Bush May Have Authorized Torture Via Executive Order. ACLU Obtains New Docs.

[elucidator]

This story will simply blow away with the sands of time. Yes, an investigation will be started. It will recieve the same level of urgent priority afforded the Valerie Plame (who?) investigation. A full report with all due accountability can be expected before the next administration takes office. Maybe.

Why? Because we don’t care. News comes out that teenage boys are among the detainees. Outrage zero. News comes out that old men, and I mean really old men, old the way you only get when you live in a harsh place, are released. And nobody asked why. Why were they released, if they were such desperately dangerous “enemy combatants”? The only answer possible is that they weren’t. Did anybody care? Others have been quietly released, after years of “detention”. Did you notice the howls of outrage? Niether did I.

America has already judged these people, we believe what we are told. The lack of procedure doesn’t concern us, we already know they are guilty, else why would they be there? Impeachment? Don’t make me laugh. The President wants to be presented as a Tough Guy, a no-nonsense rough-and-tumble sic 'em kind of guy. Who can protect us. How a pampered and privileged mediocrity got to assume such “street cred” is a miracle of modern marketing.

Nothing will happen. Nothing. Because they aren’t really people, and we don’t give a damn.

[pervert]

@elucidator

Well, then, let’s consider the alternative scenario. It’s all a bunch of lies cooked up by people who hate our freedoms, etc. All of the detainees are being treated with entirely scrupulous regard for thier human rights, but people persist in making shit up.

Well, I suppose that is possible as well. Bu I don’t see much evidence for that either. Clearly there are peopl who are being detained who should not be. Clearly some abuses have happened as well. We don’t have to believe either extreme. Just because the evidence for a vast conspiracy to torture Iraqis seems thin, does not mean that all is honey and roses in GTMO.

Why, then, the reluctance on the part of the Admin to allow supervision and inspection by such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International? If there is nothing whatever to hide, wouldn’t be enormously to our advantage, at least in terms of image and propaganda, to make these facts known? Wouldn’t we be pleased, nay, eager to throw open our doors and prove our entire innocence?

Well, throwing open the doors of detention centers seems to go a bit far. And that probably answers your other questions.

BTW, the red cross is visiting with prisoners in Iraq. “ICRC continues to visit thousands of people deprived of freedom and detained by the MNF-I. It plans to also visit detainees held by Iraqi authorities in connection with the internal armed conflict underway. However, its ability to do so depends on the security situation on the ground.”

This is from their position paper on Abu Graib.
“As a reminder, the ICRC last year visited 469,648 detainees, held in 1,923 places of detention, in about 80 countries.”

Just from this, it seems that there has been no shortage of access afforded to the Red Cross. Surely “open the doors” was rhetoric on your part. Yes?

If no such abrogation of human rights was even considered, why the excercise on the part of Mr. Gonzales to limn a rationale to permit such a thing?

Because that is not what Mr. Gonzales did. He simply explored where the limits of the law were. Just like these emails, his memos are being taken somewhat out of context.

Was his valuable time to be squandered in a purely speculative fashion?

Not at all. The administratiion wanted a better understanding of what they could and could not do.

Why would be asked to offer a supporting rationale for something that would never be considered?

How else do you understand the extent of the laws?

I think not.

Yes you do.

[Squink]

@pervert

BTW, the red cross is visiting with prisoners in Iraq. “ICRC continues to visit thousands of people deprived of freedom and detained by the MNF-I. It plans to also visit detainees held by Iraqi authorities in connection with the internal armed conflict underway. However, its ability to do so depends on the security situation on the ground.”

This is from their position paper on Abu Graib.
“As a reminder, the ICRC last year visited 469,648 detainees, held in 1,923 places of detention, in about 80 countries.”

Just from this, it seems that there has been no shortage of access afforded to the Red Cross. Surely “open the doors” was rhetoric on your part. Yes?

Perhaps “just from that”, however both your cites are from the period when the ICRC was saying things like this:

In the specific case of Abu Ghraib, the ICRC has - to the best of its knowledge - been granted unimpeded access to all detainees and all sections of the prison since last year. The ICRC, aware of the situation in Abu Ghraib, and on the basis of its findings, has repeatedly requested the US authorities to take corrective action.

It was only in September that we learned about the 100 or so ghost detainees at Abu Ghraib:

A U.S. Army general who headed one of the investigations into the Abu Ghraib scandal said yesterday that as many as 100 “ghost detainees” may have been kept concealed from Red Cross observers in Iraq, a far higher number than previously reported.

Wash Times, or any number of other sources

[elucidator]

A bit too sophistic for my taste, Pervert…

[aside]…(whatever moved you to such an unfortunate cognomen?)…[/aside]

…He simply explored where the limits of the law were…Not at all. The administratiion wanted a better understanding of what they could and could not do…

You can almost hear the clatter as big, brown innocent eyes are batted. “Why, Heavens no, no one is actually contemplating any actual breaking of the law, merely some clear idea what one can and cannot get away with.”

One does not need to know if the speed limit is 64 miles per hour or 65 if one has no intention of going past 50, now does one? But we know a concept like “torture” is not definite, there is no quanitification.

“Well, Mr. President, so long as the interrogation remains below 50 milli-Sades per second, the threshold of torture is not reached. 49.5 milliSades, Bambi’s Mom. 50.2 milliSades, Vlad the Impaler.”

The very existence of the opinion announces the intention. And perhaps it is only my darkly suspicious nature, but I darkly suspect Mr. Gonzales had some inkling, some intuitive noodge, as to what result his boss would find most pleasing. Call it a wild guess.

“No, Mr. President, you can’t even sidle up next to it, its despicable to even consider such an excercise, abstracting human misery and suffering to such a degree is a question for a soulless cynic, whereas I am an attorney!”

Stretching a victim upon the rack is unquestionably evil and degraded, handcuffing a victim into an excruciating position for 24 hours and leaving him to soil himself is arguably less so. But I have nothing but contempt for either practice: three murders is more evil than one, but one is already too many.

“We’re Americans. We don’t do things like that.” I would like to be able to say that with a straight face. At least once.

[DrDeth]

Here’s my point- “Sleep deprivation and stress positions” and such* can* be defined as a sort of torture, yes. But when you do, it’s like saying Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumcision are both “circumcision”. :rolleyes:

“Sleep deprivation and stress” is nasty, and generally un-American, I’ll agree. But as far as I am concerned, 'torture" is the kind of stuff that Saddam did to his own people- rape, electric shocks on the sex organs, cig burns, bastinadoes, having the men rape your wife in front of you while you watch, cutting hands off, and such like. NOTHING the USA has done or even may do is even close.

So- when dudes insist on calling “Sleep deprivation and stress” = “torture” I’ll just :rolleyes: and move on.

Illegal? Maybe. Immoral? Certainly. Un-American? Yes! But it’s not "torture’.

[Aro]

@DrDeth

… cig burns,…

So, you agree cigarette burns are torture, yes?

From here: (previously posted by Jjimm in this very thread)

One of the memorandums released on Monday provided the account of an agent who observed “serious physical abuses” in Iraq.

It was dated 25 June - two months after the extent of abuse at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison was revealed - and was marked “urgent” and sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

It described strangulation, beatings and the **placing of lit cigarettes into detainees’ ears. **

[Sevastopol]

The United States of America practices torture on its prisoners as a matter of policy.

It’s unambiguous. Deal with it.

[Shodan]

@sevastopol

The United States of America practices torture on its prisoners as a matter of policy.

It’s unambiguous. Deal with it.

Please cite the policy document unambiguously establishing this.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@elucidator

“We’re Americans. We don’t do things like that.” I would like to be able to say that with a straight face. At least once.

You know what, elucidator? I propose that we open the prisons to full public scrutiny by qualified human rights observors, and that we place ourselves under the jurisdiction of international courts on this matter. I propose that we take the human rights of everyone very seriously–even the rights of our wartime enemies.

Now’s your chance.
Daniel

[Aro]

@Shodan

Please cite the policy document unambiguously establishing this.

Regards,
Shodan

You know very well you’ll not get such a reply - no one is suggesting there will be a sheet of paper with a big “torture the life out of 'em, fellows” written on it with Bush’s signature at the bottom. But, without stating that they have a public policy document outlining how to and when to torture suspects in custody, there is a fairly well documented path of systematic ‘changing’ of the definitions of torture to include more extreme acts.

From here, you can read a summary of the US obligations under law with regard to torture. (Esp. in the last section- III. U.S. Law )

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

This includes a legal definition of what torture is. And, as you can see, it includes humiliating and degrading treatment.
Now, if you then look at this page, you will find a link to this file (PDF), which outlines a policy change and new legal interpretation of existing torture methods.

This certainly looks to me like a memo specifically drafted to contradict the usual and common interpretation of the GC and to confirm that the methods of torture currently being used are considered acceptable by this administration. It is forming a justification of the problem by re-writing the definition of what actually constitutes torture.

There are many such memos and documents on that page, all reinterepting the existing laws and changing the definitions to include much harsher and intense torture methods within the accepted norms. I’ll agree this isn’t a formal or executive order, but it does allow for a much greater leeway in action and confirms that ‘minor’ forms of torture previously thought to be completely unacceptable under the GC and other laws would now be considered acceptable behaviour.

When the chain of command choose to reassess and reinvent definitions of what is and isn’t torture, then you are going to get a lot of confusion and, ultimately, serious behavioural problems.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

(My bolding) Nope. Look up the definition of “direct” some time. Hint: it doesn’t mean “indirect”.

Please. “Indirectly documented” does not exclude “Directly meant and directly understood”. Clear now?

Given that we are sailing in uncharted waters, it’s very reasonable for WH cousel to counsel the WH on where the shoals and treacherous waters are.

You do have to ask, then, why the captain guided the ship into uncharted waters in the first place. Wonder *why * they’re uncharted?

I don’t agree that Congress won’t authorize an investigation. If there are serious enough allegation, then Congressional hearings might very well be initiated.

You really think DeLay and Frist, of all people, would permit it? I hope you’re right, but I certainly don’t count on it. As long as a politically-immune and committed leadership gives the rank and file cover, the rank and file won’t expose themselves to the retribution that the leadership has shown itself willing and capable of.

If real torture occured, there are reasonable explanations other then the direct authorization of Bush or his delegate (I assume this means Cabinet level post).

Not necessarily; if Bush knew or should have known it was going on under his chain of command, and didn’t stop it, that still makes him guilty. After all this time and all these news reports, he doesn’t have any such excuse left.

[Sevastopol]

On the contrary, there is little doubt a document to the effect:

• Let’s torture, we’re Americans after all

does exist.

To nobody’s surprise it consists of words, paragraphs and sentences. These become the tools of those those who lack the moral courage to face what is evident.

I’ve no interest in persuading such people to concede in public. It’s WMD all over again.

Leaving that aside: The practices occurring are not brutality of a random or spontaneous nature. There are clear patterns and practices recurring whether the torture is shown to have occurred in Iraq, GTMO, Afghanistan etc. ‘Waterboarding’ is but one example.

The best explanation for this is a common design or purpose. We have plenty of documentary evidence for this.

Worse, in my humble opinion, it speaks of training. Dollars from the US public purse are spent training Military personnel to torture. Deal with it.

[emarkp]

Here you’ll find the prohibition against torture of protected persons in Geneva Convention IV (article 32).

And here you’ll find the definition of a protected person.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Even “unprotected” persons are still entitled to “humane” treatment under the GC. There is no class of prisoner whatsoever for which torture is permitted (and I would disagree that any of the prisoners at Gitmo have been shown to be “unprotected”).

[DrDeth]

@Aro

So, you agree cigarette burns are torture, yes?

From here: (previously posted by Jjimm in this very thread)

From what I had heard- the cigs were placed filter in to scare them. As opposed to burning them with the lit end.

[Bricker]

@Loopydude

Funny, every thinking person I knew dismissed Burkett as a lying sack as soon as the evidence of his wrongdoing came to light. And funny how none of us are beating our breasts over Rather’s ignominious announcement of retirement. Please, don’t smear the left with accusations of having ethics comparable to Republicans. Lying liberals go down, as is appropriate, because they lose the support of their peers. Lying Republicans get asked back for a second term because to the “right” facts are only to be used when they serve their aggenda, and trodden upon when they are “biased” against it.

Really?

You know, there are threads here, still searchable, in which prominent posters on this board defended the authenticity of the CBS memos for quite some time.

Are you really serious about the above?

[rjung]

@DrDeth

From what I had heard- the cigs were placed filter in to scare them.

1. Cite? And no, “Rush Limbaugh said so” doesn’t count.

2. So you’re okay with mere terrorizing, instead of actual physical abuse?

[elucidator]

To Hell with parsing the Geneva Convention! Fuck all legalistic sophistry! This stinks on ice and every human being with an ounce of decency knows it. This includes our friends, both of them, and our enemies, and potential enemies. If we had conciously set out to make ourselve the most widely despised nation in human history, we could have hardly done a better job. Torturing prisoners would be wrong even if we knew they were guilty, which we don’t!

Jesus fuck a shit souffle! Our enemy’s recruiting stations have lines going around the block, and every move we make seems phoned in by ObL. Does the name “Custer” mean anything to you people? A firm and assertive leader, by all accounts.

[Loopydude]

@Bricker

Really?

You know, there are threads here, still searchable, in which prominent posters on this board defended the authenticity of the CBS memos for quite some time.

Are you really serious about the above?

Yeah, I am. Who are you talking about defending Burkett and Rather? Not even they defended it in the end, so I can’t understand why anyone else would. To Rather’s credit, at least he fessed up, but everyone I’ve ever discussed the issue with met Burkett’s falsifications with dismay…mostly because they felt it was counterproductive in the extreme to fight a liar with more lies.

[Blalron]

@Bricker

I mean there’s no direct evidence of the order’s existence, merely a vague and self-serving reference by a person not subject to cross-examination concerning exactly what he meant.

There’s no direct evidence that Hitler orderered the Holocaust either.