Torture memos

[classicman]

Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.

Originally Posted by classicman

Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.

There are facts that are not in dispute...most notably that the DoJ memos "justify" interrogation techniques including water boarding and physical/psychological abuses that go beyond the internationally recognized standards of torture.

It really doesnt matter if you or I agree or disagree if these interrogation techniques constitute torture....what matters is that the US signed an agreement to abide by the standards.

What is left to one's belief is if it is legitimate for the executive branch of the government to unilaterally redefine these techniques as "enhanced interrogation" but not torture and to ignore US international treaty obligations that have been recognized by all recent previous administrations.

IMO, if the Bush administration wanted to circumvent the UNCAT agreement negotiated and signed for the US by the Reagan administration as well as approx. 150 other nations, it should have gone to Congress to request approval to withdraw from the international agreement....and become a rogue nation like the few others in the world that do not recognize it.....Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe to name a few.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I think the most compelling reason why we should not use these techniques is this... two female journalists were captured recently while reporting on a story from the Chinese - N Korean border. When asked about how the women were being treated, they replied, "we are not Gauntanamo." That was North Korea talking, for crying out loud!

Now a female journalist with dual citizenship in the United States and Iran has been tried (and I believe sentenced) in Iran for spying. I wonder how she will be treated?

This really goes to the heart of the matter. We should treat others the way WE OURSELVES want to be treated. We will not always agree on policy, or other governmental affairs, but that doesn't mean we should not show respect. If we abandon our principles and bring ourselves down to the level of terrorists, then why should we expect to be treated with any decency by anyone?

This bears repeating...

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe.

Most old line Republicans are scared shitless of their future. After all, they would have to believe based in facts. They would have to learn how to ignore myths routinely promoted by their political handlers. Extremism cannot survive with honesty.

We are not torturing. When that lie was exposed, old line extremist Republicans then said we must torture to get intelligence. That lie was also exposed by 1993 WTC, USS Cole investigation, well proven techniques even used in WWII, the stopping of terrorism all over the world on Millennium eve, Jemaah Islamiya, and ...

So extremists must again lie – even ignore those facts - to continue preaching what their political handlers (Rush Limbaugh) tell them to think.

Wacko extremists even denied we had secret prisons. Obama ordered those *non-existent* prisons closed. How do wacko extremists deny that their lie? They don't. Wacko extremists defend themselves by replacing old lies with new lies. You are supposed to forget how often extremists lie. Need we again visit wacko extremism trying to impose their religion in Dover PA schools? Extremists then exposed as liars repeatedly by the judge?

No wonder there is a war ongoing in the Republican party to save it from extremists and a political agenda justified by lies. Extremists even still lie about torture. First deny it was ongoing. Then must lie again - that only torture gets facts. A war in the Republican party because extremist political agendas cannot exist without lies - even about torture.

Extremists will not even ask a question that any decent American was asking five years ago: when do we go after bin Laden? To ask that question is to admit to more extremist lies - including the one where Saddam and bin Laden were co-conspirators.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

This bears repeating...

You will have to repeat it again. Extremists routinely ignore what contradicts their political agenda. Those who know torture work learned because they saw it proven with Jack Bauer/24 on Fox TV.

What is a greatest threat to every American soldier? That Americans routinely torture and then would even lie about it.

When caught posting lies, extremists respond with more lies. So yes, repeat it again because extremists had to ignore that reality.

Should we be surprised when extremists post more cheap shots and lies about Chavez and Obama shaking hands? Liars are not ethical or honest.

[TheMercenary]

IRC got their information from detainees. Hardly a good source as I stated earlier.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.

It feeds and perpetuates the beliefs they already have based on limited sources of information. People are always going hear what they want to hear.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I recall Bush or Cheney telling us about an al queda plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge...it turns out it was one guy with a handheld blow torch.

Oh yea, completely harmless.


http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscel...ridge_Plot.pdf

[classicman]

there are two examples of my post by Redux and Sugarpop. Please note that I NEVER agreed one way or the other in post #46, but both of you, plus 2 ignored posts (I'll assume at least one of which was in reference to me) show that you all very quickly jumped to validate your opinions when they were not challenged. (and most likely one attack) Interesting.

As far as what constitutes torture and whether we should have or not, again, I have mixed opinions.

On Rant/ I am not sure we should have released the memos to the world. I know I know transparency and all that, but it seems as though the assumption on the left is that we did these things to every prisoner. The truth is probably far from that. My limited understanding is that the interrogation techniques started at the least "intrusive" and stronger ones had to be authorized by superiors before they could be implemented.
Were there abuses? Probably. Were they widespread? Probably not, but who knows. The left will attack the right with their inhumanity and the right will say they were defending & protecting the country. Reality is most likely somewhere in the middle. /Off rant

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I think the most compelling reason why we should not use these techniques is this... two female journalists were captured recently while reporting on a story from the Chinese - N Korean border. When asked about how the women were being treated, they replied, "we are not Gauntanamo." That was North Korea talking, for crying out loud!

That was nothing more than a PR move. Looks like it worked on you.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Now a female journalist with dual citizenship in the United States and Iran has been tried (and I believe sentenced) in Iran for spying. I wonder how she will be treated?

Probably not very well - Is there something that makes you think they would have treated her/them any differently a year or two ago? If so, you are kidding yourself.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

As far as what constitutes torture and whether we should have or not, again, I have mixed opinions.

On Rant/ I am not sure we should have released the memos to the world. I know I know transparency and all that, but it seems as though the assumption on the left is that we did these things to every prisoner. The truth is probably far from that. My limited understanding is that the interrogation techniques started at the least "intrusive" and stronger ones had to be authorized by superiors before they could be implemented.
Were there abuses? Probably. Were they widespread? Probably not, but who knows. The left will attack the right with their inhumanity and the right will say they were defending & protecting the country. Reality is most likely somewhere in the middle. /Off rant

[TheMercenary]

The ICRC findings were based on its access to the CIA's 14 "high-value" detainees who were held in secret CIA prisons. They were interviewed after being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_dig...01991000&ty=st

[TheMercenary]

Iraq: ICRC explains position over detention report and treatment of prisoners
Introductory statement and summary of main points made by the ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl, at a press conference at the organization's headquarters, 7 May 2004, following the publication by the Wall Street Journal of excerpts of an ICRC report.

Iraq: ICRC explains position over detention report and treatment of prisoners
Introductory statement and summary of main points made by the ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl, at a press conference at the organization's headquarters, 7 May 2004, following the publication by the Wall Street Journal of excerpts of an ICRC report.


Thank you for joining us at this press conference that the ICRC has called following the publication today of articles in the Wall Street Journal that quote large excerpts from a confidential report on detention in Iraq dated January 2004 and submitted by the ICRC to the Coalition Forces in February 2004.


The ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl ©ICRC/T. Gassmann/Let me say that the President of the ICRC, Mr Jakob Kellenberger, is today in Brussels. Had he been in Geneva, he would have addressed you personally. As you are aware, President Kellenberger has been directly, regularly and recently dealing with issues related to detention of people in US hands. This Wednesday, he took the initiative of discussing the ICRC's observations and concerns related to Abu Ghraib prison with Secretary of State Colin Powell over the phone. You will have seen references in the media to this and to the fact that Secretary Powell indicated that the ICRC findings were taken very seriously.

In his absence, President Kellenberger has asked me to share the following ICRC position with you:

I would like to begin by underlining that the report (excerpts of the report) was made available to the public without the consent of the ICRC. The preparation and submission of such reports is part of the ICRC's standard procedures in the field of its visits to prisoners worldwide.

As a reminder, the ICRC last year visited 469,648 detainees, held in 1,923 places of detention, in about 80 countries.

These reports carry a specific mention that they are strictly confidential and intended only for the authorities to which they are presented. It adds that the reports may not be published, in full or in part, without the consent of the ICRC.

As already indicated this report was, however, released without our consent. In view of the fact that this notion of confidentiality is an element vital to obtaining access to prisoners world-wide and that access is in turn essential for us to carry out meaningful work for the persons detained, the ICRC is unhappy to see this report being made public.

A second point I would like to make is that this report includes observations and recommendations from visits that took place between March and November 2003. The report itself was handed over to the Coalition Forces (CF) in February of 2004.

It is important to understand that this report represents the summary of concerns that were regularly brought to the attention of the CF throughout 2003.

I should perhaps explain here briefly how these visits work:
ICRC delegates traditionally negotiate access to all persons deprived of their freedom in situations of armed conflict or internal violence. Upon obtaining such access they carry out detailed visits to a given prison, police station or any other type of detention place. They do this to review the overall functioning of the prisons and well-being of the prisoners.

They meet individually with the detainees for private talks, without the presence of witnesses. This allows them to ascertain the treatment and conditions of detention and enables the prisoner to write a message to his or her family.

The visits end with a formal talk with the detaining authority to share findings and concerns and to make recommendations for improvements.

This is important to understand in the sense that what appears in the report of February 2004 are observations consistent with those made earlier on several occasions orally and in writing throughout 2003. In that sense the ICRC has repeatedly made its concerns known to the Coalition Forces and requested corrective measures prior to the submission of this particular report.

Both for Abu Ghraib and for other places of detention in Iraq, oral and written interventions of the ICRC specifically recalled the laws and norms that States have committed themselves to respect by adhering to the Geneva Conventions.

You are well aware of the insistence of the ICRC, stated bilaterally and publicly for months now, on the importance of full respect for international humanitarian law (which includes the Geneva Conventions) that represents a crucial and relevant set of rules aimed at preserving the life and dignity, and the lawful treatment, of prisoners.

Thank you.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...c?opendocument

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

IRC got their information from detainees. Hardly a good source as I stated earlier.

For this post to have honesty, you must dispute the long list of accusations of torture by many separate and independent parties. You must dispute every one. You don't even try because the fact is America was torturing. The memo simply demonstrates in 2002 the first step in authorizing torture. And where was it being authorized? In the highest levels of the George Jr administration.

FBI interrogators left places like Iraq once the torture started. Why? First - once a prisoner is tortured, the well is poisoned. Nothing useful can be obtained. Second, FBI agents did not want to be party to obvious illegal activities. But extremists tell use torture did not exist because maybe one hundred separated prisoners (who had no contact with one another) all repeated the same stories. All described the same torture methods.

Amazing how those *enemies* are clairvoyant. Using mind telepathy, they shared the same stories before the IRC got to them. These many *enemies* who have since been released from American prisons because they were not guilty of anything – and yet tell similar stories of the torture methods used on them.

Who is most likely to torture? Prison keepers who are holding innocent men without even judicial review. How curious. That is the George Jr administration that has a long history of overt lying.

Fact is that Americans were torturing prisoners. Even FBI agents said so. Torture justified by the same 'we are good and they are evil' agenda that characterized wacko extremist politics. How do we know torture did not happen? Extremists denied it. That is the entire proof? Of course extremists deny it. The act of being an extremist requires lying even to one's self.

Reality is that the George Jr administration did authorize the use of torture and holding innocent people for years in prisons. Even secret torture prisons that Obama closed on day 2 … because those prisons did exist despite extremists denials.

The honest response is to admit Americans were torturing. And doing so because it was authorized inside the George Jr administration by people such as Gonzales.

No wonder these same people tried to get us into a war with China over a silly spy plane.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

All posters should keep in mind that tw has never expressed the least interest in the free societies winning out over the slavemaking ones. Tw just can't think about human liberty, nor apparently give it its proper value. Tw really doesn't want totalitarianism to lose, anywhere. Instead, it's "we're so awful, because we're trying to win."

Can anyone show otherwise?