ACLU Reveal America’s Torture Techniques
Correction: These reports are not confined to Gitmo. They are general findings on the general treatment of detainees. Most of the reports are focused on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thanks to the ACLU’s demand of Freedom of Information files we now discover the horrible terror techniques of our “evil” military.
Can you belive it? We actually fed these terror suspects bread and water, interrogated them without kid gloves, made them stay awake for long periods of time, and actually made at least one prisoner strip down to their birthday suit! No doubt, we probably even made them listen to loud music, and make dogs bark at them. I’m sure we also flushed quite a few Korans down the toilet in the process.
Evil I tell you!!! Absolute evil!
We would have never discovered such horrible acts if it wasn’t for the ACLU!
The findings were included in more than 1,000 pages of documents the Pentagon released to the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday under a Freedom of Information request.
Free the detainee “victims”, free them now!
There were also unsubstantiated allegations of rape, sodomy, and beatings. At this point, that is exactly what they are….unsubstantiated. The report concludes that the detainees’ treatment…….not illegal
Email This
Posted by Jay on June 16, 2006 10:01 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- Church and State: ACLU Torturing Me!
- Gribbit's Word: ACLU Calls For Investigation of Gitmo Suicides
Comments
37 Responses to “ACLU Reveal America’s Torture Techniques”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The only way that the ACLU will ever declare that the Defense Department has finally gotten to the bottom of this so-called detainee abuse is when the DOD announces that they actually found some. I’m not going to hold my breath.
Anti-Americanism at its worse.
I understand that next week the ACLU is filig a FoIA request with Al Qaeda, under suspicion of detainee abuse by Zarqawi against Nick Berg.
I beleivee that those allegations will be proven false.
So, Gribbit.. does murder count as ‘detainee abuse’?
Do you even recognize that murder is morally wrong?
Kender, I guess your point is that the U.S. government isn’t as bad as al Qaeda. I’d certainly agree with you on that point, but is that really the standard by which you want to be judged?
The US government is better that al Qaeda, because there are at least some in the government who do want to root out and put a stop to the abuse and murder of prisoners. But it often seems that Jay, Kender, and their ilk object to even that.
Of course, if I am incorrect in this assessment, I am certain that Jay or Kender will set the record straight.
Right, guys?
Right?
well meatbrain, I am still trying to figure out which report you took your “homicides” from.
Which Gitmo report was that?
Your ability to miss the point never ceases to amaze me, Kender.
We’re not discussing Gitmo. Even Jay is not discussing Gitmo, because the reports released by the Pentagon yesterday are not about activities at Gitmo. Jay is dead wrong about what those reports were about.
We are discussing autopsy reports from detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know you are deathly afraid of facts that contradict your fantasy world, Kender, and would never dream of actually reading those autopsy reports. They show clearly that prisoners in US custody are being murdered.
I also know that you do not have the moral competence to admit that murdering prisoners is wrong. But please, go ahead and demonstrate your lack of moral understanding for us once again.
Well Meat for Brains, I see that you are using the ACLU, that bastion of speculation, for your sole source of information. Well, I wouldn’t believe what they had to say if they said that night was dark and day was light.
And on a personal note, are you showing up? I don’t think you have the stones to show up. Remember 1800, Public Square… If not you’ll have to wait unitl October 2007 in Nevada… but personally I don’t believe you are brave enough to show up to either.
OH, and just so you know, Jay had me delete your trackback. He doesn’t want any links to you on the front page.
And that gave me another IP to add to the list which bans you from my site… Thanks.
“Well Meat for Brains, I see that you are using the ACLU, that bastion of speculation, for your sole source of information.”
False. My source of information is a collection of autopsy reports released by the DOD. Try another lie, Gribbit. If you’re too gutless to stick to the truth, you’re far too gutless to meet anyone in person.
Iraqi male was shot in a firefight and lived to be transported to a US hospital where he underwent multiple surgeries. Cause of death: gunshot wound of the abdomen; manner of death: Homicide
44 year old Iraqi male; apprehended by US Forces in Kirkuk, Iraq after he fired on coalition forces with rocket propelled grenades and small fire arms on April 10, 2004. Detainee sustained gunshot wounds during the firefight and was transported to the Combat Support Hostipal in Balad for surgery. He was later transported to Abu Ghraib where he died on April 28, 2004. Cause of Death: Multiple gunshot wounds with complications. Manner of Death: Homicide.
Like these meathead?
Yeah….Those are homicides right? And should our troops be punished for doing their jobs?
Every one of these cases were brought upon themselves. YOu hate to admit that life is that tough and unfair, but it is. People fighting against our troops that get apprehended are the lucky ones, and if they truly surrender they get out alive.
All I have to say to you meathead is that those that fight against us must understand that they are going to lose, and people such as yourself that think war is some game where people shouldn’t die make the jobs of our troops much harder.
It is war, people die, better theirs than ours.
Or do you disagree that with the statement “better theirs than ours?”
I’d wager you do.
I’d also wager you’ll come back with some form of “we shouldnt’ fight at all.”
Gribbit, meathead won’t meet you. LIke all lefties he is a coward that can’t stomach battle, and at the first sign of a curled fist he will call the cops and cry like a little bi….whoa…almost forgot where I was…..well you get the point.
Well, I lie huh… not according to your site. That is your source according to the link in your thread where you call Jay a liar. It seems to me that your pappy didn’t teach you right. In my upbringing, if you called someone a liar, you were asking for a broken nose. And I was raised by a single mother. So what’s your excuse? I’ll go out on a limb and say that your excuse is an IQ of 3. In which case, stay nice and safe at home. I’ll go to Cleveland just in case you grow a backbone by 1800. If not, I’ll enjoy the steak and come home.
I’ve told your stupid [edited] before, I don’t lie. And if you were a man, you’d show up and back up your words.
I’ll know who you are from your picture Meat for Brains.
Kender, have you seen the pic of this guy? I got this in an email from someone who knows who he is.
Meat for Brains Picture
“Yeah… Those are homicides right?”
Right. That was the conclusion of the military medical examiner who conducted the autopsies.
“Every one of these cases were brought upon themselves.”
Even in cases where a prisoner was restrained and strangled? Sure, Kender. The prisoner violently threw himself into the arms of a US soldier, and spitefully stopped breathing. Your capacity for willful blindness rivals Jay’s own.
“…if they truly surrender they get out alive.”
Not according to these autopsy reports, Kender. Go argue with the DOD.
Quoting 1 law professor and showing a picture of a poll which was obviously skewed by the swarm 772 hits from trolling moonbats such as yourself might have something to do with is not proof that I’m a liar. You want to prove I’m a liar, show up and defend your words to my face. Because if you don’t, that means that YOU lied by calling me that. I’m willing to stand up for myself and defend my words even if I have to use my fists. Are you? Of course you aren’t because you are a coward. You are yellow. You are so cowardly that you would probably win citizen of the year if you lived in France. Come defend your words and prove me wrong.
What I find so curious is that the ACLU is joining with the terrorists and is so determined to SHUT GITMO down. Where are we going to send them?
I think we should send them to Meathead’s house.
Get that orange jumpsuit ready to climb into, meathead…you might become a movie star shortly, lol…
Watch out Cao…in meatheads warped little mind he’ll take that as a personal threat, even though it isn’t.
What does it matter Kender… He’ll never follow through with it. He throws around the liar moniker without thinking about it and then is afraid to face the person that he called a liar.
People like Meat for Brains need to just die off quickly and stop taking up the oxygen supply. The rest of us need that.
“We would have never discovered such horrible acts if it wasn’t for the ACLU!”
And the freedom of information act, as well as the DOD’s compliance with it. Hooray for being a nation of laws!
“What I find so curious is that the ACLU is joining with the terrorists and is so determined to SHUT GITMO down.”
Let’s examine the gambit Cao is trying here. She’s is insinuating that the ACLU are terrorist sympathizers because they want to shut the detention center at Guantanamo Bay down, a goal she also attributes to terrorists. That’s the well-known logical fallacy known as guilt by association. Unfortunately, it’s entirely too easy in this case to demonstrate just how fallacious Cao’s argument is with a handy counter-example.
This is the formal statement of your argument, Cao:
Terrorists want to shut Gitmo down.
The ACLU wants to shut Gitmo down.
