Who's "WE", Pres. Bush

Published on November 7, 2005 By InfoGeek In Current Events

There is a current proposal by the Senate to ban torture. Most people agree that torturing someone is a bad thing. Now, we are not talking about the police interrogation techniques that have passed legal muster, what I am talking about its torture.

Let’s say. For example, taking a hammer and whacking the boys a few times.

In general most people don’t like torture, so the Republican controlled Senate says, “OK, we’ll pass a law. No torture.”

And Bush just said recently that “We do not torture!” So this should be an easy pass. We don’t like torture, Bush says we don’t torture. Slam Dunk. Right?

No. The shot is rejected by Richard “hidden location” Cheney who wants an exemption for the CIA from the new law.

My question is, “If the president is saying we don’t torture, and Cheney wants an exemption, who is this “WE” the President is talking about?

IG

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2005

I think they should define it, but if it does not include chemicals (not acid! truth stuff), it has already been demonstrated that physical torture is not effective. If they want answers, there are chemicals to get it. Violence is not necessary.

InfoGeek

on Nov 07, 2005

True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.

Demosthenes Locke

on Nov 07, 2005

mmmm sodium pentothal. Sounds like a good night out to me.

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2005

True, but if your compatriots can't hear your screams, it is not as effective as violence.

Still, why? They dont need to hear you scream. Just dope them up. There is no shortage of SP. (dont ask me to spell it!)

InfoGeek

on Nov 07, 2005

True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.

Moderateman

on Nov 07, 2005

well IG it should be limited to one simple act with Muslim terrorists, Roll them up in fresh pigskin and threaten to let them die that way if they do not talk.

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2005

True, but the violence get's your point across a lot quicker than drugs to those enemies that are watching you "question" the one prisoner.

It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it. It is for gathering information! torture is just pure Sadism! Nothing more. It accomplishes nothing well, and other methods are more effective.

InfoGeek

on Nov 07, 2005

It gets a point across, but that is not the reason (or at least should not be) for it.

You don't think they use some "unusual" methods to control the population?

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

IG

kingbee

on Nov 07, 2005

amytal or scopolamine are considered more effective than pentathol as so-called truth serum. i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique, especially since i don't imagine the inquisitors would worry much about me contracting aids, hep c, etc.

furthermore, truth drugs and hypnotic regression have a lot in common when it comes to generating reliable results. add in the trauma of 'rendition' (what we south americans call 'disappearred'*) to a comfy former soviet bloc prison cell, and you may, at best, discover a way to put 'st francis'--the loving christian pacifist personality who's been in hiding all these years--to emerge and take control of mpd victims who've been giving too much sway to their inner saladin.

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2005

But my original quesiton was" Is Bush using the royal "we" when he says "We don't torture? As in I have never taken a hammer to a prisoner's tallywhacker, or is he saying 'we' meaning the he and his staff?

Royal. Sorry to stray.

kingbee

on Nov 07, 2005

here's a fresh idea. why not recruit and train several companies of qualified personnel who could then be offered instead of cash or other material goods in return for information? admittedly, giving each person of interest his own personal 73 virgins may be overkill, but upping the ante--even by 1--has worked well in most other negotiation situations.

after all, 73 virgins in the converted fema trailor in romania has gotta be worth 72 in the bus...umm heavenly hareem, no?

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2005

i don't know about you but i'd consider having a drug involuntarily administered intravenously as morally abhorrent as any other invasive technique,

No one ever said it was not. However it is not torture. We are not talking due process here. We are talking extracting information from known terrorist. and as much as you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist. As IG said, stay on topic.

InfoGeek

on Nov 07, 2005

Sorry to stray.

No problem. It was an interesting discussion.

IG

kingbee

on Nov 07, 2005

if you think #11 is out in space, hopefully you can see it's nowhere near as far out in space as passing a ban on torture that exempts the cia.

admittedly it would help to prevent the recurring problem of torture abuses by the department of the interior as well as most local weights & measures authorities, but still...

kingbee

on Nov 07, 2005

you would love to afford them the protection of the constitution, that just does not exist.

unless you've figured out a way to get around the supreme court, it does.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!