NationStates Jolt Archive

Seymour Hersch appeared on Face The Nation this morning to level charges against the Bush administration claiming that not only did Bush and Rice receive briefings on the activities going on, but that they were condoned as "business as usual". In an article to be printed in the 5/17/04 New Yorker, Hersch links Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz to a top-top secret black ops group who's mission was to cross boarders indescriminately and retrive suspected terrorist targets then, in effect, "torture" out of them the kind of intelligence that Rummy wanted. When faced with an intelligence blackout in Iraq (perhaps because the people in custody didn't have that sort of intelligence), Rummy moved this group into Iraq and gave them free reign and briefed Bush and Rice on this. Many of the pictures we've seen were indeed posed by this group as potential blackmail evidence to coerce detainees to serve as insider moles. Hersch also went on to say that the upper brass of the armed forces were are so furious about this whole debacle that, if given chance in the form of Congressional hearings, they will denounce the complicity of the entire administration.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/

And funnily enough the whole war with Iraq was for oil too. No wait.. they havent figured that out yet.... :roll:

Im not at all surprised. Though quite a lot of it is due to hoaxes...

I'm reading the latest from Sy Hersh right now. Looks like he's found another My Lai of sorts, by which I mean he's blown open another major storyt involving scandal and the military.

I'm reading the latest from Sy Hersh right now. Looks like he's found another My Lai of sorts, by which I mean he's blown open another major storyt involving scandal and the military.

Exactly. I don't know what this man's secret is for rooting out these sorts of things, but he sure has a knack for it. That's why I was all over this one when I saw it was him breaking it.

I don't know how he managed to break My Lai, but by now he's got enough of a rep that he's trusted by people who want to get stories out. I mean, he's been all over the Iraq stuff from the beginning, from the faulty intelligence right on through to this.

Let me guess...the covert group was flown in into Iraq in black helicopters, right?

Let me guess...the covert group was flown in into Iraq in black helicopters, right?

Don't know. Read the article and refute that.

Let me guess...the covert group was flown in into Iraq in black helicopters, right?Much as you might like to, panhandlia, you can't dismiss Hersh that easily. He's one of the most respected journalists of the last 40 years, period. He's got more cred than the staff of Newsmax put together.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...

Berkylvania, here's another article you might be interested in--the NY Times Week in Review. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/weekinreview/16tier.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=print&position=)

My favorite quote thus far? Most blame the administration for botching the mission, and some are also questioning their own judgment. How, they wonder, did so many conservatives, who normally don't trust their government to run a public school down the street, come to believe that federal bureaucrats could transform an entire nation in the alien culture of the Middle East?

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...

If you're so sure it's not true, why aren't you addressing any of Hersh's points? He's hardly a crackpot conspiracy theorist. He's a repected and well credentialed journalist.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Why this sincere desire to avoid actually addressing the points in the articles?

I remain skeptical, but if it were true, I would not be surprised in the least.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Why this sincere desire to avoid actually addressing the points in the articles?Because he's got nothing and he knows it. He's left with two options--deny and bury his head in the sand or admit it that the leadership of his party--not the entire party, just the leadership--isn't what it claims to be, namely, conservative, patriotic, and competent.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.You can't tell me the Tri-Lateral Commission wasn't involved! After all, only they have the access to the black helicopters!

But wait...has anyone checked the cattle in Iraq lately? If they have had any mutilated cattle we KNOW it was the little green men! Any crop circles in Iraq? No, wait, make that sand circles.

I think you're right, Incertonia. The complete and utter lack of rational response to the points by respected members of the press as printed in respected news media simply shows that there is no response and certain individuals would rather retreat behind wit than confront reality.

Oh, and I'll have to actually register with the NY Times to read that article and I've been resisting doing that. :)

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Why this sincere desire to avoid actually addressing the points in the articles?Because he's got nothing and he knows it. He's left with two options--deny and bury his head in the sand or admit it that the leadership of his party--not the entire party, just the leadership--isn't what it claims to be, namely, conservative, patriotic, and competent.I'll tell you why. Because there's no story there. Kinda like the whole business about the Freemasons or the Illuminati or the black helicopters or...

Both the Clinton News Network (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/15/iraq.abuse.main/index.html) and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120051,00.html) are reporting that the Pentagon has already denied the report. Of course, you won't bother reading either one, because you're already convinced that it is true. So, the best way for me to expose the ridiculous nature of that "story" in the New Yorker, I am sinking to the same level of ridicule..."you fight fire with fire."

And, as is typical of Libs, you attack the Republicans' patriotism with no proof whatsoever of the lack thereof...that's fine, but we'll see how you squeal the next time someone mentions Jean Francois Kerry's shenanigans after Vietnam...or his Senate voting record...heck, even his French looks or how he and Tay-ray-za speak French at home.

Bush sucks.

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Why this sincere desire to avoid actually addressing the points in the articles?Because he's got nothing and he knows it. He's left with two options--deny and bury his head in the sand or admit it that the leadership of his party--not the entire party, just the leadership--isn't what it claims to be, namely, conservative, patriotic, and competent.I'll tell you why. Because there's no story there. Kinda like the whole business about the Freemasons or the Illuminati or the black helicopters or...

Both the Clinton News Network (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/15/iraq.abuse.main/index.html) and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120051,00.html) are reporting that the Pentagon has already denied the report. Of course, you won't bother reading either one, because you're already convinced that it is true. So, the best way for me to expose the ridiculous nature of that "story" in the New Yorker, I am sinking to the same level of ridicule..."you fight fire with fire."

And, as is typical of Libs, you attack the Republicans' patriotism with no proof whatsoever of the lack thereof...that's fine, but we'll see how you squeal the next time someone mentions Jean Francois Kerry's shenanigans after Vietnam...or his Senate voting record...heck, even his French looks or how he and Tay-ray-za speak French at home.

Perhaps then you'd like to comment on why the Republican viewpoint this morning on Face The Nation was actually agreeing with Hersch? As for the denial of the Pentagon and the Defence Department, what else would you expect them to do? The fact is, there is a story there, Sy Hersch broke it and now you have no response to it.

Bush sucks.Thank you for adding so much to the discussion.

One of the generals testifying in front of congress stated that the procedures used by the CIA/US army definitely violate the Geneva Conventions. The procedures approved by Rumseld. And Bush.

I'd say that allow war crimes to continue and condoning them constitutes a reason to impeach, don't you?

Were they sent there by the Illuminati or by the Tri-Lateral Commission? Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations?

No, wait...it was the Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. Those Jews, I tell you...No, no, it was the Illuminati and the Freemasons in conjunction with the Jews.

Why this sincere desire to avoid actually addressing the points in the articles?Because he's got nothing and he knows it. He's left with two options--deny and bury his head in the sand or admit it that the leadership of his party--not the entire party, just the leadership--isn't what it claims to be, namely, conservative, patriotic, and competent.I'll tell you why. Because there's no story there. Kinda like the whole business about the Freemasons or the Illuminati or the black helicopters or...

Both the Clinton News Network (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/15/iraq.abuse.main/index.html) and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120051,00.html) are reporting that the Pentagon has already denied the report. Of course, you won't bother reading either one, because you're already convinced that it is true. So, the best way for me to expose the ridiculous nature of that "story" in the New Yorker, I am sinking to the same level of ridicule..."you fight fire with fire."

And, as is typical of Libs, you attack the Republicans' patriotism with no proof whatsoever of the lack thereof...that's fine, but we'll see how you squeal the next time someone mentions Jean Francois Kerry's shenanigans after Vietnam...or his Senate voting record...heck, even his French looks or how he and Tay-ray-za speak French at home.

Perhaps then you'd like to comment on why the Republican viewpoint this morning on Face The Nation was actually agreeing with Hersch? As for the denial of the Pentagon and the Defence Department, what else would you expect them to do? The fact is, there is a story there, Sy Hersch broke it and now you have no response to it.
The fact is, there is no story. If there had been such a program in existence, the current stories out of Abu Ghraib would seem like child's play compared to what would be going on...and, no one, and I mean no one outside of it would know thing #1 about it.

And, they would have Osama, because one or more of his Kool-Aid drinkers would have spilled the beans by now. The Pentagon is really good at keeping under wrap those things it doesn't want publicized. For example, the Stealth fighters, which started operating in the late 1970's, yet they were kept secret until 1989. On the other hand, if such a "program" does exist, expect to see a lot of heads roll at the Pentagon. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

You think that "story" is true? Fine, go ahead.

One of the generals testifying in front of congress stated that the procedures used by the CIA/US army definitely violate the Geneva Conventions. The procedures approved by Rumseld. And Bush.

I'd say that allow war crimes to continue and condoning them constitutes a reason to impeach, don't you?

Draw up the Articles and book a reservation at The Hague.

Bush sucks.Thank you for adding so much to the discussion.

Your very welcome. Any time.

I'm really surprised that it took sooo long for these bits of "news" to be "uncovered". It's been what - three months since the news broke about prisoner abuse. McCauliff's crack team of creative writters is getting lax. It's either that or they scrambled after the second straight month of stellar employment numbers and had to come up with something.

Has anyone read the statement of Jeremy Sivits? Oh I know...it's a fabricated document that HalliCheney and Bushron just doctored up and released isn't it?

One of the generals testifying in front of congress stated that the procedures used by the CIA/US army definitely violate the Geneva Conventions. The procedures approved by Rumseld. And Bush.

I'd say that allow war crimes to continue and condoning them constitutes a reason to impeach, don't you?

Draw up the Articles and book a reservation at The Hague.

Screw that, let's just impeach the bastards.

I'm really surprised that it took sooo long for these bits of "news" to be "uncovered". It's been what - three months since the news broke about prisoner abuse. McCauliff's crack team of creative writters is getting lax. It's either that or they scrambled after the second straight month of stellar employment numbers and had to come up with something.

Has anyone read the statement of Jeremy Sivits? Oh I know...it's a fabricated document that HalliCheney and Bushron just doctored up and released isn't it?The lefties would never let a fact or 1,000,000 get in the way of their agenda.

The fact is, there is no story. If there had been such a program in existence, the current stories out of Abu Ghraib would seem like child's play compared to what would be going on...and, no one, and I mean no one outside of it would know thing #1 about it.

And, they would have Osama, because one or more of his Kool-Aid drinkers would have spilled the beans by now. The Pentagon is really good at keeping under wrap those things it doesn't want publicized. For example, the Stealth fighters, which started operating in the late 1970's, yet they were kept secret until 1989. On the other hand, if such a "program" does exist, expect to see a lot of heads roll at the Pentagon. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

You think that "story" is true? Fine, go ahead.

Yes, I think the story is true because it ties together existing facts so well and it comes from a credible source. Sy Hersch isn't a Jayson Blair or a Matt Drudge.

The hubris this administration has exhibited indicates that they have never really cared or been capable of keeping anything secret. Even in the articles you linked to, further corroborating evidence was given that Hersch was on to something. Deny it all you want, but just realize that until you can refute what he's saying, all you're doing is whistling in the wind.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.Precisely my point. Not sure you have seen this, but the skank (Lynndie England) has confirmed that point. She has testified that no one ordered her to abuse detainees. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/122247.shtml) So much for it being a conspiracy by Bush/Rumsfeld/Illuminati/etc.

Maybe that skank Lyndie England thought up a skankish lie to protect Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld let private contractors run the interrogations in order to get around the geneva rules. Also Colin Powell confessed that Rumsfeld and Bush got reports from the Red Cross detailing the abuse but since the report didnt have any pictures it didnt get anywhere with Bush who cant even read the back of a cereal box

I know that this interview with Hersh (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html) is over a year old but one has to read this to put old Sy [or sigh] into perspective.

As you can clearly see this guy has some interesting things to say. Depending on what you are predisposed to believe, this guy Hersh is either a fountain of useful information or even when he's sleeping, he wears his tinfoil hat!

Maybe that skank Lyndie England thought up a skankish lie to protect Rumsfeld.Yeah, and she got how many people so far to agree with her story? Nice try.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.Precisely my point. Not sure you have seen this, but the skank (Lynndie England) has confirmed that point. She has testified that no one ordered her to abuse detainees. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/122247.shtml) So much for it being a conspiracy by Bush/Rumsfeld/Illuminati/etc.

No, as the article points out and as Hersch described this morning, the Copper Green team came into Iraq and began their form of intelligence extraction which sparked a wider circle of abuse that was not ordered or curtailed.

I know that this interview with Hersh (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html) is over a year old but one has to read this to put old Sy [or sigh] into perspective.

As you can clearly see this guy has some interesting things to say. Depending on what you are predisposed to believe, this guy Hersh is either a fountain of useful information or even when he's sleeping, he wears his tinfoil hat!Me-thinks, when Hersh coughed up this "story," he was wearing the tinfoil hat, while sitting in the bomb shelter under the cabin in Montana. He's making UFO conspiracy kooks look downright reasonable.

look, ive had enough hippy nonsense about this being about oil. If it was then why are all the gas prices so high? and by the way, 24 million people are free. I think thats good enough for a first term. Last president to free so many people from oppression w :lol: as......hmmm...............REAGAN.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.Precisely my point. Not sure you have seen this, but the skank (Lynndie England) has confirmed that point. She has testified that no one ordered her to abuse detainees. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/122247.shtml) So much for it being a conspiracy by Bush/Rumsfeld/Illuminati/etc.

No, as the article points out and as Hersch described this morning, the Copper Green team came into Iraq and began their form of intelligence extraction which sparked a wider circle of abuse that was not ordered or curtailed.Riiiiight...and, they were flown in black helicopters by members of the Illuminati and the Shadow Government.

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.Precisely my point. Not sure you have seen this, but the skank (Lynndie England) has confirmed that point. She has testified that no one ordered her to abuse detainees. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/122247.shtml) So much for it being a conspiracy by Bush/Rumsfeld/Illuminati/etc.

Oh com'on! You believe that stinking load of crap from England and Sivits. They're covering for the Shrub and Dumsfeld. I'm more apt to believe the other a--holes that are going to do everything they can to avoid Bubba at Leavenworth. This regime that occupies (installed by 5 of 9 conservative "robes") the White House is covering up this whole mess and now they're even cutting side deals with the "victims" of the order-giving chain of command in order to save their own skins.

It all make perfect sense when you really stop to think about it :wink: :roll:

look, ive had enough hippy nonsense about this being about oil. If it was then why are all the gas prices so high? and by the way, 24 million people are free. I think thats good enough for a first term. Last president to free so many people from oppression w :lol: as......hmmm...............REAGAN.

Well gas prices are so high right now because Bush has a deal with the Arabs to lower gas prices around election time to make it look like he is doing a great job.

And...Reagan? Not the poster child for mental health now is he?

Anyway that was off subject.

Anyway that was off subject.

Not really...when you stop and consider the thread's title.

Seymour Hersch appeared on Face The Nation this morning to level charges against the Bush administration claiming that not only did Bush and Rice receive briefings on the activities going on, but that they were condoned as "business as usual". In an article to be printed in the 5/17/04 New Yorker, Hersch links Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz to a top-top secret black ops group who's mission was to cross boarders indescriminately and retrive suspected terrorist targets then, in effect, "torture" out of them the kind of intelligence that Rummy wanted. When faced with an intelligence blackout in Iraq (perhaps because the people in custody didn't have that sort of intelligence), Rummy moved this group into Iraq and gave them free reign and briefed Bush and Rice on this. Many of the pictures we've seen were indeed posed by this group as potential blackmail evidence to coerce detainees to serve as insider moles. Hersch also went on to say that the upper brass of the armed forces were are so furious about this whole debacle that, if given chance in the form of Congressional hearings, they will denounce the complicity of the entire administration.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
Well that certainly is an amazing expose and I am not at all surprised. In an earlier post, I suggested that the US was sitting on this abuse situation, in the hopes that "it would just go away", and there in this very article those exact words were used.

I found it hard to believe that this whole process of immoral treatment of Iraqi prisoners was limited to the actions of a few misguided soldiers. The lid is off the can of worms, and the controversy grows with each passing day.

The last paragraph of the article seems to sum up the whole sorry process:

“In an odd way,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, “the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized.” Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees. “Some JAGs hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war,” Roth told me. “We’re giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.”

If it were true, all it really means is that the Bush Administration failed to grasp how bad the torture was there. There were always reports of torture from day 1, but the soldiers were thrown into a court-martial quickly, and usually, that was the end of it. However, no previous case was ever accompanied by thousands of photos, making the point hit home not just to the Bush Administration, but all of us.
And we still have reason to remain skeptical on the full extent of what Hersh says. As Gen. Taguba testified to in front of Congress, he concluded that he found no evidence of orders transmitted, written or otherwise.Precisely my point. Not sure you have seen this, but the skank (Lynndie England) has confirmed that point. She has testified that no one ordered her to abuse detainees. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/122247.shtml) So much for it being a conspiracy by Bush/Rumsfeld/Illuminati/etc.

Oh com'on! You believe that stinking load of crap from England and Sivits. They're covering for the Shrub and Dumsfeld. I'm more apt to believe the other a--holes that are going to do everything they can to avoid Bubba at Leavenworth. This regime that occupies (installed by 5 of 9 conservative "robes") the White House is covering up this whole mess and now they're even cutting side deals with the "victims" of the order-giving chain of command in order to save their own skins.

It all make perfect sense when you really stop to think about it :wink: :roll:
It's even more disturbing when Gen. Taguba, a Hispanic opressed by the Bush regime, is saying that no orders were transmitted from commissioned officers. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! A conspiracy!

Is no one going to address the actual article?

Is no one going to address the actual article?Since you're so willing to stake all credibility on old Seymour, let's take a look at his credibility.

In OpinionJournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005088), John Fund reports,Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Iraqi prisons in The New Yorker, appeared on CNN last week and said a picture of two guard dogs snarling at a prisoner was "a scene from we know what, you know, [the] Third Reich." When host Wolf Blitzer asked him to be more specific, Mr. Hersh changed the subject.

It's even more disturbing when Gen. Taguba, a Hispanic opressed by the Bush regime, is saying that no orders were transmitted from commissioned officers. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! A conspiracy!

Indeed, the "token" Taguba is under orders himself to say what the Shrub tells him to. Taken a step further, HalliCheney is giving orders to the Shrub and the Shrub sends them down the chain of command. :P

Guess what, people. It ain't just Sy Hersh. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/) I meant to put this up earlier but I had to go to work.

Let's see what the article has to say.
"The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: "It seems to have been planned."

Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

Who might have taught them? Almost certainly it was their superiors up the line. Some of the images from Abu Ghraib, like those of naked prisoners terrified by attack dogs or humiliated before grinning female guards, actually portray "stress and duress" techniques officially approved at the highest levels of the government for use against terrorist suspects. It is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of these specific techniques, and late last —week Defense spokesman Larry DiRita said that "no responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses." But a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods.

The floodgates have opened, folks.

I'm gonna add one more piece here, mainly because it deals with Panhandlia's assertion that the DoD denied that Hersh's story was true. The following is from Discourse.net, (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/05/denial_or_nondenial_denial.html) and it's a paragraph by paragraph parsing of the DoD statement.

Denial or Non-Denial Denial?
The press, and most blogs, are playing this DoD News: Statement from DoD Spokesperson Mr. Lawrence Di Rita as a categorical denial of the latest Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker.

That’s odd, because at least to a lawyer’s eye it seems awfully cagey. Let’s parse all five paragraphs of it to see if it’s a real denial, or just a non-denial denial

“Assertions apparently being made in the latest New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib and the abuse of Iraqi detainees are outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture.”

The only thing in here which is at all a denial is “filled with error”. Which is less categorical than “false”. But note in what follows how few specific errors are actually noted—at most one, and even then it’s a bit vague.

“The abuse evidenced in the videos and photos, and any similar abuse that may come to light in any of the ongoing half dozen investigations into this matter, has no basis in any sanctioned program, training manual, instruction, or order in the Department of Defense.”

Of course, that’s not what Hersh actually alleges in his article. Hersh alleges that the Pentagon allowed one set of techniques (“sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in ‘stress positions’ for agonizing lengths of time” plus “sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners”), left implementation to MPs untrained in how to do it, with a chain of command largely in the dark as to the black ops orders, and the troops then ran amok. “Cambone and his superiors,” writes Hersh quoting a Pentagon consultant, “‘created the conditions that allowed transgressions to take place.’” That is not denied.

“No responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos.”

Again, not what Hersh alleged. He did not suggest the upper reaches of the DoD intended to allow rape or sexual torture, and especially not photographed torture. Rather Hersh alleges the Pentagon expanded a program that allowed serious physical abuse, what I would call torture (“sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in ‘stress positions’ for agonizing lengths of time” plus “sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners”) and took the troops out of their regular chain of command. At which point events took their course.

“To correct one of the many errors in fact, Undersecretary Cambone has no responsibility, nor has he had any responsibility in the past, for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.”

Here we come to the nub of the matter: Saving Cambone. Here’s what Hersh actually says about him:

Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror. Those programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct, were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in counter-intelligence programs. Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid subsequently left the Pentagon. Asked for comment on this story, a Pentagon spokesman said, “I will not discuss any covert programs; however, Dr. Cambone did not assume his position as the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence until March 7, 2003, and had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding interrogation procedures in Iraq or anywhere else.”

So far, we have not so much a denial, as a confirmation of one of the facts Hersh reports. But Hersh also says this:

The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”

…

Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.

…

In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the blame. “The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone,” he said. “This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program.” When it came to the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the details to Cambone. Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable, the consultant added, “but he’s responsible for the checks and balances. The issue is that, since 9/11, we’ve changed the rules on how we deal with terrorism, and created conditions where the ends justify the means.”

In most of these passages, Hersh doesn’t so much say Cambone had the responsibility, rather that he was a conduit for Rumsfeld’s orders. To the extent he accuses Cambone of more, and he does, the news release is either a genuine denial of his responsibility, or a non-denial denial if his policy-making role could be characterized as something other than ” responsibility … for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.” In other words, this leaves open the possibility that Cambone got to pick who had the responsibility for these tasks, or that he executed instructions from someone — Rumsfeld — who had that responsibility.

“This story seems to reflect the fevered insights of those with little, if any, connection to the activities in the Department of Defense.”

Again, not a denial.

Suddenly that denial doesn't look so vehement anymore.

P.S. The writer of the above piece is Michael Froomkin, professor of Law at the University of Miami.

Is no one going to address the actual article?
Geez Berk, I did read all 11 pages of the article and I did respond. It must be that invisible word processor ink that is to blame, if you didn't notice.

It should be interesting to see how the administration refutes the latest of a series of crushing blows?

Is no one going to address the actual article?
Geez Berk, I did read all 11 pages of the article and I did respond. It must be that invisible word processor ink that is to blame, if you didn't notice.

It should be interesting to see how the administration refutes the latest of a series of crushing blows?

LOL, sorry Canuck, I guess I should have been more specific. I was hoping that more BushCo apologists would respond to these charges with facts of their own. I guess I just got my hopes up that there might actually be another side to this story. Your response was excellent and well appreciated. :D

Yeah, I keep hoping they'll respond with more than they have. Oh well.

Is no one going to address the actual article?

It reads more like an insinuation that those photographs were indirectly the result of ambigous orders from the top. Those orders that are being discussed could have pertained to certain detainees for specific intelligence gathering purposes. The chance of those detainees in the photos being part of the "certain" crowd are very slim. Those "certain" detainees would not have been being guarded by enlisted members so low down the food chain. The recent comments by England & Sivits should illustrate this. The others are using "orders taking" as a defense in their courts martial and they will get hammered for it once the cases' prosecutors ask, "Ok, who ordered the code red!" These former Military Police/Correction Officer types will have to name names; they won't be able to without committing perjury.