2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:21 am
Quote:
Washington Post

Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantanamo
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 14, 2005; A01



Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

Military investigators who briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday on the three-month probe, called the tactics "creative" and "aggressive" but said they did not cross the line into torture.

The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

A central figure in the investigation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib, was accused of failing to properly supervise Qahtani's interrogation plan and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses so far, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the U.S. Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib's startup, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo Bay interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.

Miller declined to respond to questions posed through a Defense Department liaison. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said it is not appropriate to link the interrogation of Qahtani -- an important al Qaeda operative captured shortly after the terrorist attacks -- and events at Abu Ghraib. Whitman said interrogation tactics in the Army's field manual are the same worldwide but MPs at Abu Ghraib were not authorized to apply them, regardless of how they learned about them.

Some of the Abu Ghraib soldiers have said they were following the directions of military intelligence officials to soften up detainees for interrogation, in part by depriving them of sleep. Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr., characterized as the ringleader of the MP group, was found guilty of abusing detainees and is serving 10 years in prison. Others have pleaded guilty and received lesser sentences.

The photos that caused alarm around the world included some showing the MPs sexually humiliating the detainees.

While Rumsfeld approved a list of 16 harsh techniques for use at Guantanamo on Dec. 2, 2002, most of the techniques were general and allowed for interpretation by interrogators. Many of the techniques involving humiliation were part of a standard "futility" or "ego down" approach.

"Reasonable people always suspected these techniques weren't invented in the backwoods of West Virginia," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. "It's never been more clear than in this investigation."

Also yesterday, a federal district judge in Washington issued a ruling in which he declined to stop the interrogation of a young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay who has alleged that he was tortured. The detainee said in court filings that he was "short-shackled" to the floor, threatened with sexual abuse and physically mistreated.

The 18-year-old detainee, identified as "O.K.," was arrested after a gunfight in Afghanistan in July 2002, when he was 15. He had asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop what he called abusive interrogation tactics.

The investigation at Guantanamo Bay looked into 26 allegations by FBI personnel that military interrogators had mistreated detainees. It found that almost all the tactics were "authorized" interrogation methods and by definition were not abusive.

Investigators found only three instances of substantiated abuse, including short-shackling detainees to the floor in awkward positions, the use of duct tape to keep a detainee quiet, and a threat by military interrogators to kill a detainee and his family.

In the case of Qahtani, who endured weeks of sleep deprivation and many of the harshest techniques, Lt. Gen. Mark Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow found that the cumulative effect of those tactics "resulted in degrading and abusive treatment" but stopped short of torture. Military commanders have said the techniques prompted Qahtani to talk.

The military achieved "solid intelligence gains," by interrogating Qahtani, Craddock said yesterday, and other military officials have said he revealed details on how the terrorist network operates.

The Schmidt-Furlow investigation is the last of about a dozen major Pentagon probes into abuse over the past 15 months.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib included military police taking photos of themselves mimicking the tactics used at Guantanamo Bay. Several photographs taken in late 2003 at the prison outside Baghdad show detainees wearing women's underwear on their heads, detainees shackled to their cell doors or beds in awkward positions, and naked detainees standing before female soldiers. Perhaps the most famous image is of Pfc. Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a detainee's neck.

Qahtani, according to the investigative report, was once attached to a leash and made to walk around the room and "perform a series of dog tricks." The report also notes the use of "gender coercion," in which women straddle a detainee or get too close to them, violating prohibitions for devout Muslim men on contact with women. Interrogators also threatened to tell other detainees that an individual is gay, according to the report. Detainees at Abu Ghraib were posed in mock homosexual positions and photographed.

"There are some striking similarities between the actions at Guantanamo and what occurred at Abu Ghraib," said Capt. Jonathan Crisp, England's military defense attorney. "I feel that warrants further investigation."

Committee Democrats appeared upset that Miller was not held accountable for abuses at Guantanamo Bay, and criticized the investigation for failing to examine the legality of administration and military policy on interrogations. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said no senior leader has taken responsibility for detention problems.

Some Republicans, however, said the alleged abuses occurred in just a small fraction of cases. They noted that there have been 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and highlighted recent improvements at the facility. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) called the Guantanamo abuse relatively "minor incidents" that should not be a matter of national interest.


A recap:

Tactics used in Gitmo far before they were in AG.

Tactics approved by Donald Rumsfeld.

Soldiers believed that they were using approved tactics.

And this whole paragraph

Quote:
Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib's startup, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo Bay interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.


How can there be any doubt any longer that what happened in AG was not the work of a few individuals, but exactly what was intended to happen?

<sad day>

Cycloptichorn
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:23 am
Well, practice makes perfect.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:29 am
I see the recent event, featured on the front page of CNN yesterday, about the children blown up by insurgents while receiving candy from US soldiers doesn't interest you much compared to the Abu Ghraib issue.

<Cyclops's all too predictable response: Yes, the insurgents may be putting firecrackers in babies' mouths and poisoning the milk at orphanages, but I can't control what the other side does, and it doesn't justify the abuses by my country.>
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:34 am
While that is true, the deaths of children are always a sad reminder of the true cost of this war, no matter which side of the rhetorical argument you are on.

I don't wish to discuss that in this thread; if there is another thread for this subject we can discuss it there if you like. I have some interesting ideas about the use of candy as a defense tactic.

--


I hadn't seen this article posted so thought I would. Though you can try to change the subject, I believe it deserves discussion and will continue to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:38 am
"I believe it deserves discussion and will continue to do so. "

Why??
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:47 am
I'm glad you asked.

We have a serious problem with telling the truth here in America. And people don't even seem to realize how pervasive the lies are.

Just as an opener,

We were told over and over that the AG abuses were the work of the lowest-level troops, and noone else. This has now been exposed as a lie.

Shouldn't there be reprecussions? If I lied to my employer (in this case, YOU personally were LIED to) then I would expect to be fired. Why should it be different in this case?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:56 am
The more children that are killed by insurgents, the more subways that are bombed the less and less I am going to care about so called abuses of these Islamic extremists.

Today, I do not care at all with how we treat them. There are numerous reports of how well they are fed, clothed, even bath. They eat better than our troops.

With the recent dispicable actions, maybe today is not the correct day to talk about this.

I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but IMO, today is not the day for me to care one little bit about them.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:12 am
It's odd that a thread with this title wouold feature an article full of lies.

For Example: "The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld".

Rumsfeld approved a list of 16 specific techniques. None of them allowed for the types of abuse seen in the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

That document can be found here.

I doubt you will find where Rumsfeld approved of making human pyramids or placing panties on a prisoners head.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:15 am
You see, in order to understand things, you actually have to RTFA, McG.

Quote:
The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.


A 'special interrogation plan.' Which means a plan that goes beyond the NORMAL interrogation plan. The article alleges that Rumsfeld approved of this 'special interrogation plan.'

So sorry, that wasn't a lie. But try again. I really hope you keep trying.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:18 am
Oh, right, I forgot. You are so full of righteous indignation that you can't actually discuss the article you posted. Instead you just want to rant about how much you support our troops and how patriotic you are by posting articles like this one.

Rant away.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:23 am
You may note that in my last post, I quoted the original article that I posted. That is generally known as 'discussing the article.' You made an incorrect post based upon an incomplete reading of the article. I corrected you. This is generally known as 'discussing the article.'

You may also note that I didn't mention the words Troops, Patriotism, or myself personally.

All I did was point out that you were incorrect you were in saying that the article is 'full of lies.'

What other 'lies' are in the article?

Do YOU wish to actually discuss the article, McG? I doubt it.

If you don't, then leave the thread.

Cycloptichorn
thethinkfactory
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:28 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I see the recent event, featured on the front page of CNN yesterday, about the children blown up by insurgents while receiving candy from US soldiers doesn't interest you much compared to the Abu Ghraib issue.



Tit for tat makes it right.

I think this partially answers my question to you - what are you willing to give up for 'security'.

Answer: The torture of uncharged and unrepresented people as long as they are not you or anyone you know.

How do you sleep?

TTF
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:30 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I see the recent event, featured on the front page of CNN yesterday, about the children blown up by insurgents while receiving candy from US soldiers doesn't interest you much compared to the Abu Ghraib issue.

Quote:


Tit for tat makes it right.

I think this partially answers my question to you - what are you willing to give up for 'security'.

Answer: The torture of uncharged and unrepresented people as long as they are not you or anyone you know.

How do you sleep?

TTF

Quite well, in between my sessions of torturing widows and orphans.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:23 am
What a thing to joke about.

You have moved down the scale from merely repugnant to completely morally bankrupt, Brandon.

Perhaps you should sign up for the armed forces; I hear they are looking for a few good men these days who feel the way you do about things.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:35 am
Interesting thread albeit not novel as torture is pervasive and we need to be constantly vigilant about it.

Case at point: the Bush administration was vociferous in attacking the rhetoric of the recent Amnesty International report dealing with homemade American torture. Yet it never addressed the issues of the report. It in fact never denied it's content.

And it's content is quite explicit:

(excerpts)

Quote:
On 22 June, after the leaking of earlier government documents relating to the "war on terror" suggesting that torture and ill-treatment had been envisaged, the administration took the step of declassifying selected documents to "set the record straight". However, the released documents showed that the administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture and that the President had stated in a central policy memorandum dated 7 February 2002 that, although the USA's values "call for us to treat detainees humanely", there are some "who are not legally entitled to such treatment". The documents discussed, among other things, ways in which US agents could avoid the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including by arguing that the President could override international and national laws prohibiting such treatment. These and other documents also indicated that President Bush's decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees captured in Afghanistan followed advice from his legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, that this would free up US interrogators in the "war on terror" and make future prosecutions of US agents for war crimes less likely. Following the presidential elections in November, President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales to the post of Attorney General in his new administration.

On 30 December, shortly before Alberto Gonzales' nomination hearings in the Senate, the Justice Department replaced one of its most controversial memorandums on torture, dated August 2002. Although the new memorandum was an improvement on its predecessor, much of the original version lived on in a Pentagon Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism, dated 4 April 2003, which remained operational at the end of the year.

A February report by the ICRC on abuses by Coalition forces in Iraq, which in some cases were judged to be "tantamount to torture", was also leaked as was the report of an investigation by US Army Major General Antonio Taguba. The Taguba report had found "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" against detainees in Abu Ghraib prison between October and December 2003. It had also found that US agents in Abu Ghraib had hidden a number of detainees from the ICRC, referred to as "ghost detainees". It was later revealed that one of these detainees had died in custody, one of several such deaths that were revealed during the year where torture or ill-treatment was thought to be a contributory factor.

During the year, the authorities initiated various criminal investigations and prosecutions against individual soldiers as well as investigations and reviews into interrogation and detention policies and practices. The investigations found that there had been "approximately 300 recorded cases of alleged abuse in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq." On 9 September, Major Paul Kern, who oversaw one of the military investigations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there may have been as many as 100 cases of "ghost detainees" in US custody in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted to having authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to keep at least one detainee off any prison register.

However, there was concern that most of the investigations consisted of the military investigating itself, and did not have the power to carry the investigation into the highest levels of government. The activities of the CIA in Iraq and elsewhere, for example, remained largely shrouded in secrecy. No investigation dealt with the USA's alleged involvement in secret transfers between countries and any torture or ill-treatment that may have ensued. Many documents remained classified. AI called for a full commission of inquiry into all aspects of the USA's "war on terror" and interrogation and detention policies and practices.

During the year, released detainees alleged that they had been tortured or ill-treated while in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo. Evidence also emerged that others, including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and the ICRC, had found that such abuses had been committed against detainees.


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

When a nation such as America lowers its standards in human rights it encourages other nation in their own treatment of people. Furthermore, many of the American techniques are in such countries such as Israel deemed torture and illegal by their Supreme Court.

To think that the torture acts and ill treatment of detainees is only but the work of few low level operatives or military is turning a blind eye to accountancy. It's a copout that serves the brass.

America uses torture often, either directly or outsourced. Yet it denies it at every turn. No wonder it won't have any part in the ICC (International Criminal Court). It has proven time and time again that the end justifies the means.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:42 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm glad you asked.

We have a serious problem with telling the truth here in America. And people don't even seem to realize how pervasive the lies are.


Ah..yes........I see you have been reading the trash printed by the NYTimes and listening to Ted Kennedy anytime he opens his mouth.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:50 am
pngirouard wrote:

Quote:
When a nation such as America lowers its standards in human rights it encourages other nation in their own treatment of people.


Really? Any proof?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 11:56 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I see the recent event, featured on the front page of CNN yesterday, about the children blown up by insurgents while receiving candy from US soldiers doesn't interest you much compared to the Abu Ghraib issue.


so Brandon, i take it you're not of the opinion that the media hurts the moral of troops by reporting too much negative news on Iraq? several conservatives have argued just that in other threads. or is this story about the children an exception, because they were receiving candy?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:29 pm
Rayban:

Typical response from a Republican. Instead of actually trying to defend, you go on the attack against a different target.

X:

Yes, the proof is in the fact that we have determined that it is acceptable to abuse and torture certain people. Once that line has been crossed, it is difficult to return to the most basic idea in our constitution: that all men are created equal.

If all men are created equal, then all standards of humanity apply equally to all humans. Even if someone does something wrong, that does not give you justification for also doing wrong. Therefore it is wrong to Abuse, Torture, and Murder someone (all of which have been done by the US) even if they are a Murderer themselves.

By trying to sweep the problems under the rug we are tacitly approving of abuse, torture, and murder. Since we are all equally responsible for the things that are done in our nations name, then those who deny that this is a problem are approving of abuse, torture, and murder, and also denying the basic claim of our Constitution and acting in a most UnAmerican manner.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:32 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Rayban:

Typical response from a Republican. Instead of actually trying to defend, you go on the attack against a different target.

X:

Yes, the proof is in the fact that we have determined that it is acceptable to abuse and torture certain people. Once that line has been crossed, it is difficult to return to the most basic idea in our constitution: that all men are created equal.

If all men are created equal, then all standards of humanity apply equally to all humans. Even if someone does something wrong, that does not give you justification for also doing wrong. Therefore it is wrong to Abuse, Torture, and Murder someone (all of which have been done by the US) even if they are a Murderer themselves.

By trying to sweep the problems under the rug we are tacitly approving of abuse, torture, and murder. Since we are all equally responsible for the things that are done in our nations name, then those who deny that this is a problem are approving of abuse, torture, and murder, and also denying the basic claim of our Constitution and acting in a most UnAmerican manner.

Cycloptichorn


That isn't proof, it's conjecture.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sigh, more lies about abuses
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/18/2019 at 11:58:09