‘We do not torture.’
By on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
We just bug them a bit…
Bono is Brian Peppers!
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:46 pmCant play Quake 3
So if we don’t torture, then who did the torturing that brought about the evidence that is now considered admissible in court?
Is this another case of American outsourcing? Hmmmmmmmmmm…..
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 pmBush predicted the renewal of the patriot act…FROM INDIA!
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:49 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/02.html#a7368
What keeps coming to mind is: “You can’t handle the truth”
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 pmI hope they get answers in time !
U.S. officials tell CBS News that intelligence has picked up reports that al Qaeda in Iraq is planning what one source calls the “Big Bang,” a spectacular terrorist attack in Iraq against either a single high-profile target or multiple targets simultaneously.
Last week’s mosque bombing in city of Samarra that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war was the work of terrorists, some U.S. officials have theorized. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi seems to be betting that another big bang would push the country over the brink, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin. The bomb in one of the holiest sites for Shiite Muslims set off violence all across the country that left hundreds dead.
The Iraqi government has banned all private vehicles in Baghdad during daylight hours Friday, the Muslim prayer day, just as it did last week. That kept car bombs, what the military cars vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, off the streets.
But Zarqawi just waited until the ban was lifted.
“The day the vehicle ban was lifted, all these VBIEDS that he had staged he deployed in Iraq and detonated over the last three days,” said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman.
This week, the ban takes effect when the overnight curfew ends at 6 a.m. Friday and will last until 4 p.m. Friday, according to a statement issued by the prime minister’s office. Police and army were instructed to seal off the capital and seize any private vehicles that defy the ban.
Pentagon officials are also worried that a terrorist spectacular will undermine administration claims about progress in Iraq and therefore weaken public support for the war here at home, Martin reports
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:56 pm#2 sorta like having the official documents for the UAE port deal offshore so no one could subpeona them in US courts?
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:56 pmthe blatant lies and mounting evidence of torure beingusedby this administration makes me….
makes me sick to my stomach
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pmIs having to watch Bill O’reily considered torture?
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pmwe don’t sell drugs, but we do use the drug money…
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:01 pmTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
§ 2340A. Torture
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
((six months without pay is not ANY TERM OF YEARS.))
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
((rendition is conspiracy to commit torture.))
((principle of command responsibility leads these crimes all the way to the top, as we all know.))
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 pmhey, RichB, gotta link?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:32 pmI personally think the bombing of the mosque was done by us, after all, it gives them an excuse to stay there if ther’s a civil war. And of course Al Quaeda is a CIA construct.
So very sad.
#11 – I don’t know about that one? It seems as though the administration has been doing it’s very best to suppress any news of the growing civil war. Doesn’t sound like the actions of those who would be relying on such an event to promote their agenda to me.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 pmWe also take information we know to be FALSE, obtained through torture, and pretend its true, like ‘Iraq has WMD’, as in the case of I. Libi.
Libi told them what they wanted to hear– exactly the kind of result to be expected from such ‘interrogation’, and the best argument for not relying on such information (for those who do not participate in the theories of law, decency, etc. )
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:51 pmSKdeA
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:53 pmI have also given thought to the bombing of the mosque having been done by the US or with the tacit support of the US. When reading the full details (which many papers did not provide) it certainly is plausible and even likely — in fact I read that most Iraqis of all sects believe it was the work of the US.
I realise that this might sound a bit cynical(Ha!) but I have to be honest — this Sudden announced threat is a bloody joke! If you are polling so damn low that your ass is scratching the pavement and you are being shown to be a congenital liar, –and — you have always been successful in the past when using this kind of a threat, WHAT THE HELL WOULD YOU DO?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:57 pmSo, when I see the comments starting to refer to all of the possibilities, STOP IT! Get your heads out of you know where folks – wake up and smell the bullsh..!
billjpa@aol.com
#14 Marie, looking at thge geopolitical situation in Iraq the idea of the US bombing the shrine goes against the next step it appaers that they neo-cons are going after, namely Iran. The shrine bombing almost resulted in a full blown civil war, which would have tied down the military in Iraq, derailed the move to have a government that si friendly to the US inplace for the Neo-con’s to start the Iranian gambit Iraq is a necessary staging point and logistical point. No logistical point could exist in any theater of operations that is under going a civil war with out a large force to guard and defend it and Log Bases as the army calls them are actually the size of a smaller city due to the requirement of ammunition storage, and all the supplies the US military requires for comba. Thus unless the follow on plans for Iraq did not include a move into Iran, with which the current drumbeat seem to have begun, then a US backed attack such as this seems counterproductive.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:09 pmA bit off thread but…WOAH!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/bush.india.fri/index.html
What the hell is Bush up to with this? Technology and arms too? Great way to pi$$ off Pakistan to say the least. Might be a good way to pi$$ off Moslems in general. (India being largely Hindu.)
This ones scarry folks!
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:34 pmThe theory – which you credibly debunk – is that a civil war would force the US troops to leave Iraq and still save face. Not having thought it through as far as you — although I believe anything is possible and the logic of Rumsfeld is questionable at best — I give this to you.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:40 pmThat’s what’s good about this site, people are free to posit theories, listen to each other and learn.
oops, #19 is for #17 clif.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 pmThe dude has a lawyer who apparently knows his client’s name. That’s a start isn’t
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pmit?
#11 it was on CBSnews.com, home page as of 9:55 eastern time
richb
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 pmRumsfeld is not going to allow anything that derails the goal of the invasion of the country of Iraq to occur. The move into Iran is an extension of the Iraq invasion, the control of the worlds oil markets and the pricing of the market by dollars only. Controlling the actual supply on the ground is secondary but a added attraction to the moves into Iraq and Iran. The treaty with India adds to this senario with the tactical alliance between India and the US c gives the neo-cons room toi operate in and a check on China if China was to attempt to interfer with the expansion of the theater of operations to include Iran. If Iran is attacked we have a single battle feild that streaches from the Syrian-Jordanian border on the west to the Pakistani Border in the east. Getting India to make a tactid promise not to attack Pakistan and the arms sales would give India a better chance to buttress the Eastern front against China. The rest of the arab world has little love of the Shiite Theocracy in Iran, so as long as we take out the nuclear sites, topple the government and occupy the western province closest to Iraq(where 90% of Irans oil reserves exist) would probably elict protests but little more. The added advantage of removing the regium in Iran removes the major ally to the sectarian shiites in Iraq like al Sadar.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 pm“What’s a little sodomy with a glow-stick?”
-Donald Crumbsfeld
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 pmYes, that’s right Mr. Goerring, keep us all scared of the next terrorist attacks and only Adolf and his SS can keep us safe.
Terrific reasoning!!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 pm#24
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 pmHope your wrong…but that makes TOO much sense.
#28 WiscoDuk.. This is probably the only time that the neo-cons will have the handles of power in their hands and control of the congress to rubberstamp so their time is now or never.
The questions I have are,
Will congress blindly follow this administration in 2006 as it did in the fall 2002? Or are there people in that body who will finally stand up and say enough is enough, finish at least one war before you start another?
Are the American people going to give George Bush the benifit of the doubt after he has shown the lack of ability to plan or operate a military operation? Or did the fiasco of Katrina and the illogic of the port deal wake the american population up, and their trust of George Bush run out?
Given the needs of massive rebuilding of the gulf coast and the black hole the operation has become for money, will the real consewrvatives go along with another open ended military operation that will further strain the overstreached budget? Or can the real conservatives rest control of the public agenda so that the bankrupcy of the nations future and economy for the neo-con agenda be stopped in its tracks?
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 pmIf bush were tortured, he would sware he was a libral democrat. He would also say that for the right amount of MONEY.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:32 pm“#14 Marie, looking at thge geopolitical situation in Iraq the idea of the US bombing the shrine goes against the next step it appaers that they neo-cons are going after, namely Iran.” — Cliff
Why do you think it would ‘tie down our troops’? The Bushoviks couldn’t care less.
After another thousand troops are dead, the Bushoviks will pull them back to the airbases, and let the air war destroy whatever won’t capitulate. The same goes for Iran.
The whole point of the exercise is to create MAXIMUM hatred of America, trigger a terrorist attack, and then a revenge nuke or two from Bush. Why should Truman have all the fun?
The Golden Mosque bombing was either directly a CIA job, or indirectly a Bushovik job, since Bush didn’t write any orders to guard the 280 tons of high-explosive that he handed out to hostiles.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:46 pm“Or can the real conservatives (w)rest control of the public agenda so that the bankrupcy of the nations future and economy for the neo-con agenda be stopped in its tracks?”
There are no “real conservatives” in power, Cliff.
The only question is whether we the people of the states can restore our voting rights soon enough to retake the House and impeach the entire Shitehouse.
It’s neck and neck in the turn….
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:51 pm#33 The neo-cons want to move on to Iran and the military they have available is limited. The air war does not achieve the desired goals of creating a government that will play ball with respect to the oil markets issue, thus Chalibi is presently the minister of oil in Iraq, the only governmental post they care about. In Iran they need to topple the existing government to remove the oil bourse that Iran is to open at the end of march. By removing the government as we did in Iraq we then get to start the same process in Iran coalitional provincial authority which gets to select the temporary government that then writes a constitution(which we will exercise control over the same way we did in Iraq). But Bremers stand-in in Iran will have the same script for the first days, negating all foreign oil contracts that are written in Euros and replacing those contracts with ones written in dollars. Plus setting the contracts as 40 year binding legal documents in the to be written constitution. With the neo-cons its always about the money, and in this case it is oil money.
Didn’t say in power, but there are quite a few real conservatives and moderate repugs, in congress, that could throw a big monkey wrench in the neo-cons plans. They are not happy with the budget mess and another poorly planed military operation with questionable possibility of success and the very real prospect of breaking the budget completely, along with creating total chaos might make these political creatures look to the polls in order to try and position themselves to be re-elected thus not loose their place at the trough. Hopefully the reaction of the population to the port deal and the revelatios of bush’s malfeasence with regard to Katrina will keep the country from allowing the congress to wimp out again.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 pmDear Insurgents in Iraq
please waterboard the next American Captive
How to do this
1/ you need to Have a doctor on standy
2/ Strap recipient to a swiveling Table
3/ Place clingfilm over their head
4/ Place 90 degrees upside down in bath of water
5/ Although no water enteres lungs they get to grips with the fact they think their drowning
6/ when recipient passes unconcious
7/ revive and ask some questions
8/ If you get no answers repeat process
9/ repeat process until they admit to anything
10/ do not worry if they die
be sure to film the experience and post on website to Bush and the American people
Discalimer – all perfectly legal no worries just go ahean
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:22 am“We have to address the fact that the president has broken the law.†— Senator Russ Feingold
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:52 amMy hope is that teh UN will bring human rights sanctons on the US because of the Bushistas torture and other abuses. Maybe that way the American people will wake up and throw these criminals out of office and into jail.
We already are on Amnesty Internatonal’s list of human rights violators:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:52 am
The only madman round here is Bush ….
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:08 amWe dont torture… We annoy.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:27 amR2K
#41 The problem with the UN is that gets his power from his members, and the USA GOPs have worked hard since its creation to subvert the UN objectives to simple tools of USA GOPs foreign policy. And the USA citizens (after many years of brainwashing) don’t want to accept anything coming from the UN. After all “they are the masters of the UN, not vice versa”. And when UN rules anything against the USA GOP agenda, the nationalist card is played ipso facto. Look at all the rulings against Israel being put down with only the votes of the USA and Israel. But when a ruling fits, even loosely, with the USA GOP objectives (see Iraq war), is applied without hesitation. No, I’m not defending attacks against Israel or appeasing Saddam. But you know what I mean.
So, no chance of having UN working openly against the USA. The same moment this occurs, Bush would push the “Bolton button” and Bolton will begin to cry havoc to dismantle UN, and exert the power of veto that the USA has on the Security Council, the only has real power. And don’t trust in any next POTUS doing so. Their approval ratings would plummet to the h*ll the same moment he (she?) decides to work closely with the UN (remember, not USE the UN, WORK WITH the UN).
And about the redoing of the Human Rights because in the actual form there are countries with a crappy record on them, is partly right, but I think that the more important idea is “they’re denouncing valid Human Rights concerns, independatly of their country behavior?”. Else, you will end with a Human Rights council far worser, with the faults of the members overseen, far worse than now.
Sorry to say so, but USA doesn’t look free, but unilateral to the rest of the world. And isn’t very good for nobody.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:55 amOkay, the executive branch can do whatever it chooses to do, we’ve lost the courts, the congress has no power to alter the course of this administration, the guiding principles of the Constitution can be ignored, we may not even have the capability of having our votes correctly counted to force a change…..so then, what recourse is left? How can they be stopped? Who among us has the power or the position to alter events? What patriot or group of patriots has the wherewithall to end this?
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:22 am#38 plunger
They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.
Also note the “stacking” of the Supreme Court with judges who will interpret the Constitution in Bush’s favor.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:23 amWe are in deep trouble.
plunger and marie, calm down now. I too read from several sources & have seen both sides of what you claim.
For me at least, it comes down to who benefits from the ensuing chaos & heightened tension. I don’t see that it is in our interests, either up front or covertly to create the kind of civil strife that has occurred in Iraq.
I mean, breaking Iraq into statelets, isn’t in our interest, nor is it in bushco’s warped sense of the world the way they’d like it. The neocons wanted to do Iraq for the domino effect of proximity to Iran, Saudi Arabia & Syria. They thought they got a twofer by throwing the money grubbing conservatives a bone in trying to give them Iraq’s oil. Neither of those desires has worked as planned. Sure, we got Libya to cave, but they only threatened commercial airlines, never the US or Europe. We have seen the Middle East go even more conservative theocratic in elections in Iran & Palestine. & NO ONE is getting any oil from Iraq yet.
As far as any invasion of Iran, won’t happen. We don’t have the troop levels to do it, nor is the US populace going to support such a move any time soon. Iran is well armed and has a decent Army. They have lots of mountains. We couldn’t just blitzkrieg like we did in Iraq. Sure, Israel could bomb the exposed facilities, and that isn’t out of the question, but that would only harden the people we don’t like. It wouldn’t stop Iran, just slow them. They reportedly have a couple of Cheyenne Mountain type facilities that bombs can’t touch. And forget about using nukes. We’d have armed insurrections across the globe and here at home if they ever tried that. And we’d all join the other side.
Sorry for being long winded folks.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 amEx-Official: Iraq Abuses Growing Worse
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 amDear Insurgents in Iraq
please waterboard the next American Captive
How to do this
1/ you need to Have a doctor on standy
2/ Strap recipient to a swiveling Table
3/ Place clingfilm over their head
4/ Place 90 degrees upside down in bath of water
5/ Although no water enteres lungs they get to grips with the fact they think their drowning
6/ when recipient passes unconcious
7/ revive and ask some questions
8/ If you get no answers repeat process
9/ repeat process until they admit to anything
10/ do not worry if they die
be sure to film the experience and post on website to Bush and the American people
Discalimer – all perfectly legal no worries just go ahead
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pmMarch 03, 2006
A Guantanamo prisoner talks to the BBC
Your disgusting listen to this bastards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_guantanamo_20060303.ram
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm“The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite “terrorists†with a car full of explosives in Basra” –Plunger
Without disputing the existence of false flag operations, this Basra incident is NOT one in which we have anything like the facts. You act, that article acts, like this information has been validated, BUT IT HAS NOT.
Was the car “full of explosives.” APPARENTLY NOT.
Were the British operatives dressed in local gear? Apparently, but that doesn’t mean much, since many persons travel in a warzone in disguise. It’s not legal for military to not wear their uniforms, but we know that the US has broken this law many times, and the Brits no exception. It does NOT inherently mean they are terrorists.
Etc. While I support a better understanding of the terrorism that is being done to Iraq, it isn’t the case that the Basra incident is factually understood. We aren’t sure what happened, and the reports are inconclusive.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:38 pm#63 bullshitTonkin Bay Redux
On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would “hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week†that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/02/battle_plans_fo_1.html
Listen to 62 Bush and co are Disgusting
March 4th, 2006 at 7:13 am#56- Plunger, ALL of the laws apply to this administration. Just because they choose to believe otherwise, and point to “a Justice Department lawyer’s opinion”, as confirmation of their “wants to be able to…” ideas. These lawyers WORK FOR BUSH !! So of course everything is “legal”, if Bushco wants it. All of their maneuvering behind the scenes to ensure their lack of consequences for ANYTHING they have done, does not change anything. All Americans must abide by our laws, like them, or not.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:09 pmTobey, you quote yet another article depending on the SAME unsubstantiated assertions.
Now it’s a ‘truckload’ of explosives. But the operatives were reported pulled from THEIR CAR by the Basra police OR the Mahdi Army, depending on which news report you like. NEITHER report talks of a truck full of explosives.
We do know that the British refused to attack Iranian troops when the US ordered them to. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
Nevermind. Though we probably agree on many facts, and I have quite a few conspiracy theories myself, the events in Basra don’t particularly represent known facts.
You probably believe several things that are KNOWN not to be true. Because I believe things that are based on conjecture and known details, I am especially cautious about cases where the reports are not clear what happened.
Your crystal ball may be cracked, but you don’t care. That’s the difference.
March 5th, 2006 at 1:20 am67# The facts were reported on TV in the uk (mmmm)..It was stated on the news that the two undercover soldiers in Arab gear were caught in a car with their standard rucksack kits. ( containing rifles ,pistols and explosives ) now when the BBC or ITV or channel 4 report this I take it they meant to say a “truck” and “explosives”
March 5th, 2006 at 3:08 pmBurt Reynolds
Bravo! Finally a great blog.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:10 amPayday Loans No Faxing
April 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm