1
   

Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 11:30 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html

Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Monday September 13, 2004
The Guardian

Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published exclusively in the Guardian today.
The investigation, by the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, quotes one former marine at the camp recalling sessions in which guards would "**** with [detainees] as much as we could" by inflicting pain on them.

The Bush administration repeatedly assured critics that inmates were granted recreation periods, but one Pentagon adviser told Hersh how, for some prisoners, they consisted of being left in straitjackets in intense sunlight with hoods over their heads.

Hersh provides details of how President George Bush signed off on the establishment of a secret unit that was given advance approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high-value" suspects - considered by many to be in defiance of international law - an officially "unacknowledged" programme that was eventually transferred wholesale from Guantánamo to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

<snip>
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 691 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 11:50 am
Anything to sell a book, I guess.
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:31 pm
I was listening to Hersch on C-Span. He's one journalist who gets it.

I enjoyed hearing his remarks on Kerry's problem if he wins.

It seems the more we hear from the Republicans in defense of the chain of command at Abu Ghraib and the license to torture there - it becomes plain that there was a concerted effort to abandon the moral envelope of the Geneva codes approved of from top to bottom.

I assumed when the Afghanistani crowd was first shipped to Gitmo that extreme measures would be used in spite of what they might tell the public. I assume that based on a lot of silly spy movies. But it does seem that since the Church committee chose to shine a light on any further "mission impossible" assignments - whatever would be done to extract information from religious zealots who hate us might require either chemical disorientation using psychotropics or good ol' pain.

Nonetheless. The sweeps of Baghdad that populated the demised population of prisons in Iraq prompted clandestine photography. In Gitmo presumably it would be harder to break security and show anyone what was happening there.

Those who did it - whatever they have done - and in another administratin either sooner or later - the will justify it as being for the good of the Nation; and for National Security.

The moral dilemma remains. And the obscurity of the facts will probably be encouraged to obfuscate the chain of command.

But you and know what it is - and we vote.
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:35 pm
You know and I know. And we vote.

Woiyo is off base. There isn't an ounce of venality in that journalist.
0 Replies
 
neue regel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:58 pm
'but one Pentagon adviser told Hersh'

'secret unit'

Unnamed sources and secret signutures don't really pique my interest. What new information has Oliver really come up with here?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:59 pm
It's Hersch who's done the digging. I thought the article was interesting, I'd be curious to read the book to see what else is there.
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 03:16 pm
If you like the book, I suspect we'll have an opportunity to hear months of hearings. Perhaps we'll even get to see all of the photos and not just the ones they showed the public.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 03:39 pm
Interesting article, FreeDuck...
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 04:23 pm
Bush Administration and Torture
Bush Administration Torture Memos

For the last three years, the Bush Administration has been seeking legal loopholes to evade the requirements of the Geneva Convention in order to torture detainees and to create defenses to any possible prosecution for war crimes. Here's just one excerpt from the article on Bush Administration Torture Memos:

Quote:
'Moderate' Torture OK
Aug. 1, 2002 saw the most infamous of the "torture papers," DOJ/OLC chief Bybee's memorandum to Gonzales entitled: "Standards of Conduct for Interrogations, under the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Anti-Torture Act (18 U.S. 2340-2340A)." This memorandum was reportedly drafted by the DOJ for the CIA, and sent directly to the White House without consultation with either the State Department, or the Joint Chiefs and Joint Staff legal experts. It is an extremely detailed, 50-page memorandum, giving the most lenient interpretation conceivable, of the anti-torture treaty and laws. The memo states at the outset:

We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture.

We conclude that for an act to constitute torture as defined in Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of body function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years....

In Part V, we discuss whether Section 2340A may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations undertaken of enemy combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers. We find that in the circumstances of the current war against al-Qaeda and its allies, prosecution under Setion 2340A may be barred because enforcement of the stature would represent an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority to conduct war. In Part VI, we discuss defenses to an allegation that an interrogation method might violate the statute. We conclude that, under current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A."

When the White House officially released this memo (it already having been leaked), DOJ attorneys suddenly disavowed it, telling reporters that it would be "repudiated" and "replaced." But the official who signed it, Jay Bybee, is now a federal appellate judge, sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


The methods of humilation and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners for which several military members are currently being prosecuted are the same methods approved by the Bush Administration and "justified" by the torture memos. After the abuses were discovered at Abu Graib, the Bush Administration is now attempting to disclaim responsibility at the top and place the blame on those at the bottom of the totem pole. This is most apparent in the governments "plea agreement" with one of the accused soldiers.

Lawyers for the accused MPs have long contended that their clients were acting under instructions of intelligence agents and civilian contractors, who pushed them to "soften up" prisoners suspected of having information about attacks against Americans. However, in return for a light sentence, Spc. Armin Cruz agreed to testify against the other accused soldiers and has claimed he was acting independently. How "convenient" for the Bush Administration policies for a military scapegoat to take all the blame in exchange for a good deal.

Quote:
Iraq abuse: U.S. soldier sentenced

Army Spec. Armin Cruz is the first military intelligence operative charged in connection with the abuse scandal. He pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and maltreatment of prisoners.

He entered into a plea bargain in which he agreed to testify for the prosecution against at least four or five others in exchange for immunity from his testimony. . . .

Cruz admitted to handcuffing the detainees and forcing them to crawl on the ground. He also said he was aware he was abusing them at the time.

Explaining his decision to plead guilty, Cruz told the judge he was acting independent of higher authorities.

. . . Cruz, from Plano, Texas, was an intelligence analyst with the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion assigned to help question possible insurgents and terrorists held at Abu Ghraib, although the Fay Report said these prisoners "were not of intelligence interest."
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 10:14:29