June 21, 2007
Abu Ghraib Cover-up About to Explode (Brent Budowsky)
Gen. Antonio Taguba is one of America's most respected senior officers, was put in charge of the Abu Ghraib investigation, and has now leveled a series of powerful public
charges that will soon blow this case sky-high.
Gen. Taguba went public early this week in long on-the-record interviews with Sy Hersh reported in his New Yorker piece now on newsstands.
Among other things, Taguba says:
1. He was ordered not to investigate higher-ups in the chain of command, which means
there was (is) a cover-up protecting the highest-ranking Bush administration officials who might have criminal liability.
2. Early in his investigation he was threatened with career retribution if he dared to seek the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
3. After his investigation he was punished by being forced into early retirement.
4. He suggests that Don Rumsfeld might have lied when he testified before Congress, which would be a criminal offense.
5. He details meetings in which Rumsfeld spoke to him in terms that were sarcastic,
rude and unprofessional shortly before Rumsfeld would publicly say how much he
supported the investigation and wanted the truth to come out.
6. He reveals specific acts of torture that are beyond what was publicly known, and videos of Abu Ghraib torture have not been released that provide strong evidence that the crimes of Abu Ghraib were known earlier and far higher up than previously reported.
7. He expresses serious concern that the same forms of torture used at Abu
Ghraib were (are?) also used at Guantanamo Bay, which remains open and the subject of world-wide condemnation.
At some point Gen. Taguba will be called to testify publicly and will prove one of the most explosive witnesses in six years, while investigative reporters and almost certainly congressional committees are currently looking into Abu Ghraib.
The implications of this are enormous because they go to potential perjury and giving false testimony to Congress and investigators, and lead outward throughout the dark side of the Bush years.
There is a high probability that investigation of the Abu Ghraib crimes and cover-up will lead upward to Donald Rumsfeld and his coterie of neoconservative aides and their
shadow CIA run through the Department of Defense.
There is a substantial possibility this leads to the role of Alberto Gonzales on the range of torture issues at the Department of Justice and during his years as White House Counsel.
There is significant possibility this leads to Vice President Cheney, the most aggressive
advocate of what the world considers torture of any senior official anywhere in the free world.
Gen. Taguba should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his honor, integrity and courage throughout this shameful episode and for having the honor to speak out publicly, visibly and unequivocally now.
The stakes are high and the storm clouds are gathering for those who committed, ordered or covered up crimes of torture.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 46 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent: You sound like a kid on Christmas eve waiting to unwrap all of your gifts. I don't know all the details but I do know when you are so invested in wanting an outcome, it blurs the truth and your vision. Stop salivating and wait for the facts to appear to make sure what your dreaming about is true…
Comment by Rich — June 21, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Until you and people who think like you learn to hate the head-choppers more than Rumsfeld and Cheney this country is in big trouble. Cover-ups are vey bad, but cutting someone's head off is worse. Ask not what you can do to your country, ask what you cand do for it.
Comment by Igor R. — June 21, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
So what if there was torture at Abu Ghraib? If, as a result of the "torture" the U.S. was able to stop a terrorist attack or two it was well worth it. And if you think that just because we don't torture, al qaida won't torture our soldiers, you're sadly mistaken.
Comment by John Simmons — June 21, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
I will remain optimistic, but this crowd has been running around with blood on their hands for a long time and a lot of good, brave people have spoken the truth, only to be ignored…especially by the msm…I will hope Gen Taguba is the silver bullet we've all been waiting for.
Comment by SCHerbst — June 21, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Right on, Brent, and let's hope that the General's rare courage will be matched by others who are in a position to corroborate his observations and bring some semblance of justice to the Pentagon and particularly to Donald Rumsfeld.
The idea that we should overlook Cheney's and Rummy's crimes because somebody somewhere in the world is worse is patently ridiculous. First, nobody is or has been worse than these two moral delinquents in terms of the scope of the misery they have wrought, and secondly America deserves better. Heck, every country deserves better. Bring it on, General, you're an uncommonly brave man and a credit to the officer corps.
Comment by Don Bacon — June 21, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Yeah, all that torture going on at Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay sure stopped all that carnage in Iraq with the suicide and car bombers didn't it?
Oh wait, no, it didn't, and only the dimmest of bulbs think torture is effective in getting actionable information
Sorry, but this Administration's claims of "Just Trust Us" does NOT work when it comes to claims that it's torture of detainees has actually prevented real terrorist attacks from going forward. Only independently verifiable proof is an acceptable standard with ANY of this Administration's claims regarding "terrorists" or the "Global War On Terrorists"
Neither Usama bin Laden nor Bush Jr have done anything to warrant any trust regarding any self-serving claims they make to advance their agenda
Only cowards endorse or order torture
To Comment #1
Your post sums up exactly how I felt, before the invasion, about W's easily-disprovable blather about invading and occupying Iraq
Brent's post won't get anyone killed, won't send still-underarmored troops into hostilities, won't lengthen troop deployments and won't be responsible for letting Usama bin Laden-remember him?-walk around free to green-light and bankroll further anti-US attacks, actions ALL allowed by President Jr's clearly incompetent "leadership"
#2 It's not bin Laden who's raping our Constitution on an hourly basis, it's this President and Administration, and I have no doubts those "dead-enders" still backing this President would whine and squeal if it was a President Hillary Clinton, or the politician you despise most, claiming these Constitutionally non-existent powers to torture, warrantlessly spy and imprison-with that President's say so alone-anyone indefinitely with no access to the legal system
When you can LOGICALLY explain why President Jr with these powers is good, but the politician you despise most with the same unchecked powers is bad, then we'll talk
If adhering to our Constitution is too high a standard for this crew of miscreants and swine currently ensconced in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then it's time for a new Administration, time to replace this idiot President and his pathetic enablers who whine about how we have to destroy the Constitution to fight those who would destroy our freedoms
And when W decides to criticize al-Qaeda without yawning off bin Laden at the same time, that'll be a nice change of pace from the usual dreck of so easily-debunked propaganda this Administration can't successfully deploy anymore
And #3
AMEN
I think we've gone through the darkest days of this Administration, it's political apologists and media lackeys
And unlike the main figures from this Administration, Taguba would have NO problems testifying under oath, nor would his story spin more desperately with each successive release of e-mails and documents, something Alberto Gonzales definitely can't say for himself
Taguba's one of many Silver Bullets this Administration and the GOP have brought on themselves through their own cowardice, incompetence, arrogance and corruption, and the damage only gets worse for all by the day
All the problems wreaking carnage on this Administration and its GOP enablers are completely self-inflicted and deserving of absolutely no political mercy whatsoever
The time of this Administration of ChickenHawks, it's overly-arrogant GOP enablers/apologists, media lackeys & stooges, and deluded bloodthirsty lunatic neocon advisers is coming to an end, and November 2008 can't get here fast enough
And the damage to those entities must be so politically severe that their agenda of "preemptive military conflicts" with states that are NO threat to the US can never again be implemented
Comment by KingCranky — June 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
My bad,
Instead of
"#3
AMEN"
Should obviously read
#4
AMEN……
Would sure be nice if the Administration and GOP held themselves accountable for their screw ups as well
Comment by KingCranky — June 21, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
I can't believe that any readers of The Hill are still repeating the same tired cliches about "ticking bombs" that have been so thoroughly rebutted.
There have been no "ticking bombs." And yet we tortured.
In the entire history of the FBI, there have been no "ticking bombs" (according to FBI interrogators — watch "Taxi to the Dark Side"), that could have been stopped by a prisoner if we'd tortured him. The "24″ TV show is F-I-C-T-I-O-N. Got it? It's not real. Life is not like it. It is fake. Capisce?
Torture is NOT the quickest way to get reliable information. Even in the heat of battle, winning trust is — read USMC Major Sherwood Moran's report on this, from Guadalcanal.
Tortured victims will say ANYTHING to make it stop — and when the US acts on this false 'intelligence' (as we did after torturing Al Libbi, who claimed Saddam had WMD — then recanted when the torture stopped), we kill innocent people and create more terrorists.
Torture like waterboarding was developed by the North Koreans and Khmer Rouge in order to extract "confessions" for propaganda purposes — not to elicit the truth.
We may have gotten some useful information by torturing some victims, but we could have gotten even MORE information if we had been clever. (Infiltrated prisoners, created false news for them to read, etc.)
Torture is un-American. It undermines our values. It undermines who we are. It cripples those who have practiced it. It is wrong, hurts our national security, and must be stopped.
Evil men do not have horns. They may be friendly, tell jokes, have a smile and a tan. Like George Tenet, who to this day rationalizes waterboarding, they should be put on trial for war crimes. (That Tenet is teaching students in Georgetown's School of Foreign Service is sick commentary on the decline of Jesuit values. Is he teaching them by example that waterboarding is OK? That one should go along with evil men like Cheney if it advances one's career? That lying about what one knew, and when, is OK?)
Comment by Bob G — June 21, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Igor and Simmons: Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary– Fascism, system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition ( unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc. ) , the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized govermental contro, belligerent nationalism and racism, gloriification of war, etc. : first instituted in Italy in 1922. You two comments appear to belong in this camp. Get the Fox News needle out. You defend evil.
Comment by pander perry — June 21, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
SO CHENEY HAS DECLARED HIMSELF AN ENTINITY UNTO HIMSELF AND NOT A PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.SO THERE PATRICK LEAHEY!HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES.WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO NOW??I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO TRY ANYTHING.
Comment by cincigal74 — June 21, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
#2,
we tortured INNOCENT people!!
a$s-wipe. Do you not get it?
as 4 headchoppers, when we
drop daisy cutter bombs how
many heads do you think we
chop? you right wing boot-
licking father-figure worshipping fascist would have been so welcome in Nazi Germany!!!
Comment by jacksack — June 21, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Looks like the libbie commentators here want us all to hold hands and ask the terrorists to please stop being mean to us. Do you people really belive that if we are nice to al qaeda, they will stop trying to blow up our soldiers?
Comment by John Simmons — June 21, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
jacksack, glad to have made your day!
Comment by Igor R. — June 22, 2007 @ 12:54 am
#2 I guess in any given situation when two sets of armed people are facing each other you have to decide who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, or it's hard to tell, or you don't care. If you can tell, or at least if I can tell, I want the good guys to win.
Comment by Igor R. — June 22, 2007 @ 1:05 am
torture them over there so we don't have to torture them over here. Chickenhawks that have never had to fight anyone in there whole life, have turned into the bullies that they so much feared
Comment by Jerry s. — June 22, 2007 @ 2:33 am
# 3 … John you wrote:
"So what if there was torture at Abu Ghraib? If, as a result of the “torture” the U.S. was able to stop a terrorist attack or two it was well worth it. And if you think that just because we don’t torture, al qaida won’t torture our soldiers, you’re sadly mistaken."
So what? Your argument lacks logic and thought; it is based solely on assumptions driven by e_motion and fear.
First you assume an interrogator knows the person in custody has vital information. How would an interrogator know that? He doesn't usually. It is a fishing expedition.
But perhaps more importantly try walking in the shoes of the accused:
(true circumstances)
Let's imagine that your neighbour has a grudge against you. To exact revenge he tells the military you are a terrorist in exchange for a monetary reward. Not only are you thrown in prison you are denied access to the courts to prove your innocence.
Or another scenario:
During a military sweep you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And without any way to redress this in the courts you are left to languish in prison.
While locked away, considered a terrorist and no hope for the foreseeable future, interrogators really believe you have useful information — or knowledge about an imminent attack. No matter how many times you deny it, you just cannot convince them otherwise. At this point you are really scared and frightened — anyone would be — wondering how will I ever get out of this hell hole? The interrogators are not done with you yet. The unimaginable begins.
The following techniques have been (i think still are) used on prisoners by US intelligence and military interrogators: (sources include: testimony, books, articles, letters, etc.).
prisoners locked in a small room are shackled to the floor in awkward positions left for 14 - 18 hours at a time; fans are blowing with the air-conditioning set as cold as possible the prisoner is occasionally doused with ice water and heavy-metal or rap is played at the highest volume. Erstwhile the prisoner is naked during the whole horrible ordeal.
Often they are denied medicine and medical care. The cells are a small cramped space — so small they cannot stand or even completely lay down. When the interrogations go days on end and 22 hours long, the remaining 2 hours are spent in the cell. But without blankets or pillows and a constant artificial bright light sleep is basically impossible. Sometimes prisoners are deprived of water and food. Other degrading and humiliating techniques include sensory depravation, isolation, rape and sodomy.
Interrogations are known to last 20 -22 hours every day and continue over an extended amount of time (weeks, months, years). How long do you think you would last: a week, a month before you started telling them anything you think they want to hear. Of course it's not true, but what other recourse do you have?
Even IF a prisoner did know something of value, do you really believe he/she would give up the information so easily. They could just as easily fabricate a story. So while the feds scurry to stop an attack, it takes place anyhow, only somewhere else.
Moreover torture is an unjustifiable act of weakness; it is unacceptable. An individual cannot devalue another without doing likewise to their self. The moment we accept anything less than the highest of standards is the moment we become our worst enemy. It does not matter whether "they" do; it matters what "we" do. Two wrongs, a right does not make. It is not about them; it is about us — who we are as individuals, collectively.
We are standing at the cross-road to our future: one road leads to a bitter and revengeful society driven by fear, the other leads to a thoughtful, rational society driven by hope.
Which will it be? The decision is ours to keep.
I choose the latter, how about you?
Comment by serena1313 — June 22, 2007 @ 4:22 am
Wasn't there a court order back in 2004 to release the rest of the photos/videos from Abu Ghraib? I remember something about the administration trying to keep it quiet until after the 2004 election, but can't find a link. Obvoiusly, it has not come out in the public domain. If so, just another example of bucking the law to aid the coverup.
Comment by Ken M — June 22, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Looks like the terrorists have already won. No, liberals don't want to "hold hands and ask them to be nice to us". We hear endlessly about the moral authority and superiority of the United States, well, FINE. Act like it then. George Washington was one of the first to establish rules for decent treatment of captured enemy fighters. Would George Washington have butchered and tortured civilians right and left to get what he wanted? I'm thinking, no. Every Iraqi man woman and child is not a terrorist, but your kind act like they are and act like we have a right to slaughter and torture them at will. There's no honor in that. In fact I'd say that it's an extremely UnAmerican position to take. We supposedly value the lives of individuals in this country and we give individuals due process (i.e. not presuming them guilty and executing them or torturing them FIRST and then hiding the evidence later).
