Bush Approved Torture Techniques - Page 5 - 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 12-28-2004, 04:25 PM   #61
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:25 PM
If the FBI is suggesting an Executive order is in place I think it does make him responsible. Who knows what methods he allowed. And maybe they are adjusting it at this time.

Worldwide terrorism or not, we cannot erase our priniciples.

Checkout this documentary. I think it puts worldwide terrorism in perspective.

http://207.44.245.159/video1037.htm
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 06:23 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:25 PM
The FBI also suggested that there were people who went beyond the EO. The FBI is also suggesting that the people who did this were removed. The memos are also suggesting investigations are taking place.

Did you read your own links? Or are you just reading someone elses interpretation of the documents, because it makes absolutely no sense to me, comments like that when your own links do not support your statement.

If you are going to pick and choose one sentence or two out of the context of the entire group of dopcuments, you are distorting the facts as we know them.

If more documents come out, causing me to change my mind, then I will admit I was wrong. The stuff you are basing your opinions on, does not support your argument.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 06:52 AM   #63
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:25 PM
Rude.
Yes I did read the links.

05/ 22/04 12/15/04 FBI [OGC Emails Part 2] Request for guidance regarding the OGC's EC regarding detainee abuse, referring to “interrogation techniques made lawful” by the “President's Executive Order.”
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 08:05 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:25 PM
The May 22 memo supports ENTIRELY what I have been saying in this thread

OK...here is the link to the memo you are referring to. It proves many of the points I have made.

#1 The FBI was not covered by the EO and therefor needed clarification as to what they were to be reporting as abuse. At the time the memo was written corrective action had taken place at AbuG and the people were removed who participated in the horrific events.

#2 The agents witenessed soldiers operating LAWFULLY under the Executive order of the President.

#3 They did not see anyone there operating UNLAWFULLY outside the boundaries of the Presidents Executive Order.

#4 No FBI personnale operated outside of traditional FBI interrogation techniques.

#5 The FBI Agents were required to report any abuse they witnessed.

#6 If the EO techniques are going to be used, there are new restrictions requiring permission from a higher authority to use them.

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

The memo is a request for the definition of abuse because the FBI is operating under a different set of rules from the Military which was operating under the EO. Since the FBI is involved in reporting abuse they did not know if they were looking for abuse based on the FBI standards or the Executive Order Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but again, you quote one line without looking at the whole memo.

How rude of me to read it! It is pretty obvious that if they (FBI AGENTS) were going to report abuse, they wanted to know by which interrogation standards.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/rele....4940_4941.pdf
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 02:06 AM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
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.
to the anger...

I've seen the stupid and clueless portrayal of Bush and his supporters on an hourly basis, and I think that gives me a reason to question theories that the mainstream media is not publishing. Yes, it could be possible, and I'd be quite disappointed if it were true. But the thread title itself is unproven as we know it. Without pulling anyone's groin, the ACLU is famously liberal, and they will go to extremes. Maybe they will take Michael Moore's place for a while while he's busy filming his Fahrenheit 9/11 sequel. While there are stories that are unreported, I think Bush has been investigated and strip searched by the majority of Americans who want to know how he's running the show in DC. As far as these charges presented in this thread, he's just like anyone else: Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 06:21 AM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
sounds like the "dream team".
but hav'nt you stated numerous times OJ was framed?

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 07:33 AM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:25 PM
If that is true....then he and I agree slightly on something....I think OJ did it with someone. I think that evidence was planted to "firm up" the case.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 10:16 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:25 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 01:53 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
If that is true....then he and I agree slightly on something....I think OJ did it with someone. I think that evidence was planted to "firm up" the case.


We seem to agree here.

I believe O J was responsible for their deaths and may have even been at the scene.

O J’s blood was in Vanatter's jacket pocket and taken to the Brentwood house.

Just a funny little fluke?

O J's blood should have been in police locked storage as evidence.

I agreed with the verdict at O. J’s second trial based on a preponderance of the evidence.

He deserves to be the pariah he is today.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 12:18 AM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
U.S. puts out new guidelines on torture



December 31, 2004 7:15 AM


U.S. puts out new guidelines on torture

By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has released a new memo to replace a controversial document outlining how to
avoid violating U.S. and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners.

In a December 30 memorandum, released early on Friday, the department stepped back from an August 2002 memo that said only the
most severe types of torture were not permissible under U.S. and international agreements against torture.

The new memo was more broad in its definition of what could be considered torture, and therefore what was unacceptable under U.S. law
and under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The new memorandum was released on a federal holiday, just one week before White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales -- to whom the
August 2002 memo was addressed -- was to appear before the Senate for confirmation hearings. Gonzales has been nominated by
President George W. Bush to be the new Attorney General.

The August 2002 memo was withdrawn and the new one written after a public outcry over the summer when the August 2002 memo and
other documents regarding the interrogation and treatment of Iraqi and al Qaeda prisoners were made public.

Bush has said he never ordered torture but secret documents released in June showed that interrogation methods approved for use at
Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners from the U.S. war on terror are held, once included the use of dogs to induce fear.

The documents showed Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2002 approved harsh interrogation techniques for Taliban and
al Qaeda prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, only to rescind many of those weeks later and approve less aggressive
techniques in April 2003.

Behind many of the techniques approved and used on prisoners was the August 2002 memo to Gonzales from the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel discussing how far the interrogation could go before it could be considered torture.

The new memo, written by the Office of Legal Counsel but addressed to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, acknowledged problems
with the August document which dissected the definition of torture.

Under international law, torture is defined as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

"Questions have since been raised ... about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002
Memorandum," the December 30 memo said.

In particular, the December 30 memo disagrees with the statement that "severe" pain under the terror statute was limited to pain "equivalent
in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

The new document also disagreed that "severe" pain is limited to "excruciating and agonizing" pain.

It also disagreed with the detailed discussion in the August memo defining the precise meaning of "specific intent".

This is sounding more and more like
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,"
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 05:23 AM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:25 PM
Well, Clinton supporters unite!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 01:51 PM   #72
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:25 PM
This seems to imply that he certainly has embraced torture.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...YT03/501130481

White House Fought New Curbs on Interrogations, Officials Say

By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, Congressional officials say.

The defeat of the proposal affects one of the most obscure arenas of the war on terrorism, involving the Central Intelligence Agency's secret detention and interrogation of top terror leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and about three dozen other senior members of Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.

But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill after the White House expressed opposition.

In a letter to members of Congress, sent in October and made available by the White House on Wednesday in response to inquiries, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds that it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy."

Earlier, in objecting to a similar measure in a Senate version of the military authorization bill, the Defense Department sent a letter to Congress saying that the department "strongly urges the Senate against passing new legislation concerning detention and interrogation in the war on terrorism" because it is unnecessary.

The Senate restrictions had not been in House versions of the military or intelligence bills.

In interviews on Wednesday, both Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican negotiator, and Representative Jane Harman of California, a Democratic negotiator, said the lawmakers had ultimately decided that the question of whether to extend the restrictions to intelligence officers was too complex to be included in the legislation.

"The conferees agreed that they would drop the language but with the caveat that the intelligence committees would take up the issue this year," Ms. Collins said.

Ms. Harman said, "If there are special circumstances around some intelligence interrogations, we should understand that before we legislate."

Some Democratic Congressional officials said they believed that the Bush administration was trying to maintain some legal latitude for the C.I.A. to use interrogation practices more extreme than those permitted by the military.

In its report last summer, the independent commission on the Sept. 11 attacks recommended that the United States develop policies to guarantee that captured terrorists were treated humanely.

Martin Lederman, a former Justice Department lawyer who left the department in 2002, said in an interview on Wednesday that he believed that the administration had "always wanted to leave a loophole where the C.I.A. could engage in actions just up to the line of torture."

The administration has said almost nothing about the C.I.A. operation to imprison and question terror suspects designated as high-value detainees, even as it has expressed disgust about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Senior officials have sought in recent public statements to emphasize that the government will continue to abide by federal laws that prohibit torture.

At his confirmation hearing last week on his nomination to be attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales said he found torture abhorrent.

The issue of the C.I.A.'s treatment of detainees first arose after agency officials sought legal guidance on how far its employees and contractors could go in interrogating terror suspects and whether the law barred the C.I.A. from using extreme methods, including feigned drowning, in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the first of the Qaeda leaders captured by the United States. He was apprehended in Pakistan in early 2002.

An August 2002 legal opinion by the Justice Department said that interrogation methods just short of those that might cause pain comparable to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death" could be allowable without being considered torture. The administration disavowed that opinion last summer after the classified legal opinion was publicly disclosed.

A new opinion made public late last month, signed by James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, explicitly rejected torture and adopted more restrictive standards to define it.

But a cryptic footnote to the new document about the "treatment of detainees" referred to what the officials said were other still-classified opinions. The footnote meant, the officials said, that coercive techniques approved by the Justice Department under the looser interpretation of the torture statutes were still lawful even under the new, more restrictive interpretation.

Current and former government officials said specific interrogation methods were addressed in a series of still-secret documents, including an August 2002 one by the Justice Department that authorized the C.I.A.'s use of some 20 interrogation practices. The legal opinion was sent to the C.I.A. via the National Security Council at the White House.

Among the procedures approved by the document was waterboarding, in which a subject is made to believe he might be drowned.

The document was intended to guide the C.I.A. in its interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah and a handful of other high-level detainees. Instead, it led to a series of exchanges between the Justice Department and the intelligence agency as they debated exact procedures to be employed against individual detainees.

At times, their discussion included an assessment of whether specific measures, on a detainee by detainee basis, would cause such pain as to be considered torture.

In addition to Ms. Collins and Ms. Harman, the lawmakers in the conference committee negotiations were Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan.

The Senate measure to impose new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures, drafted by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, was in an amendment introduced by Mr. Lieberman and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. And in little-noticed comments on the Senate floor in December, Mr. Durbin complained that the decision by conferees to delete the measure had been "troublesome."

"I think the intelligence community should be held to the same standards as the Department of Defense," Mr. Durbin said in those remarks, "and taking this language out of the bill will make that very difficult to monitor, as I hoped we would be able to do."

A Congressional Democrat said the White House stance had left the impression "that the administration wanted an escape hatch to preserve the option of using torture" against prisoners held by the C.I.A.

The only public statement from the Bush administration about the kinds of restrictions proposed by Mr. Durbin came last June, when the Defense Department expressed strong opposition to a measure in the military authorization bill. That measure, adopted by the Senate, also imposed restrictions prohibiting torture as well as cruel, inhuman and other degrading treatment but it applied only to Defense Department personnel.

In a letter to Congress, Daniel J. Dell'Orto, the Pentagon's principal deputy counsel, criticized the legislation as unnecessary, saying it would "leave the current state of the law exactly where it is." Mr. Dell'Orto also criticized as "onerous" and inappropriate other provisions in the measure that would require the Pentagon to submit annual facility-by-facility reports to Congress on the status of detainees.

Ultimately, the House did not include the measure in its version of that military bill, and the final version of the legislation included only nonbinding language expressing a sense of Congress that American personnel should not engage in torture.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 07:16 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:25 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...335805,00.html

Promoting Torture's Promoter

Alberto Gonzales, the nominee for United States attorney general, has already shamed us. By BOB HERBERT

If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself.

The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth. So there was Alberto Gonzales, counselor to the president and enabler in chief of the pro-torture lobby, interviewing on Capitol Hill yesterday for the post of attorney general, which just happens to be the highest law enforcement office in the land.

Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that office. His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful. Some of the practices that evolved from his judgments were appalling, gruesome, medieval.

But this is the Bush administration, where incompetence and outright failure are rewarded with the nation's highest honors. (Remember the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded last month to George Tenet et al.?) So not only is Mr. Gonzales's name being stenciled onto the attorney general's door, but a plush judicial seat is being readied for his anticipated elevation to the Supreme Court.

It's a measure of the irrelevance of the Democratic Party that a man who played such a significant role in the policies that led to the still-unfolding prisoner abuse and torture scandals is expected to win easy Senate confirmation and become attorney general. The Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."

What took so long? Why were we ever - under any circumstances - torturing, maiming, sexually abusing and even killing prisoners? And where is the evidence that we've stopped?

The Bush administration hasn't changed. This is an administration that believes it can do and say whatever it wants, and that attitude is changing the very nature of the United States. It is eroding the checks and balances so crucial to American-style democracy. It led the U.S., against the advice of most of the world, to launch the dreadful war in Iraq. It led Mr. Gonzales to ignore the expressed concerns of the State Department and top military brass as he blithely opened the gates for the prisoner abuse vehicles to roll through.

There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has been explosive. Forget the meant-to-be-comforting rhetoric surrounding Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Nothing's changed. As detailed in The Washington Post earlier this month, the administration is making secret plans for the possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists who will never even be charged.

Due process? That's a laugh. Included among the detainees, the paper noted, are hundreds of people in military or C.I.A. custody "whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." And there will be plenty more detainees to come.

Who knows who these folks are or what they may be guilty of? We'll have to trust in the likes of Alberto Gonzales or Donald Rumsfeld or President Bush's new appointee to head the C.I.A., Porter Goss, to see that the right thing is done in each and every case.

Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere.

It's more fruitful now to look overseas. Last month Britain's highest court ruled that the government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them. One of the justices wrote that such detentions "call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."

That's a sentiment completely lost on an Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 10:54 AM   #74
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 07:25 PM
News flash: In light of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, the Democratic Party is now taking the steps to canonize John Ashcroft as a saint.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 05:08 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:25 PM
That is ironic. He was hated for pushing decency, and now all the sudden, he's not such a bad guy after all.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe 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 02:25 PM.


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