Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture | World news | The Guardian

America's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques of terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, leading to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners, the Guardian reveals today. General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture. The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington, who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date, is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts of which appear in today's Guardian.

Sad when a senior general does not know the limits of the Gneva conventions

[Nono]

When the Geneva Conventions are implemented in good faith, there are no limits. Myers -- if he's being sincere -- must have been pretty naive about the gang he was dealing with. After all, ever since 2001 they had been saying publicly that, as far as the United States' obligations under the Conventions were concerned, two plus two equaled three.

[xyzer]

This is a bunch of pure unadulterated 'crap'! Since when did aggressive interrogation become torture? Since when has there been any evidence of torture at Gitmo?
This is insanity in print!

The Guantánamo lawyers charged with devising interrogation techniques were inspired by the exploits of Jack Bauer in the American TV series 24.

What lawyers were devising interrogation techniques?
The assertion that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was ignorant of the Geneva Convention is nonsense. Right off of the pens of those who condone the cutting off of innnocent reporters heads because they happen to be Jewish! Those who condone the constant bombardment of Israeli and Palestinian innocents. Those so filled with religious hate and fervor that they murder the innocent randomly with roadside bombs?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer This is a bunch of pure unadulterated 'crap'! Since when did aggressive interrogation become torture?

I'm not sure. Maybe I can experiment with such distinctions on test subjects. After all, the government does it.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: xyzer Since when did aggressive interrogation become torture?

Since people began to look past the euphemism "aggressive interrogation", that's when.

Since when has there been any evidence of torture at Gitmo?

Since ICRC reports were leaked to the New York Times (Media Matters - Wall Street Journal distorted ICRC report; Rumsfeld followed suit), at the very latest.

Wake up, xyzer.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

I always thought the Genev convention gave no rights to mercenaries! Surely these are those who reside in the Guantánamo complex

[Nono]

All those guys were engaged in armed conflict for the money, that it A?

[sdbest]

Quote by: xyzer This is a bunch of pure unadulterated 'crap'! Since when did aggressive interrogation become torture? Since when has there been any evidence of torture at Gitmo? This is insanity in print!

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo.

FBI files detail Guantánamo torture tactics.

According to numerous credible sources (surely you can do your own Google search), including the U.S. Government and the FBI, detainees-- most of whom are innocent--were tortured at Guantanamo Bay.

Like the man said, "You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts."

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel I always thought the Genev convention gave no rights to mercenaries! Surely these are those who reside in the Guantánamo complex

All soldiers get paid...the definition is a bit fuzzy and really would have been a much more logical way to run around the Convention than classing them as enemy combatants when the Convention uses the word combatant so frequently. However, because Al Quaeda seldom pays its troops it would still be a difficult point to make.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

[xyzer]

You guys and the Guardian are stretching the term truth along with term torture. Torture is defined generally as inflicting great physical pain or mutilation on someone? The Guardian article and other Red Cross gibberish merely mention shackling a recalcitrant for several hours or allowing him to lie on a cold floor for a period of time? Discomfort is not torture nor is the so called psychological effect of noise or light. I want to see some mangled bodies before I'll believe the camel hockey about torture?

Nowhere have I seen evidence of an officially sanctioned policy of actuial torture at Gtmo? There have been no trials or indictments of anyone involved and whether you believe it or not we still have a justice system in the USA? All I read and see is a bunch of whacko claims by the press and anti war zealots(even whacko British professors who don't know their a**es from their elbows?

Second point! The Geneva Convention applies to signatory nations in war time? None of the terrorists and suspects detained at Gtmo claimed any allegience other than to Allah..and Allah is not a signatory. They are renagades in a so called holy war.

The dilema has been whether to treat these bozos as POWs or just plain criminals? They aren't US citizens so the latter is out. They are a threat thats why they were captured. When Bush proposed military tribunals he was shouted down by Congress and antiwar types. So these potential(or actual) murders have been held in limbo rather than shot. But I haven't heard of any valid evidence that they were tortured?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer You guys and the Guardian are stretching the term truth along with term torture. Torture is defined generally as inflicting great physical pain or mutilation on someone? The Guardian article and other Red Cross gibberish merely mention shackling a recalcitrant for several hours or allowing him to lie on a cold floor for a period of time? Discomfort is not torture nor is the so called psychological effect of noise or light. I want to see some mangled bodies before I'll believe the camel hockey about torture? Nowhere have I seen evidence of an officially sanctioned policy of actuial torture at Gtmo? There have been no trials or indictments of anyone involved and whether you believe it or not we still have a justice system in the USA? All I read and see is a bunch of whacko claims by the press and anti war zealots(even whacko British professors who don't know their a**es from their elbows? Second point! The Geneva Convention applies to signatory nations in war time? None of the terrorists and suspects detained at Gtmo claimed any allegience other than to Allah..and Allah is not a signatory. They are renagades in a so called holy war. The dilema has been whether to treat these bozos as POWs or just plain criminals? They aren't US citizens so the latter is out. They are a threat thats why they were captured. When Bush proposed military tribunals he was shouted down by Congress and antiwar types. So these potential(or actual) murders have been held in limbo rather than shot. But I haven't heard of any valid evidence that they were tortured?

Sadly, Afghanistan signed the treaties along with every other nation and the treaties protect all citizens of that nation regardless of motivation.

The treaty is also quite clear. Both physical and mental torture are categorically not allowed, as is any form of "coercion". Read the treaties.

There are smart ways to weasel out of the Convention; it was penned by ordinary human beings and after I read it I found a few useful loopholes. If Bush had smarter lawyers he really could make torture completely legal without changing a definition.

Fortunately, Bush and his aides are spastic morons and couldn't lawyer their way out of a wet paper bag. I can't believe they missed the exploits based on article 4.

Anyways,

Instead of dwelling on the legality, consider whether torture is useful. It makes the torturing nation look bad, and maintaining U.S. popularity is the prime objective. It also does not produce very high quality information; if you tortured everybody who came into Gitmo eventually they would all spill the beans on something real or fanciful to make it stop and resources would be wasted chasing down stories designed to stop the torture. I assure you this is just an all around bad idea.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Thanatos Sadly, Afghanistan signed the treaties along with every other nation and the treaties protect all citizens of that nation regardless of motivation.

That's not particularly sad, if you ask me. It's a simple principle, really.
It goes something like this: "All global citizens should be accorded the rights that any American citizen expects."

Though this question goes beyond citizenship and law and into basic morality -- it could be assigned a legal basis, for better or worse.
Perhaps such treaties exist so citizenship appeals to cool-headed people. If a nation can't even repudiate torture (that is, sadistic behavior), what the hell good is it?

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Nono..Suggest you wake up and reread the refverence?

The Journal editorial also misrepresented the ICRC's specific criticisms of U.S. conduct at Guantánamo in order to make the group's positions appear ludicrous. "[T]he ICRC is alleging that the psychological conditions faced by Guantánamo detainees are 'tantamount to torture.' Why? Because -- we kid you not -- prisoners are being held for indefinite periods and the uncertainty is stressful," the editorial stated. According to the Times, the ICRC report claimed that "the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." Though the Times does indicate that the ICRC was also concerned about the effect of indefinite detention on the prisoners' mental health, it was the psychological and physical coercion, and not the indefinite detention, that the ICRC reportedly deemed "tantamount to torture."

Now review the wording in the press accusations. Psychological con ditions are"tantamount to torture".."equal to" in whose estimation? Concern about indefinite detention? Detention is torture?

I hope you see what I mean. This invented alarmism amounts to little more than Gobboldy Goop! The fact that it comes from the notoriously antiwar New York Times makes if immediately suspicious. If you digest the attempts to make normal detention and interrogation into torture with out ever mentioning a specific example of torture you can see through the ridiculous attempt to hype the issue?

I'm waiting? Any specific examples of torture revealed? Is torture defined by the originators of this nonsense?

[Thanatos]

Xyler, there is one truly great thing I appreciate about computers above all others. Do you know what that is? Piracy.

This is a pirated CBS news broadcast of an interview with a British prisoner who was tortured to within an inch of his life.

LiveLeak.com - An Innocent Man Tortured at Gitmo Tells All

EDIT: Now with 100% more torture, plus bonus American war hero.

LiveLeak.com - BBC Covers Winter Soldier 2008 - Waterboarding In Iraq

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Thanatos Xyler, there is one truly great thing I appreciate about computers above all others. Do you know what that is? Piracy. This is a pirated CBS news broadcast of an interview with a British prisoner who was tortured to within an inch of his life. LiveLeak.com - An Innocent Man Tortured at Gitmo Tells All EDIT: Now with 100% more torture, plus bonus American war hero. LiveLeak.com - BBC Covers Winter Soldier 2008 - Waterboarding In Iraq

xyzer -

If you found out that everything this story presents as fact is an absolute fact, how would you feel?

[thx1138]

The dilema has been whether to treat these bozos as POWs or just plain criminals? They aren't US citizens so the latter is out. They are a threat thats why they were captured. When Bush proposed military tribunals he was shouted down by Congress and antiwar types. So these potential(or actual) murders have been held in limbo rather than shot. But I haven't heard of any valid evidence that they were tortured?

This guy is a piece of work. If someone is catputed in a battle that is a POW.

[xyzer]

Look this guy didn't have a rational excuse for even being over in Pakistan..He ostensibly wanted to learn more about Isam because he was thinking about marrying a Muslim? Sound rational? Spend many dollars going to a war zone to learn about a religion which you can learn about from a local Mullah? (Doesn't pass the truth test IMO)
He is picked up by native military on the scene during a war wandering around posing as an Islamic citizen.. It was never clear why he was turned over to the US Military except that his presence was questioned by the military in a war zone? Can't a rational person learn about Islam without growing a beard and dressing like an enemy in a war zone?.

Then we have a crazy myirad of tales about how he suffered from his treatment or lack thereof and eventually was sent to Gitmo because he statememnts didn't jibe with events. The USA said there was no evidence of his mistreatment a Gtmo? I believe them. No indication he was tortured within an inch of his life by him was there? He claimed of discomfort and bad conditions in a prison(Gtmo) that was viewed and inspected and proved to be quite comfortable by most standards?
His lawyer, as lawyers are want to do because they don't testifty under oath, then also made all sorts of unproven statements about his clients so called ill treatment? Where did his lawyer get the info? From the detainee, obviously.


At the time all this went down was there a war going on? Had the USA been attacked and was responding to the Taliban which helped carry out the attack? Yes! Did the battlefield and envorons contain some enemy? Yes. Were those enemy going to admit they were trying to kill Americans and other allied personnel? No

Talk about pirated tapes? This one showed only one side of a very complicated story? Are we to believe there weren't other sides to the issue? Isbskins asks if I found all this to be factual how would I feel? I don't think it is, and if it was I would feel like this guy was a jerk! I'd ask would you go over to a war zone to learn about a rleigion that you might want to adopt? Is there a German or Turkiash Consulate where he was? Did he have a visa? Did he get in touch with the consulate?

[thx1138]

At the time all this went down was there a war going on? Had the USA been attacked and was responding to the Taliban which helped carry out the attack?

The Taliban helped carry out the attack? The ISI in Pakistan helped carry out attacks.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: xyzer Look this guy didn't have a rational excuse for even being over in Pakistan..He ostensibly wanted to learn more about Isam because he was thinking about marrying a Muslim? Sound rational? Spend many dollars going to a war zone to learn about a religion which you can learn about from a local Mullah? (Doesn't pass the truth test IMO) He is picked up by native military on the scene during a war wandering around posing as an Islamic citizen.. It was never clear why he was turned over to the US Military except that his presence was questioned by the military in a war zone? Can't a rational person learn about Islam without growing a beard and dressing like an enemy in a war zone?. Then we have a crazy myirad of tales about how he suffered from his treatment or lack thereof and eventually was sent to Gitmo because he statememnts didn't jibe with events. The USA said there was no evidence of his mistreatment a Gtmo? I believe them. No indication he was tortured within an inch of his life by him was there? He claimed of discomfort and bad conditions in a prison(Gtmo) that was viewed and inspected and proved to be quite comfortable by most standards? His lawyer, as lawyers are want to do because they don't testifty under oath, then also made all sorts of unproven statements about his clients so called ill treatment? Where did his lawyer get the info? From the detainee, obviously. At the time all this went down was there a war going on? Had the USA been attacked and was responding to the Taliban which helped carry out the attack? Yes! Did the battlefield and envorons contain some enemy? Yes. Were those enemy going to admit they were trying to kill Americans and other allied personnel? No Talk about pirated tapes? This one showed only one side of a very complicated story? Are we to believe there weren't other sides to the issue? Isbskins asks if I found all this to be factual how would I feel? I don't think it is, and if it was I would feel like this guy was a jerk! I'd ask would you go over to a war zone to learn about a rleigion that you might want to adopt? Is there a German or Turkiash Consulate where he was? Did he have a visa? Did he get in touch with the consulate?

I did not ask you to tell me why you doubt his story. I asked you to tell me what you would feel about the situation if his story was absolutely factual. And essentially, your response is that innocence is not a factor in your mind. That defines you as a jingoistic automatron who believes that any action a government takes is justified if they simply claim it is necessary. I now feel free to throw that usually hyberbolic, but in this instance seeminly accurate, accusation at you: You would make the perfect Nazi.

Oh, and by the way...he wasn't in the war zone. He was in Pakistan. He was picked up and taken, by the US, to the war zone. You are warping the facts to suit your already silly position. And just what is an "Islamic citizen", by the way. He is a Muslim true, but a muslim with German citizenship, who was seen as suspicious, not because he was pretending to be Pakistani, but because he was German and in Pakistan so soon after 9/11...but this just goes to show, you don't actually hear what is said, you warp things to fit a scenario that makes unjustified actions seem somehow justified in your mind.

[Anmon]

Torture is a necessity to get info quickly, how 'civilised' and high minded we think we are now doesn't change this one bit.
The left as usual squeal about Guantanamo, focusing all their hate and rage on the wrong target because its more sensational.
Meanwhile the real info is gotten much quicker out of the media spotlight, by much more traditional, brutal, bloody and efficient methods, by the well paid CIA lackeys in Egypt.
These guys will have the most adamant atheist praying to God for help, within half an hour.

United States: trade in torture, by Stephen Grey