NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of being pilloried for referencing Al-Jazeera in regards to this ACTUALLY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT. I have gone to the lengths of referencing other, more 'suitable' sources, and come up with precisely the same material, which I originally posted throughout this thread.

Seeing as how you're all apparently too prejudicial to read an article and be able to understand the differences between FACTS and FANCIES, I've gone to the trouble of re-editing the lead-off article. The Al-Jazeera article will go in place of one of these THREE articles I'm replacing it with here.

You can shrug it off, you can insult me, you can try sweeping it under the table or blaming the ACLU. Whatever. But I won't let you ignore it. No way. Too many people are guilty of THAT.

America -what does it take to shake your people out of their complacency, anyway?


http://www.notinourname.net/war/tor...ort-27aug04.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army report: Gen. Sanchez approved torture at Abu Ghraib
Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt
The New York Times
August 27, 2004

Classified parts of the report by three Army generals on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison say Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, approved the use in Iraq of some severe interrogation practices intended to be limited to captives held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

Moreover, the report contends, by issuing and revising the rules for interrogations in Iraq three times in 30 days, General Sanchez and his legal staff sowed such confusion that interrogators acted in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions, which they understood poorly anyway.

Military officials and others in the Bush administration have repeatedly said the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners in Iraq, even though members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban held in Afghanistan and Guantánamo did not, in their estimation, fall under the conventions.

But classified passages of the Army report say the procedures approved by General Sanchez on Sept. 14, 2003, and the revisions made when the Central Command found fault with the initial policy, exceeded the Geneva guidelines as well as standard Army doctrines.

General Sanchez and his aides have previously described the series of orders he issued, although not in as much detail as the latest report, which was released Wednesday with a few classified sections omitted. They have described his order of Oct. 12 as rescinding his order of Sept. 14.

But the Army's latest review instead finds that the later order "confused doctrine and policy even further," a classified part of the report says. It says the memorandum, while not authorizing abuse, effectively opened the way at Abu Ghraib last fall for interrogation techniques that Pentagon investigators have characterized as abusive, in dozens of cases involving dozens of soldiers at the prison in Iraq.

The techniques approved by General Sanchez exceeded those advocated in a standard Army field manual that provided the basic guidelines for interrogation procedures. But they were among those previously approved by the Pentagon for use in Afghanistan and Cuba, and were recommended to General Sanchez and his staff in the summer of 2003 in memorandums sent by a team headed by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, a commander at Guantánamo who had been sent to Iraq by senior Pentagon officials, and by a military intelligence unit that had served in Afghanistan and was taking charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

The report says the abusive techniques not sufficiently prohibited by General Sanchez included isolation and the use of dogs in interrogation. It says military police and military intelligence soldiers who used those practices believed they had been authorized by senior commanders.

"At Abu Ghraib, isolation conditions sometimes included being kept naked in very hot or very cold, small rooms, and/or completely darkened rooms, clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions," a classified part of the report said.

The passages involving General Sanchez's orders were among several deleted from the version of the report by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay that was made public by the Pentagon on Wednesday.

Classified parts of the 171-page report were provided to The New York Times by a senior Defense Department official who said fuller disclosure of the findings would help public understanding of the causes of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Army officials said Thursday that some sections of the report had been marked secret because they referred to policy memorandums that were still classified.

But the report's discussion of the September and October orders, while critical of General Sanchez and his staff, do not disclose many new details of the orders and do not appear to contain sensitive material about interrogations or other intelligence-gathering methods.

They do show in much clearer detail than ever before how interrogation practices from Afghanistan and Guantánamo were brought to Abu Ghraib, and how poorly the nuances of what was acceptable in Iraq were understood by military intelligence officials in Iraq.

The classified sections of the Fay report reinforce criticisms made in another report, by the independent panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, the former defense secretary.

That panel argued that General Sanchez's actions effectively amounted to an unauthorized suspension of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq by categorizing prisoners there as unlawful combatants.

The Schlesinger panel described that reasoning as "understandable," but said General Sanchez and his staff should have recognized that they were "lacking specific authorization to operate beyond the confines of the Geneva Convention."

In an interview on Thursday with reporters and editors of The Times, Gen. Paul J. Kern, the senior officer who supervised General Fay's work, said the Fay inquiry had not addressed whether General Sanchez was authorized to designate detainees in Iraq as unlawful combatants, as the administration has treated prisoners in Afghanistan.

A secret passage in the report, though, says that with General Sanchez's first order, on Sept. 14, national policies and those of his command "collided, introducing ambiguities and inconsistencies in policy and practice," adding, "Policies and practices developed and approved for use on Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Conventions' protections." It goes on to cite several further problems with the order.

Asked whether General Sanchez's actions opened the door to use of interrogation techniques from Afghanistan, General Kern said, "He didn't close the door, and he should have."

Together, the Schlesinger and Fay reports spell out the sharpest criticism of missteps by American commanders in Iraq involving what they described as a crucial question of making clear to soldiers what was permitted and what was not in interrogation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

General Sanchez and his deputies have always maintained that the only approaches they authorized for use in Iraq were consistent with the Geneva Conventions, which spell out rules for the treatment of prisoners of war and other combatants. They have said the directive issued by General Sanchez in October had made it clear that the use of dogs and isolation could be used in interrogations only with the general's approval.

"Interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolation as interrogation practices," a classified part of the report said. "The manner in which they were used on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions."

The classified section of the Fay report also sheds new light on the role played by a secretive Special Operations Forces/Central Intelligence Agency task force that operated in Iraq and Afghanistan as a source of interrogation procedures that were put into effect at Abu Ghraib. It says that a July 15, 2003, "Battlefield Interrogation Team and Facility Policy," drafted by use by Joint Task Force 121, which was given the task of locating former government members in Iraq, was adopted "almost verbatim" by the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, which played a leading role in interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

That task force policy endorsed the use of stress positions during harsh interrogation procedures, the use of dogs, yelling, loud music, light control, isolation and other procedures used previously in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those measures were initially authorized by General Sanchez for use in Iraq in his September memorandum, then revoked in the policy he issued a month later, but not in a way understood by interrogators at Abu Ghraib to have banned those practices, the classified version of the Fay report said.

Among those who believed, incorrectly, that the use of dogs in interrogations could be approved without General Sanchez's approval was Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, the report said.

"Dogs as an interrogation tool should have been specifically excluded," a classified section of the report said. It criticized General Sanchez for not having fully considered "the implications for interrogation policy," and said the manner in which interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolations as interrogation practices "on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions."

The role played by members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C., some of whom were identified as having taken part in the abuses, is given particular attention in the classified parts of the report.

Members of the unit had earlier served in Afghanistan, where some were implicated in the deaths of two detainees that are still under investigation, and the report says commanders should have heeded more carefully the danger that members of the unit might again be involved in abusive behavior.

The unit had worked closely with Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan, and "at same point" it "came to possess the JTF-121 interrogation policy" used by the joint Special Operations/C.I.A. teams, the classified section of the report says.


And from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4392519.stm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

US memo shows Iraq jail methods

The ACLU said the measures had gone beyond the acceptable
The top US general in Iraq authorised interrogation techniques including the use of dogs, stress positions and disorientation, a memo has shown.
The document was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through the US Freedom of Information Act.

The September 2003 document is signed by the then commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez.

The ACLU says the measures go beyond generally accepted practice and says Gen Sanchez should be made accountable.

The memo authorised techniques including putting prisoners in stressful positions, using loud music and light control, and changing sleeping patterns.

It also authorised the presence of muzzled military working dogs to, as the memo puts it, "exploit Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations".

The presence of dogs and other measures, all of which required approval by Gen Sanchez, were rescinded a month later because of opposition from military lawyers.

Gen Sanchez says advance permission was required every time one of these techniques was requested, adding that he never gave such permission.

'Beyond army limits'

The Pentagon originally refused to release the memo on national security grounds, but passed it to the ACLU on Friday after the union challenged it in court under the Freedom of Information Act.

The ACLU says at least 12 of the 29 techniques listed in the document went far beyond limits established by the army's field manual.


Gen Sanchez was commander from June 2003 to July 2004
"Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in the union's statement.

"He and other high ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The techniques included "environmental manipulation" such as making a room hot or cold or using an "unpleasant smell", isolating a prisoner, and disrupting normal sleep patterns.

The memo also allowed the "false flag" technique of "convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him."

It was during Gen Sanchez's time as commander that Iraqi prisoners were abused by US troops at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

The cases - highlighted in photographs of hooded and naked inmates - sparked international outrage.

Army investigations have generally found that, where proven, abuses were not the result of policy set by senior leaders.

The ACLU is currently taking part in a lawsuit against Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accusing him of responsibility for torture and abuse of detainees in US military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Here's more for you:

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/...7468e5a95e.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Lens Focused on U.S. Torture and Detention Policies
ACLU Seeks to Hold U.S. Government to Universal Standards of Human Rights
April 4, 2005

GENEVA - The American Civil Liberties Union today called for immediate action by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to address the abuse and torture of prisoners by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at other U.S.-controlled detention centers.

A delegation of attorneys from the ACLU arrived in Geneva this week to attend the 61st meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The ACLU delegation seeks to bring issues of torture and detention, racial profiling, and the exploitation of migrant domestic workers to the Commission’s attention.

"Senior officials in the Bush administration adopted policies that were entirely inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and customary international law," said Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "Those unlawful policies, some of which are still in place, led directly to the maltreatment of hundreds of prisoners."

Through litigation under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU has obtained more than 30,000 documents concerning the detention, mistreatment and confinement of prisoners apprehended by the U.S. after September 11, 2001. The documents, which reinforce previous reports and testimonies, establish beyond any doubt that prisoners under U.S. control are being abused and even tortured. The documents also show that the abuse and torture of prisoners is not irregular or isolated but rather widespread and systemic.

The documents are online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

"Nearly a year after the Abu Ghraib torture and abuses came to public light, serious violations of human rights continue to be committed in U.S. controlled detention centers around the globe," said Jamil Dakwar, a senior human rights attorney with the ACLU. "No country is above the law, and the United States should not be permitted to violate fundamental human rights in the name of national security."

Citing serious violations of fundamental human rights, the ACLU makes several urgent recommendations to the Commission on Human Rights, including:

* A reaffirmation of the absolute prohibition of all forms of torture and a reaffirmation that no circumstance whatsoever may justify the violation of this principle;
* A global call upon the United States to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in all places under its jurisdiction and control, to ensure that all acts are thoroughly and impartially investigated, and to hold accountable those officials who encouraged or sanctioned such acts;
* Support for the request that the United States permit U.N. human rights experts and monitors to "visit, together and at the earliest possible date, those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violation in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Guantanamo Bay military base and elsewhere.

The full list of recommendations as part of the ACLU’s written statement on torture and detention is available on line at: http://www.aclu.org/International/I...m?ID=17904&c=36.

On March 1, 2005 the ACLU and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit charging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with direct responsibility for the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. military custody. The action was the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of the charges are based on documents obtained through the FOIA lawsuit. The ACLU has also filed separate lawsuits naming Brig. Gen. Karpinski, Col. Thomas Pappas and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Details about the Rumsfeld lawsuit are online at www.aclu.org/rumsfeld.

The ACLU recently created a new Human Rights Working Group specifically dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to universally recognized human rights principles. The Human Rights Working Group is charged with incorporating international human rights strategies into ACLU advocacy on issues relating to national security, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, and racial justice.

The ACLU is a national, non-partisan, non-governmental organization with more than 400,000 members dedicated to protecting the individual liberties, rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. The ACLU was founded in 1920 and is now the largest U.S.-based civil liberties organization. It has offices in all 50 states and employs over 150 permanent staff attorneys and 2,000 cooperating attorneys, litigating over 6,000 cases annually.

I am anyi-Bush, anti-war.

It is an outrage, what they did. I am very ashmaned of being part American in these times.

As much as this doesn't suprise me in the least, it'll be very interesting to see if this is commented on by the american media or the current administration.

I'd also have to say that it wouldn't suprise me if no comment is passed. All I can say is that it will be extremely telling on the ethics of the current administration and brass of the US army if, even when confronted with written proof, nobody is called to account for their actions.

Yes what the soldiers convicted for abu gharib did was attrocious. Ordering soldiers to do what they did is just as heinous in my mind. While "I was only following orders" can never be an excuse, it should not preclude the superiors of those soldiers from investigation themselves.

What still surprises me is how the media just can't seem to make the connection that this behavior has been sanctioned by those at the top and the soldiers carrying out this torture are nothing more than lackeys. It's as if the press is trying to protect this Administration by tip toeing around the issue instead of blowing it wide open with real investigative journalism.

If it's true, then by all means do something about it. This country was disgraced by that scandal, and the faster the bottom of it is reached, the better. I seriously doubt there was no knowledge of this by the higher levels of the military. This might break in to something huge.

What still surprises me is how the media just can't seem to make the connection that this behavior has been sanctioned by those at the top and the soldiers carrying out this torture are nothing more than lackeys. It's as if the press is trying to protect this Administration by tip toeing around the issue instead of blowing it wide open with real investigative journalism.
Do you think Bush wants to be blamed for this? His popularity level will go from -50 to -100

What still surprises me is how the media just can't seem to make the connection that this behavior has been sanctioned by those at the top and the soldiers carrying out this torture are nothing more than lackeys. It's as if the press is trying to protect this Administration by tip toeing around the issue instead of blowing it wide open with real investigative journalism.

