- #1
pelastration
- 165
- 0
It becomes clear to the whole world that Americans do dehumanize other people. Not all American of course ... but a number. It's because of the ideological and even racial supremacy newcons give to Jews and to the New Fundamental Christians, a natural brotherhood. Killing is allowed in a number of cases, since it's the will of God. (you can google on that ... and you will find out).
That dehumanization is part of military strategy of newcons in Government and Pentagon. It's like the legal Frankenstein. (See lower).
President Bush's nomination of William Haynes to be a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit puts squarely before the Senate the administration's flagrant rejection of even the most basic principles of the rule of law in the war on terrorism.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A43571-2004Apr1¬Found=true. This guy has developed and defended three of the administration's most controversial policies: the refusal to treat any of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions of 1949; the department's military tribunal plan for trying suspected war criminals; and even the incarceration of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review.
But first about some damage control from the white house:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5038963&pageNumber=0
Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations for consultations on the Middle East, said only a "small number" of American troops had been involved and vowed wrongdoers would be quickly brought to justice.
"I can assure you that no stone will be left unturned to make sure that justice is done and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again," he said.
President Bush, campaigning in Ohio, did not mention the abuse but his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice again said the president was disgusted and outraged and had demanded those responsible be held accountable.
"The president has told the secretary of defense that he expects people to be held accountable, and that he wants, too, to know that this is not a systemic problem," Rice said.
"In other words, quite apart from the specific cases of those particular photographs, Americans do not dehumanize other people. That is not why we're in Iraq. We're in Iraq to liberate a people, to help them," she added.
...
Rumsfeld refused to use the word "torture."
"I'm not a lawyer," he said. "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture ... And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word." end quote.
----
So my first conclusion would be "Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld have clean hands!
But that might because they use blue rubber gloves, but that a technical thing .. isn't it?
Only what was photographed ... happenend. Thank you Condi, a beautiful twist.
The Blue Rubber Gloves Club.
----
But here you can read more about the systematics.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1355
Into the shadows: the franchises
snip
Now, let's plunge deeper into the shadows and consider places where the word "Orwellian" comes naturally to mind. The "war on terror" began in Afghanistan as a proxy war -- we hired the Northern Alliance on the theory that the enemy of our enemy's friend was our friend. They were to be our proxy force in destroying the Taliban. We then supported them massively from the air, via our Special Forces, and with bundled American bills in suitcases. The "war" ended quickly with thousands of foot soldiers of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda as well as whomever else happened to be on hand swept up and shuttled into a grim penal no-man's land, where, for instance, painkillers were withheld from the wounded to ensure that they would talk. At the same time, most of the leadership of both groups escaped.
Afghanistan then became the initial ground zero of our new offshore penal landscape and Bagram Air Base evidently the center of that.
Though Guantanamo would become the half-hidden "face" of the new system, Bagram was at the heart of what Priest and Gellman dubbed in that December 2002 Washington Post piece, "a brass-knuckled quest for information, often in concert with allies of dubious human rights reputation, in which the traditional lines between right and wrong, legal and inhumane, are evolving and blurred." They added that "while the U.S. government publicly denounces the use of torture, each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary." And so it proved. Torture became part of the "package." ("Package" turns out as well to be a new term of the trade: "The take-down teams often ‘package' prisoners for transport, fitting them with hoods and gags, and binding them to stretchers with duct tape.")
In her recent piece, Isabel Hilton claims that there are still an estimated 6,000 prisoners detained without charge, no less a trial, in Afghanistan "of whose fate almost nothing is known." And, of course, such systems have a way of refusing to be contained within bounds or borders. So, though Guantanamo was built for the supposed "hardest of hard cases," the more important captured al-Qaeda (and allied) figures never made it there at all. They passed instead from Afghanistan, or wherever captured, onto American aircraft carriers or, evidently in some cases, onto the "British" Indian Ocean Island of Diego Garcia.
Priest and Gellman mentioned the island in their 2002 report. In December 2003, Mark Seddon wrote a piece for the British Independent entitled, Is there another Guantanamo Bay on British soil? http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=472751
There he recorded reports that, on part of the 17 square-mile island, a "permanent floating aircraft carrier" whose native inhabitants the British had shuttled elsewhere years before, an American support area dubbed "Camp Justice" -- I still want to know who makes up names like this -- held terrorist suspects and possibly members of the Iraqi leadership beyond the reach of anyone at all. (For an aerial view of Camp Justice, thanks to Globalsecurity.org,http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia-imagery-2.htm
But -- and here's where "franchising" comes in -- even that kind of control and isolation evidently wasn't enough for those running our shadow penal colonies. According to Priest and Gellman, "In addition to Bagram and Diego Garcia, the CIA has other secret detention centers overseas, and often uses the facilities of foreign intelligence services." It seems that the CIA is running a complete "outsourcing" program that goes under the strange rubric of "extraordinary rendition" (which I've written about before). It basically means that we -– the CIA in particular -– transfer potentially resistant prisoners from whom we want information to the agents of countries where there are no qualms whatsoever about using far more brutal methods of interrogation. It's essentially outsourced or franchised torture.
