BBC: Torture Continues at Bagram, Afghanistan (Under Bush's 3rd Term) ...
 

Its clear to me that Pres. Obama is just another Republican with regards to foreign policy. Same policy towards Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Plus, he talks like a NeoCon. He has no right to play God with these peoples lives for his militaristic vision of the Middle East. His whole cabinet should be fired. Hillary is just a figurehead, her leadership qualities are manufactured by the media, she has no diplomatic skills. Panetta is a yes man, with no ideas about changing anything. Gates a NeoCon hold over, and was probably kept for a smoother transition, or because of the President's incredible lack of guts to turn back NeoCon agendas. These people do not constitute
"Change We Can Believe In."

Liberals, we've been had.


Amnesty 'shocked' by Bagram claims

"A BBC investigation has uncovered allegations that prisoners were abused and humiliated at the US-run Bagram military base in Afghanistan.

American officials have denied the claims and insist that all prisoners are treated humanely.

Neil Durkin from Amnesty International said the organisation had been refused access to Bagram in the past. "


news video clips:

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Amnesty 'shocked' by Bagram claims


More mainstream news articles RE: torture under Obama

Ongoing Torture | AfterDowningStreet.org

Awe, did someones questions make someone uncomfortable?

Did someone sneeze on a Koran?

I agree, lets toss BHO and put McCain in there. might as well have this does the RIGHT way !

I personally think all the media are government run fronts
Pacifica Radio, or Air America Radio, NBC, or CNN, you name it.

America is a dictatorship run by fascist elements, and fake elections held
for the sake of appearances.

Liberals, we've been had.

That makes me smile.

It makes me smile because it's funny. Prior to the election, libs were singing the Golden Boy's praises. He would save us all. He was going to right the perceived wrongs of eight years of the Bush administration. It didn't matter what conservatives said. Warnings fell on deaf ears; the enlightened libs simply knew better.

And he's made you all look like fools...

Some links you give here.
Both Israeli, both supporting a government under scrutiny from AI.

Might as well ask a criminal his opinion about cops.

Careful, you´re promoting NeoCon agenda here.

There is no objective reason why anyone should believe denials by the American government regarding inhumane treatment of prisoners. The unwillingness to allow AI to have access, while not definitively demonstrating American guilt, certainly does not bolster the crediblilty (if any) of any such denials.

If the claim regarding defying the order of a judge is true, then someone is trying to hide something.

has the Red Cross (and/or Crescent) been denied ?
has AI ever been permitted ?

Yeah, the right way. Isn't McCain the one who claimed that he knew where OSB was during the election and had a plan to go about getting him?

Isn't he the guy who stated 'We're all Georgians now' and wanted to get militarily involved in the conflict between Georgia and Russia?

I don't think McCain would recognize a 'right' way if it came up and bit him on the ass.

Non sequitur.

1. Clearly you too are now a racist.

2. Welcome to the party... "Obama" never existed... only manufactured, to be (and say) anything that you the voted wanted him to be.

3. Change it to read: America we've been had! and you are spot on.

not really. we have very long standing agreements with the Red Cross for this sort of thing.

It doesn't follow from what I was saying though.

Let's say I accept your premise that Red Cross and Crescent organizations have had access and that AI never had access (which could well be the case). It still wouldn't follow that denials of inhumane treatment of prisoners by the American government should be believed. Further, if there is no inhumane treatment and one wishes to dispel any doubts on that point, then one should grant access to whoever has the doubts so as to dispel said doubts.

I was responding to this, prolly should have bolded it, sorry

The unwillingness to allow AI to have access
AI seeks this not to dispel anything but rather to boost fundraising. They could tlak with the Red Cross if they wished to gain knowledge.

The dispelling comment was referring to the United States not Amnesty International.

Let's put aside the question of their motives for the moment. The point is whether or not inhumane treatment is occuring and if so to demonstrate the fact one way or the other. If someone who is intent on finding something wrong has full access and can find nothing wrong, then that is exoneration.

If on the other hand they are allowed access and find something (inhumane treatment) the other organizations did not find, then that calls the original process into question with regard to the inhumane treatment issue.

Well, we've been down this road repeatedly and in heavy rotation over the last 7 years. The Red Cross has validated every time. Moreover there is no reason to call their work into question. There IS reason to call AI into question.

AI is not the issue. Whether or not the United States is engaging in inhumane treatment at Bagram and is lying about it is the issue.

If there is nothing to hide from an Amnesty International inspection of Bagram, then there is nothing to be afraid of from Amnesty International inspection of Bagram.

Actually AI is an issue.

AI may be an "issue" to you for some ideological reason(s). But they are not the issue here. Trying to make them the issue here is red herring.