Torture Policy

[no1important]

Rice's credibility on line in torture debate

A teaser:

BRUSSELS, Belgium — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now the public face of the Bush administration's promise to play by the world's rules when it comes to fighting terrorism. So if they're broken, her credibility abroad, and perhaps at home, could be at stake.

Throughout Europe, there is suspicion and anger over reports of secret CIA interrogation centers and transport flights for suspected terrorists. It explains why Rice, during her trip to Europe last week, tapped some of the good will she has built up over nearly a year of intensive travel and outreach.

Rice met with government leaders nervous about what the United States may be doing on European soil. The Europeans also were aware that their constituents often take a dim view of the administration's policies on human rights and civil liberties. [/end teaser]

Rice has no credibility left nor do other members of the Bush Crime Syndicate. :evil:

 

[Scape]

Credibility left? They past that point with Bolton.

 

[missile]

Anyone who is still on the Bush payroll has no credibility at all. Notice the many good people who aren't with him now[Colin Powell,for example,could not spout the official lines with a straight face and left!]

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1788

oh my........another US Torture Prison found in Iraq.


naughty , naughty.......and they LIE too. :evil: :twisted: :x

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4533342.stm

a deal is struck in the "white" house. about torture. Kicking and screaming.......the bush regime was PRESSURED into going along with the McCain plan to make torture illegal.

duh !!!


now there is a confession if there ever was one of the fact that the US employs (past tense??? don't think so) torture and with a grim sense of determination. Of course they condemn any other nation that might employ such measures. :roll: :roll:

............imagine that.. :roll:

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Ocean Breeze]

not exactly the merriest bunch on this planet.......are they?? :wink:

( poor job "satisfaction"??? :wink:

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11325.htm

tidbits about US torture... :evil: :x :twisted:

 

[jimmoyer]

I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.

...

This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.

...

What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?

In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted.


For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth—causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating.

-----------John McCain----------------

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11314.htm

US Kidnap and Torture policies.

(where is the OUTRAGE???) or do americans give a damn?? As long as it does not affect their immediate lifestyle......do they give a damn??)

 

[jimmoyer]

Stepping Back From Torture

By David Ignatius
Friday, December 16, 2005; A35



It's not about who our enemies are, it's about who we are. That has been Sen. John McCain's refrain as he campaigned for a ban on cruel interrogation techniques...


I credit Bush for realizing that he had to give ground. He needed to do something on the torture issue to protect the country's standing in the world -- even something that he rightly believed carried risks for the United States.

The man who famously never wants to change course or admit mistakes finally did both. I

And what of McCain, the man who felt the outrage of torture on his lacerated skin and broken bones in a Vietnamese prison? I think he sealed his place in American history this week, whatever happens to him down the road. He simply would not give up on this issue.

He took it to the president personally in a phone call in early November, all but pleading with the White House to change course.

Some advocates of the torture ban have argued that we're not really giving anything up, because torture never works. If that were true, this wouldn't be a genuine moral choice.

But in fact, America will lose some leverage in interrogations.

There's no escaping the reality that people may die in future terrorist attacks because we have opted for a moral choice.

To understand what difference a ban on torture will make, I spoke this week with British sources about the interrogation techniques used against the Irish Republican Army in the early 1970s. The British were facing a hideous IRA bombing campaign, and to stop the bombers, the British army and police in Northern Ireland tried to squeeze information from their IRA prisoners.

The British recognized what every cop knows -- that interrogation is much easier if the prisoner is disoriented. So the British put hoods on their IRA prisoners, just as U.S. interrogators have done in Iraq. The British approved other, harsher methods: depriving IRA prisoners of sleep, making them lean against a wall for long periods, using "white noise" that would confuse them.

The clincher for British interrogators was mock execution. The preferred method in the mid-1970s was to take hooded IRA prisoners up in helicopters over the lakes near Belfast and threaten to throw them out if they didn't talk. Sometimes, they actually were thrown out. The prisoners didn't know that the helicopter was only a few yards above the water. I'm told that technique nearly always worked. (So, too, with the "waterboarding" that U.S. interrogators used to break al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed.) The British eventually had to give up their extreme techniques because of public outcry, and I'm told they got less information. But they eventually prevailed against the IRA.

What of the extreme case that should haunt us all, when an al Qaeda prisoner may know the location of a ticking nuclear bomb? Here, too, the right answer is the rule of law. Under the new rules, an aggressive interrogator who discovers information that prevents a nuclear attack may still be charged with a crime. But I doubt any judge or jury would ever convict him. That's the essence of a lawful society -- that hard decisions are left to courts, not to individuals. McCain got it exactly right when Newsweek asked him about this ultimate test. "You do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

davidignatius@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501438_pf.html

©

 

[no1important]

McCain says some torture justified

A teaser:

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, who pushed the White House to support a ban on torture, suggested Sunday that harsh treatment of a terrorism suspect who knew of an imminent attack would not violate international standards.

The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in U.S. law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience."

That would include, McCain said, mock executions and "water boarding," in which a subject is made to think he is drowning.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, McCain said it would not. [/end teaser]

I wonder what else it includes?

 

[jimmoyer]

The headline and lead paragraph in this article
sensationalized a wrong impression on the
change John McCain forced on the Bush government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------



Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, McCain said it would not.

"In that million-to-one situation, then the president of the United States would authorize it and take responsibility for it," McCain said.

"We've gone a long way from having that kind of scenario to having prisons around the world, to the renditions, to the things that have been done which are, in my view, not appropriate," he said.

After months of rejecting a call for anti-torture legislation, President Bush last week accepted McCain's proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects. Bush had threatened to veto any bill that contained the ban, while maintaining the U.S. did not condone torture

Same article...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1664207,00.html


US torture is not new. What is new is that they are open , shameless and emboldened about it now. (and quite indifferent. There is no outrage in the US about the series of crimes committed. They just continue to make up excuses for them .....to pacify themselves.

follows the usual pattern of a criminal mind. The first "crime" is the hardest.......but after that it is easier, trophies are taken ( think SH GUN that was presented to bush for eg) , and the criminal becomes bolder and shameless......soon even advertizing it for all the needed attention .......

 

[Karlin]

Re: Hard Evidence of U.S. Torturing Prisoners to Death

http://tinyurl.com/8zvv5

Hard Evidence of U.S. Torturing Prisoners to Death
- Ignored by Corporate Media

Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church.

A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."

The ACLU website further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.

Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.

So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations."

--------

More at the link.
But not much. That says it all, there is the proof, just put it on 60 Minutes and let the chips fall. Link it to White House directions for "in-terror-gating" prisoners of war, and we got ourselves another impeachment peach.

The enemy will torture USA prisoners of war anyhow, but this may make them torture more now, maybe as a routine thing, not for information or admission of guilt, but just for what the heck they do it to my brother here take this injury back home. If it doesn't kill you.

And of course, the tortures and the tortured both have bad dreams the rest of their lives. It is a typical "lose-lose" situation, like war. The one benefit goes to the WorldDominators: torture makes the whole population easier to control because it scares us all.

 

[FiveParadox]

Torture is unacceptable. If the United States is fighting a battle of ideals, then they should uphold those ideals in their battle. To torture a terrorist only brings the State and its people, whom the State represents, down to such a terrorist's level. There are always alternatives to torture.

Granted, perhaps there is some circumstance under which torture would be warranted, perhaps even required; but only under the most exigent and dire of circumstances. In such a case, in Canada for example, the House of Commons could vote to take such action notwithstanding the Charter. So long as they damned well don't get used to the exercise.