Today on Blogcritics
Home » George Bush pisses all over American values by sending prisoners off to torture…

George Bush pisses all over American values by sending prisoners off to torture…

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There are reports that the New Yorker is going to be printing a major article on the CIA renditioning prisoners to other countries where they can be tortured. Sending people off to be tortured is not exactly a “family value” is it? This is not what a “man of God” would do is it? I hope not, I really hope not…

Here’s a quote: “The report also cited the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, as saying Washington has accepted intelligence from Uzkbekistan that was “largely rubbish.”

The ambassador claims to know of at least three individuals rendered to Uzbekistan by the United States, where cases of the authorities boiling prisoners’ body parts have been documented.” From: CIA renditions of terror suspects are ‘out of control:’ report

Wow, I don’t know what else to say but these jokers are making America more and more into the image of the terrorists they claim to be fighting. How can we be preventing torture by dictators, if we don’t even try to prevent torture by our own democracy?

Big Time Patriot

Powered by

About Big Time Patriot

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I believe the word you’re looking for is something other than ‘renditioning’ which would be the CIA making their own unique interpretations of prisoners.

    And BTW, this is not news. We’ve been trying to ‘render’ prisoners to other countries where they are wanted criminals to get them out of our hands for quite a while. I’m sure it’s not a coincidence that some of those countries have pretty loose rules on how they treat known terrorists, but it does (sort of) keep our hands clean while getting the bastards their just deserts.

    >>How can we be preventing torture by dictators, if we don’t even try to prevent torture by our own democracy?<<

    Let me get this clear, you’re living in Uzbekistan now?

    Dave

  • http://home.earthlink.net/~mossback1973/mossbacksindex/ Roy Smith

    Speaking of the values of our leaders, the Secretary of Defense may not go to Europe for a meeting because he might have to face a lawsuit alleging war crimes. Specifically, he is being charged with responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Another reason to despise the Europeans for not even having a basic clue on how a legal system should work. I say send her over and let them make asses of themselves. Let’s see if they ever get one of their murdering psychos extradited from Texas ever again – oh wait, they never have.

    Dave

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “it does (sort of) keep our hands clean while getting the bastards their just deserts.” What is it that makes THEM bastards and not us? Wasn’t Saddam bad BECAUSE he tortured? Or are you okay with that? If we aren’t fighting Saddam because he tortured (because apparently you are okay with that, torture is a symbol of freedom and liberty I suppose?), why were we fighting him?

    It wasn’t WMDs, it wasn’t ties to Al Qaeda, and now you’re saying it wasn’t because Saddam tortured either, why are we at war in Iraq?

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    Also, they do describe the practice as “Rendition”, I have to admit I wasn’t sure exactly how to make it an active verb. I think the root may be closer to “rendering plant” than “artistic rendition”

  • http://emeraldcitycomments.blogspot.com/ Roy Smith

    Dave –

    Donald Rumsfeld is female?

    Wow, the religious right is going to have a conniption over that …

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry, BTP. Thought you were talking about Condi for some reason. Same basic comment applies either way.

    BTP: “it does (sort of) keep our hands clean while getting the bastards their just deserts.” What is it that makes THEM bastards and not us?

    We are not practicing institutionalized torture, nor are we engaging in acts of terrorism, mass murder or genocide. Remember, the people we’re talking about are not Iraqis, they’re Taliban fighters from Afghanistan. We’re holding very few Iraqis, and that tells you the difference between the two wars. Afghanistan was a war against a terrorist regime, and anyone involved in the Taliban movement is inherently a terrorist suspect. Most Iraqis have only been detained briefly because they were genuine military combatants.

    BTP: Wasn’t Saddam bad BECAUSE he tortured? Or are you okay with that? If we aren’t fighting Saddam because he tortured (because apparently you are okay with that, torture is a symbol of freedom and liberty I suppose?), why were we fighting him?
    It wasn’t WMDs, it wasn’t ties to Al Qaeda, and now you’re saying it wasn’t because Saddam tortured either, why are we at war in Iraq?

    Let’s not be silly. People should have been looking for reasons NOT to attack Saddam. Everything about the man and his regime was reprehensible. But the reason we attacked him was to change the strategic balance in the middle east. They won’t say that publicly, but we all know that’s the truth.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    RESPONSE V1: Apologies for the language, but could Dave Nalle just FUCK OFF?

    If I have to read another of his pig ignorant TROLL posts dripping with presumptuous moral superiority slagging off Europe for actually having a sense of morality, and a healthy attitude of scepticism about government in general, I am going to seriously consider whether I could stomach having to supply your lying, incompetent, “representative republic” but not democratic state full histories on everybody i ever met, then subject myself to an immigration system that is more intrusive than a goddamn prison into my private personal information to get into your seriously fucking overrated coountry and smaSH YOUR FUCKING HEAD IN

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    BTW, yeah I had a great holiday, good to be back!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Wow, Alienboy. What a cogent, reasoned comment. Good to know you don’t let my actual beliefs or anything I post get in the way of your preconception that I’m some sort of conservative troll.

