Abu Ghraib
- Thread starter jay_too
- Start date
Weapons of Mass Photography to Be Banned in Iraq
Yeah, the military is trying to restrict digital cameras and cell phones in Iraq. The military appears to believe that unless something/conditions are not publicly known or seen, they do not exist. Ya know: no cameras, no prisoner abuse.
Check out: http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/...ons/OPI002.html
jay
Yeah, the military is trying to restrict digital cameras and cell phones in Iraq. The military appears to believe that unless something/conditions are not publicly known or seen, they do not exist. Ya know: no cameras, no prisoner abuse.
Check out: http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/...ons/OPI002.html
jay
Javierdude22: 3 hoorays for one of the biggest 'democracies' in the world!!
<_<
<_<
jonb..
Pentagon is expanding the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to all of DOD to "don't read, don't know." This may explain the mess in Iraq.
Newsweek: "Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, who is in charge of setting policy on prisoners and detainees in occupied Iraq, has banned any discussion of the still-classified report on Abu Ghraib written by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, which has circulated around the world. Shortly after the Taguba report leaked in early May, Feith subordinates sent an "urgent" e-mail around the Pentagon warning officials not to read the report, even though it was on Fox News. In the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK, officials in Feith's office warn that the leak is being investigated for "criminal prosecution" and that no one should mention the Taguba report to anybody, even to family members. Feith has turned his office into a "ministry of fear," says one military lawyer."
It is good to live in a free and Republican society where thoughtful discussion and civil debate are valued.
No wonder we are in such a mess in Iraq.
jay
Pentagon is expanding the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to all of DOD to "don't read, don't know." This may explain the mess in Iraq.
Newsweek: "Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, who is in charge of setting policy on prisoners and detainees in occupied Iraq, has banned any discussion of the still-classified report on Abu Ghraib written by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, which has circulated around the world. Shortly after the Taguba report leaked in early May, Feith subordinates sent an "urgent" e-mail around the Pentagon warning officials not to read the report, even though it was on Fox News. In the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK, officials in Feith's office warn that the leak is being investigated for "criminal prosecution" and that no one should mention the Taguba report to anybody, even to family members. Feith has turned his office into a "ministry of fear," says one military lawyer."
It is good to live in a free and Republican society where thoughtful discussion and civil debate are valued.
No wonder we are in such a mess in Iraq.
jay
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
[/b][/quote]
I didn't say I'd run away forever. I just think I might need a break from the U.S. for awhile so I can see how a real democracy works.
Javierdude22: Just quickly:
I thought it was funny yet refreshing to see that someone can still make Bush look like a normal person: the pope. Was it me or was Bush nervous, like going to confession?
I wonder how many Hail Marys he had to say...maybe as many as his defensebudget!
I thought it was funny yet refreshing to see that someone can still make Bush look like a normal person: the pope. Was it me or was Bush nervous, like going to confession?
I wonder how many Hail Marys he had to say...maybe as many as his defensebudget!
Javierdude22: Say WHAT?!
The Pentagon today: Torture of prisoners is admissable.
Exsqueeze me? What numbskull of a political advisor decided to let thát statement into the airwaves? Do I hear the Iraqi's sharpening their knives again? If torture is admissable, then that applies to the torture of American Soldiers as well right? I thought so.
Hm...torture till death follows...also admissable? A few Iraqis would nod yes if they weren't so extremely NOT-alive.
24 days and counting...
The Pentagon today: Torture of prisoners is admissable.
Exsqueeze me? What numbskull of a political advisor decided to let thát statement into the airwaves? Do I hear the Iraqi's sharpening their knives again? If torture is admissable, then that applies to the torture of American Soldiers as well right? I thought so.
Hm...torture till death follows...also admissable? A few Iraqis would nod yes if they weren't so extremely NOT-alive.
24 days and counting...
In the American military system of justice...err, make that injustice [Only the little fish are fried.], an investigator such as Major General Taguba can assign responsibility/blame ONLY to personnel who are of lower rank. It is my understanding that assessing/assigning blame to Department of Defense civilian personnel is beyond the scope of military justice. Is this so?
I think it is time for the President to instruct the Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate and charge DOD wrong/evil-doers with war crimes [Yes, we have a statute.]. While we cannot erase the shame of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Afghanistan, we might send the message that decency and respect for the law is expected.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue or even one related to how history will judge America in the first years of the 21st Century. It is an issue of how we judge ourselves and demand ethical conduct of all who would represent our country.
jay
I think it is time for the President to instruct the Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate and charge DOD wrong/evil-doers with war crimes [Yes, we have a statute.]. While we cannot erase the shame of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Afghanistan, we might send the message that decency and respect for the law is expected.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue or even one related to how history will judge America in the first years of the 21st Century. It is an issue of how we judge ourselves and demand ethical conduct of all who would represent our country.
jay
One of the lead stories in the Wall Street Journal today is the tangled web that has contributed to prisoner abuse:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1086557...tml?mod=mostpop
These are a few exerpts from the WSJ:
Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?"
The report seemed "designed to find the legal loopholes that will permit the use of torture against detainees," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international-law professor at the Ohio State University who has seen the report. "CIA operatives will think they are covered because they are not going to face liability."
I know what I think. What do you?
Just ask; I'll tell.
jay
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1086557...tml?mod=mostpop
These are a few exerpts from the WSJ:
Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?"
The report seemed "designed to find the legal loopholes that will permit the use of torture against detainees," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international-law professor at the Ohio State University who has seen the report. "CIA operatives will think they are covered because they are not going to face liability."
I know what I think. What do you?
Just ask; I'll tell.
jay
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
It seems its true.
A story on NPR today featured an interview with the author of the Wall Street Journal article jay_too mentioned above. Apparently, according to DOD lawyers, the Geneva Conventions and other treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate don't apply if the president deems that national security is jeopardized by aherence to internationally accepted standards on prisoner treatment. In other words, U.S. officials anywhere cannot be held accountable for torturing prisoners because the overwhelming national interest in preventing future acts of terrorism trumps everthing else.
So, the Nuremberg defense of "I was simply following orders..." works because orders to torture prisoners are not illegal if the president says so, according to the DOD memo.
As for me, I'm disappointed and angry to find our government using this kind of self-serving claptrap to justify blatantly illegal and immoral actions. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct than this kind of nonsense. We can hardly expect other nations to follow our lead and respect our motivations in Iraq and elsewhere when they go against both international law and common sense.
SG
A story on NPR today featured an interview with the author of the Wall Street Journal article jay_too mentioned above. Apparently, according to DOD lawyers, the Geneva Conventions and other treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate don't apply if the president deems that national security is jeopardized by aherence to internationally accepted standards on prisoner treatment. In other words, U.S. officials anywhere cannot be held accountable for torturing prisoners because the overwhelming national interest in preventing future acts of terrorism trumps everthing else.
So, the Nuremberg defense of "I was simply following orders..." works because orders to torture prisoners are not illegal if the president says so, according to the DOD memo.
As for me, I'm disappointed and angry to find our government using this kind of self-serving claptrap to justify blatantly illegal and immoral actions. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct than this kind of nonsense. We can hardly expect other nations to follow our lead and respect our motivations in Iraq and elsewhere when they go against both international law and common sense.
SG
More Tales of the Evil Doers
Today's LA Times has an article on abuse during interrogation of the American Taliban
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world
"After Lindh asked for a lawyer rather than talk to interrogators, he was not granted one nor was he advised of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Instead, the Pentagon ordered intelligence officers to get tough with him.
The documents, read to The Times by two sources critical of how the government handled the Lindh case, show that after an Army intelligence officer began to question Lindh, a Navy admiral told the intelligence officer that "the secretary of Defense's counsel has authorized him to 'take the gloves off' and ask whatever he wanted."
Lindh was being questioned while he was propped up naked and tied to a stretcher in interrogation sessions that went on for days, according to court papers."
A couple of years ago, we learned that John Walker Lindt was denied medical treatment to soften him up and kept naked in a metal container in below freezing conditions. Yet, only yesterday the Attorney General assured us that no abusive treatment had occurred and the U.S. was not in violation of federal statutes or international treaties.
jay
Today's LA Times has an article on abuse during interrogation of the American Taliban
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world
"After Lindh asked for a lawyer rather than talk to interrogators, he was not granted one nor was he advised of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Instead, the Pentagon ordered intelligence officers to get tough with him.
The documents, read to The Times by two sources critical of how the government handled the Lindh case, show that after an Army intelligence officer began to question Lindh, a Navy admiral told the intelligence officer that "the secretary of Defense's counsel has authorized him to 'take the gloves off' and ask whatever he wanted."
Lindh was being questioned while he was propped up naked and tied to a stretcher in interrogation sessions that went on for days, according to court papers."
A couple of years ago, we learned that John Walker Lindt was denied medical treatment to soften him up and kept naked in a metal container in below freezing conditions. Yet, only yesterday the Attorney General assured us that no abusive treatment had occurred and the U.S. was not in violation of federal statutes or international treaties.
jay
