NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Policies Led to Abuse in Iraq
(New York, June 9, 2004) — The torture and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was the predictable result of the Bush administration's decision to circumvent international law, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

The 38-page report, “The Road to Abu Ghraib,” examines how the Bush administration adopted a deliberate policy of permitting illegal interrogation techniques – and then spent two years covering up or ignoring reports of torture and other abuse by U.S. troops.

“The horrors of Abu Ghraib were not simply the acts of individual soldiers,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Abu Ghraib resulted from decisions made by the Bush administration to cast the rules aside.”

According to Human Rights Watch, administration policies created the climate for Abu Ghraib in three ways.

First, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration decided that the war on terror permitted the United States to circumvent the restraints of international law. The Geneva Conventions were sidestepped as “obsolete.” Lawyers from the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and the White House Counsel’s office asserted that the president was not bound by U.S. and international laws prohibiting torture.

Consequently, the United States began to create offshore, off-limits prisons such as Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and maintained other detainees in “undisclosed locations.” The Bush administration also sent terrorism suspects without legal process to countries where information was beaten out of them.

Second, the United States employed coercive methods to inflict pain and humiliation on detainees to “soften them up” for interrogation. These methods included holding detainees in painful stress positions; depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods; exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light; hooding them; and holding them naked.

These techniques are forbidden by prohibitions against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment contained in international human rights law, the laws of armed conflict, and the U.S. military's own long-standing regulations.

Third, until the publication of the Abu Ghraib photographs, Bush administration officials took at best a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to reports of detainee mistreatment. From the earliest days of the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, the U.S. government has covered up or failed to act on repeated, serious allegations of torture and abuse.

The Bush administration has denied having a policy to torture or abuse detainees. Human Rights Watch called on President Bush to provide evidence for those denials by publicly releasing all relevant government documents.

Human Rights Watch also urged the administration to detail the steps being taken to ensure that these abusive practices do not continue, and to prosecute vigorously all those responsible for ordering or condoning this abuse.

“Everyone has seen the Abu Ghraib pictures,” said Roth. “It’s time President Bush provides the full picture of U.S. policy on torture.”

Source: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/09/iraq8785.htm

With "Approve this" I mean the policies of the Bush administration, condoning torture or turning a blind eye.

I have the old beliefs of the Soldier(pre Viet Nam). Sorry Salishe ;)

I don't condone it.

However, keep in mind, the Americans have not seen the "juicy" photos of the really disgusting stuff.

Corporate News at work. :roll:

I find it extremely hard not to support these actions. Ordinarilly, I wouldn't support torture in any form, and I don't support its use on ordinary suspects or POWs from actual nation-states.
However, there is a difference with terrorists. Unlike soldiers, who are loyal to commander or a country, terrorists tend to think that they are doing the work of God. Combined with a political agenda, this makes them extremely dangerous, but also silent. Critical information may be withheld, and we know that some has already been made known by these interrogation methods.
In light of this, I find it reasonable to conclude that a few hundred fundementalists being tortured in this manner is worth protecting hundreds of thousands around the globe. They were only two days away from killing 20,000 in Amman a few months back. God only knows what else they are capable of.
However, I will never, ever support physical or sexual torture by our troops, and at Abu Ghraib, they went way too far. Even Rumsfeld and White House lawyers, according to the June 20th issue of TIME magazine, don't endorse the use of physical or sexual torture. Unfortunatly, one senator claims there are manslaughter and rape charges that may be filed.

Maybe you never read our thread "I knew and condoned Iraqi prisoner abuse" It was a classic.

(PS: I don't consider forcing people to do naked human pyramids, stand on boxes, or having their heads peed on torture)

(PS: I don't consider forcing people to do naked human pyramids, stand on boxes, or having their heads peed on torture)

Yet it still is torture, because it humiliates human beings to an extreme degree, which is unneccessary and in Abu Ghraib doesnot actually serve any purpose. Why would you want to pee on prisoners or make them stand on boxes or make naked pyramids? What would be the purposw other than violating their dignity and thus torturing them? Would you welcome it if someone did that to you?

Maybe you never read our thread "I knew and condoned Iraqi prisoner abuse" It was a classic.

(PS: I don't consider forcing people to do naked human pyramids, stand on boxes, or having their heads peed on torture)

It's a difference of perspectives.

Many hard core Muslims would rather be beaten or die then be forced into a homosexual situation or be "touched" by a woman.

Yet it still is torture, because it humiliates human beings to an extreme degree, which is unneccessary and in Abu Ghraib doesnot actually serve any purpose. Why would you want to pee on prisoners or make them stand on boxes or make naked pyramids? What would be the purposw other than violating their dignity and thus torturing them? Would you welcome it if someone did that to you?

You can call it what you want, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you. I don't recall saying that I want any of this. I said I condoned it. Because if they aren't doing this, they're doing something far worse. Maybe you don't remember some of the atrocities of previous wars. Peeing on someone's head is a big step up from raping and murdering thousands of villagers for no reason. A big step up from making a city's streets run red with the blood of innocents.

That and don't ask stupid rhetorical questions about whether or not I would want people to do it to me. Obviously not, but I'm not there, and I'm not involved.

(PS: I don't consider forcing people to do naked human pyramids, stand on boxes, or having their heads peed on torture)

Yet it still is torture, because it humiliates human beings to an extreme degree, which is unneccessary and in Abu Ghraib doesnot actually serve any purpose. Why would you want to pee on prisoners or make them stand on boxes or make naked pyramids? What would be the purposw other than violating their dignity and thus torturing them? Would you welcome it if someone did that to you?
You're right, it has no use at Abu Ghraib, because there is no way of telling if the prisoners are fundementalists, Ba'athist leftovers, street urchins, or even innocent. That was the action of soldiers that had no concept of doing enough.
However, these people want to overthrow the Middle Eastern governments currently in place, and kill you, me, and anyone else in their way. Even if we relented now, they wouldn't stop, as they'd take it as a sign of weakness. So it may be neccessary to resort to methods that may help to save many lives.

It's a difference of perspectives.

Many hard core Muslims would rather be beaten or die then be forced into a homosexual situation or be "touched" by a woman.

I realize that. Read above statement.

However, these people want to overthrow the Middle Eastern governments currently in place, and kill you, me, and anyone else in their way.

I am not so sure they would want to kill me. I am not a US American citizen or soldier, so the risk that I would be victim of Muslim extremists is very very small. I do not support the US in the war on middle eastern countries, neither does my administration, so our country is rather safe.

However, these people want to overthrow the Middle Eastern governments currently in place, and kill you, me, and anyone else in their way.

I am not so sure they would want to kill me. I am not a US American citizen or soldier, so the risk that I would be victim of Muslim extremists is very very small. I do not support the US in the war on middle eastern countries, neither does my administration, so our country is rather safe.
Not neccessarily so. High rises in Frankfurt were evacuated on Sept. 11. A naval contingent is stationed in the Indian Ocean, and German forces are based in Kabul and Kandahar. Germans have actively prosecuted terrorists, and let's not forget that Mohammed Atta operated from Hamburg. Even if Germany isn't directly threatened, others in the EU are. Besides, even if no one from the West seeks these terrorists, they'll still try to kill us. It has been their policy for years, though perhaps not on as grand of a scale.

Germany has not been mentioned as a target for terrorist attacks - at least not by Al Quaida (or however its spelled). Our soldiershelp rebuild the countries and prevent civil war. We dont kill them and impose our ideals on them. Our soldiers are simply for humanitarian purposes, not to wage war. That one or two terrorists operated form Germany is probably due to the fact that Germany is very open for all sorts of foreigners or at least used to be. Laws are being tightened here too, so this wont happen anymore I hope. The prosecution of "terrorists" however has so far not produced any guilty people. It always resulted in a lack of evidence with the following release of the suspect and the dropping of all charges. At least to my knowledge.

Germany has not been mentioned as a target for terrorist attacks - at least not by Al Quaida (or however its spelled). Our soldiershelp rebuild the countries and prevent civil war. We dont kill them and impose our ideals on them. Our soldiers are simply for humanitarian purposes, not to wage war. That one or two terrorists operated form Germany is probably due to the fact that Germany is very open for all sorts of foreigners or at least used to be. Laws are being tightened here too, so this wont happen anymore I hope. The prosecution of "terrorists" however has so far not produced any guilty people. It always resulted in a lack of evidence with the following release of the suspect and the dropping of all charges. At least to my knowledge.
French soldiers say the same thing about their patrols in Haiti. They are there strictly for humanitarian purposes, and crowd control and such is a non-issue. However, they patrol only in the daytime, and rarely leave their amored vehicles. The US, Canadian, and Chilean troops all make foot patrols.
The image of invincibility is a false one. German troops are involved in quite bit. After all, their mission in Afghanistan is virtually the same as their US partners. They were even listed last year as part of the coalition to depose Hussein, as Germany provided chemical weapons experts.
However, even Germany's economic and moral standing in the world makes it vulnerable. Germany has the world's fourth largest economy, and subsequently uses a decent amount of oil that Arabs need to sell (and not all of German oil comes from the North Sea or Russia). Germany is also seen as being morally decadent by fundementalists, and that is part of the reason they're targeting the US. Even if Germany won't help militarily, it can aid the war in other ways. For example, it can help train police officers and civil defense forces, or let market forces help to rebuild infrastructure (as Germany has some companies with plenty of expertise in this). Each advancing step will make Germany safer. It's a neccessity to aid these areas and help fight terror, because if you are in a rich, morally shaky country that isn't Muslim, you're a target. After all, Singapore did little in this war, too. Now they are threatening their security.

part of the coalition to depose Hussein

Hmm last time I checked, Germany and France were labelled "Old Europe" because we did not join in your "unholy" coalition to oppress a sovereign nation in the pretence of defending your own country from WMD,which as we all know by now were flat out lies.

Why would Germany send Chemical weapons experts in a war that we clearly did not support? Nope.. no way.. I dont believe you unless you can back that up with facts.

a rich, morally shaky country that isn't Muslim

Germany may be rich, but we are not morally shaky. We arent christian nor are we muslim. We have no religion standing over another rather we have multiple religions which coexist, more or less peacefully. If Germany attends any aggressive war I will write my representatives to protest this. UN resolutions which require us to send troops to whereever for peacekeeping are of course an exception, since that is not aggressive.

*bumpzor*

The poll question, my friends, is what's termed a "complex question". Answering simply in the negative or affirmative to such a question implys guilt in some way, and is designed to force a predetermined conclusion in the minds of the audience, regardless of the answers of those who are questioned. Gigatron is just a piece of trash who can't find anything better to do than constantly harp on the USA, just ignore him.

(PS: I don't consider forcing people to do naked human pyramids, stand on boxes, or having their heads peed on torture)

Yet it still is torture, because it humiliates human beings to an extreme degree, which is unneccessary and in Abu Ghraib doesnot actually serve any purpose. Why would you want to pee on prisoners or make them stand on boxes or make naked pyramids? What would be the purposw other than violating their dignity and thus torturing them? Would you welcome it if someone did that to you?

Oh cry me a friggin river...The passive interrogation techniques they used such as sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation has been used by virtually every nation...middle eastern nations do real torture...so they didn't get a lotta sleep and made to stand naked....wanna bet there are a few Vietnam POWs who could in graphic detail explain to you what torture really is?


Now..that being said..I am not equating passive interrogation techniques with beating a prisoner or raping them....and so far at the Iraqi prison we have apprehended those soldiers who did the abuse and court-martials are going on...looks to me like the system is working? We had bad apples, we found the bad apples..we charged the bad apples and the bad apples will go to prison.

Apparently you didnt read my first post at all.. the fact that these torturings are caused by George Walker Bush and his ruthless actions resulting in violations of laws left and right. The Bush Administration sets the worst example a government could set, lowering inhibitions to commit such atrocities, by a lot. That you differentiate between lesser torturing or higher torturing is bad enough. Torturing is torturing is torturing and it is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, which the US of A have ratified, not to mention various human rights. That your few "bad apples" have been found will not do. They are the symptoms of this whole issue, not the cause. The cause, is your leader, the President of the United States of America and his administration!

Torture my ass, it's not bloody torture. The methods are psychological, not physical. How do you propose we get the information out of them, ask them nicely and offer them suites at the Waldorf-Astoria? How about a lobster and steak dinner? Fuck off, we'll do what needs to be done. You can just take your whiny, pathetic cries to the UN, because no one gives a shit whether or not you approve of our methods.
*Anticipates "Ugly American unilateralism!" cries from the sad little whiners.* *Preemptively tells them to fuck off.*

part of the coalition to depose Hussein

Hmm last time I checked, Germany and France were labelled "Old Europe" because we did not join in your "unholy" coalition to oppress a sovereign nation in the pretence of defending your own country from WMD,which as we all know by now were flat out lies.

Why would Germany send Chemical weapons experts in a war that we clearly did not support? Nope.. no way.. I dont believe you unless you can back that up with facts.

a rich, morally shaky country that isn't Muslim

Germany may be rich, but we are not morally shaky. We arent christian nor are we muslim. We have no religion standing over another rather we have multiple religions which coexist, more or less peacefully. If Germany attends any aggressive war I will write my representatives to protest this. UN resolutions which require us to send troops to whereever for peacekeeping are of course an exception, since that is not aggressive.
Germany would have many reasons to provide chemical weapons experts. If chemical or bio weapons were released during the invasion, France and Germany would be left twisting in the wind. Germany probably wanted a few troops just to say that it didn't underate the threat.
As for being morally unstable, I'm guessing part of your opposition to that statement is your assumption that I think the US is. It's not. Over the past 100 years, the US has been going into a tailspin morally. In the past 50 years, we took the rest of Europe with us. There is a lot Muslim fundementalists wouldn't like. As you've said, there's no real religious consensus there. 38% of Germans regularly have sex in the bedroom (the rest do it elsewhere, sometimes in public areas). Singapore, which is in a far better moral position than Germany, also thought it was immune. Now, it is also facing a threat by al-Qaeda and affiliates.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=9328&cid=5&cname=Asia
So just watch. Terrorists have operated from Germany, before. If they still have plans to strike the US, they probably are right now, and will kill anyone that stands in their way. Or if their plans unravel, they'll try a last-ditch effort to attack something there, perhaps the Reichstag. It won't be long before terrorists try something on German soil, and the self-righteous crowd, like yourself, will be disregarded.

Torture my ass, it's not bloody torture. The methods are psychological, not physical. How do you propose we get the information out of them, ask them nicely and offer them suites at the Waldorf-Astoria? How about a lobster and steak dinner? f--- off, we'll do what needs to be done. You can just take your whiny, pathetic cries to the UN, because no one gives a shit whether or not you approve of our methods.
*Anticipates "Ugly American unilateralism!" cries from the sad little whiners.* *Preemptively tells them to f--- off.*

You, sir, are an unpleasant and ignoble individual.

Good day.

Torture my ass, it's not bloody torture. The methods are psychological, not physical. How do you propose we get the information out of them, ask them nicely and offer them suites at the Waldorf-Astoria? How about a lobster and steak dinner? f--- off, we'll do what needs to be done. You can just take your whiny, pathetic cries to the UN, because no one gives a shit whether or not you approve of our methods.
*Anticipates "Ugly American unilateralism!" cries from the sad little whiners.* *Preemptively tells them to f--- off.*

You, sir, are an unpleasant and ignoble individual.

Good day.

However unpleasant..there is a certain quality here..terrorists by their nature are fanatics..zealots..you're just not going to get anywhere playing good cop..bad cop..you're not going to get your intel by making promises, they don't accept us..they don't trust us..inherently I might add simply because we do not believe the way they believe. not out of any political actions my government or previous administrations might have undertaken. How does one fight a zealot who fights for ideals...we can't bribe him...we can't shake his faith?...just how do you get the intel? All I've heard is what we are not supposed to do to keep in line with the Geneva Conventions..so just what are we supposed to do?

Torture my ass, it's not bloody torture. The methods are psychological, not physical. How do you propose we get the information out of them, ask them nicely and offer them suites at the Waldorf-Astoria? How about a lobster and steak dinner? f--- off, we'll do what needs to be done. You can just take your whiny, pathetic cries to the UN, because no one gives a shit whether or not you approve of our methods.
*Anticipates "Ugly American unilateralism!" cries from the sad little whiners.* *Preemptively tells them to f--- off.*

You, sir, are an unpleasant and ignoble individual.

Good day.

However unpleasant..there is a certain quality here..terrorists by their nature are fanatics..zealots..you're just not going to get anywhere playing good cop..bad cop..you're not going to get your intel by making promises, they don't accept us..they don't trust us..inherently I might add simply because we do not believe the way they believe. not out of any political actions my government or previous administrations might have undertaken. How does one fight a zealot who fights for ideals...we can't bribe him...we can't shake his faith?...just how do you get the intel? All I've heard is what we are not supposed to do to keep in line with the Geneva Conventions..so just what are we supposed to do?

My comments were directed more towards his gratuitously offensive language, not to mention his ignorance (there is such a thing as psychological torture). I happen to strongly condemn the use of torture in all scenarios. However, I appreciate your position and understand that there are no easy answers here. I have a lot more respect for you than I do the Self_Righteous_Tuna.

But hey - apparently I'm a sad little whiner, so maybe I should just shut up and learn my place rather than dare to criticise the blessed and righteous American imperialism. What an eejit.

If by torturing the enemy to get information that would save the lives of your fellow soldiers. Why not? Psychology is definitely the best. Physically, the prisoner would be scarred for life, and after the war, he'll still be a enemy.

Psychology, you'll scare the shit out of them so much that they won't have the balls to try and fight anymore. I'm from Malaysia. I had know a person who was sent to prison to be 'tortured' before because he went against the government (That's like 30 years ago, Communism). After he came out, he couldn't talk for 3 months. But when he came out, he was a different person.

I disagree with the Abu Ghraib tortures. Thats just stupid people doing stupid things there. But condoning proper torture for a better good. I'll agree to it. Information is the most important thing to win a war.

There are so many more HUMANE ways to extract info from a person W/O torture!! Why resort to this degrading motion???

Information is the most important thing to win a war.
In WW2...if captured....our soldiers were to tell their name and rank...period.

With "Approve this" I mean the policies of the Bush administration, condoning torture or turning a blind eye.


Bush did not condone nor turn a blind eye to torture, Stop your lying.

FINALLY a new argument! To paraphrase:"Bush is a torture condoning, Iraqi oppressing, economy killing, fascist!"

WOW!!!!

How did you ever come up with that theory?! All this anti-Bush spam is REALLY starting to piss me off. I think Aluran put it best when he said:"We had bad apples, we found the bad apples..we charged the bad apples and the bad apples will go to prison" End of argument.

I think Aluran put it best when he said:"We had bad apples, we found the bad apples..we charged the bad apples and the bad apples will go to prison" End of argument.

Really? So Donald Rumsfeld is going to prison? Oh, I see, you're still repeating old right-wing talking points, completely ignoring all news (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/) that has come out about the torture scandal in the past month. Or perhaps you're willingly living in a fantasyland in which the torture scandal went no farther than the people in the photographs? Take a look at the Pentagon's memo (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/30603wgrpt48.html) on torture yourself, if you like. Anyway, there's no point in arguing with people like you who are evidently too lazy to pick up a newspaper or do a Google search once in a while to see what's been going on. I won't waste my time.

Information is the most important thing to win a war.
In WW2...if captured....our soldiers were to tell their name and rank...period.
So....if they want to win a war....they must get the "information"....The Germans had no choice but to cut American prisoners into pieces...unless they gave away some good "information".

It's just not cool. It's sick really. Bush has ruined Americas reputation blah blah blah.

Can we stop talking about this now? I'm getting tired of seeing the same thread OVER AND OVER

Information is the most important thing to win a war.
In WW2...if captured....our soldiers were to tell their name and rank...period.
So....if they want to win a war....they must get the "information"....The Germans had no choice but to cut American prisoners into pieces...unless they gave away some good "information".

actually, the Wehrmacht and the SS preferred cleaner methods-like electric shock, beating (but not cutting) prisoners for hours, starvation/dehydration, exposure to cold or heat (but not enough to blister and make nasty puss-messes) etc. Generally "Clean" tortures that inflicted a high pain-to-damage ratio, mainly because it wasn't as messy.

The Prisoners in Abu-Ghraib aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions, as most of them were not "Legal Combatants"-i.e. they weren't in the Uniform of a Nation at the time they were captured, but they WERE engaging in combatant actions.
Under the Conventions, if you're in a war zone, using a gun, on soldiers, and you are in Civvies, you're meat-you have no protections at all.
Added to that, if you're there as a Mercenary, you are likewise not protected under Geneva Rules, even if you ARE in the uniform of a Legal Combatant.

In the case of the Middle-Eastern conflicts, this means that Terrorists aren't protected, nor are "Freedom Fighters", under Geneva, and the only legal protections they enjoy are those extended by the opposition to them through that opposition's Military Regulations relating to the treatment of Prisoners.

Information is the most important thing to win a war.
In WW2...if captured....our soldiers were to tell their name and rank...period.
So....if they want to win a war....they must get the "information"....The Germans had no choice but to cut American prisoners into pieces...unless they gave away some good "information".

actually, the Wehrmacht and the SS preferred cleaner methods-like electric shock, beating (but not cutting) prisoners for hours, starvation/dehydration, exposure to cold or heat (but not enough to blister and make nasty puss-messes) etc. Generally "Clean" tortures that inflicted a high pain-to-damage ratio, mainly because it wasn't as messy.

The Prisoners in Abu-Ghraib aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions, as most of them were not "Legal Combatants"-i.e. they weren't in the Uniform of a Nation at the time they were captured, but they WERE engaging in combatant actions.
Under the Conventions, if you're in a war zone, using a gun, on soldiers, and you are in Civvies, you're meat-you have no protections at all.
Added to that, if you're there as a Mercenary, you are likewise not protected under Geneva Rules, even if you ARE in the uniform of a Legal Combatant.

In the case of the Middle-Eastern conflicts, this means that Terrorists aren't protected, nor are "Freedom Fighters", under Geneva, and the only legal protections they enjoy are those extended by the opposition to them through that opposition's Military Regulations relating to the treatment of Prisoners.

ill support Bush in anything

However, these people want to overthrow the Middle Eastern governments currently in place, and kill you, me, and anyone else in their way.

I am not so sure they would want to kill me. I am not a US American citizen or soldier, so the risk that I would be victim of Muslim extremists is very very small. I do not support the US in the war on middle eastern countries, neither does my administration, so our country is rather safe.

Actually your country and you are not safe. If you are not one of them you are fair game. Last I heard they didn't pass on killing refief workers from Belgium and France.

They are also killing Asians, Arabs, Persians, eyc. with the same alacrity. They are like Bush. You are either with them or against them.

SHL