Complete Cognitive Dissonance

Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

Sorry to disappoint you, Set. I do try to amuse once in awhile ... and I'm rather sure I amuse you even when I'm not trying to. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

Ticomaya wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you, Set. I do try to amuse once in awhile ... and I'm rather sure I amuse you even when I'm not trying to. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

Don't be sorry, it makes what you write, delusions and all, often worth reading. Your humorous sallies, and your participation in threads other than politics do you credit--it shows that you didn't come here just to rant and deploy partisan invective. For that at least, i respect your participation. I rather suspect we all amuse one another unconsciously.

Maybe they are short-staffed.

Would you be happier if they were all being tortured? Would that satisfy your needs?

What a laugh riot . . . as though the administration has the capture of bin Laden as a serious objective . . . how does one breathe with one's head buried in the sand?

So, if torture is not really a common event and not every prisoner is being tortured and not every guard is guilty of torture, it would appear that it is indeed a sporadic, unfortunate event in which the guilty get punished... as they should.

The conspiracy theory of some higher-up ordering torture is stupid beyond words.

I don't think so. The stage has been set for this sort of thing ever since the torture memo came out. Why the need to send such a message if we don't use torture?

Why the need for Guantanamo?

It is quite a leap to conclude that, because not all prisoners were tortured, this is not a systemic problem.

How would such events, requiring the use of medical personnel and all kinds of collaboration, happen without approval? How do the same things happen in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, consistently and repeatedly, without oversight?

I think it ironic that, after accusing the media of attacking the troops for conveying the same message that is now being conveyed by the administration, the administration is now blaming the troops.

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't think so. The stage has been set for this sort of thing ever since the torture memo came out. Why the need to send such a message if we don't use torture?

Obviously, because people were not following the rules. We (The US administration, military, population) do not condone, tolerate or approve of torture. Some seem to believe that abusing prisoners may prove something. I have no idea what, as I have never been in a situation where such tactics or abuses were called for. I can not imagine any situation where that behavior is called for.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

I do not feel we have enough information to be able to make blanket statements like "torture is approved of by the administration". It hasn't been. It won't be.

Quote:

It is quite a leap to conclude that, because not all prisoners were tortured, this is not a systemic problem.

Is it also quiote a leap to conclude that because a few prisoners have been abused that it is?

The administration is blaming and punishing those guilty, not making blanket accusations without evidence. Big difference.

Investigation

In October 2004, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. Seven soldiers have been charged so far.
[edit]

Criminal charges against seven soldiers

Specialist Walls was charged with assault, maltreatment and failure to obey a lawful order.

Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, was charged with assault, maltreatment and lying to investigators.

Sergeant Boland, Specialist Anthony M. Morden, and Specialist Brian E. Cammack have been charged with assault and other crimes.

Two others have also been charged.
[edit]

Involved but uncharged

Some interrogators involved in this torture were sent to Iraq and were assigned to the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

A 2004 official inquiry has found that, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, a head-interrogator at Bagram, used the same cruelty on Iraqi prisoners.

Investigators cited probable cause to charge Specialist Damien Corsetti -- whose nickname was apparently "The Monster" -- with assault, maltreatment of a prisoner and indecent acts at Bagram; he has not been charged. At Abu Ghraib, he forced an Iraqi woman to strip during questioning, for which he was fined and demoted.

Just a little refresher: the torture memo was not sending the message that we should NOT torture people.

Quote:

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

src

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques. "While we will seek to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists who seek to inflict mass harm on the American people, the president expects that we do so in a way that is consistent with our laws," McClellan said.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview with The Washington Post: "Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president, . . . the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.' "