Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/...er_1/index.html

In the fall of 2003, the military police at Abu Ghraib systematically abused detainees using interrogation techniques similar to those once approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- forced nudity, stress positions, hooding and sleep deprivation, to name a few. Rumsfeld had approved harsh interrogation methods on Dec. 2, 2002, in a then classified memo for interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The memo was leaked to the media and eventually released by the White House in June 2004, sparking heated debate, domestically and internationally, about whether these tougher U.S. interrogation policies amounted to approval of torture and violation of international law.

In the year following Rumsfeld's memo, the Bush administration's legal framework for employing these interrogation techniques, and the approved techniques themselves, changed multiple times. The techniques Rumsfeld approved ostensibly were intended for use only on suspected terrorists and so-called unlawful enemy combatants, with trained interrogators receiving case-by-case approval. Instead, they spread widely through the military's interrogation operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and spiraled out of control, Army documents show. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, U.S. soldiers and intelligence personnel began to use these techniques in Iraq, where they were informally "accepted as SOP [standard operating procedure] by newly arrived interrogators," according to an August 2004 report on Abu Ghraib abuses by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay. By September 2003, Gen. Geoffrey Miller had arrived at Abu Ghraib, allegedly with a mandate to "Gitmo-ize" interrogation procedures at the prison.

The official guidance for proper interrogation techniques in Iraq became confused, even contradictory. "By mid-October, interrogation policy in Iraq had changed three times in less than 30 days," explained Fay. An Army investigation by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones found that the military command in Iraq, led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, failed to provide proper oversight of interrogators at Abu Ghraib, contributing to the abuse. Some soldiers involved were inadequately trained in interrogation, investigators found.

[Cassie 8]

you should try to research the word propaganda. 2nd, former detainees are not a credible source, of course they will say they were mistreated, it's helps their cause of turning us against each other. human rights groups provide no evidence, just facts and figures that anybody could have made up. members of both political parties have visited gitmo several times and attested to the fact that the detainees are being treated very humanely.

You basically said that "by any means necessary" is justifiable by invoking the 9/11 victims. That, btw is an administration soundbite - which has been trotted out before to suggest (albeit indirectly) that opponents of current policy (regardless of their political background) are naive, that their objections hold no weight; and even worse, that they don't care about the tragedy, or issues of national security. Please tell me how that is not propagandistic...?

Once again its symptomatic of the standard of political discourse in this country, which took a major nosedive after 9/11 - not necessarily left and right, but towards simplistic attitudes and outright ignorance. The resurgence of nationalism as opposed to patriotism certainly doesn't help matters....

So the word of none of these groups counts for anything? Bold words - considering that you probably haven't read their various objections in any detail. Again - dismissive tactics to suggest that only the government argument has any legitimacy.

I guess the word of a detainee counts for nothing, because the assumption is made that the guy is supposed to be there, and that therefore there must be 'some' guilt attached. Not true unfortunately, and while its good you trust the troops - I wonder if you would argue that your average trooper is any less fallible than your average police officer. As you know, its not unprecedented for a police officer to arrest the wrong man, and release him without charge. With the political and security instabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the cultural and language barriers between US service personnel and the general populace - I would argue that there is a somewhat greater chance of being arrested without 'probable cause'; and as we know, without any opportunity for legal representation or charge.

Arresting someone for over a year, with no charge, explanation or compensation is quite simply an atrocious abuse of human rights.

Couldn't agree more.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And then this... (Guess the 'get tough' image wasn't working???)

The Harry Potter stories are the most popular books in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre's library, the Pentagon has revealed.

JK Rowling's tales of the teenage wizard were the most requested by terror suspects held at the high-security camp from among 3,500 titles available.

The Defence Department also said detainees enjoyed watching World Cup football games and playing table tennis.

The revelations came in a new document released by the department called "Ten Facts About Guantanamo", which aims to highlight the benefits available to those incarcerated at the camp in Cuba.

Recreational activities on offer are said to include basketball, volleyball, football, table tennis and board games, and high-top trainers are provided.

Departing detainees are given a Koran, a denim jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-tops, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

More money is spent on meals for detainees than on those for the US troops stationed there, the list claimed.

Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories worth of food a day and gained an average of 20 pounds in weight.

They get medical, dental, psychiatric and optometric care at the expense of American taxpayers, the Pentagon said.

Last year dentists gave 91 fillings and cleaned 35 sets of teeth, while 174 pairs of glasses were issued.

"The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages - the most requested book is Harry Potter," the list added.

Arabic language TV shows are also available.

The list ends by describing Guantanamo as "the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare", before repeating Amnesty International's claim that it "has become the gulag of our times", in an apparent dig at the human rights organisation.

Matt Latimer, director of the Pentagon writers' group, which put together the list, told the Washington Post: "We welcome the chance to let people know there's more than one side to the story in Guantanamo."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...uguantanamo.xml

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

sounds like they are really suffering there

[mmmbop1976 1]

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

1st, you don't have proof thay they are being tortured. all you have is your belief that they are because that is what supports your argument. 2nd, there are many others, military and civilian, saying that the current techinques that were used on KSM and others yielded valuable information that prevented attacks on us. i seriously doubt that this administration, or any US administration, wants to torture people just for the sake of it. that being said, i don't believe they are being tortured.

Here's some advice when arguing - try and address directly what was said. Go back read what those military interrogation officers said and then if you want to argue against what they said, come up with something more substantial than saying "I don't believe they are being tortured." It's not fuzzy facts, or fuzzy logic. It's simply relying on legitimate testimony. If you have legitimate testimony that counters their claims, be sure to find someone who actually addresses what was said.

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

[mmmbop1976 1]

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

that's what i thought you meant, but i wanted to make sure because you said it was legitimate testimony. i don't think some excerpts from a washington post article, a known liberal paper, counts as legitimate testimony. i was thinking you had some military intelligence officers that had testified before congress or something like that.

your condescending attitude really is so funny, thinking i need your advice, and then you offer a washington post article as legitimate testimony....here's some really good advice for you..don't offer advice unless asked. i know you perceive yourself as so grasping of the issues and those that don't see things your way need your help in some way. pathetic

[mmmbop1976 1]

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

does col rothtrock say the detainees are being tortured? no, not at all. he is simply stating what his belief is on the effectiveness of torture

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

does col herrington say the detainees are being tortured? not at all, nowhere does he make that claim. again he only states his opinion on the effectiveness of torture

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

that's what i thought you meant, but i wanted to make sure because you said it was legitimate testimony. i don't think some excerpts from a washington post article, a known liberal paper, counts as legitimate testimony. i was thinking you had some military intelligence officers that had testified before congress or something like that.

Why not?

[mmmbop1976 1]

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

does it say anywhere in these paragraphs that detainees are being tortured? no! it says some were being abused, there is a big difference between abuse and torture. well, maybe not to liberals, they seem to think that if you talk to a detainee with an unfriendly tone in your voice that it's torture. the last paragraph simply says the military wanted to use harsher methods, but it does not say torture. why do you automatically assume that harsher=torture?

as far as the reciprocity, how we treat the detainees will not make one bit of difference in how are soldiers would be treated if captured by terrorists. they will be brutally tortured and then killed. that is al quada's goal, kill infidels, period. they won't care one iota that we treat there detainees "nicely". in fact, they are probably laughing there heads off that we are even having this debate in our country, as they plot more ways to kill us.

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

that's what i thought you meant, but i wanted to make sure because you said it was legitimate testimony. i don't think some excerpts from a washington post article, a known liberal paper, counts as legitimate testimony. i was thinking you had some military intelligence officers that had testified before congress or something like that.

Why not?

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

Its legitimate to the public debate is it not? One piece of a very large puzzle

Edited September 18, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

ka-zing!

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

Its legitimate to the public debate is it not? One piece of a very large puzzle

weasel some more after that one

[Marc and Olga 0]

does col herrington say the detainees are being tortured? not at all, nowhere does he make that claim. again he only states his opinion on the effectiveness of torture

Tell that to Dilawar's family: (link is source)

The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. A death certificate for Dilawar, aged 22, from Yakubi in eastern Afghanistan, and signed by Major Elizabeth Rouse, pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, states that the cause of death was "blunt-force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease".[2]

The military had publicly claimed that Dilawar had died from natural causes.

emphasis added.

By the way, Mr. Dilawar was NOT a terrorist but a taxi driver in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi.

emphasis added

Unlike erekose's shopkeeper, Mr. Dilawar did not survive long enough to be released.

Dilawar, arrived as a prisoner at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan on December 5, 2002, and was declared dead on December 10, 2002.

again emphasis added

[Heracles 417]

does it say anywhere in these paragraphs that detainees are being tortured? no! it says some were being abused, there is a big difference between abuse and torture. well, maybe not to liberals, they seem to think that if you talk to a detainee with an unfriendly tone in your voice that it's torture. the last paragraph simply says the military wanted to use harsher methods, but it does not say torture. why do you automatically assume that harsher=torture?

as far as the reciprocity, how we treat the detainees will not make one bit of difference in how are soldiers would be treated if captured by terrorists. they will be brutally tortured and then killed. that is al quada's goal, kill infidels, period. they won't care one iota that we treat there detainees "nicely". in fact, they are probably laughing there heads off that we are even having this debate in our country, as they plot more ways to kill us.

I will answer for a lefty. That is different. We are meant to be civilized and take it in the you know what...

Funny how Steve is against any form of torture. Yet,, like many others on the left they absolutely hate the thought of a liberal having to roll their sleeves up and actually put their life on the line to secure another persons freedom. I.E E.G Vietnam war, Iraq War, Korean War, WWI, WWII, US independence..

Edited September 18, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

ka-zing!

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

Its legitimate to the public debate is it not? One piece of a very large puzzle

weasel some more after that one

Are you saying you don't use the media to inform your views on a subject?