Shrub: Pro Torture?

[natty dread]

NYT:

November 3, 2005
Editorial
The Prison Puzzle
It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?

When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform. Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror.

Senior military lawyers want these standards, as do some Defense and State Department officials outside the inner circle. They say the abuse and torture of prisoners has reduced America's standing with its allies and taken away its moral high ground with the rest of the world. They also know that it endangers any American soldiers who are captured.

The rigid ideologues blocking this reform say the Geneva Conventions banning inhumane treatment are too vague. Which part of no murder, torture, mutilation, cruelty or humiliation do they not understand? The restrictions are a problem only if you want to do such abhorrent things and pretend they are legal. That is why the Bush administration tossed out the rules after 9/11.

It's a terrifying thing when the people who devote their lives to protecting our national security feel that the civilians who oversee their operations are out of control. Dana Priest reports in The Washington Post that even the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operators are getting nervous about the network of secret prisons they have around the world - including, of all places, at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.

We're not naïve enough to believe that if the C.I.A. nabs a Qaeda operative who knows where a ticking bomb is hidden, that terrorist will emerge unbruised from his interrogation. Extraordinary circumstances are different from general policies that allow foot soldiers and even innocent bystanders to be swept up in messy, uncontrolled and probably fruitless detentions. Ms. Priest reports that of the more than 100 prisoners sent by the C.I.A. to its "black site" camps, only 30 are considered major terrorism suspects, and some have presumably been kept so long that their information is out of date. The rest have limited intelligence value, according to The Post, and many of them have been subjected to the odious United States practice of shipping prisoners to countries like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco and pretending that they won't be tortured.

Like so many of the most distressing stories these days - the outing of Valerie Wilson and questions about the intelligence on Iraq also come to mind - this one circles right back to Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

Mr. Cheney, a prime mover behind the attempts to legalize torture, is now leading a back-room fight to block a measure passed by the Senate, 90 to 9, that would impose international standards and American laws on the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Cheney wants a different version, one that would make the C.I.A.'s camps legal, although still hidden, and authorize the use of torture by intelligence agents. Mr. Bush is threatening to veto the entire military budget over this issue.

When his right-hand man, Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted on charges relating to team Cheney's counterattack against Joseph Wilson, Mr. Cheney replaced him with David Addington, who helped draft the infamous legalized-torture memo of 2002. Mr. Addington is now blocking or weakening proposed changes to the prison policies. The Times said he had berated a Pentagon aide who had briefed him and Mr. Libby recently on the draft of the new military standards for handling prisoners. (The indictment of Mr. Libby said he had done the same thing to a C.I.A. briefer in 2003 when agency officials questioned the intelligence on Iraq.)

The Times reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, favor changing the detention policies. So we can only conclude that President Bush has decided to expend the minimal clout remaining to his beleaguered administration in a fight to put the full faith and credit of the United States behind the concept of torture. After all, the sign on Dick Cheney's door says he is the vice president.

[truth]

I have no idea what that said but I'm all for hidden prisons and full blown torture. It's called war. Quit fvcking whining.

[natty dread]

I have no idea what that said but I'm all for hidden prisons and full blown torture. It's called war. Quit fvcking whining.

Hmmm, don't see a winky. You must mean that. Oooookay.

[truth]

Hmmm, don't see a winky. You must mean that. Oooookay.

Seriously. Is any of it really a shock? Do you feign your indignation in hopes of igniting a revolution? If you so object act up and overthrow the government. But for god sakes quit copying and pasting this crap here.

I love ya natty, but plastering this rhetoric has become your hallmark. Why bother to incite the vitriol we all detest by frothing the milk with politically charged steam?

[natty dread]

Seriously. Is any of it really a shock? Do you feign your indignation in hopes of igniting a revolution? If you so object act up and overthrow the government. But for god sakes quit copying and pasting this crap here.

I love ya natty, but plastering this rhetoric has become your hallmark. Why bother to incite the vitriol we all detest by frothing the milk with politically charged steam?

The above info on shrub's sanctioning of torture ought to be a shock. Such actions make the world less safe for our soldiers abroad and us here at home. Trust me, my indignation is not feigned.

Act up? I have: I work as a city council member in my town, lots of work for almost no pay. In addition to being part of the government machine, I am a political and environmental activist and put my time and money where my mouth is, even though such actions may not get fuckwad shrub thrown out of office. Overthrow the government? Good idea, I'll start on that tomorrow, after I read the latest industrial land survey, figure out how to get more affordable housing in my city, read the report on funding the replacement of our water supply line, work on zoning for our waterfront...

