Did you feel violated? Did you feel like your "human dignity" had been violated? Did you feel as small as you really are? Did you lose your self-esteem -or only your big mouthed braggadocio? Would you like to repeat the experience?Remember, George, this is not a "no child left behind" program; there are no right or wrong answers and you will not be coached to "test". You can be honest -for a change.
Seriously -had this nation chosen to lead the world instead of bullying it, GWB would not be standing up -belligerently, arrogantly, desperately -in front of the American people admitting to the world that he does not understand the meaning of the phrase: outrage against human dignity.
This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, and that Common Article 3 says that, you know, there will be no outrages upon human dignity.I submit that those who perpetrate outrages to human dignity are those who don't know what it is, i.e. "evil doers" who lack human empathy. There is a short of list of such people: Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Torquemada, Richard Topcliffe, Mao, Mussolini et al.
That's like - it's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I am proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's - and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.
-George W. Bush, quoted in the New York Times
The matter is open to interpretation only among those -primarily the GOP -who have schemed from the git go to exempt the US from war crimes prosecutions long before the so-called war began. A bill entitled To protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party was introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001, on May 8, 2001. It passed the House 282-137 on May 10 and introduced as S. 857 in the Senate on May 9 by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Zell Miller (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Frank Murkowski (R-AK).
The bill authorized the President "...to use all means (including the provision of legal assistance) necessary to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court [International Criminal Court, ICC, in the Hague]. That means that Bush could attack the Hague to effect a rescue of US war criminals on trial there.
So -Bush's attempt to undermine the ICC while subverting the meat and potatoes of the Geneva Convention was and remains pre-meditated. Bush had been planning to commit war crimes and atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere even before 911. Else -why would Tom DeLay and the above named Republicans have "conspired" to introduce this enabling act before the US congress?
Elsewhere it is learned that the authorization for torture came from Bush himself.
Among a new batch of documents rights groups have forced the gov't to release, a Bureau communication refers to a presidential Executive Order endorsing some forms of torture witnessed at Iraq prison. ...The email, which was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, represents the first hard evidence directly connecting the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and the White House. The author of the email, whose name is blanked out but whose title is described as "On Scene Commander -- Baghdad," contains ten explicit mentions of an "Executive Order" that the author said mandated US military personnel to engage in extraordinary interrogation tactics.Clearly -Bush either understands what "outrages to human dignity" are and chooses deliberately to perpetrate them; or, indeed, he is utterly lacking human empathy and truly does not know what every other human being on earth knows. If Bush "unnerstans" human dignity but orders torture deliberately -knowing it to be unlawful even under US Codes -then his recent hysteria is understandable. Bush is culpable and vulnerable to war crimes prosecutions. [See US Codes; Title 18 § 2441. War crimes]
Here are some "human dignity" lessons for the occupant of our increasingly corporate White House:
- Human dignity means not being electrocuted.
- Human dignity means not being photographed in a dress while being electrocuted
- Human dignity means not having a night stick -or worse -shoved up your rectum by a perverted Halliburton contractor who thinks he's above the law
- Human dignity means not being photographed naked in a pile of naked bodies while rolling in excrement.
- Human dignity means not being posed in homosexual positions and photographed by perverted Pentagon personnel and/or defense "contractors" from Halliburton or elsewhere.
- Human dignity means not being water boarded until willing to confess to anything whether true or not
- Human dignity means not having your privates played with by US soldiers who think its funny or get a perverted thrill out of it
- Human dignity means not having US troops and/or Halliburton paid killers knock down your door and murder you and your family [Marines hid evidence of Haditha massacre]
- Human dignity means not having your head blown off in Shock and Awe whether you liked Saddam or not
- Human dignity means forcing war criminals out of your country.
- Human dignity means not having done to you what the Washington Post reports were done to hundreds, thousands of Bush's victims.
Bush has repeatedly stated that US torture policies are within the law. I say they are not! Acts perpetrated by the George W. Bush administration upon his policy and direction violated US Codes; Title 18 § 2441. War crimes, our Constitution, our treaty obligations, and, of course, the common values of our Western Civilization i.e., the very values that Bush claims he is defending. In fact, he subverts them; in this, he has been much more successful than "terrorists" which he claims "...just hate freedom".
Torture, moreover, is ineffective, repugnant, an abominable evidence of savergy and barbarism. Civilized nations do not torture. Legitimate administrations do not torture. Intelligence gathered by torture is notoriously inaccurate and misleading. Bush's cruelest lie: that the US is involved in a great war on terrorism. It's a fraud and Bush's own words betray him. Colin Powell, who helped lie this nation into aggressive war, may be trying to atone for his sins.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism!