Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children!!!!

[The Chameleon]

[color:red]Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children

The "horror of the shrieking boys" gets a rubber stamp from the boot-licking U.S. Congress & Senate as America officially becomes a dictatorship

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 29 2006

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate last night gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror.

There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

We have established that the bill allows the President to define American citizens as enemy combatants. Now let's take it one step further.

Before this article is dismissed as another extremist hyperbolic rant, please take a few minutes out of your day to check for yourself the claim that Bush now has not only the legal authority but the active blessings of his own advisors to torture American children.

The backdrop of the Bush administration's push to obliterate the Geneva Conventions was encapsulated b y John “torture†Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.

During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Click here for the audio.

So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL) , has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror.

Yoo's comments were made before the passage of the torture legislation last night. Up until that point Bush had merely cited his role as dictator-in-chief as carte-blanche excuse for ordering torture - now his regime have the audacity to openly put it in writing - going one step further than even the Nazis did.

Again, for those who are still deluded into thinking the extent of the "pressure" is loud music and cold water being thrown over Johnny Jihad in Ragheadistan, consider for a moment the fact that your own Congress and President who, according to the Constitution, are mandated to serve you, have just legalized abducting your kids from your home and electric shocking their genitals.

Now that the criminals have declared themselves outside of the law does that mean we'll see Bush barbecuing babies on the White House lawn? Of course not, but the policy of torturing children in front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and enacted under the Copper Green program and it happened at Abu Ghraib .

Women who were arrested with their children were forced to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys" and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children raped and tortured.

Your government has just lobbied for and Congress has passed legislation to discard the Geneva Conventions and mandate all this.

Pedophiles nationwide should rejoice - they can comfortably take a stroll down to the local swimming pool, grab whoever they like, drag them home, rape and torture them, and then in their defense cite the U.S. government as an example of how one should conduct themselves.

The bill also retroactively gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes charges dating back to September 11 . Ask yourself why they would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes.

Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing war crimes?

The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It was once a law that black people were slaves.

Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning America to its past glory.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_bush_given_authority_sexually_torture_us_kids.htm

Edited October 19, 2006 by Guest

[ollie]

That's some helluva spin on the article title.

[Birdy]

haha no shit! gotta love the media.

[The Chameleon]

True, there is a fair bit of "spin" happening in this article, but the kernel of truth is the fact that Bush could do pretty much anything to Americans if he deems them "combatants", regardless if they are or not and regardless if they ever left American soil. Not that's scary.

Also for the amount of "spin" the republicans thrive on to manipulate people, I think some "spin" the other way is almost essential to balance the scale.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Guest

[AD]

comabtants

Exactly how Bush would say it too.

[The Chameleon]

comabtants

Exactly how Bush would say it too.

Hahhahaa...so true. When is Bouche gonna get a spellcheck running on this borad already!

[ollie]

Also for the amount of "spin" the republicans thrive on to manipulate people, I think some "spin" the other way is almost essential to balance the scale.

I don't think spin is ever a good idea. Just give me the facts please. Sensational titles like this turn me off and make me tune out the message.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I truly believe this.

[Birdy]

YAY OLLIE!

most media sources are nothing but tabloids these days... makes it difficult to get to the truth as you have to weed out all of the bullshit on your way there.

i'm so skeptical of almost everything i read... even the slightest bit of sensationalism in an article throws me instantaneously off of whoever wrote it and images of blabbermouth michael moore come into my head.

what's worse for me is watching people eat this stuff up, like it is the truth. and a lot of people do.

[The Chameleon]

Also for the amount of "spin" the republicans thrive on to manipulate people' date=' I think some "spin" the other way is almost essential to balance the scale.[/quote']

I don't think spin is ever a good idea. Just give me the facts please. Sensational titles like this turn me off and make me tune out the message.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I truly believe this.

Perhaps, but there are certainly "no hold barred when it comes to the Republican dictatorship"

Also while the title is sensational, it does reflect the fact that Bush does technically now have the power to sexually torture Amercian children if he so chooses. It doesn't say he will, but he could given, his torching of the Geneva convention.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I dunno. The accent on kids could mean... well, probably nothing, in any bigger context than this thread, but the fact that someone could be nominally Muslim and catch shit for it, well, that's trouble.

This against the backdrop of the guy who turned over Meher Arar getting a promotion.

[Biggest Fan]

No doubt, all the CRAZY B.S. that is written about GWB is well deserved (as one of the most dangerous people in the world). ** How about this for a little 'Devils Advocate'... Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were taken 'out of the closet' by OLD GWB. i.e. they were preexisting mess's, that we now know about. Not that GWB did this intentionally but it resulted in his f@cked up actions.

Not a bad theory???

[Booche]

i'm so skeptical of almost everything i read...

Unless it has to do with the Liberal scandal, of course.

D'OH! That wasnt very fair of me!

[Birdy]

WHATEVER!

there was a commission... a COMMISSION!!

[The Chameleon]

I think this is as close as bush ever got to a black child in his life. Let alone a black person*. He probabaly took a shower right after.

I bet he's sleep better knowing he could torture them if the step outta line.

*And Condeleeza Rice isn't black anymore she's beige after she sarted wroking for Bush. I bet she can't even dance anymore. Hahaha

Edited October 20, 2006 by Guest

[djmelbatoast]

You can say alot about Bush, but I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't like black people. I read somewhere that long before he was in politics Julio Franco was an usher at his wedding. I think it is more fair to say he doesn't like poor people and doesn't care about anyone who can't help him politically.

[The Chameleon]

You can say alot about Bush, but I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't like black people. I read somewhere that long before he was in politics Julio Franco was an usher at his wedding. I think it is more fair to say he doesn't like poor people and doesn't care about anyone who can't help him politically.

I think Bush uses black people for credibility and decoration.

And yes he does hate the poor.

[Birdy]

lol.. this thread was ridiculous, now it's absurd.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I think it's fair to say Bush uses people - I don't expect he loses too much sleep over all the body bags flown back to the US - and of course he uses people as photo-op decoration (how many politicians don't, positively or negatively?), but I don't think he would take a negative stance against blacks per se, unless of course they were poor.

Even if he had racist tendencies, his naive evangelicalism would probably squash them (one of the few commendable offshoots of the faith, in its less fundamentalistic expressions).

[The Chameleon]

lol.. this thread was ridiculous, now it's absurd.

I know that is exactly the piont.

[Birdy]

uh.. chameleon, i like you cuz you're a tigers fan and all, but i think our reasoning might be a little different!!

haha.