As has been repeatedly underscored to me by my interactions with Bush cheerleaders on NS, Americans simply aren't interested in 'real investigative journalism' - they prefer editorials, panel discussions, or 'news-as-entertainment' programs. Frankly, I think many Americans still harbour deep resentment towards Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and the entire field of investigative journalism for exposing Tricky Dick Nixon as a criminal, waaaay back in the 1970s.

As has been repeatedly underscored to me by my interactions with Bush cheerleaders on NS, Americans simply aren't interested in 'real investigative journalism' - they prefer editorials, panel discussions, or 'news-as-entertainment' programs. Frankly, I think many Americans still harbour deep resentment towards Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and the entire field of investigative journalism for exposing Tricky Dick Nixon as a criminal, waaaay back in the 1970s.

I think you're spot-on about that.

Do you think Bush wants to be blamed for this? His popularity level will go from -50 to -100

What does he care now? It'd not as though he'll face re-election. The next four years will be a cakewalk if the fifth estate doesn't possess the spine to serve this would-be emperor his just desserts for poisoning & perverting America's sociopolitical landscape.

Impeach the cretin, I say.

hang on a minute

i'm as anti-bush as the next guy, but there is a vast difference between use of dogs, stress positions and loud music and the horrible events which occured. beating, sexual abuse and the like are a level above dogs and stress positions...

of course, give most barely-trained reservists power to use dogs and stress positions and it only makes sense that they would abuse their power (human nature) and the guys at the top were probably aware of that.

so i think what's happened is that although the abuse that happened was waaaayy over the line, and the people at the top expected it to happen, the people at the top didn't actually say to do it.

so they're still morally responsible, there's just no legal paper-trail to show it. you can hardly say "US general's role revealed" in those circumstances. it's just obvious to everyone with half a brain...

hang on a minute

*snips*

there's just no legal paper-trail to show it. you can hardly say "US general's role revealed" in those circumstances. it's just obvious to everyone with half a brain...

It's patently obvious to anyone who BOTHERED READING THE ARTICLE that this is PRECISELY what has been revealed - the 'legal paper-trail' you're alluding to.

Which half of your brain did you use to write your response?

of course i read the article

the document refers to dogs and stress positions. nowhere does it say that he authorised sexual abuse and beatings to the point of death.

while i'm sure the military knew what the outcome of their policy would be, they didnt' explicitly say to do it.

it's called "plausible deniability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

"Plausible deniability involves the creation of power structures and chains of command loose and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and, later, other bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures -- up to and including the President himself—but that the existence and true source of those instructions could be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong and it was necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility."

Oh boo hoo. Terrorists get placed into strange positions, and have dogs bark at them. I feel soooo sympathetic towards them, really. Especially considering that I have friends who PAY for what those bastards got for free.

Oh boo hoo. Terrorists get placed into strange positions, and have dogs bark at them. I feel soooo sympathetic towards them, really. Especially considering that I have friends who PAY for what those bastards got for free.

Have you ever considered that not everybody in those prisons might have been a terrorist?

Or that even terrorists are human beings and if you treat them as animals, or condone treating them as animals you're more of an animal than a human being yourself?

Such an empathetic attitude you've got there buddy.

The people in that section were specifically singled out as the worst, hard core jihadists. It was a specific part of Abu Gihraib specifically designed for the worst prisoners, ala "Super Max" US prisons. And no, I don't empathize. We need to get good information somehow, and humiliation is a better alternative to torture.

they WERE tortured. people died.

those photos in the media are only the tamest stuff.

torture is an extremely unreliable way to get information. people tend to make up whatever they think you want to hear

The people in that section were specifically singled out as the worst, hard core jihadists.

By who? How reliable are they? How reliable are their sources? How quick might they be to scapegoat someone anonymously in order to ingratiate themselves to their handlers?

How gullible are you willing to allow yourself to be in the pursuit of vengeance? Do you believe that Justice is served through the abasement of free people?

I'm bumping this because it frankly demands attention, particularly among the cheerleaders out there.

Think the buck stops at Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez?

Think again.

BUMP.

Scaring people with dogs, forcing them into uncomfortable positions, and subjecting them to flashing lights and blaring music does NOT constitute torture.

I don't consider al jazeera as a decent source, sorry. They were rambling about "napalm gas" during Fallujah... Napalm's not a gas, sorry.

It's war, people die.

And I'm sure, some MP just needs to look mean at an insurgent and that little terrorist screams "torture!"

Scaring people with dogs, forcing them into uncomfortable positions, and subjecting them to flashing lights and blaring music does NOT constitute torture.



While the USMJ doesn't directly call it torture, it's still a crime in military law.

As promised, the Al-Jazeera, which I frankly resent having to show in such a manner. I feel like I'm complicit in keeping valid news sources "at the back of the bus". But I want the MESSAGE to ring through, not the MESSENGER.

Shame on me for caving into this prejudice. Shame on those of you who have forced me to so cave.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...397F5F44B1A.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


A leading US civil liberties group has obtained a document showing that the former US commander in Iraq sanctioned the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib prison.

The document, which is published on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website www.aclu.org, reveals that Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques using dogs, stress positions, sleep and isolation.

The techniques are against the Geneva Conventions and are forbidden by US army regulations.

Sanchez authorised 29 interrogation techniques in the 2003 memo which was released by the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Presence of Military Working Dogs. Exploits Arab fear of dogs," is one technique listed.

"Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control. Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock," is another.

In addition to Sanchez's memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners.

"General Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

"He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

ACLU is accusing General Sanchez of perjury after he denied that he had permitted such techniques during a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004.

"I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath.

"Lieutenant-General Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation," Anthony D Romero, ACLU executive director, said in a letter to attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, asking him to open an investigation into possible perjury.

Romero added: "This clear breach of the public's trust is also further proof that the American people deserve the appointment of an independent special counsel by the attorney-general."

The document contradicts US army and Defence Department claims the Abu Ghraib abuse was carried out by individuals acting without orders.

Those accused of abusing prisoners say they were scapegoats for high-ranking officers and politicians who ordered that detainees be tortured so intelligence gathering in Iraq could be improved.

"The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," the lawyer of Charles Graner said after his client was given a 10-year prison sentence in January for being a ring-leader in the abuse scandal.

"The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff'. You know that is a lie," the lawyer said.

Reacting to the development, Alaa Shalabi, a senior researcher with the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in Egypt, said the revelations were not a surprise.

"We have proof that these kinds of techniques were practised, especially in Abu Ghraib," he said. "Such actions raise suspicions about the whole chain of command all the way to [US President George] Bush. These practices have been justified by the Pentagon."

Shalabi said he thought abuses were common in all of the detention camps run by the US military.

The US Defence Department said they will respond to the issue in due course of time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I were an American, I would be outraged by this turn of events, especially if I were a supporter of the current admin and it's 'War on Terror'.

How about it, Yanks? Are you at all upset that you've been lied to, that your general Sanchez is a willful perjurer who broke both the Geneva Conventions AS WELL AS United States Army regulations in order to achieve the current admin's wishes?

As has been repeatedly underscored to me by my interactions with Bush cheerleaders on NS, Americans simply aren't interested in 'real investigative journalism' - they prefer editorials, panel discussions, or 'news-as-entertainment' programs. Frankly, I think many Americans still harbour deep resentment towards Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and the entire field of investigative journalism for exposing Tricky Dick Nixon as a criminal, waaaay back in the 1970s.

LOL!!!!!! AS a bush cheerleader I have only qouted credible news sources like Reuters, CNN, and the BBC .. this entire thread is being based on an article published by Al-Jazeera... (like this isn't bias or skewed using twisted facts) ... and let me clarifiy some things on the article I just read..

for one ... sleep deprevation and isolation, as well as the use of dogs and stress positions are all SANCTIONED interorgative tactics used by the Pentagon... No where in that description did I see the use of sodemy, nudity, humilitation or shock treatment ... these are all the tactics which the US VIEMENTLY DENY authorizing...

and the fact that the only base of information comming for this article is derived from the ACLU of all places is a travesty and only makes me further discount this as a credible news story . You give me this information from a non-bias news source and maybe ill consider it

Nothing to see here, move along.

and the fact that the only base of information comming for this article is derived from the ACLU of all places is a travesty and only makes me further discount this as a credible news story . You give me this information from a non-bias news source and maybe ill consider it

What, pray tell, is biased about the American Civil Liberties Union? Do illuminate me, please. You'll also note that I have provided a second source, the New York Times.

Is there some problem with the New York Times that I am unaware of? Again, please enlighten me. Perhaps you could provide some sort of list of what is or isn't a credible news source and your reasons for same. I'm sure I can accomodate you.

Humiliation and torture are both inhumane.
If the US has such a great intelligence Agency, that they can pinpoint threats even before they happen, why do they need to hear from individuals who are pretty much labeled as morons.
Either the US intelligence lies about its massive capabilities, or these "morons" have more access to information than the entire CIA...

Either way, the de-humanizing of people really needs to stop. If you kill someone, you should have to bury them. Death should only involve glory. None of this "They deserve it, they are animals" crap. Human life should be held to a higher level. Even a murderer is a beautiful soul.

they WERE tortured. people died.

those photos in the media are only the tamest stuff.

torture is an extremely unreliable way to get information. people tend to make up whatever they think you want to hear

actually studies show many of the methods used in what you call "torture" are quite effective... Sleep deprivation among the most reliant... studies have shown information derived from subjects who underwent sleep deprivation largely gave credible valid information

Fascism is rooted in the core of right-wing governments. it's ideals are as essential to right-wingers as air is to standard humans. dispite all the funky names they can use to justify their actions, these things are really just about as essential to them as "the final solution" was to the nazi party. america doesn't have to try for more world domination now - unless they want to try for the entire solar system. this doesn't mean america is invincible, pathetic bush fanboys and fangirls (if there is any).

Even though i disagree with the majority of islamic beleifs if i am going to fight in this (which i will soon) i am on the muslim's side, because if they win they don't become the strongest but accually weaker than before because of the struggle

What, pray tell, is biased about the American Civil Liberties Union? Do illuminate me, please. You'll also note that I have provided a second source, the New York Times.

Is there some problem with the New York Times that I am unaware of? Again, please enlighten me. Perhaps you could provide some sort of list of what is or isn't a credible news source and your reasons for same. I'm sure I can accomodate you.

firstly for the ACLU http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklingblog/C1539669634/E762430869/
(granted this reflects my personal partisan feelings toward the ACLU) best describes some of my problems with that organization

And I apoligize i did not see your second posting and I do feel the NY times is a FARRRRR more credible source then the ladder

As for the article.. all that is revealed here is that in General Sanchez's first orders given in September..t hat some interrorative actions exceeded the guidelines of the Geneva convention and Military Law, (of which were corrected in the Oct Revisions) and that though the October revisions did in fact bring the guidlines back within acceptable levels, that it did not nessesarly give clarity or "did not close the door it should have" in that some area might have been in question as per authoriziation. This DOES NOT nessesarly equate the General authorizing the actions taken at the prision... what this means is that people did not understand what their powers were (since the Sept orders were nullified and replaced by the Oct orders)... in this case it was up to the soliders to verify what in fact the level of authority they held to complete their oders were... As the orders in Septemeber which exceeded military law and the Geneva convention were techically viod the moment they were given since no soldier is permited to follow an order which violates the Geneva conventions/military law. SOLDIERS ARE NOT TRAINED TO BE AUTOMITANS!! EVEN considering the September orders, there was STILL not suffiencent authorization to carry out the ABUSES which actually occured in the prision... Even if interrigators felt they had the powers which were given in the September orders they were STILL not authorized to use the level of powers they did which amounted to tantamount abuses of human rights...

Where is the outrage suppose to be directed to here... I fail to see it. Soldiers overstepd their bounds in an anomoly and violeted human rights... they have been brough to justice accordingly.. and no credible link can be made that they were given orders.. only that they mis interpreted the orders they had and EVEN still EXCEEDED the orders they THOUGHT they were prieved to. This does not show a weakness in systemic procedures but rather the soldiers inability to identify what was proper procedure acting on their own accord.

Fascism is rooted in the core of right-wing governments. it's ideals are as essential to right-wingers as air is to standard humans. dispite all the funky names they can use to justify their actions, these things are really just about as essential to them as "the final solution" was to the nazi party. america doesn't have to try for more world domination now - unless they want to try for the entire solar system. this doesn't mean america is invincible, pathetic bush fanboys and fangirls (if there is any).

Even though i disagree with the majority of islamic beleifs if i am going to fight in this (which i will soon) i am on the muslim's side, because if they win they don't become the strongest but accually weaker than before because of the struggle

whose definition of right-wing are you using.. Europes or Americas ? in America right-wingers (made up largely of conservatives) look for less governmental controls smaller overall government (de-centralizied government ) and more capitalistic freedom... where as Left-wingers look for big government large governmental controls (centeralized government) and less capitalistic freedoms... Techincially in American terms Facisim would fall to the left not the right

European political terms do not apply directly in America... (somehow I think the Leftists in America will get a little rialed if you sugest to them being Facisist :D )

and btw... the Right-wingers now in control are already looking for smaller government as they try to shrink the overall Federal government budget (which in essence begins to shift the focuse to State governments as opposed to Federal government)

Thank you, drive through.

I did in fact respond.. just backtrack a bit ~_^

and while all of the ACLU's claims may (or maynot) be valid for the September orders.. those orders were infact recinded (and nullified) by the October Orders which reclarified the authority interrigators had in techniques.... Pitty they dont make that point clear.

Look, there simply are some things here which can't be swept under the carpet, man. Sanchez perjured himself before a Senate Armed Services committee in May 2004. This is excerpted from the first report I reproduced here, the one that drew cat-calls because, though truthful, originated from Al-Jazeera:

"In addition to Sanchez's memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners.

(The) ACLU is accusing General Sanchez of perjury after he denied that he had permitted such techniques during a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004.

"I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath.

"Lieutenant-General Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation," Anthony D Romero, ACLU executive director, said in a letter to attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, asking him to open an investigation into possible perjury. "

This is important. This MEANS something. This shouldn't be made to slip into the ether. Even a cheerleader needs to come to grips with this Awful Truth.

Look, there simply are some things here which can't be swept under the carpet, man. Sanchez perjured himself before a Senate Armed Services committee in May 2004. This is excerpted from the first report I reproduced here, the one that drew cat-calls because, though truthful, originated from Al-Jazeera:

"In addition to Sanchez's memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners.

(The) ACLU is accusing General Sanchez of perjury after he denied that he had permitted such techniques during a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004.

"I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath.

"Lieutenant-General Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation," Anthony D Romero, ACLU executive director, said in a letter to attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, asking him to open an investigation into possible perjury. "

This is important. This MEANS something. This shouldn't be made to slip into the ether. Even a cheerleader needs to come to grips with this Awful Truth.

if that was his sworn testimony then ABSOLUTLY.. he should be charged with Purgery and sentenced accordingly.. (as I would have the same done to clinton for his Purgery to the Federal court in the Scandel he so faced :sniper: ) ... however, I was given the impression this was trying to draw a link between the abuses within Abu-grabi and the orders he gave to the extent that he AUTHORIZED the tactics used which were tantamount to abuse.. INFACT he did no such thing... even in following his septemeber guidellines the soliders exceeded their mandate sodomizing raping, and humiliating the prisioners as well as using shocktreatment.

I am extremely against Purgury by Governmental and military officals and feel all cases of such should be tried with the greatest effort and those found guilty should have the book thrown at them ... The same for Clinton as for this General

any instance in which public figures lie to the public under oath.. reflects a sever disconnection between the person and how they see their power.. and the public and what power is actually given and the terms by which it is given. In that these officals are meant to SERVE the public... not to the point at which they should be seeing themselves as ABOVE the public. and Lying under oath reveals a level of distain for the power the public holds (through the judiciary) to an unacceptable level and should in no way ever be tolerated.


If I was given proof Bush lied under oath blatently I would want full legal action taken against him reguardless of me being a bush cheerleader

OK here's the deal for all you non-Americans about the ACLU. About 50% of the people think what they say is dogma, and the other 50% think it's BS. Until one of the major news sources verifies the document (well, maybe not CBS), I will still doubt that Sanchez authorized it. Even if he did, I would doubt that he put it in writing.

Besides, if the document is true, he only authorized the use of fear to get information (dogs.. etc...), which I really don't have a problem with.

OK here's the deal for all you non-Americans about the ACLU. About 50% of the people think what they say is dogma, and the other 50% think it's BS. Until one of the major news sources verifies the document (well, maybe not CBS), I will still doubt that Sanchez authorized it. Even if he did, I would doubt that he put it in writing.

Besides, if the document is true, he only authorized the use of fear to get information (dogs.. etc...), which I really don't have a problem with.

So, turn it around on yourself. How would YOU feel if someone like Sanchez authorized the "use of fear" to get information from YOU? I think you'd really HAVE a problem with that. I'm sure you'd be very glad to have a body like the ACLU to fight on your behalf.

So, turn it around on yourself. How would YOU feel if someone like Sanchez authorized the "use of fear" to get information from YOU? I think you'd really HAVE a problem with that. I'm sure you'd be very glad to have a body like the ACLU to fight on your behalf.

Sanchez's orders (sept orders which were recinded) DID NOT authorize the level of interroative techniques where were tantamount to sexual and physical abuse as those used in the Prision.. Please dont be misleading here!

Quite frankly people would like not like being interrigated by the FBI let alone the military... of course anyone would have a problem with it.. but we realize the need and its effectiveness there in. I realize the displeasure these people undergo.. but the SANCTIONED tactics used by the Federal government still leave those interrigated individuals with all of their faculties (quite able to live healthy full life) unlike what they might have undergone 60 - 100 years ago where torture often meant death or sever physical disability

Sanchez's orders (sept orders which were recinded) DID NOT authorize the level of interroative techniques where were tantamount to sexual and physical abuse as those used in the Prision.. Please dont be misleading here!

Sanchez' orders were followed. This was his watch. Apart from the memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners. Guess what? Orders don't appear out of a vacuum.

Sanchez' orders were followed. This was his watch. Apart from the memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners. Guess what? Orders don't appear out of a vacuum.


If I had abused anyone, I would certainly say I had been given orders, even if I hadn't.

It appears to me that Sanchez thought that the same techniques used at Guantanamo would be used in Iraq. Additionally, the soldiers at Abu Gharaib went far beyond the techniques in the papers you mention - far, far beyond. And they were prosecuted for it. However, I would bet that if you didn't go beyond the Sanchez memo, you were probably not going to be prosecuted - as long as the techniques were used only on detainees they intended to interrogate, and as long as you did them according to a detailed plan to break someone, and as long as you stopped doing all this after the first Abu Gharaib investigation started (which, IIRC, stopped this at an official level).

If you'll read a bit, you'll discover as the UK did in WW II, that your own men, in contravention of direct orders, will abuse prisoners, rape them, torture them , and use hideous means of interrogation on a regular basis. They will then claim that they were "ordered" to do so by superiors, even if the orders they received did not authorize means such as torturing someone to death.

The reason they discovered for this is "small group dynamics". It explains why men in such situations will deem themselves sufficiently isolated as to be above and beyond any investigation or punishment. It also explains why men in combat don't run away (if most stay), or all run away together - regardless of the punishment for running away.

Men who are in situations where they believe themselves to be beyond punishment will do things that they themselves would not have believed.

Maybe if we had given them milk and cookies the captured terrorists would have given us all of the information we wanted.

Big F-in Deal...

It's ok to starve an innocent person to death, but god forbid we subject some bottom dwelling scum to loud music...

Sanchez' orders were followed. This was his watch. Apart from the memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners. Guess what? Orders don't appear out of a vacuum.

Doesn't it seem to begg the question that if the soldiers at hand where caught (RED HANDED) commiting what could only be described as crimes against humanity... AGAINST HUMAnITY... they would have some motives to perhaps embellish in their so called sworn testimony to the effect that they were acting "underorders" claims which cannot be substanciated as no direct orders have been found outlining the tactics which were actually employed by these interrigators ? The only orders in question are those of Septemeber and the subsiquent replacement in OCtober... and neither of these allowed for the type of gross abuses which were infact conducted. So AGAIN i fail to see this connection your claiming

Big F-in Deal...

It's ok to starve an innocent person to death, but god forbid we subject some bottom dwelling scum to loud music...

Who determines whether the people held captive and TORTURED are, as you say, "bottom dwelling scum"?

Your line of reasoning runs how? In a circle? Someone gets arrested on suspicion of terroristic involvement, and finds himself in an Iraqi jail. At what point does this suspect cross the line from being an "innocent person" and become, as you say, "bottom dwelling scum"?

Hey, YOU put that guy in that jail. If you were to put General Sanchez in that jail, would that automatically make HIM "bottom dwelling scum"? No, of course not - General Sanchez speaks American-accented English, and doesn't pray to Mecca five times a day.

Your double standard is so thick it could be used as thermal insulation.

Doesn't it seem to begg the question that if the soldiers at hand where caught (RED HANDED) commiting what could only be described as crimes against humanity... AGAINST HUMAnITY... they would have some motives to perhaps embellish in their so called sworn testimony to the effect that they were acting "underorders" claims which cannot be substanciated as no direct orders have been found outlining the tactics which were actually employed by these interrigators ? The only orders in question are those of Septemeber and the subsiquent replacement in OCtober... and neither of these allowed for the type of gross abuses which were infact conducted. So AGAIN i fail to see this connection your claiming

You make it sound as though I'm plucking this out of thin air. So far I've provided, what? Three? Four? Sources for this story. And maybe you've failed to notice, this ISN'T a re-hash of all the old abuse/torture stories (i.e. TRUTHS) about Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo - rather this is NEWS - important news - about the ACLU having gained access to US Army documents through the Freedom Of Information Act, PROVING rather CONCLUSIVELY that Lieutenant-General Sanchez LIED, PERJURED, told MISTRUTHS to a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, wherein he he DENIED that he had permitted such abusive, torturous techniques.

I suppose I should expect a Bush apologist to keep the blinders on, in the face of injustice, malfeasance, fear and loathing. How could I have been so silly as to expect anything other than that?

You make it sound as though I'm plucking this out of thin air. So far I've provided, what? Three? Four? Sources for this story. And maybe you've failed to notice, this ISN'T a re-hash of all the old abuse/torture stories (i.e. TRUTHS) about Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo - rather this is NEWS - important news - about the ACLU having gained access to US Army documents through the Freedom Of Information Act, PROVING rather CONCLUSIVELY that Lieutenant-General Sanchez LIED, PERJURED, told MISTRUTHS to a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, wherein he he DENIED that he had permitted such abusive, torturous techniques.

I suppose I should expect a Bush apologist to keep the blinders on, in the face of injustice, malfeasance, fear and loathing. How could I have been so silly as to expect anything other than that?
That's the way to go! *applause* :fluffle:

All arabs are afraid of dogs? lol

I like the use of dogs to instill fear in arabs.

why are all arabs afraid of dogs?

We don't need to be told by some foreigner how to run a war. You don't like it? Well, that and a buck buys you a coffee, boy. Tough luck.

You just want to make America look bad - that's why you point to every little thing, every mistake, every misunderstood order, every little crack in our armor - but I guess you don't care about what you look like doing it.

Here's a clue: it ryhmes with 'glass'.

Don't worry sonny - America will be here to make sure you ungrateful SOBs continue to be protected, while our young men and women DIE for your protection. I wonder how you can sleep at night, though.

You pig.

*snips*
Here's a clue: it ryhmes with 'glass'.
*further snippage*
You pig.

So how does "glass" rhyme with "pig", er...'boy'?

Just askin'...

All arabs are afraid of dogs? lol

I like the use of dogs to instill fear in arabs.

why are all arabs afraid of dogs?

Give me a break, Jay - we're not talking about 'the littlest hobo' or 'lassie' here...what, do you think they're going to terrorize people with daschunds?

Tell me how many trained police or security dogs YOU'd be comfortable with, when their masters have you in chains?

Give me a break, Jay - we're not talking about 'the littlest hobo' or 'lassie' here...what, do you think they're going to terrorize people with daschunds?

Tell me how many trained police or security dogs YOU'd be comfortable with, when their masters have you in chains?


Well I think its a language issue in that article but still funny.

i trust your source about as much as i trust fox news though...

Well I think its a language issue in that article but still funny.

i trust your source about as much as i trust fox news though...

Well, then Jay you're in luck. I've supplied three or four other sources for people just like you, including the New York Times, and the BBC. Go ahead, read through them at your leisure - they're included throughout this thread. See what you think then.

No one is going to listen to you when you've made Al-Jazzera the main part of your argument, everyone knows al-Jazzera is total progapanda.

Pig.

Just because its reported in one of the fruity arab networks doesnt mean its not true.

I dont see any other links though dobbs.

And with the evidence of torture at iraqi prisions I sure as hell think it could be true.

Whats with the PIG quotes? lol

No one is going to listen to you when you've made Al-Jazzera the main part of your argument, everyone knows al-Jazzera is total progapanda.

Pig.

Okay, whatever it takes, then. Done. The Al-Jazeera article is now buried on page two, and the other three articles now comprise the intial post.

Happy now? Now that you know what you've read (or in your case, more likely ignored) ISN'T propaganda? Now that you know it's the TRUTH?

Right now I feel like I'm covered in sticky filth, for having had to EDIT myself in order to appease sad, right-wing gits like you. But no shower's gonna make that grime peel away.

al-Jazzera is total progapanda, period. link up something else...

Just because its reported in one of the fruity arab networks doesnt mean its not true.

I dont see any other links though dobbs.

And with the evidence of torture at iraqi prisions I sure as hell think it could be true.

Whats with the PIG quotes? lol

Look again, Jay - the initial Al-Jazeera article has been replaced with the three subsequent articles I added later, as support material. You can still access the Al-Jazeera article further into the thread, but now I have "reliable" sources on the first page, neatly ending this irritating insistence that Al-Jazeera is nothing but propaganda.

Read the three articles for yourself, make up your own mind about Lieutenant-General Sanchez. It's not as though this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT story is getting much play, even on these threads, ASTOUNDINGLY.

al-Jazzera is total progapanda, period. link up something else...

HAVE DONE. LOOK AGAIN.

Who determines whether the people held captive and TORTURED are, as you say, "bottom dwelling scum"?

Your line of reasoning runs how? In a circle? Someone gets arrested on suspicion of terroristic involvement, and finds himself in an Iraqi jail. At what point does this suspect cross the line from being an "innocent person" and become, as you say, "bottom dwelling scum"?

Hey, YOU put that guy in that jail. If you were to put General Sanchez in that jail, would that automatically make HIM "bottom dwelling scum"? No, of course not - General Sanchez speaks American-accented English, and doesn't pray to Mecca five times a day.

Your double standard is so thick it could be used as thermal insulation.

Not quite!

Should the Gen. be captured and imprisoned, I suspect the captors would use whatever means necessary to extract the information they seek.

Would that make their actions right? Of course not. Nor, were the actions of our soldiers right, but rest assured the actions of our soldiers were "babies breath" compared to a beheading.

Where were you and all of your yellow-bellied, cry-baby liberal friends when the atrocities were being committed by Saddam and his cronies?

That's different, right?

Here's a tissue....

Where were you and all of your yellow-bellied, cry-baby liberal friends when the atrocities were being committed by Saddam and his cronies?

That's different, right?

Here's a tissue....

My yellow-bellied, cry-baby liberal friends and I were rather busily trying to convince our leaders to drop their arms race. You do remember a certain thing called the Cold War, don't you?

Meanwhile, your heartless, bean-counting conservative friends, the ones in Washington, were gushing with love for Mr. Hussein and turning a blind eye to his murderous antics.

I don't see how I or any of my liberal friends could have had:

a) the inside information on Mr. Hussein's regime to make informed political decisions, let alone the resources to actually provoke your powerful conservative friends into some sort of action, and

b) the time to pursue yet another political cause in addition to trying to get you warhawks to shelve your nukes, while still managing to put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads.

You want it both ways, with me and my friends acting as the consciounce you and your conservative friends ignore anyway?

You deserve a police state, you really do.

booyah!

Oh the right-wing conservatives are so moral! HAH! *can't stop laughing here*

And that earlier post about the curretn administration going for smaller government. You should have warned me that this was a joke thread.

Look again, Jay - the initial Al-Jazeera article has been replaced with the three subsequent articles I added later, as support material. You can still access the Al-Jazeera article further into the thread, but now I have "reliable" sources on the first page, neatly ending this irritating insistence that Al-Jazeera is nothing but propaganda.

Read the three articles for yourself, make up your own mind about Lieutenant-General Sanchez. It's not as though this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT story is getting much play, even on these threads, ASTOUNDINGLY.

Al-Jazeera is basically the arab world's fox news, why is that hard to understand?

Imo, as long as you dont have actual physical torture then all's fair to a point...

It will be interesting to see if they actually do something to go after said general though...

You make it sound as though I'm plucking this out of thin air. So far I've provided, what? Three? Four? Sources for this story. And maybe you've failed to notice, this ISN'T a re-hash of all the old abuse/torture stories (i.e. TRUTHS) about Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo - rather this is NEWS - important news - about the ACLU having gained access to US Army documents through the Freedom Of Information Act, PROVING rather CONCLUSIVELY that Lieutenant-General Sanchez LIED, PERJURED, told MISTRUTHS to a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, wherein he he DENIED that he had permitted such abusive, torturous techniques.

I suppose I should expect a Bush apologist to keep the blinders on, in the face of injustice, malfeasance, fear and loathing. How could I have been so silly as to expect anything other than that?

Perhaps I should expect the LIberal bush loather to assume every malfeasance is a direct link to the highest levels of conspiracy and injustice... rather then what it is.. isolated incidents. How is it if Sanchezs orders were so indusive of abuse accross the board that such crimes against humanity were contained to just one prision ????

actually all that has been CONCLUSIVLY found is that he purjured himself on weather or not he authorized the use of techniques which exceeded the geneva convention and military law... it in no way suggested he authorized the use of SEXUAL ABUSE.. and PHYSICAL ABUSE in these instances (WHICH MAY I ADD IS THE REAL CRIME HERE) ... YES he purgered himself.. but not on what your saying.. he simply siad he never authorized the use of dogs stress positions or sleep deprivation when (for a one month period) he infact did.. this is NOT !!!! the same as saying he authorized the specific use of sodomy, rape, and electro shock as was used in the prision scandel.. again WHERE IS THE DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE PRISION SCANDEL OCCURANCES AND THE ORDERS WHICH WERE GIVEN..

this is all im trying to say.. you are making claims which are UNKNOWN by your own sources admissions... there is no evidence to suggest the general knew of the prisions activites and directly authorized them.. and those activites far exceeded what the september orders allowed..

See? nobody cares what you are ranting about as being 'so important'. you should just go back to the trailerprak you stupid hippy, you just have to much time to spend criticizeing and biting the hand that feeds you. nobody is going to buy this traitorish progopanda your selling, our boys (and us) will do just fine in Iran without intreference from your hatful liberal lying.

Plus if there so innocent why were they emprisoned in the first place?

See? nobody cares...
dont you mean "I do not care.."

Why the F**k are you speaking in my name?

See? nobody cares what you are ranting about as being 'so important'. you should just go back to the trailerprak you stupid hippy, you just have to much time to spend criticizeing and biting the hand that feeds you. nobody is going to buy this traitorish progopanda your selling, our boys (and us) will do just fine in Iran without intreference from your hatful liberal lying.

Plus if there so innocent why were they emprisoned in the first place?

you poor little manboy

violence is adorable, though

Plus if there so innocent why were they emprisoned in the first place?

I don't know, maybe they had them shifty eyes. Moustaches, too. Maybe they all looked like Yosemite Sam.

I remember some weird stories from people my parent's age dating back to the FLQ crisis in Montreal. One of my parents' friends found himself thrown into the back of a police van filled to bursting with other men. The only thing any of them seemed to have in common were their beards.I'm willing to believe just about anything when it comes to reasons as to why innocent people are detained illegally.

I had previously expected the United States to comport itself in such a manner that would preclude any such behaviour, but it's been driven home to me - yet again, I'll add - right here on NationStates, a place I've heard conservatives grumble is home to too great a "liberal", i.e. dissenting voice, too large and uncomfortable a so-called "liberal" presence, that matters such as Justice will always take a backseat to the instant gratification of vengeance, and Rule of Law be damned.

I now understand that America, and many of the Americans responding to this thread, is/are thoroughly comfortable with lowering the moral and ethical bar to the extent that torture as a routine means of interrogation is perfectly acceptable behaviour, whether that behaviour is or is not proscribed, or indeed, specifically ordered by senior officers in the chain of command, whether or not such orders, proscribed behaviours, or failures to correct unproscribed behaviours are in violation of the Geneva Conventions, or of the military law of the United States Army itself. I understand it perfectly.

And you have utterly not one patch of moral high ground left to you now. From here on in, it's not the respect of nations you'll command, just the fear.

Don't worry though - most people seem to be shying away from this topic anyway. Maybe if you continue to bury your heads in the sand, other than to poke them up long enough to hurl insults and disregard information prejudicially, this issue will just fade into the ether. Like it never happened. Problem is, it did. It happened. And things like this shouldn't fade into the ether. This goes far beyond Abu Gharaib. This goes into Guantanamo, and it goes into Afghanistan, and I hope to all Gods past and present that it goes no further.

The buck must stop, somewhere. You think it stops at Sanchez?

















* side note: Vespuccistan, your uhh, "boys" are in Iraq, not Iran. Iran comes later. Remember?

My yellow-bellied, cry-baby liberal friends and I were rather busily trying to convince our leaders to drop their arms race. You do remember a certain thing called the Cold War, don't you?

Meanwhile, your heartless, bean-counting conservative friends, the ones in Washington, were gushing with love for Mr. Hussein and turning a blind eye to his murderous antics.

I don't see how I or any of my liberal friends could have had:

a) the inside information on Mr. Hussein's regime to make informed political decisions, let alone the resources to actually provoke your powerful conservative friends into some sort of action, and

b) the time to pursue yet another political cause in addition to trying to get you warhawks to shelve your nukes, while still managing to put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads.

You want it both ways, with me and my friends acting as the consciounce you and your conservative friends ignore anyway?

You deserve a police state, you really do.


For controlling the likes of you and yours, it is not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all....

For controlling the likes of you and yours, it is not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all....

It's a high price to pay to keep the sand covering your head.

Figures that conservatives, who supposedly think the govt is the problem, follow the present govt. administration tooth and nail - despite overwhelming opposing opinion (as well as hard facts showing greed, corruption, pad economic and foreign policy) in our country and abroad, want to stamp out dissenting voices and act like uber elitist by putting people down for not parroting everything the Bush administration says.

Conservatives who think the govt.'s reach is too far into making sure businesses don't step out of line, want the govt. to keep people from having sexual freedom.

They want to use the govt. to push their religious beliefs on everyone in the country - making sure that if the church is opposed to something then there should be some sort of govt. law to make sure it doesnt happen.

They Act like every life is sacred unless they are criminals and then they are disposable garbage, or if they live in a country with a tyrant ldictator who kills or abuses his people, then the people that live under him are better off if they die in the tens of thousands by US bombs.

They goe Ape shit over a lie about a blow job but if they lie about reasons to go to war, as long as it's a Republican, it's A-OK with them. They sure love to use the word nuke a lot too. How they would love to see the Middle East turned into a giant parking lot for the worlds biggest McDonalds.

One misguided fellow even just said that they would go for a police state to keep people from having opinions opposed to their own. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the opinion of many a Conservative.

And you have utterly not one patch of moral high ground left to you now. From here on in, it's not the respect of nations you'll command, just the fear.


It's better to be feared than to be loved.

It's better to be feared than to be loved.

I don't agree; fear can be conquered. Love cannot, though it can be lost. And anyway, I said nothing about love - I was speaking of respect. Love and respect are not the same.

I, personaly, condone torture as long it its acctualy for the purpose of gaining intelegence that could save American and Iraqi lives. I don't want people geting blown up by and IED or mortar attack because the ACLU doesn't like us beating the information out of the SOBs.

This said, I belive torture should be reserved for those that we realy belive that we can get information out of only with torture. Other tactics should be attempted prior to the implementation of tortue. However, some people lack that kind of discression, so I do understand why there are laws against it. The only problem with torture is humans. If humans weren't scumbags, we wouldn't have to worry about excessive torture. Then again, if humans weren't scumbags, we wouldn't need to torture the information out of them in the first place.

I will empty your sandboxes.

Bump.

Bump again.

And why not?

actually what i say is *so what*. the people who commit vile acts should be tracked down and dealt with. but i don't see why theres a huge big deal about it. abuse happens in wars :/

steelfish, torture is flawed. you can get anyone to say anything with torture ;). it very rarely leads to results.

actually what i say is *so what*. the people who commit vile acts should be tracked down and dealt with. but i don't see why theres a huge big deal about it. abuse happens in wars :/

Ah, but this isn't a war; it's an occupation.

steelfish, torture is flawed. you can get anyone to say anything with torture ;). it very rarely leads to results.

Depends on what you do.

Torture has a definition. A legal one. Having a definition is a dangerous thing, because a lawyer can find a loophole for you.

US Code on the subject is lifted from the UN Convention Against Torture, which the US is a signatory to.

That explains why there are investigations within the military, as well as investigations by the Justice Department of the military (and of the CIA).

However, you should all have a seat...

Torture, being defined, is not asking questions with a mean look on your face. In fact, there is considerable leeway in what is permissible.

European nations over the past few decades have broken most of the ground in this area for the Western nations (the US being idle prior to 9-11). The Irish conflict for the UK is a classic example. As is the infamous work of the SDECE.

Yes, some times you get more answers with honey. You also get a lot of answers out of sheer deception - and deception is not torture - not under the UNCAT and not under US law.

You also get a lot of answers using drugs. In most cases, the one being questioned has no recollection of being questioned, or answering. Answers can be cross-checked with the answers from other interrogation subjects (or from previous sessions with the same subject).

One might say, "well, the use of drugs against your will is torture". But if you have no memory of it, and no ability to even know for sure if you've even been questioned (let alone answered anything), did it really happen?

Oh, you can thank McGill University for the ground-breaking research in that area. Good Canadians developing the best technology for the silent war during the Cold War.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-23-04.gif[/

Dobbs, considering that our current enemies execute US soldiers on the spot, it isn't worth arguing how our enemies will treat US soldiers.

actually what i say is *so what*. the people who commit vile acts should be tracked down and dealt with. but i don't see why theres a huge big deal about it. abuse happens in wars :/

would you consider it to be a vile act if someone didn't like the society/govt. of another country so they attack that country and kill a bunch of innocent people?