It's called "torture" Mr. Bush

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 15:55
VIEWED: 24944
PAGE 12 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

FEMALEJAYNE

Friday, July 2, 2004 2:01 PM

Just because our people in Iraq are being beheaded with their deaths on video and mailed to us or shot in a room so dark we can't tell which soilder they killed and sent the video to us, doesn't mean we can torture them. This is war time and people are very angry.

JASONZZZ

Friday, July 2, 2004 7:22 PM

I think the order of events are reversed. The "islamic" extremists are claiming that they are beheading folks b/c of the mal-treatment of the detainees.

RUE

Sunday, August 1, 2004 9:01 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html
?th

Quote:
A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan in December 2001, is still being held by the Central Intelligence Agency at a secret interrogation center, and American officials say his now-recanted claims raise new questions about the value of the information obtained from such detainees.

Secret locations is sometimes used as code for friendly countries that use torture (Egypt, Pakistan).

The article goes on to recap that no evidence of ANY cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq on any matter has been found by either the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Sept 11 Commission (for those who missed that fact).

JASONZZZ

Sunday, August 1, 2004 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html
?th

Quote:
A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan in December 2001, is still being held by the Central Intelligence Agency at a secret interrogation center, and American officials say his now-recanted claims raise new questions about the value of the information obtained from such detainees.

Secret locations is sometimes used as code for friendly countries that use torture (Egypt, Pakistan).

The article goes on to recap that no evidence of ANY cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq on any matter has been found by either the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Sept 11 Commission (for those who missed that fact).

That would contradict statements made by the Sept 11 Commission that while they did not find any direct evidence of links between alQ and Iraq *for the Sept 11 hubris*, there were such links for other dealings between them, but they didn't look into it since that wasn't their job to look at things outside of the Sept 11 deal.

RUE

Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:50 PM

There are 157 references to "Iraq" in the report. These passages refer directly to an Iraq - al Qaeda relationship:

Quote:
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met
with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75 Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

On the other hand, there are 311 references to Pakistan. The report details Pakistan's tacit governmental support of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and active support by military officials, religious schools etc.

Quote:
Though Bin Ladin’s destination was Afghanistan, Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his ability to use Afghanistan as a base from which to revive his ambitious enterprise for war against the United States.
It is unlikely that Bin Ladin could have returned to Afghanistan had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advance knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel.

JASONZZZ

Monday, August 2, 2004 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are 157 references to "Iraq" in the report. These passages refer directly to an Iraq - al Qaeda relationship:

I'd agree with you that the Sept 11 commission report findings states that there are no operational relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq for the Sept 11 attack on the US. As both Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (and other commission members) prominently stated over and over again during the last month that the Sept 11 commission studied evidence and facts WRT only the Sept 11 attack on the US - everything else were out of frame.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

On the other hand, there are 311 references to Pakistan.

Well, now the media is getting ready our attack on Pakistan and Iran. What do we want from them now?

Thanks Mass Media for not only just reporting the facts "as you see them", but also spinning it the way you like to see them and completely for your own purpose.

RUE

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 10:22 PM

I don't think you've read the report. I don't think you've even read the full quote. So here is an excerpt: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." In other words no general relation NOR a specific relation.

From the intro to the report: "Our mandate was sweeping."

And they then point to broad conclusions drawn about intelligence, security, al Qaeda etc, not strictly related to 9/11.

But since you are so hung up on this point, please supply a lengthy quote (no highly edited snippets, please) AND a url to back up your ASSERTION.

RUE

Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:29 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/politics/27legal.html?th

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/politics/27abuse.html?th

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/international/africa/26thatcher.html
?th

There was abuse and torture, and it goes to the top.

LTNOWIS

Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:53 AM

Posted by AURaptor

Quote:
Sorry, but I'd rather strip a prisoner naked and make them BELIEVE something bad was going to happen if they didn't give us information that would save 1 American life. If that's sick , then fine by me. Better harrass 1 prisoner w/ psychology than to allow 10's of civillians / US Soldiers die from a car bomb. I'll make that choice EVERY time.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I dunno about EVERY time, I'd only harass someone if I felt it was likely to actually prevent something. Unfortuneately, the abuse went beyond just psychological pressure and humiliation. There were actual beatings and anal insertions (sorry, couldn't think of a good euphemism) too. What's worse is that some of the abuses weren't even for interrogation purposes, they were just people, to quote a pentagon official, "being weird."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30610-2004Aug25.html

Quote:
The abuse depicted in the Abu Ghraib photographs made public was "a kind of 'Animal House' on the night shift," Schlesinger said - in other words, acts of sadism committed by low-ranking guards for their own entertainment. The report described the abuse as "acts of brutality and purposeless sadism," and said - as have others who reviewed the case - that the soldiers involved were not acting on approved orders or policies.

We don't like to think about this, but when people are given complete control over each other, they can become sadists. It's been proven by various studys.

LEXIBLOCK

Sunday, August 29, 2004 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Astriana:
Normally I don't get involved in these conversations, and y'all know I love ya more'n my luggage, but I'd just like to point out to Ghoulman that there are CHILDREN on this board, reading the same posts we are. Please do us all a favor (but especially Haken), and refrain from the kind of nonsense in your latest post.

This is typically of the retardation going on in the US. OOh, the children. So WHAT THE FUCK if they read a few words? Its not going to harm anyone. If Kids use those words against your wish its because you failed as a parent. You can't censor the world.

As for Haken getting in trouble, is this country run by Saddam? (Besides people have been seeling pirate copies, and he did nothing about that)

--
In a free country you can write fuck, shit, cunt, dick, without getting censored/arrested/tortured.

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE