U.S. officials warned about harsh interrogation

[Praxius]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...enate_interrogation_080617/20080617?hub=World

Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation.

Before they were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, such harsh techniques had drawn warnings from military lawyers that they could be illegal, an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee has found. Officials familiar with the findings discussed them on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released.

The psychologists who helped interrogate terror suspects for the CIA were set to testify Tuesday before the Senate committee, which was expected to release details of the investigation.

The hearing is the committee's first look at the origins of the harsher methods used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq and how policy decisions on interrogations were vetted across the Defense Department. Its review fits into a broader picture of the government's handling of detainees, which includes FBI and CIA interrogations in secret prisons.

Democrats contend that the Senate investigation will refute the Bush administration's argument that abusive conditions in some military prisons were only the result of a handful of personnel. Instead, they say, the conditions were the consequence of senior defense civilians eager to extract intelligence in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Pentagon's top civilian lawyer at the time, chief counsel William "Jim" Haynes, was expected to testify Tuesday. Also scheduled to be present were Richard Shiffrin, Haynes' former deputy on intelligence matters, as well as legal advisers at the time to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Guantanamo Bay prison.

According to the Senate committee's findings, Haynes became interested in using harsher interrogation methods as early as July 2002 when he sent a memo inquiring about a military program that trained Army soldiers how to survive enemy interrogations and deny foes valuable intelligence. Jerald Ogrisseg, a former top military psychologist, was expected to testify Tuesday that the program was never intended to be a means of finding tougher ways to interrogate U.S. prisoners.

Shortly after requesting more information about harsh techniques, Haynes traveled in September 2002 to Guantanamo Bay with other administration lawyers, including then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington.

A month later, the military commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay, Gen. Michael Dunlavey, asked his superiors at U.S. Southern Command for approval to employ harsher interrogations. According to officials familiar with the Senate investigation, the military services' lawyers told the Joint Staff that the techniques warranted further study, and the Air Force and Army specifically warned that the methods could be illegal. Their objections were ignored.

 

[quandary121]

According to officials familiar with the Senate investigation, the military services' lawyers told the Joint Staff that the techniques warranted further study, and the Air Force and Army specifically warned that the methods could be illegal. Their objections were ignored.

And why does this not surprise me..! do not the geneva conventions

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

or international law ideals alply here or are all laws ignored by the bush admisitration .??

Purposes of the laws

It has often been commented that creating laws for something as inherently crimeful and lawless as war seems like a lesson in absurdity. However, based on the adherence to what amounted to customary international law by warring parties through the ages, it was felt that codifying laws of war would be beneficial.
Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

• Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
• Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
• People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

• Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
• Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
• Facilitating the restoration of peace.

“ ...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”

—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948​

Overview of the rights

• Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

• Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

• Article 3.

Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person.

• Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

• Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

• Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

• Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

• Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

• Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

• Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

• Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

• Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

• Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

• Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

• Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

• Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

• Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

• Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

• Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

• Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

• Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

• Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

• Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

• Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

• Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

• Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

• Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

• Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

• Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

• Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.




Universal Declaration of Human Rights


i draw your attention to part 5 of said agreement.!!!

 

[quandary121]

Qualifications

To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must be a "lawful combatant" entitled to combatant's privilege--which gives them immunity for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance", and bear arms openly. Thus, francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may be excluded.

or is this because they do not qualify as they are deemed as "terrorists" what about

• Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

but surly they have not been found guilty of a crime in Guantanamo Bay prison so surly this would not apply.? in this case.!!!
and in the case of Abu Ghraib in Iraq they are in fact pows ????

 

[dancing-loon]

Hi, Quandary;
I have noticed that only the US and allies are lawful combatants... not the guys they fight against. Would you know if that was already the case in the Vietnam war? Were the Vietnamese also labeled unlawful combatants?

During a war so many Geneva rules are completely ignored!! On all sides, I should add.

I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

 

[thomaska]

Hi, Quandary;
I have noticed that only the US and allies are lawful combatants... not the guys they fight against. Would you know if that was already the case in the Vietnam war? Were the Vietnamese also labeled unlawful combatants?

During a war so many Geneva rules are completely ignored!! On all sides, I should add.

I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/183865.php

After a brief introdcuction with an image and the voice of Osama bin Laden, the video shows the two dead soldiers lying on a bridge. Both are already dead. One of the men has already been beheaded, the other man is dead. An al Qaeda member holds the severed head of one of the dead soldiers. One of the two soldiers appear to have been shot, the other has multiply wounds but appears to have also been hit by an explosive. The video also blurs out one of the dead men’s genitels, apparently al Qaeda believes showing that would be over-the-top. Later, an image of the now dead leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, is superimposed over the film. Zarqawi had personally murdered several people by beheading and then released those films on the internet.

But being in Gitmo is much worse...:roll:

edit: The genital area was blurred because the Muzzies had castrated the young man and left his severed member in the mouth of his severed head.

edit edit: These are their names if the link has been taken down. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker

 

[quandary121]

Hi, Quandary;
I have noticed that only the US and allies are lawful combatants... not the guys they fight against. Would you know if that was already the case in the Vietnam war? Were the Vietnamese also labeled unlawful combatants?

During a war so many Geneva rules are completely ignored!! On all sides, I should add.

I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

Hello dancing-loon did you like the rose i sent you :lol:

During a war so many Geneva rules are completely ignored!! On all sides, I should add.

Agreed..!!!

Would you know if that was already the case in the Vietnam war? Were the Vietnamese also labeled unlawful combatants?

Im not sure about this question i would have to go and investigate this to be able to give a acurate answer.??? (The United States refused to participate in the conference or recognize the accords.)

I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

[/quote]

They dont take prisoners do they i thought that they just killed the unlucky souls or use them as bargaining chips .!!!!

 

[quandary121]

Hi, Quandary;
I have noticed that only the US and allies are lawful combatants... not the guys they fight against. Would you know if that was already the case in the Vietnam war? Were the Vietnamese also labeled unlawful combatants?

The Geneva Accords


Students demonstration in Saigon, July 1964, observing the tenth anniversary of the July 1954 Geneva Agreements


On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina thereby granting it independence from France. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. The Viet Minh, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions to north of the ceasfire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections to be held in July 1956[2]. Most of the French Union forces evacuated Vietnam, although much of the regional governmental infrastructure in the South was the same as it had been under the French administration. An International Control Commission was set up to oversee the implementation of the Geneva Accords, but it was basically powerless to ensure compliance. It was to consist of India, Canada, and Poland.
The agreement was between Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. The United States refused to participate in the conference or recognize the accords.


As far as i can make out dancing-loon The United States refused to participate in the conference or recognize the accords. so i think that would explain why ?

 

[dancing-loon]

: Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation.

I have a simple solution to figure out what is cruel enough to "keep America safe"...
perform all these intelligence delivering interrogations a few times on the Pres. of the US as well as his supporting staff, including those smart-asses of psychiatrists!!! Especially Bush should be forced to try out the water-boarding method since he insisted on it as a good way to extract "intelligence" that would save American lives! And Rumsfeld should stand naked in front of the Pentagon and have some ferocious dogs go at him!!! And Lyndie and Grainer should be led on a leash naked through the streets of Baghdad!!

What is good for one human being should be good for another, don't you think? I could imagine very soon the torturing would be banned!!

 

[quandary121]

I have a simple solution to figure out what is cruel enough to "keep America safe"...
perform all these intelligence delivering interrogations a few times on the Pres. of the US as well as his supporting staff, including those smart-asses of psychiatrists!!! Especially Bush should be forced to try out the water-boarding method since he insisted on it as a good way to extract "intelligence" that would save American lives! And Rumsfeld should stand naked in front of the Pentagon and have some ferocious dogs go at him!!! And Lyndie and Grainer should be led on a leash naked through the streets of Baghdad!!

What is good for one human being should be good for another, don't you think? I could imagine very soon the torturing would be banned!!

LMAO I just love that answer dancing-loon, you will have to explain how rep points are added so i can chalk you up a couple of thousand :lol::lol::lol:

 

[I think not]

I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

They cut their heads off and plaster it all over youtube. :roll:

 

[eh1eh]

Quoting dancing-loon I never hear that the "Terrorists" capture any GIs. I wonder how they would treat their prisoners?

"I Think Not"

​

They cut their heads off and plaster it all over youtube. :roll:

Journalists, translators and humanitarian workers too. It's the "Jihad Way".

 

[dancing-loon]

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/183865.php

After a brief introdcuction with an image and the voice of Osama bin Laden, the video shows the two dead soldiers lying on a bridge. Both are already dead. One of the men has already been beheaded, the other man is dead. An al Qaeda member holds the severed head of one of the dead soldiers. One of the two soldiers appear to have been shot, the other has multiply wounds but appears to have also been hit by an explosive. The video also blurs out one of the dead men’s genitels, apparently al Qaeda believes showing that would be over-the-top. Later, an image of the now dead leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, is superimposed over the film. Zarqawi had personally murdered several people by beheading and then released those films on the internet.

But being in Gitmo is much worse...:roll:

edit: The genital area was blurred because the Muzzies had castrated the young man and left his severed member in the mouth of his severed head.

edit edit: These are their names if the link has been taken down. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker

Hi, Thomas;
That's gruesome! But what can the US expect after Abu Graib exposure?

I checked the web myself and found only the two from 2006 you mentioned. That is awful enough, but they are dead and don't suffer anymore. I remember mostly that jewish journalist Pearl, when he got beheaded.

The Taliban probably hardly ever capture an alliance soldier... they would rather shoot him straight away, because they are always on the go, they have no facilities to house prisoners.

Wars should be forbidden under threat of hard labor till the end of Life!!

 

[dancing-loon]

They cut their heads off and plaster it all over youtube. :roll:

What is worse,... to have your head cut off, or being harshly tortured with enhanced methods for years?

 

[dancing-loon]

LMAO I just love that answer dancing-loon, you will have to explain how rep points are added so i can chalk you up a couple of thousand :lol::lol::lol:

Are you that amused, Quandary?? :roll:
Forget the stupid rep points! Rather blow me a kiss across the ocean!:lol:

 

[quandary121]

Are you that amused, Quandary?? :roll:
Forget the stupid rep points! Rather blow me a kiss across the ocean!:lol:

OF COURSE DEAREST LOON

 

[dancing-loon]

OF COURSE DEAREST LOON

Oops... I almost caught it!:-(

:lol::lol:
We better get serious - we are on Main Street of the forum!!!