Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, December 11, 2004 17:27
VIEWED: 18296
PAGE 2 of 10
The pattern at Abu Ghraib is that SOME detainees were humiliated, stressed, and tortured but not all. The same thing happened in Afghanistan, and Gitmo. It also happened to non-citizen detainees within the USA....
Because the practice seems to have been selective, you won't find massive groups of released prisoners claiming abuse. Many in fact will say that they were treated very well. The fact that this seems to apply to only a small group of prisoners shouldn't lull us inot thinking that it didn't happen at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All part of a bigger, uglier powe play picture ... I say this as a Desert Storm AF Veteran. Think back to the Jerry Spinger'esque red-herring that was used to divert American's attention prior to the election of the Idiot Princ ... er George W. and wonder - why did the goverment spend SO much money on exposing a "hummer"? 
"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is a link to a leaked memo from Alberto Gonzales to the President, advocating suspension of the Geneva conventions to prisoners in Afghanistan and Gitmo. This decision was made by the DOJ (thank you Ashcroft) and objected to by Colin Powell.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/
A Newsweek analysis says the following:
"The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote."
Link to entire article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just as an aside, some days I could bang my head into a brick wall - it would feel so much better than thinking about the Administration.
As far as they're concerned, we're ants - or less than that. But they know what to say, and how and when to say it; the supine media parrots it, and half of the US eats it up. At the moment, Bush's approval rating is 52%.
I can't confirm it on the board, but the people who know me know that I was calling Bush a sociopath during the campaign. How do you tell a sociopath? Not by how they SEEM - they spend their entire lives manipulating people, and they're very, very skillful. You tell it by what they DO when they think no one will know, or when they think they can get away with it.
As Governor, Bush mocked a Texas woman about to be executed, whose death warrant he had signed: "Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps ...'I didn't meet with Larry King either ... I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'"
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx
I don't think the media is against Bush in any way. They're businessmen and their main interest is to sell ad time. And they do THAT by putting on shows (including news) that people want to see, with minimum hassle. When the Administration said don't air any bin Laden tapes, the media said 'Yes SIR!' The verbal stumbling gets edited out. (To see what it's really like, you have to watch the BBC, ITN or other int'l news.) When the admin said the daily American death toll reports were a real downer, they disappeared off the news. For months all you hear was 'attacks are down'.
In fact, the death rate never went down, not after "Mission Accomplished!" or 'Saddam Found'; not after the military adopted the policy of bunkering itself behind sandbags and walls. In fact, the death rate has gone up. see:
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1322.shtml
So here we are, being lied to, used, and stolen from, and half the US thinks it's just great.
Somebody, tell me something that makes this OK.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, I can't.
But I agree with you on the sociopath thing, tho. It suddenly makes Bush's actions more explainable. And that smirk.... grrrrrr.
BTW- have you noticed how QUIET it is in here????
HELLO! ...HELLO...Hello... hello...
ANYBODY HERE? ...HERE...Here...here...
Nope, guess we got the thread all to our lonesome!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're not helping my paranoia any. Actually, you're helping it TOO much. Ooog, I need a warm fuzzy, cause the world seems a bit too abrasive right now.
But then again, I knew something was coming down the pike ever since the towers. Seems whoever set this all up (Bin Laden, his flunky, Aunt Betty, whomever) knew EXACTLY how we (Americans) would react. Here's to hoping we are proven wrong.
Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, I thought I was all alone in my paranoia! Oh well, let's be paranoid together. 
But whatever you do PLEASE don't start talking about the sky blue (UN) or black (USA) helicopters.... even if they really do exist!
heh heh heh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just had time to throw in that quip but I wanted to make a serious comment.
Don't feel TOO paranoid. The popular reaction to war or the threat of war- in modern Western countries anyway- has always been to rally round the flag. Bismarck united northern and southern Germany by successfully warring on France, Denmark, and his erstwhile partner Austria. Thatcher used the Falklands war to boost her sagging ratings. Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was coming but decided that we needed a direct attack in order to get popular opinion over the hump and into WWII. Which is kind of interesting because the Project for a New American Century (incl Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle) was sort of wishing for a Pearl Harbor, so maybe the parallels go deeper than we imagine... But, in any case, the reaction to 9/11 was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
I think, tho, that USA citizens do have some extra peculiarities thrown in that make us - on the average- a little quicker on the trigger. The first is that we know next to nothing about the rest of the world, which makes us more frightened than necessary.
The second thing is that because we are such firm believers in equality, we tend not to examine power and its uses. We don't understand that we ARE the dominant power in the world, but that poer has its limits. So we react to little things-like Saddam's supposed WMD- like an elephant getting hysterical over a mouse.
The third is that we trust our government, and the media has been going along with it because George (dubya) Bush has been the deregulation fairy for big media.
When dubya was selected, I figured that we had had a soft coup. I wondered how long it would take for ppl to catch on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*
I have hardly had any time to come the this board lately and I have only had time to read the excerpt you posted. Good stuff! If the rest of the article is as good as that then I think that could (*chuckle*) be the reason for the silence.
Although I don't necessarily agree with the cowards part. I mean, what can you say after that (*tee hee*). Their entire argument has gone out the window
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
W is a big deregulation guy? I thought that was Clinton. Considering all the DReg he did here in Arkansas before he left for the White House. What do you mean?
Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME