The SM masters having fun in Iraqs prison

[pelastration]

Crimes against humanity, War crimes

Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html

The Army Reserve general whose military police officers were photographed as they mistreated Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she had been "sickened" by the pictures and had known nothing about the sexual humiliation and other abuse until weeks later.

But the officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade, said the special high-security cellblock at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, where the abuses took place had been under the tight control of a separate group of military intelligence officers who had so far avoided any public blame.

In her first public comments about the brutality — which drew wide attention and condemnation after photographs documenting it were broadcast Wednesday night by CBS News — General Karpinski said that while the reservists involved were "bad people" and deserved punishment, she suspected they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation.

Speaking in a telephone interview from her home in South Carolina, the general said military commanders in Iraq were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and the reservists.

"We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away."

She said the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen in the large prison and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations.

----

More photos indicate it were not a number of isolated incidents: http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow

----
Amnesty International: ""Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens". http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004

----

Since it becomes more and more clear that there is a kind of systematic behavior of US military or secret services in the the treatment of prisoners in Iraq we can look under what category of International crime they come.

Make your choice:

Article 7 (1) (f) Crime against humanity of torture 14
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.
3. Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (g)-1 Crime against humanity of rape
Elements
1. The perpetrator invaded 15 the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.
2. The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent. 16
3. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
4. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 7 (1) (g)-6 Crime against humanity of sexual violence
Elements
1. The perpetrator committed an act of a sexual nature against one or more persons or caused such person or persons to engage in an act of a sexual nature by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment or such person’s or persons’ incapacity to give genuine consent.
2. Such conduct was of a gravity comparable to the other offences in article 7, paragraph 1 (g), of the Statute.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the gravity of the conduct.

Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against humanity of persecution
Elements
1. The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law, 21 one or more
persons of fundamental rights.
2. The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such.
3. Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds
that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.
4. The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. 22
5. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (i) Crime against humanity of enforced disappearance of persons 23,24
Elements
1. The perpetrator:
(a) Arrested, detained 25,26 or abducted one or more persons; or
(b) Refused to acknowledge the arrest, detention or abduction, or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons.
2. (a) Such arrest, detention or abduction was followed or accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the
fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
3. The perpetrator was aware that: 27
(a) Such arrest, detention or abduction would be followed in the ordinary course of events by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; 28 or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
4. Such arrest, detention or abduction was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization.
5. Such refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons was carried out by,
or with the authorization or support of, such State or political organization.
6. The perpetrator intended to remove such person or persons from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
7. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
8. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1 War crime of torture
Elements 35
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind.
3. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
5. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
6. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2 War crime of inhuman treatment
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (iii) War crime of wilfully causing great suffering
Elements
1. The perpetrator caused great physical or mental pain or suffering to, or serious injury to body or health of, one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

 

[hughes johnson]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.

 

[studentx]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I don't think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

 

[pelastration]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.

The investigation done by US? For sure is will find that it were 'isolated' incidents. CIA involvement and hired 'interogation' specialists will be kept out if possible.
Why trust US justice?

BTW, I am amazed about your very short comment.

 

[pelastration]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I don't think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

I think that's a very artificial remark. It can be 'new' troops, fresh from Alaska. But a number of faces are recognizable, and can bring identification.

 

[studentx]

They could be from some random porn site and emailed to albasrah by anybody. But if theyre real than i think we all agree these men are animals and want to see them punished just as much as you

 

[russ_watters]

"Torture?"

High school hazing is uglier than this.

Somebody ask McCain if he'd prefer the Hanoi Hilton to kiddy stuff.

I was thinking this too, but was letting it go: While true, this doesn't make it ok.

Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights.

You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.

The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours.

So torture is ok, so long as there is an example of worse torture?

As Adam would say, Zero, that's a straw-man.

 

[selfAdjoint]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

 

[pelastration]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

Good Question Dick.

 

[pelastration]

You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.
The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours.

Human rights? Gitmo is one, but where are the rights of prisoners in the sadistic hands of private contractors 'hired' by the US Government. Hasn't that government any responsibility? No ? Who brings them in the prison? Who let's them do whatever? That's an organized 'outlaw' justice allowing torture without punishment. Gestapo.
"No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”.
Russ if that is a normal procedure about human rights then there is something serious rotten in the US mentality.

About ICC: Do you believe the signatories of the treaty have no governmental duty to their citizens? Of course they have. But these countries forbid themselves to allow in all situations war-crimes. They don't fear to be brought before the ICC. They have no intention. For the newcon lead USA and dreaming about the New Century Empire war-crimes are allowed, can not be avoid. It's intentional. USA wants to stay outside the rules of International law. USA attacked Iraq remember, without real hard facts, and fabricated by the Wurmser cell. See Pentagon cell: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Wurmser and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405-2.html . By the newcons USA became an aggressive state. But not only to the outside but also internal. Now is the reduction of constitutional rights by the Patriot Act a governmental duty to it's citizens? If USA started under newcons to reduce USA citizen rights how would they respect the human rights of citizen of other countries. The Gitmo shame thing was discussed on PF in several posts, yes, no, yes, no ... POW's etc. but what we saw was that it violated 'common sense', a type of nature right to be treated as a human. Njorl hit the essence: This guys can even not defense themselves to be innocent. Newcon leader deny a number of rights to US citizen and other countries citizen. And that's Russ what USA is up to ... if you let Bush and mafia-controlled private contractors do. By privatization of the military ( and police ...?) there will be interrogations in USA by private contractors ... but without liability. Indeed, it will be left to the contractor to “deal with him” if it goes out of hand.


I suggest Russ you take a look to this and see if you can find some resemblance what's happening in US today:
Why? ... of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal and Luftwaffe chief at Nuremberg trials, 1945”

http://www.sundayherald.com/41693
...
But these soldiers aren’t simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two “civilian contract” organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.

California-based Titan Corporation http://www.titan.com says it is “a leading provider of solutions and services for national security”. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush’s Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.

CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping “America’s intelligence community in the war on terrorism”. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI’s board.

No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”. One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had “unintentionally” broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to “fear-up” detainees.

Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.

Kimmitt said: “I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people who might have encouraged the crimes as well because they certainly share some responsibility.”

Last night, CACI vice-president Jody Brown said: “The company supports the Army’s investigation and acknowledges that CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by army officials in connection with the investigation. The company has received no indication that any CACI employee was involved in any alleged improper conduct with Iraqi prisoners. Nonetheless, CACI has initiated an independent investigation.”

However, military investigators said: “A CACI investigator’s contract was terminated because he allowed and/or instructed military police officers who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations which were neither authorised nor in accordance with regulations.”

Bio CACI vice-president Jody Brown: http://www.caci.com/about/bios/brown.shtml”
Titan Service: Developing and Deploying Physical Security Solutions: http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=100

 

[pelastration]

If the Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld doesn't know who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail, who would know? The great mystery.

Role: The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council. http://www.defenselink.mil/osd/topleaders.html[/URL]

BBC: [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695543.stm[/URL]

Defence tactics

Today, one of his tactics was to use the phalanx of officials around him ( Rumsfeld) to deflect the questions.

Their series of statements successfully used up a good portion of the time allocated for the hearing.

But as Mr Rumsfeld started passing questions over to them, it infuriated some of the senators.

John McCain, the independent-minded Republican and former presidential candidate, was clearly exasperated when Mr Rumsfeld passed on to a senior general a question about who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail.

"No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question, and it could be satisfied with a phone call," Mr McCain interjected.

"This is a pretty simple, straightforward question. Who was in charge of the interrogations?"

No clear answer came back from Mr Rumsfeld. And he came under more heat from several Democratic senators.

(snip)

Mr Rumsfeld and his generals were critical of the publication of the pictures - even though that is the event that has really brought this scandal to light.

So that the impression is that the Pentagon views this, above all, as public-relations disaster - not a human tragedy.

...
----
From: [PLAIN]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/191377p-165387c.html
Rumsfeld: Sorry, but there's more
Worse yet to come, he warns - hint murder, rape, kid abuse

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."

Congressional sources said some of the allegations of abuse involved acts against young boys, and Graham said "the worst is yet to come."

----
From: http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040507iraq.html - Full text

(snip)
MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I come to this hearing with a deep sense of sorrow and grave concern. Sorrow for -- after the shock and anger of seeing these pictures for the first time, that so many brave young Americans who are fighting and dying are under this cloud.

I attended the memorial service of Pat Tillman, a brave American who sacrificed his life recently, and he and others, unfortunately, at least in some way are diminished by this scandal.

I'm gravely concerned that many Americans will have the same impulse as I did when I saw this picture, and that's to turn away from them. And we risk losing public support for this conflict. As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one unless this issue is quickly resolved with full disclosure immediately.

