OT - The violations of the geneva conv. went all the way up to Rumsfeld

[Flasch186]

Just like I had said, the torture was approved by Rumsfeld in clear violation of the Geneva conventions and then subsequently, he stopped it....on Jan. 15th. You think maybe he caught word of what was going on and started backpedaling? Maybe he began to feel that there was going to be problems defending this to the nation, to the world. This stuff sucks, instead of being able to have the world rally around us, rally against the terrorists we keep giving the world reasons to pull out of Iraq. Rumsfeld should be fired under shame and if Bush signed off he should be held to trial for war crimes when the time comes, perhaps he'll be found innocent but at least then the world wont be able to constantly say that America thinks taht theyre better than everyone else.


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration laid out its legal reasoning for denying terror war suspects the protections of international humanitarian law but immediately repudiated a key memo arguing that torture might be justified in the fight against al-Qaida.


The release Tuesday of hundreds of pages of internal memos by the White House was meant to blunt criticism that President Bush (news - web sites) had laid the groundwork for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by condoning torture. The president insisted Tuesday: "I have never ordered torture."


But critics said the developments left unresolved some questions about the administration's current guidelines for interrogating prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) and around the world. For example, a 2002 order signed by Bush says the president reserves the right to suspend the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war at any time.


"These documents raise more questions than they answer," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The White House is better off coming clean and releasing all relevant and nonclassified documents."


The White House released Defense Department memos detailing some of the harsh interrogation methods approved — and then rescinded — by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003. The administration continues to refuse to say what interrogation methods are approved for use now.


Six soldiers face criminal charges for abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib complex near Baghdad. Another soldier pleaded guilty and received a one-year prison term. The Justice Department (news - web sites) has filed criminal assault charges against a contract CIA (news - web sites) interrogator, accusing him of beating a prisoner in Afghanistan (news - web sites) who later died.


An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture — and even deliberate killing — of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture.


Bybee is now a justice on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites).


The Justice Department backed away from Bybee's memo Tuesday. Senior department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the memo would be rewritten because it contains advice that is too broad and irrelevant. The officials, who briefed several reporters in a widely publicized news conference, said department policy allowed them to demand anonymity.


The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


_Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.


_Removing prisoners' clothes.


_Intimidating detainees with dogs.


_Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.


_Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.


_Shaving detainees' heads and beards.





_Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon (news - web sites) panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.

That panel reported to Rumsfeld in April 2003, and its recommendations included prohibiting the removal of clothes, which it said could be considered inhumane treatment under international law. Rumsfeld issued a new set of approved interrogation methods later that month, disallowing nakedness and requiring approval for four techniques: use of rewards or removal of privileges; verbally attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating friendly and unfriendly interrogators in a "good cop, bad cop" method; and isolation.

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (news - web sites) that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan," Bush wrote. "I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

[gstelmack]

So they approved stuff they thought did not violate the Geneva Convention, then when it was decided it might actually violate they rescinded the approval. They did the rescinding before this became any kind of a story.

And this is bad in what way?

It is being pointed out elsewhere (CNN's article yesterday is a good example) that many of these memos were speculation, debate, or position memos as the various options were discussed and thrown out. I think everyone who has ever had a brainstorming session at work knows lots of stupid ideas are discussed and eventually thrown out.

[rkmsuf]

maybe people would be happy if they had served them tea and strumpets instead

[SunDancer]

Aren't they terrorists? Are they subject to the Convention anyways?

[Flasch186]

They are calling them terrorists yet in the newest terrorist # reports, they dont include those attacks in Iraq, because they say it is a war. According to the report, attacks in Iraq are NOT terrorist attacks (until revised upon being caught by thorough congressman) but then they go on TV and DO call them terrorist attacks. The admin. will call the enemy whatever best suits them and their selling to the public. Bush said that he had the right to bypass the Geneva Conv. on his authority. The things Rumsfeld ok'd were a clear violation of the accords and then recently he said, he would never do such a thing. Everything that comes out of the admin, is so misleading, so convenient, so full o crap.....I think theyre so used to lying that even when theyre caught they think they can lie their way out of the original lie. Does everyone forget all the times they have been caught lying on russert, on CNN, in front of the Commission (ie. Cheney just said he knew stuff that the Commission didnt in regards to the connection b/w hussein and al qaeda EVENTHOUGH he was subpoened to spill his guts to them)....the hits keep coming, and thus why I will vote for honesty next election. This is absolutely a modis operandi.

[rkmsuf]

you want the truth? you can't handle the truth.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the hits keep coming, and thus why I will vote for honesty next election.

So you'll be abstaining, then?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So you'll be abstaining, then?

*Rimshot*

[Flasch186]

good point, no ill be giving Kerry a shot and if he blatantly lies and i end up with the same feeling ill vote for someone else.

[Ksyrup]

Why would you wait until a person's in office to hold lies against them as a candidate (not just talking about Kerry here, but in general)?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Just like I had said, the torture was approved by Rumsfeld in clear violation of the Geneva conventions and then subsequently, he stopped it....on Jan. 15th.....Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


_Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.


_Removing prisoners' clothes.


_Intimidating detainees with dogs.


_Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.


_Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.


_Shaving detainees' heads and beards.


_Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Violations of the Geneva Conventoin, yes. Torture, no. Especially when you consider one other option used for a number of years - turning the prisoner over to other Arab countries. So when horrible forms of torture are outsourced there is no problem, but when incredibly mild violations of the Geneva Convention by US people happen everyone up to the President needs to be put on trial for War Crimes. Spare me the outrage.

[CamEdwards]

BTW, flasch... these memos have nothing to do with Iraq or Abu Ghraib. The memos were all written before the war in Iraq began, meaning by the time the Abu Ghraib abuses were underway, Rumsfeld had already issued that 2nd memo.

[rkmsuf]

We really should be more sensitive to the plight of those at the prison. I'm proposing the following changes:

1. Prisoners should be referred to as "guests"

2. The prison should be relocated to Aspen so the guests can unwind. They will be in a much better frame of mind to have a conversation.

3. It is imperative to assertain each guest's tuck or no tuck preference.

[Ksyrup]

Don't forget mints on the pillow as part of the "turn down" service.

[BishopMVP]

Just saw this part of the CNN article

The memos to and from Rumsfeld show that though the water-boarding technique was on a list of requested aggressive tactics, Rumsfeld did not approve it, officials say.

The list of requested aggressive tactics included:

Convincing a detainee that death or severe pain could be imminent for him or his family

Exposure to cold weather or water

Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.

Mild, noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing someone's arm, poking them in the chest or light shoving.

Only the fourth tactic -- mild, noninjurious physical contact -- was approved.

And from the AP, the expansion of Bush's quote (emphasis mine)

Bush outlined his own views in a Feb. 7. 2002, document regarding treatment of al-Qaida detainees from Afghanistan. He said the war against terrorism had ushered in a "new paradigm" and that terrorist attacks required "new thinking in the law of war." Still, he said prisoners must be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. "I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time," the president said in the memo, entitled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees."

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

maybe people would be happy if they had served them tea and strumpets instead

Not a bad Idea. Although admittedly, I couldn't pick a strumpet out of a lineup. This plan might be signed off by Flasch and company.

Seriously Flasch, most of those memos are of the thinking out loud variety. They are not position papers. They are "what if this was our position?" papers.

You need to take some of your advice from the other day, and actually examine the evidence you cite. Instead you are simply parroting inflamatory excerpts removed from their original context.

[Flasch186]

the follow up article Clearly states that the use of inducing fear through the use of dogs would be ok. this is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. Look if Bush wouldnt have divided the world into two categories, Good & Evil then we wouldnt be having this discussion. He chose to fight these wars based on morals and keeping a moral high ground yet he hasnt. He has chosen to flip his nose at the same rules we apply to other countries. If we talk the talk we damn sure better walk the walk or......guess what, the rest of the world will hate us (they do), view us with skepticism and abhorration (they do), rally more people to the ranks of terrorists and militants (we have), increase the number of terrorist attacks worldwide (it ihas). But your right, were doing great.....the world is much better off now then it was 4 years ago. Lets do this more often. Incriminate other countries based on a soapbox that we ourselves stepped off of long ago.

