Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, December 11, 2004 17:27
VIEWED: 18296
PAGE 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 PM

Never think for a second that Ghoulman is wrong. When I tell you it's torture it is. When I tell you the White House is to blame and not American soldiers it's fact. Now you are wiser. Now you know a little more truth.

Free your mind.

The NEW YORKER
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.

Quote:

Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”

... click the link for the FULL ARTICLE!!!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:09 AM

(crickets chirp conspiratorially in the evening gloom...)

Wow, Ghoulman, not a single reply all day! What's up with that?

Very, very interesting read. Kinda puts the whole thing in perspective. I guess their big mistake was puting those MP's in charge. The Nazi's, as you will recall, knew that you must never employ torturers who enjoy their work. Sadists start doing stuff to please themselves, when they need to adhere strictly to orders. Best if they kinda hate their jobs because then they'll only do as much as you tell them, for "the greater good of their country," of course.

I'm not at all saying that the MP's were naturally sadistic, only that the conditions of war and the general rage of the American people after 9/11 predisposed them to feeling a certain satisfaction at sticking it to the "evil doers." The government gave them orders to let their darksides come out and play and that's exactly what they did. And now they're the ones taking the fall.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:42 AM

Well, fuck. If this "deep-throat" guy in the CIA is going to be able to prove what he/she said. Then Rummie is going to need a pretty freakin' big ass-sweater to cover this little embarassing *bee-hind*.

http://www.thetoque.com/040518/ass_sweater.htm

RUE

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:30 AM

Ghoulman,

Thanks for the link. There's a lot of detail in the article.

I agree, the basic task is to free one's mind.

RUXTON

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:25 AM

Good stuff, Ghoulie. Much obliged. I saw Hersch on Charlie Rose yester, and was about to post this link. You beat me to it.

For those who are interested, there are links to download Gonzales' memo to Bush, dated Jan 2002, discussing the abandonment of the Geneva Convention.

.......Ruxton

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:56 AM

Now, remember you only have to scare them.

Pain is scary.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:56 AM

I like smackin' 'em!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:45 PM

I think we've been operating under the mistaken idea that the Bush administration thinks deeply and worries greatly about the fate of the average American.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... (gasp!).....HAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!

OH, uh, excuse me. I didn't mean to break out into hysterical but bitter laughter just then!

Thanks for the link. I knew it all along, and it still burns my butt.

I'm going to add something really cynical. For about the past year, I've been wondering about Bush Jr's relationships with the CIA, armed forces, and State Department. If you go back to one of my previous posts, you'll see that I did mention how Bush has left the armed services terribly unsupported in Iraq in favor of contractors, blamed the CIA for "bad intelligence" on Iraq and outed Valerie Plame, ignored State Department recommendations and got Colin Powell (a previously well-respected General and originator of the Powell doctrine- see below) to be a shill for Cheney at the UN.

Aside from political appointees who are within *ss-kissing distance of the President, I would imagine that there are a lot very sharp knives surrounding Bush. And, as I predicted at work (too bad I cna't corroborate that here) there is going to be a drip drip drip of leaked news from now to the election. Hubby and I were talking about that a year ago. We figured that the only reason why it wasn't coming out was because it wasn't close enough to election.

Powell Doctrine:
After the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the Powell Doctrine, although there is not an actual formal document named as such. Powell, currently the U.S. secretary of state, has recently invoked the Doctrine in articulating the justifications for the Bush administration's preparations for war in Iraq. Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_sh
ort.html

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:08 PM

^^^ nice post. Can't think you're off the mark, nicely put. And yea, something in me wonders if Wolfowitz is laughing at Powell with the whole preemptive strike policy Wolfie created and the White House adopted.

... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*. Know why? Because when you stand up to lieing Brownshirt bullies and call them on thier bullshit they shrink away like the cowards they are.

SOUTHERNMERC

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:27 PM

First off, I'd like to say that it is no secret that alot of media bigwigs can't stand Bush. They didn't like it when he won (extremely close vote, but still legal folks), and they really don't like him now that they have a chance to get rid of him during the next election. They have stretched, bent, and made-up the "truth" about this administration in an all-out (seemingly) effort to oust him. Nope, they don't like him a bit.

Now, having said that...

This bit about all the interrogation and 3rd degree stuff put in the New Yorker is downright chilling. It implies (heck, STATES) alot of very, very immoral people in the govt. are now in charge of making some very, very BIG decisions. I told my father a few days after the 9/11 attacks that someone would use this as an excuse to step on some basic human rights. Let's do a quick review of the last few years pogroms, I mean programs , set into motion. This is not comprehensive, but should be enough to tickle a few brain cells.

Homeland Security: If the formation of this didn't set you in mind of the "Ministry of Peace," then you haven't read George Orwell's "1984." Do so ASAP, the turn on the news. Experience deep chilling sensation running down spine, while realizing that you really DON'T KNOW what these guys are REALLY about. Any group that gets worried about people exercising their constitutional rights is a group that really needs a watching. I own firearms. Their ownership is a right provided by the Constitution. That right is a final check provided by the founding fathers to help prevent an oppressive government from forming. Since a government wishing to enforce its will upon its people doesn't want the populace to have the ability to resist, the removal of their arms becomes paramount. Tho others can say that civilian arms matter little to modern weaponry, NO military wants to fight a popular resistance: where enemies are difficult to spot, and have unequalled knowledge of the terrain. Many words have been spoken about removing, or reducing, such rights.

Uber security at airports: This is little more than airline companies wanting to make you feel good so you will give them cash and not take the train. The measures taken, tho effective, seem extreme, given that the threat of terrorism hasn't changed from BEFORE 9/11. Yeah, these guys smashed planes into the towers and, yeah, we need to make sure it never happens again. But are these the correct methods of prevention? A change in policy seems necessary, and a change in procedure, to be sure. But everything that has been done just makes me feel abit...off. I don't have anything more concrete than that. The super paranoid part of me (the bit that really gets into Shadowrun games and conspiricy-theories-as-a-wacky-and-fun-topic discussions) says this is an attempt to control how citizens move about. The rest of me laughs at it and calls it crazy, then looks around hurridly for evidence that it is wrong. Heck, its starting to scare me. That paranoid bit is pointing to gas prices (which may have been exacerbated by actions of the current admin), and goin "uh-huh! That, too!" Thats just corporate greed taken too far, I hope.

The whole interrogation scandal: Alrighty, I'm not convinced that the higher ups ordered it. But I concede that it is highly possible that they not only knew about it, but condoned it. As I said earlier, the press involved may have blown it out of proportion (it could be just the one place), but if there ARE other places that performed these acts, and were sanctioned, then we have a large, ugly problem.

I feel like I have just been too paranoid about all this, but at the same time...

Any more information about all this?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE