posted on October 5, 2007 08:56:49 AM new
"Bush Says" = bush lies.
Why does he say such outrageous things? Doesn't this twit know that every time he says "We do not torture" the whole world holds it's sides LAUGHING!
Bush Says US \\\'Does Not Torture\\\'
Updated 11:17 AM ET October 5, 2007
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush defended his administration's detention and interrogation policies for terrorism suspects on Friday, saying they are both successful and lawful.
"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them," he said during a hastily called appearance in the Oval Office. "The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."
Bush was referring to a report on two secret memos in 2005 that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said.
The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture \\\"abhorrent\\\" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the CIA's interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation banning \\\"cruel, inhuman and degrading\\\" treatment of detainees, The Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
\\\"We stick to U.S. law and international obligations,\\\" the president said,
without taking questions afterward.
(neocon reaction.....can\'t answer questions...slimey cowards ALL of them)
White House and Justice Department press officers have said the 2005 opinions did not reverse the 2004 policy.
Bush, speaking emphatically, noted that "highly trained professionals" conduct any questioning. "And by the way," he said, "we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."
He also said that the techniques used by the United States "have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress" _ an indirect slap at the torrent of criticism that has flowed from the Democratic-controlled Congress since the memos' disclosure.
"The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack," Bush said. "And that's exactly what this government is doing. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do."
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
Senate and House Democrats have demanded to see the memos.
\\\"Why should the public have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of the United States?\\\" Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote in a letter to the acting attorney general.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was \\\"personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law.\\\"
A White House spokesman, meanwhile, criticized the leak of such information to the news media and questioned the motivations of those who do so.
\"It\'s troubling," Tony Fratto said Friday. "I've had the awful responsibility to have to work with The New York Times and other news organizations on stories that involve the release of classified information. And I can tell you that every time I\\\'ve dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information.\\\"
(ya, while the bushit administration chips away at the Constitution. They LOVE the Fascist's program of creating fear, "we're doing this to protect you until we want to torture YOU"
Think how many stupid brainwashed neocons BELIEVE them.....
Where's the proof that torture works ???? There has NEVER been any. Just the amoral, evil ravings of our president, resident puppet, making a fool of himself in front of the entire world.....
Oh, I know the spineless neocons will come in here defending torture(as long as THEY feel safe). There's even one who believes in torturing children.....but they have no spine and no morals ....they believe everything their puppet leader tells them...one of the most yellow-bellied cowards in the world...Mr. "Oh Daddy, please keep me out of Vietnam So I can be Safe and Drink and not wet my pants in fear"
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on October 5, 2007 09:30:03 AM new
14 POINTS OF FASCISM
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.
Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution.
"The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch."
After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.
"Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11.
In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power.
"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"
As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."
Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital-room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.
But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.
As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.
posted on October 17, 2007 11:49:56 AM new
Thanks, Helen!
I read some of the comments and most were thoughtful and intelligent but there, sadly, were one or two who feel the same way the neocons in here feel.....they WANT a Cheney dictatorship because they feel "safe". !!!!!!
Seems if you have no courage or a backbone you are willing to turn your country, your Constitution, your rights, over to a dictatorship even though America is allegedly against dictatorships.
Funny, the neocons don't want universal health care because they erroneously believe you would have no choices.....but they WANT a dictatorship running their country !!!??????
posted on October 17, 2007 11:55:45 AM new
So in your EXPERT opinion HOW are TERRORISTS being tortured? What acts have you identified as torture?
Is there a formal handbook explaining in gory details how the US allegedly does this?
But lets see, the Geneva convention and UN decelerations identify "protected persons" cannot be tortured and the you cannot torture uniformed troops (that leaves out terrorists), or troops from a specific military org (that leaves out terrorists).
(PS, terrorists are considered Unlawful combatants, thus are not covered by international law.)
If you want to see TORTURE, look at the true meaning of TORTURE as advocated by the terrorists YOU are defending.
posted on October 17, 2007 12:50:04 PM new
"If you want to see TORTURE, look at the true meaning of TORTURE as advocated by the terrorists YOU are defending."
So if the terrorists are so evil and abhorrent, why do you want us to be like them?
posted on October 19, 2007 06:45:25 AM newIf you want to see TORTURE, look at the true meaning of TORTURE as advocated by the terrorists YOU are defending.
posted on October 21, 2007 01:04:43 PM new
Lynn Cheney has been on a few talk shows (including Colbert or Stewart, not sure which) in efforts to promote her book and rehabilitate her husband's image. Poor lady.
_____________________
From Ellen Goodman on the coming Supreme Court case re lethal injection:
...as the Supreme Court takes up this issue again, I remember what Justice Harry Blackmun said after a 20-year struggle about just ways to administer the death penalty: "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."
We are still tinkering. This time, we're tinkering with the dosage and the training. Tinkering with competence and mistakes. We are tinkering, tinkering, tinkering to avoid the possibility that we can't have our death penalty and our humanity, too.
...as the Supreme Court takes up this issue again, I remember what Justice Harry Blackmun said after a 20-year struggle about just ways to administer the death penalty: "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."
We are still tinkering. This time, we're tinkering with the dosage and the training. Tinkering with competence and mistakes. We are tinkering, tinkering, tinkering to avoid the possibility that we can't have our death penalty and our humanity, too.
posted on October 22, 2007 07:15:24 AM newLynn Cheney has been on a few talk shows (including Colbert or Stewart, not sure which) in efforts to promote her book and rehabilitate her husband's image. Poor lady.
I didn't think Dick's image needed a pacemaker as well.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Are YOU a Bunghole?