Mikey did it

Forums: Politics, Torture
Email this Topic • Print this Page

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Department interrogators impersonated FBI agents at the Guantanamo Bay prison to avoid being held accountable when they used "torture techniques" on a prisoner held there in the U.S. war on terrorism, according to FBI e-mails made public on Monday.
Another FBI e-mail made available in the same package said that President Bush had issued an executive order authorizing a series of harsh methods for interrogations.
The White House said no such directive existed and Justice Department and FBI officials echoed the denial.
The Bush administration has been accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the prison at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A number of military personnel have been charged.
FBI e-mails dating from December 2003 and January 2004 complained of "DOD (Department of Defense) interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI" at Guantanamo.

A Dec. 5, 2003, e-mail said that "these tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" and that the "techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee."
"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 (by) the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will (be) left holding the bag before the public," the e-mail said. The impersonation "was approved by the Dep Sec Def," a Jan. 21, 2004, e-mail stated, referring to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's No. 2 official.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,798 • Replies: 60

No top replies

That's just the start dys. BushCo now runs 'Torture Air' used a leased Gulfstream to remove detainees from Gitmo and other US military bases throughout the world and deliver them to nations with less..... humane methods of extracting information.

Quote:

Some former CIA operatives and human rights campaigners claim the agency and the Pentagon use a process called "rendition" to send suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan. They are then tortured largely to gain information for the Americans who, it is alleged, encourage these countries to use aggressive interrogation methods banned under US law.

Bob Baer, a former CIA operative in the Middle East, said: "If you want a serious interrogation you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear . . . you send them to Egypt."

source

0 Replies

Why not repatriate criminals to their countries of origin. Saudi terrorists should be at some point returned to Saudi security forces for questioning? Why shouldn't Pakistani ISI take custody of Pakistani prisoners and hold them for interrogation? Some prisoners may give up important information when questioned by Islamic security personnel, and if the prisoner would like to avoid that, all they have to do is make like a canary.

The very worst interrogation conducted far outside official guidelines and without sanction, is nothing approaching the torture inside Saddam's prisons, or the prisons run by other dictatorships around the world. We don't approve of such measures, but some unpleasantness and anxiety is useful in loosening tongues. These international criminals who recognize no authority, no law or international agreements forfeited their inherent rights when they adopted tactics and stategies in violation of the very accords that they now benefit from. They are fed full and balanced meals conforming to their religious diet. They are not subjected to pain, nor deprived of any of the basic needs for life. They are inherently dangerous men, and must be segregated and handled with extreme caution. They are not U.S. citizens aren't entitled to the same protections as their victims, and potential victims. I don't lose any sleep over the "hardships" that keep these animals from committing further crimes.

0 Replies

At this point, to repatriate these criminals carrys a grave risk that they will rejoin the insurgency.

Keep them where they are and do whatever is necessary to gather information that just might save some American lives.

0 Replies

"IF this detainee is ever released"...

Pretty big "if"... considering the incidence of "Typhus" at the camps... and the consequences of "trying to escape"... :wink: Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I don't blame the interogators for being harsh. The people they hold prisoners and interrogate, are the same ones who strap bombs to their children. They are the same terrorists who have killed their comrades and many innocent people, I have no pity for them, but they better hope God will.

0 Replies

Brawk! Strap bombs to their chidren. Brawk! Terrorists. Brawk! No pity, no pity.

Sorry.

Welcome to A2K, thunder.

0 Replies

Thunder,

Those people are people just like you, and they are innocent until proven guilty.

You can't throw away morality and laws just because it is more convienent.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1166015/posts

Except- "By Shaun Waterman
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published July 6, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several detainees released by the U.S. military from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rejoined their former comrades-in-arms and taken part in fresh attacks on American troops, according to Defense Department officials and a senior Republican lawmaker.
"We've already had instances where we know that people who have been released from our detention have gone back and have become combatants again," said Rep. Porter J. Goss, Florida Republican, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "

No, these "people" are not like you or me as the above demonstrates the risks associated with their release.

0 Replies

Woo-woo, don't you think that any INNOCENT detainees, once released, would then have an OBLIGATION to oppose those who incarcerated them wrongly?
Consider those apolitical "detainees" of the Third Reich that managed to escape from the "Labor Camps"... I'll wager that their solidarity with opponents to the Reich was forged in stone!

Fact is, every middle easterner who suffers from over-zealousness at the hands of ideological zombies and minions... is a potentially fanatic opponent to the USA.

it behooves us to demand that all accused and incarcerated "detainees' be accorded decent and humane treatment ... any excuse for whatever injustice is done (in OUR name) is a betrayal of this great nation.

Gestapo tactics, whether used by one's opponents or one's own faction, are Gestapo tactics... and are acceptable only to the amoral Gestapo-type of person.
Defending such tactics demeans and trivializes the sacrifices of all those who have given so much to uphold the American ideals of Individual Liberty and INALIENABLE rights.

("Inalienable" means that the CANNOT be taken or given away. Period.)

Demanding rights and benefits for oneself while depriving others of the same is unethical and just plain WRONG.

(Of course, I do realize the futility of arguing such a position with anyone whose idea of Patriotism is dancing a Goose-step...)

0 Replies

Magus wrote:

Woo-woo, don't you think that any INNOCENT detainees, once released, would then have an OBLIGATION to oppose those who incarcerated them wrongly?
Consider those apolitical "detainees" of the Third Reich that managed to escape from the "Labor Camps"... I'll wager that their solidarity with opponents to the Reich was forged in stone!

Fact is, every middle easterner who suffers from over-zealousness at the hands of ideological zombies and minions... is a potentially fanatic opponent to the USA.

it behooves us to demand that all accused and incarcerated "detainees' be accorded decent and humane treatment ... any excuse for whatever injustice is done (in OUR name) is a betrayal of this great nation.

Gestapo tactics, whether used by one's opponents or one's own faction, are Gestapo tactics... and are acceptable only to the amoral Gestapo-type of person.
Defending such tactics demeans and trivializes the sacrifices of all those who have given so much to uphold the American ideals of Individual Liberty and INALIENABLE rights.

("Inalienable" means that the CANNOT be taken or given away. Period.)

Demanding rights and benefits for oneself while depriving others of the same is unethical and just plain WRONG.

(Of course, I do realize the futility of arguing such a position with anyone whose idea of Patriotism is dancing a Goose-step...)

Then there really is no point is arguing this point with you since your pretend to be the intellectual superior, now is there? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Why not repatriate criminals to their countries of origin. Saudi terrorists should be at some point returned to Saudi security forces for questioning? Why shouldn't Pakistani ISI take custody of Pakistani prisoners and hold them for interrogation?

kind of appears that the saudi's and pakistanis may not be trusted to actually work in our favor ?

0 Replies

Then the terrorists have nothing to fear in being returned to their homelands to be questioned and dealt with by the governments they embarrased and betrayed.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Why not repatriate criminals to their countries of origin.

Because doing so is contrary to Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which states:

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.The United States ratified the convention in 1994; therefore, it has the status of federal law in the US. In short, "outsourcing" torture is illegal.

Asherman wrote:

The very worst interrogation conducted far outside official guidelines and without sanction, is nothing approaching the torture inside Saddam's prisons, or the prisons run by other dictatorships around the world.

And if we are truly aspiring to equal the moral standards of the Baathist regime, then there should be nothing to prevent us from torturing those prisoners ourselves. Of course, if we are only aiming at being as good as Saddam Hussein, then maybe we need to re-examine more than just our attitudes about torture.

Asherman wrote:

We don't approve of such measures, but some unpleasantness and anxiety is useful in loosening tongues.

Of course we approve of such measures. We approve of them every time we render a suspect to a regime that routinely uses torture on prisoners.

Asherman wrote:

These international criminals who recognize no authority, no law or international agreements forfeited their inherent rights when they adopted tactics and stategies in violation of the very accords that they now benefit from. They are fed full and balanced meals conforming to their religious diet. They are not subjected to pain, nor deprived of any of the basic needs for life. They are inherently dangerous men, and must be segregated and handled with extreme caution. They are not U.S. citizens aren't entitled to the same protections as their victims, and potential victims. I don't lose any sleep over the "hardships" that keep these animals from committing further crimes.

Aren't you forgetting something here? You have convicted these prisoners of terrorism before you've even given them a trial. None of the prisoners in Guantanamo have received a trial: most haven't even received the equivalent of a preliminary hearing. So how can you be so sure that they are "dangerous men?" Just because they are being detained? That's the logic of the Queen of Hearts: "sentence first, verdict afterwards!"

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Then the terrorists have nothing to fear in being returned to their homelands to be questioned and dealt with by the governments they embarrased and betrayed.

The reason we SHOULD NOT torture detainees is because it's counter-productive. How the hell can you be considered liberators when you're torturing people?!?

You see, memo's like the one released Monday, lead the way to a systemic problem of both accountability and lack of morality. How on god's green earth can we be looked at as the good guys when we're found torturing detainees? It doesn't work, and in fact the opposite effect can be seen. People who weren't necessarily against the occupation, now become insurgents. People who were "on our side" are now supplying terrorists with shelter, arms and logistic support. Do you not see the problem this promotes?

And btw, just because Saddam tortured and killed people, doesn't give us the right to do the same. Yes, the same. Killing detainees by suffocation, killing young Iraqi men because you had a homosexual encounter with him, rectally impairing detainees with batons, all on the same level as Saddam, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it. Talk about setting your standards low. Man, what a freaking joke this god-damn war has become. You reap what you sew man, you reap what you sew.

0 Replies

In addition, the information obtained by torture is hardly ever reliable.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

In addition, the information obtained by torture is hardly ever reliable.

Really?

0 Replies

Really.

0 Replies

Depends very much on the technique used.....

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Really.

Obviously you have impartial, independant sources for that, correct?

Mind sharing them?

I ask this because I've read a bit about different types of torture and I know many of them yield quite surprising, honest results.

0 Replies

Mikey did it

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know