Bush/Pentagon Condone Torture

A.B.Normal said:
"to provisions"
To me that says ,they can limit there movement i.e. certain areas offlimits and a curfew ,disabling phonelines ,it in no way infers that the occupying force may "inflict " anything.

pro·vi·sion (noun) (Dictionary.com)

3. A preparatory action or measure.

5. A stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement.

"The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions (actions or measures) which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations..."
 
The Other One said:
pro·vi·sion (noun) (Dictionary.com)

3. A preparatory action or measure.

5. A stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement.

"The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions (actions or measures) which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations..."
I think that you're agreeing here. The question is...what are the provisions going to be?

Search and seizure w/out warrant
Curfews
??
 
MrBishop said:
The question is...what are the provisions going to be?

Search and seizure w/out warrant
Curfews
??


Some people would say the Geneva Conventions don't apply when it comes to dealing with terrorists, as they are not bound by any rules themselves. I understood IV to mean that the population could be subject to actions that must enable the U.S. to ensure the security of their peoples and property and communications lines while in the country, and if that means panties on the head or a woman standing in superior position over a man in a country where women are viewed as second class citizens to squeeze some valuable information out of him, so be it.
 
MrBishop said:
That works well in police situations, with smaller groups, but in the majority of these cases...it's small independant groups. They're related in the same cause, but not the same method. What I'm saying is that the information that you are likely to get will be so disjointed that it will be nigh impossible to construct even an educated guess. (ie. Over the next 2-3 weeks, about 10 suicide bombers are planning attacks somewhere in Baghdad) - hell...I can tell you as much by reading the NY Times.

Here's something to ponder. You've captured more than a common soldier, more than a mid-rank officer...you've captured several Generals AND the Grand Poobah himself, Saddam Hussein. I'm sure that these people are being pushed. Probably not as hard as the common soldier would've been because of the repurcusions from the press, but still. I would bet that there's precious little concrete information that you're getting from them. Not because they're that hard a nut to crack..they're human. Push hard enough and they'll crack, but because you're dealing with a Guerilla Organization, it's scattered enough that this kind of information is next to useless.

Now...don't get me wrong. Intel is VERY important to the success of any operation, but in this case..this kind of HumInt isn't working. Time to go back to satellites.


There is too much conjecture in your argument. There are no "if this = than that" in intel gathering and processing.

Some things can't change easily or qwickly (quickly) even in a guerilla organization. Often intel is looking for patterns: how communication is made, types of training, common associations. Valuable information is often information that the prisoner himself does not realize is valuable and thus gives it up freely.

Every scrap is compared to the other scraps from any source.

The FBI finds a phone number on a hard-drive, France finds the same number in a personal phone book, The was phone bought in Egypt and received 7-calls during a 2 month period while the phone was in Germany. The name attached to the phone is believed 99% to be falsified, thus a dead end. This does not mean the intel is useless. It shows an unknown variable in common between two suspects. It means more pieces of information are needed.
 
What is torture? Psychological torture? Snarling attack dogs, women with cigarettes and leashes, bare-naked in a pile, sleep and light deprivation, humiliation? Maybe this list from Saddam's how-to manual for hours of party fun will define it:


Forcible rape (male or female)
Racking someone's limbs
Piling heavy weights upon the ribs gradually to the breaking point and beyond
Screwing thumbnails down
Inserting objects between digits and karatin (fingers, toes, teeth)
Constant dripping of water onto somone
Constant dripping of water *into* someone (mouth, nose, eyes, ears, rectum)
Branding of body parts
Searing of eyes
Blinding of eyes
Inserting objects into ears
Application of a tight, wet, leather strap around the neck for later drying
Removal of hair and portions of skin (scalping)
Removal of nose, ears, eyes, digits (21 digits for men), nipples, tongue, hands, arms, legs
Application of salt into open wounds
Application of corrosives (mild for slower forms of torture)
Forced witnessing of the torture/death of loved ones
Partial mastication by any number of animals
Application of electricity beyond nominal limits
Application of a variety of harmful drugs or poisons with intent to harm
Removal of the skin
Partial removal of the gut
Use of abrasive materials or chemicals on any portion of the body
and....
Use of objects
 
The Other One said:
What is torture? Psychological torture? Snarling attack dogs, women with cigarettes and leashes, bare-naked in a pile, sleep and light deprivation, humiliation? Maybe this list from Saddam's how-to manual for hours of party fun will define it:


Forcible rape (male or female)
Racking someone's limbs
Piling heavy weights upon the ribs gradually to the breaking point and beyond
Screwing thumbnails down
Inserting objects between digits and karatin (fingers, toes, teeth)
Constant dripping of water onto somone
Constant dripping of water *into* someone (mouth, nose, eyes, ears, rectum)
Branding of body parts
Searing of eyes
Blinding of eyes
Inserting objects into ears
Application of a tight, wet, leather strap around the neck for later drying
Removal of hair and portions of skin (scalping)
Removal of nose, ears, eyes, digits (21 digits for men), nipples, tongue, hands, arms, legs
Application of salt into open wounds
Application of corrosives (mild for slower forms of torture)
Forced witnessing of the torture/death of loved ones
Partial mastication by any number of animals
Application of electricity beyond nominal limits
Application of a variety of harmful drugs or poisons with intent to harm
Removal of the skin
Partial removal of the gut
Use of abrasive materials or chemicals on any portion of the body
and....
Use of objects
Is this a request list for the next Iraqi prisoners or a statment of methodology that should be avoided? Are you trying to draw a line in the sand and say "You can go this far, but no further" or just saying that some forms of torture are OK, but not these ones?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
There is too much conjecture in your argument. There are no "if this = than that" in intel gathering and processing.
RM said:
U.S. troops need to use any measures necessary to elicit information from prisoners to ensure U.S. safety in Iraq. Meaning if prisoner Muhammad knows when the next RPG will be aimed at a Humvee containing U.S. troops and they just a smirking trigger pull away from death, shouldn't Muhammad be convinced by any means to disclose this information? Or, if Wafeeq knows when the next American hostage will get his head sawed off, shouldn't we know, too? Or maybe Abdul-Rasheed personally knows when bin Laden will pay a visit to Iraq--Lynndie England and her leash is the perfect choice here.
Which one is it? Are you saying that you think that you'll get specific answer for upcoming events from these prisoners or are you saying that you'll get a better idea of how the organization is formed/works/relates/communicates ?

Even if it's the latter...it's a lot of work when you're talking about a number of very small groups (3-7 members) with precious little contact with the other groups. There are levels of information gathering...but I would prefer the interview method, or the hidden camera/microphone, or any number of verbal or intellectual trickery over and above torture. Even if "we" don't consider it torture...
 
MrBishop said:
Hell.... you can ask Gato if he knows what everyone in his troop will be doing next week...or other troops for that matter. I'd bet that he wouldn't know.

You're correct. I wouldn't know. If they do something wrong, however, it's my fault as much as theirs because I'm supposed to know. First rule of leadership...everything is my fault. ;)

As for the whole torturing bit...if it was legal, how come people are being punished for it? Don't let facts get in the way of your rhetoric. The fallout from this will be extreme, but I'm betting nobody will be happy with the results regardless of how it turns out.
 
MrBishop said:
Which one is it? Are you saying that you think that you'll get specific answer for upcoming events from these prisoners or are you saying that you'll get a better idea of how the organization is formed/works/relates/communicates ?

Even if it's the latter...it's a lot of work when you're talking about a number of very small groups (3-7 members) with precious little contact with the other groups. There are levels of information gathering...but I would prefer the interview method, or the hidden camera/microphone, or any number of verbal or intellectual trickery over and above torture. Even if "we" don't consider it torture...


First off, your second quote you credit to me, IS NOT my quote.

So It would by my opinon that first quote is what you need to focus on. (for me anyway)

It would be the latter, and yes it is a lot work. How are you to know they have "precious little contact' call the psychic-line and ask? No you grill 'em.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
How are you to know they have "precious little contact' call the psychic-line and ask? No you grill 'em.


So you subject anyone to the same "panty on head,dog at crotch" method whether you know the have info or not. :alienhuh:
 
A.B.Normal said:
So you subject anyone to the same "panty on head,dog at crotch" method whether you know the have info or not. :alienhuh:

You just getting silly with your argument now, or you don't have clue how real world works. Abu prison block 1 & 2 were the worst of worst.

Yes, panties on all inmates, post their pics in the local Iraqi newspapers. Jay-walking = 2 hours standing on the corner wearing panties.

People pay good money for treatment like that.
 
MrBishop said:
.... saying that some forms of torture are OK


I am suffering great torture put upon me by the biased liberal media outlets who won't let go of this story--- who have to keep it on the front page every day, in yet another attempt to denigrate America in general and put a Democrat in the Whitehouse in specific.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
You just getting silly with your argument now, or you don't have clue how real world works. Abu prison block 1 & 2 were the worst of worst.

Yes, panties on all inmates, post their pics in the local Iraqi newspapers. Jay-walking = 2 hours standing on the corner wearing panties.

People pay good money for treatment like that.

The fact that they are releasing hundreds if not thousands of Iraqis saying that they no longer pose a threat ,says to me that they never really were a threat or needed to be detained,yet all of those released went through some level of interrogation(you can bet on that) .The US says after June 30 they are going to keep 4000 prisoners who still pose a threat .They have probably released twice that amount of Iraqis who never posed a threat yet now have a "reason" to distrust/hate the coalition.Those charged so far have always maintained they never knew what the prisoners were accused of just that they were to soften them up ,so in all probability some of those being released went through block 1&2 .

If they can lose a high value target* ,then surely they can put people through the system that shouldn't be.

*
It is unclear what the status of "XXX" is now or whether he has provided useful intelligence. The official said "XXX" was taken to Camp Cropper on the advice of the Justice Department after having initially been flown out of Iraq to an "undisclosed location." But the detainee "got lost in the system" almost as soon as he was returned to Iraq, and he was not interrogated again — despite having undergone intense questioning at the unknown location.
Source
 
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5323

At Abu Ghraib, US seeks to make things right
by Thanassis Cambanis, The Boston Globe
June 12th, 2004
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq -- Every day at Abu Ghraib prison, about 200 smiling detainees receive visitors and pose -- with no apparent sense of irony -- for US soldiers taking digital photographs. Printouts of the photographs are given to the detainee and the visitor.

Even now, the prison's 3,100 detainees live in sand-blown tents with no cots and only sporadic access to running water. They have little protection from the hot summer winds that make the 120-degree days particularly dehydrating.

Fifteen months after the invasion, and just over a month after the prison abuse images shook the reputation of the US-led occupation in Iraq, military officials are eager to move past the scandal.

They've opened the prison facility to some Iraqi political leaders and recently allowed a Globe reporter a glimpse of reforms enacted at Abu Ghraib designed to improve quality of life and prevent repeat instances of abuse. Still, even the military commanders here admit that they haven't yet solved all the accumulated problems.

This week, some detainees started receiving a letter in Arabic explaining why they were being held, and whether they were slated for release or not. By the end of June, all 6,000 detainees held as threats to occupation soldiers will receive a status letter.

By then, officials hope to reduce the population at Abu Ghraib to 2,000 from its peak of as many as 10,000 late last year. Another 2,000, they estimate, will be kept at the occupation forces' other major prison facility, Camp Bucca, in southern Iraq near the Kuwait border, which currently holds about 2,700 inmates.

Living conditions in Abu Ghraib, which is just outside of Baghdad, should improve dramatically, said Colonel Craig Essick, the military police commander in charge of detention operations at the prison.

Camp officials plan to install air conditioners in the tents by June 30. Already, noontime temperatures are pushing 110. They'll also lay gravel to keep down the choking dust.

Many inmates have been moved to a new outdoor facility, called Camp Redemption, so named at the suggestion of an Iraqi Governing Council member who toured the prison in May.

Nearby Camp Ganci (named for a New York firefighter who died on Sept. 11, like most other US detention facilities in Iraq) houses more than 1,000 detainees and is rimmed by a loose jumble of concertina wire; there, detainees sleep on the ground, unprotected by sandbags.

''How long do I have to stay here?" one of the detainees, speaking in fluent English, shouted at Essick as he showed a visitor around the Ganci camp.

''Until we decide what's happening with the new government," Essick answered.

Turning to the visitor, he said: ''A big problem is these detainees don't know what's going on."

Since January, there has been a 100 percent turnover in the military staff at Abu Ghraib; none of the MPs and officers at the prison were around during the abuses that took place last fall. Currently, 1,600 soldiers, MPs and Marines are stationed there, or one for every two detainees.

By the middle of last month, prison officials had shut down the indoor prison wing where the photographs were taken.

But the infamy stemming from the abuse scandal is never far from the minds of the soldiers and Marines stationed at Abu Ghraib.

''We're about restoring the confidence of the Iraqi people that the coalition is operating humane detention," said Major General Geoffrey Miller, the officer who moved from the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in April to reform the US prison system in Iraq.

''It takes a while to restore the trust that was lost," Miller said. ''We're all embarrassed and ashamed by the actions of a few leaders who committed apparently illegal acts. I can assure there are no longer abuses going on."

Military police stationed at Abu Ghraib complained that atrocities committed by their predecessors have further complicated an already difficult posting.

''I know it's going to be hard for me to go home and say proudly I served at Abu Ghraib, even though I know I've done a good job," said Sergeant Emily King, 28, a reservist from Virginia. Back home, she is a State Department diplomat; here she guards the facility's three remaining female detainees.

Added Sergeant First Class Paul Helton, 35: ''I liked it a lot better when my family didn't know where this place was. In light of all that's happened and the negative publicity, everyone's forgotten about the troops that are here and they're doing a hell of a job."

Essick answered questions for his hometown suburban paper by e-mail before the scandal; when prison abuse became international news, the paper ran a story on the front page headlined ''Local Man Runs Abu Ghraib."

The prison itself has been subject to frequent insurgent attacks. Dozens of detainees have died in mortar attacks over the last year, with shells landing in the sea of tents just over the prison walls. A ferocious attack in April killed 21 detainees and wounded 91, overwhelming the small prison hospital. Doctors at Abu Ghraib are still treating detainees who lost limbs or suffered severe shrapnel wounds in the attack.

Colonel Robert F. Thomas, the garrison commander responsible for protecting Abu Ghraib from outside attacks, said that shelling incident prompted him to install more ''U-bunkers," above-ground concrete bomb shelters, and to place sandbags around inmates' tents to provide some protection from shrapnel during attacks.

''When we got here in April this place was a disaster," said Thomas, a reservist from Mississippi who is a sheriff's deputy at home. He carries a copy of the Geneva Conventions in his back pocket, and takes personally the abuses that were committed here.

''Those of us who are here now have worked extremely hard to make this a place we can be proud of when we leave," he said. ''Everything we do is a strategic initiative to turn around the black mark that is on America."

While Essick and Thomas work to improve the physical conditions at Abu Ghraib, another group back at air-conditioned offices in Camp Victory, near Baghdad International Airport, is struggling to bring order to the military legal system that governs the detainees.

The Americans in charge acknowledge that about half of all detainees are still set free for lack of evidence once the United States gets around to looking at their paperwork, and 15 percent of cases aren't even reviewed before the six-month deadline required under the Geneva Conventions.

At Abu Ghraib, the US military holds only ''security detainees," Iraqis and some foreigners considered threats to occupation forces.


In February, a full-time committee of officers led by a senior military lawyer, Colonel Steve Day, began reviewing the case files of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and has ordered about 4,000 released so far, either because they no longer pose a threat to occupation soldiers or because there was insufficient evidence against them.

Another 800 have been referred to the Iraqi justice system and transferred to Iraqi custody. Iraqi correctional services have taken charge of the original prison building at Abu Ghraib and are using it to hold criminals.

With Iraq's insurgency continuing, about 200 new detainees enter the military system every week.

''We had a big backlog," Day said. They've almost caught up."

In nearly 5 percent of cases, files have been lost. ''We just released them," Day said of those cases.

Miller, who took charge of detention and interrogation operations in Iraq in April, has worked to reimpose military discipline at Abu Ghraib, said he believes that interrogations at the prison will continue to provide useful intelligence for occupation forces, without any violations of the law. Under his command, the military has made it possible for family members to track down a detainee and schedule regular visits.

''We've laid out the standards, and the chain of command is involved," he said. ''That's why I'm confident abuses will not happen."

Miller's officers make unannounced inspections throughout the prison, he said, and some aggressive interrogation tactics, such as sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, and stress positions, have been banned.

Back at Camp Redemption in Abu Ghraib, Essick surveyed the hundreds of men surging toward a chain-link fence to shout complaints at a pair of lawyers from the Iraqi Ministry of Justice on an inspection tour.

He pointed to a half-dozen concrete shower stalls, a row of portable toilets, the U-bunker, and sandbags -- all evidence that life at Abu Ghraib would be better for the 2,000 or so detainees who will remain here in American custody after June 30, when sovereignty technically reverts to Iraq.

''We'll give them every privilege we have," he said. ''It's not the greatest, but some of them probably deserve to be here."
 
A.B.Normal said:
The fact that they are releasing hundreds if not thousands of Iraqis saying that they no longer pose a threat ,says to me that they never really were a threat or needed to be detained,
It says to me that they are like prisoners, and learned their lesson, and got paroled.
yet all of those released went through some level of interrogation(you can bet on that) .
naturally
The US says after June 30 they are going to keep 4000 prisoners who still pose a threat .They have probably released twice that amount of Iraqis who never posed a threat yet now have a "reason" to distrust/hate the coalition.Those charged so far have always maintained they never knew what the prisoners were accused of just that they were to soften them up ,so in all probability some of those being released went through block 1&2 .
could you split were what the "US" said ended, and what you said began there??? :confused:
I can guess, but I wouldn't want to make assumptions on this...

If they can lose a high value target* ,then surely they can put people through the system that shouldn't be.
Unfortunately this does happen, even with the best "systems" in the world.
Unless a Better plan than never detaining anybody, or the current plan,
comes along, I see no changing it.
 
Back
Top