 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 6, 2005 Thou Shalt Not...By GreyhawkMuch will be written about the Senate's passage of a measure codifying standards for the treatment of detainees by the US military. (For a news report on the topic, see the Washington Post story here. For blog coverage see Instapundit here.) Before this story becomes inevitably convoluted (or "FUBAR", as we say in the military) I thought I'd present a few facts, sans opinion on the issue. As I've noted before on other topics, public discourse should start with an informed public. The measure was passed as an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act (S.Amdt. 1977 to H.R. 2863 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 )). You can read the text of the amendment here. Or here: SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:Regarding "No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." - the referenced document is Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation. You can view a pdf file here, of an html version here. A brief excerpt: PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCEInteresting that in responding to claims that the Army has failed to provide guidance to soldiers the Senate has endorsed the published Army guidance to soldiers as the definitive response. In other early media coverage, both the AP and Knight-Ridder have defined the measure as "a rebuke to the White House." A DoD note on variation from FM 34-52 here. Explicit departures were authorized here. Beatings and other severe punishments were never authorized. Posted by Greyhawk / October 6, 2005 12:11 PM | Permalink 10 TrackBacksSenator John McCain (Third from left) explains his stand on Detainee Amendments MORE HERE... Read More Investigators searching for missing VCU student Taylor Marie Behl have found a body. [WUSA9] FEMA's Next Crisis: Katrina's Homeless - [WSJ] Espionage case suggests White House security problems - [ABC] The US Senate passed a measure as part of Defense... Read More Mudville Gazette has an excellent reason why this is a silly idea: Interesting that in responding to claims that the Army has failed to provide guidance to soldiers the Senate has endorsed the published Army guidance to soldiers as the definitive ... Read More The McCain ammendment, explicitly barring torture anywhere in the world by any US soldier, just passed 90-9 in the Senate against the threat of a Bush veto. Below is a statement by McCain and another by Colin Powell. If only McCain had one that primary... Read More I'm gonna preface this by noting that I have no idea what is the exact definition of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' and am not familiar with current guidelines on the treatment of prisoners in US custody. The US Senate has passed... Read More We are the guys in the White Hats. Americans purposely choose to live in a risky experiment called a democracy, rather than running a nice efficient and secure tyranny. Read More
I got distracted and forgot to post that Carnival of Vanities is up! American politicians have a knack for creating new laws (rules) as if we paid them by the statute. Most of our politicians are educated people, so I have never understood why they think the rule breakers will abide by the Read More Like Mudville Gazette has stated, the military already has regulations and a code of conduct when dealing with prisoners. It's called Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation. Read More It is not an accident that the Senate finds in the military the chiefest defenders of the Conventions. The military is not the only organization that engages in interrogations in serious matters. However, it has something not present at the CIA or FB... Read More 45 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
What a terrible idea. Now the anti-American nutjobs at the ACLU and elsewhere have another club to beat on us with in their efforts to undermine the war and make Americans less safe. Ick. No wonder the administration is resisting. Though frankly I wish they had the balls to state flatly that the scum we're fighting by virtue of not wearing uniforms nor fighting for any actual government could quite legally be shot dead on capture anyway. Ugh.
Two points:
Instead of looking at the terrorists/insurgents to justify torture, beating, etc. why don't we look at ourselves to realize why that isn't what we,as a nation, stand for.
Second, if torture doesn't produce reliable intel, does damage to our message of a society based upon freedoms and laws, and (I would argue) harms the soldiers that participate in it, then why do it? Why not come out and say these things will not be tolerated.
One thing I keep hearing over and over is that soldiers aren't clear what is expected of them in this regard. Isn't it time to make it clear, at least for their sakes.
This is a politicians way to make an issue go away.
Q What about detainee abuse?
A We passed a new law
Q Isn't it the same as existing rules
A We passed a new law
Q What changed
A We passed a new law
Being taken prisoner is a cruel and degrading thing. Why take prisoners?
If you support the Geneva Conventions as a treaty that was meant to make war and combat more civil, rather than as a weapon to bludgeon the US, then you would obviously not extend the treaty to cover people that violate every single tenet of that treaty. It is extremely disingenous and undermines the Conventions. Regardless of how the "detainees" are treated the Geneva Conventions shouldn't even be a part of the discussion until:
A. The terrorists name their patron state.
B. They wear uniforms of that military and honorably seperate themselves from civilians.
C. Seek to avoid unnecessarily killing said civilians.
The Geneva Conventions were explicitly written to decrease civilian casualties.
As for what our nation stands for this is a much more important issue than the Geneva Conventions which are only being applied to one side. This is a long discussion which nobody politically seems interested in having. This is probably because of the atmosphere created by a biased media machine and a leftist movement that hates this country.
I am a firm believer in responsibility. The scum that people want to protect with the Geneva Conventions need to be held responsible for the way they operate. Islam and Muslims in general need to be held responsible for the tacit support of these scum. That doesn't mean being treated as well as they are being treated in our detention facilities.
In the end the discussion is between doing everything you can and need to do to win and being nice. The right thing falls somewhere in the middle of those. In Iraq, is your priority winning, preserving a newborn level of freedom? or is it international goodwill and due process for all? Tough call but we need to have that discussion in a less partisan atmosphere, and that is up to the press and the Bush haters.
Whats even more interesting is that many members of the military seem to be the Administration most fierce critics.- Even at the cost of their careers.
In a real sense the movement toward this legislation has been brought forward and pushed by veterans, and active duty members of the military. It's something to be proud of, as are such things as the memos I reference below by JAG officers protesting the changes in "torture" policy undertaken by this Administration.
The legislation is not a slap or criticism of the military. It is instead the affirmation of it's values of honor, dignity, decency.
The civilian leadership at the Pentagon and in the White house has let the military down. But if you want to say it's just another tirade against Bush, fine. But I think its extremely difficult to make that case with a 90-9 vote in the Senate.
It does challenge the President, but only because he has threatened to cast the first veto of his presidency over this. And I find that of all things that he could have vetoed, that this is a curious line for him to draw in the sand.
I am loathe to admit this and will type this through gritted teeth, but I'm grateful to Senate for taking a stand. The Congress is for once actually exercising true moral leadership. The conscientious hard road instead of the easy one of moral convenience. Remember this moment, as it's unlikely to occur again in your lifetime.
This is the link I meant to give in the previous post.
Yes, its from the ACLU. But they are links to actual Military and FBI documents and reports, not anything created by the ACLU.
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=torturefoia
I'm so happy that the Senate has nothing else to do but come up with more convoluted laws to protect terrorists and filthy murderers. This word goes especially to McCain who gave us the wonderful McCain-Feingold Election Clusterbomb. Does McCain have nothing else to do? Why doesn't he go back to concentrate on baseball and roids. That's real important too. Blech.
Does this mean that FM 22-102 (Wall-to-Wall Counseling) is an approved set of "interrogation techniques"?
Why take prisoners? These scumbags want to die anyhow. Killing them on the spot reduces the waste of oxygen and yields a cleaner gene pool.
Not to worry.
Our plan is to train the locals where ever we go.
It is up to them how they wish to treat those they detain. I have heard reports from Iraq that harsh measures are being used. Even against innocents.
The truth of those reports? Well who knows. It is something to keep an eye on.
I say we let Martha Stewart work them over.
Once we decide if crescents are a good symbol to carve in an outhouse.
Yeah, Brent Michael Krupp, Sen. John McCain hates America. Or maybe, having been on the receiving end of torture himself, he thinks this is something the United States shouldn't be doing. Imagine that.
I suspect the politburo at Fox News will climb on board the bandwagon, and soon this blog will be filled with postings supporting the prohibition on torture.
How nice, Wilson Kolb thinks that the United States is just like Communist North Vietnam and US military personnel are just like terrorists! Great analogy!!
FWIW, I don't think he hates America (nor did I say or imply it -- reading comprehension is your friend), but I do think he only loves himself and will grandstand on any issue if it gets the liberal press fawning over him, no matter the effect on his alleged party or the country.
"The...exposure to unpleasant...treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government."
GWOT? What war? WE GIVE UP!
Very nice. Very nice.
Could you then tell me what do you think about the US law which tells that only US courts are legal to judge American soldiers charged with accusation of war crime? Miloshevic is in International justice court of United Nations in Haag, you know. But I guess I will be satisfied when Bush goes to jail for couple of decades when the legal system of Uncle Sam starts to work.
"As for what our nation stands for this is a much more important issue than the Geneva Conventions which are only being applied to one side. This is a long discussion which nobody politically seems interested in having. This is probably because of the atmosphere created by a biased media machine and a leftist movement that hates this country."
Colin
Hey Colin, you will be Bush's cellmate. You can talk your rubbish to him as he tells us all his all the time.
I want to have discussion why are liberal democracies standing for right now. Surely you are not afraid of me?
Again, I ask a question nobody dares to answer, including Westpoint diploma owners and University of Justice diploma owners.
Can you icecreams give me the correct legal term in military rhetoric, definition, ethic and philosophy what is happening in Iraq? It's not war. War needs to be declared to the country through diplomatic process. Without war, there is no occupation- which is control of the territory of the enemy state. Iraq and USA are not enemies, not in diplomatic way and the way Blair says, Iraq loves NATO soldiers.
And here we are talking about war in Iraq and occupation.
Until you give me the term, I will tell you the conclusion. The US troops stationed in Iraq can be legally defined as terrorists. If you are astonished, give me the legal and common sense breaking of the link that these troops have right to be there as much as Chechenian terrorists were in that school few years ago.
What's happening in Iraq isn't that complicated Sinke, the coalition, a group comprised of Iraqi and American soldiers and smaller contingents of troops from other allies, are fighting a battle against al Qaeda terrorists and former regime loyalists who seek to destroy any hope of a future Iraq has. These terrorists' tactics include car bombing children, beheading international aid workers, and assassinating government officials. A free, strong, and secure Iraq is their worst nightmare, and the inevitable result of our victory there.
Man, Greyhawk. I thought we attacked them because we had hundreds of photographs of their 70 meter nuclear rockets. You need to be a special kind of icecream not to find 70 meters of weapon of mass destruction in the country where 700 tons of weapon of mass destruction actually has left tracks in sand where it was driving. People were not talking about terrorism when they were preparing the mentality of American nation for the war. If this is not true, give me the concrete proof which was given that Saddam is behind terrorism in US.
There were thoughts about just invasion of Iraq before it happened. These thoughts said that Saddam is not behind 11/9 and that people who claim he has are not people who should be listened to when they give their opinions of invasion.
Mr. Greyhawk, you seem like a reasonable man. I am very sorry for my rhetoric but since I can't cope with the fact that millions of pages of US laws are not and were not citated when the invasion happened, I am taking my free speach and freedom.
And I must reply, you didn't gave me the correct answer. If coalition forces invaded Iraq, somebody should have given US the proofs that this regime is supporting terrorist organizations. This was not done. And there is a reason for it. There was no proof. Because of that, we told people that nuclear weapons were there.
My question is this: from the official literature of students in Westpoint- give me the definiton of the situation where one nation's army occupies the whole country without legal declarations which would contextualise their efforts.
As for strong Iraq for Iraq people given by America, remember when on 9/11 we had people in arab countries celebrating horrible deaths in New York? I think you do, and I think you know my point.
We can't win war in Iraq. The United States of America lost the war in Iraq the moment we started invasion on that country. We lost the war because we still today don't know what are we doing there. All the letters of the American law not only don't support our soldiers and our president, but they openly and directly tell against our actions.
And the most tragic casulty of this war is democracy.
Not the Iraq democracy.
America's.
"our president"? Surely not. Not yours, at any rate. When exactly did you become a US citizen, Sinke?
Because I missed that part...You know, the part about your being a citizen of this republic?...the one that elected "our president"? Hmmmm?
That...that was the part I missed, the part about your status as a United States citizen... that would allow you to accurately opine about "our president"
?
Yeah. Bush is not my president.
Thank God!
Since I live in country under great influence of Bush, I can aswell call him my president.
The problem is, he is your president.
What are you going to do about it?
"without legal declarations which would contextualise their efforts"
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf
Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
FWIW, I'm probably a lot more disturbed by the torture/abuse/whatever you want to call it than most of this site's readers. But I try to see the forest for the trees.
Knemon, it is not "torture/abuse/whatever." It is torture, plain and simple, and it is not a series of isolated incidents but the result of an explicit policy that authorized and ordered it.
Brent Michael Krupp, there is no need for you to lie about what I have written or about what I think. I do not think, nor have I ever said or implied, that "the United States is just like Communist North Vietnam and US military personnel are just like terrorists."
North Korea is one of the most, and possibly the most, odious regime on the planet. It is under the sway of a lunatic; it operates concentration camps no different than Stalin's; thousands of its citizens are confined underground and enslaved there; it has refused food shipments at a time when its people are starving.
I have explicitly rejected the argument made on this website by Sinke, a lunatic, that U.S. military personnel are "like terrorists." Some members of our military have become torturers as the result of orders and policies promulgated by Donald Rumsfeld and transmitted by senior military offiers.
They, and the commander in chief, should be tried for war crimes under the principles set at Nuremburg in 1946.
It is terribly sad that George W. Bush and his senior leadership have chosen to betray their country's principles. I think it's a matter of treason. And it is sad that you, Mr. Krupp, hate everything that America ever stood for in the world.
"It is torture, plain and simple"
The Abu Ghraib stuff, yeah. The loud music, stress positions, etc., nah. Or rather, I don't know.
[American guards and interrogators were accused of similar actions at Nuremberg itself, oddly enough. Joseph McCarthy exploited the issue in his (mercifully brief) rise to the top of the political heap.]
"it is not a series of isolated incidents but the result of an explicit policy that authorized and ordered it"
That's quite a bombshell. Back it up with some actual proof and you'll make Hirsh look like a piker.
The stress positions, noise, sleep deprivation, nakedness, withholding of rations, uncomfortable temperatures, use of dogs, etc., were straight out of Stalin's playbook. If you don't think those were torture, then there's not a lot to talk about. The very same things are detailed in Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago."
Before we go on to discuss the orders that set it all into motion, we should decide the issue of what constitutes torture. Proving that there were orders to implement it is duck soup. But, see, there is a whole group of right-wingers who piously declare that they oppose torture but in fact approve of it under other names.
You think you're being clever, but in fact what you're doing is par for the course throughout history. There are relatively few governments or organizations that have explicitly declared that they use or approve of torture. If that's the proof you're looking for, you're engaging in the most transparent of Republican dodges.
"The stress positions, noise, sleep deprivation, nakedness, withholding of rations, uncomfortable temperatures, use of dogs, etc., were straight out of Stalin's playbook. If you don't think those were torture, then there's not a lot to talk about."
"Torture", OED:
The infliction of severe bodily pain as punishment or a means of persuasion
"Stress positions" arguably fits that defintion. Depending on just how "uncomfortable" the temperature is, that might as well.
I don't think I'm being clever. I'm aware of the troubling parallels. I've read the GULAG Archipelago, The Great Terror, histories of the SS, etc.
As I said in my first post: this troubles me more than a lot of other people around here. If the conclusions I draw are different from yours, or if I'm not sure what conclusions to draw - I suppose that makes you a better person than me. Congratulations.
"The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law"
Things you can no longer say to a prisoner you are interrogating if this passes, by my interpretation:
"Why did you kill those children, you bastard?" (insult)
"If you don't tell us where you've hidden the bodies of the people you beheaded we'll throw you in jail" (threat)
"Tell us where you hid the bomb-making material or we'll take away your chair and make you stand up" (unpleasant treatment)
"Who else is in your terrorist cell? *grabs shirt*" (use of force)
"Tell us where the hostages are or you'll go to hell, you infidel! You're no Muslim, you scum!" (mental torture?)
Is it just me, or are these all things that police are authorised to do in free countries all over the world? Isn't it the basis of interrogation? How do you get someone to give you information if you can't insult them, threaten them or make them even slightly uncomfortable?
If it said "no torture", I would be OK with that. I don't want to see anyone getting electrocuted or thumbscrewed or whipped or anything like that. But that's not what this is banning. This is banning interrogation!
Why is that acceptable and being defended?
Because many people are afraid of the slippery slope. I'm afraid of it too. "Wilson Kolb" has a point - though it'd be nice if he expressed it in tones slightly less smug.
"Exposure to unpleasant treatment" is pretty broad. Being locked up is unpleasant in itself.
If there's a middle position between thinking McCain is a traitor and thinking Bush and Rumsfeld are war criminals - that's where I'd like to be.
Look, children, I divide you into two groups. One of you is a group of unrepentant fascists, and the other is a group of good Germans desperately searching for an excuse. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. Torture is wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it and what they call it.
Lying about what constitutes torture is part of the ritual. In some cases it provides a fig leaf for the torturer. In others it actually worsens the effect of the torture by connecting horror with everyday imagery. In any case, it's a descent into savagery, and anyone who advocates that this country do it or denies or minimizes it is just as guilty at the perpetrators.
But the most guilt is borne by those who ordered it, or who transmitted the orders, or who failed to use their power and position to stop it. That's why in a just world, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the senior military leadership of this country would be on trial for war crimes.
------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f2
Excerpt:
"People never talk about what is really going on, but use euphemisms for their crimes and nicknames for themselves and they don't call torture or killing instruments by their real names. All of this is to conceal the truth from others and from themselves. They convince themselves that their victims are doomed anyway. The victims are no longer seen as human beings. They are dehumanized, insulted, treated as beasts ..."
-------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f6
Excerpt:
According to investigators, the interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it.
They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog. He was kept in solitary confinement for 160 days, and interrogations for 18 to 20 hours a day, for 48 out of 54 days.
Schmidt's investigation concluded that was not torture, which involves inflicting physical pain or withholding food, water or medical care, none of which took place, he said. All of the techniques that were used were authorized by the Pentagon.
---------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f8
Excerpt:
One of the virtues, if you can call it that, of the Abu Ghraib scandal is that we've been offered a window into the realm of government decision-making having to do with interrogation and torture. And so we enter this -- one has to call it Orwellian, to use a much overused word -- realm of euphemism in which keeping somebody awake for 72 hours, or making them stand on a box and telling them they'll be electrocuted if they move, or handcuffing them high up on a cell door so that they lose all feeling in their arms, are somehow "sleep adjustment." You have this panoply of euphemism in which procedures that are painful, psychologically damaging, and physically debilitating are described in ways that suggest they are not harmful and they're simply "enhanced interrogation techniques." Some of the news media have adopted these euphemisms and refuse to call things what they are. It's a general harshening of the public perception and the public sensitivity to what should be an appreciation for human rights.
----------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f3
Excerpt:
Name: Removal of clothing; sexual humiliation
Source: CIA KUBARK manual; plan of instruction for various military schools
Description: Guards at Abu Ghraib used various kinds of sexual humiliation to break down detainees. According to the Taguba report, such acts included "photographing naked male and female detainees; forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions … ; forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed." Detainees were frequently paraded around Abu Ghraib without their clothing, often wearing hoods. An October 2003 visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross found a number of detainees held in solitary confinement who were naked.
At least one female interrogator sexually humiliated detainees on her own at Guantanamo, according to U.S. government reports and the statements of former detainees. After learning that one detainee was a devout Muslim, she stripped off pieces of her uniform and writhed on top of him. She also reached down into her pants and pulled her hands up covered with a reddish substance that she said was menstrual blood (but which was more likely paint). She then smeared it on the detainee.
Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Sexual degradation is a particularly effective tool for attacking the personalities of devout Muslims, because of their taboos concerning women and overt sexual behavior.
Locations Used: Iraq, Guantanamo Bay
Legal Opinion: Sexual humiliation tactics violate the Geneva Conventions. When the military learned of the female interrogator's actions at Guantanamo, it launched an investigation. Sexual pranks may also violate the UCMJ's criminal provisions relating to cruelty and maltreatment of detainees.
----------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f7
Excerpt:
Torture is the infliction of severe (Click link for more info and facts about physical) physical or (Click link for more info and facts about psychological pain) psychological pain as an expression of (A cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering) cruelty, a means of (The feeling of being intimidated; being made to feel afraid or timid) intimidation, deterrent or (The act of punishing) punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or ((Roman Catholic Church) the act of a penitent disclosing his sinfulness before a priest in the sacrament of penance in the hope of absolution) confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.
"Torture is wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it and what they call it."
Did our torture of Nazis at Nuremberg invalidate our larger mission?
Call me a child. Call me a Nazi. Call me a Stalinist. Watch me stop listening.
Your posting is the first I've ever heard of torture of Nazis at Nuremburg. You say that Joe McCarthy made the allegation? As I recall he made a bunch of other false allegations, too.
So, just to see who else has made such allegations I did a Google search. I found this allegation that Julius Streicher was tortured. Of course, it comes from the Journal of Historical Review. It is published by the Institute for Historical Review, which also denies that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred.
http://w3t.org/?u=6ff
Speaking of Nazis, in my research I found that in 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, argued against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel called the Geneva Conventions "obsolete." Sound familiar? U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg didn't buy it; they cited it as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946.
Oh, and here are some more allegations of the torture of Nazi defendants. They come from that estimate organization, "Jew Watch."
http://w3t.org/?u=6fj
Or maybe you prefer the version from Radio Islam?
http://w3t.org/?u=6fk
Mr. Greyhawk, you seem like a reasonable man. I am very sorry for my rhetoric but since I can't cope with the fact that millions of pages of US laws are not and were not citated when the invasion happened, I am taking my free speach and freedom.
-Sinke
Here you go-
A summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
And the relevant document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
The bit specifically authorizing the use of force is this-
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Sorry your local media failed to inform you of this, but the facts are that the invasion was entirely in accord with US law, and President Bush is in no danger of going to prison over this.
On this site I have not had a descent answer to my arguments, but these last few were the bottom of the worst trash I have ever had in my University career. I live in democracy, I study, and the only worst suckers then I am are the people who woke up in Iraq today in case this is the best what their legal protectors are giving me.
Would somebody please stop sending me Resolution 1483 or extracts from Force authorization and give me the legal name of the current occupation in military terms? I want military literature, not the R1483 which even today is mocked by University professors of United States of America. ( Where did I heard that.... I can't remember....was that in.....uhhhhhh..... )
As for this last Authorization, I gave it to my black friend who studies diplomacy. He kindly
(not like me, I would stuff your face with it) asks to dig up the official reply of the UN allowing the brute force.... or rather, allowing thousands of kids to become Bush's cannon fodder.... to Iraq. This paper is still somewhere lost, it appears.
Or you are saying that R1483 is that? You do? Well not, the R1483 is R1483 and the document needed for legal force is something with completely other "serial number" Ha ha ha hah ha ha ha, oh, man, I have to write this to my mentor in USA. HE will kill himself laughing. He already did when I post this blog to his mail. The only thing he can do is kill himself laughing since nobody listens intelectuals in US. Why should you? You have Bush to think for you!
American warriors,now I ask last time. I am little fed up with your chovinism and lack of any practical knowledge of situation in Iraq or even better- In United States of America. If you want to legalise your presence on Iraq soil, you will have to give me the copy of war declaration which was given to Iraq ambasador. After that, war declaration would have to be processed on the security council of the UN. If the council agrees to arguments, the action would be legalised and I would feel like marshmallow. Until then, you are considered as unknown force which destabilised the government and is still present at it's territory and will be until you retreat and proclaim victory or die all in bombing and proclaim victory. I can call you terrorist if I want. But that is not only that I want.
For the last time, I want you to proove me that you are not.
Sinke, I gave it to you. Resolution 1483. Here it is again:
"Until then, you are considered as unknown force which destabilised the government and is still present at it's territory"
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf
This resolution recognizes the "coalition of the willing" as the occupying authority of Iraq.
Mr. Korb,
Every single one of those items you quoted above, I have experienced as part of college pranks, besides having ice cubes shoved up my butt, and feces thrown on me, and women making fun of my male inadequacies. None of it qualifies as torture.
The only difference between what you claim our troops do as an institutionalized method, and what the Soviets did to their own people is the THREAT of bodily harm. No bodily harm came to any of our prisoners under legal detainment. Yes, there were detainees killed by our troops. No, it was not legal nor were the killings to go unpunished.
But torture REQUIRES bodily harm to occur. Breaking a leg or arm, putting out an eye, cutting off toes or fingers, mentally damaging a person so bad that they cannot function in normal society, a beating so bad it leaves physical marks unmistakeable from torture.
The threat of torture is not torture. And no amount of your rhetoric insisting it is so, can make it so. I respect that many opinions here disagree with this position. Until you hold your dead child's body in your hands, killed by a homicide bomber, or have suffered torture yourself at the hands of a totalitarian regime, I believe all of us are unqualified to judge the true nature of torture.
Therefore, I will support Sen. McCain in his effort to identify what is torture and repeat our prohibition against it as a country. But I will also note that the standard he has named is the standard in use today and has been in use since 1992 in its latest version and since WWII in its previous forms. And not once has that standard ever been abridged or repealed by this or any other administration.
Therefore, all complaints to the contrary seem to be nothing more than spin and posturing for publicity for one side's or the other's political agenda.
I know my troops. They don't torture people. And no amount of MSM or liberal bleating will EVER convince me that they deliberately set out to maim, kill, or destroy captives in their custody. And Americans who believe that, should be ashamed of themselves, and evaluate whether they truly understand what it is to be American.
Subsunk
Some college you went to.
If you actually experienced all of what's been described, not only are you one kinky Republican, but there's still a difference: You could have walked away at any time.
Torture does not require physical anguish. The infliction of mental anguish can be torture. This is recognized in American and international law.
By supporting torture, you have declared your hatred for this country and all it stands for. Any claim you might ever make for being patriotic is a joke. There aren't a lot of things that would cause me to say that, but torture is one of the places where I draw the line. And yes, it's just my opinion. But it is my opinion.
Sinke, your comments on this website have been outrageous. When you wrote that all American troops have to look forward to is coming home in a box, you lost me, and when you called them terrorists you lost me. You're delusional. Keep posting, but it's going to be for comic relief only.
Two other things, Subsunk. Just to be clear, I have not accused YOUR troops of torturing anyone. But some American troops have engaged in torture. Not my word, but the word used by the Red Cross and the FBI. You say that Americans who believe the facts should be ashamed of themselves. I say that Americans who turn away from the facts are Americans in name only -- and that includes you.
Second point, which is purely housekeeping: I won't be responding to your response because I'm going out of town for 10 days. So feel free to lie and distort at will from here on out. I'm sure you will.
Wilson, on this board, you are my favourite opponent. It is true that nobody answeres my questions, including you, but I must admit that itis my outrage's fault.
YOu know, Wilson. USA soldiers are coming home in boxes. And Vietnam vets are living in boxes in parks. If that is outrage, kill me, since it is true. One of your terrorist soldiers will sooner or later do so. When you get killed, they send you back in box, and in ten years if you don't send reinforcements, all of your ilegally placed troops will come back in boxes. I guess that is when President Nixon Bush The Second will say that crusade is over and that democracy has been established in Iraq in 2015.
The mockery I do here is nothing compared with what your president is doing to you and your glorious troops. Thank you for delivering me from Nazi, glad people, many lives were lost and I will never be able to repay them to you and families of the lost.
As for R1483 I have asked a person with knowledge of law. He said it is true that this is valid document, but in order to justify invasion you need ten more boxes of documents and resolutions like that one with singature and approvement of UN Council. More or less they are same as this one, but they are required anyway. He mentioned that there was a huge crisis in some European Countries in the East ( members of the ex-communist block ) but as well as some other Western European countries who have a strict law of economical sanctions. These laws prohibit and immediately stop any trade or any other kind of threaty with the country which doesn't pass the test of just war in the legal system. Ofcourse, these laws don't recognize the Iraq war as legitimate defense.
This person also said that Bush can't put his foot on Belgian soil because their laws would require his arrest and his sending to International Court For War Crimes.
When I asked this person what is the military term of the occupation, something what American soldiers never dared to talk about here, he said
" Illegal occupation by International Military and Civil laws."
When I asked him about calling American soldiers terrorists, he said they are certainly not terrorists. I felt bad. But then he said they are legally described as "war criminals" under every definition of this term mentioned in UN documents signed by USA decades ago' and I didn't feel bad.
Dear Willie,
You are correct. Opinions are like assholes. You have yours. I have mine. I love my country, my college and my troops. I don't choose to find only that which is bad in any of the above. I also don't ignore the flaws and scars. And I think the flaws and how they are handled by my country, my college and my military are what makes America a better place than any other in the world. You choose to believe the fact that bad things happen at all makes America evil and bad.
One position is realistic, patriotic and optimistic. The other position, in my opinion, is wrong. Since it is your opinion, you may choose whichever position you want. I have made my choice. I am comfortable with it. And I will always love the country I have given most of my life to, even when she spurns or chastises me occasionally. Because I know what true love means. And it isn't beating her over the head with her flaws.
Subsunk
Subsunk,
Can you tell me the flaws of your country? Explain me the first one , the toughest, in more detail.
Most of you are missing the point entirely: The Senate is asserting Congress' right to exercise authority over the President's conduct of military affairs. Some of the legal memoranda provided Bush by now-AG Gonzalez and others asserted that ANY restriction on the President's conduct of military affairs was an unconstitutional infringement on the President's power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Senators, in particular, were offended by this specious legal analysis and the McCain amendment got such broad-based support for that reason.
Article I, sec. 8, clause 14 expressly gives Congress the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Clause 10 of the same section gives Congress power to "To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations."
Therefore, the President's authority as CIC of the armed forces is constitutionally circumscribed by any rules, regulations, or laws enacted by Congress.
The fact that Congress (or, just the Senate at this point) has decided to exercise its authority is long-overdue.
Paul.
Sorry, my English is not that good. Could you elaborate your message?