    Lord protect us from the self-righteous provincialism of Canadians. I have to say it’s a country just ripe for an outbreak of braindead fundamentalist Christianity like the one they had in Australia in the 1970 and 1980s.

    Dave

  • Eric Olsen

    I believe we have been told alienboy is a Brit ex-pat in Spain. Regardless, comment #8 is completely out of line and would have been deleted had Dave not responded.

    Dave is 100% correct as to why we are in Iraq: we are in Iraq because something drastic had to be done and Iraq was the place it could be done: good for us, good for the region, good for the world, AND good for Iraq.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Wow, a Brit Ex-Pat in Spain. Puts me in mind of Sexy Beast. I see him in the Ben Kingsley role.

    Dave

  • smegma

    Enuff of the double standards! What do you propose the US does with the people in prison?

    Perhaps letting them sneak into Canada would be one answer.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    Eric: sincerely sorry if I stepped over some editorial line of yours, although would it be too irritating if i reminded you that you yourself told me there was no editorial policy?

    As to the substance of my comment: strip away the language and the core message remains valid. Nalle’s attitude is totally unacceptable and if he wants to lob such conversational grenades around and imagines he is somehow immune, well that just reinforces the point. It is hugely insulting to we Europeans and I am not prepared to just tolerate it.

    Reality check: It is the Europeans that, by doing nothing, have let evil flourish. I, for one, am trying a new policy.

    You can kick me out of here if you want, but don’t censor me if you’re going to allow such vile hatred as “Another reason to despise the Europeans for not even having a basic clue on how a legal system should work. I say send her over and let them make asses of themselves. Let’s see if they ever get one of their murdering psychos extradited from Texas ever again – oh wait, they never have.” in here. At least my reaction was honest and real.

    Nalle: if you are not actually a “conservative troll” then i apologise also to you.

    if you are, then switching tactics to reasonable after previously playing hothead isn’t going to help you along. My comments were also way more reasonable and grounded in reality than your provocative outburst

    Personally, i try to keep preconceptions to a minimum, as it’s usually more interesting to start with a blank page, so i didn’t leap to an opinion about you personally.

    You have already variously branded me as everything from “social anarchist” (still trying to work that out, btw) to Canadian ! whilst trying to pin some pejorative tag on me.

    it’s time you accepted it’s not just north americans in this space and find some “mutually assured destruction”-inspired tolerance.

  • Eric Olsen

    alienboy, this is comment policy, not editorial policy, and comment policy is linked to from every post.

    We have members from about 20 different countries and readers from many more and their views are all welcome unless they violate the comment policy. We have posting guidelines as well, but they do not dictate political content.

  • smegma

    So Big Time Pat and alien:

    What do you think should be done to prisoners?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    As we contemplate the moral relativism surrounding the issue of torture with regard to who’s torturing who and why and whether or not it is righteous, justified, rationalized or just plain wrong, let us reflect upon the profound wisdom of Matthew 7:1-5:

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    Since everything is apparently relative, each individual will take this however he or she pleases.

  • smegma

    That’s a bunch of hooey. Get real! Now really that would amount to the most ineffective policy imaginable. Put down the bong and get involved with your country’s policies concerning prisoners.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    And we’re going to listen to someone whose handle is, foreskin gunk?

    Interesting to note that those who quote the Bible are on the bong and just talking hooey. I’ll have to keep that in mind.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    Well, since everything is relative, it is quite reasonable to expect that some people would refer to as “hooey” those Scriptures which require a certain amount of discipline to maintain as principles.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    morality is always a difficult subject, but am i alone in failing to grasp how post No. 17 sheds ANY light on the subject?

  • smegma

    No Alienboy you are not alone in grasping how #17 sheds any light on the subject. Some people are more interested in hearing themselves ‘talk’ than speaking to the issue in any intelligent way. Temple Stark was slow to make the connection between what she said and a ‘bunch of hooey’.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org Margaret Romao Toigo

    I give my fellow man credit for having a mind with which to draw his own conclusions from the various philosophical disciplines and prefer to use subtleties rather than direct assertions.

    As a result, clarity sometimes apears to be sacrificed to the cause of prompting independent reflection for the purpose of drawing out sincere conclusions which are not influenced by the inherent “spin” which is virtually unavoidable when one deals in frankness.

    Now, to be clear and direct and frank, #17 was intended as accusation of hypocrisy directed at those who, in their undertaking of the role of apologists for our (America’s) questionable polices and practices with regard to torture, invoke the old “but he did worse than me!” rationalization, as if the fact that the prisoners in question are toturers, terrorists and murderers makes torturing, terrorizing and murdering them okay — because we’re the “Good Guys.”

    To such people, I offer the English Standard Version of Matthew 7:5, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

    And now, after all of that honesty, I must pray for grace and forgiveness — “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23) — for being weak and succumbing to my pride to pass judgement upon the sins of my fellow man.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry If I offended the entirety of Europe, Alienboy. Glad they have you to be their spokesman. My sympathies, btw. I imagine it’s a pretty thankless job. That’s all I have to say on that subject because your specific objections to my comments don’t seem to make any sense and therefore can’t really be answered.

    Dave

  • http://www.kalyr.com Tim Hall

    As far as I’m concerned, there’s no real moral difference whatsoever between apologists for torture and apologists for terrorism.

    Rightwing trolls who claim torture is justified are exactly the same as idiot Arab clerics who claim suicide bombings are justified.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    Nalle: my specific objection is that your post #3 is too offensive to be tolerated. Is that clear enough for you?

    Don’t really need any answer from you on that point.

    Anytime you want to play grownup is okay by me…

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “What do you propose the US does with the people in prison?”

    I have a great idea, let’s do what America has always done with prisoners, a thing WE PUT RIGHT INTO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT WAS A CORE PRINCIPLE OF AMERICA. Let’s give them trials and put our evidence up there and then jail them if they are guilty and let them go if we only just “think” they are bad guys. One person should not go to jail on another persons “opinion”. If they know these people are bad people they must have a reason. I can see why you might delay a month or two for security reasons. But if after Joe Terrorist has dissappeared for 3 months, his friends will have most likely changed their phone numbers and passwords. There are only a few things that might require secrecy like a long term informant, but I have a great idea, tell a judge and let her or him decide whether it is justified to be secret or not.

    Surprisingly you can look all through the Constitution and not find anything that says “if you label some people bad guys, you can do anything you want to them”. But there is a bit about evidence and courts and trials and laws and stuff. Even a bit about cruel and unusual punishment.

    If we want to spread liberty and freedom, perhaps we should spread OUR brand of freedom and liberty and extend this whole principle of courts and laws to our interactions with people from other nations as well.

    So my idea is, take those people in prison, schedule them for trials. It’s the American way. If you think human beings deserve to be tortured and held forever with out trial you are NOT AN AMERICAN PATRIOT because you don’t believe in core American principles. You could easily qualify as a Saddam patriot or a Stalin patriot, perhaps a Mussolini patriot or Pol Pot patriot. Torture has been used by all these people while it wasn’t part of American policy. And surprisingly during all that time, WE survived and all the torture in the world didn’t save THEM. Torture didn’t save them and it’s NOT what’s going to save us.

    Wow, I really got myself going there. I dislike a lot of things about this administration, but this is really the most shameful blow against America Bush could make.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Tim: As far as I’m concerned, there’s no real moral difference whatsoever between apologists for torture and apologists for terrorism.

    Truer words cannot be said. As Alberto Gonzales made very clear torture is unacceptable and will not be engaged in by this administration. Can’t get much clearer than that.

    BTP: So my idea is, take those people in prison, schedule them for trials. It’s the American way. If you think human beings deserve to be tortured and held forever with out trial you are NOT AN AMERICAN PATRIOT because you don’t believe in core American principles.

    Sounds good to me. Then try them under the Constitutional standards for treason and when they are found guilty, execute them. Turn those who are acquitted over to their original home governments who are likely to then try and execute them if we didn’t manage it. Of course, there might be just a couple of objections.

    First, the ACLU will insist that the death penalty for treason shouldn’t apply to them because they aren’t US Citizens. But of course, if the rules of due process apply then shouldn’t all the other areas of the Constitution apply as well? So if they get a trial, they can get death.

    Next, other nations will claim that they have a right to try those terrorists who are their citizens under their laws. In some cases this is a great idea, but what about the Iranians and Sudanese and Yemenis and Libyans? What kind of a fair trial would they get? But wait, maybe we can save trouble and apply the laws and practices of their homelands and hold a 1 hour show trial with no witnesses and chop their heads off, or just torture them to death in a dank chamber somewhere. That seems fair.

    And ah, let’s take the whole plan to its final, most egalitarian conclusion. The Constitution applies to everyone, not just us, so like the Union in 1861 let’s take up arms and liberate everyone under its umbrella. Every slave, every person without access to a free press, every person denied their right to vote or freedom of movement or freedom of religion or their right to bear arms. I guess we can go one country at a time, and there are probably at least 30 countries we probably won’t have to invade at all. They’ll get the idea and capitulate pretty fast. And let’s start BIG. Let’s do Russsia and China at the same time! Won’t THAT be fun!

    And boy, won’t this new policy of yours make us popular? We’ll be bigger than Napoleon! After all, he jammed better law and civil rights and equality and voting and efficient government down the throats of everyone he conquered and look how popular HE was! They made him Emperor!

    Sounds like a great plan, BTP. Or is that Napoleonic Patriot?

    Dave

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “And ah, let’s take the whole plan to its final, most egalitarian conclusion. The Constitution applies to everyone, not just us, so like the Union in 1861 let’s take up arms and liberate everyone under its umbrella.”

    Dave, that was pretty amusing, so you are saying that my idea of a trial for people under Americas control equates to George Bush’s plan to liberate the world. Hmmm…

    The difference? George Bush talks about bringing American values to the world, but doesn’t actually even bring American values to bear in American policy.

    “As Alberto Gonzales made very clear torture is unacceptable and will not be engaged in by this administration. Can’t get much clearer than that.”

    Hmmm… yet if you read my original article you see signs that perhaps Mr. Gonzales was merely not telling the truth. Wouldn’t be the first Administration official (or a lawyer for that matter) to tell a lie. My mom told me not to take the words of politicians at face value, I freely share that advice with you.

    I myself think that as America, a great country, we can do better. We can defend ourselves from terrorists while not adopting their tactics.

    George Bush appears to be so frightened that he will sink to any level. Dave, I hope you are not so scared that you are surrendering Americas virtues so easily…

    Be brave, this is a mighty nation and we can make it through this without becoming a nation known for the power of its “secret police” and “midnight dissapearances” and the nation that brought torture rooms right back into operation in Iraq just months after Saddam was out of power.

    Talking about liberty and justice and freedom is easy. But you have to keep in mind what those words really mean and that they are more important values than just supporting the politician who is on your “team”.

  • http://cranialcavity.net Marc

    “Surprisingly you can look all through the Constitution and not find anything that says “if you label some people bad guys, you can do anything you want to them”.

    Sorry the Constitution does not cover non-uniform wearing, stateless terrorists who act under no formal chain of cammand. And niether does the Geneva Conventions.

    Eventually once all the activist judges are bypassed within the system, it will come down to the same position the Supreme Court arrived at during WW2, enemy combatants don’t deserve shit from shinola.

  • Kinda Canadian

    “…protect us from the self-righteous provincialism of Canadians.”

    I’m glad that simple-minded generalizations are still in vogue.

  • Eric Olsen

    regardless of the legality, I agree that we owe it to ourselves to uphold the values we espouse. Everyone held by the U.S. should be given a fair trial.

  • http://emeraldcitycomments.blogspot.com/ Roy Smith

    Marc: “Sorry the Constitution does not cover non-uniform wearing, stateless terrorists who act under no formal chain of cammand.”

    Why not? Is the Bill of Rights some narrow legalistic view of human rights that are rights only to those fortunate enough to be citizens of the United States?

    In Europe they have this crazy idea that everybody (including non-Europeans) have fundamental human rights. They even call their equivalent to the Bill of Rights a Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it states in its preamble: “the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity”. This language, and the public policies of the EU, demonstrate a much more universal idea of the applicability of the principles of human rights than the narrow, legalistic idea endorsed by the administration and their neo-conservative (or maybe fascist would be an appropriate term) apologists.

    Torture is wrong, no matter what the victim has done or who they are. Period.

    Looking the other way while people are being tortured when one has the power to prevent it is also wrong.

  • http://www.kalyr.com Tim Hall

    >>Sorry the Constitution does not cover non-uniform wearing, stateless terrorists who act under no formal chain of cammand. And niether does the Geneva Conventions.

    I’m sure I’m not the only person who thinks the behaviour of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany towards each other’s prisoners is really an appropriate historical precedent for the USA to follow.

    Too many on the wingnut right appear to believe ‘Them and Us’ always trumps ‘Right and Wrong’, and the end justifies the means.

  • http://www.kalyr.com Tim Hall

    Oops. That should read “isn’t really”.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    So Dave, what is your opinion of “activist judges” such as Judge Gonzales? You are right, we should strictly do the OPPOSITE of whatever Judge Gonzales says. After all, he is already responsible for some legal statements that turned out to be wrong and that he had to repudiate himself. So this proven “Activist Judge” is your poster boy for righeousness? Or by “Activist Judges” were you really implying Judges who would uphold the Constitution as a higher law than the wishes of whomever happened to be elected president in any 4 years?

    I hope you are letting your congressman know that you are dissapointed they let an “Activist Judge” like Gonazales take the AG job.