Bush Approved Torture Techniques - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2004, 04:52 PM   #16
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Sure, STING doesn't have to reply if he doesn't want to. I don't care if he does one way or the other. But since he's always ready to defend the Bush administration, I'd be most interested to hear what he has to say on this one.

And for those of you who don't believe that this was done with the President's knowledge and approval, take a look at this article--despite my discomfort with doing so, I'll post the full text since I'm not sure if this is a Salon freebie or not. It's actually from The Guardian, though:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ure/index.html

FBI agents repeatedly complained about the torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and in Iraq and believed their eyewitness accounts of beatings, strangulation and other abuse were being repressed, official memos show. Even after heavy censorship, the memos, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, contain graphic details of abuse in which military and government interrogators put lighted cigarettes in detainees' ears, spat on them, knocked them unconscious or resorted to deliberate humiliation. In an e-mail dated July 30, one FBI official writes: "I saw a detainee sitting on the floor of the interview room with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played and a strobe light flashing."

The documents, which largely appear to be e-mails from field agents to their superiors, describe growing FBI discomfort with the interrogation methods in use at Guantánamo and in Iraq. They provide the most detailed account yet of the methods of interrogation sanctioned by the Bush administration in the "war on terror." They also reinforce the position of human rights groups that the abuse of detainees at Guantánamo and in Afghanistan and Iraq was a product of a new gloves-off policy.

"They provide disturbing evidence that the Defense Department adopted inhuman interrogation methods, methods that the FBI described as torture," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney at the ACLU. "The Department of Defense adopted these policies. They weren't just a matter of an aberration, or low-level soldiers engaging in abuse."

There was no comment from the Pentagon.

The documents suggest that FBI officials involved in questioning at Guantánamo and in Iraq were frequent witnesses to interrogation practices that went against FBI policy. An urgent report last June to FBI Director Robert Mueller describes how an official came forward after witnessing strangulation and burning. It said the account was "based on his knowledge that ... were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses."

Another memo, dated Jan. 21, 2004, which discusses a practice by some interrogators of impersonating FBI agents, mentions Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggesting that the policy was approved high in the Pentagon. "This technique, and all of those used in these scenarios, was approved by the Dep Sec Def," reads the memo. The FBI agents believed that by impersonating agents, military interrogators were trying to exploit the rapport the agency had established with some inmates.

The agents believed that such tactics produced no useful intelligence; they also threatened the FBI's image. "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done by the 'FBI' interrogators," a Dec. 2003 memo warns.

In a document dated last July, an FBI agent at Guantánamo tells his supervisors he was upset by the interrogation methods used by military interrogators and government contractors. "I did observe treatment that was not only aggressive, but personally very upsetting," the memo said. The treatment included chaining detainees to the floor in the fetal position and subjecting them to extreme heat or cold. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 24 hours or more," one memo said.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 04:57 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
More than EVER I am convinced that the memo does not convict the White House of anything.

The FBI memo clearly states that there ARE legal techniques that are allowed to be used.

That the things at ABU G went beyond the Presidential Authority of the Executive order.

That the people who participated in them were removed.

That the DOE had put in place new restrictions to prevent the abuse from happeneing again.


I don't know, but having read what I have read and knowing about eh Gonsalves memo and read it, I would say that there is nothing here but hot air.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/rele....4940_4941.pdf

And here is the memo in question.

perhaps

you should do your homework again

the pdf doc you linked clearly states that an "Executive order" was put in place allowing what the FBI considers unlawful behavior.
It is not as extreem as the abuse at Abu Graib. But the FBI sees it as unlawful and advises their people to stay clear of it.
So torture lite is ok, dogs, hoods, sensory deprivation.

Just don't sexually abuse, and hot wire their genitals
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:00 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
I have reread it....and I do not read it the way you are interpreting it...unless I am looking in the wrong paragraph...
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:02 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
We assume this does not include the LAWFUL interrogation techniques authorized by the EXECUTIVE ORDER.

is what I read.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:03 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
They witnessed nothing beyond the parameters of the Executive Order.


Sorry, I do not read what you are reading.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:04 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Perhaps you could type out a sentence or two to help me see what you are referring to?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:05 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
We assume this does not include the LAWFUL interrogation techniques authorized by the EXECUTIVE ORDER.

is what I read.....
you are right

the memo does not say "unlawful"

that was "my word".

i am re-reading
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:07 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
In typical memo fashion, I had to read it a few times myself, it is not too clear at times.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:10 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
techniques authorized by executive order but beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:14 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:29 AM
And since we do not have the Executive Order, we do not know if it was written specifically for the DOE....which would not apply to the FBI necessarily.

Plus, the FBI is operating on foreign soil.

All kinds of other issues here.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:35 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:29 AM
the white house is running away as fast as it can

there are no checks in place

they have created an enviroment where abuse happens

scape-goating underlings is not the answer
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 10:43 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Personally, I'd hope for a better source than the ACLU. We should all know what they stand for. Rumsfeld took responsibility for these charges a while back as I recall. If Bush had approved it, it would have been reported widely, wouldn't it?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 06:08 AM   #28
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:29 AM
No it would not.
These should have been requested by the media if they were doing their job. Unfortunately they are not. And I think your comment on the ACLU is uncalled for. I was never a fan per se but in the atmosphere we are now in they are needed absolutely.

At the very least the DOD is guilty of these crimes, yes crimes. Of course we don't have the Executive Order, this is the most secretive admin in history. But I truly believe he is f***ing guilty and should be impeached. Will it happen of course not. But there are enough stories, with legs as reporters call them, that the admin will be tarnished before long and be a lame duck (at least one can only hope).
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-23-2004, 09:10 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:29 AM
I gave Pax's link an honest shot. I guess you have to subscribe. I did read the article though, I didn't come across any proven evidence against the president himself, but a few members of the administration were named. If he is guilty of this, yes, perhaps he should be impeached. I'm not going to declare a verdict on something we know little about, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a conspiracy. If it's true, I would definately be disappointed in Bush.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-24-2004, 09:13 AM   #30
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:29 AM
What my question is, I guess, is how this possibly could have happened without the President knowing. Isn't his job to know what is going on as far as this stuff goes? Doesn't he have every advisor, every pair of eyes he could possibly want or need for precisely these reasons--because the buck must necessarily stop with him?

If it was as high as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and not merely a few rogue, frustrated soldiers, then 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."
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com