If we were being honest, which is all i have ever wanted they should finally tell the truth:

this is a war b/w good and evil and we will do absolutely anything to anyone to win it. We will not be stopped until everyone of the suspected terrorists is either behind bars or dead. We will even change the laws of our own country to win the war. We will fight in the name of morality and humanity even if it means that we behave in a way that doesnt quite meet those same standards so that at some time in the future we can have a safe world that can go back to being normal. If you dont like it tough, we very well may put you behind bars too."

At least then were walking our talk

[rkmsuf]

it's like terrorism doesn't even exist right. complete fabrication. how dare we have dogs bark at these guys.

beheadings, oh well they aren't expected to conform to any code so it's cool

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Look if Bush wouldnt have divided the world into two categories, Good & Evil then we wouldnt be having this discussion. He chose to fight these wars based on morals and keeping a moral high ground yet he hasnt. He has chosen to flip his nose at the same rules we apply to other countries.

You are a hypocrite and suffering from a lack of perspective. When Clinton (to pick a Democratic president) turns over prisoners to a country that he knows will torture them severely, that's fine, but when Bush allows someone to be threatened with dogs instead he loses the moral high ground. Then you compare threatening with dogs to what Saddam was doing. I strongly suggest you go watch or at least read some descriptions of Saddam's tactics before peddling that moral relativist bullshit.

[Sharpieman]

I think that these interrogation tactics approved by Rumsfeld are pretty horrible. Yes, they are considerably better than the torture by Saddam. But wait, aren't we supposed to be better then Saddam in the first place? I keep hearing how our tactics aren't as bad or horrible as Saddam's or middle eastern countries. So I guess thats cause for a celebration. YAY! Were better than the countries that have the worst human rights records in the world. Congrats America, you're better than Saddam!

These geneva convention requirements aren't in place to give terrorists or "enemy combatants" an easier time, they are in place to ensure that when American soldiers are caught by the enemy, they will be treated humanely.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

These geneva convention requirements aren't in place to give terrorists or "enemy combatants" an easier time, they are in place to ensure that when American soldiers are caught by the enemy, they will be treated humanely.

And has that ever worked?

[NoMyths]

Yes.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Yes.

Which war(s)/conflict(s)?

[NoMyths]

The current one. I seem to recall Jessica Lynch being treated pretty humanely in a hospital.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You are a hypocrite and suffering from a lack of perspective. When Clinton (to pick a Democratic president) turns over prisoners to a country that he knows will torture them severely, that's fine, but when Bush allows someone to be threatened with dogs instead he loses the moral high ground. Then you compare threatening with dogs to what Saddam was doing. I strongly suggest you go watch or at least read some descriptions of Saddam's tactics before peddling that moral relativist bullshit.

Strange. You call someone a moral relativist when your primary argument is that America's treatment of prisoners (under Bush) is alright RELATIVE to Saddam's. In other words, you don't believe in absolutes, yet accuse others of being in the wrong for doing likewise.

[SirFozzie]

Tea and crumpets you mean.

Strumpets=women of questionable honor and virtue

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

I think that these interrogation tactics approved by Rumsfeld are pretty horrible. Yes, they are considerably better than the torture by Saddam. But wait, aren't we supposed to be better then Saddam in the first place? I keep hearing how our tactics aren't as bad or horrible as Saddam's or middle eastern countries. So I guess thats cause for a celebration. YAY! Were better than the countries that have the worst human rights records in the world. Congrats America, you're better than Saddam!

These geneva convention requirements aren't in place to give terrorists or "enemy combatants" an easier time, they are in place to ensure that when American soldiers are caught by the enemy, they will be treated humanely.

Perfectly put, there shouldnt need to be a comparison b/w us and Hussein's regime but our troops tactics there allowed the comparison to take place. And whoop dee doo, we treated people, regardless of whether or not they were guilty of anythign at all (keep in mind we released hundreds of prisoners within days of the abuse scandal....dman those judges worked quick) better than Saddam wouldve!!! Awesome, we held that benchmark of morality way up there. Im not the hypocrite, the hypocrisy is saying one thing, slapping people for there human rights violations and then committing violations ourselves....on top of it all, instead of standing before the wolrd court and proclaiming our reason for such behavior, we deem that body irrelevent. We got ourselves into this damn mess because we said the UN was irrelevent....aren't they glad the UN is willing to clean up the mess now.

I stand by this statement, "Walk your talk." If you dont youll get caught and the ramifications are much worse then if you would've done what was right in the first place. Or get the world to change their definition of torture, see how that goes.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And has that ever worked?

I believe it has, not in the case of terrorists being the holders of American soldiers but in the case of Countries. Like when we went to war against Iraq or Afganistan. Also remember, this won't only effect future treatment of American prisoners in the Middle East, but our treatment of prisoners might have a negative effect in other areas of the world.

Not only do we need to follow the geneva convention to ensure that Americans don't get treated badly, but remember that we are America. We are the example of the model Democracy that champions freedom and human rights. We need to be an example for the rest of the countries in the world. This is something all to often forgotten by elected officials in the US and by American citizens.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The current one. I seem to recall Jessica Lynch being treated pretty humanely in a hospital.

That would be based on one side of the story, while the other alleged torture, sexual assault, etc. after she was captured. And if you read Amnesty International's report on the war, while they spend most trying to attack the US, there were still multiple violations of the Geneva Convention by the Iraqis, for example siting weapons near civilian facilities and wearing civilian clothes in order to launch surprise attacks.

JG - I didn't say it was bullshit because it tried to equate our actions to Saddam's, but because the facts are nowhere close to bearing this out.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

I believe it has, not in the case of terrorists being the holders of American soldiers but in the case of Countries. Like when we went to war against Iraq or Afganistan.

Our prisoners in the first Iraq War were treated humanely? Go read "Bravo Two Zero" sometime.

[Sharpieman]

Even so, does this mean we have the right or we should treat others unhumanely gstelmack?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That would be based on one side of the story, while the other alleged torture, sexual assault, etc. after she was captured.

Ah, okay. I was just basing my information on the actual facts of her injuries, coupled with the reports from the doctors at the hospital. People are certainly free to believe the Hollywood version of events, as filmed w/blank-filled guns and false reports of opposition.

And if you read Amnesty International's report on the war, while they spend most trying to attack the US, there were still multiple violations of the Geneva Convention by the Iraqis, for example siting weapons near civilian facilities and wearing civilian clothes in order to launch surprise attacks.

This wouldn't surprise me at all. Violations of the Geneva Convention, especially by the losing side of a conflict, aren't that shocking. But to assume that the threat of retribution doesn't keep far worse from happening would be inaccurate, I'd argue.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

I believe it has, not in the case of terrorists being the holders of American soldiers but in the case of Countries. Like when we went to war against Iraq or Afganistan.

Saddam tortured and executed US troops during Gulf War I, IIRC. I don't recall the Taliban capturing any prisoners in Afghanistan. Other than the Lynch story, which is disputed, I don't know much about any other prisoners from this conflict.

Also remember, this won't only effect future treatment of American prisoners in the Middle East, but our treatment of prisoners might have a negative effect in other areas of the world.

Not only do we need to follow the geneva convention to ensure that Americans don't get treated badly, but remember that we are America. We are the example of the model Democracy that champions freedom and human rights. We need to be an example for the rest of the countries in the world. This is something all to often forgotten by elected officials in the US and by American citizens.

We need to avoid using torture. The Geneva Convention is outdated and there are many things currently in violation of the treaty that are innocuous. And maybe I'm machiavellian in my thinking, but I think the overall effects of our military actions on the Iraqi people is a great example of standing up for human rights and freedom.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Ah, okay. I was just basing my information on the actual facts of her injuries, coupled with the reports from the doctors at the hospital. People are certainly free to believe the Hollywood version of events, as filmed w/blank-filled guns and false reports of opposition.

Looks like NBC News disagrees with you. hxxp://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030603.asp#4 "Avila: "But on this point, hospital staff interviewed by NBC News support the techniques used by special ops. They now say the so-called blanks were actually flash-bang grenades used to stun and frighten hospital workers and potential resistance. No bullets or blanks were fired inside the hospital. And the Americans had every reason to expect trouble. Hospital workers confirm the Iraqi military used the basement as a headquarters."
An Iraqi man pointing out a room in the hospital: "The room of the operation of Baath Party and the army and the ground a map of Nasiriyah City."
Avila: "Dr. Audi tells NBC News what he calls the big heads of the Iraqi army left just six hours before the raid."
Audi: " They have weapons and bodyguards and military cars, yes."
Avila: "Private Lynch was rescued, and despite the drama, the Iraqis told NBC News the American soldiers' behavior was humane. The Special Forces quickly gathered the medical staff into this small reception area. The doctors were handcuffed with those plastic cuffs, but one of the physicians said they hurt and they were too tight, so the soldiers immediately loosened them. Did the Americans hurt anybody here? Did they injure anybody?"
Abdul Razzaq, hospital worker: "No, no."

This wouldn't surprise me at all. Violations of the Geneva Convention, especially by the losing side of a conflict, aren't that shocking. But to assume that the threat of retribution doesn't keep far worse from happening would be inaccurate, I'd argue.

History doesn't really agree with this point. And adherence to the Geneva Convention by our side precludes retaliation in kind.

[NoMyths]

NBC News: Interesting site that report is on, don't you think?

History doesn't agree with the point? I'd be interested to see something to back that up. As far as "adherence to the Geneva Convention by our side precludes retaliation in kind": aside from the fact the sentence doesn't make sense, I'm assuming you mean...actually, I'm not sure what to make of this sentence. You can't really retaliate against humanitarianism. Clarification please?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

NBC News: Interesting site that report is on, don't you think?

Do I need to find you video of the actual NBC News report for you to believe it? It's called a transcript.

History doesn't agree with the point? I'd be interested to see something to back that up.

Japan during WWII is the obvious one I was thinking of. I'm sure I could find numerous examples of armies about to be defeated slaughtering their pow's if I researched it some.

As far as "adherence to the Geneva Convention by our side precludes retaliation in kind": aside from the fact the sentence doesn't make sense, I'm assuming you mean...actually, I'm not sure what to make of this sentence. You can't really retaliate against humanitarianism. Clarification please?

NM said - Violations of the Geneva Convention, especially by the losing side of a conflict, aren't that shocking. But to assume that the threat of retribution doesn't keep far worse from happening would be inaccurate, I'd argue.
My reply after attempting to decipher the double-negatives - Adherence to the Geneva Convention by our side precludes retaliation in kind.

I'm guessing from your follow-up that you were trying to refer to the broader picture, while in my response I was arguing that in a specific conflict (say, against Al-Qaeda) they can torture and behead a prisoner knowing that we will not do the same to them when they are captured. No matter how horrible their actions are, we have certain limits we won't go past, so there is no threat of retribution in kind.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Do I need to find you video of the actual NBC News report for you to believe it? It's called a transcript.

Oh, I believe the report. NBC (though not the other sources mentioned, interestingly) disagrees with my assessment. That's fine. I just thought the phrasing of the article was kind of interesting in light of the site's stated bias.

Japan during WWII is the obvious one I was thinking of. I'm sure I could find numerous examples of armies about to be defeated slaughtering their pow's if I researched it some.

Right. I'll highlight with bold the part where I already said this: "NM said - Violations of the Geneva Convention, especially by the losing side of a conflict, aren't that shocking. But to assume that the threat of retribution doesn't keep far worse from happening would be inaccurate, I'd argue.

In other words: Accountability has been shown to play a role. Consider how Iraq televised P.O.W.s in the past and had them declare they were being treated well. If accountability & perception weren't important, they'd be televising beheadings, like the folks for whom accountability isn't important.

My reply after attempting to decipher the double-negatives - Adherence to the Geneva Convention by our side precludes retaliation in kind.
I'm guessing from your follow-up that you were trying to refer to the broader picture, while in my response I was arguing that in a specific conflict (say, against Al-Qaeda) they can torture and behead a prisoner knowing that we will not do the same to them when they are captured. No matter how horrible their actions are, we have certain limits we won't go past, so there is no threat of retribution in kind.

Ah. But the key in your quote is "in kind." There WILL be retribution for gross violations, and the response is likely to be exponentially increased depending on the severity of the violations. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

[NoMyths]

dola...

While doing a bit of digging on the NBC position, I found this interesting quote:
[Shoshana] "Johnson, however, clearly remembered becoming angry when Iraqi television crews shoved a camera in her face in another room at the same hospital. “I was a little caught off-guard. ... We know the rules of the Geneva Convention, obviously, so it catches you off-guard," she said Tuesday. "It gets you a little angry, but I was in a lot of pain, also, so it kind of evened out,” she said.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

While doing a bit of digging on the NBC position, I found this interesting quote:
[Shoshana] "Johnson, however, clearly remembered becoming angry when Iraqi television crews shoved a camera in her face in another room at the same hospital. “I was a little caught off-guard. ... We know the rules of the Geneva Convention, obviously, so it catches you off-guard," she said Tuesday. "It gets you a little angry, but I was in a lot of pain, also, so it kind of evened out,” she said.

Didn't you know videotaping prisoners and releasing these is a violation? You'd figure with all the Abu Ghraib coverage and demands for the release of the other pictures and videos someone would have pointed that out by now. Obviously one of the less severe violations, but there are quite a number like that in the Convention.

Consider how Iraq televised P.O.W.s in the past and had them declare they were being treated well. If accountability & perception weren't important, they'd be televising beheadings,

And how did those prisoners during GWI fare? To answer my own question, not too well. So apparently Saddam valued perception and realized that video of POW's saying they were being treated fine could help blunt a ton of criticism when he torutured and/or killed other POW's. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Didn't you know videotaping prisoners and releasing these is a violation? You'd figure with all the Abu Ghraib coverage and demands for the release of the other pictures and videos someone would have pointed that out by now.

Um, yes. That was kind of the point I was addressing by posting that quote. To be even more clear: if the Geneva Conventions were "obvious" to even the rank-and-file troops, it makes the abuses of them even more awful.

Obviously one of the less severe violations, but there are quite a number like that in the Convention.And how did those prisoners during GWI fare? To answer my own question, not too well. So apparently Saddam valued perception and realized that video of POW's saying they were being treated fine could help blunt a ton of criticism when he torutured and/or killed other POW's. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Exactly. Thank you for making my point for me.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Tea and crumpets you mean.

Strumpets=women of questionable honor and virtue

No I meant strumpets and I'm in favor of sending the prisoners to Aspen, California for a little R&R

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Even so, does this mean we have the right or we should treat others unhumanely gstelmack?

No, and I didn't say that. I was disputing one of your examples of where our adherence to the Geneva Convention helped make sure the other side treated our prisoners well. The point being that the Geneva Convention, while intended to make sure all sides in a conflict treat POWs well, does not in fact do so.

I'll also point out that the Geneva Convention was intended to address behavior in a "traditional" war. It falls apart quickly in a guerilla war, where interrogation of prisoners may well be the only way you have of finding the enemy and fighting him on your terms, not theirs, and where the guerillas pretty much ignore it. What do you do when the enemy combatants act far more like criminals than soldiers?

That being said, it's well documented that torture does not generate good information, it generates the information the prisoner thinks you want to hear. The key problem in this conversation is "what is torture?". Is sleep deprivation torture? Administering drugs to disorient the prisoner? Having dogs bark at them? Humiliating them based on their culture? What about good cop / bad cop? Good interrogation techniques tend to disorient the prisoner, making it more difficult for them to lie or make up stories, as opposed to instilling fear in them where they'll tell you whatever you want to hear to make the incident stop.

