Rice defends US policy
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 07:10
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 10:44
My thought is: it's utter hypocrisy. Rice says that the US does not torture, and does not use rendition to do things to captives that would not be legal if they were done in the US. This is patently false: the ONLY practical reason for using the system of rendition is precisely that it allows you to do things that would be illegal, and subject to due legal process, in the US. Otherwise why bother?
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 10:59
i think the key phrase in that statement is here:
don't worry, i'm sure andy will be along in a minute to play devil's advocate
so it all depends on your definition of torture which, i suspect, in the american view is a very narrow definition indeed leaving them free to systematically sexually humiliate prisoners and keep them in freezing (or indeed scorching) cells amongst other reprehensible things.condoleeza rice wrote:torture is a term that is defined by law
don't worry, i'm sure andy will be along in a minute to play devil's advocate
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 11:04
Sorry I love Rice & her friends very much 
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 11:05
Today (or yesterday night) she said they respect the sovereignty of each country, which means she fends off responsability and makes those countries responsible, I think. But also on yesterday's news Human Right Watch said there was a positive evolution, as this was the first time ever the American government acknowleged torturing can't be done...
Anyway, she'd better explain why earlier on Bush used his right to stop a law for the first time against a bill which abolished 'cruel, inhumane,... treatment of prisoners under guard or control of the United States', proposed by John McCain (who spent 6 years in a Vietcong prison) and got approved by US Senate with 90 votes pro and 9 contra. Cheney replied that this is what they need to stop the metaphorical 'A-bomb on the White House'. They don't want this right, they think they have it.
In 2001 Cheney said in the NBC-journal 'We have to accept the dark side, we have to go through that... A lot of what has to be done, has to be done in silence without any discussion, using means and methods at our service's disposal'.
The Washingon Post noted Bush signed a secred CIA-memo which gives them enormous possibilities to stop terrorist activities, including the right to capture, imprison and kills Al Qaeda members all over the worldn which has lead (according to the Post) to the black sites in Eastern European countries. They've created the Gulags of this time and are actually using the original Gulags for it.
No better than what they're fighting against is an understatement, I think
(some bits -as the quotes- include English-Dutch-English translation, so sorry for any mistakes )
Anyway, she'd better explain why earlier on Bush used his right to stop a law for the first time against a bill which abolished 'cruel, inhumane,... treatment of prisoners under guard or control of the United States', proposed by John McCain (who spent 6 years in a Vietcong prison) and got approved by US Senate with 90 votes pro and 9 contra. Cheney replied that this is what they need to stop the metaphorical 'A-bomb on the White House'. They don't want this right, they think they have it.
In 2001 Cheney said in the NBC-journal 'We have to accept the dark side, we have to go through that... A lot of what has to be done, has to be done in silence without any discussion, using means and methods at our service's disposal'.
The Washingon Post noted Bush signed a secred CIA-memo which gives them enormous possibilities to stop terrorist activities, including the right to capture, imprison and kills Al Qaeda members all over the worldn which has lead (according to the Post) to the black sites in Eastern European countries. They've created the Gulags of this time and are actually using the original Gulags for it.
No better than what they're fighting against is an understatement, I think
(some bits -as the quotes- include English-Dutch-English translation, so sorry for any mistakes
)Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 11:23
enough to mount a defence of their policy?taylor wrote:Sorry I love Rice & her friends very much
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 13:00
http://www.teamdelta.net/GuantanamoGuidebook.htm Simulation of the Guantanamo Bay Prisons, it is just a documentary, but then again, it is an interpretation of what the US thinks is 'not really torturing people'...
Complete and utter assholes, the lot of them.
Rice was also the one that clearly stated she would NOT, under any circumstance, talk about the issue (CIA using Europeand airports, torture in Europe because it is not allowed on US soil blabla). And almost the FIRST THING she does when arriving in Belgium is starting to talk herself out of the stuff to make her and the US look good and nice again.
Bunch of hypocrites.
IZ.
Complete and utter assholes, the lot of them.
Rice was also the one that clearly stated she would NOT, under any circumstance, talk about the issue (CIA using Europeand airports, torture in Europe because it is not allowed on US soil blabla). And almost the FIRST THING she does when arriving in Belgium is starting to talk herself out of the stuff to make her and the US look good and nice again.
Bunch of hypocrites.
IZ.
