SpeedoGuy said:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
Did the guests at the Abu Ghraib comedy club pay for the privelege of not being tortured?
The photos of Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with regard to the Army are reprehensible in nature and I certainly bow to your statement of the terrorists did not pay to participate in the acts willingly. However, I maintain the photos are not torture. The are demeaning and abusive no doubt. The soldiers should have been punished and were.
It should be noted here that it was the Army who first investigated this matter however and not the media. (
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005044 )
The army does conduct themselves according to rules set forth before them.
After queried by the CIA director in 2001, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo (
http://lawofwar.org/Yoo_Delahunty_Memo.htm )in January 2002 that gave a detailed explanation of what torture was. That same memo also explained that the Executive Branch had the authority to use torture, if deemed appropriate.
*note torture is set apart from degradation of prisoners.
** note it does not matter anyway as the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case.
After the response from the DOJ, Director Gonzalez then presented a memorandum for the President. (
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/ ) In short, Al Qaeda and terrorist insurgents do not fall with the parameters of POW status. Notice, with that notwithstanding, the Red Cross has been allowed access and Geneva Convention "standards" have been in awarded when merited on a case by case basis to the prisoners.
If not for the tremendous idiocy of a hand full of soldiers, who have been punished, we would not be having this discussion. Granted, it does not fall to the guards at a facility to extract information. Yet they do not have to coddle the enemy and there are unpleasant things they must perform prior to interrogation that may be ordered. Are some procedures harsh? Yes and meant to be so. They, the allowable procedures, are not what are pictured in these photos. The photos we have all seen are of prisoner abuse.
Now, has the CIA killed persons who have come into their hands? I would not say no. I would lean to yes and it is a definite probably. As stated above, the executive branch can authorize torture if it is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate but 100% legal and the CIA are the dudes that would do it in my estimation.
Now, memorandums are not as graphic as photographs of exploded heads, blood stained tiles, and ACLU subpoenas but the content is just as stirring when read. The necessity may be what is as graphically vivid when one realizes, even tonight, I read in the headlines that a Gas attack was planned for New Yorks subway system. Would not torture be warranted if it were possible to stop such an attack?
Oh . . . and the Dixie Chicks blah blah blah (just so to stay on topic)