March 29, 2024, 04:45:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Shepherd Smith on Torture and Being an American  (Read 21453 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« on: April 23, 2009, 12:19:01 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hCWN9UWtWkc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/hCWN9UWtWkc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1</a>


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IG2VF4a0LWs&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IG2VF4a0LWs&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1</a>

I liked what Shepherd Smith said in one of these videos: "This is not a right or left (meaning political) issue. This is a right or wrong issue." I agree. America is the shining example to all the world. We..don't..torture.
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2009, 01:02:58 PM »

GOP Leader Calls It Torture

While cable news outlets and major newspapers continue to use euphemisms such as "harsh interrogation tactics" to describe the Bush administration's approach to intelligence gathering, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) used a more succinct term Thursday: "torture."

"Last week, they released these memos outlining torture techniques. That was clearly a political decision and ignored the advice of their Director of National Intelligence and their CIA director," Boehner said at a press conference in the Capitol.

The techniques discussed include waterboarding, slamming detainees into walls, and depriving them of sleep for up to 11 days.

Boehner argued that a discussion of such torture techniques was "inappropriate," as it could tip off U.S. enemies to the tactics used and "denigrate" the United States and its allies. Torture is illegal under U.S. and international law.

MORE...
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2009, 01:32:20 PM »

U.S. Soldier Killed Herself -- After Refusing to Take Part in Torture

Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native, served with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on Sept. 15, 2003, from a "non-hostile weapons discharge."

A "non-hostile weapons discharge" leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic, three days after her death, reported that Army officials "said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging, or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian." And that might have ended it right there.

But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, not satisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told me in late 2006 (there's a chapter about it in my book on Iraq and the media, So Wrong for So Long). He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations. Here's what the Flagstaff public radio station, KNAU, where Elston now works, reported:

"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."

She was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. "But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle," the documents disclose.

The Army talked to some of Peterson's colleagues. Asked to summarize their comments, Elston told me: "The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties. That was the consistent point in the testimonies, that she objected to the interrogation techniques, without describing what those techniques were."

Elston said that the documents also refer to a suicide note found on her body, which suggested that she found it ironic that suicide prevention training had taught her how to commit suicide. He filed another FOIA request for a copy of the actual note.

Peterson, a devout Mormon, had graduated from Flagstaff High School and earned a psychology degree from Northern Arizona University on a military scholarship. She was trained in interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and was sent to the Middle East in 2003.

LINK
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2009, 01:39:11 PM »

Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding

WASHINGTON (AP) - Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice verbally OK'd the CIA's request to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, a decision memorialized a few days later in a secret memo that the Obama administration declassified last week.

Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.

The new timeline shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.

But even the new timeline has yet to resolve the central question of who inside the Bush administration first broached the idea of using waterboarding and other brutal tactics against terror detainees in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The Intelligence Committee's timeline comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the CIA's harsh interrogation program and abuses of prisoners at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Both revelations follow President Barack Obama's release of internal Bush administration legal memos that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA, a move that kicked up a firestorm from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum.

[...]

Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.

In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.

But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.

MORE...
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2009, 02:13:50 PM »

Lawmakers: Congress Will Investigate Torture, Bipartisan Support In Place

The central debate dominating discussions of a possible investigation into torture by the Bush administration seems to have shifted sharply in the past few days: from whether such an investigation should take place, to now what form it will have when it comes.

If investigations actually do go forward, there seem to be three clear options: creating an independent commission, launching a congressional probe, or having the Department of Justice tackle the topic, likely by appointing a special prosecutor.

Each form has its champions, its benefits and shortcomings. Of the three, the Obama White House -- which still prefers no investigation at all -- is the least enthusiastic about Congress handling the matter. The president has said that if an investigation were to happen, he wanted it done in an independent and non-partisan matter by people above reproach -- qualities sometimes tough to come by in Congress.

MORE
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2009, 04:06:45 PM »

New Report: Bush Officials Tried to Shift Blame for Detainee Abuse to Low-Ranking Soldiers

by Senator Carl Levin

Today we're releasing the declassified report of the Senate Armed Services Committee's investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The report was approved by the Armed Services Committee on November 20, 2008 and has, in the intervening period, been under review at the Department of Defense for declassification.

In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse - such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan - to low ranking soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a "few bad apples," were simply false.

The truth is that, early on, it was senior civilian leaders who set the tone. On September 16, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that the United States turn to the "dark side" in our response to 9/11. Not long after that, after White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called parts of the Geneva Conventions "quaint," President Bush determined that provisions of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to certain detainees. Other senior officials followed the President and Vice President's lead, authorizing policies that included harsh and abusive interrogation techniques.

The record established by the Committee's investigation shows that senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses. As the Committee report concluded, authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody.

In a May 10, 2007, letter to his troops, General David Petraeus said that "what sets us apart from our enemies in this fight... is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings."

MORE...
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2009, 05:57:57 PM »

...it would seem orders for torture came from the top...

I recall very well and I'm sure all of you recall as well when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the "higher-ups" were quick to affix blame on the lower-ranking soldiers on duty at that prison. Right-wing pundits were quick to dismiss the gravity of the charges by calling the whole mess a case of "high spiritedness" and mischevious behavior by those soldiers. You all know that you remember this.

When the storm of public outrage demanded that persons in positions of responsibility actually claim that responsibility, at that time the highest-up we could get was the female general in charge of the prison. I believe that ultimately she was fired from her position there and discharged.

And the real higher-ups in the Bush administration who were really responsible breathed a sigh of relief that they'd dodged a big mess. So they thought.

Not only has our President released certain relevant documents, so have other agencies and committees of our government released some of what they'd had to hold onto until the facts became declassified by President Obama.

What becomes immediately obvious is that two entirely separate branches of government (the civilian CIA and the military) both started using the same means of torture at the same time in violation of American law and the Geneva Conventions (our Supreme Court declared that treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo was to be guided by the Geneva Conventions). In order to believe that this was a mere low-level "high-spirited and mischevious" grunt soldier operation, you would also have to believe that the grunts at Guantanamo were in cahoots with the grunts at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and anywhere else Americans were engaged in administering torture.

And that just isn't possible. The extensive torture program was not the brainchild of some low-level Pfc in Iraq or Cuba who then spread his/her torture program around the globe.

So you have to look for the common link between the CIA and the military. You have to look for that magic connection between what the CIA does in their prisons and what the military does in their prisons and why did two prison systems under entirely different jurisdictions spontaneously implement the same torture program? Where..do..they..connect.

Yeah, that would be Washington, D.C. and the Bush Administration.

It was the Bush Administration that gave the go-ahead for the specialized training required to implement the torture program and then demanded that it be put into use.

But, it gets worse.

Cheney and Bush and Rummy and Rice and the rest of that White House gang told America there was no shadow of doubt that there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and that reason was sufficient to invade Iraq (and lose more than 4,000 American lives) in order to avenge 9/11 and to prevent future 9/11's. Even after Bush himself was forced to publically concede that there never had been a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, Cheney was still repeating that lie. Many times.

In the run up to the Iraq invasion, it was essential to Bush's plans that "evidence" of the Saddam-Al Qaeda link be found and shown to America and the world. The CIA was sent out to collect said "proof" but they came back with "Sorry, no such evidence exists."

Bush and company had to do something to make it be true. And so the torture program was born even before the invasion of Iraq began.

With torture, they figured, they'd get terrorist suspects to reveal the "evidence" they so desperately needed. And so the torture program got itself born and with the highest level of government sponsoring such a program, then is it any wonder that different branches of government began instituting said program at relatively the same time?

Ron Suskind, author of The One-Percent Doctrine, noted that the "impetus was not to foil potential al Qaeda attacks. The impetus here was largely political and diplomatic. The White House had a political/diplomatic problem. It wanted it solved in the run up to the war."

People were tortured for the sake of "spin."

You can read more of Mr. Suskind's comments and see the video of him here.
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2009, 06:47:28 PM »

FBI Weren't the Only Ones Objecting to Torture in 2002 -- So Did the Army, Marines & Air Force

There were already serious objections to the use of torture when the Bush administration made it legal in 2002 -- FBI chief Robert Mueller refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of that year, well before the Bybee memo made them legal on August 1.

But it's not like the FBI was alone in expressing those concerns. On October 1, the commander in charge of detainee interrogation at Guantanamo Bay wrote a memo requesting authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" that were similar to those outlined in the Bybee memo. It reached the desk of Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited opinions before making a decision. Here's what came back to them in November 2002 (PDF):

Air Force: Had "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Jim Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred.

On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.

They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

LINK
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2009, 01:31:58 PM »

WASHINGTON TIMES:

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Top legislators knew of interrogations
Kara Rowland (Contact)

The CIA briefed top Democrats and Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees more than 30 times about enhanced interrogation techniques, according to intelligence sources who said the lawmakers tacitly approved the techniques that some Democrats in Congress now say should land Bush administration officials in jail.
Between 2002 and 2006, the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the program," said one of the intelligence sources who is familiar with the briefings.

"If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the closed-door briefings.

Those who were briefed included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Rep. Jane Harman of California, all Democrats, and Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, all Republicans.

The Democratic and Republican staff directors for both committees also were briefed, according to the intelligence source and to a declassified memo released Wednesday that detailed some of the Senate committee briefings.

President Obama last week released a series of memos that were the basis for the CIA's program and that laid out specific tactics, such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding, and their release has pushed the issue of blame to the forefront of the political discussion.

Some Democrats and liberal pressure groups have called for Bush administration officials who wrote the rules allowing enhanced techniques to be prosecuted, saying the tactics amounted to torture. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi have both left the door open for such prosecutions.

Seeking the facts about congressional approval, Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the House committee, sent a letter Monday asking National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair, a retired admiral, to provide an unclassified list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who were briefed on the techniques.

"I believe their response was probably, 'Well, that's OK,' or otherwise they wouldn't have signed off on it," Mr. Hoekstra said when asked about other members who received briefings.

Members of Congress who were briefed have offered different recollections for what they were briefed on and what their responsibilities were for addressing the information.

Mrs. Pelosi has said she was briefed on waterboarding techniques only once, when she was ranking member of the House committee, and said that in that briefing CIA officials said they thought the tactic was legal and that the agency was considering using it.

"They come in to us and represent certain things. We can't talk to other people about it. We don't know whether it is true or false. We just know that it is a fact that that is what they have told us in these closed hearings and people hear different things in the same room, depending on their own experience," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.

Spokesmen for Mrs. Harman and Mr. Rockefeller didn't return calls seeking comment, but in a statement accompanying the declassified memo detailing Senate committee briefings Mr. Rockefeller said they weren't always told the truth.

"In the wake of 9/11 we all wanted to leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of terrorists to prevent future attacks. At that time and since, the Senate intelligence committee sought to work in partnership with the administration to keep America safe," he said. "But we now know that essential information was withheld from the Congress on many matters and decisions were made in secret by senior Bush administration officials to obscure the complete picture."

Also briefed on the tactics were former Rep. Porter J. Goss, a Republican, and former Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat, who were both chairmen of their respective intelligence committees.

Mr. Graham told the Huffington Post on Wednesday that prosecutions "should not be taken off the table."

Mr. Blair, in a memo last week to his staff, also said Congress had been notified of the tactics: "From 2002 to 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."

That line, in an April 16 memo to the intelligence community, was later deleted from a statement released to the public by the Obama administration.

The briefings to Congress were opened to the full intelligence committees after September 2006, when President Bush publicly acknowledged the program. But at least one of the Democrats privy to early briefings by the CIA has expressed an openness to prosecution of former Bush administration officials for their roles in approving the techniques.

Some in Congress have called for appointing a "truth commission" to examine the interrogation program and other Bush administration activities. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has called for a bipartisan panel to look into the matter, as has his House counterpart, Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat.

Mr. Obama said this week he prefers to avoid retribution and that if Congress does appoint a commission it must avoid charges of politicization. The president also said any decision on prosecutions will be made by the attorney general.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairman of the Senate intelligence panel since January, earlier this week sent Mr. Obama a letter urging him to be open to prosecution of former Justice officials who wrote the memos. Her committee is conducting an investigation into the interrogation techniques.

A congressional aide, defending Mrs. Feinstein, said the senator was not briefed on the techniques until 2006 and she soon after took action to oppose them by drafting a bill to curb the tactics the CIA was allowed to use.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday, refused to answer questions from Republicans about her advice to Mr. Obama on the publication of the interrogation memos.

"I'm not going to share that with you," she told Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican.

Asked by Mr. Rohrabacher about former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that the harsh interrogations had produced valuable intelligence, Mrs. Clinton said, "It won't surprise you that I don't consider [Mr. Cheney] a particularly reliable source."

Separately, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, and two other senators sent a letter Wednesday to Mr. Obama criticizing some of the interrogation techniques but urging Mr. Obama not to prosecute the former Justice Department officials who approved them.

"Moving in such a direction would have a deeply chilling effect on the ability of lawyers in any administration to provide their client - the U.S. government - with their best legal advice," said the letter, also signed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/23/top-legislators-knew-of-interrogations/print/

In the interest of disclosure, I think it's a good idea to show the source of articles as I have done here, to make it easier to discern the leanings of the publications. The above videos are obviously from Fox News. Having followed the links in the previous posts, they are primarily in the Huffington Post. Thank You.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 02:31:27 PM by CBB » Logged
nonesuche
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878



« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2009, 11:27:53 PM »

Even the Washington Post is calling out Pelosi........this time I think she's bitten off more than she can chew.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

 
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange. .......

Logged

I continue to stand with the girl.
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2009, 02:31:06 PM »

Pentagon may have up to 2,000 photographs of prisoner abuse

[...] The pictures were taken between 2001 and 2006 at detention centres other than Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison, confirming that abuse was much more widespread than the US has so far been prepared to admit.

The Bush administration had repeatedly blocked through legal channels appeals from human rights groups for release of the pictures, which are held by the Army Criminal Investigation Division. But the Obama administration late yesterday lifted all legal obstacles and the pictures are to be published by 28 May.

The justice department has initially agreed to the release of 21 images of abuse at detention centres in Iraq and Afghanistan other than at Abu Ghraib and 23 other pictures. It added "the government is also processing for release a substantial number of other images". Up to 2,000 could be released.

The pictures are similar to those from Abu Ghraib that in 2004 created shock around the world, caused a backlash in the Middle East and eventually led to jail sentences for the US military personnel involved.

[...]

Obama has consistently said he does not want to rake over history, fearing that it will deflect attention from his heavy domestic and foreign policy programme. But this week he opened the way for the prosecution of senior figures in the Bush administration and the establishment of a congressional inquiry.

[...]

The pictures will increase pressure for pardons for military personnel who were punished for abuses at Abu Ghraib. Their lawyers are arguing that the Bush administration portrayed it as an isolated incident, whereas in fact it was widespread and approved at the highest levels.

"This will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational," said Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the ACLU.

[...]

The Bush administration, in blocking release of the pictures, had argued that they would create outrage but also that they would contravene the Geneva conventions obligation not to show pictures of prisoners*.

About a quarter of a million petitions were delivered to the attorney-general, Eric Holder, yesterday calling for prosecution of Bush administration officials responsible for approving waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.

LINK

*I find this to be just a bit ironic... using the Geneva Conventions to block release of the pictures because, after all, the Bush administration wouldn't want to violate their human rights...
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2009, 02:43:59 PM »

America did execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding

...On November 29, 2007, Sen. John McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts." Bottom line: Sen. McCain was right in 2007 and National Review Online is wrong today. America did execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding.
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2009, 03:07:36 PM »

Ronald Reagan on Torture:

From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

Quote
"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

I found the above at Andrew Sullivan's blog (for those who don't know, he is a well-known conservative blogger).
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
oldiebutgoodie
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2009, 03:53:04 PM »

New Report: Bush Officials Tried to Shift Blame for Detainee Abuse to Low-Ranking Soldiers

by Senator Carl Levin

Today we're releasing the declassified report of the Senate Armed Services Committee's investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The report was approved by the Armed Services Committee on November 20, 2008 and has, in the intervening period, been under review at the Department of Defense for declassification.

In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse - such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan - to low ranking soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a "few bad apples," were simply false.

...it would seem orders for torture came from the top...

I recall very well and I'm sure all of you recall as well when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the "higher-ups" were quick to affix blame on the lower-ranking soldiers on duty at that prison. Right-wing pundits were quick to dismiss the gravity of the charges by calling the whole mess a case of "high spiritedness" and mischevious behavior by those soldiers. You all know that you remember this.

What becomes immediately obvious is that two entirely separate branches of government (the civilian CIA and the military) both started using the same means of torture at the same time in violation of American law and the Geneva Conventions (our Supreme Court declared that treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo was to be guided by the Geneva Conventions). In order to believe that this was a mere low-level "high-spirited and mischevious" grunt soldier operation, you would also have to believe that the grunts at Guantanamo were in cahoots with the grunts at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and anywhere else Americans were engaged in administering torture.

And that just isn't possible. The extensive torture program was not the brainchild of some low-level Pfc in Iraq or Cuba who then spread his/her torture program around the globe.

So you have to look for the common link between the CIA and the military. You have to look for that magic connection between what the CIA does in their prisons and what the military does in their prisons and why did two prison systems under entirely different jurisdictions spontaneously implement the same torture program? Where..do..they..connect.

Yeah, that would be Washington, D.C. and the Bush Administration.

PAY ATTENTION TO BUSH'S COMMENT AT THE TAIL END OF THIS CLIP:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/zcbEuHGsQI4&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/zcbEuHGsQI4&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

Connect the dots...
Logged

BETH HOLLOWAY: "We will not let this go until we take Natalee home. It will never end."
finngirl
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 393



« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2009, 02:59:49 AM »

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

neither Sheriff Parker nor his deputies
were pardoned by TX Gov Bush

Logged

whiskey for my men/beer for my horses
finngirl
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 393



« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2009, 03:23:45 AM »


that gosh darn Nancy Pelosi!

she didn't use her tremendous power/influence
to confront/overcome the machinations of
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/et al

someone indeed has too big a mouthful to chew
but I'm fairly certain it's not Pelosi

Shep is right on:
we are America and we. do. not. torture.

this issue isn't going away anytime soon
(fasten your seatbelts)


Logged

whiskey for my men/beer for my horses
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2009, 02:46:23 PM »

I would hasten to point out the human garbage referred to as "illegal combatants" are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions nor are they entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution.  They are, literally, OUTLAWS, in the sense that they are completely beyond the protection of any law.  Their disposition, then, is completely at the discretion of those whose custody they find themselves in, in this case the U.S. Government in the person of the President and his assigns.  The President may order their immediate release.  He may order their detention in perpetuity.  He may order their summary execution.  He is at liberty, also, to order that they be tortured in accordance with whatever protocol he deems fitting and expedient.  This has been the legal standard for over 200 years -- until now

Affording these terrorists any legal protections whatsoever puts the U.S. at a grave disadvantage.  Consider; for their part, they exercise absolutely no restraint whatsoever in their depredations.  They represent no state.  They wear no uniforms.  They target non-combatants -- including women and children -- as a matter of first recourse.  They cheerfully torture, mutilate, and kill those unfortunates who fall into their clutches.  What does it benefit this country to afford them any legal status superior to that of a cockroach?  It benefits us NOTHING.  It only impedes the defense of U.S. interests, encourages more terrorism, and costs American lives.  Obama and the Democrats, by expending their energy in defense of the enemy, have demonstrated to the whole world their foolishness and complete unfitness to govern. 
Logged
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2009, 06:35:22 PM »

America, along with other nations, has a number of individuals who have been the target of things like waterboarding. 

I have never been waterboarded and I wonder how many giving testimony have ever undergone that treatment?

Why not ask those that have had that experience, if the ends justified the means in the cases of these individuals?

I have not the experience, how can I cast a stone one way or the other?

I also know that sometimes, tough decisions have to be made. 

After waterboarding, will they be going after people who make guns?  Bigger and better bullets?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2009, 06:42:02 PM »

Historically ~

How many have died as part of the technique?  How many were damaged?

How many cultures still consider this an effective means of questioning?

Waterboarding wasn't invented by Americans (that I know of), so why would anyone want to do something that doesn't work?

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
finngirl
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 393



« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2009, 10:50:32 PM »


the geopolitics of the region
(lack of a stable central government)
dictate that illegal combatants are the enemy

warlords/tribal factions are the norm
and we are engaged in a war w/ those who follow
an ancient/uncivilized mindset

I have no sympathy/empathy
for how they conduct their lives

they bastardize religious teachings
to justify the rejection of enlightenment,
while they enjoy/ensure their stranglehold
over the powerless in their societies

but having said that,
I cling to the notion that torture harms us
in ways that aren't readily apparent

there is a philosophy
which teaches that hostile/violent acts
harm the perpretrator
more than the victims of the acts

the harm/damage is done to the soul

I believe that our nation is a living being
and that it possesses a soul

torture by the US is the best recruitment tool
any Gulf region fanatic could ask for

sleep deprivation/noise bombardment/etc
are well w/in acceptable limits IMO

I specifically have waterboarding
and the other more extreme acts in mind
when I classify something as torture,
which can/will also be used to justify heinous acts
against our personnel anywhere on the planet

the parameters of conflict have evolved,
(or they have reverse-evolved to a primitive level)
and our conduct must evolve as well,
re our treatment of those who wage war against us,
whether or not they are issued a uniform

Logged

whiskey for my men/beer for my horses
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 8.134 seconds with 19 queries.