Ban on torture overruled in Pentagon

by ignored_one 15 Replies latest social current

  • ignored_one
    ignored_one

    From the telegraph.co.uk but you have to register.

    Ban on torture overruled in Pentagon
    By David Rennie in Washington
    (Filed: 08/06/2004)

    A leaked Pentagon memo cast serious doubt yesterday on the Bush administration's insistence that its treatment of prisoners was bound by laws and treaties banning torture.

    A secret document discloses that, on the eve of the Iraq war, political appointees overruled military lawyers to assert that President George W Bush was not bound by US and international law on torture.

    The US armies 'Rules of interrogation' Click for detail

    The memo, prepared for Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, went on to claim that, if national security was at stake, government agents who tortured or even killed prisoners on the president's authority were immune from prosecution.

    A draft of the 100-page memo, leaked to the Wall Street Journal, conceded that several US and international laws banned torture.

    But lawyers at the Pentagon and the justice department argued that all such treaties and laws were trumped by the president's "inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign" and protect the American people.

    The leak appears to be part of an extraordinary civil war in the Pentagon between civilian officials and uniformed officers appalled by what they have described as moves by political appointees to shroud the war on terrorism in an "environment of legal ambiguity".

    The trail of the memo begins at Guantanamo Bay and leads to Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, where pictures of abused and humiliated prisoners shocked the world.

    A military official who helped to prepare the report told the Journal that the memo was requested by senior commanders at Guantanamo. They had complained in late 2002 that conventional interrogation methods were not extracting valuable information from terrorist suspects.

    The official said: "People were trying like hell to ratchet up the pressure." Techniques then used at Guantanamo included drawing on a prisoner's body and placing women's underwear on prisoners' heads.

    Those practices appeared in abuse photographs from Abu Ghraib, casting doubt on the Bush administration's insistence that Abu Ghraib misconduct was the work of a few low-level "bad apples".

    An intelligence officer told the Journal that methods now used at Guantanamo included limiting prisoners' food, subjecting them to body searches, depriving them of sleep for up to 96 hours and shackling them in stress positions.

    In public, William Haynes, the Pentagon's senior civilian lawyer, insists that all interrogations are conducted in a manner "consistent with" the international convention on torture.

    Mr Haynes was in charge of the working group that drew up the memo, officials told the Journal, and political appointees claimed almost unlimited powers for the president to approve torture.

    ? America and Britain issued a fourth draft last night of a United Nations resolution granting Iraq sovereignty as they pressed for a vote at the Security Council as early as tonight. It ignores French demands for an explicit Iraqi veto over military operations but pledges "close co-ordination" between coalition forces and the new interim administration.

    24 May 2004: Top US general 'saw Abu Ghraib jail abuse'
    16 May 2004: The road to 'Camp Redemption'

    -

    Ignored One.

  • Snapdragon
    Snapdragon

    What ever happened to the first sentence of our constitution?

    ~A

  • Sirius Dogma
    Sirius Dogma

    This sucks and points to the main problem most thinking people have with bush. He thinks he is above any law.

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    He is above the law. He is the law. Whatever he says goes. He's the president. That's a bold statement, but it's true. If he can pass Patriot bills I and II, with barely a shudder from the American public, he's above the law. The Americans just sit blindly by while their tax dollars are wasted, and their constitutional rights corroded, on a war we *cannot* win by sheer numbers. We agreed to sign into the Geneva Convention Bill of Rights, but have hardly abided by them because President Bush says we don't have to, we'll classify them as something else. Meanwhile, several prisoners sit in Gitmo, fathers without their families, families without their fathers, just because the American government hasn't gotten around to classifying them. Two years now. How long can it take? Mothers having to try to raise their children in a war ridden country without a man to validate them. What the heck can *they* do in a country where no one values women. They have to beg. We are causing another generation of Muslim people that have a beef with the American people, for NO EARTHLY REASON EXCEPT OIL.

    We can try to FORCE Democracy on them, but really, they don't want it. Their religion forbids it. In a place where their religion IS the law, you can't force people to separate religion from the law. They abide by the Sharia, and hadiths. Their religion is the law. Democracy can't flourish in such an environment, which demands separation of church and state. It just won't work. These people have been fighting among themselves for thousands of years, and all of a sudden a country is going to come in, bomb them, and then demand that they take up *their* type of government. Hehheheh. Sure.. it worked in Palestine. We see how that went. I want to present a writing that I found today that makes a lot of sense to me. It was written by a guy in his Blog and I really like it. It is addressed to the government of our country and really illuminates how different our cultures are:

    You don't know shit about Iraq by Chris Bowers
    Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 16:10:47 EDT

    Its about time that I sat down and told you this. I was hoping it wouldn't have to be me, but someone needed to finally do it. For quite some time now, you have been going off about what we "need" to do in Iraq. You have been telling us how "things are going" over there, and making suggestions and proclamations about what "we need to do" based on what you seem to believe is a wealth of knowledge about the situation.

    Well, I'm here to finally tell you what you what no one else seems willing to say: you don't know shit about Iraq. In fact, you don't even know how much shit there is about Iraq that you don't know.


    Diaries :: Chris Bowers's diary ::


    For starters, you don't speak Arabic. In fact, there's a pretty good chance you don't even know someone who speaks Arabic. Further, you probably don't even know what percentage of Iraqis speak Arabic. I know for damn certain that you don't speak Kurdish.

    Second, you have never been to Iraq. You may have seen a few maps on TV, but you have never actually been there. There is even a reasonable chance that you could not identify Iraq on a blank map. Almost certainly you do not know which countries border Iraq, without looking at a map. Its very likely you have never met anyone from Iraq, even if you have seen a few on TV.

    Third, you probably know fuck all about Islam. You don't know what the word means in Arabic. You don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam. You don't know which type of Islam is more common in the region or in the world. you don't known when Ramadan is. You don't know when Muslims pray. You don't know where Mecca and Medina are. you don't know why those two cities are so important in the religion. You don't know when Mohammad lived. You have never read the Koran. You probably have even read part of it. You don't know what is forbidden by Islam, or what is permitted. You have maybe one Muslim friend.

    Fourth, you have no clue about the history of the region. You have never heard of the Ottoman empire. You don't know about regional politics and the nineteenth century. You don't know what the British did in Iraq. You don't know about WWI in the region. You don't know when Iraq became independent. You don't know when Saddam Hussein took power. Even though you were alive the entire time, you don't know when the Iran-Iraq war took place. Before the war started, you only knew the same of one city in Iraq--Baghdad.

    Fifth, you have no fucking idea what our military capability actually is. you couldn't even guess within 300,000 troops how many are available for active duty. You have no idea how many are deployed in different parts of the world. You don't know the location of more than three military bases. You don't know what type of weaponry, armor and vehicle the military currently uses. You don't even know the order of ranks among enlisted men in the Marines. Hell, you don't know if the Marines are part of the Army or if they are a separate branch of the armed services. You don't know what the military budget is. You don't know what congressional committees oversee military activities. You don't know how long a standard tour of duty lasts. You don't know the demographic composition of the armed forces.

    Sixth, you don't know anything about the so-called "Iraqi resistance." You don't know what their motives are. You don't know what their goals are. you don't know how many of them there are. You don't know what groups they are affiliated with. You don't know how many are native Iraqis, how many are not from Iraq, or how many used to be part of Saddam's regime. You don't know what kind of tactics they use. You don't know how much public support they have. You don't know if they are one group or several groups. You don't know their political or religious beliefs. You don't know if they are losing strength or gaining strength.

    Seventh, you don't have the slightest clue about the structure of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. You don't know where they operate from. You don't know where their funding comes from. You don't know their plans. You don't know their strengths or weaknesses. You don't know which organizations operate out of which countries. you don't know what their goals are. You don't know where they draw their recruits from. You don't know how many people hate them and how many people sympathize with them. You don't know what connections they have with each other or with current regimes. You don't know how these organizations are run, or if there are factional splits within them. You don't know the names of more than three of their leaders. You probably could not even write a definition of the word "terrorist."

    Eighth, you probably have never been a civilian in a war zone. You saw the attacks of 9/11 on television, but you probably didn't experience them, or know anyone who did. Your town has probably never been bombed or invaded. You have never seen your country overthrown in a violent coup. You have probably never lived under a dictatorship. You almost certainly do not know what its like to face jail simply for speaking up for your beliefs.

    Ninth, you know absolutely nothing about Iraqi public opinion. You don't know what people over there are thinking. You don't know what people are thinking in different regions of the country. You don't know what they would like to see in a government. You have no idea what their idea of justice and democracy is. You may have heard a snippet of a poll or two, but since you don't know how those polls were conducted, what the methodology is, and how scientific such a poll is in relation to other polls, you really have no fucking clue what even the so called "general" sentiment is. you don't know how many Iraqis welcome the presence of U. S. troops. You don't know how many Iraqis wish U.S. troops harm. You don't know what people there are thinking, and you probably never will.

    Tenth, you almost certainly do not know what its like to face combat. There is a decent chance that you know someone how is facing combat, but you can't understand what they are going through.

    Eleventh, what little you do know, or what little you think you know, comes entirely from the mass media. You might question the way the media presents its stories, but you make no real effort to find information from other sources. Hell, you don't even follow the events in the mass media that closely. Maybe a couple of times a week you will actually watch the news all the way through. You know more about "Friends" or the "American Idol," than you know bout recent events in Iraq. You certainly have never actually watched or read anything from Al-Jazeera, even though you often deride the way it covers the news.

    Twelfth, you can't possibly have the slightest idea how things in Iraq will change as time progresses. No one knows that. you can not see into the future. You don't know how it all will end. You don't know what will happen next.

    Thirteenth, you know jackshit about the United Nations and international diplomacy. You don't know which countries are in the "Arab League." You can't name even half of the members of the U.N. security council. You don't know when the U.N. was founded, and you have never read the U.N. charter. you don't know where U.N. troops are currently deployed. You don't know the budget of the U.N., and you don't know where that money comes from. You don't understand U.N. voting procedures. Maybe, just maybe you know what city the U.N. headquarters are in. you certainly don't know all the members of NATO, the EU, or the "non-aligned" movement.

    Fourteenth, you definitely do not know "what the world thinks about the U. S." You do not have a clear understanding of the opinion of the U.S. in very many, if any, countries of the world. Hell, you probably don't even know the names of more than six heads of state throughout the world, much less what they think of the U.S. You don't even know why other countries think certain things about us. You may have a guess, but let me tell you right now, that guess is probably way off.

    Fifteenth, you don't know crap about economics. you don't know how the federal reserve system works. you don't know how OPEC works. You don't know how the unemployment rate is defined. You don't understand currency or gold markets. There is absolutely no way you understand you these structures are connected to the building of a functioning nation-state. Trade agreements? Please. you have never read one in your entire life.

    Sixteenth, even though you always talk about Democracy, I bet you couldn't even define what you mean by that. Go ahead and try. Define it in three sentences or less. Now, try to explain how that was achieved in this country. Goooood luck.

    Seventeenth, if you actually managed to come up with something about what you mean by Democracy and how it was achieved in America, try to come up with a way that "we" can go about accomplishing the same thing in Iraq in just a matter of a year or two, if ever. When making this calculation, don't forget to take into account of the things I have pointed out to you that you don't know.

    I'm only saying this so that you will stop pretending that you know the solution to "the situation in Iraq." You don't have a clue. Even if you did know all of the things I listed, you still would only have a cursory understanding of how to help "the situation." Even then, the best you could do was offer a semi-demi-psuedo educated guess about the best course of action that would be rife with sweeping generalizations and the lacking in significant evidence. Even then, you might as well use a dartboard.

    However, you don't even have close to that cursory understanding of what is taking place, and neither do I. Just about the only thing you and I can know for certain is that over 800 coalition troops have lost their lives in Iraq, and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have also died. These numbers can be proven. Not much else can be.

    Considering all of this, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling everyone what should be done over there. You don't know what needs to be done, and I don't either. This is something you need to remember in the future whenever another one of our "elected" officials tells us that a nation that has not attacked us is a "threat to our security" and that we need to engage in "regime change" to fix the situation. When they say this, tell them bullshit. when they say it will be a clean and easy procress, them htem bull fucking shit. Please remember how messed up things are in reality, no matter how they sound in a neatly prepared speech. Please remember how little you actually know about these situations, and beg "our leaders" to remember the same thing about themselves, because the last thing we need is to get into another situation like this that no one knows how to fix.

  • nilfun
    nilfun

    Read some of those leaked memos for yourself:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf

  • rem
    rem

    >>Mothers having to try to raise their children in a war ridden country without a man to validate them. What the heck can *they* do in a country where no one values women. They have to beg. We are causing another generation of Muslim people that have a beef with the American people, for NO EARTHLY REASON EXCEPT OIL.

    Oh yeah, I forgot that Afghanistan was well known for its oil fields!

    rem

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    REM: Actually, it's the *way* to the oil reserves:

    Oil, Afghanistan and America's pipe dream By George Monbiot

    LONDON: "Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here," Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the First World War ended, "that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?"

    In 1919, as US citizens watched a shredded Europe scraping up its own remains, the answer may well have been no. But the lessons of war never last for long.

    The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonial adventure. British ministers have warned British members of parliament (MPs) that opposing the war is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, but in some respects our moral choices are closer to those of 1956 than those of 1938. Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East.

    Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

    Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate.

    Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense.

    In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.

    As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods.

    Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the London-based Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan".

    Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying the guests 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.

    For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco (the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia) pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Shariah law. We can live with that."

    US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul.

    Even so, as a transcript of a Congress hearing now circulating among war resisters shows, Unocal failed to get the message. In February 1998, John Maresca, its head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained "the only other possible route" for Caspian oil.

    The company, once the Afghan government was recognized by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did Unocal drop its plans.

    But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea.

    This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.

    American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance", which means that the US should control military, economic and political development worldwide. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defence white paper Beijing published last year argued that "China's fundamental interests lie in ... the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order".

    In June, China and Russia pulled four central Asian republics into a "Shanghai cooperation organization". Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to "foster world multi- polarization", by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance.

    If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.

    There have been arguments about whether terrorism is likely to be deterred or encouraged by the invasion of Afghanistan, or whether the plight of the starving there will be relieved or exacerbated by attempts to destroy the Taliban. But neither of these considerations describes the full scope and purpose of this war.

    As the American journalist and author John Flynn wrote in 1944: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." I believe that the US government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however, misguided that may be. But we would be naive to believe that this is all it is doing. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

    CG

  • rem
    rem

    CG,

    >> We are causing another generation of Muslim people that have a beef with the American people, for NO EARTHLY REASON EXCEPT OIL.

    That was your claim. That is a stupid claim. If the only "earthly reason" we invaded Afghanistan is for it's supposed pipeline advantages, then why didn't we do it before 911? Oh, did 911 just happen to give us the excuse to rape these people (by building oil pipelines LOL). Are you asserting that we should not have invaded Afghanistan and ousted the terrorist harboring Taliban after 911? Can you not think of any other "earthly reason" for the war in Afghanistan?

    That's not to say that any resources that can be exploited will not be exploited, but please, tone the conspiracy theory rhetoric a bit. Even the article you posted did not agree with you - did you read the conclusion?

    rem

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks Ignored One for that.

    It seems every other day there's a new scandal with the Bush administration. The latest is their "clerical" error showing terrorism down in 2003. Oops! It turns out it was actually UP. Blame it on the secretaries, lol!

    Pat

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    CG,

    >> We are causing another generation of Muslim people that have a beef with the American people, for NO EARTHLY REASON EXCEPT OIL.

    That was your claim. That is a stupid claim. If the only "earthly reason" we invaded Afghanistan is for it's supposed pipeline advantages, then why didn't we do it before 911? Oh, did 911 just happen to give us the excuse to rape these people (by building oil pipelines LOL). Are you asserting that we should not have invaded Afghanistan and ousted the terrorist harboring Taliban after 911? Can you not think of any other "earthly reason" for the war in Afghanistan?

    That's not to say that any resources that can be exploited will not be exploited, but please, tone the conspiracy theory rhetoric a bit. Even the article you posted did not agree with you - did you read the conclusion?

    rem

    And what would be YOUR reasons REM? Why *else* would we care about a country 5000 miles away from us. What would be YOUR reasons for invading them? We *did* do it before 9/11.. remember when we invaded in 1990? Do you think that America cares for the poor Islamic women that are beaten and thrown down and killed because they are women? Do you think Bush or anyone else cares about that? They didn't care about that then, and they don't care about that now. Our American government could give two shits about human rights. The Rwandan war proved that. The American government did little if nothing. They ignored it. It only shows that our government is ONLY involved in issues that affect it directly: OIL.

    There was NO REASON that Bush should have invaded Iraq. There was no PROVEN weapons of mass destruction, and there has been none found yet... So why the hell are we there?

    We can't change anything.. it'll never change..

    CG

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit