Bush Approved Torture Techniques

[A_Wanderer]

What actions? how far does it go. Is it the use of dogs, stress positions, bright lights and music or is it electrocution, fingernail pulling, drugging and beating.

 

[Rono]

What actions? how far does it go. Is it the use of dogs, stress positions, bright lights and music or is it electrocution, fingernail pulling, drugging and beating.

This are all methodes of toture, or is there someting like, sweet and carefull torture

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would venture that bright lights, sleep modification (not deprivation), barking dogs and loud music are legitimate interrogation techniques and not torture - the goal is not to "crack" the individual rather get them to leak information, torture yields very little information if the person starts spouting giberish.

 

[deep]

FBI reports said to back claims of Guantánamo Bay detainees

By Carol D. Leonnig
The Washington Post

At least 10 current and former detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have lodged allegations of abuse similar to incidents described by FBI agents in newly released documents. The detainees' claims were denied by the government but gained credibility with the reports from the agents, their attorneys say.

In public statements after their release and in documents filed with federal courts, the detainees have said they were beaten before and during interrogations, "short-shackled" to the floor and otherwise mistreated as part of the effort to persuade them to confess to being members of al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Some of the detainees' attorneys acknowledged they initially were skeptical, mainly because there's been little evidence that captors at Guantánamo Bay engaged in the kind of abuse discovered at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. But the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday released FBI memos it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in which agents describe seeing or learning of serious mistreatment of detainees.

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified agent wrote Aug. 2, 2004, for example. "Most times they had urinated and defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more."

Brent Mickum, a Washington, D.C., attorney for one detainee, said that "now there's no question these guys have been tortured. When we first got involved in this case, I wondered whether this could all be true. But every allegation that I've heard has now come to pass and been confirmed by the government's own papers."

A Pentagon spokesman has said the military is investigating torture claims. Pentagon officials and lawyers say the military has been careful not to abuse detainees and has complied with treaties on the handling of enemy prisoners "to the extent possible" in the middle of a war.

Detainees say military personnel beat and kicked them while they had hoods on their heads and tight shackles on their legs; left them in freezing temperatures and stifling heat; subjected them to repeated, prolonged rectal exams; and paraded them naked around the prison as military police snapped pictures.

More than 60 of the 550 men who are detained have filed claims. Some have been held for nearly three years.

 

[Dreadsox]

My only question is why put this in here and not start a new thread....your article has nothing to do with the President approving it.

There is one quote in there from the actual memos that is cited to back the claims. The rest of the article comes from an attorney for the detainees. The rest are quotes from the detainees.

There is not one single new thing in the article. There is nothing implicating the White House. Yet again we have soldiers not obeying the law if the allegations are true. finally the Pentagon is investigating. If they broke the law they will be punished.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I ask how--and why--the President would not have, or could not have, stepped in and said, "Hey, this is not how the United States of America does things."

Umm... I do remember him saying something along these lines. He offered apologies to the Iraqis on this subject matter. Of course, his apologies were dismissed by Iraqis as well as (surprise, surprise) liberals.


From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200405/ai_kepm462882

Bush apologizes for abuse of Iraqis
AFP, May, 2004

WASHINGTON (AFP) — President George W. Bush apologized for the first time for the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by US troops, calling the ill treatment "a stain on our country's honor."

Bush also blamed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for not informing him sooner of the problems at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, but dismissed mounting calls for the Pentagon chief to quit or be fired.

"He's an important part of my Cabinet and he'll stay in my Cabinet," Bush said in a joint appearance with Jordan's King Abdullah II, the first Muslim leader welcomed to the White House since the controversy erupted one week ago.

"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," said Bush. "It's a stain on our country's honor and our country's reputation. I fully understand that. ...



From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2004_May_10/ai_n6264137

Bush publicly apologizes for U.S. abuses of Iraqi detainees
Asian Political News, May 10, 2004

U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday publicly apologized for the widely reported abuses of detainees in Iraq by U.S. military personnel.

''I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families,'' Bush told reporters at the White House after talks with Jordanian King Abdullah.

''I told him I was as equally sorry that people seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America,'' he said. ''It made us sick to our stomachs.''

Bush's public apology in the Rose Garden was the latest chapter of the scandal which could seriously threaten his presidency and his postwar Iraq policy.

Pictures showing the abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were broadcast and published around the world, enraging the Arab world.

Bush renewed his condemnation of the incident, calling it ''a stain on our country's honor and our country's reputation.''

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been under sharp criticism for his handling of the abuses in Iraq, but Bush said he has no plans to seek his resignation over the scandal.

''Secretary Rumsfeld has served our national well,'' Bush said. ''Secretary Rumsfeld has been the secretary during two wars and he is an important part of my Cabinet, and he'll stay in my cabinet.''

Bush reportedly chastised Rumsfeld on Wednesday for his handling of the U.S. mistreatment of Iraqis at the prison.

Bush is ''not satisfied'' and ''not happy'' with the way Rumsfeld informed him about the investigation into abuses by U.S. soldiers at the prison or the quantity of information his defense chief provided, the Washington Post reported Thursday, quoting a senior White House official.

The president was particularly disturbed at having had to learn from news reports this week about the scope of misconduct documented in an Army investigative report completed in March, the Post said.

Other U.S. officials said Rumsfeld and the Pentagon resisted appeals in recent months from the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to deal with problems relating to detainees, the paper said.

The Post also carried on its front page the photo of an American soldier holding a leash tied around a naked man's neck at the prison. The photo caption identified the soldier as Pft. Lynndie England of the 372nd Military Police Company, an Army Reserve unit based in Cresaptown in Maryland.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, citing White House officials, said Bush expressed his displeasure to Rumsfeld in a White House Oval Office meeting because of his failure to tell him about photographs of the abuses.

''The disclosures by the White House officials, under authorization from Mr. Bush, were an extraordinary display of finger-pointing in an administration led by a man who puts a high premium on order and loyalty,'' the Times said.


I guess my big question is, why keep Rummy in the cabinet? Other than that, I don't see enough balanced evidence that suggests that Bush ordered/approved of the torture.

 

[Iskra]

We are the most hypocritical country ever.
Blinded by arrogance and greed.
But we've got cable tv and nice highways so I guess that makes us better than everyone.
My God is bigger than your God!
We just don't have enough religious zealots in the world. We need more.
Ok, I'm done.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Ok, I'm done.

Glad to hear it.

 

[pax]

But that wasn't my question. Whether or not he apologized is not relevant to what I asked.

I asked why, if he knew about it (and what I have read seems to indicate that he did), could he or would he not have stopped it and taken a firm stand against it before it actually happened?

Don't forget...apologies are relatively easy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Please quote what leads u to believe from the actual documents and link me to them, so I too can see how the president knew what was happening.

 

[pax]

I quoted earlier the statements from articles I read that said this was known and approved up through the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I guess it's theoretically possible that the Deputy Secretary of Defense would have known and not the President, but I find it incredibly unlikely.

 

[Dreadsox]

You posted an article, that jumps to the conclusion that the administration approved the "ABUSE". There is a BIG difference between the ABUSE and the actual TECHNIQUES that were approved.

Having read all of the documents myself, I think the article, is a bit off the mark.

 

[pax]

I'm not sure how these "techniques," if you want to call them that, don't contribute to an environment where abuse is more likely to happen and go unchecked.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm not sure how these "techniques," if you want to call them that, don't contribute to an environment where abuse is more likely to happen and go unchecked.

The torture that occured was not represented in the Executive Order. That is evident from reading ALL of the documents. Not just the Dep. Def. Sec. So which paints the clearer picture? All of the documents that are released, demonstrating that the EO allowed specific things, that soldiers violated it, that those wh violated it were removed from the situation, that those who violated it are being investigated or just the one document?

The President EO apparently authorized specific things, not what occured. A lack of human decency on the part of the people who did these inhumane things is not the Presidents fault.

 

[Dreadsox]

As for referring to them as "techniques" call it what you want, they apparently are NOT the same thing as the abuses. The memorandums and emails demonstrate that.

 

[deep]

you would have made an excellent member of O Js original defense team

 

[Iskra]

I love that his supporters get mad when we call him dumb and misinformed about the war and terrorism and Iraq and basically everything in general but when shit goes wrong he wasn't aware.
So the torture methods or procedures or whatever you want to call them were going on and he had no clue?
Come on.
Open your eyes.
Some of you people would have made great Nazis with your strong sense of blind nationalism.
-I'm not done.

 

[nbcrusader]

 

[nbcrusader]

you would have made an excellent member of O Js original defense team

Dread is correctly pointing out the logical fallacy used to support the claim.

Trying to link Dread's clear logic to the OJ defense team is unnecessary. As much as you disapprove of Karl Rove, you seem to employ similar tactics with ease.

