0
   

Will A.I. condemn this Human Rights Abuse?

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


It doesnt' matter how much info you present, these hawks will never believe that we could possibly be wrong.

They really are 'Good Germans'.....

Cycloptichorn


Are you agreeing with kuvasz that US prisons can be compared to Nazi concentration camps?

How is that much different from me comparing you to a terrorist?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:20 am
No, I'm comparing the idea that you blatantly ignore any amount of information that portrays our military in any light that isn't the best. Just like the 'good germans,' this doesn't make you a bad person per se; just willfully ignorant and happy that way.

I notice you decided to respond to this instead of Kusavs' long list of information that counters your argument. I'd rather talk about that, thanks, can we get back to it?

Or are you going to ignore it as usual? We'll see.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:45 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


It doesnt' matter how much info you present, these hawks will never believe that we could possibly be wrong.

They really are 'Good Germans'.....

Cycloptichorn


Are you agreeing with kuvasz that US prisons can be compared to Nazi concentration camps?

How is that much different from me comparing you to a terrorist?


nice try, and how very typical of your ilk. distortion must be your middle name. my remark was a comparison of people like you who ignore and dismiss the facts available on the US government torturing people in the name of the state with the silence of Germans when they knew damned right well that their government was engaged in torture and murder.

and you are cut from the same cloth as them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, I'm comparing the idea that you blatantly ignore any amount of information that portrays our military in any light that isn't the best. Just like the 'good germans,' this doesn't make you a bad person per se; just willfully ignorant and happy that way.

I notice you decided to respond to this instead of Kusavs' long list of information that counters your argument. I'd rather talk about that, thanks, can we get back to it?

Or are you going to ignore it as usual? We'll see.

Cycloptichorn


I understand that AI is labeling the Abu Ghraib incidents as "torture." See, when I think of torture I think of cutting off tongues, hands, feet, hot poker in the eye ... you know the Saddam methods. What happened at Abu Ghraib were abuses and not to be condoned, but this is about "perspective" again.

I started to look at his long list, but it frankly got to be such a long cut-and-paste job, that I decline the invitation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:52 am
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


It doesnt' matter how much info you present, these hawks will never believe that we could possibly be wrong.

They really are 'Good Germans'.....

Cycloptichorn


Are you agreeing with kuvasz that US prisons can be compared to Nazi concentration camps?

How is that much different from me comparing you to a terrorist?


nice try, and how very typical of your ilk. distortion must be your middle name. my remark was a comparison of people like you who ignore and dismiss the facts available on the US government torturing people in the name of the state with the silence of Germans when they knew damned right well that their government was engaged in torture and murder.

and you are cut from the same cloth as them.


My remark was intended for Cyclops, not you, and he knows why. It's obvious you don't. Your comparison to Nazi Concentration Camps was clearly stated, so I don't understand your attempt to waltz away from it now. But I didn't address my response to you, so feel free to put a sock in it, since you don't know anything about me, and have know idea what cloth I'm cut from.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:56 am
Quote:
I understand that AI is labeling the Abu Ghraib incidents as "torture." See, when I think of torture I think of cutting off tongues, hands, feet, hot poker in the eye ... you know the Saddam methods. What happened at Abu Ghraib were abuses and not to be condoned, but this is about "perspective" again.


What about electric shocks, 2nd degree burns, dog bites, and beatings that result in paralysis, comas, and death? Because those things have all gone on as well. Yet you ignore them. These things aren't just abuses, they are torture.

Quote:
I started to look at his long list, but it frankly got to be such a long cut-and-paste job, that I decline the invitation.


How convienent that you ignore the information that directly contradicts what you are saying b/c you 'didn't feel like' reading a long cut-and-paste. This does not invalidate the facts that were posted.

And, in fact, it lends greater credence to the theory that you guys are acting like 'Good Germans,' not bad people (I want to re-emphasize that I do not personally consider my political opponents here to be bad people, just, well, wrong, lol) but willfully ignorant; you don't want to read about abuses and torture, so you don't; but then to claim that it doesn't happen is a real mistake.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:08 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I understand that AI is labeling the Abu Ghraib incidents as "torture." See, when I think of torture I think of cutting off tongues, hands, feet, hot poker in the eye ... you know the Saddam methods. What happened at Abu Ghraib were abuses and not to be condoned, but this is about "perspective" again.


What about electric shocks, 2nd degree burns, dog bites, and beatings that result in paralysis, comas, and death? Because those things have all gone on as well. Yet you ignore them. These things aren't just abuses, they are torture.


Yes, those are.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I started to look at his long list, but it frankly got to be such a long cut-and-paste job, that I decline the invitation.


How convienent that you ignore the information that directly contradicts what you are saying b/c you 'didn't feel like' reading a long cut-and-paste. This does not invalidate the facts that were posted.

And, in fact, it lends greater credence to the theory that you guys are acting like 'Good Germans,' not bad people (I want to re-emphasize that I do not personally consider my political opponents here to be bad people, just, well, wrong, lol) but willfully ignorant; you don't want to read about abuses and torture, so you don't; but then to claim that it doesn't happen is a real mistake.

Cycloptichorn


I started to read the first of the links he provided, but it was a general characterization of "torture," and not specific. AI lumps the abuses at Abu Ghraib into its definition of "torture." That tells me where AI is coming from, and why I don't agree with its conclusion. I glanced throught it and rest of his long post seems to talk about claims of being nude, sleep deprivation, standing for long periods of time, making them shave, putting them in a dark room, etc. I didn't see anything referencing "electric shocks, 2nd degree burns, dog bites, and beatings" that resulted in "paralysis, comas, and death." Maybe you can point those out to me. I admit I didn't flyspeck the post. I did see one reference to a dead body, but don't know the circumstances.

I think there ought to be investigations into these claims. But as ought to be very evident from the Newsweek fiasco, just because a terrorist claims something doesn't make it true. And just because AI labels it "torture" doesn't make it so. That's my take.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:14 am
I understand and applaud your skepticism. But I would encourage you to go here:

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/

And read for yourself the list of abuses that have gone on. Many of them are from reports from American soldiers and NOT from detainees. Most of them are labelled 'not enough evidence' to confirm or deny, but that doesnt' mean that they didn't happen (or that they did); but it is a good bet that at least some, if not many, abuses and torture has happened.

And it is in every prison, camp, and detention center that we control that these reports are coming from. This shouldn't be happening if it is an isolated group of individuals perpetrating the abuses.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:24 am
[double post]
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:24 am
Cyclops: While I'm waiting for your link to open -- it will open, won't it? -- I should make sure you're aware that I've found prison guards to have a propensity towards sadism. In my experience, that isn't something that is normally taught to them, but is either a learned behavior, or an inherent trait that drew them to their vocation. But that doesn't mean they are torturing their prisoners.

There, it finally opened.....

There are a number of links. Any ones in particular you think I'd be interested in?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:34 am
It opened immdiately for me, must be b/c I'm a liberal and it recognizes it Smile

Read all of them. I did. Start wherever you like.

I agree with ya about the prison guards. Something about the system? I remember reading about the prison expirements run at stanford or berkely or some liberal place like that a few decades ago, and how quickly things went sour....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:37 am
I've actually got a lot of other stuff I should be reading -- you know, work stuff -- so I'm going to decline to read the ACLU library at this time.

But if you have a selected link or two ....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 11:39 am
Lemme look for some 'greatest hits' and I'll get back to ya.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:03 pm
An Australian legal scholar has published a legal defense of torture given the current situation that was posted right here on A2K by joefromchicago. I'm certain that McG et al would have immediately protested this contravention of the western tradition of a fair and balanced treatment of suspects on this thread, had they known.


Not Enough Legal Torture?

A2K link to thread
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:25 pm
kuvasz wrote:


the field manual instructs soldiers, when in doubt, to ask themselves: "If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against U.S. POWs, you would believe such actions violate international or U.S. law."


this is the most important part of the protocol.

it's true that none of the alleged (i use the word cautiously) tortures inflicted come close to many that i've heard of, such as mutilation, using an electric drill on the body, beatings, blinding, etc. in contrast the rumsfeld approach really is quite mild.

that said, the problem is that, the united states has a tradition of respecting the human rights of the enemy once they are rendered to a non-combatant status, i.e. pow. now, our reputation as the holders of the moral high ground is endangered by a lack of oversight and a policy of conflicting sop's.

the biggest issue for me is that the detainees are not being charged. they have no access to council, something that was even available to known mass murders like goebels and goerring.

at the least, charge the detainees with suspicion of committing a terrorist act. to just leave them hanging around is hurting us. and i don't just mean in world opinion.

the same way that we are seemingly giving up our civil liberties a little at a time, it looks like we are also allowing some of our core qualities,such as fairness and human decency to be siphoned off. all in the name of "the war on terror" and "feeling safe".

in the 100 or so years of prominence on the world stage, america has been the country that doesn't abuse our upper hand in handling prisoners. at least not at a policy level. the hemming and hawing about who is or who isn't a pow is largely responsible for what ever real or perceived mistreatment is taking place now. our leaders need to get it together and decide who's who. they certainly have no problems labeling just about everybody else.

to top it off, every expert i've ever heard interviewed states without hesitation that torture is the least effective way to get information. and what is gotten by those means is generally faulty.

but, if you have no problem with our military being mistreated, maimed or killed by an opposing force, by all means, sit back, be silent and maintain blind faith in your leaders.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:26 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


It doesnt' matter how much info you present, these hawks will never believe that we could possibly be wrong.

They really are 'Good Germans'.....

Cycloptichorn


Are you agreeing with kuvasz that US prisons can be compared to Nazi concentration camps?

How is that much different from me comparing you to a terrorist?


nice try, and how very typical of your ilk. distortion must be your middle name. my remark was a comparison of people like you who ignore and dismiss the facts available on the US government torturing people in the name of the state with the silence of Germans when they knew damned right well that their government was engaged in torture and murder.

and you are cut from the same cloth as them.


My remark was intended for Cyclops, not you, and he knows why. It's obvious you don't. Your comparison to Nazi Concentration Camps was clearly stated, so I don't understand your attempt to waltz away from it now. But I didn't address my response to you, so feel free to put a sock in it, since you don't know anything about me, and have know idea what cloth I'm cut from.
[/b]

if one like you talks like and uses the rhetorical devices of a Nazi, one is a Nazi
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:39 pm
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


It doesnt' matter how much info you present, these hawks will never believe that we could possibly be wrong.

They really are 'Good Germans'.....

Cycloptichorn


Are you agreeing with kuvasz that US prisons can be compared to Nazi concentration camps?

How is that much different from me comparing you to a terrorist?


nice try, and how very typical of your ilk. distortion must be your middle name. my remark was a comparison of people like you who ignore and dismiss the facts available on the US government torturing people in the name of the state with the silence of Germans when they knew damned right well that their government was engaged in torture and murder.

and you are cut from the same cloth as them.


My remark was intended for Cyclops, not you, and he knows why. It's obvious you don't. Your comparison to Nazi Concentration Camps was clearly stated, so I don't understand your attempt to waltz away from it now. But I didn't address my response to you, so feel free to put a sock in it, since you don't know anything about me, and have know idea what cloth I'm cut from.
[/b]

if one like you talks like and uses the rhetorical devices of a Nazi, one is a Nazi


So you've abandoned the direct comparison to Nazis, and have now resorted to calling me a Nazi? You're a cogent one, you are.

If one, like you, talks like a horse's patooty, and musters up the equivalent of an argument from a horse's patooty, shall I accuse you of being a horse's patooty?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:41 pm
kuvasz wrote:
...

One wonders just what evidence you need to accept that the American government has systematically employed torture as a means to elicit information from prisoners it holds all over the world in its prison.

There is ample evidence to show this is true for anyone who is has an open mind and is serious about this, but just what level of complicity do you need to accept that this is being done in the name of all Americans?

You can examine the AI site on this directly via this link.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510782004

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511142003

You can read thru the emails from FBI agents who reported that military personnel were masquerading as FBI agents in Guantánamo and were abusing prisoners, with the support and knowledge of their superiors.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/

And they covered their tracks in doing so, according to FBI agents on the scene.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/030905/

DOD 000508 - 000511
Statement of SPC, 321 MI BN;Annex to Fay/Jones/Kern Report

"States that at Camp Cropper, "it was well known that detainees who were brought into the facility complained of beatings from members of Seal team 5 and TF 20 personnel. Notes it was "common practice to use sleep deprivation and sleep management with the detainees. . . .It was also common that the detainees on MI hold in the hard site were initially kept naked and given clothing as an incentive to cooperate with us." Records possible abuse of a Syrian detainee who may have been hit by MPs, "cutting his ear to the extent that it required stitches." Notes seeing a barking dog in an interrogation cell and refers to this as a "fear up" technique, and states that a female colleague told subject that she had stripped an uncooperative detainee and walked from the conex area to the Camp Vigilant area on a cold night of about 30 degrees. Reports knowledge of incident in which interrogators made a female detainee remove her shirt. Adds, "it was common knowledge that REDACTED used sleep deprivation and dogs while he was on his special projects, working directly for Col Pappas." Reports hearing of dogs being used on detainees and MPs referring to "doggy dance" sessions. Describes another incident in which two naked prisoners were made to crawl on the floor."

DOD 000571- 000573
Sworn Statement of Major, Assistant S-3 for the 20th MI BDE.; Annex to Fay/Jones/Kern Report

Notes that Pappas took over command of the 205th MI BDE on July 1, 2004 and that at "all operations" were consolidated in Abu Ghraib and he became Deputy commander for the Joint Interrogation Debriefing Center (JIDC). Notes that Sanchez was not happy with the intelligence coming out of interrogations. Adds, "Col. Pappas did not tell me to check on the well-being or care of detainees. He didn't tell me to ensure everyone was in compliance with the IROEs or the Geneva Convention. I do remember seeing the policy that specified that LTG Sanchez had to approve certain interrogation techniques. . . . MG Miller visited Abu Ghraib facility and recommended the Tiger Teams concept be implemented. The concept I was told was 1 X interrogators, 1X linguist, 1X report writer, and 1 X analyst. My orders were to go to Abu Ghraib and set up the Tiger Teams to conduct interrogations." Notes that OGA would drop off detainees, that they were not accounted for, and that "Pappas told us we would work with OGA and allow them to bring detainees and not process them. . . .Pappas said that OGA did not want our interrogators to sit in their interrogations because this would open our interrogators to liability." Records death of OGA detainee "Both LTC Pappas and I were shocked. Col. Pappas said to get redacted in and that he was not going down alone on this. OGA did not want to just take the dead body. They placed the body in a body bag and placed ice in it. . . . The next day the body was taken away on a stretcher to make it seem as if the detainee was ill. I was told an autopsy was conducted."


DOD 000580 - 000581
Sworn Statement of Civilian providing overall assessment of interrogation operations, training and advice, E. Co, 309th MI Bn, Annex to Fay/Jones/Kern Report

Notes, "I did see detainees in various states of dress to include nakedness and detainees. The MPs used segregation and stripping as a way to keep the detainees under control and to keep them from talking. . . .On one occasion, I had a conversation with REDACTED concerning the IROE and interrogation approaches. I gave him examples of approached including Pride and Ego Down where an interrogator took a Koran, threw it on the floor and stepped on it and Fear Up harsh where the interrogator had a a dog trained to bark on cue if the interrogator thought the detainee was lying. I also explained sleep deprivation. I told him that in Afghanistan the interrogators could use an adjusted sleep schedule for detainees. The conversation was meant to explain why these activities were prohibited or restricted. . . . There was intense pressure from the command to provide intelligence reporting."


DOD 00598 - 000606
Sworn Statement of CPT, 519 MI BNAnnex to Fay/Jones/Kern Report

States that JTF-GTMO model could not be replicated in Iraq but "Miller appeared to press forward with his JTF-GTMO recommendations." States that Sanchez visited AGP on 30 Sept and then in the beginning of Nov 03 when he "expressed concern about the interrogation operation to Col. Pappas and indicated that the issue would be further discussed 'later.'" Sanchez issued a FRAGO on 19 Nov 03, appointing Pappas as the FOB Commander, giving him responsibility for all assigned at AG. "I believed that MI should not become involved in detainee or prison operations . . . The FRAGO generated tension between MIs and MPs." "We had used 'sleep adjustment' and 'stress positions' as effective techniques in Afghanistan. Although I never saw written authorization, the techniques had SJA and CJTF-180 C-2X/C2 review and approval on a case by case basis. . . . I concluded they would be effective tools for interrogation operations at AG. . . . Because the winds of war were changing and the mounting pressure from higher for 'actionable intelligence' from interrogation operations, I requested more options than FM 34-52 provided. REDACTED acquired a copy of TF-121 IROE and essentially 'plagiarized,' it . . . and then submitted the IROE . . . for approval." Records IROEs dated 10 Sep 03 and 14 Sep. 03, and states that "I created a slide which sythesized the 15 September IROE and posted the IROE in numerous locations throughout the working area as a constant reminder. This original slide contained three columns--the first column general interrogation techniques IAW FM 34-52. Techniques outside of the FM were placed in a second column which I titled 'OIC approval required prior to use.' . . . The third column was titled 'CG's approval required for use on EPWs. After the subsequent IROE MFR was signed by LTG Sanchez on 12 Oct 03, I created a second slide to reflect the changes . . . ." Records objection to "overnight parking" of OGA detainees, which was overriden after death of an OGA detainee.


DOD 000607 - 000608
Sworn Statement of analyst. 1st MI Bn, 205th MI Bde; Annex to Fay/Jones/Kern Report

Notes, "[a]round 15 or 16 Dec 03, the Tiger Teams were called together" by Pappas "who told us that anything listed on the IROE has been 'pre-approved' by LTG Sanchez. An Iraqi general was assigned to us for interrogation. . . . It was decided to transport [him] from his cell to the shower facility in the nude." Notes, "our team used sleep deprivation on occasion we were informed by ICE operations that the procedure had been approved, I do not know what level."

I could go on and on cutting and pasting summaries of emails and reports by investigators, but it is clear that those at the highest levels of the military and Defense Dept sanctioned this sort of behavior.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/_ftn105#_ftn105

Secretary Rumsfeld created the conditions for U.S. troops to commit war crimes and torture by sidelining and disparaging the Geneva Conventions, by approving interrogation techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions as well as the Convention against Torture, and by approving the hiding of detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross. From the earliest days of the war in Afghanistan, Secretary Rumsfeld was on notice through briefings, ICRC reports, human rights reports, and press accounts that U.S. troops were committing war crimes, including acts of torture. However, there is no evidence that he ever exerted his authority and warned that the mistreatment of prisoners must stop. Had he done so, many of the crimes committed by U.S. forces could have been avoided.

Secretary Rumsfeld approved interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture

Secretary Rumsfeld was intimately involved in the minutiae of interrogation techniques for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for whom the U. S. government had announced that POW protections would not apply. On December 2, 2002, responding to a request from officers at Guantánamo, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners in Guantánamo that was an unprecedented expansion of army doctrine.

That doctrine is embodied in Department of the Army Field Manual 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation, which stresses cooperation as the basis for successful interrogation. It specifically prohibits torture or coercion. The field manual also lists relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions, including the prohibition against, "subjecting the individual to humiliating or degrading treatment, implying harm to the individual or his property or implying a deprivation of rights guaranteed under international law because of failure to cooperate" (Field Manual 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation, U.S. Department of the Army, September 1992). As the working group on interrogation techniques established by Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out, "Army interrogation experts view the use of force as an inferior technique that yields information of questionable quality" ("Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations on the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations," April 4, 2003 [online], http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/040403dod.pdf, p. 53).

The techniques approved by Rumsfeld included:

"The use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours";

"Isolation up to 30 days;

"The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning";

"Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli";

"Removal of all comfort items (including religious items)";

"Forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc)";

"Removal of clothing"; and

"Using detainees' individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress."


These methods violate the protections afforded to POWs, the presumptive classification of many of the Guantánamo detainees. Depending on how they are used, these methods also likely violate the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners, regardless of whether the prisoners are entitled to POW protections. Their use on prisoners would thus constitute a war crime.

Additionally, Army Field Manual 34-52 cites "forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time" as an example of torture. Mental torture includes "abnormal sleep deprivation," which may or may not have resulted from the authorization of light control and loud music. The field manual also prohibits forms of coercion including threats. Perhaps most importantly, the field manual instructs soldiers, when in doubt, to ask themselves: "If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against U.S. POWs, you would believe such actions violate international or U.S. law."

As the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on Torture made clear in his 2004 report to the U.N. General Assembly, the techniques also violate the prohibitions of the Convention against Torture.

Even a cursory reading of the information on the links provided would show that what happened in the US prison camps were done with the approval of the top people at the Defense Dept, yet not a single one of them have been indicted or faced a courts marshall.

These people did this in the name of America. Don't you guys get this? People were tortured in our name, and yet you scoff at evidence of it and go merrily along about your business, like those good Germans who never heard of the Nazi concentration camps.


...


This is certainly full of good links and good information, but it still lacks any evidence of any approval by higher sources or by the Bush administration.

Let me share some links now so we are clear on what the US government, and the people of the US authorize.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
1949 Conventions and 1977 Protocols
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2340A
1996 War Crimes Act

U.S. officials say that because the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners in Iraq, interrogation procedures approved for use there are more restrictive than those in use in Guantanamo. The list of coercive measures used in Guantanamo interrogations was given to commanders in Iraq, Lieutenant General Lance Smith, the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, said in congressional testimony May 11. But, he said, it had been made clear that "many" of those measures could not be used.

Before they were largely banned by Sanchez's order, approved measures in Iraq, according to the Senate list, included:

* dietary manipulation, such as modifying meal times and food served;
* sleep adjustment, including reversing detainees' normal sleep patterns;
* sleep deprivation, including keeping detainees awake for up to 72 hours;
* isolation for longer than 30 days;
* permitting the presence of muzzled military dogs during interrogations;
* forcing detainees to stand or sit in an uncomfortable position for up to 45 minutes; and
* sensory deprivation, such as complete darkness and isolation, for up to 72 hours.

Interrogators who wished to use these techniques needed Sanchez's approval on a case-by-case basis, according to the document. Under the new policy announced May 14, only isolation for more than 30 days will be allowed and only with Sanchez's approval, news accounts reported.

There is no doubt that abuse and torture took place at Abu Ghraib. As a result, many men and women have been punished accordingly. At no time has there been ANY evidence of approval for those actions by any member of the Bush administration.

Sanchez says he never saw rules for interrogation
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:50 pm
Quote:
There is no doubt that abuse and torture took place at Abu Ghraib. As a result, many men and women have been punished accordingly.


So, even though several people are dead and many more are scarred for life through beatings and abuses, let alone torture techniques, the appropriate punishment is 6 months to 3 years of prison. You really believe this.

Jeez

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 01:35 pm
McGentrix wrote:
...This is certainly full of good links and good information, but it still lacks any evidence of any approval by higher sources or by the Bush administration.

Let me share some links now so we are clear on what the US government, and the people of the US authorize.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
1949 Conventions and 1977 Protocols
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2340A
1996 War Crimes Act

U.S. officials say that because the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners in Iraq, interrogation procedures approved for use there are more restrictive than those in use in Guantanamo. The list of coercive measures used in Guantanamo interrogations was given to commanders in Iraq, Lieutenant General Lance Smith, the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, said in congressional testimony May 11. But, he said, it had been made clear that "many" of those measures could not be used.

Before they were largely banned by Sanchez's order, approved measures in Iraq, according to the Senate list, included:

* dietary manipulation, such as modifying meal times and food served;
* sleep adjustment, including reversing detainees' normal sleep patterns;
* sleep deprivation, including keeping detainees awake for up to 72 hours;
* isolation for longer than 30 days;
* permitting the presence of muzzled military dogs during interrogations;
* forcing detainees to stand or sit in an uncomfortable position for up to 45 minutes; and
* sensory deprivation, such as complete darkness and isolation, for up to 72 hours.

Interrogators who wished to use these techniques needed Sanchez's approval on a case-by-case basis, according to the document. Under the new policy announced May 14, only isolation for more than 30 days will be allowed and only with Sanchez's approval, news accounts reported.

There is no doubt that abuse and torture took place at Abu Ghraib. As a result, many men and women have been punished accordingly. At no time has there been ANY evidence of approval for those actions by any member of the Bush administration.

Sanchez says he never saw rules for interrogation
Quote:



one wonders how another can claim that supplied links are informative, yet argues in contridiction to the information supplied by the links.

as in the case of general sanchez

Gen. Sanchez promulgated interrogation rules and techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture
Lt. Gen. Sanchez took command of V Corps in Baghdad in April 2003 and went on to become Commander of the Combined and Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7). Over the spring and summer of 2003, CJTF-7 was responsible for the detention of combatant and civilian prisoners in Iraq.251

Although Gen. Sanchez testified before Congress that compliance with the Geneva Conventions in Iraq "was always the standard,"252 it has since been revealed that Gen. Sanchez, "despite lacking specific authorization to operate beyond the confines of the Geneva Conventions" (in the words of the Schlesinger report), took it upon himself to declare some prisoners "unlawful combatants."253

As noted by the Schlesinger panel, during the early and mid-2003, General Sanchez's troops interrogated detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere relying "on Field Manual 34-52 and on unauthorized techniques that migrated from Afghanistan."254 Members of the 519th MI Battalion, which had previously been accused in a Criminal Investigation Command homicide investigation of abusive interrogation practices in Afghanistan, were left to devise interrogation rules on their own.255 In so doing, they were said to have copied rules "almost verbatim" from the "Battlefield Interrogation Team and Facility Policy" of Special Operations Forces/Central Intelligence Agency Joint Task Force 121, a secretive Special Operations Forces/CIA mission seeking former government members in Iraq.256 That policy reportedly endorsed the use of stress positions during harsh interrogation procedures, the use of dogs, yelling, loud music, light control, isolation, and other procedures used previously in Afghanistan and Iraq.257Among the goals Gen. Sanchez thought these techniques would accomplish were "to create fear, disorient detainees and capture shock."these techniques also violate the Geneva Conventions and, depending on their use, can constitute war crimes.

Unreleased portions of the report by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay state that with Gen. Sanchez's September 14 order, national policies and those of Gen. Sanchez "collided, introducing ambiguities and inconsistencies in policy and practice," and that "Policies and practices developed and approved for use on al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Conventions' protections."264

The report adds that the memo "established a requirement to obtain LTG Sanchez's approval prior to using certain techniques on EPWs [enemy prisoners of war]." The policy failed to address what, if any, approval authority had to be obtained for using any of the interrogation techniques on civilian internees, who were the bulk of the detainees at that time."265

[/u]

Gen. Sanchez appears to have misled Congress in his sworn testimony on this issue. Asked in May 2004, months before the release of his actual memoranda, if he had "ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear," Gen. Sanchez replied: "I never approved any of those measures to be used within the CJTF-7 at any time in the last year." In response to a follow-up question, he repeated, "I have never approved the use of any of those methods within CJTF-7 in the 12-and-a-half months that I've been in Iraq."266

At the same time, Gen. Sanchez was apparently relaying the pressure from above for "actionable intelligence."[/u] According to one soldier whose testimony is in a declassified attachment to the Fay report:

COL Pappas and (REDACTED) were under intense pressure from LTG Sanchez to provide intelligence reporting...On occasion (REDACTED) and (REDACTED) conducted interrogations themselves. One interrogation occurred at the request of LTG Sanchez in the middle of the night.267

These guidelines were used by personnel at Abu Ghraib until October 2003.268 Gen. Sanchez's September 14 guidelines were criticized by CENTCOM, however, which viewed them as "unacceptably aggressive," resulting in Gen. Sanchez drafting new guidelines on October 12, 2003.269


While the September 14 memo did not qualify its approval of dogs for interrogation, the October 12 memo confusingly contained two seemingly contradictory sheets of paper. One sheet, a list of approved techniques, did not include dogs. The second sheet, a list of safeguards, now said, "should military working dogs be present during interrogations, they will be muzzled and under control of handler at all times to ensure safety."270 This memo, Gen. Fay noted, "confused doctrine and policy even further."271

As Gen. Fay pointed out:

Another confusing change involved removing the use of dogs from the list of approaches. The October 12, 2003 policy did not specifically preclude it. In fact, the safeguards section of the policy established the conditions for the use of dogs, should they be present during interrogations: They had to be muzzled and they had to be under the control of a trained handler. Even though it was not listed in the approved techniques section, which meant that it required the LTG Sanchez's approval, its inclusion in the safeguards section is confusing. In fact, the Commander, 205 MI BDE, COL Pappas, believed that he could approve the use of dogs. Dogs as an interrogation tool should have been specifically excluded because the practice was never doctrine. In approving the concept, LTG Sanchez did not adequately consider the distinction between using dogs at the facility to patrol for security and using them as an interrogation tool, and the implications for interrogation policy. Interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolation as interrogation practices. The manner in which they were used on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions. 272

Gen. Jones added that "policy memoranda promulgated by the CJTF-7 Commander [Sanchez] led indirectly to some of the non-violent and non-sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib." 273 Jones added that some of these abuses "may have violated international law."

Lt. Gen. Sanchez knew or should have known about torture and war crimes committed by troops under his command

In his Congressional testimony, Gen. Miller was asked to explain how abuse at Abu Ghraib had taken place without the top leadership knowing about it. He replied, "I think there are failures in people doing their duty, there are failures in systems. And we should have known and we should have uncovered it and taken action before it got to the point that it got to. I think there's no doubt about that."274

U.S. military personnel under the command of Gen. Sanchez committed numerous war crimes. The Schlesinger report noted 55 substantiated cases of detainee abuse in Iraq, plus 20 instances of detainee deaths still under investigation.275 The earlier Taguba report had found "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" that constituted "systematic and illegal abuse of detainees" at Abu Ghraib.276 The Fay report documents 44 allegations of acts that may amount to war crimes.277 An ICRC report concluded that in military intelligence sections of Abu Ghraib, "methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information."278 The ICRC also found that "the use of ill-treatment against persons deprived of their liberty went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated by the CF [Coalition Forces]."279

Gen. Jones concluded that:

in retrospect, indications and warnings had surfaced at the CJTF-7 level that additional oversight and corrective actions were needed in the handling of detainees…Examples of these indications and warnings include: the investigation of an incident at Camp Cropper,280 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reports on handling of detainees in subordinate units, ICRC reports on Abu Ghraib detainee conditions and treatment, CID investigations and disciplinary actions being taken by commanders, the death of an OGA detainee at Abu Ghraib.281

Indeed, .283 Gen. Sanchez also concedes that he spoke numerous times with U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer during the summer and fall of 2003 about, among other things, issues of "quality of life of prisoners and the conditions that existed."284



A letter from Col. Pappas to Gen. Sanchez dated November 30, 2003 requested permission to throw tables and chairs while continuously yelling at a detainee, drive the detainee around hooded while interrogating him, threaten him with barking dogs, conduct a strip search while the detainee was hooded, place him in isolation on an adjusted sleep schedule while also using techniques such as loud music and stress positions "in accordance with CJTF-7 IROE."290 Gen. Sanchez told Congress that he had never seen the letter. 291

Despite these warnings, Gen. Sanchez seems to have taken no steps to curtail the rampant abuses that were ongoing during his command.

Gen. Jones concluded that "LTG Sanchez…failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations"292 and that "CJTF-7 staff elements reacted inadequately to earlier indications and warnings that problems existed at Abu Ghraib."293 The Schlesinger report stated that "[w]e believe LTG Sanchez should have taken strong action in November when he realized the extent of the leadership problems at Abu Ghraib. We concur with the Jones findings that LTG Sanchez and MG Wojdakowski failed to ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations."294

In addition, the Schlesinger panel noted that "the unclear chain of command established by CJTF-7, combined with the poor leadership and lack of supervision, contributed to the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib that allowed the abuses to take place."295"[/b]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/index.htm

sanchez did not do this all by himself. he was presured for results from above to get information and he did what he was told to do by higher comand.

with all of this information, and acknowledging that sanchez was never charge with any deriliction of duty or perjury in the face of numerous evidence that he did lie under oath, it becomes clear that he was being protected from above for following orders to get information in about any manner necessary.

btw; if you don't like being called a Nazi all you have to do stop acting like a disciple of Joseph Goebbels by twisting the words of another person to win an argument with a third person.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:27:14