...
----
That dehumanization is part of military strategy of newcons in Government and Pentagon. It's like the legal Frankenstein. (See lower).
President Bush's nomination of William Haynes to be a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit puts squarely before the Senate the administration's flagrant rejection of even the most basic principles of the rule of law in the war on terrorism.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A43571-2004Apr1¬Found=true. This guy has developed and defended three of the administration's most controversial policies: the refusal to treat any of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions of 1949; the department's military tribunal plan for trying suspected war criminals; and even the incarceration of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review.
But first about some damage control from the white house:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5038963&pageNumber=0
Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the United Nations for consultations on the Middle East, said only a "small number" of American troops had been involved and vowed wrongdoers would be quickly brought to justice.
"I can assure you that no stone will be left unturned to make sure that justice is done and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again," he said.
President Bush, campaigning in Ohio, did not mention the abuse but his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice again said the president was disgusted and outraged and had demanded those responsible be held accountable.
"The president has told the secretary of defense that he expects people to be held accountable, and that he wants, too, to know that this is not a systemic problem," Rice said.
"In other words, quite apart from the specific cases of those particular photographs, Americans do not dehumanize other people. That is not why we're in Iraq. We're in Iraq to liberate a people, to help them," she added.
...
Rumsfeld refused to use the word "torture."
"I'm not a lawyer," he said. "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture ... And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word." end quote.
----
So my first conclusion would be "Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld have clean hands!
But that might because they use blue rubber gloves, but that a technical thing .. isn't it?
Only what was photographed ... happenend. Thank you Condi, a beautiful twist.
The Blue Rubber Gloves Club.
----
But here you can read more about the systematics.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1355
Into the shadows: the franchises
snip
Now, let's plunge deeper into the shadows and consider places where the word "Orwellian" comes naturally to mind. The "war on terror" began in Afghanistan as a proxy war -- we hired the Northern Alliance on the theory that the enemy of our enemy's friend was our friend. They were to be our proxy force in destroying the Taliban. We then supported them massively from the air, via our Special Forces, and with bundled American bills in suitcases. The "war" ended quickly with thousands of foot soldiers of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda as well as whomever else happened to be on hand swept up and shuttled into a grim penal no-man's land, where, for instance, painkillers were withheld from the wounded to ensure that they would talk. At the same time, most of the leadership of both groups escaped.
Afghanistan then became the initial ground zero of our new offshore penal landscape and Bagram Air Base evidently the center of that.
Though Guantanamo would become the half-hidden "face" of the new system, Bagram was at the heart of what Priest and Gellman dubbed in that December 2002 Washington Post piece, "a brass-knuckled quest for information, often in concert with allies of dubious human rights reputation, in which the traditional lines between right and wrong, legal and inhumane, are evolving and blurred." They added that "while the U.S. government publicly denounces the use of torture, each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary." And so it proved. Torture became part of the "package." ("Package" turns out as well to be a new term of the trade: "The take-down teams often ‘package' prisoners for transport, fitting them with hoods and gags, and binding them to stretchers with duct tape.")
In her recent piece, Isabel Hilton claims that there are still an estimated 6,000 prisoners detained without charge, no less a trial, in Afghanistan "of whose fate almost nothing is known." And, of course, such systems have a way of refusing to be contained within bounds or borders. So, though Guantanamo was built for the supposed "hardest of hard cases," the more important captured al-Qaeda (and allied) figures never made it there at all. They passed instead from Afghanistan, or wherever captured, onto American aircraft carriers or, evidently in some cases, onto the "British" Indian Ocean Island of Diego Garcia.
Priest and Gellman mentioned the island in their 2002 report. In December 2003, Mark Seddon wrote a piece for the British Independent entitled, Is there another Guantanamo Bay on British soil? http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=472751
There he recorded reports that, on part of the 17 square-mile island, a "permanent floating aircraft carrier" whose native inhabitants the British had shuttled elsewhere years before, an American support area dubbed "Camp Justice" -- I still want to know who makes up names like this -- held terrorist suspects and possibly members of the Iraqi leadership beyond the reach of anyone at all. (For an aerial view of Camp Justice, thanks to Globalsecurity.org,http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia-imagery-2.htm
But -- and here's where "franchising" comes in -- even that kind of control and isolation evidently wasn't enough for those running our shadow penal colonies. According to Priest and Gellman, "In addition to Bagram and Diego Garcia, the CIA has other secret detention centers overseas, and often uses the facilities of foreign intelligence services." It seems that the CIA is running a complete "outsourcing" program that goes under the strange rubric of "extraordinary rendition" (which I've written about before). It basically means that we -– the CIA in particular -– transfer potentially resistant prisoners from whom we want information to the agents of countries where there are no qualms whatsoever about using far more brutal methods of interrogation. It's essentially outsourced or franchised torture.
...
----
Last edited by a moderator: