0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 08:51 am
Lash wrote:
Ge--

Let's see...

Gonzales defines 'torture as interogation falling just short of organ failure or death ....
----------
Does he give any clearer parameters? I agree, of course, that it stops short of death. Does he say where it starts?

Some biblical quote about suffering a fool ......
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:03 am
The front page of the NY Daily News had a picture of Army Spec. Charles A. Graner and read:

Guilty
Soldier who
shamed
America.
I think a more appropriate Front page would have been a picture of
Bush and a caption that read "Guilty president who shamed America.[/size]
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:06 am
..."suffering a fool..."
I agree that should be considered torture, and egregious torture when the fool is an elitist know it all who applies a different set of standards to suit his purposes--but for the sake of what Gonzales said--

If you want someone to give an answer to a question--the question must be complete. If I take only the wording you use in your question--my answer is yes.

You don't carelessly answer such questions-- Do you expect me to? I've looked around briefly for the wording used by Gonzales. I haven't found it. If you can provide it--and want an honest answer to your question--I'll be glad to comply.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:14 am
Quote:
Post-Saddam Iraq has become "a magnet for international terrorist activity," said Robert Hutchings, director of the National Intelligence Council, the official research arm of the entire US intelligence community, as he presented Mapping the Global Future, the NIC's latest report on long-term global trends.

The NIC warning is the second repudiation within a week of the Bush administration's rationale for the war. Two days ago, the White House quietly signalled it had ended the search for Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Since then - and especially during his 2004 re-election campaign - the President has portrayed Iraq as a key part of the global war on terror and insisted the US has been made safer by the overthrow of Saddam.

But these claims have been demolished by the NIC. According to David Low, a senior NIC official, Iraq has been transformed into "a training and recruitment ground, and an opportunity [for terrorists] to enhance their technical skills".

The likelihood now - even in the best case scenario where the upcoming Iraqi elections restore some stability to the country - is that foreign terrorists currently operating there will "go home, wherever home is", and disperse across the world as new threats to the US.

Implicitly, the report also debunks the assertions of Mr Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, that Saddam had close and active links with al-Qa'ida. Instead, it says, radical Islamic terrorists only moved in amid the post-war chaos. As the report notes, the al-Qa'ida generation that trained in Afghanistan will dissipate, "to be replaced in part by survivors of the conflict in Iraq".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=601098
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:20 am
Troll on by lash.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:21 am
blatham
Nothing new or earth shaking. That same analysis has been expressed by many on this forum time and time again.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 09:24 am
That's one way to step away from a losing argument. Not a very respectable one, however, geligesti.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 11:22 am
From earlier, a moment of real clarity:

Quote:
My first inclination is the need to believe that a 'President' would never lie to the people he/she serves.... second would be that they (Americans) are too damn lazy to search out the truth ..... next would be apathy .. ie the 50% that do not vote.


This is absolutely right, both parts. My mother is a great example. She just doesn't accept the fact that the Pres. may not have the best interests of the country in mind. It's like she can't concieve of a president lying to the American people; and this is a woman who lived through Nixon and Iran-Contra!

To compound problems, she doesn't trust the internet as a news source; so it's difficult to present her with alternatives to the mainstream, which doesn't exactly give the real stories about what's going on anymore.

There are millions just like her, blindly supporting the president...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 11:44 am
Cyclo - what source(s) do you rely on primarily for accurate news coverage on the war, more precisely, what's going on in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 12:10 pm
Quote:
She just doesn't accept the fact that the Pres. may not have the best interests of the country in mind. It's like she can't concieve of a president lying to the American people


Cyclop,

I'm quite sure that the Prez THINKS he has the best interests of the country in mind and is acting in those interests. I don't think he sees himself as "lying" to the public. He would probably justify any fudging of the truth as being in the greater interest of his vision for this country and its mission in the world. I can be sympathetic to this viewpoint to a certain degree. Who among us has not been untruthful, either shading the facts or withholding information, when we saw such deception as serving a greater good?

You might say that is okay for an ordinary person but the prez ought be held to a higher standard. Perhaps so. But the stakes are higher for a president, and the "greater good" is larger and more panoramic. I think Bush let his vision become arrogant and hubristic, and he has convinced himself (perhaps because he is surrounded by sycophants, as most very powerful people are) that he is right and need not listen to the voices of doubt or dissent.

I would have so much more respect for him if he would admit that he had made a mistake about WMD's and about the "immanent threat" and about the stated reasons for going to war, apologize, and move on to try to clear up the mess that has been created. (His apology about saying "bring it on" was laughable. The word "blunt" that he used to decribe his comment usually means straightforward and to the point. He is trying to put a gloss on a really bad comment.)

Also, he or the Secy of State could publicly denounce the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the lashings they are carrying out on men and women who dared stage a demonstration for reform of the regime. How could we trash Iraq to rid the world of a despot and have left so many others in power, with our tacit or open support because they serve our geo-political needs at the moment?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 12:10 pm
full text of Gonzales memo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

just an interesting aritcle though I really don't understand anything underneath the war crimes part.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/05/alberto_gonzales_memo_paving_the_way_for_war_crimes.html

May 19, 2004
Alberto Gonzales Memo: Paving the Way for War Crimes?
MSNBC has the full text of the memo by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Aside from its fundamental callousness and lack of moral outrage, there are odd things about it.

Gonzales rejects, without discussion, the concept that if armed people are not entitled to POW status they might still benefit from Geneva III, protecting civilians. Or might be subject to basic norms of decency and due process arising from the Constitution which creates the powers he and his boss exercise.

Even stranger is the odd discussion of the War Crimes statute, 18 U.S.C § 2441. Gonzales opines that one good reason for NOT treating detainees as POWs is that not giving them POW status lessens the chance of subsequent prosecutions against their US captors under the war crimes statute.

Why, you might ask, worry about prosecution at all? Is Gonzales aware of a plan to mistreat the detainees? It sure looks that way.

Gonzales's first argument against treating al Queda or Taliban fighters as POWs is that doing so would increase the danger of prosecution for "vague" offenses prohibited by the Geneva convention, namely "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment". Reading those lines today, in the fullness of hindsight, it is very hard to escape the suspicion that Gonzales knew or suspected the sexual humiliation planned for Arab detainees.

Gonzales's second argument against treating al Queda or Taliban fighters as POWs is that"it is difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." (Reading that today, it seems to mean "we might need to torture people".)

Gonzales's third reason for treating is the legally weirdest of all:

"it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination would create a solid basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would create a solid defense to any future prosecutions."

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what this means, especially as Gonzales has a reputation for being pretty smart.

Does Gonzales think that the "just following orders" defense will work? I hope not.
Does Gonzales think that the courts would accept the President's determination on this as determinative? That's not totally implausible: a court might see the President's official determination as somehow being a political question and hence not reviewable. Except that I don't think any court would do this: the point of the Geneva conventions is to bring decisions like this into law, out of politics. Suppose Bush had ruled that unformed French troops were outside the convention ?- would that be unreviewable? Unlikely.
So, on the assumption that Gonzales is smart, I'm puzzled. Does Gonzales have a bad staff?1 Of course, it could be that Gonzales was making a political not a legal judgement: if the President OK'd it, prosecutors are less likely to prosecute. But to make this the centerpiece of your argument?
The more I look at this thing, the worse it smells.

1 It cannot be that Gonzales has some crafty theory of qualified immunity up his sleeve. Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability so long as his/her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" i.e. blocks lawsuits when the government actor could have had a reasonable belief that the act was lawful. Trouble is, the only immunity from criminal prosecution is that provided by a pardon. And § 2441 is a criminal not a civil statute. And the only part of §2441 (quoted below) that turns on intent at all is the part that refers to a person who "willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians" in violation of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Device.

Here's the full text of 18 USC § 2441.

War crimes

(a) Offense.?-Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.?-The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

© Definition.?-As used in this section the term ?'war crime' means any conduct?-

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

[citation corrrected 6/6/04]
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 12:31 pm
Thanks, revel.

Wanted to pause in reading the memo to say how disgusted I am yet again at partisans who lie outright or subvert the truth about what someone says to smear them.

What Gonzales deemed as "quaint" was the Geneva Convention rules about affording POWs "commisary priviledges, athletic uniforms, advanced military pay while detained."

Quaint doesn't even begin to describe how stupid those Geneva tenets are concerning Al Quaida and the Taliban.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 12:44 pm
I didn't see anything about Gonzales stating what constituted torture in that memo.

I did, however, see this.

"A determination that GPW (the Geneva Convention) does not apply to AQ ot the Taliban could undermine US military culture, which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."

It was one of his concerns--not his plan.

Sheesh.

They are mainly talking about avoiding frivolous lawsuits by members of AQ and the Taliban..
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 12:48 pm
How many Democratic senators have spoken out against Gonzalez' nomination?

Anyone?

Any idea why?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 01:11 pm
Due to security concerns surrounding the upcoming January 30 elections, authorities in Iraq have agreed to let voters register and cast ballots on the same day in the troubled provinces of Anbar and Ninawa. The two provinces, home to the cities of Fallujah and Mosul, have experienced numerous clashes between insurgents and US forces and questions have been raised as to whether voting would proceed there; earlier this week members of the local election commission in Anbar resigned en masse and went into hiding. The chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, Abdul-Hussein Hendawi, said he expected a preliminary vote count late on January 30 with a final vote tally available within ten days.

Quote:
Iraq unveils election day security precautions

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq ?- In an apparent bid to head off car bombings on election day, Iraqi authorities will restrict the use of automobiles throughout the country and will place security cordons around polling stations, a Cabinet minister said Saturday.

Provincial Affairs minister Waeil Abdel-Latif also pledged that the government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi would provide adequate security for voters on Jan. 30, but he acknowledged that the security situation in four of the country's 18 provinces was unstable.


Iraqi security forces, he said, will shoulder the prime responsibility for security on election day. But the U.S.-led multinational force will provide support if asked, Abdel-Latif said.

"The government is determined to make available facilities and security guarantees to ensure the success of the election," he said at a joint news conference with the head of Iraq's electoral commission, Abdul-Hussein Hendawi.

Abdel-Latif gave no details on how cars would be restricted, but security sources have said authorities are considering banning the use of private vehicles Jan. 29-31.

Vehicles used by security forces would carry special identity markings.


The Jan. 30 vote will produce a 275-seat assembly that will elect a new president and two vice presidents who, in turn, will name a prime minister who must be ratified by the assembly. One of the assembly's primary tasks would be to draft a permanent constitution.

If adopted in a referendum due by Oct. 15, the document will be the basis for a second election in December.

Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in car bombings and suicide car bombings over the past year, conducted by insurgents and terrorists linked to al-Qaida who hope to prevent the election.

Already, at least seven electoral workers have been killed by insurgents in recent weeks, some in broad daylight in Baghdad. An intensifying intimidation campaign has led to the resignation of scores of election workers. In some areas, residents have been threatened with death if they vote.

Allawi said earlier this week that some areas probably would be too unsafe to participate in the elections, but he promised to increase the size of the army in the face of the bloody insurgency. Allawi also spoke by telephone with President Bush to reaffirm the importance of holding the elections as scheduled, the White House said.

There are a total of 15.2 million eligible Iraqi voters, of whom 1.2 million are abroad. Those abroad will vote in 14 countries, including the United States, Iran, Syria, Britain and Sweden.

Hendawi, the head of the electoral commission, said voter registration has been carried out in a "normal fashion" in 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The two troubled regions are Ninevah and Anbar, where the 20-month-old Sunni Muslim insurgency is fiercest.


He said voters in the two provinces, which include trouble hotspots such as Mosul, will be allowed to register and vote on the same day, but will not be permitted to cast their ballots outside their respective provinces.

Polling stations will open at 7 a.m. and close at 5 p.m., but the final results will not be announced until 7-10 days later. First results could be available on the day of the vote, he added.

In another nod to security concerns, the vote counting will take place at the polling stations, he said.

A national holiday will be announced to coincide with the election, but Abdel-Latif said details would be announced later by the prime minister's office.

Hendawi was noncommittal when asked about reports that Israelis of Iraqi origin would be allowed to vote.


"The commission grants the right to vote to every Iraqi without discrimination based on nationality or religion. Everyone who has Iraqi citizenship and is of voting age, which is 18, can vote if he can prove that," he said, in the first public comments by an electoral official on the thorny issue.

Iraq was home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the Arab world until the 1940s and 1950s, when it stripped them of their citizenship and expelled them. Many settled in Israel.

Sarah Tosh of the Jordan-based Out-of-Country Voting Program has said Israelis of Iraqi descent need two documents proving their heritage to register.

The program is organizing the vote for Iraqi expatriates in the 14 countries, which do not include Israel. Absentee ballots are not permitted.


Source
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 02:04 pm
Revel, do a clusty on gonzales ..... more info tthan you need
lash is refering to the 1st memo to Bush
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 02:17 pm
Gelisgesti

You must of saw my post before I deleted it.

I am just finding my way around the search stuff, most of the time it is more frustrating for me than it is worth.

Does the geneva convention really have that in there about providing athletic wear for pow's? If you saw my post you saw the url to the geneva convention that I read and I didn't see anything about that in there.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 02:20 pm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050115/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_graner_21

Quote:
Graner, the suspected ringleader of the abuse, described himself as a by-the-book prison guard corrupted by superiors who ordered him to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate detainees.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 02:59 pm
Lash wrote:
Ge--

Let's see...

Gonzales defines 'torture as interogation falling just short of organ failure or death ....
----------
Does he give any clearer parameters? I agree, of course, that it stops short of death. Does he say where it starts?


"interrogation" is verbal. Only.
"organ failure" is physical
"death" of a captive, is murder

I think a person who can spell such a long word as Gonzales should be able to understand that. It is an indictment, yet another indictment, of the Bush administration that it is willing to be associated with such a person.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2005 03:00 pm
revel wrote:
Gelisgesti

You must of saw my post before I deleted it.

I am just finding my way around the search stuff, most of the time it is more frustrating for me than it is worth.

Does the geneva convention really have that in there about providing athletic wear for pow's? If you saw my post you saw the url to the geneva convention that I read and I didn't see anything about that in there.


The copy I read (1st copy before rewriten) was zeroxed and hard to read. L do recall something to that order heard on c-span maybe ...
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 11:05:09