Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy by Ghoulman

(crickets chirp conspiratorially in the evening gloom...)

Wow, Ghoulman, not a single reply all day! What's up with that?

Very, very interesting read. Kinda puts the whole thing in perspective. I guess their big mistake was puting those MP's in charge. The Nazi's, as you will recall, knew that you must never employ torturers who enjoy their work. Sadists start doing stuff to please themselves, when they need to adhere strictly to orders. Best if they kinda hate their jobs because then they'll only do as much as you tell them, for "the greater good of their country," of course.

I'm not at all saying that the MP's were naturally sadistic, only that the conditions of war and the general rage of the American people after 9/11 predisposed them to feeling a certain satisfaction at sticking it to the "evil doers." The government gave them orders to let their darksides come out and play and that's exactly what they did. And now they're the ones taking the fall.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:42 PM

Well, fuck. If this "deep-throat" guy in the CIA is going to be able to prove what he/she said. Then Rummie is going to need a pretty freakin' big ass-sweater to cover this little embarassing *bee-hind*.

http://www.thetoque.com/040518/ass_sweater.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ghoulman,

Thanks for the link. There's a lot of detail in the article.

I agree, the basic task is to free one's mind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:25 PM

RUXTON

Good stuff, Ghoulie. Much obliged. I saw Hersch on Charlie Rose yester, and was about to post this link. You beat me to it.

For those who are interested, there are links to download Gonzales' memo to Bush, dated Jan 2002, discussing the abandonment of the Geneva Convention.

.......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:56 PM

CALHOUN

Now, remember you only have to scare them.

Pain is scary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:56 AM

I like smackin' 'em!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think we've been operating under the mistaken idea that the Bush administration thinks deeply and worries greatly about the fate of the average American.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... (gasp!).....HAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!

OH, uh, excuse me. I didn't mean to break out into hysterical but bitter laughter just then!

Thanks for the link. I knew it all along, and it still burns my butt.

I'm going to add something really cynical. For about the past year, I've been wondering about Bush Jr's relationships with the CIA, armed forces, and State Department. If you go back to one of my previous posts, you'll see that I did mention how Bush has left the armed services terribly unsupported in Iraq in favor of contractors, blamed the CIA for "bad intelligence" on Iraq and outed Valerie Plame, ignored State Department recommendations and got Colin Powell (a previously well-respected General and originator of the Powell doctrine- see below) to be a shill for Cheney at the UN.

Aside from political appointees who are within *ss-kissing distance of the President, I would imagine that there are a lot very sharp knives surrounding Bush. And, as I predicted at work (too bad I cna't corroborate that here) there is going to be a drip drip drip of leaked news from now to the election. Hubby and I were talking about that a year ago. We figured that the only reason why it wasn't coming out was because it wasn't close enough to election.

Powell Doctrine:
After the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the Powell Doctrine, although there is not an actual formal document named as such. Powell, currently the U.S. secretary of state, has recently invoked the Doctrine in articulating the justifications for the Bush administration's preparations for war in Iraq. Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_sh
ort.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:08 AM

^^^ nice post. Can't think you're off the mark, nicely put. And yea, something in me wonders if Wolfowitz is laughing at Powell with the whole preemptive strike policy Wolfie created and the White House adopted.

... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*

. Know why? Because when you stand up to lieing Brownshirt bullies and call them on thier bullshit they shrink away like the cowards they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:27 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

First off, I'd like to say that it is no secret that alot of media bigwigs can't stand Bush. They didn't like it when he won (extremely close vote, but still legal folks), and they really don't like him now that they have a chance to get rid of him during the next election. They have stretched, bent, and made-up the "truth" about this administration in an all-out (seemingly) effort to oust him. Nope, they don't like him a bit.

Now, having said that...

This bit about all the interrogation and 3rd degree stuff put in the New Yorker is downright chilling. It implies (heck, STATES) alot of very, very immoral people in the govt. are now in charge of making some very, very BIG decisions. I told my father a few days after the 9/11 attacks that someone would use this as an excuse to step on some basic human rights. Let's do a quick review of the last few years pogroms, I mean programs

, set into motion. This is not comprehensive, but should be enough to tickle a few brain cells.

Homeland Security: If the formation of this didn't set you in mind of the "Ministry of Peace," then you haven't read George Orwell's "1984." Do so ASAP, the turn on the news. Experience deep chilling sensation running down spine, while realizing that you really DON'T KNOW what these guys are REALLY about. Any group that gets worried about people exercising their constitutional rights is a group that really needs a watching. I own firearms. Their ownership is a right provided by the Constitution. That right is a final check provided by the founding fathers to help prevent an oppressive government from forming. Since a government wishing to enforce its will upon its people doesn't want the populace to have the ability to resist, the removal of their arms becomes paramount. Tho others can say that civilian arms matter little to modern weaponry, NO military wants to fight a popular resistance: where enemies are difficult to spot, and have unequalled knowledge of the terrain. Many words have been spoken about removing, or reducing, such rights.

Uber security at airports: This is little more than airline companies wanting to make you feel good so you will give them cash and not take the train. The measures taken, tho effective, seem extreme, given that the threat of terrorism hasn't changed from BEFORE 9/11. Yeah, these guys smashed planes into the towers and, yeah, we need to make sure it never happens again. But are these the correct methods of prevention? A change in policy seems necessary, and a change in procedure, to be sure. But everything that has been done just makes me feel abit...off. I don't have anything more concrete than that. The super paranoid part of me (the bit that really gets into Shadowrun games and conspiricy-theories-as-a-wacky-and-fun-topic discussions) says this is an attempt to control how citizens move about. The rest of me laughs at it and calls it crazy, then looks around hurridly for evidence that it is wrong. Heck, its starting to scare me. That paranoid bit is pointing to gas prices (which may have been exacerbated by actions of the current admin), and goin "uh-huh! That, too!" Thats just corporate greed taken too far, I hope.

The whole interrogation scandal: Alrighty, I'm not convinced that the higher ups ordered it. But I concede that it is highly possible that they not only knew about it, but condoned it. As I said earlier, the press involved may have blown it out of proportion (it could be just the one place), but if there ARE other places that performed these acts, and were sanctioned, then we have a large, ugly problem.

I feel like I have just been too paranoid about all this, but at the same time...

Any more information about all this?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The pattern at Abu Ghraib is that SOME detainees were humiliated, stressed, and tortured but not all. The same thing happened in Afghanistan, and Gitmo. It also happened to non-citizen detainees within the USA....

Because the practice seems to have been selective, you won't find massive groups of released prisoners claiming abuse. Many in fact will say that they were treated very well. The fact that this seems to apply to only a small group of prisoners shouldn't lull us inot thinking that it didn't happen at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:47 AM

CAPNRAHN

All part of a bigger, uglier powe play picture ... I say this as a Desert Storm AF Veteran. Think back to the Jerry Spinger'esque red-herring that was used to divert American's attention prior to the election of the Idiot Princ ... er George W. and wonder - why did the goverment spend SO much money on exposing a "hummer"?

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here is a link to a leaked memo from Alberto Gonzales to the President, advocating suspension of the Geneva conventions to prisoners in Afghanistan and Gitmo. This decision was made by the DOJ (thank you Ashcroft) and objected to by Colin Powell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

A Newsweek analysis says the following:

"The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote."

Link to entire article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just as an aside, some days I could bang my head into a brick wall - it would feel so much better than thinking about the Administration.

As far as they're concerned, we're ants - or less than that. But they know what to say, and how and when to say it; the supine media parrots it, and half of the US eats it up. At the moment, Bush's approval rating is 52%.

I can't confirm it on the board, but the people who know me know that I was calling Bush a sociopath during the campaign. How do you tell a sociopath? Not by how they SEEM - they spend their entire lives manipulating people, and they're very, very skillful. You tell it by what they DO when they think no one will know, or when they think they can get away with it.

As Governor, Bush mocked a Texas woman about to be executed, whose death warrant he had signed: "Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps ...'I didn't meet with Larry King either ... I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'"

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx

I don't think the media is against Bush in any way. They're businessmen and their main interest is to sell ad time. And they do THAT by putting on shows (including news) that people want to see, with minimum hassle. When the Administration said don't air any bin Laden tapes, the media said 'Yes SIR!' The verbal stumbling gets edited out. (To see what it's really like, you have to watch the BBC, ITN or other int'l news.) When the admin said the daily American death toll reports were a real downer, they disappeared off the news. For months all you hear was 'attacks are down'.

In fact, the death rate never went down, not after "Mission Accomplished!" or 'Saddam Found'; not after the military adopted the policy of bunkering itself behind sandbags and walls. In fact, the death rate has gone up. see:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1322.shtml

So here we are, being lied to, used, and stolen from, and half the US thinks it's just great.

Somebody, tell me something that makes this OK.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry, I can't.

But I agree with you on the sociopath thing, tho. It suddenly makes Bush's actions more explainable. And that smirk.... grrrrrr.

BTW- have you noticed how QUIET it is in here????

HELLO! ...HELLO...Hello... hello...
ANYBODY HERE? ...HERE...Here...here...

Nope, guess we got the thread all to our lonesome!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:29 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

You're not helping my paranoia any. Actually, you're helping it TOO much. Ooog, I need a warm fuzzy, cause the world seems a bit too abrasive right now.

But then again, I knew something was coming down the pike ever since the towers. Seems whoever set this all up (Bin Laden, his flunky, Aunt Betty, whomever) knew EXACTLY how we (Americans) would react. Here's to hoping we are proven wrong.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry, I thought I was all alone in my paranoia! Oh well, let's be paranoid together.

But whatever you do PLEASE don't start talking about the sky blue (UN) or black (USA) helicopters.... even if they really do exist!

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 7:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I just had time to throw in that quip but I wanted to make a serious comment.

Don't feel TOO paranoid. The popular reaction to war or the threat of war- in modern Western countries anyway- has always been to rally round the flag. Bismarck united northern and southern Germany by successfully warring on France, Denmark, and his erstwhile partner Austria. Thatcher used the Falklands war to boost her sagging ratings. Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was coming but decided that we needed a direct attack in order to get popular opinion over the hump and into WWII. Which is kind of interesting because the Project for a New American Century (incl Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle) was sort of wishing for a Pearl Harbor, so maybe the parallels go deeper than we imagine... But, in any case, the reaction to 9/11 was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I think, tho, that USA citizens do have some extra peculiarities thrown in that make us - on the average- a little quicker on the trigger. The first is that we know next to nothing about the rest of the world, which makes us more frightened than necessary.

The second thing is that because we are such firm believers in equality, we tend not to examine power and its uses. We don't understand that we ARE the dominant power in the world, but that poer has its limits. So we react to little things-like Saddam's supposed WMD- like an elephant getting hysterical over a mouse.

The third is that we trust our government, and the media has been going along with it because George (dubya) Bush has been the deregulation fairy for big media.

When dubya was selected, I figured that we had had a soft coup. I wondered how long it would take for ppl to catch on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:47 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*. Know why? Because when you stand up to lieing Brownshirt bullies and call them on thier bullshit they shrink away like the cowards they are.

I have hardly had any time to come the this board lately and I have only had time to read the excerpt you posted. Good stuff! If the rest of the article is as good as that then I think that could (*chuckle*) be the reason for the silence.

Although I don't necessarily agree with the cowards part. I mean, what can you say after that (*tee hee*). Their entire argument has gone out the window

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 6:32 AM

SOUTHERNMERC

W is a big deregulation guy? I thought that was Clinton. Considering all the DReg he did here in Arkansas before he left for the White House. What do you mean?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 9:23 AM

KUKOO

This may be slightly off-topic, but I have always thought it was interesting how Firefly Fans seem to be at such opposite ends of the political spectrum. I believe the reason why is in the way Fans view the Alliance.

Liberals tend to view the Alliance as the end result of the path the Bush Administration has set us on. Declaring that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to the war, creating a new name for prisoners and criminals so they can throw the Bill of Rights out the window and hold them indefinetly, being able to shroud key policy meetings in a viel of secrecy so that the public cannot determine how decisions were made and the build-up and reckless use of the Armed Forces. Under this theory, River and Simon were probably listed as "enemy combatants" by the Alliance.

Conservatives tend to view the Alliance as the end result of too big a government with too much control over our daily lives. i.e. too many social programs and laws regulating behavior and business. Mals quote about governments being there to get in a mans way would support this theory.

I think the Alliance is a mixture of both. It is the worst aspects of the two current parties rolled into one. It is as if the special interests (maybe the forerunners to the Blue Sun Group) took over both parties and pushed them into one. The point of a 2 party system is to balance each other out, and the absence of a second party is what makes the Alliance so scary and powerful.

PS Thanks ghoulman for posting the link, the article was awesome and very informative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 9:50 AM

FIREFLYFRIEND

The Alliance is definately like Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 9:53 AM

SERGEANTX

...and then there are those of us who see the Alliance, ideologically, as relatively neutral. It's mostly just a large centralized government, for good or bad. Naturally, from the point of view of the former Independents it's bad. But the actual story seems less clear.

I think this was intentional. Most of the actually Alliance officers we've seen have been neutral or even leaning toward genuine concern for humanity. The Blue Hands certainly seem evil enough, but we really don't know how they fit into the Alliance power scheme.

To me it almost seems as though Joss went out of his way to NOT have the principal bad guys be Alliance. The worst we've seen them do, puttin aside the blue hands, is ignore the plight of the frontier people.

I think we're seeing the Alliance in much the same way a Southern soldier might have viewed the U.S. feds after the Civil War. I DON'T think Firefly is meant to be an allegory, but it is a valid comparison.

The thrust of the series so far has been the personal search for hope and redemption, not the heroic struggle of the Independents against the evil Alliance.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kukoo:
This may be slightly off-topic, but I have always thought it was interesting how Firefly Fans seem to be at such opposite ends of the political spectrum. I believe the reason why is in the way Fans view the Alliance.

Liberals tend to view the Alliance as the end result of the path the Bush Administration has set us on. Declaring that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to the war, creating a new name for prisoners and criminals so they can throw the Bill of Rights out the window and hold them indefinetly, being able to shroud key policy meetings in a viel of secrecy so that the public cannot determine how decisions were made and the build-up and reckless use of the Armed Forces. Under this theory, River and Simon were probably listed as "enemy combatants" by the Alliance.

Conservatives tend to view the Alliance as the end result of too big a government with too much control over our daily lives. i.e. too many social programs and laws regulating behavior and business. Mals quote about governments being there to get in a mans way would support this theory.

I think the Alliance is a mixture of both. It is the worst aspects of the two current parties rolled into one. It is as if the special interests (maybe the forerunners to the Blue Sun Group) took over both parties and pushed them into one. The point of a 2 party system is to balance each other out, and the absence of a second party is what makes the Alliance so scary and powerful.

PS Thanks ghoulman for posting the link, the article was awesome and very informative.

Holy insightful Batman. Nice one! Just wanted to acknowledge the brilliance.

Oh, and SERGEANTX, I am on Kukoos' side as to the Alliance being a cypher for the USA but your comments are certainly not to be sneezed at either.

I wonder if a thread about this metaphor (something Joss loooves to throw out there) woul;d be fun?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2004 5:41 AM

So how come this article isn't all over the news by now? This news has been available for a week, why aren't I hearing about this on tv? The New Yorker isn't exactly a fringe media source, what gives?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:31 AM

^^^ are you living under a rock? This was the story that broke the fact that the torture is happening in more than one prison. This was the story!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:44 AM

MILORADELL

I am so very, very tired.

Does anyone feel like we're straddling a juggernaut, about to make a fateful turn - it could be good, it could be bad, and it's as scary as all holy hell?

I keep thinking of my sister-in-law's unborn twins, and what kind of a world they'll be inheriting, and if they'll even realize the differences between the past and their 'now'?

I am so very, very tired.

btw - I think the term "deregulation" refers to the FCC's recent changes in rulings, and the tacit support it's received by the admin. possibly also recent efforts to toughen corporate law, which the admin, again, is working to gut.

****
“By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.“ Albert Camus

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:12 PM

Golly, Ghoulman, perhaps I have been under a rock. The substance of Hersh's article puts Rumps-felt at the top of a chain of command fully aware of the torture and very much endorsing it. It was systematic. It states that the president was briefed. But none of this has been on the front page. No one is calling for Rummy to resign anymore and no one's even talking about the torture anymore. Once the six folks at the very bottom of the food chain were sacrificed last week, it's been business as usual. Hasn't it?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's like Vietnam all over again.

It took riots. It took civil disobedience. It took deaths. And that just got it onto the news.

I never want to hear the puke about the 'liberal media' again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:20 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

The true problem lies in the fact that the American public as a whole knows very little of the truth. The government hides what it wants to, filters the info it feels is acceptable to be seen by the American public, and the media slants most of what is shown.

News sites and sources have their own agendas, reporting on things w/ a definite political leaning in one direction or another.

The Federal government is rife w/ corruption, cover ups, and blatant violations of national & international law. What is sadder is that the American people are so busy choosing sides and supporting this or that political camp that they can not agree on a way to solve the problem. Seems to me the government, media and television have done a terrific job of making all of us complacent to the point of blind acceptance.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

INVESTIGATION

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey
By DOUGLAS JEHL, STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: May 26, 2004 NY Times

WASHINGTON, May 25 — An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:06 PM

NY Times is evil.

They require you to sign away your soul
to read a simple article.

If the morons at NY Times had a worthwhile
thought about it - then at least 10 other
establishments would have came up with it
before hand...

Remember "Jayson Blair", there are plenty
more of them at NY Times. They just owe
up again to failing to fact check and keep
a thumb on the overzealous, "scoop" getting
reporters. While they are at it, they need
to get rid of their editors too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:30 PM

Hey Signy,

I saw that too! Thank God, it is getting out. It's interesting to see the part the CIA plays in these things. Didn't the CIA bring about Watergate, too, really? Now this. Guess you don't want to get on the CIA's bad side (suprise, surprise).

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey Jasonzz, be a sport! Where's your belief in the betterment of all through competition??

In any case, it's a long article, so here's a (better written!) summary:

President Bush (has) portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms.

But according to a May 5 Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) report deaths date back to Afghanistan in December 2002, where two prisoners died in one week from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease". In one of these cases, both military intelligence and Army Reserve military-police are believed to have been "involved at various times in assaulting and mistreating the detainee."

Iraq cases date back to April 15, 2003 (right after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled) to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died by "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

In what appeared to be a case of serious abuse over a prolonged period of time, members of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion in Samarra (north of Baghdad) "struck and pulled the hair of detainees" during interrogations over a period that lasted 10 weeks. The summary said they "forced into asphyxiations numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information."

Another incident involved the death in custody of a senior Iraqi officer, Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died last November at a detention center run by the Third Armored Cavalry. (Best I can figure is that this is "the cage" near the Syrian border) Soldiers acknowledged that interviews with the general on Nov. 24 and 25 involved "physical assaults." In fact, investigators determined that General Mowhoush died after being shoved head-first into a sleeping bag, and questioned while being rolled repeatedly from his back to his stomach.

A senior military official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the Army was investigating the deaths of 37 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase from at least 25 deaths that a senior Army general described on May 4.

According to Army officials and documents, at least 12 prisoners have died of natural or undetermined causes, including nine in Abu Ghraib. In six of those cases, the military conducted no autopsy to confirm the presumed cause of death. As a result, the investigations into their deaths were closed by Army investigators.

Army officials have been reluctant to discuss the type of detail that the [CIC] document describes, even when investigations into the cases are closed. The Army has refused to make public the synopses of Army criminal investigations into the deaths or assaults of Iraqi or Afghan prisoners while in custody.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

How do you hide a million-person demonstration? You bury the news.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:38 PM

OUTTATHEWORLD

Gotta admit I'm VASTLY amused that anyone thinks anything at ALL printed in the New Yorker, concerning military affairs, can be anything but fiction...the closest any of these guys or gals have ever come to the militray is seeing a carrier tied up in the harbor.

Folks, the stuff at Abu Ghraib was tiddlywinks compared to an interrogation done on a criminal suspect who's being defended by a PD in New York. Being naked is NOT TORTURE...having a shotgun shoved up yor ass and twisted is torture. Might think about who we're dealing with, kids, and go back to your portable DVD players.

Take us outta the world....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:56 PM

RUXTON

How about being beaten to death, dolt. Does that qualify as torture in your closeted, fearful world of denial?

Why don't you go back to Free Republic and kiss up to the jerk who runs that show, eh? He likes folks like you who refuse to read anything, or learn anything.

.......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:11 PM

RUXTON

If you don't like Hersch's paper, read the Gonzales Memorandum to the President, dated 25 January 2002. If you can read.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Or being suffocated? (seems to be a favorite with the interrogators)

Apparently JAG officers complained to an NGO human rights group about being excluded from interrogations after having their concerns being ignored internally. (Normal procdure is to have JAG officers present.)

The memos to Bush that are being leaked and complaints from within the ranks about changes of authority and procedure make this look very much like policy, not a spontaneous or one-off occurence.

Outtathisworld- did you read any of the article? Did you see any of the vidoes that go farther than the photos? Might want to, before you make more of an ass of yourself. The article is based on internal (leaked) memos. The videos speak for themselves. Of course, you COULD just plug your ears and go "la-la-la" while running down the hallways as fast as you can!

Ruxton- Outtathisworld is apprently a sociopath who gets off on humans abusing humans. Abuse and violence, according to this poster, are what make you "a grownup". I just hope this person doesn't work in a PD!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:33 AM

Being beaten to death is *not* torture. It's being beaten to death.

And neither is stragulation/suffocation. Stragulation is a sex act for the perverts. It's also a cheap source of amusement for addicts who can't afford drugs. Now killing someone by suffocating them is different, that's plain murder.

Abuse != humiliation != torture != murder

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:40 AM

^^^
??? Torture resulting in death is still torture. Even if the torture is beating.

You're so weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:50 AM

The goal of torture is to extract information, to subject your opponent to an escalated and remorseless form of punishment, and/or to satisfy an inner sense of twisted and sadistic desire. Killing someone by beating them is murder. A good torturer beats until unconscious, then dress them up, revives them; and depending on your goal (extract information or punishment), maintain disorientation or maintain clarity, then beat some more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^
??? Torture resulting in death is still torture. Even if the torture is beating.

You're so weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 9:54 AM

Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:29 AM

JCOBB

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

How do you hide a million-person demonstration? You bury the news.

*sigh*

Yeah, the US is the only place with idiots and the uniformed, the rest of the world are so much superior in every aspect! (Or at the very least better informed!)

Its AMAZING how dillusional some people are.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 12:28 PM

Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 21, 2004 2:30 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

*sigh*

Yeah, the US is the only place with idiots and the uniformed, the rest of the world are so much superior in every aspect! (Or at the very least better informed!)

Its AMAZING how dillusional some people are.

Oh, we have our fair share of idiots here in Canada as well. Every country has them. There are just a lot fewer of them. Plus they tend to be more passive.

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

Jason ... that's utter crap. Torture has to do with setting. Trying to tell people torture is defined as you put it is completely insane. There isn't an organization on the planet (except for evil regimes... such as the Bush/Cheney White House) that would accept your definition.

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

Jason (and I'm hoping you're just a weirdo and don't know better)... that's utter crap. Torture has to do with setting. Trying to tell people torture is defined as you put it is completely insane. There isn't an organization on the planet (except for evil regimes... such as the Bush/Cheney White House) that would accept your definition.

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

heh? who sez torture *has* to involve extracting information? It's one of the many things that it could be. Real what I sez two postings ago. Torture is a process, it's not a thing. Torture isn't an end thing. It has goals that you work towards. It's a work "in-progress". I've got a good definition of what "torture" is. I don't have to "try to tell people" what it is. As I've said before, that's pretty much what the operating definition of "torture" is. I don't know where you got your factless, baseless claim from; but if you could explain it a bit better.

If you mean that *all* prisoners are tortured, then *you* are completely out of your mind. There are standing rules in place about being imprisoned - that and everyone knows what goes on in prison. The prisoners morally obligated themselves to the sort of treatment that they deserve by commiting the crimes. What's more, I say the punishment in this country is not severe enough. Caught stealing? you should forfeit your hand. Caught raping? you should be neutered. I say we've gone too soft. All of these half-baked resorts we call prison needs a bit toughening up. Instead of slowly driving them insane, we should do some real punishment and let them out a bit earlier. How much time would it really take to lop off a hand as compared to 5-7 years? (don't answer that, with the kind of bureaucracy we have, it *would* prolly take 5-7 years just to schedule the removal as an "elective" surgery) .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JasonZZZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

heh? who sez torture *has* to involve extracting information?

No one. That's exactly what I said: "Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Quote:
It's one of the many things that it could be. Real what I sez two postings ago. Torture is a process, it's not a thing. Torture isn't an end thing. It has goals that you work towards. It's a work "in-progress". I've got a good definition of what "torture" is. I don't have to "try to tell people" what it is. As I've said before, that's pretty much what the operating definition of "torture" is. I don't know where you got your factless, baseless claim from; but if you could explain it a bit better.

If you mean that *all* prisoners are tortured, then *you* are completely out of your mind. There are standing rules in place about being imprisoned - that and everyone knows what goes on in prison. The prisoners morally obligated themselves to the sort of treatment that they deserve by commiting the crimes. What's more, I say the punishment in this country is not severe enough. Caught stealing? you should forfeit your hand. Caught raping? you should be neutered. I say we've gone too soft. All of these half-baked resorts we call prison needs a bit toughening up. Instead of slowly driving them insane, we should do some real punishment and let them out a bit earlier. How much time would it really take to lop off a hand as compared to 5-7 years? (don't answer that, with the kind of bureaucracy we have, it *would* prolly take 5-7 years just to schedule the removal as an "elective" surgery) .

Good god man.

I'll just back away slowly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:54 PM