Murder: 90 days in jail

I am not trying to justify it. I do not believe it can be justified. That's why I didn't try to.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. [..]

Some of the mistreatment was quite obvious, the file suggests. Senior officers frequently toured the detention centre, and several of them acknowledged seeing prisoners chained up for punishment [..]

The peroneal strike - a potentially disabling blow to the side of the leg, just above the knee - quickly became a basic weapon of their arsenal. They said they were never told it was not part of army doctrine.

The investigation shows the military intelligence officers in charge of the detention centre at Bagram airport were redeployed to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003, while still under investigation for the deaths of two detainees months earlier.

The Afghan Human Rights Commission has received more than 130 reports of torture and other abuses in the past 18 months, said its deputy chairman, Ahmad Fahim Hakim. Despite numerous requests, its officials have never been allowed in.

[..] It is not just Afghans. According to other reports, the CIA has secretly flown detainees to Bagram from western countries to circumvent human rights laws.

I would hesitate to say, without having the details in front of me. Catchy title, though.

In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that "no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have "provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled."

Three senior Republican senators wrote a small amendment into the Defense Appropriations bill this summer that outlaws cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of all detainees in American custody.

No one can call Sens. John Warner, R-Va., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., soft on anything, much less terrorism. They constitute the Republican leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee. [..]

The Bush White House is doing all that it can to stop this legislation from passing. Vice President Dick Cheney took the three senators to the wood shed and told them that their law would tie President Bush's hands in the war against terrorism. [..]

On the floor of the Senate, before everyone left on vacation, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., sounded the administration line: There is no need for this legislation because we are not dealing with prisoners of war but "terrorists."

John McCain stood up and responded that the debate was not "about who they are. It's about who we are." We are Americans, the senator said, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who slaughter the innocent in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in London or on 9/11 here at home.

A few days ago the former warden of Abu Ghraib prison was offering testimony in the case of two of those low-level American military guards accused of using military dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. Maj. David DiNenna testified that this illegal use of dogs was suggested by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then-commander of Guantanamo, who was sent to Iraq in August 2003 on an urgent mission to review and revise prisoner interrogation methods there.

In sworn testimony before Congress on May 19, 2004, Miller denied that he had ever recommended the use of dogs for interrogation at Abu Ghraib, or that they were ever used at Guantanamo. Army investigators last month reported that in fact while Gen. Miller commanded at Gitmo, an al-Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was faced with snarling military dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head, and was led around by a dog leash attached to his chains. Sound familiar?

[..] And lest it escape anyone's notice: Miller was not acting on his own initiative. The investigators found that the interrogation of Qahtani was conducted under rules approved by Secretary of Defense Donald L. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002.

Under protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standard was revised in the spring of 2003. Yet the same practices would later be used at Abu Ghraib.

That is exactly what I meant. I thought you would pick up on it.

Debra, who is exactly that we are bullying? Ruthless dictators? Terrorist groups? Rogue nations?

Is the spread of democracy considered bullying now? Is helping people find their voice for freedom bullying? Is threatening regimes with histories of human rights abuse and supporting terrorism bullying?

You are right. I DON'T CARE how THOSE people see us. I HOPE they ARE afraid of us. IF some people in the already free nations of this world don't like what we are doing and want to consider us the enemy, well TS for us, right?

"What the hell are we doing? Are we fighting terrorism or becoming terrorists? "

Yeh, that's the question, isn't it?

Thanks, MA. If it was confusing, maybe I should put it another way, and hope for the best.

One or two such incidents could be the individual acts of a a few sadists. Such people exist. With an increasing number of similar incidents, one begins to suspect some sort of at least implied approval, not only from senior personal, but from peers. Now, unlike some people, I believe the certainty of serious punishment is a real deterrant. I do not believe a 90 day sentence is serious punishment. In the absence of such punishment, instances of all forms of torture are going to increase. Such is my belief.

Merry Andrew wrote:

"What the hell are we doing? Are we fighting terrorism or becoming terrorists? "

Yeh, that's the question, isn't it?

Becoming terrorists!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/01/1048962731737.html?oneclick=true

US Marines moved into the southern Iraqi town of Shatrah today to recover the body of a dead comrade which had been hanged in the town square, officers said.

Hundreds of troops were dispatched on the operation after intelligence reports indicated the body of a dead American, who was killed in a firefight last week, had been paraded through the streets and hanged in public.

"We would like to retrieve the body of the marine but it is not our sole purpose," said Lieutenant-Colonel Pete Owen, of the First Marine Expeditionary Force.

Military sources said another part of the operation was to arm local militias to fight against members of the ruling Baath party loyal to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Shatrah is some 40 km north of Nasiriyah, where Iraqi forces have been harassing US supply lines and putting up tough resistance for more than a week.


- AFP

Yea...we're the bad guys and we deserve this.

We demand that the enemy comply with the Geneva Convention with respect to treatment of our captured soldiers--and at the same time--we claim the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to our treatment of people we take captive

Debra Law said

Quote:

We demand that the enemy comply with the Geneva Convention with respect to treatment of our captured soldiers--and at the same time--we claim the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to our treatment of people we take captive

.

Actually,if you take the time to actually READ the Geneva Convention,you will see that insurgents,guerilla's,and "freedom fighters" are NOT protected by the GC.
The GC is quite specific about who is protected and who is not protecte4d by it.
The insurgents or guerilla's are NOT covered.