I guess when the arguments of those against Bush are exposed as flawed; the response is to scream louder.

 

[pax]

Iskra, I know you're new to the forum, but we really strongly discourage casual "Nazi" references in Free Your Mind. Some of our members are (quite rightly) very sensitive to the issue, and we prefer that people use the term to refer only to actual, literal Nazis (i.e. Adolf Hitler and such) rather than persons with whom one disagrees or finds unlikable.

Thank you.

 

[pax]

I'm not sure, nbc, that there is a logical fallacy here. Iskra does have a good point: Bush's supporters are often (rightly) upset when Bush is portrayed as stupid or clueless. But when his detractors assume that he is well-informed and up-to-date, as it were, they defend him by claiming that it is possible he was ignorant.

That is certainly possible, I guess, but the problem I have is that Bush and his supporters so often speak of moral responsibility and accountability, yet point the finger everywhere but inward when something like this happens. "Oh, we had nothing to do with it, it was a few rogue soldiers. No matter what policies we may have had in place that implicitly encouraged, or at least allowed, ill treatment, we won't take responsibility for it."

This is why I am so angry.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure, nbc, that there is a logical fallacy here. Iskra does have a good point: Bush's supporters are often (rightly) upset when Bush is portrayed as stupid or clueless. But when his detractors assume that he is well-informed and up-to-date, as it were, they defend him by claiming that it is possible he was ignorant.

I think there is a difference between cognative ability (the stupid label) and knowledge of every detail that occurs.

There is also a difference between holding Bush accountable for the actions as Commander in Chief and Bush directly approving the activities in question.

 

[Dreadsox]

So we are wrong for being upset that Bush is portrayed as a idiot in here?

I do not get it....nowhere did I say he was NOT informed.

The paper trail of ACTUAL documents as opposed to the interpretations of the various articles is pretty damn clear.

#1 there was an executive order.
#2 some people followed the order appropriately
#3 some poeple went beyond the order
#4 ACTION was taken against those who went beyond the oprder.

Sounds like when the White House was informed....things were done.

#5 New rules were put in place to make certain the EO was being followed accurately.


From where I stand, the ACTUAL memos show the President when informed did something about it.

 

[Dreadsox]

you would have made an excellent member of O Js original defense team

thank you, and you are excellent at being what you are

 

[Dreadsox]

One thing I do not like seeing, is the military pretending to be FBI Agents, deflecting the blame from them to the FBI.

I do not like reading that because it indicates to me that they are trying to create a climate of denyability.

 

[odowdpa]

as a journalist, i know what key words and questions to look out for...in this case, its the old question, "who is writing this story and why?" you see who is writing it - the ACLU, a biased union, which is fine, and they use the word "suggest" and "charaterized" in the opening lines...this should have bells ringing in everyone's head that this might not be total truth and that these people are taking educated guesses as to what things mean.

Now I am not for this type of behavior, but you have to remember this union is looking for a one-sided story, they dont even bother to get the opposite side, which is important. They even have the gall to quote someone from their own union....c'mon now, lets get an official who is a 3rd party at the least.

take it for what its worth.

 

[deep]

Dread is correctly pointing out the logical fallacy used to support the claim.

Trying to link Dread's clear logic to the OJ defense team is unnecessary. As much as you disapprove of Karl Rove, you seem to employ similar tactics with ease.

I guess when the arguments of those against Bush are exposed as flawed; the response is to scream louder.

After watching the first O J case
I was not surprised by the not guilty verdict
Attorneys I know said the verdict reached was correct for the evidence provided.

All I am saying is that defenders of these policies ask for concise evidence before they will concede the Administration’s policies are wrong and beyond the scope of what we as Americans have come to expect.


The preponderance of evidence supports the Administration is responsible for the environment the abuses occurred in
or they are not in control of what they have created and therefore are not fit to govern.

 

[Dreadsox]

They are responsible for fighting a war like no other. There has never been a war against a terrorist organization, with representatives spread throughout the world. The former rules of war do not necessarily work against such an organization. I am willing to give the administration room to try new things, as long as I see when things are going badly, they are attempting to correct the mistakes. This is uncharted territory. The evidence is there that they have been taking steps to correct it. Or do we choose to ignore that part of the memo/emails?

 

[nbcrusader]

The preponderance of evidence supports the Administration is responsible for the environment the abuses occurred in

Please remember, the original claim is "Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques" - not "the Adminstration created an environment......"

The evidence does not support the original claim.

 

[deep]

sounds like the "dream team".