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 15:24
>enough to mount a defence of their policy?
yes totally, sorry ric
yes totally, sorry ric
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 16:18
Well I for one am dying to hear it.taylor wrote:>enough to mount a defence of their policy?
yes totally, sorry ric
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 16:39
"The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the soverignty of other countries." 
That's the most blatant lie of them all.
That's the most blatant lie of them all.Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 17:26
Plus, as I said before, putting the blame on those countries...Driven wrote:"The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the soverignty of other countries."
I'd like to hear the pro Condi & Friends arguments too, by the way, really...
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 17:30
. . . . . .
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 17:31
I'd like to hail Harold Pinter for his Gonzo free speech
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 17:55
Joke of the Day?Obviousman wrote:Plus, as I said before, putting the blame on those countries...Driven wrote:"The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the soverignty of other countries."
I'd like to hear the pro Condi & Friends arguments too, by the way, really...
Posted: 08 Dec 2005, 18:19
Owh yeahboudicca wrote:Joke of the Day?Obviousman wrote:Plus, as I said before, putting the blame on those countries...Driven wrote:"The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the soverignty of other countries."
I'd like to hear the pro Condi & Friends arguments too, by the way, really...
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 12:38
It's largely been demonstrated throughout history that a tortured person merely says what s/he believes the torturer wants to hear, in an attempt to make the torture stop.
There is no such thing as a "truth drug" either, and attempts to use psychoactive substances like sodium pentothal, or in more extreme (documented) cases, LSD or mescaline, merely result in the subject becoming highly suggestible, and again, saying what s/he believes the torturer wants to hear. The suggestibility problem is also the case with hypnosis.
In effect, any truth that hypnosis-, torture- and drug-induced "confessions" may contain will be hopelessly confused with inventions, perversions of memory, etc. ; hence such techniques are, on a pragmatic level, useless, before we even need to ask any moral questions.
There is no such thing as a "truth drug" either, and attempts to use psychoactive substances like sodium pentothal, or in more extreme (documented) cases, LSD or mescaline, merely result in the subject becoming highly suggestible, and again, saying what s/he believes the torturer wants to hear. The suggestibility problem is also the case with hypnosis.
In effect, any truth that hypnosis-, torture- and drug-induced "confessions" may contain will be hopelessly confused with inventions, perversions of memory, etc. ; hence such techniques are, on a pragmatic level, useless, before we even need to ask any moral questions.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 15:19
I don't believe youmarkfiend wrote: There is no such thing as a "truth drug" either, and attempts to use psychoactive substances like sodium pentothal, or in more extreme (documented) cases, LSD or mescaline, merely result in the subject becoming highly suggestible, and again, saying what s/he believes the torturer wants to hear. The suggestibility problem is also the case with hypnosis.
In effect, any truth that hypnosis-, torture- and drug-induced "confessions" may contain will be hopelessly confused with inventions, perversions of memory, etc. ; hence such techniques are, on a pragmatic level, useless, before we even need to ask any moral questions.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 16:29
Tell you what, you give me some sodium pentothal (or better yet LSD or mescaline) and then ask me. See what answer you get.
My source for the claim that there is no such thing as a "truth drug" is an article (well researched and referenced) in issue 203 (IIRC) of Fortean Times.
Posted: 09 Dec 2005, 21:46
'truth drugs' do not and have never been able to work in such an obvious manner. They work by relaxing the subject's capability to defend themselves in reasonable, verbal convisation. Confussion leads the subject to saying things they shouldn't have said and also mix reality with fantasy - it is then the work of the interegator to pick out the relevent information based on known facts and other recon information.
You can tell the truth in many many more ways than through just answering questions correctly.
The Fortean Times does most of it's research in The Griffin & The Sun pubs and the mushroom fields in and around Frome, Somerset.
You can tell the truth in many many more ways than through just answering questions correctly.
The Fortean Times does most of it's research in The Griffin & The Sun pubs and the mushroom fields in and around Frome, Somerset.
Posted: 10 Dec 2005, 03:31
boudicca wrote:Well I for one am dying to hear it.taylor wrote:>enough to mount a defence of their policy?
yes totally, sorry ric
if i remember correctly we are talking to a man who advocates full on religious warfare/genocide against the heathen masses. perhaps before he rustles up a few thousand peasants to set off and wrest the holy land from the darkies someone should tell him that the jews own it now and theyve got nukes. that his side gave them.
Posted: 11 Dec 2005, 03:39
Rice defends us policy? Is she chasing a cameo on Dinnerladies?