What IS the rationale for making it likely US Troops will be tortured?

[patrice]

I have not heard the response to this criticism of Bush's torture bill. I really want to know what they are saying about this.

What? They're Troops and signed up to risk their lives anyway?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Bush hates everyone

included his own soldiers?

[patrice]

2. I know that, but there must be some rhetoric Rove has developed

for responding to this criticism. What is it?

[stillcool]

3. war crimes...

they've got to get the law sorted out, so they can continue to do whatever the fuck they please.

[helderheid]

10. if they don't do this, they know they're going to the Hauge.

[havocmom]

4. The more troops die, the less the GOP will have to spend on V.A.

And the madder the masses will get, which will help get enlistments up, which takes the pressure off the employment deficit, which makes people doubt that things are going as well as the GOP keeps telling them, which puts the GOP at risk of losing their positions of power, which means they wouldn't be able to torture people.

Simple answer: they are fucking sadists and want other sadists to work for them and keep everybody in line.

[jedr]

5. read a post here a few days ago that asked;

"Why do we need to torture"....It's the simple truth. I assure you that given a 12V battery and two wires with clips that I can get Tony Snow to confess to planing 9-11 and give me 5 of his Friends that helped him. Torture is very unreliable information. Why must we use ham handed brawn instead of our brains go gather information?:nuke:

[Dhalgren]

6. The world is in the early stages of a global reign of terror by the

United States. We are going to "disappear" people, maintain and fill secret prisons, torture and murder anyone and everyone we choose, invade and bomb any country we like, takeover all natural resources in any and every country we see fit. and dictate to the rest of the world what they will and will not do. Anyone who doesn't like it, will wake up dead or in the camps or both...Next question...

[lonestarnot]

9. LOL wake up dead....LOL

:rofl:

[patrice]

14. Dhalgren . . .

I read Delaney's book by that title, what . . . 20 years ago? My kids were little and they're over 30 now.

I remember it containing quite a few rather original aphorisms, though I can't remember what exactly it's point was now. Time to re-read it.

[Dhalgren]

19. Good luck! I've read the damn thing four times and I haven't a

clue what it is about. But I do love reading it...

[lonestarnot]

7. Fire up the retribution, more backing for his insanity to kill, kill, kill

only his people won't see that he's the fucker who instigated it.

[COSPRINGS]

8. rational?

When has bush had that?

[patrice]

11. They have to have something to say that "makes sense" in response

to the likelihood that BECAUSE we torture prisoners, our soldiers, if/when taken prisoner or kidnapped, WILL be tortured too.

I'm just having trouble imagining the counter-argument to this and I'm usually pretty good at figuring out counter-arguments.

[stillcool]

13. the line is...that they've disrupted many, many, many

plans and plots to kill americans using the tried and true torture method...it's keeping us safe from our democracy.

[patrice]

18. and that "justifies" any torture that our Troops experience as a result

of our torture policies.

So it's the "greater good" argument again.

You know, I think it might be possible to actually make "the greater good" argument valid, BUT it has some serious flaws. I was thinking about these recently in response to another post I saw on this board. My response to "the greater good" here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/patrice

[madrchsod]

12. simple--remember fallujah?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
Fallujah

bush is hoping that someone does decide to torture and mutilate an american service man or woman so he can ratchet up the outrage of the american people. this would give the president the perfect situation to widen the war on terror to iran or any other country he decides he doesn`t like.

[patrice]

15. I think tactical nukes are considered an acceptable option.

There will be a situation that makes them "necessary".

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Dubya may share a sentiment often attributed to Henry Kissinger

on the sayso of General Al ("I'm in charge here, at the WH") Haig:

From http://www.truthusa.org/quotes/H-L.htm :

'Henry Kissinger

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." (Quoted by Monika Jensen-Stevenson, Kiss the Boys Goodbye)

"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."'

[Danger Mouse]

17. It's quite simple.

Bush, and people like him (which emcompasses the neocons, and those slime that still fervently support him for reasons other than total ignorance, some of whom I know personally), care nothing for the troops. They will do lip service to them, they will wave 'support our troops' in your face to make you look stupid. They will claim that you hate those that serve. They will demand that you respectthe troops.
Yet this is all a lie. They don't respect or support the troops themselves. However, if they came out and said the truth, noone would WANT to be a soldier.
They don't care about the troops at all. They're just meat for the grinder, basically. Bodies to fill body bags. That's all fresh future corpses. Killed, mangled, it doesn't matter for Bush and his ilk, as long as they can continue to perform their function as a wall of bodies to stem the tide of the enemy.
They care nothing, and I do mean NOTHING whether or not soldiers will be at increased risk of torture because of our violations of the Geneva Convention. In fact, they might even like the idea...after all, if a soldier is tortured, it only adds more fuel to the fire of our moral superiority. They tortured one of our troops! Let's get em boys!
What a bitter irony. Americans will become enraged at torture carried out by the enemy in reaction to the torture carried out by our governement...