With all due respect to investigations ongoing and panels being appointed, the American people deserve immediate and full disclosure of all relevant information so that we can be assured and comforted that something that we never believed could happen will never happen again.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to know -- I'd like you to give the committee the chain of command from the guards to you, all the way up the chain of command. I'd like to know...

RUMSFELD: I think General Myers brought an indication of it, and we'll show it.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

I'd like to know who was in charge of the -- what agencies or private contractors were in charge of interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were their instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: First, with respect to the...

SMITH: We did not bring it.

RUMSFELD: Oh, my.

SMITH: Yes, oh, my is right.

RUMSFELD: It was all prepared.

SMITH: Yes, it was, indeed.

RUMSFELD: Do you want to walk through it?

MCCAIN: Anyway, who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?

SMITH: I'll walk through the chain of command and...

MCCAIN: No. Let's just -- you can submit the chain of command, please.

WARNER: General Smith, do you want to respond?

MCCAIN: No. Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question. And it could be satisfied with a phone call. This is a pretty simple, straightforward question: Who was in charge of the interrogations? What agencies or private contractors were in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions to the guards?

This goes to the heart of this matter.

RUMSFELD: It does indeed.

As I understand it, there were two contractor organizations. They supplied interrogators and linguists. And I was advised by General Smith that there were maybe a total of 40.

MCCAIN: Now, were they in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: Thirty-seven interrogators, and...

WARNER: The witnesses voice are not being recorded. You'll have to speak into your microphone.

Would you repeat the conversation in response to the senator's question?

SMITH: Yes, sir. There were 37 interrogators that were...

MCCAIN: I'm asking who was in charge of the interrogations.

SMITH: They were not in charge. They were interrogators.

MCCAIN: My question is who was in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: The brigade commander for the military intelligence brigade.

MCCAIN: And were they -- did he also have authority over the guards?

SMITH: Sir, he was -- he had tactical control over the guards, so he was...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary, you can't answer these questions?

RUMSFELD: I can. I'd be -- I thought the purpose of the question was to make sure we got an accurate presentation, and we have the expert here who was in the chain of command.

MCCAIN: I think these are fundamental questions to this issue.

RUMSFELD: Fine.

MCCAIN: Were the instructions to the guards...

RUMSFELD: There's two sets of responsibilities, as your question suggests. One set is the people who have the responsibility for managing the detention process; they are not interrogators. The military intelligence people, as General Smith has indicated, were the people who were in charge of the interrogation part of the process.

And the responsibility, as I have reviewed the matter, shifted over a period of time and the general is capable of telling you when that responsibility shifted.

MCCAIN: What were the instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary...

RUMSFELD: ... is determining...

MCCAIN: ... that's a very simple, straight-forward question.

RUMSFELD: Well, the -- as the chief of staff of the Army can tell you, the guards are trained to guard people. They're not trained to interrogate, they're not -- and their instructions are to, in the case of Iraq, adhere to the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventions apply to all of the individuals there in one way or another. They apply to the prisoners of war, and they are written out and they're instructed and the people in the Army train them to that and the people in the Central Command have the responsibility of seeing that, in fact, their conduct is consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

The criminals in the same detention facility are handled under a different provision of the Geneva Convention -- I believe it's the fourth and the prior one's the third.

MCCAIN: So the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners, under some kind of changing authority as I understand it, according to the Geneva Conventions?

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

MCCAIN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: First, beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman. Second, there are many more photographs, and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this.

In addition, the photos give these incidents a vividness, indeed a horror, in the eyes of the world.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: Well, let me answer a couple of pieces and let General Smith answer the last piece.

First, you say the first rule, if you're in a hole, is to stop digging. I've said today that there are a lot more photographs and videos that exist.

BEN NELSON: I didn't mean that. I mean is anything progressing on today, beyond what we already know and what we're going to find out from past performance?

RUMSFELD: If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe. And so beyond notice. That's just a fact.

And if they're sent to some news organization, and taken out of the criminal prosecution channels that they're in, that's where we'll be. And it's not a pretty picture.

-----
Bio Rumsfeld: http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

 

[pelastration]

In his weekly radio address, Bush called the abuse "a stain on our country's honor and reputation." So also this President has also a Stain-problem. A credibility problem about US values. The whole world looks. The focus is yet on the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said: ""I take full responsibility", without telling what that means. I have no idea what "responsibility" means to him, have you?

The problem for Rumsfeld is that he scores very low on the credibility-index.

How come? Here some points:

1. Rumsfeld is know to be a tough guy. He is a master in word-games. Some people like that for being smart, others don't. Rumsfeld is one of the founders of "The project for a New American Century" (PNAC), promoting world hegemony for USA. The document: Rebuilding Americas Defenses of the NewAmericanCentury.org (september 2000) clearly gave a number of long-term goals. On page 14 of the page numbers (page 26 of the pdf) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you can find the real reason why the Iraq War started: (quote): "In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (end of quote)

This last sentence shows that for the newcons Saddam Hussein was not the real goal, but an alibi to have a "substantial overseas presence and a permanent role in a region of vital importance" of part of a worldwide supremacy of USA. So Richard Clarke was correct when he said that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was being planned by the Administration prior to September 11. You can read it for yourself: The Iraq blue-print.

When GW Bush came in power Rumsfeld was the guy to organize this PNAC long-term goal asap. The tragic events of 9/11 were an opportunity to call a "War on Terror" - al long term definition without a real enemy - and to go to Afghanistan and topple the Taliban. But remember Donald Rumsfeld urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq almost immediately after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and said also: "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are lots of good targets in Iraq." concerned about the business turnover of his PNAC related friends in the military industry.

2. The creation of "the immediate justification" to attack Iraq and get support for a International coalition.

Several "events" occurred like the fake Nigeria Yellow cake purchase by Saddam, but Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration (PNAC-ers Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Perle, Wurmser, ...) set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the 'official' case for invading Iraq.

Quote from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html:

In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called "Iraq Needs a Revolution" and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq. At AEI, Wurmser wrote Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, essentially a book-length version of "A Clean Break" that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith.

The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted.

Rumsfeld particularly enjoyed harassing the CIA staffer who briefed him every morning, using the type of data produced by the intelligence unit. "What I could do is say, 'Gee, what about this?'" Rumsfeld noted. "'Or what about that? Has somebody thought of this?'"

Last June, when Feith was questioned on the same topic at a briefing, he acknowledged that the secret unit in fact looked at the connection between Iraq and terrorism, saying, "You can't rely on deterrence to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism because [of] the possibility that those state sponsors might employ chemical weapons or biological weapons by means of a terrorist organization proxy.
(snip)
Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists.

"It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."

It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war. (end of quote)

In the Herald Tribune on the Feith-Wurmser cell: http://www.iht.com/articles/517591.html: (snip) In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists.

Some intelligence experts charge that the Feith unit had a secret agenda to justify a war with Iraq and was staffed with people who were handpicked by conservative Pentagon policy makers to arrive at preordained conclusions about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Feith defends his analysts. He said his group had not been set up as a rival to the CIA. "We were not bypassing, we were not being secretive, we were not cutting the intel community out of this," he said.

But the effort aroused suspicions at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Feith and his analysts were closely linked to Richard Perle, then chairman of a Pentagon advisory group and a leading neoconservative who had long advocated toppling Saddam and was a vocal critic of the CIA.
... Despite their access to the Pentagon leadership, Maloof and Wurmser faced resistance from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.
They were initially denied access, for example, to the most highly classified documents in the Pentagon computer system. So Maloof returned regularly to his old office in another branch of the Department of Defense, where he still could get the material.

The team's conclusions were alarming: Old barriers that divided the major Islamic terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, were coming down, and these groups were forging ties with one another and with secular Arab governments in an emerging terrorist war against the West.
...
By early 2002, the team had completed a 150-page briefing and slide presentation for Feith.
Soon after finishing the report, Wurmser moved to the State Department and then joined Cheney's staff.

(Now) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit - named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy - exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.
The CIA and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas.

(Then) Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq's terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Bush administration turned its focus to the peril posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, as the central rationale for war.

In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists. (end of quote).

Since Rumsfeld is inside the PNAC circle he knew all this. Of course.

continue ...

 

[pelastration]

continue ...

3. Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney stated Rumsfeld was "the best secretary of defence the U.S.has ever had" and that people should "get off his case." But is he the "best" ever?

Rumsfeld made a number of perceptional failures, such as his pre-war prediction of the coming short high-tech war with precision bombs, etc:

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm

Other newcons agreed:
• March 4, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

• March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

• March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

Today we know it took another direction.

Some ask:"Where is an exist plan? The answer is rather simple: The PNAC blue-print doesn't include an exit. Now Syria is the next door to open.

4. Was Rumsfeld informed about the problems in the Iraq prisons?

It is almost unbelievable that the Secretary of Defense wasn't aware of the last year reports from the International Red Cross and claims by Amnesty International. The International Red Cross and human-rights groups have repeatedly complained during the past year about the America military’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners, with little success. That the Army had been slow in transfering information because of built-in safeguards is a weak reasoning in view of the potential PR damage.

As the NewYorker writes: "The official chain of command flows from General Sanchez, in Iraq, to Abizaid, and on to Rumsfeld and President Bush. “You’ve got to match action, or nonaction, with interests,” the Pentagon official said. “What is the motive for not being forthcoming? They foresaw major diplomatic problems.”

Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib. “They always want to delay the release of bad news—in the hope that something good will break,” he said. The habit of procrastination in the face of bad news led to disconnects between Rumsfeld and the Army staff officers who were assigned to planning for troop requirements in Iraq.http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

It would be more logic that Rumsfeld was NOT interested in such information, exactly like he only read Major General Antoni M. Tagub's report the night before going to Congress. Another quote of the NewYorker: "The Pentagon’s impatience with military protocol extended to questions about the treatment of prisoners caught in the course of its military operations. Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America’s treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”. Rumsfeld decided not to apply the Geneva Convention to detainees at Guantanamo Bay or other al-Qaeda prisoners.

When Rumsfeld was able to say about the "enemy combatants" of Guantanamo :"I do not feel the slightest concern at their treatment. They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else," why would Rumsfeld feel concerned or interested about those in other similar secret prisons like in Diego Garcia, or in Abu Ghraib.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1762529.stm

For Rumsfeld "It's my way or no way."
"When you come to him, you don't bring bad news." and Officers are supposed to be "can do," not naysayers. "You never heard bad news from the chain of command," said the crusty father of the nuclear Navy, Adm. Hyman Rickover. The ornery Rickover always went looking for trouble himself. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934778

continue ...

 

[pelastration]

continue ...

5. The President had privately rebuked his Defense Secretary for not advising him of the extent of the problem. But is this correct? Or are semantics involved?

"The next day [January 14, 2004], Gen. John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. forces in the region, was on the phone to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. ‘General Abizaid informed the leadership within hours of the incident,' said a senior Pentagon official. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the military's spokesman in Iraq, also called the Pentagon, though with more alarming words. ‘He said, "We've got a really bad situation," recalled one official, who like others requested anonymity. ‘The evidence is damaging and horrific,' ‘We've got a really bad situation…'

"Abizaid talked daily with Rumsfeld about Iraq, and the prison investigation likely came up often, officials said. Top Pentagon leaders, such as Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as President Bush were kept aware of the situation, said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the CBS Early Show yesterday. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch

Check these words and sentences. They give the impression that Bush was not informed about the abuse ... but it's only about 'the handling', 'the photo's', 'the details', the way he was informed 'about the pictures'.

It's NOT about the abuse itself:

A. "President Bush on Wednesday chastised his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, for Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of a scandal over the American abuse ..."
B. "...the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse ..."
C. "In his interviews on Wednesday with Arab television networks, Mr. Bush said that he learned the graphic details of the abuse case only when they were broadcast ...
D. "The president was not satisfied or happy about the way he was informed about the pictures ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CABI.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Can you read somewhere that Bush was not informed about 'the Abuse'? No. He was informed.

6. Credibility and international support for Iraq:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops9may09,1,5346761.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The Bush administration's hopes for a major NATO military presence in Iraq this year appear doomed, interviews with allied defense officials and diplomats show.
The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.
...
International outrage over disclosure of mistreatment of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison have added to allied discomfort.

"The tide is still ebbing," said one European official, describing the regional enthusiasm for sending troops.
...
Even so, most NATO members take the view that "Afghanistan is where NATO's credibility is on the line," said a NATO official. "In Iraq, it's the U.S.' credibility that's on the line."

7. The Price of Arrogance http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882 give a good synthesis.

(quote)Since 9/11, a handful of officials at the top of the Defense Department and the vice president's office have commandeered American foreign and defense policy. In the name of fighting terror they have systematically weakened the traditional restraints that have made this country respected around the world. Alliances, international institutions, norms and ethical conventions have all been deemed expensive indulgences at a time of crisis.

Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained that the conventions did not apply to today's "set of facts." He and his top aides have tried persistently to keep prisoners out of the reach of either American courts or international law, presumably so that they can be handled without those pettifogging rules as barriers. Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were antiquated.

Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions did not "precisely apply" and were simply basic rules.

The conventions are not exactly optional. They are the law of the land, signed by the president and ratified by Congress. Rumsfeld's concern—that Al Qaeda members do not wear uniforms and are thus "unlawful combatants"—is understandable, but that is a determination that a military court would have to make. In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply arrest and detain people indefinitely on the say-so of the secretary of Defense.

The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait."

As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. (end of quote).

8. For now I come back to the essence: USA got involved in this war because it was planned by a very selective group of people behind and involved PNAC. There was a PNAC Iraq blue-print (see point 1 - read the pdf).

USA will pay the price of this newcon megalomania:
1. Lost of international prestige and trust
2. Lost of life of troops and many injured for life.
3. Taxes: http://costofwar.com : The War in Iraq Cost the United States ...

A first rebuilding of trust to the international community is to fire Rumsfeld. He is considered to be one of the PNAC architects of this "aggressive USA". He's a bad outside PR face for the USA.

 

[russ_watters]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

Sorry I didn't respond sooner...

Zero's comment was flawed on at least two levels: The straw-man is the implicit assumption that Bystander was saying torture is ok.

The second flaw is the one several people are operating on: there is a big problem here with the very definition and use of the word "torture," and I think that's what Bystander meant to imply.

Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain inflicted as a means of punishment. Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture. Note to avoid the application of the same straw-man again: This doesn't mean I'm saying its ok.

Quite frankly, altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest on a science BB, as science (as opposed to philosophy) is a field where words have very specific meanings.

 

[Adam]

Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture.

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ.

 

[hughes johnson]

...altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest...

russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

 

[kat]

hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~!

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Much ado about nothing. I'm surprised these sob's aren't summarily executed in the field.

 

[Njorl]

russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives.

Most conservatives are hateful in life, and they spend a great deal of money trying to muck things up for anyone who is thoughtful. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their money annoying anyone who has been "un-American". It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own hatefulness in the first place. They are the voluntarily embittered. What really pisses them off is when "multimillionaires" from the upper classes promote egalitarian views leaving their "brethren" to wallow in hatred. Look at the way they treat George Soros, James Hormel and Ted Kennedy.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ.

Be specific. Give me a specific example of torture and connect it to the definition with a specific argument. IE, 'here is a picture of a US soldier beating a prisoner. Beatings are torture because they are inflicting physical pain.'

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose.

I go back and forth on this one. I think it varies from one to the next. There are several people here who have Orwell's "doublethink." Its the ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believe both are true. Its human nature to want to believe certain things, but what separates some is when they manufacture or manipulate evidence in order to show it. Could that be done unconsciously? Maybe, but I don't think so. In fact, I have heard in here peple say that its ok to lie if necessary to get your point across. Sooner or later though, I think these guys do think about the fact that they always have to lie/manipulate information to make their argument and realize that means there is a flaw in their argument. After that, either the intellectual honesty takes over or the desire to have the world match their perception takes over.

hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~!

Yeah, that too, kat: if its not bad enough on its own, exaggerate it.

Question: which is THIS, hyperbole or straw-man? It is a photo gallery with a pic of a Iraqi prisoner in a leash mixed in with famous photos of things like the Holocaust, the Rodney King beating, and the charred bodies of murdered American civilians hanging from a bridge in Falluja. The implication being made is that there is something in common - even equal - about all these pictures. It sickens me that the media would play it that way. Maybe all they care is that shocking images sell newspapers, but what they are doing is generating and spreading anti-American propaganda.

 

[hughes johnson]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.

 

[hughes johnson]

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

True enough. A female friend of mine does this for a living; she says torture costs extra.

 

[russ_watters]

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives.

Who exactly was howling treason about what? I think I know the thread and person you are talking about (if that's all this is) - but take another look: he wasn't the first to use the word. Its a clever tactic, use a word that doesn't apply in order to get it into a conversation for others to use as ammo.

 

[Njorl]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.

I don't actually believe what I posted. It was more an exercise to point out that what you posted was silly. Most of my friends are successful liberals. Many of the "failures" I've known have been bitter racists that I would never classify as liberal in a million years. It isn't liberals who complain about blacks and women getting jobs through affirmative action, illegal immigants undercutting their salary and mysterious Jewish conspiracies stealing all the money. Well, maybe we complain about the illegal immigrants, but only because they're being exploited .

Njorl

 

[hughes johnson]

what you posted was silly.

Njorl,
Please forgive me for quoting you out of context (I hope it doesn't piss you off again).

My post was not directed at you. I didn't realize that you were a liberal; I thought that you were middle of the road like me.

Psychology is one of my hobbies, forgive me for experimenting on you for my own amusement.

Since I am a nice man (and since I'm not bitter), I'm going to ignore your personal attack. Besides, if all of the silly posts were deleted, there wouldn't be much left to read.

-hughes

 

[hughes johnson]

Most of my friends are successful liberals.

Oh my god, what a terrible plight! If they're successful, what do they have to whine about? They must bore the other liberals to death!

 

[Nereid]

Can we get back OT please?

Dubya said the behaviour was unacceptable. But the behaviour was known about for months; both internal and external sources had provided ample evidence. To what extent was the torture (or whatever other term Russ, hughes, et al wish to use) condoned? There're reports coming out that there was at least some kind of tacit approval. To what extent were reports kept from reaching Myers etc by deliberate policy (a form of 'plausible deniability')? We don't know yet; but Rummy's tears sure seem like those of a crocodile.

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened? In wars, terrible things happen; true. But this is the only global superpower, the most vocal its protestations of the inalienable rights of human beings to equal respect and due process (etc), clearly engaged in a deliberate policy - as occupying power (not even 'at war') - that the leader says is 'unacceptable' (note that, unless I missed it, there were no apologies offered).

 

[selfAdjoint]

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened?

Maybe the same thing, according to a lot of reports that say the methhods used in Iraq were just clumsily implemented versions of things that are routinely practiced in US prisons. And did you see that the guy in charge of the contracter interrogators was indicted in Utah for tormenting a prisoner until he died?

 

[pelastration]

The second flaw is the one several people are operating on: there is a big problem here with the very definition and use of the word "torture," and I think that's what Bystander meant to imply.

Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain inflicted as a means of punishment. Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture. Note to avoid the application of the same straw-man again: This doesn't mean I'm saying its ok.

1. Russ, for clarification:

Main Entry: 1 tor·ture
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

2. Punishment you said? These prisoners are 'prepared' for interrogation. So it's even not sure that they are not "the wrong guy on the wrong place", innocent on default. But they got the treatment .

Is it like: If I don't know why I beat him, he knows very well for himself!

3. When I look to the photo on http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/mayo/lun10/20nuevas.html I judge that torture. For sure there is: severe mental or physical pain, and violence used against a naked man. It seems more photos exist of the same scene, but showing the prisoner on the floor with a bleeding wound.

4. Good News: It will change! In late March, before the Abu Ghraib scandal became publicly known, Gen. Geoffrey Miller was transferred from Guantánamo and named head of prison operations in Iraq. “We have changed this , trust us,” Miller told reporters in early May. “There were errors made. We have corrected those. We will make sure that they do not happen again.”

Probably, he confiscated all digital camera's.

5. On http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html some interesting questions are asked.

Torture is illegal

The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis..

I think Russ that's the essence.

5. I don't find such respect in the report.

From Maj Gen. Tagabu's report:
Point 6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by
military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees;
jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and
female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various
sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and
keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's
underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate
themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and
then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box,
with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his
fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a
detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old
fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked
detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a
picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female
detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles)
to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least
one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

But I think also that we should tackle the 'technically question' Rumsfeld referred to: The difference between "Abuse" and "Torture". My idea is that torture is an extended version of abuse.

 

[pelastration]

Be specific. Give me a specific example of torture and connect it to the definition with a specific argument. IE, 'here is a picture of a US soldier beating a prisoner. Beatings are torture because they are inflicting physical pain.'

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

1. I gave you the photo in previous post. The dogs. That must have been a terrible situation for that prisoner. That's unhuman treatment.

2. A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating? Maybe that's your interpretation of the photo. What do you think is happening? Serious. Who says - or is absolutely sure - it was not extreme painful?

And Russ, ever had the idea that AIDS is transferable by oral contact? Who would be responsible?

(Added: This AIDS-risk is also for all those prisoners forced to have sex, rape. To put it in a cynic way: Did the blue rubber gloves MI's, MP's or the private contractors provided condoms? )

3. BTW, thanks for the link to the US-today photo's.

 

[Nereid]

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened?

Maybe the same thing, according to a lot of reports that say the methods used in Iraq were just clumsily implemented versions of things that are routinely practiced in US prisons. And did you see that the guy in charge of the contracter interrogators was indicted in Utah for tormenting a prisoner until he died?

Wasn't there also a case in New York a few years ago, involving four (?) policemen mistreating a civilian*, in a manner not dissimilar to that described in some of the reports? IIRC, at least one cop was convicted and jailed for x years.

*they mistook him for someone else, he was completely innocent - just like how many of the Iraqi civvies imprisoned by US forces?

 

[russ_watters]

But I think also that we should tackle the 'technically question' Rumsfeld referred to: The difference between "Abuse" and "Torture". My idea is that torture is an extended version of abuse.

I'm fine with that: based on that, none of the items in the list you quoted qualify as torture, with the possible exception of a and k. But there isn't enough information to substantiate a claim of torture. Again, the word 'torture' is used because of its connotation: murder and rape (they have apparently happened) are crimes but are not necessarily part of torture.

1. I gave you the photo in previous post. The dogs. That must have been a terrible situation for that prisoner. That's unhuman treatment.

Scaring someone is not torture.

2. A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating? Maybe that's your interpretation of the photo. What do you think is happening? Serious. Who says - or is absolutely sure - it was not extreme painful?

You can't make assumptions like that. That's not the way this works. If you want to make an accusation, it has to be substantiated. Remember the usual example of burden of proof shifting: 'I claim you are an axe murderer. Prove me wrong.' That's what you are doing here: 'lets assume its torture since we don't know.'

And Russ, ever had the idea that AIDS is transferable by oral contact?

You are misinformed.

 

[russ_watters]

Can we get back OT please?

Dubya said the behaviour was unacceptable. But the behaviour was known about for months; both internal and external sources had provided ample evidence. To what extent was the torture (or whatever other term Russ, hughes, et al wish to use) condoned? There're reports coming out that there was at least some kind of tacit approval. To what extent were reports kept from reaching Myers etc by deliberate policy (a form of 'plausible deniability')? We don't know yet; but Rummy's tears sure seem like those of a crocodile.

A good question - and one that ironically gets pushed aside by all the hyperbole.

 

[pelastration]

You are misinformed.

As a PF mentor you should check before you post disinformation. Yes Russ, Yes ... you can get AIDS through oral sex.

At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact.

Can you get AIDS through oral sex?

Yes, you can become infected with the HIV virus through oral sex. Anytime blood is able to transfer from an infected person to another person, the likelihood of spreading the decease increases. The mouth has many blood vessels and pores, and it bleeds regularly. Sometimes it is caused from flossing or even biting into an apple. Because of the mouth's sporadic bleeding tendencies, the sexual risks involved are similar, but not nearly as risky, to those of the vagina. There is a higher likelihood of a blood temperature variation from the mouth compared to the vagina, since the vagina is designed to maintain a constant temperature in order to allow sperm to survive. The mouth by comparison, usually has a continuous flow of fresh air, which will help to prevent the transfer of the HIV virus. However there is still a risk, and oral sex or even heavy french kissing can transfer the HIV viruses.

http://www.discreettest.com/hiv-aids.htm

more:

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm

How safe is oral sex?

Although it is possible to become infected with HIV through oral sex, the risk of becoming infected in this way is much lower than the risk of infection via unprotected sexual intercourse with a man or woman.

When giving oral sex to a man (sucking or licking a man's penis) a person could become infected with HIV if infected semen got into any cuts, sores or receding gums a person might have in their mouth.

Giving oral sex to a woman (licking a woman's clitoris or vagina) is also considered relatively low risk. Transmission could take place if infected sexual fluids from a woman got into the mouth of her partner. The likelihood of infection occurring might be increased if there is menstrual blood involved or the woman is infected with another STD.

The likelihood of either a man or a woman becoming infected with HIV as a consequence of receiving oral sex is extremely low.

Oral Sex Is Not Considered Safe Sex
A number of studies have demonstrated that oral sex can result in the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)

---

There has been one published case of HIV transmission associated with oral-anal sexual contact.

Other STDs Can Also Be Transmitted Through Oral Sex

Scientists have documented a number of other sexually transmitted diseases that have also been transmitted through oral sex. Herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts (HPV), intestinal parasites (amebiasis), and hepatitis A are examples of STDs which can be transmitted during oral sex with an infected partner.