108 suspects died in US custody

[KoreBolteR]

Can you give a source on that? Because I recall the Bush administration itself saying there was not any connection.

Did YOU found it? Can YOU prove it?

A source? A prove?

Here

(but as i say about all sources, it could be bias..)

theres no such thing as 'sources it is?!'..

 

[Nofuture]

Check this (a short video) to get to know WHO actually had links with Al Qaeda and the terrorists of 9/11.

Also about the true reason of the war on Iraq.

 

[KoreBolteR]

No one is demanding equal treatment for terrorists, or however the hell else you guys are trying to spin this to make yourself look right. The truth is, some don't see the war as good vs. evil like you do... Some see this war as ignorance vs. ignorance with humanity being the loser. We think we are right, they think they are right and in the end neither side is right, both are wrong, both are killing, and the people on the outside are getting sucked into this vortex of hate created by the fanatics on boths sides.

True, but i wouldnt say that the US is as cold-hearted as the terrorists...

 

[Nofuture]

Here

(but as i say about all sources, it could be bias..)

theres no such thing as 'sources it is?!'..

Are you kidding? Where is your source? There are tens of links. WHAT link?

 

[KoreBolteR]

Here

(but as i say about all sources, it could be bias..)

theres no such thing as 'sources it is?!'..

Are you kidding? Where is your source? There are tens of links. WHAT link?

read them all.

and This One.

 

[Nofuture]

read them all.

You can't be serious, can you??

and This One.

OK

 

[staticprimer]

read them all.

and This One.

Hmm... a two year old article making vague points on a biased 'news' site. Yeah, thats a reliable source. Give me CBS, CNN, BBC or hell, even FOX and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

 

[Nofuture]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed, June 17, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


9/11 COMMISSION
White House Caught in Web of Deceptions, June 18, 2004
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92940

"Confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report this week, which stated there was no collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, the White House refuses to admit to misleading the public. President Bush said, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." But he is playing semantic games which distort undisputable facts. Top officials in the Bush administration – including the president and the vice president – have repeatedly cited a collaborative relationship - not just contacts - between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as a justification for invading Iraq. Now, after months of careful study, the bi-partisan commission investigating 9/11 says there is no credible evidence to support that claim. But instead of taking responsibility for their actions, the administration has continued to weave a web of deception. (See for yourself: Check out the American Progress Claim vs. Fact database for more statements the White House has made to push the misleading al Qaeda/Saddam theory.)"

 

[KoreBolteR]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed, June 17, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


9/11 COMMISSION
White House Caught in Web of Dec....

all those media sources are anti-war. tbh the goal of that paper is belittle the Bush administration. thats it, its not about getting the news around anymore, its about trying to twist the news to sway people against the War to Free Iraq.

Hmm... a two year old article making vague points on a biased 'news' site. Yeah, thats a reliable source. Give me CBS, CNN, BBC or hell, even FOX and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

did you read what i said 2 posts ago...?

obviously not. let me remind you..

(but as i say about all sources, it could be bias..)

theres no such thing as 'sources' it is?!..

 

[CptStern]

all those media sources are anti-war. tbh the goal of that paper is belittle the Bush administration. thats it, its not about getting the news around anymore, its about trying to twist the news to sway people against the War to Free Iraq...

dear god Kore why do you waste people's time? Did you bother to fact cheack before you made that silly assertation?

NO LINK TO AL QAEDA:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-bush-alqaeda_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/iraq/main573801.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/911-j18.shtml

 

[The Mullinator]

Just to go back a little here. Torture was mentioned as something the U.S. does. While I am certain torture did happen I am also pretty certain that it isn't any sort of standard that is used anymore after reading this.

I suspect this is what an interrogation is supposed to be to the U.S. as well.
http://www.antiprotester.blogspot.com/2004/11/tales-of-master-interrogator.html

 

[CptStern]

Just to go back a little here. Torture was mentioned as something the U.S. does. While I am certain torture did happen I am also pretty certain that it isn't any sort of standard that is used anymore after reading this.

I believe there is a standard


"CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s described "coercive techniques" such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq"


Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual

KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation

I suspect this is what an interrogation is supposed to be to the U.S. as well.
http://www.antiprotester.blogspot.com/2004/11/tales-of-master-interrogator.html

here's a list of declassified documents that proves the torture was carried out and directed by the Department of Defense



"Of concern, DOD (Department of Defense) interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that REDACTED. These same interrogation teams then REDACTED. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team REDACTED. These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done the “FBI” interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.”


btw when it says REDACTED it means the document was censored with a magic marker

 

[The Mullinator]

I believe there is a standard


"CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s described "coercive techniques" such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq"

I'm really not sure about those documents though. A lot may have changed in standard techniques since the 1960's and 80's.

here's a list of declassified documents that proves the torture was carried out and directed by the Department of Defense



"Of concern, DOD (Department of Defense) interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that REDACTED. These same interrogation teams then REDACTED. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team REDACTED. These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done the “FBI” interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.”


btw when it says REDACTED it means the document was censored with a magic marker

Its really hard to understand what is going on there but it sounds to me like the DOD isn't even following its own rules. If thats the case then I would really blame just the Department of Defence for allowing its people to do such things. It certainly makes it seem like something the FBI wouldn't use such techniques for interogation.

 

[Calanen]

108 people die in US custody? This tells us nothing.

What would tell us something is how many died because they were mistreated.

How many were taken into custody? How many were taken into custody wounded from fighting? How many died of natural causes or committed suicide because they did not want to be incarcerated? How many tried to overpower guards and got shot for their trouble?

108 deaths in US custody tells us nothing unless you can say - how all of them died.

 

[CptStern]

108 people die in US custody? This tells us nothing.

What would tell us something is how many died because they were mistreated.

How many were taken into custody? How many were taken into custody wounded from fighting? How many died of natural causes or committed suicide because they did not want to be incarcerated? How many tried to overpower guards and got shot for their trouble?

108 deaths in US custody tells us nothing unless you can say - how all of them died.

"At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel."

 

[CptStern]

I'm really not sure about those documents though. A lot may have changed in standard techniques since the 1960's and 80's.

yes but the pattern of torture is consistant with what's in the torture manuals ..they were following procedure

Its really hard to understand what is going on there but it sounds to me like the DOD isn't even following its own rules. If thats the case then I would really blame just the Department of Defence for allowing its people to do such things. It certainly makes it seem like something the FBI wouldn't use such techniques for interogation.

but the previous link also shows that the DOD consulted with law groups to establish the legality of what they were doing ..that in itself proves in the very least their complicity if not outright culpability

This document clearly shows that rumsfeld sought the legal consul on the legality and implications of torture

here's a bbc report on the document

 

[KoreBolteR]

dear god Kore why do you waste people's time? Did you bother to fact check before you made that silly assertation?

:upstare: you of all people should know that nobody can or ever will know the real fact to all this. how do you know that there might not have been secret talks between saddam and laden, those links you have given me below, basically say..

"No Proof"

"No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties"

still doesnt give me the evidence i want..

what if it did happen stern.. and they just have no evidence for it.




but for now im gonna go with you...

There has been no 'EVIDENCE' that iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda. I am not going to throw this possible relationship between the two out the window, EVEN if there is no 'evidence' of it. no evidence doesnt actually mean that it did not happen, do you know how good Al-Qaeda are at covering things like this up.

i am going to keep and Open mind on this.

 

[Absinthe]

still doesnt give me the evidence i want..

There's your problem.

what if it did happen stern.. and they just have no evidence for it.

This is silly. You need evidence, Kore. You can't act on gut feelings and assumptions.

Now, if there's no evidence to support something, does that mean it's not true? Not necessarily. But you risk far more damage by acting on nothing.

 

[KoreBolteR]

There's your problem.

yeah.. i want Real proof.

otherwise im gonna keep an open mind on this.

 

[Absinthe]

yeah.. i want Real proof.

otherwise im gonna keep an open mind on this.

What are you going on about? You need proof that there's no proof?

You're complicating an issue that is simple. So simple that five year olds could grasp it.

 

[No Limit]

still doesnt give me the evidence i want..

what if it did happen stern.. and they just have no evidence for it.

Why do you waste peoples time?

There has been no 'EVIDENCE' that iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda. I am not going to throw this possible relationship between the two out the window, EVEN if there is no 'proof' of it. prrof means nothing, do you know how good Al-Qaeda are at covering things like this up.

I have no proof you are an alien from out of space. But proof means nothing. What if you really are? What if Bush is really Hitler? I have no proof but I can't throw out the possibility. What if our government is killing liberals that oppose it on the internet everyday? I have no proof but there is a huge possibility it is happening. So shit, if I ever don't post back here you should consider the fact that Bush personally killed me.

Do you understand how idiotic you sound?

 

[KoreBolteR]

What are you going on about? You need proof that there's no proof?

You're complicating an issue that is simple. So simple that five year olds could grasp it.

so tell me absinthe,

if a guy murdered his wife, and he got away with it, because there was no 'evidence'.. would he be innocent?

this also goes to you NoLimit.

 

[No Limit]

so tell me absinthe,

if a guy murdered his wife, and he got away with it, because there was no 'evidence'.. would he be innocent?

Yes, the court would find him not guilty, aka, innocent. :upstare:

 

[KoreBolteR]

Yes, the court would find him not guilty, aka, innocent. :upstare:

so they are wrong :upstare:

he was actually guilty of the crime your honor.

 

[No Limit]

so they are wrong :upstare:

he was actually guilty of the crime your honor.

So if there is no evidance that my friend killed my sister (since she is alive) but if I say he did he should be sent to prison for the rest of his life? Just because there is no proof he did it or there isn't any proof she is even dead he should still fry as it is possible he did it.

I am sounding like an idiot just responding to your dumb posts, I give up.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare: you of all people should know that nobody can or ever will know the real fact to all this. how do you know that there might not have been secret talks between saddam and laden, those links you have given me below, basically say..

"No Proof"

"No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties"

still doesnt give me the evidence i want..

what if it did happen stern.. and they just have no evidence for it.




but for now im gonna go with you...

There has been no 'EVIDENCE' that iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda. I am not going to throw this possible relationship between the two out the window, EVEN if there is no 'evidence' of it. no evidence doesnt actually mean that it did not happen, do you know how good Al-Qaeda are at covering things like this up.

i am going to keep and Open mind on this.

you make my brain hurt

do you know how I know there's no tie whatsoever?


‘‘We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with Al Qaeda,’’ Allawi said. ‘‘But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.’’


Iyad Allawi, current PM of iraq, murderer, terrorist and confirmed liar. Here's some of his whopping lies:

Saddam went to Niger to buy Uranium (bogus)
Saddam could launch nukes at london in 45 minutes (bogus)


btw even bush said there was no link to al qaeda

 

[KoreBolteR]

you make my brain hurt

do you know how I know there's no tie whatsoever?


‘‘We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with Al Qaeda,’’ Allawi said. ‘‘But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.’’


Iyad Allawi, current PM of iraq, murderer, terrorist and confirmed liar. Here's some of his whopping lies:

Saddam went to Niger to buy Uranium (bogus)
Saddam could launch nukes at london in 45 minutes (bogus)


btw even bush said there was no link to al qaeda

alright..

but still, Saddam did kill loads of his own people.
he was an evil tyrant that did want to become an important evil world power, he did invade a country (but not to free it).

sometimes i do wish Bush stuck with Afghanistan..
let the iraqis get rid of thier own murderous absolutist ..Saddam.
if bush just sent 100's of thousands of troops to afghanistan to look for bin laden, i wud be even happier with the administration right now. made more enemies invading Saddams country.

or even just focusing all that time, money and strength on securing the borders of the US, homeland security.

wp stern youve slightly changed my view. :bonce: :upstare:

even tho id like to add, a lot of bad terrorists have been kiled with Operation Iraqi Freedom. which is a major plus.

 

[KoreBolteR]

So if there is no evidance that my friend killed my sister (since she is alive) but if I say he did he should be sent to prison for the rest of his life? Just because there is no proof he did it or there isn't any proof she is even dead he should still fry as it is possible he did it.

I am sounding like an idiot just responding to your dumb posts, I give up.

what are you talking about??! LOL

i was saying if a person is found innocent of a crime.. because there is no evidence of it, doesnt actually mean he wasnt part of the murder!

 

[Absinthe]

so tell me absinthe,

if a guy murdered his wife, and he got away with it, because there was no 'evidence'.. would he be innocent?

this also goes to you NoLimit.

The legal system isn't perfect, but we need it. The alternative is anarchy.

If there's no evidence to convict a person of a crime, then he or she is free to go. The moment you adopt the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality (which you clearly have) is the moment everybody is a suspect and is deserving of pre-emptive executions and jailings based on possibly "maybe's".

---------------------------

How's this for a hypothetical situation:

Mary is accused of being a witch. Despite the fact that there was no evidence to support this claim, she is still stoned to death by the villagers. Was justice served?

---------------------------

Your inability accept any source or any evidence just leads me to believe that you're either very pretentious or very paranoid. Sometimes people need to accept these things in order to simply move forward and make progress. But you're too hung up on hypotheticals and inane what-if scenarios. Bottom line: It's perfectly rational and A-OK to trust the evidence! You don't need to be stagnant in order to maintain an open mind.

 

[Absinthe]

i was saying if a person is found innocent of a crime.. because there is no evidence of it, doesnt actually mean he wasnt part of the murder!

Well, then you might as well arrest every single person you see. After all, just because there's nothing to support your ludicrous accusations against them, doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime!

 

[CptStern]

alright..

but still, Saddam did kill loads of his own people.
he was an evil tyrant that did want to become an important evil world power, he did invade a country (but not to free it).

I dont see how this has anything to do with ties to al qaeda ...dont forget, the US government used this as one of the justifications (WMD being the other justification) to invade and destroy a nation ...every last justification was completely disproved.

sometimes i do wish Bush stuck with Afghanistan..
let the iraqis get rid of thier own murderous absolutist ..Saddam.
if bush just sent 100's of thousands of troops to afghanistan to look for bin laden, i wud be even happier with the administration right now. made more enemies invading Saddams country.

or even just focusing all that time, money and strength on securing the borders of the US, homeland security.

but doesnt that tell you something? afghanistan, bin laden was never that impoertant to the bush admin ..their goal has been the invasion of iraq even before bush took office. How else can you explain that there's only 18,000 soldiers looking for osama yet there's 150,000 soldiers in iraq. What bothers me the most as that americans dont care about seeking justice for those that were killed in 9/11.

here's a transcript from a bush kerry debate ...you decide:

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

wp stern youve slightly changed my view. :bonce: :upstare:

even tho id like to add, a lot of bad terrorists have been kiled with Operation Iraqi Freedom. which is a major plus.

well that's nice, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I'd rather you came to that conclusion yourself by doing the research behind the issues ...but that would mean trusting journalists (to an extent, that's what cross-referencing is for)

 

[KoreBolteR]

Well, then you might as well arrest every single person you see. After all, just because there's nothing to support your ludicrous accusations against them, doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime!

look, i wasnt saying arrest them all...

im saying he would be FREEEEEE, and he should actually be in jail for life.

this is what the situation could be like with the Saddam-Laden links. but its unlikely....

nevertheless im still gonna keep an open mind!

 

[Absinthe]

look, i wasnt saying arrest them all...

im saying he would be FREEEEEE, and he should actually be in jail for life.

But you have nothing to support that.

Tell you what, Kore. If letting the man go FREEEEEEEE because there's no evidence to convict him is the wrong way to handle the situation, then what do you suggest should happen?

this is what the situation could be like with the Saddam-Laden links. but its unlikely....

nevertheless im still gonna keep an open mind!

We need to act on the evidence. "He might have been doing business with Al Qaeda" is not good enough.

 

[KoreBolteR]

but doesnt that tell you something? afghanistan, bin laden was never that impoertant to the bush admin ..their goal has been the invasion of iraq even before bush took office. How else can you explain that there's only 18,000 soldiers looking for saddam yet there's 150,000 soldiers in iraq. What bothers me the most as that americans dont care about seeking justice for those that were killed in 9/11.

do you mean Osama instead of saddam there?

yes i remember seeing faranheit 9/11 when they said there are more police officers in Manhattan (sp?) than Afghanistan.

here's a transcript from a bush kerry debate ...you decide:

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

well of course, i watched that Debate on TV, and i wanted Kerry to win.. so you know what i wudda picked.

i just dont want the this Iraq war going down the same road as Vietnam...

 

[KoreBolteR]

But you have nothing to support that.

Tell you what, Kore. If letting the man go FREEEEEEEE because there's no evidence to convict him is the wrong way to handle the situation, then what do you suggest should happen?

nothing. he would just be one lucky ****er

We need to act on the evidence. "He might have been doing business with Al Qaeda" is not good enough.

but it still could have happened.

 

[CptStern]

but it still could have happened.

you mean like how the US did business with bin ladens family or how the US created al qaeda by giving a bunch of radical crazies weapons and money? I was watching the movie Rambo 3 last week ...I couldnt believe the propaganda bullshit they were pumping out at the time (mid 80's). In the movie they show desperate fighters, women and children who would later become the taliban ..it's funny how with a little bit of spin can change a valiant "freedom fighter" (which is what ronald reagan called the afghani fighter who included Bin Laden) into a terrorist pretty much overnight.

 

[KoreBolteR]

you mean like how the US did business with bin ladens family or how the US created al qaeda by giving a bunch of radical crazies weapons and money? I was watching the movie Rambo 3 last week ...I couldnt believe the propaganda bullshit they were pumping out at the time (mid 80's). In the movie they show desperate fighters, women and children who would later become the taliban ..it's funny how with a little bit of spin can change a valiant "freedom fighter" (which is what ronald reagan called the afghani fighter who included Bin Laden) into a terrorist pretty much overnight.

the US has done some bad things, but its time to look to the future, at the moment there are terrorists killing innocent people in iraq, and the US aims are to stop them.

you can call them Insurgents if you want.

 

[Nofuture]

the US has done some bad things, but its time to look to the future, at the moment there are terrorists killing innocent people in iraq, and the US aims are to stop them.

you can call them Insurgents if you want.

But if US hadn't invaded Iraq, that woudn't happend.

 

[Calanen]

Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel."

So a quarter of 108, is what? 27 And these are the ones that are being investigated? So the 108 figure is the 'spin'. The true figure is 27 - maybe.

 

[CptStern]

how is it a spin? it says what it says ..108 people died while under US "care". How they died is somewhat immaterial cuz they all still turned up dead while in custody ..that in itself says something about conditions in these prisons