CIA Interrogation Crucifies Iraqi Prisioner! [Archive]

View Full Version : CIA Interrogation Crucifies Iraqi Prisioner!

ISiddiqui

02-20-2005, 01:52 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_prisoner_s_death&printer=1

AP: Iraqi Died While Hung From Wrists

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="420"> <tbody><tr valign="middle"> <td width="40%">   Thu Feb 17, 3:58 PM ET
</td> </tr></tbody> </table>  By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer

SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_prisoner_s_death/14332187/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22CIA%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_prisoner_s_death/14332187/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=CIA)) interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture — suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%">  <center> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="150"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td>   <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">  <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td colspan="2"><center> http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050220/thumb.sge.mdz78.200205070833.photo00.photo.default-356x384.jpg (javascript: rs()
AFP (javascript: rs() </center> </td> </tr>  <tr valign="top"> <td width="1%">http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gif</td> <td width="99%"> Slideshow: Iraq (javascript: rs()</td> </tr></tbody></table>
  </td></tr></tbody></table> </center>  
<table bgcolor="black" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="158"> <tbody><tr><td><table bgcolor="white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="158"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td><center> http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/th/postiraq_158x38.jpg (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/2/*http://news.yahoo.com/iraq) </center> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr align="center" valign="top"> <td> Latest headlines: </td></tr></tbody></table>   <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="1%">·</td> <td width="99%"> Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050220/ts_washpost/a37244_2005feb19&cid=1802&ncid=1480)
washingtonpost.com - 14 minutes ago </td></tr></tbody></table>  <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="1%">·</td> <td width="99%"> Indonesia pushes for release of journalists held in Iraq (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050220/wl_afp/iraqhostagesindonesiaappeal&cid=1512&ncid=1480)
AFP - 37 minutes ago </td></tr></tbody></table>  <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="1%">·</td> <td width="99%"> Suicide Bombings, Attacks Kill 55 in Iraq (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/export/top2/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480)
AP - 2 hours, 28 minutes ago </td></tr></tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr align="center" valign="top"> <td> Special Coverage (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/iraq/2/*http://news.yahoo.com/iraq) </td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table>
 </td><td width="5"> </td></tr></tbody></table>

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that the death had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances under which the man died were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging," the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations.

The spy agency, which faces congressional scrutiny over its detention and interrogation of terror suspects at the Baghdad prison and elsewhere, declined to comment for this story, as did the Justice Department (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_prisoner_s_death/14332187/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Justice%20Department%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraqi_prisoner_s_death/14332187/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Justice%20Department)).

Al-Jamadi was one of the CIA's "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib — prisoners being held secretly by the agency.

His death in November 2003 became public with the release of photos of Abu Ghraib guards giving a thumbs-up over his bruised and puffy-faced corpse, which had been packed in ice. One of those guards was Pvt. Charles Graner, who last month received 10 years in a military prison for abusing detainees.

Al-Jamadi died in a prison shower room during about a half-hour of questioning, before interrogators could extract any information, according to the documents, which consist of statements from Army prison guards to investigators with the military and the CIA's Inspector General's office.

One Army guard, Sgt. Jeffery Frost, said the prisoner's arms were stretched behind him in a way he had never before seen. Frost told investigators he was surprised al-Jamadi's arms "didn't pop out of their sockets," according to a summary of his interview.

Frost and other guards had been summoned to reposition al-Jamadi, who an interrogator said was not cooperating. As the guards released the shackles and lowered al-Jamadi, blood gushed from his mouth "as if a faucet had been turned on," according to the interview summary.

The military pathologist who ruled the case a homicide found several broken ribs and concluded al-Jamadi died from pressure to the chest and difficulty breathing.

Dr. Michael Baden, a distinguished civilian pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for a defense attorney in the case, agreed in an interview that the position in which al-Jamadi was suspended could have contributed to his death.

Dr. Vincent Iacopino, director of research for Physicians for Human Rights, called the hyper-extension of the arms behind the back "clear and simple torture." The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in a case of Palestinian hanging — a technique Iacopino said is used worldwide but named for its alleged use by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

The Washington Post reported last year that after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the CIA suspended the use of its "enhanced interrogation techniques," including stress positions, because of fears that the agency could be accused of unsanctioned and illegal activity. The newspaper said the White House had approved the tactics.

Navy SEALs apprehended al-Jamadi as a suspect in the Oct. 27, 2003, bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12 people. His alleged role in the bombing is unclear. According to court documents and testimony, the SEALs punched, kicked and struck al-Jamadi with their rifles before handing him over to the CIA early on Nov. 4. By 7 a.m., al-Jamadi was dead.

Navy prosecutors in San Diego have charged nine SEALs and one sailor with abusing al-Jamadi and others. All but two lieutenants have received nonjudicial punishment; one lieutenant is scheduled for court-martial in March, the other is awaiting a hearing before the Navy's top SEAL.

The statements from five of Abu Ghraib's Army guards were shown to The AP by an attorney for one of the SEALs, who said they offered a more balanced picture of what happened. The lawyer asked not to be identified, saying he feared repercussions for his client.

According to the statements:

Al-Jamadi was brought naked below the waist to the prison with a CIA interrogator and translator. A green plastic bag covered his head, and plastic cuffs tightly bound his wrists. Guards dressed al-Jamadi in an orange jumpsuit, slapped on metal handcuffs and escorted him to the shower room, a common CIA interrogation spot.

There, the interrogator instructed guards to attach shackles from the prisoner's handcuffs to a barred window. That would let al-Jamadi stand without pain, but if he tried to lower himself, his arms would be stretched above and behind him.

The documents do not make clear what happened after guards left. After about a half-hour, the interrogator called for the guards to reposition the prisoner, who was slouching with his arms stretched behind him.

The interrogator told guards that al-Jamadi was "playing possum" — faking it — and then watched as guards struggled to get him on his feet. But the guards realized it was useless.

"After we found out he was dead, they were nervous," Spc. Dennis E. Stevanus said of the CIA interrogator and translator. "They didn't know what the hell to do."

---

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/eek.gifhttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/eek.gifhttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif What in the Hell was going on in Abu Ghirab?! This has gone beyond the bad soldiers and into those higher up! My lord, this is utterly fucked up!

Cringer

02-20-2005, 02:23 AM

Can anyone say that they honestly believe that our government agencies and/or military never use torture? I kind of think it is a given.

Come on, doesn't anyone watch 24? ;)

BigJohn&TheLions

02-20-2005, 03:50 AM

We'll find those weapons of mass destruction if it kills every Iraqi over there. Um, I mean, we'll bring freedom to the Iraqi's if it kills every American over there. No... that can't be right either... Let's see... Why are we over there again???

BucDawg40

02-20-2005, 08:10 AM

Shameless Bush apologists in 3... 2... 1...

Arles

02-20-2005, 08:21 AM

OK, just so I get this straight. The guards involved with these acts while the guy was in prison have been punished (one getting 10 years). And the 9 Seals involved with his capture have already been charged a while back and are currently facing trial.

Seems to me like this situation has already been dealt with long before this story came out. Or am I missing something?

And, again, to those of you itching to get to the Bush Administration, you need to have some hard evidence of their involvement - which I certainly haven't seen. As it stands now, the evidence points to a few overzealous Seals and guards acting way out of line. And they've been dealt with to this point.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 08:41 AM

And, again, to those of you itching to get to the Bush Administration, you need to have some hard evidence of their involvement ... a few overzealous Seals and guards acting way out of line. And they've been dealt with to this point.
Uh, dude. You just provided all the evidence anyone itching to get the Bush Administration needed. He is the Commander-In-Chief. These are HIS soldiers. They are the involvement of the Bush Administration...

cody8200

02-20-2005, 09:04 AM

Dutch

02-20-2005, 09:07 AM

I'm just not buying this whole Bush is evil, everybody else is a saint routine. It's tired.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 09:17 AM

That's just plain ignorant. As if he can personally control every single soldier...dumb.
It's not ignorant at all. You're just failing to make the obvious connection. Your reading it too narrowly. Look at my response, did I say that anyone in the Bush Administration ordered this? Was DIRECTLY involved? No.

Arles asked for evidence of the involvement of the Bush Administration.

ANY soldier in Iraq is evidence of the involvement of the Bush Administration. It was the Bush Administration that ordered these troops there. Am I saying that these guys had orders to do this thing? No. Of course not. Could they have received orders? Yeah, sure. There has been evidence of this in the past. But these are American troops ordered by this Administration to go into Iraq. So any act, for good or evil, is evidence of involvement of the Bush Administration. Note, he didn't say "There was no evidence of that anyone higher up in the administration ordered these soldiers to crucify this guy", he simply asked for evidence of "involvement." I read it broadly. That's not ignorance, or stupidity, that's just reading his request broadly. A writer has to be responsible for any reasonable interpretations of their words. I reckon my interpretation, though broad, was reasonable.

Carry on.

RendeR

02-20-2005, 09:19 AM

The fact remains that as the "commander in Chief" The President of the United states is RESPONSIBLE for every single person and act committed by the troops and personnel under his command.

I don't really care if he knows what is going on, he is still responsible for their actions. It is His responsibility and that of his administration to ensure that there are people in place to handle things in the proper manner, and in this area he and his administration have failed miserably.

So yes, he IS responsible. It comes with the position.

Do I think that makes him evil and he is the root of all this trouble? no. Do I think he's an ignorant puppet with far too many hands up his ass to think straight? Hell yes.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 09:20 AM

Dutch

02-20-2005, 09:44 AM

So any act, for good or evil, is evidence of involvement of the Bush Administration.I have NEVER seen the opposition left ever remotely suggest that Bush was responsible for anything good in Iraq. To suggest they would here is believing the great suggestion that the opposition is being unbiased in their scathing attacks on the Bush administration. But that is not the case nor has it been.

Arles

02-20-2005, 09:54 AM

Uh, dude. You just provided all the evidence anyone itching to get the Bush Administration needed. He is the Commander-In-Chief. These are HIS soldiers. They are the involvement of the Bush Administration...
If this was a Bush directive, there would be thousands of deaths like this in numerous different prisons, holding areas and interrogation rooms. To this point, it has been pretty much isolated to this one area in Abu Ghraib and one or two outlying groups (ie, that Seals team).

So, I guess your stance is that Bush told everyone to do this, but only one small group in Abu Ghraib listened? And, to reward them for listening to him, he's locking some of them away for 10 years.

That certainly seems likely.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 10:21 AM

If this was a Bush directive, there would be thousands of deaths like this in numerous different prisons, holding areas and interrogation rooms. To this point, it has been pretty much isolated to this one area in Abu Ghraib and one or two outlying groups (ie, that Seals team).

So, I guess your stance is that Bush told everyone to do this, but only one small group in Abu Ghraib listened? And, to reward them for listening to him, he's locking some of them away for 10 years.

That certainly seems likely.Are you not reading what I write? I NEVER said Bush told anyone anything. Look back at what I read. You're completely mis-reading "my stance." Re-read my posts and read RenderR's post. If you still don't understand the point, then I am not sure what else I can say to make it any clearer for you.

Perhaps my "accountant" example below will help...

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 10:32 AM

I have NEVER seen the opposition left ever remotely suggest that Bush was responsible for anything good in Iraq. To suggest they would here is believing the great suggestion that the opposition is being unbiased in their scathing attacks on the Bush administration. But that is not the case nor has it been.I have. I think people were very much impressed and pleased with the way the elections went down. High turnout. Very little violence. It seemed all good. I was duly impressed and I think the Bush Administration deserves, and received, all the credit for that. Even from the opposition left. Well, from some of them.

Also, I didn't suggest that the opposition is being unbiased. I would never suggest that. By their very nature oppositions are biased. What I said, and I was only refering to my view, is that any act of good or ill committed by US soldiers is evidence of involvement of the Bush Administration. A soldier saves a life, gives kids some candy, this is evidence of the Bush Administration. A soldier accidently kills an innocent, likewise.

The concepts I putting forth here are not that complex. There is no hidden agenda. They apply to any army/military action in the history of the world. Commanders-In-Chief are responsible for the actions of their soldiers while their soldiers are on active duty.

It's just like an employer being responsible for their employee's actions while on the job and while performing their tasks. For example, if an accountant working for a large accounting firm cooks the books for a company or commits fraud or some other wrong doing, both the accounting firm and the individual accountant are held responsible for the wrong-doing, even if NONE of his bosses or higher-ups in the firm gave any sort of direct orders or were aware of what was going on. The accountant is an agent of the firm. Just like soldiers, while on active duty are "agents" of the Administration that ordered them there.

BigJohn&TheLions

02-20-2005, 11:07 AM

I'm just not buying this whole Bush is evil, everybody else is a saint routine. It's tired.

I know. Everybody in Washington is evil.

(Besides, Bush can't be evil. God talks directly to him, thru a little box undeneath his jacket. Remember?)

Arles

02-20-2005, 12:32 PM

It's just like an employer being responsible for their employee's actions while on the job and while performing their tasks. For example, if an accountant working for a large accounting firm cooks the books for a company or commits fraud or some other wrong doing, both the accounting firm and the individual accountant are held responsible for the wrong-doing, even if NONE of his bosses or higher-ups in the firm gave any sort of direct orders or were aware of what was going on. The accountant is an agent of the firm. Just like soldiers, while on active duty are "agents" of the Administration that ordered them there.
I completely reject the premise of your analogy. The whole reason that your anology could involve the CEO or company having issues is that the accountant's illegal act was not caught be the final partner or supervisor that signed off on the books. To parallel the military, it would be akin to a soldier forging his own orders to torture a prisoner and his commanding officer signing off on it. If that happened, then I would agree larger parts of the military would be culpable.

A better anology would be if an accountant went out and killed three CEOs of competitors firms under the mistaken belief that his CEO wanted him to do it (which could never be proven and was shown to be fairly outlandish). I don't think that the authorities would grab his CEO and put him up on charges.

If a soldier goes outside the bounds of his duties, disregards orders and policies and does something not sanctioned by the government, he pays the price - not the entire military. It's been that way since World War I.

Obviously, the situation makes the Military "look bad" (as would the accountant who killed his competitors), but the president (just like the CEO) did nothing illegal nor could the case be made that he somehow sanctioned the act by its occurance.

MrBug708

02-20-2005, 12:47 PM

So everytime an Air Force plane crashes in training, a marine gets in trouble for pot, an Army soldier shoots someone innocent or a Naval officer rapes someone, it's Bush's fault?

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 12:48 PM

I completely reject the premise of your analogy. The whole reason that your anology could involve the CEO or company having issues is that the accountant's illegal act was not caught be the final partner or supervisor that signed off on the books. To parallel the military, it would be akin to a soldier forging his own orders to torture a prisoner and his commanding officer signing off on it. If that happened, then I would agree larger parts of the military would be culpable.

A better anology would be if an accountant went out and killed three CEOs of competitors firms under the mistaken belief that his CEO wanted him to do it (which could never be proven and was shown to be fairly outlandish). I don't think that the authorities would grab his CEO and put him up on charges.

If a soldier goes outside the bounds of his duties, disregards orders and policies and does something not sanctioned by the government, he pays the price - not the entire military. It's been that way since World War I.

Obviously, the situation makes the Military "look bad" (as would the accountant who killed his competitors), but the president (just like the CEO) did nothing illegal nor could the case be made that he somehow sanctioned the act by its occurance.
You've got it right, but only partially. You're absolutely right about the murdering accountant. Employers can only be held responsible for their agent's actions if their agent's actions are within the scope of his job. Accoutant handling the books or accounts of a company are within the scope of his job. Murdering folks, not so much.

Torturing prisoners of war in order to get information, within certain parameters, is, in fact, part of a solider's or CIA agent's "job." Right? So, when a solider or CIA agent is doing his or her job and goes "out of bounds" of what would be considered "within reason" or however you want to define "legal" torture, his employer (The Bush Amdinistration) is, on some level, responsible for that agent's actions.

See the difference?

The fact that this type of torture was going (no need for false orders) is enough. To use another example, it's like a pizza deilvery guy doing, say, herione, before he gets into his car to deliver pizza. He is driving to deliver the pizza, gets into accident killed a bus load of nuns and children. The pizza company is responsible for this accident. They should have been more careful with who they hired and should have supervised their employees more carefully.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:00 PM

So everytime an Air Force plane crashes in training, a marine gets in trouble for pot, an Army soldier shoots someone innocent or a Naval officer rapes someone, it's Bush's fault?
You're not reading what I am writing.

Stop focusing on Bush. This has nothing to do with him. The same applies to any Commander-In-Chief. You Bushies are a hyper-sensitive lot. Not that I can blame, he does get bashed a lot.

MrBug708

02-20-2005, 01:02 PM

Bush has been the only commander that I havce been old enough to vote for, so when you stereotype Commander-in-chief, the premise is Bush

Arles

02-20-2005, 01:03 PM

The fact that this type of torture was going (no need for false orders) is enough.
This statement doesn't make sense. If a police officer goes out and kills a suspect for no reason - the whole department isn't put up on charges, just the cop that did it. I see a parallel here. The police chief or head LT would have needed to sanction the cop's actions in some manner for the PD to be liable.

To use another example, it's like a pizza deilvery guy doing, say, herione, before he gets into his car to deliver pizza. He is driving to deliver the pizza, gets into accident killed a bus load of nuns and children. The pizza company is responsible for this accident. They should have been more careful with who they hired and should have supervised their employees more carefully.
Again, the liability would be if they let him leave the pizza place while on heroine and drive a car to sell their pizzas. I'd be real interested to see what the liability would be if the person passed all their drug tests, left the pizza place clean and shot up once he left in the car. At that point, I doubt the legal liability would be all that much for the pizza place - especially if he had no prior record.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:04 PM

Bush has been the only commander that I havce been old enough to vote for, so when you stereotype Commander-in-chief, the premise is Bush
Huh? I am not stereotyping anything or anyone. I don't get it.

Commander-In-Chief means any president. But the same concept applies to any "leader" of an army throughout time: kings, generals, pharohs, lords, sultans, etc, etc.

MrBug708

02-20-2005, 01:11 PM

So you were quite peeved when Clinton bombed the hell out of the Chinese Embassy?

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:12 PM

So you were quite peeved when Clinton bombed the hell out of the Chinese Embassy?
Yes.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:14 PM

This statement doesn't make sense. If a police officer goes out and kills a suspect for no reason - the whole department isn't put up on charges, just the cop that did it. I see a parallel here. The police chief or head LT would have needed to sanction the cop's actions in some manner for the PD to be liable.

Again, the liability would be if they let him leave the pizza place while on heroine and drive a car to sell their pizzas. I'd be real interested to see what the liability would be if the person passed all their drug tests, left the pizza place clean and shot up once he left in the car. At that point, I doubt the legal liability would be all that much for the pizza place - especially if he had no prior record.
They would be. The concept is called viacrious liability. We don't even need herione in the example. If the pizza delivery guy was speeding and caused that accident, that would be enough. There is plenty out there on "agent/master" and tort liability. Read up on it.

As for the cop. Killing suspects is not within the scope of a cop's job. Torture is within the scope of certain soldiers' and CIA agents' jobs. There is your difference.

Arles

02-20-2005, 01:21 PM

As for the cop. Killing suspects is not within the scope of a cop's job. Torture is within the scope of certain soldiers' and CIA agents' jobs. There is your difference.
This is where you lose me.

Scenerio 1:A cop chases a suspect (is allowed the use force), the suspect gives up and lays on the ground to be hand-cuffed. The cop then shoots him because he didn't like the way the suspect looked at him.

Scenerio 2:A soldier is watching over a prisoner (and allowed to use force if the prisoner attacks or tries to escape). The soldier then decides to beat the prisoner because he doesn't like the way he's looking at him.

You are saying that the PD doesn't have any liability in situation 1, but the US administration DOES have liability in situation 2. How is that possible? Both people were initially acting within the "scope of their job", but both crossed the line pretty aggregiously in a similar manner.

oliegirl

02-20-2005, 01:22 PM

I will probably regret even becoming involved in this conversation, but what the hell - I like to live on the edge.

First of all, I am going to point out that from what I have read online, after googling "palestinian hanging", this does not seem to be anything like a crucifixion, as it was called in the title of the thread. I never saw any article or webpage that compared what this guy went through to a crucifixion. I am not saying the way this guy died was not horrible, but at least for me, reading what isiddiqui called it and then reading the story, left the impression that he was anti-bush and that might be the reason that some of the other posters have felt they need to "defend" him. When I read the title of the thread, I thought this was going to be a new story with images of an Iraqi prisoner nailed to a cross or some other object, and being tortured. I will say it again, this guy died a horrible death, but I don't think it was a crucifixion....

Secondly, to those of you who think that torture should never be used, let me ask you this...is it better to harm/torture a handful of people to get information which could protect our country, along with the rest of the world, and prevent future terrorist activity, or assume this prisoner is telling the truth and not use any less-than-pleasant methods of interrogation and at some point down the road realize that you had "the guy" and a 9/11, Bali, Spain bombing/terrorist attack that cost thousands of innocent lives could have been prevented?

Please note, I am not taking sides with this post, merely playing devil's advocate...

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:28 PM

I will probably regret even becoming involved in this conversation, but what the hell - I like to live on the edge.

First of all, I am going to point out that from what I have read online, after googling "palestinian hanging", this does not seem to be anything like a crucifixion, as it was called in the title of the thread. I never saw any article or webpage that compared what this guy went through to a crucifixion. I am not saying the way this guy died was horrible, but at least for me, reading what isiddiqui called it and then reading the story, left the impression that he was anti-bush and that might be the reason that some of the other posters have felt they need to "defend" him. When I read the title of the thread, I thought this was going to be a new story with images of an Iraqi prisoner nailed to a cross or some other object, and being tortured. I will say it again, this guy died a horrible death, but I don't think it was a crucifixion....

Secondly, to those of you who think that torture should never be used, let me ask you this...is it better to harm/torture a handful of people to get information which could protect our country, along with the rest of the world, and prevent future terrorist activity, or assume this prisoner is telling the truth and not use any less-than-pleasant methods of interrogation and at some point down the road realize that you had "the guy" and a 9/11, Bali, Spain bombing/terrorist attack that cost thousands of innocent lives could have been prevented?

Please note, I am not taking sides with this post, merely playing devil's advocate...
I am not sure who these questions were addressed to, but:

1. I don't know if this happened or not. The truth of the report was never raised as an issue. It's totally irrelevant to the debate at hand.

2. No one in this thread, and certainly me, ever said or even implied torture shoulder never be used. I think it has it's place. I am not against it. That said, I wont even begin to comment on what "acceptable" torture is. I have no idea. All I know about torture (thank heavens) I learned frrom TV and movies.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 01:33 PM

This is where you lose me.

Scenerio 1:A cop chases a suspect (is allowed the use force), the suspect gives up and lays on the ground to be hand-cuffed. The cop then shoots him because he didn't like the way the suspect looked at him.

Scenerio 2:A soldier is watching over a prisoner (and allowed to use force if the prisoner attacks or tries to escape). The soldier then decides to beat the prisoner because he doesn't like the way he's looking at him.

You are saying that the PD doesn't have any liability in situation 1, but the US administration DOES have liability in situation 2. How is that possible? Both people were initially acting within the "scope of their job", but both crossed the line pretty aggregiously in a similar manner.
I think under the scenarios, as described above, both the PD and the US administration would be liable. The suspect's family could certainly sue the PD and would have a good chance of succeeding.

Also, I am not saying that the CIA agents aren't also responsible for what happened. They are infinitely more responsible for this (if it happened). The administration is vicariously responsible as well.

oliegirl

02-20-2005, 01:36 PM

The post was directed at anyone reading or posting in the thread.

My point was that it's very easy for us, sitting in our houses/apartments to say that the administration did or didn't know about stuff and condemn the government for allowing something like this to happen. The reality is that these are not easy decisions for anyone to make, and regardless of who made, them and who knew, they had to be made. It just seems that anytime the Abu Ghraib scandal comes up, the discussion turns into a 2 sided debate within a couple of posts...those who think that whether or not Bush knew about this stuff, it was stuff that had to happen because of the big picture, and the side that says how could America be involved in this and how could Bush have not known? That is why I made the point about the Bush defenders and their posts. If this was a new story, I would have a different viewpoint, but this is old news, and the people responsible have been punished - severely punished. I don't see the need to make a seemingly partisan post, as the title of this thread seems to be, and then have everyone have the same discussion we have had a thousand times before about this same story.

Arles

02-20-2005, 01:37 PM

I think under the scenarios, as described above, both the PD and the US administration would be liable. The suspect's family could certainly sue the PD and would have a good chance of succeeding.
Do you know of a case where this has happened? I've never seen a cop go off on his own and do something stupid and the PD be liable.

Also, I am not saying that the CIA agents aren't also responsible for what happened. They are infinitely more responsible for this (if it happened). The administration is vicariously responsible as well.
The problem is that there's no really no precedent for holding the administration responsible if they did not sanction or know of the act prior.

Arles

02-20-2005, 01:54 PM

To clear up what I meant by precedent, US soldiers were investigated numerous times for abuse in the 90s (Somalia being the biggest) and I don't recall one story stating that Clinton was responsible for their acts. And, to be clear, I don't think Clinton or Bush can be held responsible for acts of a few nutjobs in the military. There are 140,000 troops in Iraq right now and were around 30,000 in Somalia. When you get into a "war environment", you are going to have a small number behave in an inappropriate manner. In both cases (Somalia and Iraq), those people were dealt with and didn't make up even 0.01% of the troops stationed. Again, if this stuff is widespread and there are some links showing a buyoff by the administration, I would say that's a different story. But four people in Somalia or a dozen in Iraq is not something I would classify as widespread.

Buccaneer

02-20-2005, 03:23 PM

It is obvious that some do not understand the natue of man or of warfare.

02-20-2005, 03:57 PM

Yes.

I want to make sure I am clear on this. Are you saying Clinton was responsible for all civilian deaths caused by US bombing in the Balkans during his presidency? And as well for the deaths of the religious cultists in Waco? Just wanting to make sure you are consistent here.

As regards Iraq, I am also wondering if you find Congress complicit, or just Bush.

HomerJSimpson

02-20-2005, 03:57 PM

(Besides, Bush can't be evil. God talks directly to him, thru a little box undeneath his jacket. Remember?)

God's first name is Karl? Would have never guessed.

-Mojo Jojo-

02-20-2005, 04:36 PM

A simple and straightforward take on the situation: A previously clear policy on the treatment of enemy prisoners was muddied by mixed signals sent by the administration (via the infamous torture memos) and since then the quality control on treatment of prisoners has deteriorated significantly, occasionally in spectacular fashion.

Some of this talk about responsibility and culpability seems to take abstraction a bit far. Is Bush personally culpable for making naked guy piles in Abu Ghraib? Is Clinton personally culpable for burning children to death at Waco? These are silly questions. Of course not. But people in leadership positions must hold some sort or responsibility for what happens under their watch.

It makes no more sense to completely insulate upper level management from responsibility than it does to treat the independent actions of their underlings as a direct action of the management themselves. The leadership is responsible for selecting whom to employ and in what capacity, setting the standards of conduct, setting the training regime for indoctrinating the standards, implementing the methods of policing and enforcing the standards, etc. It is entirely relevent to assess the effectiveness or failure of leadership decisions in these terms.

Honolulu_Blue

02-20-2005, 06:02 PM

Is Bush personally culpable for making naked guy piles in Abu Ghraib? Is Clinton personally culpable for burning children to death at Waco? These are silly questions. Of course not. But people in leadership positions must hold some sort or responsibility for what happens under their watch.

It makes no more sense to completely insulate upper level management from responsibility than it does to treat the independent actions of their underlings as a direct action of the management themselves. The leadership is responsible for selecting whom to employ and in what capacity, setting the standards of conduct, setting the training regime for indoctrinating the standards, implementing the methods of policing and enforcing the standards, etc. It is entirely relevent to assess the effectiveness or failure of leadership decisions in these terms.
Exactly.

JonInMiddleGA

02-20-2005, 06:20 PM

It is obvious that some do not understand the natue of man or of warfare.

Ain't that the ever-loving truth.

stevew

02-20-2005, 06:26 PM

The title of this post is taking some serious liberties with what actually happened.

JonInMiddleGA

02-20-2005, 06:31 PM

The title of this post is taking some serious liberties with what actually happened.

What a shocker
:rolleyes:

stevew

02-20-2005, 06:37 PM

What a shocker
:rolleyes:

But, of course, its not meant to be inflammatory, its merely to ed-u-ma-cate us on the atrocities our government is perpetuating in exchange for oil.

RendeR

02-20-2005, 07:24 PM

WHat it seems some people aren't grasping here is what is called (in the military) Ultimate responsibility. Every individual who commands/manages/oversees another individual in the united states military and also the government as a whole, is in the end responsible for the actions and the RESULTS of those actions of any subordinates who serve under them. Its a system of security to help assure that things like abu grabe DON'T actually occur.

Now extrapolate things out as they go:

A) Servicemen and/or CIA people do something dispicable in Iraq
B) Those individuals direct supervisors, commanders, and or managers are directly responsible for FAILING to ensure that these things do not occur.
C) the Government Officials directing those managers.commanders/supervisors are also responsible because their choice of personnel for those subordinate positions were found to be severely lacking.
D) the Government itself is responsible overall because they are OUR GOVERNMENTS representitives who commited these acts.

We're not trying to say its busch giving the orders, we're simply stating that when it all boils down to the facts, the administration, and specifically the commander in chief (WHOEVER HE MAY BE) must belly up to the table and accept responsibility for the actions of personnel working in the service of this country.

Thats what the job requires, if he attempts to deny such, then he's guilty of worse than these problems, he's guilty of failing to do his job at all.

Buccaneer

02-20-2005, 07:48 PM

Ok, nice words but that had never, ever stopped humans from committing atrocities upon other humans throughout history, nor will it stop it in the future. Excusable? No - expected.

ISiddiqui

02-20-2005, 11:45 PM

ISiddiqui

02-20-2005, 11:47 PM

The title of this post is taking some serious liberties with what actually happened.
Let's see..

Iraqi prisoner - check
crucifixion - check (see post above)
as part of a CIA investigation - check

Where are the serious liberties again? :rolleyes:

Leonidas

02-21-2005, 06:07 AM

I see a lot of jabber about the military in this thing, but reading the article it said this guy was a CIA detainee. Two completely different organizations folks. Being in the military this kind of crap outrages me because a) it's unprofessional b) doesn't work as a reliable interrogation technique c) opens us in the military up for similar treatment if we get captured d) is taught to us to be wrong and illegal and e) simply is wrong.

There certainly appears to be a group of CIA and/or contractors out there getting away with a lot of s##t that makes the rest of us look bad. And it seems to be mounting up to the point that while maybe Bush or Cheney didn't authorize it, you gotta wonder if there hasn't been some winking and nodding going on in higher circles condoning this sort of thing. It will never be proved, they are too clever to leave anything like a signed order around, but someone, somewhere in a position of authority has to know and allow it to go on.

oliegirl

02-21-2005, 03:14 PM

What the Hell else is it? His arms were chained to a grate which mean any time he moved forward all the pressure was on his chest, which, of course would have happened as he lost strength. That causes pressure on the lungs, which is the cause of death.

That's exactly what happens in a crucifixion. Or did you think that people who were crucified died of starvation?

In MY opinion, the term crucify immediately conjurs up images of Jesus and the whole concept of nails through the hands and feet, etc...I also made a point to look up mulitiple articles relating to "palestinian hanging", and again, as I mentioned, no where in ANY of them was the term crucify used...which led me to post that I didn't think it was appropriate.

I made it a point to say that this guy died a horrible death, but that I did think you were taking it a bit far by mentioning "crucifies" in your thread title.

stevew

02-21-2005, 04:11 PM

ISiddiqui

02-21-2005, 04:16 PM

In MY opinion, the term crucify immediately conjurs up images of Jesus and the whole concept of nails through the hands and feet, etc...I also made a point to look up mulitiple articles relating to "palestinian hanging", and again, as I mentioned, no where in ANY of them was the term crucify used...which led me to post that I didn't think it was appropriate.

I made it a point to say that this guy died a horrible death, but that I did think you were taking it a bit far by mentioning "crucifies" in your thread title. So because your opinion Jesus was crucifixion that means any mode of killing which has similar effects but doesn't have nails in the hands or feet isn't crucifixion? What about binding the hands with rope to a cross, which is what the Romans did sometimes, instead of nails? Is that not crucifixion?

I call it crucifixion. It kills by the same way that nailing you up to the cross does.

Also what is worse about crucifixion on a cross than what happened here? Seeing as there were plenty of bounding of hands around a cross involved, why does use of the term elicit such reaction? Is it because a mythical religious figure was killed in such a way?

Klinglerware

02-21-2005, 04:24 PM

Jesus wasn't the only person crucified in the history of the world. Fairly routine practice back in the Roman era, I believe. ISiddiqui is correct that in many Roman crucifixions, the criminal would be bound to the frame by rope, and not nailed...

stevew

02-21-2005, 04:25 PM

JonInMiddleGA

02-21-2005, 05:11 PM

Exactly. Except this guy was hung in a different manner.

But "crucifixion" sounds sooooooooo much better when you're trying to create a martyr.

Honolulu_Blue

02-21-2005, 06:26 PM

But "crucifixion" sounds sooooooooo much better when you're trying to create a martyr.
Or sell newspapers/create web traffic. Sensationalist journalism?? In America?? SHOCKING! :eek:

oliegirl

02-21-2005, 07:41 PM

Or sell newspapers/create web traffic. Sensationalist journalism?? In America?? SHOCKING! :eek:

That was my original point...the newspapers aren't calling it a crucifixion, only the author of the thread. If it was being portrayed as such in other areas (web, papers, magazines, etc) I would have never brought it up...

