Rumsfeld Defends Secretly Holding Suspect

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Jun 17, 4:27 PM (ET)

By MATT KELLEY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended his decision to hold a prisoner captured in Iraq without notifying international authorities, saying it was at the request of CIA Director George J. Tenet and the detainee was treated humanely.

"He wasn't lost in the system," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "There is no question at all ... that he received humane treatment."

The terror suspect has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war.

Rumsfeld described him as an Iraqi who was a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a militant Islamic group believed to have orchestrated some of the bombings and guerrilla warfare in Iraq.

Rumsfeld ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have the prisoner secretly detained on the day last year when Tenet made the request, Whitman said.

"The director of central intelligence requested he not be assigned an internment serial number while the CIA worked to determine his precise disposition," Whitman said.

Rumsfeld said Tenet had the authority to make the request. The defense secretary said such a call would be to prevent the prisoner's interrogation from being interrupted.

The Bush administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to suspected terrorists who do not follow the conventions themselves. But Rumsfeld and other administration officials have said the Geneva Conventions applied to all U.S. military activities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

The prisoner will be given a number and the Red Cross will be formally notified soon, Whitman said.

"The ICRC should have been notified about the detainee earlier," Whitman said. "We should have taken steps, and we have taken the necessary steps to rectify the situation."

The Pentagon's admission came a day before a human rights group released a report accusing the United States of keeping an unknown number of terrorist suspects in secret lockups around the world.

A report from New York-based Human Rights First said the Bush administration was violating U.S. and international law by refusing to notify all detainees' families or give names, numbers and locations of all terror war prisoners to the Red Cross.

None of that was done in the Iraqi detainee's case, Whitman said.

Keeping secret prisoners creates conditions for abuses such as the humiliations and beatings suffered by some Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the group argues.

"The official secrecy surrounding U.S. practices has made conditions ripe for illegality and abuse," said the report from Human Rights First, formerly called the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

The group said the United States should immediately allow Red Cross access to all terror war detainees, notify the prisoners' families and announce the number and location of such prisoners.

The Iraqi prisoner is so far the only individual Defense Department officials have acknowledged shielding from the Red Cross. Before Wednesday's admission, Pentagon spokesmen would not confirm or deny if anyone was being held in secret.

"We've not talked about the location of specific detainees other than Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba simply because it gets into the classified realm," Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press on Wednesday, before the Iraq admission.

President Bush and members of his administration have said repeatedly that all detainees are treated humanely. Pentagon officials have argued that announcing the numbers or locations of all detainees would indicate the scope of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts to terrorist groups and give them ideas of sites to attack.

The secret prisoner in Iraq is believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a radical group which had been based in northern Iraq before the U.S. invasion last year. U.S. officials believe the man was involved in attacks on coalition troops, Whitman said.

Deborah Pearlstein, a co-author of the Human Rights First report, said the United States needs to stop keeping secret prisoners altogether.

"There's a lot of unnecessary mystery surrounding U.S. detention practices," Pearlstein said Wednesday, before the Pentagon's admission.


Isn't that against Human rights or what?
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
War is hell, as they say.

Look at the bright side-- he hasnt been thrown into wood chipper.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
He should be thrown into a wood chipper. This is the bright side. Why should he get away with this? He should resign and be accountable for his actions in front of world court like other war criminals.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
It's a matter of moral equivalence.

Standards have to be the same for everyone- and there are far more egregious examples of bad leaders than Bush

Until thats so, there is no moral equivalence between Bush and anyone else.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
That is pretty funny. If the devil creates more devils to do his devlish work. Doesn't make him the father of all devils.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
That is pretty funny. If the devil creates more devils to do his devlish work. Doesn't make him the father of all devils.

Well, like i said-- if were going to go after 'devils', its best to go after worst ones first.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I said I will leave it at that. God knows where the world is taking is. I don't think peace is around the corner. If me and you can't agree on a chat forum, Do you really think there will be agreements between the big guys.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
I said I will leave it at that. God knows where the world is taking is. I don't think peace is around the corner. If me and you can't agree on a chat forum, Do you really think there will be agreements between the big guys.

I agree.

I don't thinjk there will be agreement between the 'big guys' because theyre not speaking the same language, politically.

DEmocracies vs dictatorships don't make for good conversationalists.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Without getting into the comparison game....

How can we hope to go after the Saddam Husseins and Islam Karimovs (look it up) if we don't go after the George Bushes?

How can we prosecute anybody if somebody else is considered above the law, especially if that somebody is complicit in the crimes of that anybody.

If you break the law you should be held accountable.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Reverend Blair said:
Without getting into the comparison game....

How can we hope to go after the Saddam Husseins and Islam Karimovs (look it up) if we don't go after the George Bushes?

How can we prosecute anybody if somebody else is considered above the law, especially if that somebody is complicit in the crimes of that anybody.
If you break the law you should be held accountable.

What crimes are you referring to?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Torture, the use of WMD, genocide, murder, over-throwing democratically elected governments, undermining economies, killing children, illegally holding non-combatants.

Everybody from Kissinger (too bad Nixon died...I'd like to see him on trial too) to Dubya has done some extremely questionable things. It's especially prevalent in the Republican Party.

When these people aren't charged, aren't made to stand trial, and continue to commit the same kind of crimes they should already be on trial for, it makes it extremely difficult for any international body to go after the smaller guys. That's further complicated by major powers, not just the US but again they are the most prevalent, backing the smaller guys because they don't want the truth to come out.

If somebody...anybody...commits a crime, they should be tried for it. The ICC convention states that they have first shot at trying their own people, but if they can't won't then the ICC steps in.

We need to back that up with serious sanctions against offenders.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Reverend Blair said:
Torture, the use of WMD, genocide, murder, over-throwing democratically elected governments, undermining economies, killing children, illegally holding non-combatants.

Everybody from Kissinger (too bad Nixon died...I'd like to see him on trial too) to Dubya has done some extremely questionable things. It's especially prevalent in the Republican Party.

When these people aren't charged, aren't made to stand trial, and continue to commit the same kind of crimes they should already be on trial for, it makes it extremely difficult for any international body to go after the smaller guys. That's further complicated by major powers, not just the US but again they are the most prevalent, backing the smaller guys because they don't want the truth to come out.

If somebody...anybody...commits a crime, they should be tried for it. The ICC convention states that they have first shot at trying their own people, but if they can't won't then the ICC steps in.

We need to back that up with serious sanctions against offenders.

OK.

These are allegatuins. They've been made before and no doubt will be made in the future.

Now, don't get me wrong-- I'm in no way defending anyone from anything, but kneejerk anti US reaction goesn't make everything true.

When you talk about killing chikdren, genocide, etc., there are plenty of clear cut examples that no one ever talks about-- from the slaughters in Darfur, Algeria, Mauritania, etc. WE both know the list is endless and in reality, more egregious,

The same can be said for the millions of 'disappeared' in South America and the middle east, etc etc.

I am not defending US foreign policy or US government officilas/policies, but the wholesale indictment of the US government and policies are not warranted.

As a CAnadian who has lived in the states for a while, I admit to having a while other impression when I first got here, to what I see and know now.

Again, I cant and wont give anyone a clear bill of health unless deserved, but nor will I indict anyone simply because charges are made.

What is also true is that te US feeds more mouths a day than anyone else, responds more to people in need than anyone else, and gives more foreign aid than anyone else.

I realize we could go on and on in circles, but I'd like to mention one more thing. The ICC issue is a hot potato for many reasons, but, if we can't get the UN to help in Darfur,Mauritania. Sudan et al, and Sudan and Libya chair and sit on the UN Human Rights Commissison, well, the ICC has the potential for being a no more than a tool to serve political ends.

see these links, for starters

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9527

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=7620
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I'm fully aware of RSF (Reporters Without Borders), Researchok. They found that press freedom in Iraq actually dropped after the US took over there. That's right, George Bush did worse than Saddam Hussein at protecting a basic tenet of democracy.

I also get all of the press releases from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Again I say that I don't deny that other countries carry out human rights abuses. The US does it all over the world every day though.

They funded a lot of those disappearances in South America, they train torturers at the School of the Americas. They are deeply involved in human rights abuses in the Middle East.

I write a column on imperialism for Vive le Canada. I made a conscious effort to write a couple of columns that did not involve the US. I couldn't do it...every time I started doing the research, the US kept popping up. Either the US government is propping up the abusive regime, or that regime is tied to American corporations or US foreign policy has caused or worsened the situation. Imperialism breeds human rights abuses. It leads to dehumanisation and crimes against humanity.

These aren't just allegations. There is an awful lot of evidence that the Bush administration is guilty. The same goes for the administrations of George I, Droolin' Ronnie Rayguns, and Nixon. There have been trials held, in absentia, and the evidence produced led to a verdict of guilty.

We need to try these guys. It is the only way to move forward.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
researchok said:
I had no idea re RSF and Iraq media.

Do you have a referance link?

Thanks!

I will leave this argument to Reverend. It seems that you are getting the point from him better thatn me. I've been telling you the same and you've been going around in circles.

I hope you will get what he is saying because he telling you the facts which once were only my opinion as you said.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
researchok said:
I had no idea re RSF and Iraq media.

Do you have a referance link?

Thanks!

I will leave this argument to Reverend. It seems that you are getting the point from him better thatn me. I've been telling you the same and you've been going around in circles.

I hope you will get what he is saying because he telling you the facts which once were only my opinion as you said.

I don't know if I'm getting the point, as you say, any 'better;

I have asked you fro references to back up some of your positions.

I'm still waiting.