Therefore, the ACLU are terrorist sympathizers.
This is the same argument, with one change. Is it valid, Cao?
Terrorists want to shut Gitmo down.
President Bush wants to shut Gitmo down.
Therefore, President Bush is a terrorist sympathizer.
As for Gribbit’s fixation on physically assaulting me because I provided documented examples of his lies… well, it’s just sad, that’s all. I am certain that his mother is a fine person, but it is clear that she was unsuccessful in instilling in her son any sense of the importance of honesty.
What he clearly fails to comprehend is that even if he should succeed in beating me to a pulp, he cannot change the fact that he lied about the evaluation of the NSA program by legal scholars. He’d still be a liar — he’d simply be a liar who had also committed a crime of violence.
Gribbit has abandoned any attempt to defend his viewpoint in words… and has thus made the tacit admission that he cannot do so.
Meatbrain,
The ACLU is acting in support of terrorist probably at the behest of the United Nations since they agreed to carry out the policies of the UN. It might be coincidences but why does it seem the UN and it’s NGO affiliates are calling for the shutdown of Gitmo. I don’t know the answer but maybe it has something to do with the UN’s tendency of taking bribes or maybe the UN wants to destabilize the US so they can send in Peacekeepers.
“The ACLU is acting in support of terrorist probably at the behest of the United Nations since they agreed to carry out the policies of the UN. It might be coincidences but why does it seem the UN and it’s NGO affiliates are calling for the shutdown of Gitmo.”
You mean, just like President Bush is calling for the shutdown of Gitmo?
Is he doing that “in support of terrorist”?
Meathead, Bush said that in the same spirit as someone that says something along the lines of “Gee, I sure would like to stop shooting the people in the opposing military.” and you know it. Nice job twisting the meaning there, you leftist, cowardly snake.
It wasn’t said as you are claiming it. You are such a di….NM, you know wwhat I think of you….
“Bush said that in the same spirit…”
Let’s leave your fantasies of being able to read minds out of this, Kender, and stick to the facts.
Bush said he would like to close Gitmo — which is exactly what the ACLU and the UN are being accused of wanting. However, the statement seems to have one connotation when Bush says it, and another when someone else says it. No one on your side of the spectrum seems interested in bludgeoning Bush’s because of his expressed wish. Let someone you don’t like say the exact same thing, though, and suddenly it’s part of a dastardly UN plot to “destabilize the US so they can send in Peacekeepers”.
Can anyone provide a concise, rational explanation of why you assign two different meanings to the same concept, based solely on who expresses that concept aloud?
“It wasn’t said as you are claiming it.”
Explain, please. How exactly did I “claim” it was said by President Bush?
but for the fact that some of the terror suspects held there were too “darned dangerous” to release.
That, you moronic twit, is the continuation of Bush’s quote.
Any cretin save your stupid [edited] can see that Bush’s remark was one showing he harbors the regret that he cannot close Gitmo because it harbors people that are too dangerous to release.
You constantly twist the facts to fit your wishes, and I agree with Gribbit…..you need a good [edited]kicking.
“Any cretin save your stupid [edited] can see that Bush’s remark was one showing he harbors the regret that he cannot close Gitmo because it harbors people that are too dangerous to release.”
Perhaps he does regret not being able to close Gitmo. Unlike you, Kender, I do not pretend to possess telepathic abilities.
It is so far undisputed that Bush does want to close Gitmo. This is the same want that the ACLU and the UN are being excoriated for in this comment thread.
You tell me that Bush wants to close Gitmo. And you tell me that the ACLU and the UN want to close Gitmo. I still see no explanation for the difference in how those two are interpreted. You haven’t even made an attempt at an explanation.
And you’ve left yet another question unanswered: How exactly did I “claim” this was said by President Bush, Kender?
“You constantly twist the facts…”
Provide specifics, please. Exactly what facts have been “twisted” in this instance? You will be required to provide verifiable evidence to back up your answer (if any), of course.
Meathead, bush said:
“I’d like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognise that we’re holding some people that are darned dangerous, and that we’d better have a plan to deal with them in our courts.”
Just like he’d like to bring our troops home, he’d like to end poverty and he’d like to bring about world peace.