Obviously I don't give a crap what my hallmark may be. I post what I want as you do. If my posts incite vitriol (and I think you are one of the last people on this forum who should be complaining about that--pot/kettle/black) so be it. Some people are informed by political posts and some detest them. Whatever. Nobody's forcing anyone to read anything.

[truth]

Obviously I don't give a crap what my hallmark may be. I post what I want as you do. If my posts incite vitriol (and I think you are one of the last people on this forum who should be complaining about that--pot/kettle/black) so be it. Some people are informed by political posts and some detest them. Whatever. Nobody's forcing anyone to read anything.

Oh sing me a new song allready.

The black op prisons and torturing is one of the few things the current regime is getting right. It's all the fucking pansy ass hand holding for your bleelding heart media outlets that gets US soldiers killed. Protest the war, not the flavor of war. There are no human rights in warfare, the geneva convention is about as effective as NATO. The sooner everyone realizes this the sooner they might stop wanting to fight wars. But if we fight, we strike first, fight dirty and win it quick. Pick your battles man.

Edit: PS - Fuck the French

[natty dread]

The black op prisons and torturing is one of the few things the current regime is getting right.

Dude put down the crackpipe. There is no better recruitment tool for terrorists than government-sponsored torture. Abu Ghraib did wonders for us. If you truly support full blown, government-sanctioned torture, there's really not a whole lot more for us to talk about.

But if we fight, we strike first, fight dirty and win it quick.

Really? Just like Iraq? We sure won it quick there. Mission accomplished, like shrub said.
Maybe if he didn't fire or ignore those who disagreed with him and his neo-con cabal (about troop levels, disbanding the Iraqi army, having adequate equipment for our soldiers, etc.) we might have won it quickly. But too late for that now.

[Pinner]

Read the editorial Truth?

It says that the US military and CIA are becomingly increasingly leery of the administration's torture policy. Even the Army doesn't think this is the right way to fight a war.

[natty dread]

Edit: PS - Fuck the French

A brilliant addition to the debate.
Been fun, but time for bed. I've got a govt to overthrow tomorrow!!

[truth]

Read the editorial Truth?

It says that the US military and CIA are becomingly increasingly leery of the administration's torture policy. Even the Army doesn't think this is the right way to fight a war.

Only becuase they are fighting themselves and thier hyocritical policies. Everyone will turn on the regime now that they are throwing the sacrificial lambs into the fire. The fear of becoming the next scapegoat to insualte Cheney and Rumsfeld from culpability is finally forcing the hand of all those that stand in the line of fire. If Rove can be offered up than no one is safe. Everyone will turn against them now. It's save your ass time.

The war in Iraq is just another example of why a humanitarian war can not be won. The failure there is the same as Somalia, Gulf War 1 and Vietnam. There can be no mercy shown until the enemy is defeated. Collateral damage can not be a concern. If you can't live with those realities than don't choose to fight.

In no way do believe we should have invaded Iraq. But I'll be damned if I will sit back and tow the PC line. It's just as much a load of crap as the shovel full of WMD that got us into it.

[truth]

A brilliant addition to the debate.
Been fun, but time for bed. I've got a govt to overthrow tomorrow!!

Are you unaware of the French reaction to the threats Iran made toward Isreal monday? Maybe the Amnesty newsletter will cover it next week.

[Greydon Clark]

This thread is a new low.

[aspenskibum]

id like to thank you for posting this political shit here. i dont have tv and even if i did i wouldn't watch the news. it might sound sad, but i like this stuff cus its one way i find out about stories that don't make the news
and im not being sarcastic
if you don't like it or get bored by it, just treat it like you would the news, change the channel (thread) and ignore it

[Benny Profane]

"humanitarian war"?

[Spats]

truth:

Think of all the suffering you've been through with your ACL and Achilles. Now imagine that your knee blew because you are being tortured by a government that insists you're a terrorist. You know nothing. Maybe they're after someone with the same name as you, maybe one of your co-workers is in on something, but you'll never know that. All you know is that your knee has been shattered and you have no medical care and you don't know where you are and you can't talk to anyone and you don't know if you'll ever get out or whether you'll die here.

You're just starting to get into what we've done to hundreds of civilians in Iraq.

If you condone torture, you open the possibility that it will be turned on you. That's why we have the Geneva Convention in the first place: because history has proved again and again that it's a race to the bottom which no one can win.

[Greydon Clark]

Spats, fuck the long winded analogies. We, the United States, are fighting the pigs by jumping headfirst into the shit.

[Jumper Bones]

Natty, one of the things I've come to terms with is that if my airplane were to biff it and my crew were made POWs, if by some miracle they don't go ahead and behead me in the first place for being infidel scum (which is the likely case), I sincerely doubt that whomever my capturers might be is going to be so kind as to adamantly observe each and every facet of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, I don't believe we've had a single enemy observe that for our troops since, what, the Germans in WWII? And even they were extremely shoddy at it. But the Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis (in Gulf War I, in Gulf War II they never had the chance to organize our personnel that they'd captured) sure as fuck weren't light on our people. Torture is a reality of a combat or aviator position - it comes with the turf. We actually receive some pre-emptive training on this, and I get to go through it over thanksgiving. Yay.

anyway, the question in this case isn't that we need to not do this "for the sake of our people", it's a question of do we walk the moral high road here, and not do something that each and every one of our past enemies have committed in all of our conflicts?

...We, the United States, are fighting the pigs by jumping headfirst into the shit.

bingo. unfortunately I think it's necessary.

[13]

Natty,

Dude, while I agree with you on some things, like truth, I am getting seriously fucking sick of the political rhetoric you copy-paste here.

[Rusty Nails]

The U.S. is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit torture. It's law. It's that simple. Senior military attorneys for the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force (Jumper) advised against torture in any form. Unfortunately, civilian run General Counsel at DoD and the White House thought differently.

Truth, in theory and practice, I think you are absolutely wrong. Jumper, your assessment reeks of ignorance for a multitude of reasons. Maybe Camp Slappy will smack some sense into you. Just because a terrorist organization tortures does not mean that we should abandon our principles .

This discussion would be sooooo much better with a beer after a day on the hill, so I'll save the rest of my rhetoric. I hope, however, that everyone realizes the importance of the Conventions, Additional Protocols, and US military policy concerning the treatment of detainees and EPWs.

[backpack]

Sometimes I don't find all the articles, either... on lots of issues, not just political, and it's nice to have a few highlighted here.

Anyway, if what y'all are saying is we don't need to take the moral high ground because our enemies don't, then what exactly makes us different from them? Assuming you believe that our current mission in Iraq really is to bring "democracy" to the middle east, is it really the best idea to show everyone that "hey, look, democracy tortures us just like the dictator did, even in the same prisons! Well, at least we're not being shot in the open."

Unless, of course, the only mission is to Get The Fuck Out Of There(tm), then maybe it doesn't matter what you do... why not just throw a few a-bombs down on the major cities? Or hell, wipe the whole damn country off the map and make it uninhabitable for the next 100000 years! We're not trying to take any lame P.C. high ground here, just get the dirty work done because that's the manly, non-pussy way. And we all know being a pussy is one step away from taking a dick up the ass.

[ill-advised strategy]

fuck, what's the point. We overthrow the government so we can torture people and rove (no pun intended) around breaking down doors. At this stage, with torture being sanctioned, we're not doing any better for the people of Iraq than Saddam was.

If we go down this road of being torturous scum, we're the aggressor, we're the problem, we're just another Saddam, pushing our will on people with deadly force. Combat is one thing, catch someone in the field and beat information out of them, sure...but keeping people in a prison and torturing them for amusement? This is, and should be, out of bounds, it bothers me that it's an open debate at all.

I think the practical bottom line with a lot of this stuff in the field (vs. prison) is that if you're on the ground, the only rule is to not get caught. The damage is done when people find out about it and the media gets involved and the story spreads. If you're going to do it, do it right and don't leave witnesses and spread pictures around.

[bagtagley]

I say respond to the article or move on. I don't spend my days scanning the papers and news stations, so I don't mind some political content every now and again. The vast majority of the news I read is right here.

This is an open forum. Accept that fact, or go somewhere else.

[truth]

Assuming you believe that our current mission in Iraq really is to bring "democracy" to the middle east, is it really the best idea to show everyone that "hey, look, democracy tortures us just like the dictator did, even in the same prisons! Well, at least we're not being shot in the open."

Did the middle east ask us for democracy? Is the US a democracy? Does Imperialism stand the test of time? Ever? Can peace be brought somewhere?

[ill-advised strategy]

Can peace be brought somewhere?

you're right: the entire world is and will be at war forever!

why bother. better just put that head in the oven now.

[natty dread]

Natty,

Dude, while I agree with you on some things, like truth, I am getting seriously fucking sick of the political rhetoric you copy-paste here.

"Seriously fucking sick?" That's some strong emotion there 13. If that's the case, then why don't you ignore it and let it slide to page 2 rather than bumping it to the top.
Do really think your or truth's opinions will dictate what I post?
Unlikely.
Rusty, thanks for the reality check.