Please click
here.
"It is unfortunate that some have chosen to take out of context a few isolated incidents by a few individuals," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement.
My Comment from the linked thread
The context of these incidents is the way the Bush regime has chosen to wage a war on terror.
First of all, the very term war on terror suggests a war designed not to be won. We are not fighting a war against specific terrorists; there can be no rational measure of success. This is a war against a tactic. Instead of resolving to arrest murderers, which would be a practical goal, the regime has promised to wipe out murder, which is not. This allows war to perpetuate, and with any real and imagined emergency powers the chief executive may have to wage war. It is more likely a pretext for tyranny.
Second, the term is dishonest. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting either the tactics of terror or specific terrorists. Saddam had neither a working relationship with terrorists nor any weapons of terror to give or sell. It was colonial piracy, pure and simple. The invasion of Iraq only became a part of the war on terror afterward, when some Islamists chose terror as a tactic to resist the foreign occupation and the colonial rape of their country. The
Downing Street document shows that Bush and members of his regime were not concerned about facts, that they were probably aware that facts contradicted their case against Iraq, but that they were determined to make facts and intelligence fit the pre-determined policy of regime change. In other words, they lied and dissembled (that means didn't tell the truth).
Third, we have the Gonzales memos (here in
pdf format). These show that from the outset violations of the Geneva Conventions and the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment were to be the order of the day. Mr. Gonzales' memoranda is less a legal justification of what the regime is doing by maintaining a network of gulags and of what goes on inside them than an outline of dissembling written in legalese. All one has to do to make it legal is to say the President ordered it, and he is above the law, especially in time of war; this is nonsense. If one assert the right of detainees as prisoners of war, then all one has to do is assert that they are not prisoners of war but something else and that all that is required to call them something else is the President's say so; this is also nonsense and the
Third Geneva Convention explicitly says that a battlefield detainee is to be regarded as a prisoner of war until a court of law (not an executive) determines otherwise. Finally, the Gonzales memos define torture in such a way as to say that nothing is torture unless the torturer says its torture; this is clearly nonsense.
So, the context is that a bunch of dissembling, sadistic tyrants bent on world domination are telling us that the situation is not as bad as what some would have us believe, and we are just to take their word for it. We don't need an independent world body looking into the matter, they say, because their word is good enough.
Yeah, right. Just like it was when they said Saddam had a vast biochemical arsenal that should be obvious to anyone who looks and that independent weapons inspectors weren't needed and couldn't prove anything because they were blind anyway. Those were willful lies. Are we supposed to believe them now?
Bush and his neoconservative aide are liars. They are war criminals. They are torturers. It is long past time to start treating them accordingly. If the United States is incapable or unwilling to bring these thugs to justice, then we must urge the United Nations to convene a war crimes tribunal, issue indictments and begin apprehending suspected war criminals.