1
   

Rumsfeld Supports, Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods

 
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:22 am
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.

Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well as rules permitting prisoners to be made to assume stress positions

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse

But Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. said some of the approved techniques "go far beyond the Geneva Convention," a reference to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

Durbin noted that one American GI was missing in Iraq, his whereabouts unknown. Given the circumstances, he asked Rumsfeld, "wouldn't it help if there was clarity from you and from this administration that we would abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to civilian and military detainees unequivocally?"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,878 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
Sam1951
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:51 am
Info,

Once when I told my first, and only physically abusive, husband that he was hurting me, he replied, "I can't feel it." There you have it, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al can not feel it; not the pain, not the fear, not the humiliation, none of it , totally asensitive, and perhaps amoral too.

Sam
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:36 pm
Sam:

I hope he is no longer your husband.

That sort of behavior is never acceptable in a relationship. You're worth more than that.

I think your characterization of these neocon thugs is as good a one as I've ever heard. They are evil, and completely amoral.
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:54 pm
Is it not curious that those who believe the Geneva Convention does not apply to their treatment of foreign prisoners object so loudly when their own citizens are accorded identical courtesies by their enemies?
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:57 pm
It's the American way, John.

It's the American way.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:59 pm
Do you honestly not know the difference?

I had thought that much of what you do here is an act to be controversial, but if you actually don't know the difference...
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:00 pm
That foolish senator from Oklahoma (Inhofe, I think the name is) said yesterday that the real outrage is how outraged people are about the mistreatment. He thinks the prisoners, who he claims are all terrorists anyhow, somehow deserved it.

Hey, infowarrior, you live in Fremont? I live on Capitol Hill...
0 Replies
 
Sam1951
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:01 pm
Those who make and enforce the laws are above those laws? False on paper, true in practice.

Embarrassed Crying or Very sad Mad

Sam
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:03 pm
D'artagnan:

Cool. Seattle is a great town. I have friends on Capital Hill and First Hill.

How about the Mariners? They suck this year.
0 Replies
 
Sam1951
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:04 pm
McG

Please be so kind as to point out those differences and give examples.

Sam
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:06 pm
infowarrior: Too true re the Mariners. I root for the Braves, but they suck this year, too...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:07 pm
This should have been clear to everyone when the Guantanemo detainees were renamed 'enemy combatants'.

'Prisoners of war' have rights delineated in the Geneva accords. 'Enemy combatants' do not.

It's been SOP for this administration to simply change the terminology when it doesn't suit their aim, to throw out treaties they have no intention of adhering to, to discard global peace organizations that don't toe the line, and to otherwise act as if no law applies to them.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:09 pm
Good point, pdiddie. One of the things that I found curious during yesterday's testimony, I forget by whom, that most of those considered POWs were no longer in that prison. What I wondered, has happened to them?
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:14 pm
D'artagnan:

I tried to get tickets for the Mariner/Yankees games this past weekend but they were so sold out.

Even the scalpers were begging! LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:23 pm
Everyone has a choice in what they do. If you choose to be a coward who uses ambush techniques while hidding amongst civilians dressed as a civilian putting civilians at risk then you must be prepared for the consequences.

PDiddie and others will have you believe that the people in Guantanamo are all innocent civilians who have never been put through any sort of process and have never even picked up a gun, much less actually attacked any US military members.

The law is written for reasons. Soldiers are protected by the Geneva Convention. Guerilla fighters are not. That is to discourage people from using guerilla tactics during times of war.

So many people here pretend that US is somehow stooping to the same level as the terrorists and that is simply not true. If it were we would be much more devastating and destructive. we would have shoot on sight orders and have declared martial law in Iraq. If we were interested in Iraqi oil, we would simply cordone off those area and put them under strict military law. BUT, we haven't done any of this because that is not the way the US does things.

Would we really be having these investigations into the incidents at Abu Ghraib if we didn't care?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:35 pm
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040511/sherffius21.gif
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 09:43 pm
Yeppir.

Rumsfeld is one sick MF.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:16 pm
Yes, and the most frightening thing is that seven out of ten Americans polled don't want Rumsfeld to resign!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:28 pm
I recall reading of those 'stress positions' in the Gulag Archepalago. What kind of society turns out sadists like that? It must be a Russian thing, says I.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:47 pm
It's a traveshamockery.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rumsfeld Supports, Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 09:47:26