[QUOTE=John Mace]
We’ve been over this a number of times. Read the GC regarding the treatment of prisioners. It forbids, for instance, the granting of favorable status or treatment to those individuals who give more than “name, rank, and serial number”. Your earlier post about not doing what police are not allowed to do to criminal suspects is excatly on point. Police are allowed to offer all sorts of incentives to get criminals to inform on other criminals. There’s a good reason why we don’t want POWs to have to give up military secrets, but terrorists are criminals, not uniformed military men taking place in conflicts governed by the rules of war.
[/QUOTE]
You’re missing the point – or, rather, standing it on its head. See post #48. What morally or legally justifies applying any more permissive standard to the interrogation of suspected “terrorist” detainees or “unlawful combatants” than the one I suggest there?
No matter how you think of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other higher-uppers they are not stupid, not naive and are quite aware of their surroundings and in general what is going on in the world.
I recall when someone asked what the definition of Right or Normal is…the answer was " if it agrees with me", its normal and/or right.
In my opinion that is about as close as to what the “higher-ups” believe.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You’re missing the point – or, rather, standing it on its head. See post #48. What morally or legally justifies applying any more permissive standard to the interrogation of suspected “terrorist” detainees or “unlawful combatants” than the one I suggest there?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
No matter how you think of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other higher-uppers they are not stupid, not naive and are quite aware of their surroundings and in general what is going on in the world.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Or, for that matter, being left outside in 4 degree weather for three days while being occasionally doused with water? (see Apos’s excellent link).
[/QUOTE]
Here, let me rephrase that a bit: being left outside in 4 degree weather for three days while being occasionally doused with water, TO DEATH.
But of course, having explict documents of this process and the military basically saying that yes it did happen: that’s just EXACTLY LIKE JFK conspiracy theories!
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think a lot of people like to wave around the famous Gonzales memo because they’ve read somewhere that it “justifies torture”, but they haven’t read the actual memo iteslf.
[/quote]
I’ve read the memo, and even written about it elsewhere. Unfortunately the previous link I had there doesn’t seem to work anymore, and it’s been a few months since I read the memo, so I don’t remmber it verbatim. But FWIW here’s the author’s current take on the subject. Still makes me want to vomit.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
What do you propose that they do? Make it a crime? For the record, abuse of prisoners is already a crime.
[/QUOTE]
They could start by court martialing the offenders and demoting everybody above them in the chain of a command. Start plucking stars off of generals’ shoulders and you better believe they’d be getting their act together.
Remember the administration’s reaction to the photos at Abu Gahrib (not sure how to spell it). The biggest concern was: who leaked these photos? Let’s get them!
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Remember the administration’s reaction to the photos at Abu Gahrib (not sure how to spell it). The biggest concern was: who leaked these photos? Let’s get them!
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib preceded the leaking of the photos to the press by several months.
If military officers and intelligence agents that allowed torture were having their careers effectively ended with no hope for future promotions or significant assignments, then the torture would stop. But this type of treatment seems reserved instead for “disloyalty” (which is defined as publicly disagreeing with an administration position).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Can you quote the section(s) of that memo that make you want to vomit?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not slogging through 50 pages at the moment, but there’s sufficient info on p. 1 to induce vomiting:
“We conclude that for an act to constitute torture within the meaning of Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
If military officers and intelligence agents that allowed torture were having their careers effectively ended with no hope for future promotions or significant assignments, then the torture would stop. But this type of treatment seems reserved instead for “disloyalty” (which is defined as publicly disagreeing with an administration position).
[/QUOTE]
The military officers associated with the torture are finished. They will never be promoted again. Can you imagine what would happen if they were?
Should they have been court-martialed? If the evidence is there, yes. If it’s just “he said, she said”, that doesn’t stand scrutiny in any court. What is needed is a paper trail, or near-unanimous testimony, including that of people who may have heard the order but were not involved (i.e., credible witnesses).
Nobody is beyond the law, and people in positions of authority should never be beyond that reach, but if there was something to charge them with, don’t you think that President Bush, who will throw anybody to the wolves according to some of you, would have done so with them?
[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
I’m not slogging through 50 pages at the moment, but there’s sufficient info on p. 1 to induce vomiting:
“We conclude that for an act to constitute torture within the meaning of Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
Apparently anything short of that is just peachy.
[/QUOTE]
No cite, but I’m fairly certain being stretched on the rack would not approach the stated level. Nor having one’s foot compressed in a torture boot. Nor having one’s thumb mashed in a thumscrew. Nor . . .
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
They could start by court martialing the offenders and demoting everybody above them in the chain of a command. Start plucking stars off of generals’ shoulders and you better believe they’d be getting their act together.
[/QUOTE]
BTW, Bob, I do think it highly suspicious that only low level enlested men and women were invovled in the Abu Ghraib scandal. I don’t think there is any evidence that Bush was aware of it, but it’s hard to believe it could have gone on without at least the tacit approval of some higher ups. IIRC, only one officer has been charged with particiapting. Smells very fishy to me.
The administration was forced by overwhelming public pressure to sacrifice a few low-level scapegoats. This hardly indicates a repudiation of torture. My understanding is that not a single CIA agent has been charged although there is clear evidence of their involvement. A number of enlisted men have been prosecuted but no Generals. The highest ranking military man to be charged was a Lt Colonel. The torture program that we know existed was spread out across four continents; are we really expected to believe nobody above the rank of Lt Colonel was involved in it?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
The military officers associated with the torture are finished. They will never be promoted again. Can you imagine what would happen if they were?
[/quote]
Directly associated yes. Approved it, or knew of it or should have known - you misspelled Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Who says that Bush would throw anyone to the wolves? Rummy still being there after screwing up Iraq so badly is a very clear counter-example. There are tons of others.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The torture program that we know existed was spread out across four continents; are we really expected to believe nobody above the rank of Lt Colonel was involved in it?
[/QUOTE]
Why not? The highest ranking person to know about the My Lai massacre (and the originator of the orders) was a Captain, a mere 0-3 named Ernest Medina. Given that, a Lt. Colonel is nothing to sneer at.
