3
   

US tortures Afghan, presumed innocent, to death

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 04:42 pm
Indeed.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 04:48 pm
Sometimes nimh has such spirit for logical disputation that I near weep. Why - from gladness that he does, that he is so articulate in it. In part, that such ability and patience are necessary. I know, that's like weeping that life happens.


Go ahead, put this post in place of a hundred future "I agree" posts that I'll forebear from typing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 06:25 pm
Add me to what Thomas and osso said, and Thank You, nimh, for all your research and sharing of such important information - and your personal opinion on them.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 04:19 pm
Quote:
ENHANCED BULLS***T TECHNIQUES.

December 14, 2007
Tapped

As we go around and around on waterboarding yet again, I couldn't help noticing that I cannot recall a single instance in which I've seen a journalist simply refer to waterboarding and similar methods of interrogation as "torture." Yet they use terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" over and over. The Republicans certainly won the language battle on this one.

This is not complicated. Everyone all over the world agrees on what constitutes torture. Torture is the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering in order to obtain information or confessions. Not hard to understand. Yet Republicans have successfully lured the entire journalistic community into their moral sewer, where there is some degree of suffering (defined not by how awful it is, but by whether it's fast or slow, and whether it leaves visible scars) that marks the line between torture and not-torture. If I rip your fingernails out - torture! If I tie you in a "stress position" designed to gradually inflict elevating amounts of pain, up to sheer agony, over the course of an hour or two - not torture! See, when I punch you in the face, son, I'm not committing child abuse, I'm engaging in enhanced parenting techniques.

I won't bother with the poetic invocations of Orwell. It's enough to say that when we embrace these kinds of euphemisms, we deaden our moral compasses. And every reporter who uses the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is complicit.

I'm guessing this will come up at one of next fall's presidential debates. What I'd like to see is the Democratic candidate, at the first mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques," say something like this: "How about we stop this charade and have enough respect for the American people to start telling the truth? The Bush administration made the use of torture its official policy. You, Republican candidate, agree with that policy. You think the United States government should torture people. I don't. We can argue the pros and cons. But don't give us this 'enhanced interrogation techniques' baloney. We all know what it is. If you're going to advocate torture, have the guts to call it by its name. If you don't, you're not only immoral enough to be pro-torture, you're also a coward."

I know, I know -- dream on.

--Paul Waldman
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 04:39 pm
Not sure that strategy would work going up against McCain.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:09 pm
nimh wrote:
Quote:
ENHANCED BULLS***T TECHNIQUES.

December 14, 2007
Tapped

As we go around and around on waterboarding yet again, I couldn't help noticing that I cannot recall a single instance in which I've seen a journalist simply refer to waterboarding and similar methods of interrogation as "torture." Yet they use terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" over and over. The Republicans certainly won the language battle on this one.

This is not complicated. Everyone all over the world agrees on what constitutes torture. Torture is the intentional infliction of physical or mental suffering in order to obtain information or confessions. Not hard to understand. Yet Republicans have successfully lured the entire journalistic community into their moral sewer, where there is some degree of suffering (defined not by how awful it is, but by whether it's fast or slow, and whether it leaves visible scars) that marks the line between torture and not-torture. If I rip your fingernails out - torture! If I tie you in a "stress position" designed to gradually inflict elevating amounts of pain, up to sheer agony, over the course of an hour or two - not torture! See, when I punch you in the face, son, I'm not committing child abuse, I'm engaging in enhanced parenting techniques.

I won't bother with the poetic invocations of Orwell. It's enough to say that when we embrace these kinds of euphemisms, we deaden our moral compasses. And every reporter who uses the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is complicit.

I'm guessing this will come up at one of next fall's presidential debates. What I'd like to see is the Democratic candidate, at the first mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques," say something like this: "How about we stop this charade and have enough respect for the American people to start telling the truth? The Bush administration made the use of torture its official policy. You, Republican candidate, agree with that policy. You think the United States government should torture people. I don't. We can argue the pros and cons. But don't give us this 'enhanced interrogation techniques' baloney. We all know what it is. If you're going to advocate torture, have the guts to call it by its name. If you don't, you're not only immoral enough to be pro-torture, you're also a coward."

I know, I know -- dream on.

--Paul Waldman


Real people call it torture....weasel words suck.



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/unholy_trinity/index_np.html


some interesting stuff there.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:33 pm
The Bush regime has won over the media and the democratic congress. What more is there to lose?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2008 05:20 pm
You might have seen this story in the news last week: another man, known to be innocent, kept in Guantanamo for years anyway. Because they could.

I had a couple of links in my bookmarks, but this is the first I found back - not necessarily the best, but it'll get the message across.

Quote:
MURAT KURNAZ....

So did everyone see the 60 Minutes segment last night about Murat Kurnaz, the German national who was picked up in Pakistan shortly after 9/11, turned over to the U.S., and then tortured and held for five years even though, apparently, there was never any serious evidence against him? The transcript is here if you missed it.

One would, of course, prefer not to believe Kurnaz's allegations, but they seem sadly credible. What makes it even worse is this:

    Six months after Kurnaz reached Guantanamo, U.S. military intelligence had written, "criminal investigation task force has no definite link [or] evidence of detainee having an association with al Qaeda or making any specific threat toward the U.S." At the same time, German intelligence agents wrote their government, saying, "USA considers Murat Kurnaz's innocence to be proven. He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks."
In the event, he wasn't released for several more years, and then only after the newly elected German chancellor made a personal appeal to George Bush. But why? Why didn't they release him earlier?

One can never rule out bureaucratic ineptitude, but the more likely explanation is that they were afraid he'd tell the world about his treatment. So they just kept him locked up instead.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2008 05:34 pm
That's the Bush Doctrine: lock em up or shut em up with threats/fear.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 09:41 am
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256

Quote:
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.


Quote:
In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."

But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.


Quote:
According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.


Quote:
Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 06:36 am
Detainees Allege Being Drugged, Questioned

Quote:
U.S. Denies Using Injections for Coercion


What was that the other day about bridges to sell?

Quote:


Link found http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/21/sands-guantanamo/

Like CI; I don't care how this goes over in the election; this subject is bigger than that IMO as it fundamentally changes how we conduct ourselves towards enemies. Rules are made for those very times when it seems like you should break them or else there would be no need for rules in the first place.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 09:11:44