The truth is coming out - Rumsfeld OK'd Abuses

[Van Helsing]

Newly-released documents on U.S. policy of torturing prisoners show that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs.

President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al Qaeda prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I have never ordered torture," Bush said. "I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Despite a report yesterday by CBS News, one technique Rumsfeld did not approve involved pouring water over a prisoner to create the sensation of drowning.

But techniques Rumsfeld did approve,


Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:

Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.

Removing prisoners' clothes.

Intimidating detainees with dogs.

Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.

Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.

Shaving detainees' heads and beards.

Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.



We're getting there - as i've said the true always has a way of coming out.

 

[jrydberg]

Nothing new here except the slant you put on it.

First, President Bush, after consultation with the Justice Department, determined that detainees from the war in Afghanistan were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections because they were non-uniformed combatants.

Second, President Bush determined that even though they were not entitled to those protections that they would treat them humanely anyway.

Third, those detained in the war in Iraq were to be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean you get a nice pullout couch and a big screen TV. We've known for weeks that Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners (intimidate only, not touch the prisoners), removing clothing, shaving, long interrogations, etc. None of that violates the Geneva Convention or US laws as long as they are not intended to cause intense physical pain or prolonged mental harm.

In short, the newly released documents don't really provide any new information. They just confirm what the administration has already said about President Bush, the Justice Dept. and Secretary Rumsfeld.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Mmmmmmmmm.........

Stress positions (standing, for up to four hours)
Removing prisoners' clothes
Intimidation with dogs
Interrogation for 20 hours at a time
Forcing to wear hoods during interrogations & transportation
Shaving heads and beards
Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking


Or being beheaded?

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Mmmmmmmmm.........

Stress positions (standing, for up to four hours)
Removing prisoners' clothes
Intimidation with dogs
Interrogation for 20 hours at a time
Forcing to wear hoods during interrogations & transportation
Shaving heads and beards
Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking

Don't forget the sleep deprivation - only 4 hours of sleep a day for 3 days. Then 12 hours the fourth.

It's possible the torture comes in - for these prisoners - from the anxiety of waiting for something bad to actually happen to them.

 

[rajak73]

The truth is coming out - Rumsfeld OK'd Abuses

Yawn............Same posts, Different day!

 

[Van Helsing]

First, President Bush, after consultation with the Justice Department, determined that detainees from the war in Afghanistan were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections because they were non-uniformed combatants. Second, President Bush determined that even though they were not entitled to those protections that they would treat them humanely anyway.

The April 2003 review said that removing a detainees' clothing would raise legal issues because it could be construed as degrading, which is against the international convention on torture. The removal of clothing, approved by Rumsfeld for use at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002, was not among the authorized techniques in his revised guidelines issued in April 2003.

At the Justice Department, senior officials said that the 50-page memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002, would be repudiated and replaced.

The memo, signed by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.

Then Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.



I know what i believe - Abuses carried out by a Superpower who refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Court. WHY??

If you add everything up you know what you have. A President who has rewritten the U.S. Constitution.

Anyone remember American Jose Padilla?

Funny how John Walker Lindh got his day in court !!!

 

[jrydberg]

You are correct in that a Justice Department memo on the detainees from Afghanistan does justify the use of torture against non-uniformed combatants. You are incorrect in that the argument is not that the president can simply override those agreements. Those agreements simply do not apply to non-uniformed combatants. The US could do anything they wanted to these people and it would not be against the Geneva Conventions or international law. They are afforded no protection whatsoever. Despite that, President Bush determined that we would treat them humanely.

Enough with the ICC already. We are not a party to it and never will be. Why? Because it's a fairly ridiculous concept.

The other issues, I'll deal with when I get to work. Your arguments take a small slice of truth and run way too far with it, IMO.

 

[Van Helsing]

Thanks for the reply jrydberg

Enough with the ICC already. We are not a party to it and never will be. Why? Because it's a fairly ridiculous concept.

Should we let the Serbia leaders go then ??????

 

[disneydad2]

The Geneva Convention is a rulebook for countries at war to adhere. What do you do when the other side does not acknowledge it? What do you do when your enemy follows no ethical rules of engagement? What do you do when your enemy is not even a country you can declare war on?

I'm thinking to continually tie one's hands with those rules is a sure way to lose the war. As ugly as it sounds, maybe sometimes the end does justify the means.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by disneydad2
The Geneva Convention is a rulebook for countries at war to adhere. What do you do when the other side does not acknowledge it? What do you do when your enemy follows no ethical rules of engagement? What do you do when your enemy is not even a country you can declare war on?

I'm thinking to continually tie one's hands with those rules is a sure way to lose the war. As ugly as it sounds, maybe sometimes the end does justify the means.

You're joking, right ? You don't seriously believe that, do you ? That is exactly what the terrorists believe, you realize that, right ?

The ends can never justify the means when those means include lowering yourself to the level of your opponent.

I really can't believe that people feel that way.

Here is another article on what the OP is talking about, this time from Yahoo News. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph, then explain how it is that this administration doesn't really think that they are above the law

------------------

Justice Dept. Repudiates Memo on Torture

31 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration laid out its legal reasoning for denying terror war suspects the protections of international humanitarian law but immediately repudiated a key memo arguing that torture might be justified in the fight against al-Qaida.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq Prisoner Abuse Investigation


Latest headlines:
· S. Korea President Speaks About Beheading
AP - 1 minute ago
· S. Korean Is Beheaded in Iraq
washingtonpost.com - 5 minutes ago
· Iraq Deal on Airline Is Probed
Los Angeles Times - 29 minutes ago
Special Coverage



The release Tuesday of hundreds of pages of internal memos by the White House was meant to blunt criticism that President Bush (news - web sites) had laid the groundwork for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by condoning torture. The president insisted Tuesday: "I have never ordered torture."

But critics said the developments left unresolved some questions about the administration's current guidelines for interrogating prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) and around the world. For example, a 2002 order signed by Bush says the president reserves the right to suspend the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war at any time.

"These documents raise more questions than they answer," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The White House is better off coming clean and releasing all relevant and nonclassified documents."

The White House released Defense Department memos detailing some of the harsh interrogation methods approved — and then rescinded — by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003. The administration continues to refuse to say what interrogation methods are approved for use now.

Six soldiers face criminal charges for abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib complex near Baghdad. Another soldier pleaded guilty and received a one-year prison term. The Justice Department (news - web sites) has filed criminal assault charges against a contract CIA (news - web sites) interrogator, accusing him of beating a prisoner in Afghanistan (news - web sites) who later died.

An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture — and even deliberate killing — of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture.

Bybee is now a justice on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites).

The Justice Department backed away from Bybee's memo Tuesday. Senior department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the memo would be rewritten because it contains advice that is too broad and irrelevant. The officials, who briefed several reporters in a widely publicized news conference, said department policy allowed them to demand anonymity.

The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:

_Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.

_Removing prisoners' clothes.

_Intimidating detainees with dogs.

_Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.

_Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.

_Shaving detainees' heads and beards.



_Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon (news - web sites) panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.

That panel reported to Rumsfeld in April 2003, and its recommendations included prohibiting the removal of clothes, which it said could be considered inhumane treatment under international law. Rumsfeld issued a new set of approved interrogation methods later that month, disallowing nakedness and requiring approval for four techniques: use of rewards or removal of privileges; verbally attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating friendly and unfriendly interrogators in a "good cop, bad cop" method; and isolation.

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (news - web sites) that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan," Bush wrote. "I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

[/i]But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.[/i]

 

[Van Helsing]

The ends can never justify the means when those means include lowering yourself to the level of your opponent.

I really can't believe that people feel that way.

Nor can i - no wonder the Enemy is winning.

Just think of the Gains they got around the world with the Prison Abuses. We can win the war but it must be a True and Just Fight.

 

[Tuffcookie]

The terrorists are beheading on an almost weekly basis and we're arguing about the human treatment of prisoners? Why am I not sympathetic????
Rumsfeld is doing the job he was put into position to do: PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. The people in custody are not there because of petty theft. They are associated with terrorists, which starts with T, and that stands for TROUBLE! (Sorry, I got carried away...apologies to "The Music Man"!

TC

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Tuffcookie
The terrorists are beheading on an almost weekly basis and we're arguing about the human treatment of prisoners? Why am I not sympathetic????
Rumsfeld is doing the job he was put into position to do: PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. The people in custody are not there because of petty theft. They are associated with terrorists, which starts with T, and that stands for TROUBLE! (Sorry, I got carried away...apologies to "The Music Man"!

TC

Oh, really ? Then why have literally HUNDREDS of prisoners been released from Abu Ghraib since the abuse scandal became public ? Why has the Red Cross stated that the VAST majority of prisoners being held are being held unjustly ?

You know, nuking the entire middle east would certainly solve our problems, too...maybe Rummy should do that next ?

Simple fact...If we don't abide by the rules of war and civilized society, we lose all right to complain when others do the same. At least, we lose the right to do so without being called hypocrites.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Simple fact...If we don't abide by the rules of war and civilized society, we lose all right to complain when others do the same. At least, we lose the right to do so without being called hypocrites.

I made this exact same point on the DB when they first started transporting prisoners to Guantanamo. The way the Iranians paraded the recently imprisoned British soldiers on TV was a disgrace but we no longer have any right to complain about it because we've treated prisoners far worse than that.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Newly-released documents on U.S. policy of torturing prisoners show that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs.

President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al Qaeda prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I have never ordered torture," Bush said. "I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Despite a report yesterday by CBS News, one technique Rumsfeld did not approve involved pouring water over a prisoner to create the sensation of drowning.

But techniques Rumsfeld did approve,


Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:

Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.

Removing prisoners' clothes.

Intimidating detainees with dogs.

Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.

Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.

Shaving detainees' heads and beards.

Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.



We're getting there - as i've said the true always has a way of coming out.

once again, you choose to take part of a news story out of context and give it the slant you want....why did you not include the part that states the President said we WOULD treat the prisoners humanely....

since you're good at copying news stories..how about today's story that the news released the other day stating there was no connection between Saddamn and Al Quaida, was inaccurate..
it was not the finding of the 9/11 panel,
but the inaccurate reporting of a staffer,,the 9/11 panel has stated that there clearly was connection between Saddam and Al Quaida...just no evidence of yet that Saddam was connected to 9/11

 

[jrydberg]

According to the "rules of war" these people are entitled to nothing. We could cut their heads off with a rusty spoon and it wouldn't violate any international law or convention. Anyone who engages in combat without a uniform is afforded no protection whatsoever under international law.

As for Serbians being tried by the ICC, yes, I think that's a farce. Do I think we should just let them go? No. The leadership of Nazi Germany wasn't just let go because we had no ICC at the time. There are plenty of other options. My point is the US will not be a party to the ICC and it has nothing to do with thinking we're "above the law."

The prison abuse at Abu Ghraib disgusts me (though I don't think most of what has been outlined here constitutes abuse). Even in cases where the Geneva Conventions do not apply, I think we should treat prisoners humanely. That is not to say they will be comfortable, but they should have no fear of mistreatment. Clearly there are substantial issues regarding Abu Ghraib. But there is no new information here about Donald Rumsfeld and what he approved.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The ends can never justify the means when those means include lowering yourself to the level of your opponent.

I agree that what the prison guards did to some of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib was wrong, but give me a break on the "...lowering yourself to the level of your opponent" crap.

When CNN starts broadcasting the beheading of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, then we will have stooped to their level. To compare what U.S. troops did, while wrong, to what the enemy is doing is ludicrous.

 

[AirForceRocks]

According to the "rules of war" these people are entitled to nothing. We could cut their heads off with a rusty spoon and it wouldn't violate any international law or convention. Anyone who engages in combat without a uniform is afforded no protection whatsoever under international law.

Yep.

 

[Saffron]

Why do people seem to link Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib and al-Qaida /terrorists who behead others?

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by wvrevy
You're joking, right ? You don't seriously believe that, do you ? That is exactly what the terrorists believe, you realize that, right ?

The ends can never justify the means when those means include lowering yourself to the level of your opponent.

I really can't believe that people feel that way.

So OUR 'means' to an end compare with the terrorists 'means'?

Kinda like arresting somebody for jaywalking as he runs across the street in persuit of a criminal.

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Nor can i - no wonder the Enemy is winning.


Just at the Gains they got around the world with the Prison Abuses. We can win the war but it must be a True and Just Fight.

They get those gains because they know there are plenty of people out there willing to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Keep things RELATIVE and let our leaders and military do the job we are asking them to do.