

 

[ballfan]

So we're on the same page--the MPs were taught how to torture.

But not the same book.