NSR--more torture in Iraq

And you can bet this is just the tip of the iceberg. We know it's happened before, it's happening right now, and will continue to happen.
Your tax dollars at work.
From Sunday's NYT.

In Secret Unit's 'Black Room,' a Grim Portrait of U.S. Abuse


By ERIC SCHMITT and CAROLYN MARSHALL
Published: March 19, 2006

As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.
Skip to next paragraph

A placard from Camp Nama in Iraq, where some detainees were used as paintball targets.
Task Force 6-26

In June 2004, Stephen A. Cambone, a top Pentagon official, ordered his deputy, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, to look into allegations of detainee abuse at Camp Nama.

In the windowless, jet-black garage-size room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball. Their intention was to extract information to help hunt down Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to Defense Department personnel who served with the unit or were briefed on its operations.

The Black Room was part of a temporary detention site at Camp Nama, the secret headquarters of a shadowy military unit known as Task Force 6-26. Located at Baghdad International Airport, the camp was the first stop for many insurgents on their way to the Abu Ghraib prison a few miles away.

Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, "NO BLOOD, NO FOUL." The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. "The reality is, there were no rules there," another Pentagon official said.

The story of detainee abuse in Iraq is a familiar one. But the following account of Task Force 6-26, based on documents and interviews with more than a dozen people, offers the first detailed description of how the military's most highly trained counterterrorism unit committed serious abuses.

It adds to the picture of harsh interrogation practices at American military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as at secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centers around the world.

The new account reveals the extent to which the unit members mistreated prisoners months before and after the photographs of abuse from Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, and it helps belie the original Pentagon assertions that abuse was confined to a small number of rogue reservists at Abu Ghraib.

The abuses at Camp Nama continued despite warnings beginning in August 2003 from an Army investigator and American intelligence and law enforcement officials in Iraq. The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August.

It is difficult to compare the conditions at the camp with those at Abu Ghraib because so little is known about the secret compound, which was off limits even to the Red Cross. The abuses appeared to have been unsanctioned, but some of them seemed to have been well known throughout the camp.

For an elite unit with roughly 1,000 people at any given time, Task Force 6-26 seems to have had a large number of troops punished for detainee abuse. Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners, and at least 11 members have been removed from the unit, according to new figures the Special Operations Command provided in response to questions from The New York Times. Five Army Rangers in the unit were convicted three months ago for kicking and punching three detainees in September 2005.

Some of the serious accusations against Task Force 6-26 have been reported over the past 16 months by news organizations including NBC, The Washington Post and The Times. Many details emerged in hundreds of pages of documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union. But taken together for the first time, the declassified documents and interviews with more than a dozen military and civilian Defense Department and other federal personnel provide the most detailed portrait yet of the secret camp and the inner workings of the clandestine unit.

The documents and interviews also reflect a culture clash between the free-wheeling military commandos and the more cautious Pentagon civilians working with them that escalated to a tense confrontation. At one point, one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's top aides, Stephen A. Cambone, ordered a subordinate to "get to the bottom" of any misconduct.

Most of the people interviewed for this article were midlevel civilian and military Defense Department personnel who worked with Task Force 6-26 and said they witnessed abuses, or who were briefed on its operations over the past three years.

Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives.

Virtually all of those who agreed to speak are career government employees, many with previous military service, and they were granted anonymity to encourage them to speak candidly without fear of retribution from the Pentagon. Many of their complaints are supported by declassified military documents and e-mail messages from F.B.I. agents who worked regularly with the task force in Iraq.

A Demand for Intelligence

Military officials say there may have been extenuating circumstances for some of the harsh treatment at Camp Nama and its field stations in other parts of Iraq. By the spring of 2004, the demand on interrogators for intelligence was growing to help combat the increasingly numerous and deadly insurgent attacks.

Some detainees may have been injured resisting capture. A spokesman for the Special Operations Command, Kenneth S. McGraw, said there was sufficient evidence to prove misconduct in only 5 of 29 abuse allegations against task force members since 2003. As a result of those five incidents, 34 people were disciplined.

"We take all those allegations seriously," Gen. Bryan D. Brown, the commander of the Special Operations Command, said in a brief hallway exchange on Capitol Hill on March 8. "Any kind of abuse is not consistent with the values of the Special Operations Command."

The secrecy surrounding the highly classified unit has helped to shield its conduct from public scrutiny. The Pentagon will not disclose the unit's precise size, the names of its commanders, its operating bases or specific missions. Even the task force's name changes regularly to confuse adversaries, and the courts-martial and other disciplinary proceedings have not identified the soldiers in public announcements as task force members.

General Brown's command declined requests for interviews with several former task force members and with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who leads the Joint Special Operations Command, the headquarters at Fort Bragg, N.C., that supplies the unit's most elite troops.

One Special Operations officer and a senior enlisted soldier identified by Defense Department personnel as former task force members at Camp Nama declined to comment when contacted by telephone. Attempts to contact three other Special Operations soldiers who were in the unit — by phone, through relatives and former neighbors — were also unsuccessful.

Cases of detainee abuse attributed to Task Force 6-26 demonstrate both confusion over and, in some cases, disregard for approved interrogation practices and standards for detainee treatment, according to Defense Department specialists who have worked with the unit.

In early 2004, an 18-year-old man suspected of selling cars to members of the Zarqawi terrorist network was seized with his entire family at their home in Baghdad. Task force soldiers beat him repeatedly with a rifle butt and punched him in the head and kidneys, said a Defense Department specialist briefed on the incident.

Some complaints were ignored or played down in a unit where a conspiracy of silence contributed to the overall secretiveness. "It's under control," one unit commander told a Defense Department official who complained about mistreatment at Camp Nama in the spring of 2004.

For hundreds of suspected insurgents, Camp Nama was a way station on a journey that started with their capture on the battlefield or in their homes, and ended often in a cell at Abu Ghraib. Hidden in plain sight just off a dusty road fronting Baghdad International Airport, Camp Nama was an unmarked, virtually unknown compound at the edge of the taxiways.

The heart of the camp was the Battlefield Interrogation Facility, alternately known as the Temporary Detention Facility and the Temporary Holding Facility. The interrogation and detention areas occupied a corner of the larger compound, separated by a fence topped with razor wire.

Unmarked helicopters flew detainees into the camp almost daily, former task force members said. Dressed in blue jumpsuits with taped goggles covering their eyes, the shackled prisoners were led into a screening room where they were registered and examined by medics.

Just beyond the screening rooms, where Saddam Hussein was given a medical exam after his capture, detainees were kept in as many as 85 cells spread over two buildings. Some detainees were kept in what was known as Motel 6, a group of crudely built plywood shacks that reeked of urine and excrement. The shacks were cramped, forcing many prisoners to squat or crouch. Other detainees were housed inside a separate building in 6-by-8-foot cubicles in a cellblock called Hotel California.

The interrogation rooms were stark. High-value detainees were questioned in the Black Room, nearly bare but for several 18-inch hooks that jutted from the ceiling, a grisly reminder of the terrors inflicted by Mr. Hussein's inquisitors. Jailers often blared rap music or rock 'n' roll at deafening decibels over a loudspeaker to unnerve their subjects.

Another smaller room offered basic comforts like carpets and cushioned seating to put more cooperative prisoners at ease, said several Defense Department specialists who worked at Camp Nama. Detainees wore heavy, olive-drab hoods outside their cells. By June 2004, the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib galvanized the military to promise better treatment for prisoners. In one small concession at Camp Nama, soldiers exchanged the hoods for cloth blindfolds with drop veils that allowed detainees to breathe more freely but prevented them from peeking out.

Some former task force members said the Nama in the camp's name stood for a coarse phrase that soldiers used to describe the compound. One Defense Department specialist recalled seeing pink blotches on detainees' clothing as well as red welts on their bodies, marks he learned later were inflicted by soldiers who used detainees as targets and called themselves the High Five Paintball Club.

Mr. McGraw, the military spokesman, said he had not heard of the Black Room or the paintball club and had not seen any mention of them in the documents he had reviewed.

In a nearby operations center, task force analysts pored over intelligence collected from spies, detainees and remotely piloted Predator surveillance aircraft, to piece together clues to aid soldiers on their raids. Twice daily at noon and midnight military interrogators and their supervisors met with officials from the C.I.A., F.B.I. and allied military units to review operations and new intelligence.

Task Force 6-26 was a creation of the Pentagon's post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorism, and it quickly became the model for how the military would gain intelligence and battle insurgents in the future. Originally known as Task Force 121, it was formed in the summer of 2003, when the military merged two existing Special Operations units, one hunting Osama bin Laden in and around Afghanistan, and the other tracking Mr. Hussein in Iraq. (Its current name is Task Force 145.)

The task force was a melting pot of military and civilian units. It drew on elite troops from the Joint Special Operations Command, whose elements include the Army unit Delta Force, Navy's Seal Team 6 and the 75th Ranger Regiment. Military reservists and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel with special skills, like interrogators, were temporarily assigned to the unit. C.I.A. officers, F.B.I. agents and special operations forces from other countries also worked closely with the task force.

Many of the American Special Operations soldiers wore civilian clothes and were allowed to grow beards and long hair, setting them apart from their uniformed colleagues. Unlike conventional soldiers and marines whose Iraq tours lasted 7 to 12 months, unit members and their commanders typically rotated every 90 days.

Task Force 6-26 had a singular focus: capture or kill Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant operating in Iraq. "Anytime there was even the smell of Zarqawi nearby, they would go out and use any means possible to get information from a detainee," one official said.

Defense Department personnel briefed on the unit's operations said the harsh treatment extended beyond Camp Nama to small field outposts in Baghdad, Falluja, Balad, Ramadi and Kirkuk. These stations were often nestled within the alleys of a city in nondescript buildings with suburban-size yards where helicopters could land to drop off or pick up detainees.

At the outposts, some detainees were stripped naked and had cold water thrown on them to cause the sensation of drowning, said Defense Department personnel who served with the unit.

In January 2004, the task force captured the son of one of Mr. Hussein's bodyguards in Tikrit. The man told Army investigators that he was forced to strip and that he was punched in the spine until he fainted, put in front of an air-conditioner while cold water was poured on him and kicked in the stomach until he vomited. Army investigators were forced to close their inquiry in June 2005 after they said task force members used battlefield pseudonyms that made it impossible to identify and locate the soldiers involved. The unit also asserted that 70 percent of its computer files had been lost.

Despite the task force's access to a wide range of intelligence, its raids were often dry holes, yielding little if any intelligence and alienating ordinary Iraqis, Defense Department personnel said. Prisoners deemed no threat to American troops were often driven deep into the Iraqi desert at night and released, sometimes given $100 or more in American money for their trouble.

Back at Camp Nama, the task force leaders established a ritual for departing personnel who did a good job, Pentagon officials said. The commanders presented them with two unusual mementos: a detainee hood and a souvenir piece of tile from the medical screening room that once held Mr. Hussein.

Early Signs of Trouble

Accusations of abuse by Task Force 6-26 came as no surprise to many other officials in Iraq. By early 2004, both the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. had expressed alarm about the military's harsh interrogation techniques.

The C.I.A.'s Baghdad station sent a cable to headquarters on Aug. 3, 2003, raising concern that Special Operations troops who served with agency officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive. Five days later, the C.I.A. issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations. Separately, the C.I.A. barred its officers from working at Camp Nama but allowed them to keep providing target information and other intelligence to the task force.

The warnings still echoed nearly a year later. On June 25, 2004, nearly two months after the disclosure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, an F.B.I. agent in Iraq sent an e-mail message to his superiors in Washington, warning that a detainee captured by Task Force 6-26 had suspicious burn marks on his body. The detainee said he had been tortured. A month earlier, another F.B.I. agent asked top bureau officials for guidance on how to deal with military interrogators across Iraq who used techniques like loud music and yelling that exceeded "the bounds of standard F.B.I. practice."

American generals were also alerted to the problem. In December 2003, Col. Stuart A. Herrington, a retired Army intelligence officer, warned in a confidential memo that medical personnel reported that prisoners seized by the unit, then known as Task Force 121, had injuries consistent with beatings. "It seems clear that TF 121 needs to be reined in with respect to its treatment of detainees," Colonel Herrington concluded.

By May 2004, just as the scandal at Abu Ghraib was breaking, tensions increased at Camp Nama between the Special Operations troops and civilian interrogators and case officers from the D.I.A.'s Defense Human Intelligence Service, who were there to support the unit in its fight against the Zarqawi network. The discord, according to documents, centered on the harsh treatment of detainees as well as restrictions the Special Operations troops placed on their civilian colleagues, like monitoring their e-mail messages and phone calls.

Maj. Gen. George E. Ennis, who until recently commanded the D.I.A.'s human intelligence division, declined to be interviewed for this article. But in written responses to questions, General Ennis said he never heard about the numerous complaints made by D.I.A. personnel until he and his boss, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, then the agency's director, were briefed on June 24, 2004.

The next day, Admiral Jacoby wrote a two-page memo to Mr. Cambone, under secretary of defense for intelligence. In it, he described a series of complaints, including a May 2004 incident in which a D.I.A. interrogator said he witnessed task force soldiers punch a detainee hard enough to require medical help. The D.I.A. officer took photos of the injuries, but a supervisor confiscated them, the memo said.

The tensions laid bare a clash of military cultures. Combat-hardened commandos seeking a steady flow of intelligence to pinpoint insurgents grew exasperated with civilian interrogators sent from Washington, many of whom were novices at interrogating hostile prisoners fresh off the battlefield.

"These guys wanted results, and our debriefers were used to a civil environment," said one Defense Department official who was briefed on the task force operations.

Within days after Admiral Jacoby sent his memo, the D.I.A. took the extraordinary step of temporarily withdrawing its personnel from Camp Nama.

Admiral Jacoby's memo also provoked an angry reaction from Mr. Cambone. "Get to the bottom of this immediately. This is not acceptable," Mr. Cambone said in a handwritten note on June 26, 2004, to his top deputy, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. "In particular, I want to know if this is part of a pattern of behavior by TF 6-26."

General Boykin said through a spokesman on March 17 that at the time he told Mr. Cambone he had found no pattern of misconduct with the task force.

A Shroud of Secrecy

Military and legal experts say the full breadth of abuses committed by Task Force 6-26 may never be known because of the secrecy surrounding the unit, and the likelihood that some allegations went unreported.

In the summer of 2004, Camp Nama closed and the unit moved to a new headquarters in Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad. The unit's operations are now shrouded in even tighter secrecy.

Soon after their rank-and-file clashed in 2004, D.I.A. officials in Washington and military commanders at Fort Bragg agreed to improve how the task force integrated specialists into its ranks. The D.I.A. is now sending small teams of interrogators, debriefers and case officers, called "deployable Humint teams," to work with Special Operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senior military commanders insist that the elite warriors, who will be relied on more than ever in the campaign against terrorism, are now treating detainees more humanely and can police themselves. The C.I.A. has resumed conducting debriefings with the task force, but does not permit harsh questioning, a C.I.A. official said.

General McChrystal, the leader of the Joint Special Operations Command, received his third star in a promotion ceremony at Fort Bragg on March 13.

On Dec. 8, 2004, the Pentagon's spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said that four Special Operations soldiers from the task force were punished for "excessive use of force" and administering electric shocks to detainees with stun guns. Two of the soldiers were removed from the unit. To that point, Mr. Di Rita said, 10 task force members had been disciplined. Since then, according to the new figures provided to The Times, the number of those disciplined for detainee abuse has more than tripled. Nine of the 34 troops disciplined received written or oral counseling. Others were reprimanded for slapping detainees and other offenses.

The five Army Rangers who were court-martialed in December received punishments including jail time of 30 days to six months and reduction in rank. Two of them will receive bad-conduct discharges upon completion of their sentences.

Human rights advocates and leading members of Congress say the Pentagon must still do more to hold senior-level commanders and civilian officials accountable for the misconduct.

The Justice Department inspector general is investigating complaints of detainee abuse by Task Force 6-26, a senior law enforcement official said. The only wide-ranging military inquiry into prisoner abuse by Special Operations forces was completed nearly a year ago by Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica, and was sent to Congress.

But the United States Central Command has refused repeated requests from The Times over the past several months to provide an unclassified copy of General Formica's findings despite Mr. Rumsfeld's instructions that such a version of all 12 major reports into detainee abuse be made public.

Who would have thought a little bit of torture could result in so many paragraphs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bad_roo

Who would have thought a little bit of torture could result in so many paragraphs?

