Wednesday, June 16, 2004
TRY TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF LIBERALISM
Here again, is some healthy correspondence between myself and Karl (Marx?):
Come on Greg, the evidence is mounting that Abu Ghraib was planned and approved at the highest levels. Is this why you are sick of hearing about it? Ashcroft and his ilk could care less about human rights and the proof is coming out in numerous memos, though he's trying to suppress it. Are you trying to suppress it, too? I've linked this story first. Abu Ghraib is not a "bad apple" situation. The next link shows the use of dogs in the interrogations. The one dog handler who refused to participate is a hero if you ask me, his quote is at the bottom. Do you think letting guard dogs attack people is torture? Tell the whole story and stop trying to justify this horrible behavior.
Karl
Karl provides the following clips from the "story":
But the memorandums, by their numbers and their arguments — aimed at justifying the use of interrogation techniques inflicting pain by spelling out instances when this did not legally constitute torture and the inapplicability of international treaties
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09TORT.html
military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.
The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."
Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers
They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.
"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html
I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."
Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib
Then, I finally dispense the truth:
The NY Times? You're serious, right? Instead of relying on their reporting of the memos...you can read the actual memos. Funnily enough, they provide them on their website: (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040608_DOC.pdf)
Pay attention to pages 7, 24, 28-30, 36, and 38....heck, read the whole thing if you want...but I reference much of the information on those pages in my comments below:
I wonder how many readers took the time to read them.
Besides, the memos were about exploring the MAXIMUM scope of Presidential power during war...to analyze the extent of that power in worst-case scenarios. I suspect the NY Times didn't include that info in the story. It's something even Lincoln had to consider when he had to consider his options in a time of war...he ordered a blockade of the south during the Civil War and attempted to suspend habeas corpus. The memos specifically pointed out that "malicious and sadistic use of force always violates contemporary standards of decency and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment." The memos also pointed out that soldiers wouldn't have any defense against unlawful Presidential orders...citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 93 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch47.html).
Posing detainees in sexual or compromising positions is NOT torture as defined by US and international law...it may be humiliation and a violation of standards, but it ain't torture.(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html)
I'm sure there will be more to dispense tomorrow...but, I have a baby waiting for me at home....
G
Here again, is some healthy correspondence between myself and Karl (Marx?):
Come on Greg, the evidence is mounting that Abu Ghraib was planned and approved at the highest levels. Is this why you are sick of hearing about it? Ashcroft and his ilk could care less about human rights and the proof is coming out in numerous memos, though he's trying to suppress it. Are you trying to suppress it, too? I've linked this story first. Abu Ghraib is not a "bad apple" situation. The next link shows the use of dogs in the interrogations. The one dog handler who refused to participate is a hero if you ask me, his quote is at the bottom. Do you think letting guard dogs attack people is torture? Tell the whole story and stop trying to justify this horrible behavior.
Karl
Karl provides the following clips from the "story":
But the memorandums, by their numbers and their arguments — aimed at justifying the use of interrogation techniques inflicting pain by spelling out instances when this did not legally constitute torture and the inapplicability of international treaties
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09TORT.html
military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.
The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."
Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers
They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.
"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html
I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."
Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib
Then, I finally dispense the truth:
The NY Times? You're serious, right? Instead of relying on their reporting of the memos...you can read the actual memos. Funnily enough, they provide them on their website: (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040608_DOC.pdf)
Pay attention to pages 7, 24, 28-30, 36, and 38....heck, read the whole thing if you want...but I reference much of the information on those pages in my comments below:
I wonder how many readers took the time to read them.
Besides, the memos were about exploring the MAXIMUM scope of Presidential power during war...to analyze the extent of that power in worst-case scenarios. I suspect the NY Times didn't include that info in the story. It's something even Lincoln had to consider when he had to consider his options in a time of war...he ordered a blockade of the south during the Civil War and attempted to suspend habeas corpus. The memos specifically pointed out that "malicious and sadistic use of force always violates contemporary standards of decency and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment." The memos also pointed out that soldiers wouldn't have any defense against unlawful Presidential orders...citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 93 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch47.html).
Posing detainees in sexual or compromising positions is NOT torture as defined by US and international law...it may be humiliation and a violation of standards, but it ain't torture.(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html)
I'm sure there will be more to dispense tomorrow...but, I have a baby waiting for me at home....
G
Comments:
<< Home
You mean that my Drill Instructors were torturing me for those thirteen weeks. Dang it. And this whole time I thought that it was an expierience to toughen me up...sheesh!
If I were a recruit with Karl, it would have been something watching him wet his pants the first time a DI gave the order, "Dig!"
If I were a recruit with Karl, it would have been something watching him wet his pants the first time a DI gave the order, "Dig!"
source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/prisoner_abuse_Sivits_testimony_040514.html
"Chain of Command Unaware
Sivits also described how Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II participated in the beatings and forced naked detainees to masturbate.
'SSG Frederick would take the hand of the detainee and place it on the detainee's penis and make the detainee's hand go back and forth, as if masturbating,' Sivits said in his statement.
Sivits said the chain of command was unaware of the alleged abuse, which first surfaced in January following a tip from another guard in January. When asked during his testimony whether the abuse would have happened in the presence of his superiors, Sivits said, 'Hell no … Our command would have slammed us.'"
It's also interesting that there used to be a pdf document that showed the actual 10-page signed statement (signed January 14, 2004) on this ABCNews site so that a viewer could see the actual handwritten Sivits' statement but it's no longer there - very queer if you ask me.
Post a Comment
"Chain of Command Unaware
Sivits also described how Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II participated in the beatings and forced naked detainees to masturbate.
'SSG Frederick would take the hand of the detainee and place it on the detainee's penis and make the detainee's hand go back and forth, as if masturbating,' Sivits said in his statement.
Sivits said the chain of command was unaware of the alleged abuse, which first surfaced in January following a tip from another guard in January. When asked during his testimony whether the abuse would have happened in the presence of his superiors, Sivits said, 'Hell no … Our command would have slammed us.'"
It's also interesting that there used to be a pdf document that showed the actual 10-page signed statement (signed January 14, 2004) on this ABCNews site so that a viewer could see the actual handwritten Sivits' statement but it's no longer there - very queer if you ask me.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
