Bush Approved Torture Techniques

[Scarletwine]

http://207.44.245.159/article7524.htm

FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques

Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department’s Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses

12/20/04 "ACLU" -- NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq.

Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."

The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."
...

The documents referenced above can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html.

More on the lawsuit can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

This may change things a bit.

 

[all_i_want]

is it true that rumsfeld said that torture cant be viewed as torture if you do it to gain the necessary information to do good? something like that. if he did say that it just doesnt make any sense.

 

[DrTeeth]

Ah well, at least Bush writes down his own signature.

/sarcasm

 

[pax]

I can't wait to see STING2 come in and defend this one.

:: gets the popcorn ready ::

 

[deep]

Any member of this forum can "choose to or choose not to" reply to any thread or post in here.

I don't think members should be singled out.

 

[Scarletwine]

I can't wait to see STING2 come in and defend this one.

:: gets the popcorn ready ::

LOL, Pax.

I get you also deep, but in my mind some things just shouldn't be defended. Torture excused by my President is one of them

 

[Dreadsox]

So if I challenge this I am defending torture?

I have reveiwed EVERY SINGLE one of the files used to type this article.

NOT ONE came from the President. Not one indicated permission or approval of the President.

Quite frankly, most seemed to me to be quite damning of the poeple who committed these acts, and demonstrates good faith on the part of the governe3ment to investigate and fix the problem.

I may have made a mistake by skipping the article and going right to the documents they cited.

Any chance that someone here can find the article that implicates the President or the White House in this?

Just curious, because I will be right there with you asking for impeachment.

Maybe I missed it, I have been known to read too quickly.

Please...someone go to the list and help me find the evidence.

If you find it, link to it, and I will be there with you.

 

[Dreadsox]

Any chance they are referring to the Gosalves research on the matter. Having read that extensively, there was nothing in there that seemed to indicate it was alright to burn people.

 

[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/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf

And here is the memo in question.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is the only memo, of the entire list that mentions any executive order.....and I approve of the use of the techniques that were mentioned within reason.

I do not approve of any extension beyond the legal authority of the Presidential order.

So far, nothing in that entire list approves of TORTURE techniques. None of the memos define the Executive Order as torture techniques. The FBI memo clearly states that None of the FBI Participated in the techniques authorized by the EO, however, they did not witness any abuse while they were there for three rotations.

The President did not authorize torture, did not authorize what went on, and clearly, according to the memos took steps to make sure it did not happen again.

 

[Dreadsox]

I hope that if he did approve TORTURE that the documents emerge that prove it.

This does not.

 

[Scarletwine]

I agree Dread, however to have a memo running among the FBI referencing the President seem to at the very least the appearance of confusion among the ranks.
WHile the WH has denied the order, I find it very plausable and even characteristic. The orders for the Sec OD can't be debated in my mind.
I saw the Press Conference from Myers & Rummy today. He actually looked rather scared but gave the same shit response that "even tents can be blown up" the same crap as humvee's and supply trucks. He is a piece of shit and should be brought up on charges.

Have you read or seen the response of the Iraq opposition to the "Bring it on" shit is going to get much worse and I'm not sure that even carpet bombing the country will work.

 

[Dreadsox]

I agree Dread, however to have a memo running among the FBI referencing the President seem to at the very least the appearance of confusion among the ranks.

I do not buy that it was confusion. I served with good people, I served with shitty people. Unfortunately, I think there may have been a bunch of shitty people all in one place taking things too far. Too far in a direction that people should not have to be told it is right or wrong. I do not feel the President can be held accountable for that.

I want the troops home. We were not supposed to be there to rebuild a democracy. We were supposed to be there because of WMD. I am so in shock that there were none. I keep hoping I am going to wake up and find out otherwise.

In my heart what is going on over there now has nothing to do with the oath I took when I joined the service.

In my heart I would be so fucking pissed that the end is not in sight.

 

[Scarletwine]

I do not buy that it was confusion. I served with good people, I served with shitty people. Unfortunately, I think there may have been a bunch of shitty people all in one place taking things too far. Too far in a direction that people should not have to be told it is right or wrong. I do not feel the President can be held accountable for that.

I want the troops home. We were not supposed to be there to rebuild a democracy. We were supposed to be there because of WMD. I am so in shock that there were none. I keep hoping I am going to wake up and find out otherwise.

In my heart what is going on over there now has nothing to do with the oath I took when I joined the service.

In my heart I would be so fucking pissed that the end is not in sight.

The stories are coming from so many locations though. How did it happen in gitmo, Iraq in many locations, Afganistan, now the secret planes taking prisoners to Egypt ect. It's like the leaks eek out so no major scandal breaks, but it sure looks systemic to me.

Actually I feel for you as a veteran, I have many in my family. I hate what I see happening day after day to our people and to the Iraqi's. I don't feel at all superior in any way for opposing the war from the get go, I only fell immense sadness for the families on both sides, my country, and further tarnishment in my views of the greatness of America.

 

[deep]

I hope that if he did approve TORTURE that the documents emerge that prove it.

This does not.

So we need a confession from the administation, a signed, affidavit.

Where is Ken Starr
when he could actually do some good.

 

[pax]

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/2004/12/22/guantanamo_torture/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.

 

[deep]

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/released/FBI.121504.4940_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

 

[Dreadsox]

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]

We assume this does not include the LAWFUL interrogation techniques authorized by the EXECUTIVE ORDER.

is what I read.....

 

[Dreadsox]

They witnessed nothing beyond the parameters of the Executive Order.


Sorry, I do not read what you are reading.

 

[Dreadsox]

Perhaps you could type out a sentence or two to help me see what you are referring to?

 

[deep]

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

 

[Dreadsox]

In typical memo fashion, I had to read it a few times myself, it is not too clear at times.

 

[deep]

techniques authorized by executive order but beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[deep]

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

 

[Macfistowannabe]

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?

 

[Scarletwine]

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).

 

[Macfistowannabe]

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.

 

[pax]

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."