---

I'm not gay, but I heart you. :D:D:D:D

It really is a colossal mess now, a "lose-lose" situation - THANKS, GWB http://www.msprotege.com:8080/smilies/asshole.gif

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....obLY7zhpOYEw--
" wayell Dextuh,
You aughta stand up and say, `The tools we're using to protect the American people should not be used. Failure in Iraq, which isn't going to happen, would send all kinds of terrible signals to an enemy that wants to hurt us and people who are desperate to change the condition in the broader Middle East,"

Quote:

---

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg?

I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

I know deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall --- you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

---

987654321

seems like the walls are gaurded by men with paintball guns these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL

987654321

---

So, are you using this completely unrelated quote to defend torture?

I think the whole questioning military action makes you a freedom hating pussy is getting pretty old. Most of that is just macho posturing talk anyway.

Nobobdy (at least 99%) in this country would ever question the dedication, hard work and sacrifices made by our country’s armed forces. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are people who make mistakes that are led by people who make mistakes. Americans have a duty to point out the mistakes and make corrections.

This is further proff that the ENTIRE US military are torturous demons. :FIREdevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolakian

So, are you using this completely unrelated quote to defend torture?

I think the whole questioning military action makes you a freedom hating pussy is getting pretty old. Most of that is just macho posturing talk anyway.

---

you cheese-eatin' surrender monkey

thanks for picking up the slack Dex. my weekly dose of NYT drivel had slowed since Natty decided to ski what seems to be an endless storm in Utah.

just wondering if you were also going to post on the use of a fake informant by the NYT. guess not. So in the interest of fairness I will.

More Fake But Accurate by the NYT. when will they learn that they are being fact checked and sourced by everyone, not just themselves.

The following is from Tom Maguire's blog justoneminute.

These Times Demand The Times
The Times retracts its story about the abused Abu Ghraib prisoner:

n the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been the victims of the abuse captured in photographs that incited outrage around the world.

One, Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering. His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms. He had even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.

The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi. [Editors' Note, Page A2.]

That said, this editor's note contains a comedy classic:

...A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.

They should have believed their own reporting! Here we go, from May 22, 2004:

The testimony also gave identities to those who for the most part have remained nameless victims. Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh testified that he was the prisoner in the photograph showing a man standing on a box, his arms outstretched and his body draped with a blanket.

''Then a tall black soldier came and put electrical wires on my fingers and toes and on my penis, and I had a bag over my head,'' he told investigators. ''Then he was saying, 'Which switch is on for electricity?' ''

Look, it is an understandable mistake - the rest of us don't have a lot of confidence in the Times, either, so why should they?

MORE: Folks struggling for a mnemonic to remember the name of the guy who was *really* in the photograph might hit on "Sad Fella". Just a thought.

UPDATE: The Captain takes no prisoners, but I quibble with this, from his intro:

The Times had reported that Ali Shalal Qaissi was the victim of American abuse and ran a lengthy profile about his efforts to ensure that Americans would no longer torture innocent Iraqis. Well, Qaissi was innocent, all right -- in fact, he was never there:

Well, Qaissi was at Abu Grhaib, and was even photographed in a hood, he just was not in the famous photo. Well, that is assuming the Times has finally gotten it right:

Certainly, he was at Abu Ghraib, and appears with a hood over his head in some photographs that Army investigators seized from the computer belonging to Specialist Charles Graner, the soldier later convicted of being the ringleader of the abuse.

However, he now acknowledges he is not the man in the specific photograph he printed and held up in a portrait that accompanied the Times article. But he and his lawyers maintain that he was photographed in a similar position and shocked with wires and that he is the one on his business card. The Army says it believes only one prisoner was treated in that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

The Army says it believes only one prisoner was treated in that way.

---

As long as it wasn't YOU or one of your loved ones, huh? Are you actually defending this? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

And you can bet this is just the tip of the iceberg. We know it's happened before, it's happening right now, and will continue to happen.
Your tax dollars at work.
From Sunday's NYT.
.

---

The examples in the article point to abuses in 2003 and 2004 before democratic process introduced scrutiny and legislation to put the executive in check. After that, it looks like anytime someone does something out of line, they are getting punished for it. Am I missing something that you know and I don't?

Despite the nature of this war, this is not all right with me.

It sounds like some punishment was given.

Quit acting so freaking shocked. Go back to any conflict and you find similiar behaviour. School of the Americas ring a bell. War is fcked up.

We should always hold ourselves to higher standard, and we have. Most of our enemies, past and present, have had no rules. Considering that, our soldiers have a painfully tough time doing their jobs and staying alive.

For example, none of these fckers wear unifroms. Kinda makes it hard to play by the rules and stay alive at the same time.

Nobody is happy to read things like this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/...ib_dog_handler

Take a look at this New Yorker article called The Memo. Basically the Bush Administration has long ignored its own internal legal advisors as they've warned torture is both illegal and immoral, and as they've called for it to cease. It's probably the most discouraging information I've read--and there's been lots of competition--that drives home the reality of cynicism and deliberate criminal abuse in this administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveTV

As long as it wasn't YOU or one of your loved ones, huh? Are you actually defending this? :eek:

---

first off, I want to commend you on your chops with the emoticons.

secondly, I don't see how you could infer from that post I supported torture. The point of the post is to show the NYT's abysmal fact and source checking in their quest to constantly spin the Iraq war as Vietnam redux.

I'm sorry but this drives me nuts. Whaddya expect, tea, girl scout cookies and a nice polite discussion? These folks don't conduct business like we are used to, the game has changed sister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

I'm sorry but this drives me nuts. Whaddya expect, tea, girl scout cookies and a nice polite discussion? These folks don't conduct business like we are used to, the game has changed sister.

---

but what our country stands for has not.

Should we find the lowest common denominator with all of our enemies?

We invaded them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

I'm sorry but this drives me nuts. Whaddya expect, tea, girl scout cookies and a nice polite discussion? These folks don't conduct business like we are used to, the game has changed sister.

---

Huh..???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

...the game has changed sister.

---

No, it's only the NAME that has changed. brother.

Under Saddam Hussein's government, Iraq invaded a country that hadn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

Under George Bush's government, the U.S. has invaded a country that hasn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

Monique,

There was a thread last week about the New Yorker Article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monique

No, it's only the NAME that has changed. brother.

Under Saddam Hussein's government, Iraq invaded a country that hadn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

Under George Bush's government, the U.S. has invaded a country that hasn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

---

Boy, that's mighty clever ---- Mr. Moore.

Welcome to the world of war and politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

For example, none of these fckers wear unifroms. Kinda makes it hard to play by the rules and stay alive at the same time.

---

Haha this always makes me chuckle. Where would these guys GET uniforms even if they were dumb enough to want to wear them?

Here's what I know: Every morning when I drop my son off at school I see a kid whose Mom was a stewardess on one of the planes that hit the towers. She's ok now but I wish you were at her mom's service.

The people responsible for that infiltrated our system with no resistance because we don't want to trample on certain rights. Does 9/11 strike you as a fair price to pay? Stop spouting canned ideology and use some common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

Here's what I know: Every morning when I drop my son off at school I see a kid whose Mom was a stewardess on one of the planes that hit the towers. She's ok now but I wish you were at her mom's service.

---

And OBL is still running around somewhere free as a bird....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monique

No, it's only the NAME that has changed. brother.

Under Saddam Hussein's government, Iraq invaded a country that hadn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

Under George Bush's government, the U.S. has invaded a country that hasn't attacked it; detained uncharged, undocumented prisoners for years without legal counsel or contact with their families; secretly spied on citizens suspected of dissent and anti-government activities; paid the military to torture and brutalize people to the point of death to get information; and rewarded loyalists and cronies with appointed positions and billions of dollars in government contracts.

---

whew, good one. you're leaving some stuff out, though.

you see we have charged and convicted people like Charles Graner, not promoted them to cabinet level positions. The prisoners aren't held on US soil therefore their right to be charged...well isn't a right. They are not soldiers from a recognized state, so they aren't accorded rights under the Geneva accords. They are terrorists afforded no rights. They can rot for all I care. Not one prisoner has died at Gitmo. Where's your outrage for Slobodan Milosevic's untimely death? Because soldiers in our military have tortured prisoners is not the same as being paid to torture.

nuance, Monique, nuance.

Jurisdictionally, the Supreme Court actually already stated that Guantanamo is US territory. Hence why cases like Rasul, Hamdi and Hamdan were working their way through U.S. Federal Court. Might want to re-check some of your facts Mr. G.

Dr Gaper
On behalf of those of us in the military. That was a fucked up thing to say

This thread = torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

Does 9/11 strike you as a fair price to pay? Stop spouting canned ideology and use some common sense.

---

It's the price you pay for Freedom, so in a word - yes. I'll do everything necessary to avoid a repeat, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights we're trying to protect. That's what makes the Patriot Act so obscene in the eyes of so many.

The "well they do it" excuse doesn't work on the Kindergarten level, why should it on an International level?

Why are you so willing to sell out your core beliefs for some ephemeral sense of security? Are there any guarantees that we're truly "safer" if we do as asked - sell out our way of life? Who really wins if we do?

You ski - an inherently dangerous sport. How would you like someone to make it illegal using the excuse that they're only looking out for your safety?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorhead

Dr Gaper
On behalf of those of us in the military. That was a fucked up thing to say

---

It was sarcasm . . . to us.

Gospel to most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

Jurisdictionally, the Supreme Court actually already stated that Guantanamo is US territory. Hence why cases like Rasul, Hamdi and Hamdan were working their way through U.S. Federal Court. Might want to re-check some of your facts Mr. G.

---

Gitmo isn't the only prison I was speaking of. my apologies.

[QUOTE=Tippster]It's the price you pay for Freedom, so in a word - yes. I'll do everything necessary to avoid a repeat, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights we're trying to protect. That's what makes the Patriot Act so obscene in the eyes of so many.

The "well they do it" excuse doesn't work on the Kindergarten level, why should it on an International level?

Why are you so willing to sell out your core beliefs for some ephemeral sense of security? Are there any guarantees that we're truly "safer" if we do as asked - sell out our way of life? Who really wins if we do?

You ski - an inherently dangerous sport. How would you like someone to make it illegal using the excuse that they're only looking out for your safety?


Nice to know you'd take another 9/11 as long as we don't wiretap anyone. That makes good sense.

My core beliefs are clearly not the same as yours. I'm not doing anything wrong so frankly they can sneak around my house all they want.

There will never be any widespread agreement on this stuff. But I'm right and you're a weenie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

Here's what I know: Every morning when I drop my son off at school I see a kid whose Mom was a stewardess on one of the planes that hit the towers. She's ok now but I wish you were at her mom's service.

The people responsible for that infiltrated our system with no resistance because we don't want to trample on certain rights. Does 9/11 strike you as a fair price to pay? Stop spouting canned ideology and use some common sense.

---

To say that the people responsible for 9/11 succeeded because of our respect for human rights or due process is complete bullshit. Stop spouting canned Bushisms and wake the fuck up.
Some of us affected by 9/11 don't need contrived wars to make us feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

I'm not doing anything wrong so frankly they can sneak around my house all they want.

---

Wow. Thats the dumbest thing I've seen on here so far. :nonono2:

These threads are soo damn repetative....I think I'm done posting for the day.

Quote:

---

Nice to know you'd take another 9/11 as long as we don't wiretap anyone. That makes good sense.

---

I will take another 9/11 over invading another country.

Weve already offered up over 2,000 of our own and caused countless more deaths of civilians in Iraq because 3,000 people died here. I garuntee more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers will be dead by the time we get out of Iraq.

By the numbers, we might as well have just let them bomb us again.

Why is this thread titled "more torture in Iraq" as if this just happened.

Why do you say "it's happening right now, and will continue to happen" and then provide no evidence that this is the case? Citing what happened in 2004 really does not prove your point.

More details of "torture" from 2004 is hardly cause for a lengthy cut and paste except for the fact that it allows you to wallow in your own bitterness and hatred for one of the dumbest presidents ever.

Paintballs? go for it
Loud music? who the fuck cares
small cells that smell of urine? ohhh, thats eXXXtreme torture.
Yelling? are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, the over the line shit has and should continue to be rooted out. Your own post indicates a number of folks were prosecuted or discharged.

None of this shit is new.
Get over it.