Anybody in their right mind would like to do these things, but saying you’d like to do something is far different than demanding the closure of Gitmo, which is what the ACLU and the UN are doing.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between “I’d like to do A” and “A must be done!” speaks volumes of your complete lack of grasping the fine points of modern english.
BTW, you can’t require me to do anything, bubba.
“…saying you’d like to do something is far different than demanding the closure of Gitmo, which is what the ACLU and the UN are doing.”
I see. You are now hanging your argument on the exact way in which the desire to close Gitmo is expressed. Let’s pursue that.
Exactly what has the ACLU said about the closure of Gitmo, and exactly what is it that the manner in which their statement was made is supposed to prove about the organization?
And you’re continuing to evade a simple question, occasioned by yet another of your hasty accusations. Exactly what facts have I “twisted” in this instance?
“BTW, you can’t require me to do anything, bubba.”
You are correct in this regard. I shall rephrase:
If you wish to be believed, you will be required to provide verifiable evidence to back up your answer.
I don’t care if you believe me or not meathead…..everyone else seems to be able to understand the difference between Bush’s remarks and the ACLU and UN demands.
Neither the ACLU nor the UN said anything close to “We would like to have Gitmo closed but it is full of dangerous people.”
Their calls run along the lines of most lefty whining, which is “CLOSE GITMO, RELEASE THE INNOCENT MUSLIMS!”
BTW meathead, thanks for the dollar. Everytime you hammer on this same stupid point, refusing to grasp reality, I get a dollar.
GIMME MY DOLLAR!!!!!
Exactly what has the ACLU said about the closure of Gitmo, and exactly what is it that the manner in which their statement was made is supposed to prove about the organization?
Exactly what facts have I “twisted” in this instance?
Exactly what does your continued evasion of these questions tell us about the basis of your argument?
Thanks Meat, another dollar.A better question would be (for a shorter answer) “What haven’t you twisted?”
For those not familiar with Kender’s gambit, let me put it bluntly: He’s afraid.
I’ve asked him questions he cannot answer, and his ‘gimme a dollar’ routine is a litle fairy tale he concocted to run away from the questions without leaving the discussion. Poor thing, he simply does not realize how obvious his fear of answering straightforward questions has become.
Exactly what has the ACLU said about the closure of Gitmo, and exactly what is it that the manner in which their statement was made is supposed to prove about the organization?
Exactly what facts have I “twisted” in this instance?
Run away again, little coward.
Meathead, you are twisting what Bush said to seem like he is calling for Gitmo to be closed. Anyone that reads his entire quote can plainly see that while he may wish to close Gitmo, he realizes that it cannot be done right now.
And I am not gonna go digging through archives for an ACLU quote about closing Gitmo. BUt just for fun here is one of their guys stating Bush should close it down and have trials for the mooj’s in there;
“”The president does not need the Supreme Court’s authorization to close down Guantánamo or to give the detainees held there a fair trial,” Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “President Bush has had four years to do so. He should act immediately and stop making excuses for continuing to violate the Constitution by holding hundreds of men without charges.”
Thanks for the dollar, richard.
“Meathead, you are twisting what Bush said to seem like he is calling for Gitmo to be closed.”
I reported what he said — nothing more. What, exactly, was “twisted”? How, exactly, did I “twist” Bush’s statement?
“And I am not gonna go digging through archives for an ACLU quote about closing Gitmo.”
Say what you really mean: You cannot answer the question.
“BUt just for fun here is one of their guys stating Bush should close it down and have trials for the mooj’s in there;
“”The president does not need the Supreme Court’s authorization to close down Guantánamo or to give the detainees held there a fair trial,” Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “President Bush has had four years to do so. He should act immediately and stop making excuses for continuing to violate the Constitution by holding hundreds of men without charges.”"
In that passage, Shapiro does not say that Bush “should close [Gitmo] down”. He points out — correctly — that Bush does not need Supreme Court authorization to close the detention center.
Thanks for the lie, Kender. And for proving again that you are afraid of my questions. Here’s another chance to do so:
Exactly what has the ACLU said about the closure of Gitmo, and exactly what is it that the manner in which their statement was made is supposed to prove about the organization?
Exactly what facts have I “twisted” in this instance?