Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Yes, I know.

0 Replies

repeat post deleted.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/politics/24gitmo.html?hp&ex=1119672000&en=17f38087d71bd912&ei=5094&partner=homepage

June 24, 2005
Interrogators Cite Doctors' Aid at Guantánamo
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, June 23 - Military doctors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have aided interrogators in conducting and refining coercive interrogations of detainees, including providing advice on how to increase stress levels and exploit fears, according to new, detailed accounts given by former interrogators.

Although I approve totally of the effort, doctors should never have been asked to do this, and, being asked, should have refused to comply. The interrogators should have sought this advice from some other type of medical expert. This is a blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath which contains the instruction:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone."

The exact phraseology varies, but this is always present in the oath in some form. These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once. This is really an outrage.

0 Replies

This response of yours seems to go against this whole thread.

Or is this only an outrage because now it involves other than the detainees and thier abuse?

This type of behavior abuses all sides - which is why many people overseeing the detainees are realizing that this is not only immoral but perhaps illegal.

TF

0 Replies

" These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once."

I find it rather interesting that even now, Bush supporters refuse to admit the truth about why the abuse of prisoners goes much higher than the lowly enlisted men charged with crimes. Maybe these doctors will talk where the command came from. It surely didn't come from the enlisted men.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

" These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once."

I find it rather interesting that even now, Bush supporters refuse to admit the truth about why the abuse of prisoners goes much higher than the lowly enlisted men charged with crimes. Maybe these doctors will talk where the command came from. It surely didn't come from the enlisted men.

Maybe they will, and then you can stop speculating.

0 Replies

Wouldn't that be grand for all of us?

0 Replies

Except for you neocons who doesn't give a rat's ass.

0 Replies

Keeping Secrets
The Bush administration is doing the public's business out of the public eye. Here's how--and why
By Christopher H. Schmitt and Edward T. Pound

"Democracies die behind closed doors."

--U.S. APPEALS COURT JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH

At 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, 2001, as a bone-chilling rain fell on Washington, George W. Bush took the oath of office as the nation's 43rd president. Later that afternoon, the business of governance officially began. Like other chief executives before him, Bush moved to unravel the efforts of his predecessor. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, directed federal agencies to freeze more than 300 pending regulations issued by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The regulations affected areas ranging from health and safety to the environment and industry. The delay, Card said, would "ensure that the president's appointees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations." The process, as it turned out, expressly precluded input from average citizens. Inviting such comments, agency officials concluded, would be "contrary to the public interest."

Ten months later, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Joseph McCormick found out just how hard it was to get information from the new administration. A resident of Floyd County, Va., in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, McCormick discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community. He wanted to help organize citizens by identifying residents through whose property the 30-inch pipeline would run. McCormick turned to Washington, seeking a project map from federal regulators. The answer? A pointed "no." Although such information was "previously public," officials of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told McCormick, disclosing the route of the new pipeline could provide a road map for terrorists. McCormick was nonplused. Once construction began, he says, the pipeline's location would be obvious to anyone. "I understand about security," the rangy, soft-spoken former business executive says. "But there certainly is a balance--it's about people's right to use the information of an open society to protect their rights."

For the past three years, the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis. Bush administration officials often cite the September 11 attacks as the reason for the enhanced secrecy. But as the Inauguration Day directive from Card indicates, the initiative to wall off records and information previously in the public domain began from Day 1. Steven Garfinkel, a retired government lawyer and expert on classified information, puts it this way: "I think they have an overreliance on the utility of secrecy. They don't seem to realize secrecy is a two-edge sword that cuts you as well as protects you." Even supporters of the administration, many of whom agree that security needed to be bolstered after the attacks, say Bush and his inner circle have been unusually assertive in their commitment to increased government secrecy. "Tightly controlling information, from the White House on down, has been the hallmark of this administration," says Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the Cato Institute.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...I find it rather interesting that even now, Bush supporters refuse to admit the truth about why the abuse of prisoners goes much higher than the lowly enlisted men charged with crimes.

Interesting but predictable, c.i.
Of course you know that this is the Bush administration's standard response whenever it's held accountable over Iraq-related abuse issues: The government knew nothing & nor did it's supporters! It's a total surprise, this shocking news! Surprised

All those months of damning lead-up information in the media was just misinformation, lies, liberal propaganda, speculation, blah, blah, blah .... Then, when finally the government is forced to be accountable through accumulated media & public presure, it's always the fault of a few low-ranked individuals acting without authority from above. It's so predictable & very depressing.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Although I approve totally of the effort, doctors should never have been asked to do this, and, being asked, should have refused to comply. The interrogators should have sought this advice from some other type of medical expert. This is a blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath which contains the instruction:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone."

The exact phraseology varies, but this is always present in the oath in some form. These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once. This is really an outrage.

Could it be that I am totally misreading this? Shocked

[If so, I'll apologise.]

Brandon, you take great pains to point out how morally repugnant this is, how people, well actually, it's the same old same old, only the doctors should be held accountable for such immoral behavior.

But you "approve totally"?! This is part and parcel, no, that's wrong, ... it's the whole program that the righties here at A2K have been laying out and continue to lay out; "it doesn't matter what my government does, it doesn't matter how immoral my government is because, well, ... it's my government".

This isn't just Brandon, it's georgeob1, Lash, McGentrix [the I can see both sides centrist], Tico [notice how quickly he jumped in to condemn this outrageous behavior], Rayban, ... [chic & gunga too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

Please somebody, tell me that Brandon hasn't encapsulated the raison d'etre of this group or that I've misread this.

There have been quite a few other oaths that have been seriously abused. But no comments from this gang; just blind obeisance.

Is it not the height of hypocrisy to expect only doctors to maintain moral standards?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Although I approve totally of the effort, doctors should never have been asked to do this, and, being asked, should have refused to comply. The interrogators should have sought this advice from some other type of medical expert. This is a blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath which contains the instruction:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone."

The exact phraseology varies, but this is always present in the oath in some form. These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once. This is really an outrage.

Could it be that I am totally misreading this? [If so, I'll apologise.]

Brandon, you take great pains to point out how morally repugnant this is, how people, well actually, it's the same old same old, only the doctors should be held accountable for such immoral behavior.

But you "approve totally"?! This is part and parcel, no, that's wrong, ... it's the whole program that the righties here at A2K have been laying out and continue to lay out; "it doesn't matter what my government does, it doesn't matter how immoral my government is because, well, ... it's my government".

This isn't just Brandon, it's georgeob1, Lash, McGentrix [the I can see both sides centrist], Tico [notice how quickly he jumped in to condemn this outrageous behavior], Rayban, ... [chic & gunga too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

Please somebody, tell me that Brandon hasn't encapsulated the raison d'etre of this group or that I've misread this.

There have been quite a few other oaths that have been seriously abused. But no comments from this gang; just blind obeisance.

Is it not the height of hypocrisy to expect only doctors to maintain moral standards?

So much blather except that there is much more than a kernel of relevance in the last sentence (notwithstanding my extreme reluctance to acknowledge any cogency to the noxious drivel of JTT).

If the rest of us can stretch the boundaries of ethics when dealing with terrorists, so can physicians.

Spare me the Hypocratic Oath, it is and has been a ruse for hundreds of years.

Ultimately it is a vicious and cruel world. Crush the bastards before they crush us.

If you prefer to take the effin High Road in human affairs, then be prepared for extinction.

Morality, sensibilities, rationality are concepts that must be worked into the human experience.

Choose between:

I must have it now! (The [Liberal] impossible)

or

I trust that it will arrive in time! (The [Conservative] rational)

The reality is that JTT is hardly a dreamer and so all of his dream connected rhetoric is so much tripe. How much fun is it JTT to argue points with which you personally disagree?

I know, I know..."Finn you are diassembling..."

0 Replies

Sorry for forgetting about you, Finn.

[chic, gunga & Finn too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

You ignored the issues, as usual, but you've proven my point. It seems you're more than ready to allow any type of immoral behavior to occur as long as it's from your side. But you jump in with both feet to roundly condemn it in others.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Sorry for forgetting about you, Finn.

[chic, gunga & Finn too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

You ignored the issues, as usual, but you've proven my point. It seems you're more than ready to allow any type of immoral behavior to occur as long as it's from your side. But you jump in with both feet to roundly condemn it in others.

Good God do you have a life beyond hovering about A2K threads ready to pounce upon your imagined foes?

That you made a point worth discussion would appear to be coincidental to your proven track record of belligerent gibberish.

Never-the-less I am more than happy to discuss the cogent point you, apparently, raised by accident. However, I expect that substantive discussion of such a point will, perforce, exclude you.

Night night.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Although I approve totally of the effort, doctors should never have been asked to do this, and, being asked, should have refused to comply. The interrogators should have sought this advice from some other type of medical expert. This is a blatant violation of the Hippocratic oath which contains the instruction:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone."

The exact phraseology varies, but this is always present in the oath in some form. These doctors should lose their medical licenses at once. This is really an outrage.

Could it be that I am totally misreading this? [If so, I'll apologise.]

Brandon, you take great pains to point out how morally repugnant this is, how people, well actually, it's the same old same old, only the doctors should be held accountable for such immoral behavior.

But you "approve totally"?! This is part and parcel, no, that's wrong, ... it's the whole program that the righties here at A2K have been laying out and continue to lay out; "it doesn't matter what my government does, it doesn't matter how immoral my government is because, well, ... it's my government".

This isn't just Brandon, it's georgeob1, Lash, McGentrix [the I can see both sides centrist], Tico [notice how quickly he jumped in to condemn this outrageous behavior], Rayban, ... [chic & gunga too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

Please somebody, tell me that Brandon hasn't encapsulated the raison d'etre of this group or that I've misread this.

There have been quite a few other oaths that have been seriously abused. But no comments from this gang; just blind obeisance.

Is it not the height of hypocrisy to expect only doctors to maintain moral standards?

It has nothing to do with moral standards. Doctors swear, when they become doctors, only to help, never to hurt. Any doctor who would violate this should lose his license at once. They should have consulted with other medical experts, rather than with doctors. Also, I should add that I only approve of the interrogation methodology to the extent that it was described. I certainly don't approve of something like the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I do, however have no objection if they can stay on the right side of tough questioning vs torture. We're in a war and the stakes may be our survival as a country, not to mention as individuals. It doesn't justify torture, but it does justify tough questioning with a few psych out strategies.

0 Replies

"First, do no harm."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"First, do no harm."

Yes, and from a purist sense one can understand the umbrage resultant from a professional that might not adhere to that profession's absolute ethics.

I may disagree with Brandon on this issue, but I acknowledge and commend the consistency of his principles.

What I have no use for, in any way, is the post-modernist Liberals who profess to believe in moral relativism and yet, so easily, find fault with someone who might stray from his absolute ethics for reasons of conscious.

Can there be a more obvious hypocrite than a post-modernist moral relativist who castigates a doctor for following his own moral compass rather than a thousand year old set of rules?

To thine own self be true God Damn it or be prepared to to offer up more than a one phrase glib crack!

But then again you might want to enjoy a mindless but, personally perceived, snappy repartee.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I may disagree with Brandon on this issue, but I acknowledge and commend the consistency of his principles.

Well, ty. I had a girlfriend once who was a medical student, and the idea that doctors heal one and all with no judgement as to who is good or bad, and that they never deliberately do harm, is stressed so strongly and continuously to them, that it is very disturbing to me that some doctors would ignore it. Doctors hold a very special place in our society, almost like priests, and it seems to me that these individuals betrayed it.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

JTT wrote:
Sorry for forgetting about you, Finn.

[chic, gunga & Finn too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

You ignored the issues, as usual, but you've proven my point. It seems you're more than ready to allow any type of immoral behavior to occur as long as it's from your side. But you jump in with both feet to roundly condemn it in others.

Good God do you have a life beyond hovering about A2K threads ready to pounce upon your imagined foes?

I don't pounce on people, Finn. I alight where there is ignorance and aim to turn it to knowledge. I must admit it's quite the task in your case. See the posting to follow.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
JTT wrote:
Sorry for forgetting about you, Finn.

[chic, gunga & Finn too but we'll keep them separate; the first mentioned are at least thinking people]

You ignored the issues, as usual, but you've proven my point. It seems you're more than ready to allow any type of immoral behavior to occur as long as it's from your side. But you jump in with both feet to roundly condemn it in others.

Good God do you have a life beyond hovering about A2K threads ready to pounce upon your imagined foes?

I don't pounce on people, Finn. I alight where there is ignorance and aim to turn it to knowledge. I must admit it's quite the task in your case. See the posting to follow.

Yeah right.

0 Replies

Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know