NoMyths

02-21-2005, 08:18 PM

Title got people to stick around the thread, at least.

Heck, if I gave a pop quiz on extraordinary rendition (which is still occuring, unlike Abu Ghraib), I doubt the class would pass.

oykib

02-22-2005, 08:33 AM

Boy, thes threads get stupid.

I'm not a Bush fan. But I'm not a far left crazy either.

What I don't understand is how the majority of conservatives haven't stepped back and really taken a look at this administration from the viewpoint of their beliefs and determined that there is a problem with Bush.

-> Draft Dodger: check

Now before you go flying off the handle about this detail and that one...
A) do you really think that he'd have gotten that air national guard slot without his family connections?
B) would normal guys have gotten away with his attendance record?

-> The buck never stops there.

I thought conservatives were about personal responsibility. Why the hell isn't the Bush Administration responsible for anything that's gone wrong. I'm not talking about half-assed mea culpas a year later, either.

I'm talking about the heads-rolling variety. Nothing that goes wrong is ever anybody's fault (Graft, military abuses, invading countries on bad intelligence, fucking up foreign relations)

In the same vein, I'm disgusted at the fact that they never seem to be willing to face the music. There never seem to be any press conferences out of this crew. And he never seems to answer questions at the ones he has. Although, I admit, that this is really more a criticism of gutless 'journalists' and our fucked up fourth estate than the administration.

-> Illegal Drug User: check

I think that some stuff like weed shouldn't be illegal. But it is. And I don't want my president to have done it while it was. We don't have any solid evidence that he did. But we didn't with Clinton, either. That never prevented even liberals from admitting that where there's smoke there's fire.

-> Love's Big Government like mom's apple pie: Check

This is the one that should really get your right-wing panties in a bunch. This guy's been emulating Clinton's worst spending sprees. But he's done it non-stop since almost the beginning of his administration.

I realize that he's had security issues that previous administrations didn't. But come on. Don't tell me that he couldn't have shown a little more restraint than he has.

Honestly, only numbers two and four are particularly disturbing to me. But I'm more disturbed that there seem to be no end of Bush apologists that won't even acknowledge these issues.

I won't lie and say the people on the left aren't as bad. But their guy isn't in power now. Your guy is. It seems defending him on these things is harmful to your real agenda, for as far as I understnd it.

It's like the country has become one big episode of "Crossfire" or something. People seem to neither be honest or reasonable.

I used to run into the same problem when arguing with liberals about Clinton/Gore selling out the left's interests.

It all makes me wonder if the country's gonna have to be at the brink of collapse for the pendulum to swing back toward reason.

flere-imsaho

02-22-2005, 08:53 AM

Maybe "Compassionate Conservatism" is where you spend compassionately on the conservative issues you support? ;)

JonInMiddleGA

02-22-2005, 08:57 AM

But I'm more disturbed that there seem to be no end of Bush apologists that won't even acknowledge these issues.

Umm ... In general, I don't see/hear any lack of criticism from numerous conservatives about the tendency to spend. For example, that's a fairly common talk radio topic for the past couple of years at least.

I'm not particularly inclined to argue the other points for various reasons, but on this one, I think we're seeing/hearing different things.

And, since I figure somebody is either going to ask or wonder, on the other points:

1) Yes, I do believe others can & have "gotten away with his attendance record". Were there advantages of his status? I'm pretty sure there were, but that's as much a part of the military as boots & bad food, and it isn't always at the instruction/request of the beneficiary.

2)re: Graft, military abuses, invading countries on bad intelligence, fucking up foreign relations -- I don't think there's a lot of criticism on most of these points simply because most of the Bush electorate agrees with the outcomes.
We don't believe Iraq was a mistake regardless of the bad intelligence, we really wish he'd taken an even harder line with our so-called allies, we really don't care a whole helluva lot about Abu Gharab, and there's been a lot more smoke than fire re: Halliburton, et al. The criticism is low because we don't really see a lot worthy of criticism. Further note: "We" refers to some portion of Bush voters/conservatives, I'm not pretending or presuming to speak for all of them. But I've yet to find a single person among the Bush voters I know IRL who doesn't fit with exactly what I said. Not one.

3) Of all the items, this one is the most concerning to me, and I'll agree that it has gotten an easier ride than I would have expected.

JonInMiddleGA

02-22-2005, 08:58 AM

Maybe "Compassionate Conservatism" is where you spend compassionately on the conservative issues you support? ;)

That's not really a bad line IMO, and I think there's actually a decent amount of truth in it.

I'd prefer less government spending, but I can swallow quite a bit IF I agree with how the money is spent (or more importantly, where it isn't spent).

Fritz

02-22-2005, 09:03 AM

Boy, thes threads get stupid.

thanks for smarting it up

oykib

02-22-2005, 09:55 AM

thanks for smarting it up

I guess my keyboard's too sticky :D