There is a gradient here, and I think different people will draw the line at different places. And I think the administration drew the line much farther down the list than people are trying to say they did. Sure, they discussed other options, but so far there is little if any evidence that they actually sanctioned the more questionable techniques.

[Flasch186]

Abu Ghraib interrogation chief charged with abuse

Friday, April 28, 2006; Posted: 6:15 p.m. EDT (22:15 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army on Friday charged the former head of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq with cruelty and maltreatment, dereliction of duty and other criminal offenses for his alleged involvement in the abuse of detainees at the notorious prison in 2003 and for interfering with the abuse investigation.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, was charged with 12 counts of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for seven separate offenses.

He is the highest-ranking officer at Abu Ghraib to face criminal charges.

A preliminary hearing, often referred to as the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation, will be held when Jordan's defense counsel is ready but no date has been set, according to an announcement of the charges by the Military District of Washington.

Officers above Jordan's rank have been reprimanded and relieved of command, including Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the U.S.-run prison system that included the Abu Ghraib compound. But none of those have faced criminal charges.

The much-investigated abuses at Abu Ghraib included sexual humiliation and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their disclosure two years ago triggered a firestorm of international protests and calls for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. He offered his resignation twice but President Bush refused.

The Army charged Jordan with violating seven articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

-- Two counts of willfully disobeying a superior officer. He stands accused of violating an order by his superior, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, to have no communication with other Army personnel or other potential witnesses regarding an initial Army investigation of prisoner abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib. The second count is similar, accusing Jordan of violating the same order issued by another superior, Maj. Gen. George Fay.

-- Three counts of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a regulation. The Army document spelling out the charge says he "willfully failed to train, supervise and ensure compliance by soldiers under his control in following the requirements of" military policy on interrogation, "which resulted in the abuse of Iraqi detainees." Two other counts are for failing to get permission to use military working dogs during interrogations.

-- One count of cruelty and maltreatment for actions which the Army said "did oppress Iraqi detainees, persons subject to his orders, by subjecting them to forced nudity and intimidation by military working dogs" between mid-September and late December 2003, which was the duration of his duty at the interrogation center.

-- Two counts of making false official statements. The Army said that on or about February 24, 2004, "with intent to deceive," he told Taguba, who was investigating allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib, that he never saw nude detainees, never knew of any dogs being used in interrogations and did not see other violations. The Army said his statement was "totally false and was then known by Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan to be false." The second count is form allegedly making similar false statements to Fay in April 2004.

-- Two counts of fraud. Each was for allegedly knowingly making inflated claims for repairs to U.S. government owned vehicles in June 2004.

-- One count of wrongful interference with an investigation, and one count of making a false statement. The first was for allegedly trying to impede the investigation of abuse at Abu Ghraib by offering a person help in getting a job at the U.S. Embassy in August 2004 in return for receiving evidence pertinent to the investigation before it reached investigators. The other count was for making a false statement under oath in May 2004.






In reference to the bolded part - I thought we hang our hat on the a person's want of the truth too but if they'll obstruct justice, ie. Libby, the nonchalance of those who read the Zinni report, then the simple acceptance of a speech or rhetoric would be silly for the public. It is this that we should support an agressive and investigative media.

[Flasch186]

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former U.S. general

Sat Nov 25, 11:45 AM ET

MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at
Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished,"" she told Saturday's El Pais.

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques."

The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.

"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," the document states.

A spokesman for the
Pentagon declined to comment on Karpinski's accusations, while U.S. army in Iraq could not immediately be reached for comment.

Karpinski was withdrawn from Iraq in early 2004, shortly after photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the prison were flashed around the world. She was subsequently removed from active duty and then demoted to the rank of colonel on unrelated charges.

Karpinski insists she knew nothing about the abuse of prisoners until she saw the photos, as interrogation was carried out in a prison wing run by U.S. military intelligence.

Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."

Karpinski said last week she was ready to testify against Rumsfeld, if a suit filed by civil rights groups in Germany over Abu Ghraib led to a full investigation.

President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation after Democrats wrested power from the Republicans in midterm elections earlier this month, partly due to public criticism over the Iraq war.

(Additional reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington)