Rumsfield green lighted torture

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3831399.stm

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of aggressive tactics to frighten Guantanamo Bay detainees, according to newly-released documents.

These included stripping prisoners, forcing them into stress positions and harassing them with dogs.

Of course the get out of card is that it was recinded but they all sound like what is going on in Iraq, and people in Iraq are saying that it all came from the concentration camp in Cuba.

How the hell can this guy remain in his job?

uberwolf

I believe in a related move the new American Ambassador to Iraq was working in Central America during another proud time in Americas crusade.

linkee

The objection here is that this man claims to have been completely ignorant of the human rights abuses in Honduras at the time but his predecessor claims to have briefed him fully on all issues prior to his takeover. A similar approach is prob deemed required by the Bush Admin for Iraq.

abuses
more of the same

uberwolf

An important factor is probably that removing him from his post now would be an acknowledgement of weakness in the foreign policy and dealings and Bush is already losing ground on Kerry, even in foreign policy where a commander in chief during a war would expect to have an advantage. Bush can't afford to undermine himself by removing Rumsfeld.

Sleepy

In fairness, atrocities occur in every war. These ones are just coming to light earlier than they would have done in the past due to technology.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Sleepy
In fairness, atrocities occur in every war. These ones are just coming to light earlier than they would have done in the past due to technology.

"In fairness"? What? I'm at a loss here, are you saying that it's somehow ok?

adam

sceptre

Originally posted by Sleepy
These ones are just coming to light earlier than they would have done in the past due to technology.

Fabulous, the guy who authorised them is still in office. Should we give him a medal or a court date? A bonus or a pink slip?

woody

Don't forget the torture and beheading of innocent civilians by the lovely Iraqi Freedom fighters my arse pure evil scum.

Torture is sometimes necessary for the great good and intel...

Roll on the insults because it will continue and don't say there all innocent because there not and these far fetched stories which come from terrorist released from GTO.

Oh yeah I can really believe that they are such pillars of society, just happened to be in Kunduz or the Tora Bora Mountains on a Computer course or bird watching.


We now have several terrorists walking around the UK and don't forget the scum from the church of the Natvitiy the lovely lets send a woman,child or youth out to blow himself up people.

Like or not the vast majority of peole would agree with torture if it meant no more 9/11 , Madrid etc.....

sceptre

Originally posted by woody
Don't forget the torture and beheading of innocent civilians by the lovely Iraqi Freedom fighters my arse pure evil scum.

I doubt anyone is forgetting that. Howver this thread is about Donald Rumsfeld and what his minions are getting up to rather than a diversionary or hijacking tactic to remind us of atrocities done by any other group in an attempt to justify torture carried out any someone else.

A rational sort would recognise that all accused are innocent until (or unless) proved guilty in some sort of court, even a kangaroo one.

woody

Rumsfeld is not unique there was sanctioning of torture in castlereagh in the north for year and to a lesser degree here, he is no way unique and not entirely wrong, I understand morally it is wrong but putting moral's aside. It could have stopped the likes of 9/11 if people in there world were not so "PC".

sceptre

Originally posted by woody
Rumsfeld is not unique there was sanctioning of torture in castlereagh in the north for year and to a lesser degree here, he is no way unique

You're doing it again. See my previous post.

MarcusGarvey

Originally posted by woody
Don't forget the torture and beheading of innocent civilians by the lovely Iraqi Freedom fighters my arse pure evil scum.

One of the Wests arguments for being the global enforcer is they are more "civilised" and better about human rights than those they bomb into democracy and yet america is doing the same thing that sadaam did.

They show the "backwards" people in developing countries that they are the yardstick to be compared to and right now they are replacing one bloody evil regime with another.

Torture is sometimes necessary for the great good and intel...

Whenever someone mentions the greater good I get the shivers. It almost always means some bad things to be done.


Sidenote:

Did anyone read that they brought in kids of some of those they had detained and threatened or even tortured these kids to make the adults divulge information ? I read this on a mainstream site but forget which one .

bonkey

Originally posted by woody
Torture is sometimes necessary for the great good and intel...

And remains inexcusable when carried out by any nation who has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, when carried out by any nation who has ratified the Geneva Conventions, it is also a war-crime.

and these far fetched stories which come from terrorist released from GTO.

Whats coming to light at the moment about Camp X-Ray in Gitmo (which I assume is what you're referring to) is that there hasn't been any significant amount of real intelligence gathered, and the most far-fetched stories we hear regarding the camp are the ongoing public claims from Bush and the Gang about how much valuable information they've received. There has only been one relatively major breakthrough that is known of by the Comission looking at it, and the emerging reports seem to indicate that while this prisoner was given some of the harsher interrogation techniques, he responded better to - and provided the information as a result of - the more humane approaches beforehand.

Oh yeah I can really believe that they are such pillars of society, just happened to be in Kunduz or the Tora Bora Mountains on a Computer course or bird watching.

I've had to point this out to your pal Wrestlemania before, but comparisons serve no-one. Being "better than the <choose despotic group>" is worth absolutely nothing, and excuses absolutely nothing.

We now have several terrorists walking around the UK

Incorrect.

We have the same people walking around the UK who were walking around the UK prior to their incarceration. These are people who were detained, and against whom a case could not be built, even allowing for the lessening of standards of proof that was a result of the choice of trial mechanism over what would normally be required in a civilian or criminal case. Neither the US, nor the UK government could find any just reason to prosecute, and - given that the majority of prisoners are being officially held "until a case is built", we must assume that those released were done so when the realisation was reached that there was no case to build.

In fact, there are no logical or reasonable grounds to even claim they are terrorists. Had the US government the slightest suspicion that this were the case, it could have chosen to keep them in Gitmo for the rest of their natural lives. They didn't.

Like or not the vast majority of peole would agree with torture if it meant no more 9/11 , Madrid etc.....

And if you could show that this would be the end result, you might have a case.

Oh - and I'd prefer if you clarified that as being a personal opinion, rather than presenting it as some sort of fact, because I can pretty much garantee you that you don't have a single solid internationally-taken poll to back that claim up.

I, on the other hand, would point to the fact that not a single democracy in the world has suggested (let alone succeeded) in removing its nation's ratification of the UDHR or the GC, and so we can conclude that no democracy has a majority (vast or otherwise) who is willing to act on that want, should they possess it.

Yes, I realise that demcracies may not form the majority of the world's population, but at least I can present some form of figures to show that your claim is probably bogus. Can you offer anything in return?

jc

chewy

sleepy is right but its not fair

Evil Phil

Originally posted by woody
Rumsfeld is not unique there was sanctioning of torture in castlereagh in the north for year and to a lesser degree here, he is no way unique and not entirely wrong, I understand morally it is wrong but putting moral's aside. It could have stopped the likes of 9/11 if people in there world were not so "PC".

The techniques used on IRA terrorists in the UK in the early 1970's resulted in the prosecution of those thought to be involved the bombing campaigns. These techniques were deemed a violation of human rights while not actually being torture by the European Court of Human Rights. They resulted in innocent people being imprisoned while the murderers were left free to kill again.

Techniques such as sleep deprivation, isolation and forced standing for long periods which are being employed by the US in their war on terror were used on IRA suspects in the UK, here and in Castlereagh. They don't work, people will admit to anything to stop their suffering.

Saudi Arabi have used techniques similiar to those used in deprogramming members of religious cults on Al Queada operatives with much greater success then the more 'traditional' methods they have been known to use.

bonkey

Originally posted by woody
It could have stopped the likes of 9/11 if people in there world were not so "PC".

It just occurred to me that if people were not so "PC" then 9/11 wouldn't be such an offensive tragedy in and of itself in the first place....nor woule we be so averse to using such techniques (e.g. attacking the innocent) ourselves.

jc

uberwolf

here's an article on the topic from todays daily telegraph, it expands on some of the points from Hobbes links and discusses the political ramifications.

Personally i believe that the President is ultimatley responsible for all actions sanctioned by authorities under his control - and whilst that may seem unreasonable it is the only way to maintain any kind of answerability


__________________________
Pentagon top brass approved the 'torture' of terror suspects
ADVERTISEMENT

THE White House has conceded that the Pentagon sanctioned a harsh set of interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects. The methods included stripping them, questioning them for 20 hours at a time and threatening them with dogs.

But it said the approval for such measures was later rescinded and although an official memo had argued that President Bush had the right to sanction torture, he had never done so.

After two weeks on the defensive following the leak of the 2002 Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture on terrorist suspects, the White House sought to regain the initiative by releasing hundreds of documents which it argued showed their careful deliberations on how to question detainees 'humanely'.

A senior administration official conceded there is a growing belief that they sanctioned torture, an impression the White House knows it has to scotch quickly as Mr Bush's ratings in the fight against terrorism reach a new low.

Asked why he had decided to release the files, Mr Bush made his most outspoken remarks yet since the row over torture began a fortnight ago. "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. Torture is not a part of our soul or our being."

The Justice Department memo argued that torture on detainees could be justified to defend America against terrorists; it is to be rewritten. But included in the file of released papers were memos detailing tough interrogation techniques for al-Qa'ida suspects at the US base in Guantanamo Bay that risk further embarrassment for the administration.

Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, in a November 27, 2002, "action memo" approved techniques including the "removal of clothing" and "inducing stress by use of detainees' fears" - methods which appear to conflict with the Geneva Conventions.

Mr Rumsfeld rescinded the approval in January 2003 and after a review by a Pentagon panel, he issued a new set of guidelines in April 2003. These banned stripping detainees, and also required official approval for four techniques: isolation, alternating friendly and unfriendly questioners, use of rewards or privileges, and insulting the ego of detainees.

Critics have seized on the memos arguing that they paved the way for the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"It's important to set the record straight," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "President Bush has never and has no intention of ever authorising torture in questioning prisoners. We are a nation that is at war but we are also a nation of laws and the president expects our government to comply."

Meanwhile, America's campaign to guarantee its soldiers immunity from the new International Criminal Court collapsed yesterday because of the international backlash over the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

Washington received a stinging rebuke from the United Nations when Security Council members refused to extend the current exemption - which expires on June 30 - for US peacekeepers serving on UN-sponsored missions from the jurisdiction of the court.

The decision marked a victory for supporters of the first global criminal court, established by the 1998 Rome treaty to try individuals accused of atrocities such as genocide and systematic war crimes.

Washington opposes the court, fearing that American officials and troops will be put on trial on trumped-up charges for political reasons.

President Clinton signed the Rome treaty on the last day of his Administration, but the US Senate has not ratified it and the Bush Administration has insisted it will not recognise its jurisdiction.

Washington won a one-year exemption for its peacekeepers in 2002 by vetoing the extension of a UN police training mission in Bosnia. A second exemption was obtained for US forces last year.

The abuse of prisoners by American forces in Iraq, however, changed the diplomatic landscape as many Security Council members found they could not justify a further exemption - even though Iraq is not a party to the International Criminal Court. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

bonkey

Originally posted by uberwolf
Asked why he had decided to release the files, Mr Bush made his most outspoken remarks yet since the row over torture began a fortnight ago. "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. Torture is not a part of our soul or our being."

Either this was during the Q&A following his joint statement with the Hungarian Prime Minister, or its now a stock answer.

In either case, when I heard Bush say it, I must admit that I immediately wondered how someone can say that torture is not part of their soul or being when they have previously openly admitted that they would consider handing people to other nations in order for them to be tortured there.

Or is my memory failing me?

jc

MeatProduct

Bush is the ultimate commander of the US forces and should be responsible for it's actions. Rumsfeld, IMO, should have resigned a long time ago.

Nick

woody

Methinks no matter what government that gets into power in the US.

People will still have a crib about them....Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton, yes he was cool but he would have done the same as bush if he were president on sept. 11.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by woody
Methinks no matter what government that gets into power in the US.

People will still have a crib about them....Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton, yes he was cool but he would have done the same as bush if he were president on sept. 11.

Are you responding to me?

I know I wasn't the only one counting down the days until a war after Bush was elected. So predictible. Would 11/9 have happened if Bush wasn't elected? I don't think it would have.

Bush is a war criminal and should be taken out of power (even though he wasn't elected by the people to start with).

Nick

Edit: For a superpower I would like to think the US could have elected a president with more reasoning ability and general intelligence than the food lying in my cats bowl (admittedly the bacteria in the food could become a complex life form over time)

earwicker

It's interesting that Bush stated he doesn't condone torture when the recently released memos accepting that the GC doesn't apply have his signature on them.

Apparently when Rummy signed off on the four hours of forced standing he wrote on the memo that he didn't see why the time was so short because he had to stand for 8-10 hours a day.

<edit for clarity>

simu

Like or not the vast majority of peole would agree with torture if it meant no more 9/11 , Madrid etc.....

They might change their minds if it was then decided that the same vast majority of people had to be tortured just in case they held some secret info on a planned terrorist attack.

Hobbes

Originally posted by woody
People will still have a crib about them....Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton, yes he was cool but he would have done the same as bush if he were president on sept. 11.

Your ability to debate lacks reasoning. I am sure if president clinton was at the time he would grown wings flown around the white a few times and walked on water.

But hey we will never know I guess.

By the way, how can you call the Iraqis evil when they torture people but it is ok for the Americans to do it?