Comment by cynthia — June 22, 2007 @ 9:35 am
The Bush administration is probably the most corrupt ever. They don't even try to be sneaky about they just blatantly do things they no are wrong, then let the lies fly when they get called on it, then even when proven wrong they never apologize or take blame. The citizens need to revolt and take back the country before it's too late. Impeach Bush & Cheney and throw them in Guantanamo where they belong!
Comment by Mike Walker — June 22, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Taguba is a man of honor and principle. Thank you for bringing this information to more people. These are dark days indeed. Freedom and liberty for all. Oppose tyrants; stop sucking at their nipples.
Comment by Arthur — June 22, 2007 @ 10:52 am
I have seen some of the photos releasd from Abu Ghraib, and people, those are just the tip of the iceburg. From what I have heard there are a great many more that are much worse that the ones I have already seen, and those are shameful enough.
I hope this whole stinking, unsavory mess explodes like a volcano, and be dammed who in the White(Black) House gets burned. I have a very bad feeling that just about everyone knew. Throw them all out of office!
Comment by carol — June 22, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
For John Simmons:
Did your parents have any children that lived?
Comment by Big M — June 22, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
I think the Geneva convention fully allows executing non-uniformed enemy combattants. Solve the problem, execute all terrorists as soon as they are caught and any useful information is extracted.
Comment by Igor R. — June 22, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Hey Big (I mean LITTLE M) — you sound just like a typical liberal, when logic fails, resort to name calling.
To answer your question, yes, 3 of my mother's childern lived and 2 were stillbirths. Does that satisfy your inquiry?
Comment by John Simmons — June 22, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
I wonder if the Bush twins or Cheney's lesbo daughter were "waterboarded", would Bush and Cheney consider it torture.
Comment by Tom — June 22, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I suspect "waterboarding" was the most benign method employed. We have met the enemy, he is us.
Comment by Tom — June 22, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
This torture business started in Afghanistan when Mike Spann and his CIA vendors employed; good cop bad cop methods (either you tell me what I want or you're going over to my buddy for some torture) with the Taliban. I imagine under the circumstances anyone posting would have rebelled.
Spann got his due. Spann was no more hero than Jessica Lynch, he was an embarrassment to the Republic.
Comment by Tom — June 22, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
torture
who really cares
iran has the bomb
israel's no longer there
that is what we fear
that is what we hear
never mind its sounds like
panties is what you wear
afraid of anything
afraid of everything
911
how did it happen
whose gettin rich right now
huh
looks like defense industries
last time i checked
gas wasnt free
wait a minute
its 4x as much
for every bullet shot
somebody gets a check
every bomb
brand porshe
who wrote our energy policy
people need to ask some questions
this is america
stolen elections?
i thought we had victory in iraq
pres on a ship with a sign to his back
go to war with iran
i see russia
is it worth it to die for israel
i love jews
but lets talk about zionism
how you return to a land you didn't come from
how you take land and then say scram
but dont understand why they bomb
damn
huh
what
cmon be for real
are these people killing
just to kill
i mean they are now
because we're there now
and guess what
you cant just pull out
better negotiate
im american
and im starting to american hate
black white and native american
I AM an american
i am not a race
why are we racing to end the planet
i dont understand it
I want to say God damn it
I hate democrats and republicans too
i would elect ron paul and kucinich
neo cons are really old cons
raping our pockets while soldiers get killed
remember 3 tril was missing from the pentagon
3 tril!!??
and thats from rumy
who trained b. ladin
oh yeah it was us
do you really think
if we were under attack
the pres would sit and stare like that
and now cheney isn't part of the executive branch
what
is it judicial
legislative
sounds like nazi germany
how the jews go through that
and still treat the pals just like that
take take
dictate dictate
guess what you get
hate hate
and please
i know my rhyme sucks
just get the message
unlike the democrats
elected to end war
now a surge in fact
and iran is on the radar
bs pelosi takes impeachment off the table
some kind of politician
sounds like a henchman
sounds like a lacky
is there anybody that feels like me
Comment by spweaver — June 22, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
My father fought in WWII, my uncle in the Korean War. They were outraged at the way Japan treated American prisoners during WWII (recall the Bataan Death March and the starvation and beatings at POW camps).
The brainwashing techniques of the North Koreans, some of them similar to the methods used today, also incensed us back then. One thing we knew — Americans would never act in such an uncivilized manner. We didn't torture — our enemies did. It's part of what we were fighting against.
It was also understood that when you tortured your enemy, there was a good chance that your people would be tortured in return. (This is why many vets, including John McCain, resolutely oppose torture. It seems only those who never served –like Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales and Bush, et al — advocate using these depredations on captured enemy combatants.)
Of course, we are now finding out that some of those tortured at Gitmo weren't terrorists at all. What apology would cover that obscenity –torturing an innocent man — and restore our national reputation?
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has been confined for over four years without speedy due process of law, in flagrant violation of the Constitutional protections guaranteed to us all. They have confined him, kept him incommunicado and there have been rumors that he has been tortured. What have they gotten out of Padilla? Nothing.
John Walker Lindh was beaten when he was in custody. Whatever you think of him, he was not a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda, just a confused surfer kid from California.
David Hicks, an Australian, was tortured at Gitmo and later released without any charges against him — he didn't know anything. So were others, like Mamdouh Habib, who weren't terrorists and didn't have any information about terrorist activities. Many of those tortured in Abu Ghraib were also ultimately found to have no connection to terrorism. Is this the American way — torture innocent people?
Those who think torture works have watched one too many episodes of "24." In real life, as Serena1313 has noted, the person being tortured will generally say anything to make the pain stop. Then, at our expense, agents must go on a wild goose chase to verify the information, information which usually turns out to be false.
If you can prove, and not through the self-serving assertions of this administration and its allies, that torture has worked to spoil a terrorist plot, post it here. Of course, you'll have a hard time finding that proof — it's all been conveniently classified by the Bush administration.
Meantime our moral authority continues to crumble as more and more of the world grows to hate us. I ask again: Is this the American way?
Comment by RS Janes — June 22, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Igor R. - If your comment is a display of your critical faculties, nobody should rightly care what you think.
Comment by stogie — June 22, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Stogie, well what else would it be, a display of my ability to type? I know I introduced a couple of typos, so it wasn't even a good display of THAT. Give me some choices, man, I want people to care!
Comment by Igor R. — June 22, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
to Tom, #26-
You wrote, quoting Walt Kelly's Pogo, "We have met the enemy, [and] he is us."
I beg to differ. It is quite easy to see on this list of comments who are the tools of the enemy, if not the enemy themselves. The enemy, succinctly, are the psychopaths. It really is that simple. Psychopaths do not have a conscience, period. This is quite well established in the literature. I highly recommend doing a bit of reading on the subject; the book Political Ponerology by Andrzej Lobaczewski is suggested. An in depth study, mostly done in Poland under communist rule, it can be found as a free read on-line. A number of people gave their lives or freedom to gather this information and get it out. (ponerology comes from the Greek word for evil)
When one grasps the facts behind psychopathology, that these beings are not truly human and have no ability to learn shame or change or develop a conscience, then one begins to see the advantage they have, and have taken, over those of us who do have a conscience, can feel shame, care about others etc. They are natural predators on human society, and because they have not been recognized as such heretofore, we have allowed them to come into positions of great power and wealth. The ones that you read about who are in prisons are the failures; the ones at the head of corporations and countries are the successful psychopaths.
Various estimates put the level of actual psychopaths at around 6% of the population. Another 12% will actively aid and support them. That leaves about 80% of us to be their victims. We are at a distinct disadvantage, though, because we do have a moral and ethical sense. Except in moments of extreme anger and passion, it bothers us to hurt others. It does not bother a psychopath one little bit.
Learn the subject, learn to recognize them. This is very important for all of us. Thinking that we are all alike inside, imputing our higher emotions to them, is the biggest mistake we make and the one they consistently use against us. They are evil, by a very simple definition: they willingly cause harm to others in order to benefit themselves. They will also willingly cause harm to others because they take pleasure in it, much as a cat toying with a mouse before it kills and eats it.
So, the poor fools posting above with their illogical and pathetic justification of evil, are they psychopaths? Possibly, not really likely. Between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 of those occupying human bodies actually do not have a conscience or feeling for others, so the odds are those posters are just dupes or willing accomplices.
Here are a few other interesting facts about psychopaths: they are not creative, they do not learn from their mistakes (except to be more careful about being caught), and they generally have a very high opinion of their own intelligence and competency that is not borne out by observation.
Psychopaths can just as easily be found in a socialist milieu as in a fascist one, they are as common in a religious setting as in a corporate boardroom, as common in science and medicine as in law and the military. They are those who co-opt the revolution once the hard work has been done. By their fruits, that's how one knows them. If they appear to have done something creative and beneficial to mankind, a little more digging will reveal that they stole someone else's work and ideas and capitalized on them, always doing their best to cover their tracks and usually disparaging or eliminating the true creators.
When and if we, being the 80% or so, learn to recognize them and keep them from positions where they can harm others, this world will change. I don't think it can change until then.
"us" is not the enemy, THEY are, and now you know who THEY are.
m.astera
Comment by m.astera — June 23, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Igor R- I don't care about typos, I was reacting to the part where you said your interpretation of the Geneva Convention allows the execution of non-uniformed combatants. I'm still unsure; was that meant to be sarcastic? If that was your intent, I apologize for my comment.
Comment by stogie — June 24, 2007 @ 12:19 am
To M. Astera #32
YOU STATE :
When one grasps the facts behind psychopathology, that these beings are not truly human and have no ability to learn shame or change or develop a conscience, then one begins to see the advantage they have, and have taken, over those of us who do have a conscience, can feel shame, care about others etc.
Where was our shame and conscience, when without provocation we attacked and invaded a sovereign state ?
Comment by Tom — June 24, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
To M. Astera #32
YOU STATE:
Here are a few other interesting facts about psychopaths: they are not creative, they do not learn from their mistakes (except to be more careful about being caught), and they generally have a very high opinion of their own intelligence and competency that is not borne out by observation.
An apt description of Bush and Company.
Comment by Tom — June 24, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Stogie, I guess the prognosis for your opinion of my critical facilities isn't so good. I'm sarcastic about half the time, but not the time. The Geneva Convention does not apply to most prisoners captured in Iraq and Afganistan. Here is some info:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
To me it seems like the combattans the US is fighting in Iraq and Afganistan uniformly fail this definition. This is not just tecnical. If people dress like civilians, hide among civilians, use attack methods not generally accepted by the "laws of war" they can't expect to be treated like those who follow the rules.
Comment by Igor R. — June 24, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
It is interesting to read these whacked out, neocon, brainwashed, ditto head comments.
The only reason anyone would try and defend torture is they feel loyal to the vote they cast for Bushy, electing the iidiot that occupies the White House.
Igor, and John Simmons are classic examples of the TV generation, as they have no idea about mid-East history, politics of hydrocarbon, and don't read.
Comment by Rocky Houte — June 24, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Igor- If you're going to quote the Geneva convention to support your case, read the whole damn thing: (all bolding mine)
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
I want you to note that detainees, no matter what they are accused of, are, by virtue of being held prisoner, entitled to humane treatment, and may only be sentenced to execution by a court which affords certain judicial guarantees.
Comment by stogie — June 25, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Igor-
Not to flood the thread, but I thought you should article 5 too, which states that a person detained as a spy or saboteur (i.e. "terrorist" or "unlawful combatant,") forfeits the right of communication to the Red Cross, but they are still entitled to humane treatment.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person
Beyond that, just think about what you're arguing. Because criminals don't abide by laws, police should be free to break the law to catch them, right? What escapes you is that there are two gangs of criminals then running around. And that is absolutely antithetical to "government of laws, not of men." If that's how you want the government to work, you'd probably be happier in a third-world hellhole. Please find one that already exists, and go to it if that's what you desire. Don't try to drag the rest of us down by making the US into one.
Comment by stogie — June 25, 2007 @ 12:40 am
I think we need to quit arguing with people such as Igor and start rationalizing with them in whatever manner nesessary to unveil the blinders they can't seem to shake from themselves. Anyone who still believes this is a liberal vs. conservative fight is endangering the rest of us who have the real enemies in sights. Whether you know it or not, factionalism is being employed by our common enemy and we are accomodating them when we resort to categorizing one another with the trite epithets. I believe even the most ignorant commentator here truly wants what is best for their neighbors. Igor, you label your detractors as liberal, insinuating that the current administration is conservative when reality couldn't be any further from the truth. A cursory glance would reveal this to you if you would take the time to investigate for yourself rather than bathe in the propaganda emitted by the collusive media. I will introduce you to two brothers you need to meet, Paul and Felix Warburg, financiers who oversaw the competing factions of WWII's warfunding. Paul worked under President Roosevelt, the epitome of liberal administrators while his brother stayed in Germany under Hitler, fascisms finest. They and their kindred laughed all the way to the bank, while the obbfuscated died for a cause they erringly believed in
Comment by detonated — June 25, 2007 @ 10:49 am
RON PAUL FOR 2008.
NUF SAID.
THIS STUFF IS RIDICULOUS.
JUDGE NAPOLITANO ON RON PAUL AND PATRIOT ACT:
THIS GUY GETS A VOICE ON FOX, AND YET HE SEES THE FOLLY OF THE BUSH ADMIN AND THE PATRIOT ACT, AMAZING STUFF!!
http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/12/judge-andrew-napolitano-on-ron-paul/
Comment by highstreet — June 25, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
stogie, you're right. I'm no expert on the Geneva convention and thus, unintentially, made an improper argument by not getting to all the information, although I wasn't arguing for torture but streamlined trials. It looks like I was trying to manipulate the truth by selective presentation, and I'd really hate to do that. I had this picture in my mind from numerous anecdotal stories that irregulars captured in various battles were not subjected to some sort of full-blown jury trials, and not just by the Nazis and such, and it wasn't a violation of the Geneva convention. I'm well aware of a large number of irregular combattants captured in Iraq, turned over to the Iraqi authories, let go, and recaptured again after killing or attempting to kill Americans or regular Iraqi military.
I am very troubled, without really having an answer, by holding a terrorist who knows a lot of information about the rest of his organization, and not having any way to get to this information. I definitely don't want to contribute to making the US an authoritarian nation, but I also recognize that the nature of the threat presented by the world-wide jihadi networks is unlike anything seen before in a number of ways. I would like for those who are concerned about the treatment of prisoners to also recognize and acknowledge the nature of the threat and to contribute to solving it. Usually the argument is "such and such officials are bad, corrupt, and secretive. This is bad. The current US administration is bad, and the day of reckoning is coming." This presupposes that they are bad because they have evil nature or the have some nefarious purposes in mind, but doesn't allow for the possibility that they are trying to address a real threat in perhaps a flawed way, but that it's not an acceptable alternative to lose the country while behaving according to the rules.
Comment by Igor R. — June 25, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
detonated, I'm really not sure what you meant by recommending to stop arguing with people like me but start rationalizing. I'm not being facetious at all, I just don't know what you were really saying.
I understand your point though that there are people who want to make a buck and use ideology as a cover. On the other hand I would be the last person to label this administration as conservative, because the vast majority of what they attempted to do aren't things typically defined as conservative in the US political context. I'm also no story book conservative in that context because I grew up without having any religion, and am generally not interested in things like abortion, gay marriage, assault on Christmas, and a number of other things important to American conservatives.
I really only like three things about the Bush administration: their tortured but eventually ok path to appoining Supreme Court Justices, keeping taxes low, and their behavior on Iraq in the last seven months only, as well as the initial decision to overthrow Saddam. I don't like their position on illegal immigration, the spending they've been engaged in, and the well-known failures in Iraq. I do believe that any of the three front-runners of the Democratic party, and Bill Richardson as VP would be more disasterous by a large measure to the US interests than Bush has been. I like Fred Thompson and believe he would be much more beneficial than the Democratic fron-runners or Bush. I am also very troubled by the Clinton legacy of selling the presidency to the highest bidder, not in the name of ideology, but shere power.
Overall, when I hear the positions of self-described conservatives on the Islamic threat and illegal immigration, I tend to agree, and I more often than not disagree with self-described liberals or those who cite affiliation with well-known liberal groups such as MoveOn.org. I do see to strains: one is "my country is under attack on a number of fronts and we need to protect it" and the other one "the current administration is evil and we need to restore our standing in the world by behaving like good world citizens". I like the emphasis in the first strain more.
Comment by Igor R. — June 25, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Igor -
Your last two comments are a lot to digest. Here are some thoughts I have on the central issue of the discussion, namely the treatment of terror suspects:
IOur efforts to gain information on terrorist networks have been hampered by a number of factors. I tend to concentrate my criticism on US policy and practice because I believe that I have a better chance of influencing it toward what I believe is a more productive state of affairs. This does not mean that I am not concerned or outraged by terrorist attacks anywhere; I simply believe that American and worldwide interests would be better served by a more moderate approach toward the "War on Terror."
I really don't have time to post much more now. If you'd take a recommendation from me however, I think it would be good for you to read the histories of some insurgencies, such as the Boer War or French Algeria, or some soldiers' accounts of Vietnam.
Comment by stogie — June 26, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
This is the soldier's story I was thinking of, Igor.
Comment by stogie — June 27, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Igor wrote: "I had this picture in my mind from numerous anecdotal stories that irregulars captured in various battles were not subjected to some sort of full-blown jury trials, and not just by the Nazis and such, and it wasn't a violation of the Geneva convention."
Nazi Germany, signators to the Geneva Conventions, claimed an exemption to them for the Jews fighting in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Since the Jewish insurgents were not part of a recognized army, nor in uniform, and were engaged in violence against the authorized government in a territory Germany occupied, the Nazis believed they were not beholden to treat them as POWs and sent them to death camps, when they didn't execute them on the spot. Do I spot a parallel here?
"I am very troubled, without really having an answer, by holding a terrorist who knows a lot of information about the rest of his organization, and not having any way to get to this information."
If you know the detainee has information, you likely know what it is already. The scenario you outlined is prevalent in popular entertainment, but rare to the point of ridiculousness in real life, like the countdown clock that is stopped by the hero one second from doom. In fact, the torturer doesn't know what his subject knows in advance; hence the innocent people or marginal characters, such as Bin Laden's chauffeur, who have been tortured.
"I definitely don't want to contribute to making the US an authoritarian nation, but I also recognize that the nature of the threat presented by the world-wide jihadi networks is unlike anything seen before in a number of ways."
Actually, it isn't. There have been religiously-motivated terrorist groups throughout history, such as the Thuggees who operated in India for over two hundred years; Hassan al-Sabbah's Hashshashin Assassins in Asia Minor from 1090 AD to 1270 AD; the various collections of Zealots opposing Rome in ancient Judea from 63 BC to 64 AD, and even the Irgun bombing the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing Brits, Arabs and Jews, so, no, the violence of Al-Qaeda isn't unprecedented. Furthermore, it's been estimated there are only about 50,000 Al-Qaeda members worldwide and only a fraction of them are suicide bombers. Do you seriously think 50,000 terrorists without aircraft, ships or high-tech weaponry are capable of invading and controlling a nation of 300 million with a modern army and navy? The idea is ludicrous. They can attack us, such as the US Cole bombing and the 9/11 tragedy, but they can't take over the country. My God, Americans cringing in fear at religious nuts who hide in caves — whatever happened to the Home of the Brave?
"I would like for those who are concerned about the treatment of prisoners to also recognize and acknowledge the nature of the threat and to contribute to solving it."
The nature of the threat should be dealt with rationally and not in a state of panic, such as the Bush Administration has exhibited the past five years. Perhaps if we stopped covertly meddling in the Middle East, much of the threat would disappear. Most Muslims and most Arabs do not hate the United States and have no desire to conquer us — they simply want us to keep our noses out their business, and our hands out of their pockets. In Iraq, for example, the insurgents are reacting to our occupation the same way many Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign army who refused to leave.
"Usually the argument is "such and such officials are bad, corrupt, and secretive. This is bad. The current US administration is bad, and the day of reckoning is coming." This presupposes that they are bad because they have evil nature or the have some nefarious purposes in mind, but doesn't allow for the possibility that they are trying to address a real threat in perhaps a flawed way, but that it's not an acceptable alternative to lose the country while behaving according to the rules."
As Jesus said, ye shall know the tree by its fruit. Confining human beings, including American citizens, indefinitely without due process of law; torturing innocent people; suspending habeas corpus; waging pre-emptive war disregarding the edicts of the Nuremberg Trials and resolutions of the UN Security Council; imposing a government on a foreign nation while profiting from their assets; violating the Constitution to 'secure' the country, something we didn't do even in 1812 when the British invaded and set fire to the White House; and enriching yourself and your campaign contributors with fat no-bid contracts — all are the rotten fruit of this administration. To put it in the mildest context, they are completely incompetent to wage war against terrorists, or anybody else, and we are losing the country to their inability to deal with reality reasonably and addiction to corporate profit. The rules, as embodied by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, were made by the Founders to contain this kind of out-of-control government; it's just a shame the Congress isn't enforcing them.
"I really only like three things about the Bush administration: their tortured but eventually ok path to appoining Supreme Court Justices, keeping taxes low, and their behavior on Iraq in the last seven months only, as well as the initial decision to overthrow Saddam."
You think it's as American as apple pie to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who believe in the Unitary Executive theory — i.e.: they think we should have an elected king? George Washington turned down this notion when he became our first president as being contrary to everything the nation stood for. Your low taxes are ballooning our record high deficit; someone in the future is going to have to pay off that debt. Speaks well for your character that you apparently don't care who. The Bush 'plan' for Iraq in the past seven months has been just as full of flaws and spin as his 'plans' of the previous three years, and just as successful so far. The decision to overthrow Saddam was based on forged documents, unreliable intelligence, cherry-picked talking points and outright lies. While we're spending our treasure and blood securing Iraq, Osama is laughing at us from his safe haven in Pakistan; Bush has managed to make us hated throughout the Middle East and recruited more sympathizers and terrorists for Al-Qaeda. If you think this is a good foreign policy, or a sane way to bring terrorists to justice, there may be a spot for you in Gonzales' DoJ.
"I don't like their position on illegal immigration, the spending they've been engaged in, and the well-known failures in Iraq. I do believe that any of the three front-runners of the Democratic party, and Bill Richardson as VP would be more disasterous by a large measure to the US interests than Bush has been."
How could any of them possibly be worse than the Bush disaster?
"I like Fred Thompson and believe he would be much more beneficial than the Democratic fron-runners or Bush."
An actor who appears on a show called "Law and Order" is your political savior? The irony, she is dripping like the summer sweat.
"I am also very troubled by the Clinton legacy of selling the presidency to the highest bidder, not in the name of ideology, but shere power."
You mean it's fine with you to sell the presidency in the name of ideology? BTW, if you can find a more dedicated team of powermongers than Dick Cheney and is chief of staff David Addington, why not reveal them to us?
"Overall, when I hear the positions of self-described conservatives on the Islamic threat and illegal immigration, I tend to agree, and I more often than not disagree with self-described liberals or those who cite affiliation with well-known liberal groups such as MoveOn.org. I do see to strains: one is "my country is under attack on a number of fronts and we need to protect it" and the other one "the current administration is evil and we need to restore our standing in the world by behaving like good world citizens". I like the emphasis in the first strain more."
You country, its Constitution, and all it stands for is under siege by the current occupants of the Executive Branch of the federal government. Lincoln said we are the last, best hope of mankind. Do you really believe that the Bush Regime in any way represents Lincoln's ideal? We can, as we have in the past, be both good citizens in the world and defend ourselves; the two are not mutually exclusive, no matter what word game Frank Luntz peddles to the contrary.
Comment by RS Janes — June 27, 2007 @ 6:39 pm