Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Mercator]

Could you be more of a jerk?
From Cornell University:
From Policy Review:
From Foreign Affairs:
I'm not in the mood for dealing with Leftist meanness, so I'm done with this topic.
And I came to Physics Forums looking for intelligent people to have political conversations with, outside the usual aggressiveness and knee-jerk attitudes found in more pedestrian forums. So much for the notion that scientists are endowed with a higher capacity for intelligent debate.

There are a few countries in Europe where Muslims on average are even better off than in the US; Luxemburg, Monaco, Liechtenstein... Because you can only become a Monegask for example if you have lots of money. What I mean is that your statement is misleading at best. Europe has welcomed poor North African Muslim immigrants for a long time, while the US just does not allow these into the country. On the other hand we have very little problems with poor Mexicans trying to sneak into Europe. On my last visit to Texas I saw that they were very well integrated into your glorious society. They looked so happy to do the dirty jobs in your refineries for peanuts, but unfortunately we will not know for sure because besides other Mexicans nobody seemed to even want to talk to them.

 

[Mercator]

Concerning the European constitution: Europe obviously is not ripe yet for one. We come from very far in a continent that has been torn to pieces in two world wars. While the US could become the world dominating power, we needed to glue the pieces together. The generations that fought each other in the last WW are only now nearing their end. I had family on both sides, Germany and Belgium, and I still remember the first time my grandfather visited the German side of the family in the sixties. The traumas were enormous. Nevertheless, thanks to people like Paul Henri Spaak and Jean Monnet we have been on the road to construct our "network Europe" ever since. The mistake many Americans make is to compare the European Union to their own federal union. Europe functions differently and is in fact much better adapted for the future than the US. Perhaps we don't even need a constitution. Against the "brute power" of American politics, the with us or against us bully-mentality, we put the attraction of becoming part of this network Europe, built on laws, respect, adequate social services and an economic power that is much stronger than Americans will ever admit. It is so powerful that countries like Turkey want to become part of it. They even went so far to refuse cooperation with the US in Iraq in order not to blow their chances in Europe. That shows where the new power is coming from.
Europe is still under construction and it is not perfect. But it is amazing to see all these nations and different cultures unite. And while we have kept our dignity and gained respect throughout the world, the US is on the same path as the Roman empire at it's end. If for the sole reason of not admiting to be wrong , under any circumstances, a country allows it's administration to invade another country under false premises, allows concentration camps and torture and tolerates blatant lies from it's president, history has learned us that the only outcome will be disaster sooner or later. Which brings us back to the thread: I have donated after 9/11, but would I have known that the same people would tolerate that their leaders have no scruples to torture people, I would not have done it. Under Clinton I had the impression that the US, and therefore the world was working in the direction of making this world liveable for everyone. What happened the last three years in the US is maybe the biggest desilusion in my life. Luckily there is still Europe.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Concerning the European constitution: ...

An excellent description of 'the world outside'.

Unfortunately, it will not be understood by those currently 'empowered' by this administration.

I am waiting for the attack... The attack on you.

And, as usual, I will stand beside you and defend your opinion as another 'non-American' who will be denied the right to an opinion.

Why? ... because many Americans who post believe the right to post and to free speech mysteriously ends at the border... As was true of Rome ... they believed that rights are reserved for the 'citizen'.

 

[SOS2008]

...Which brings us back to the thread: I have donated after 9/11, but would I have known that the same people would tolerate that their leaders have no scruples to torture people, I would not have done it. Under Clinton I had the impression that the US, and therefore the world was working in the direction of making this world liveable for everyone. What happened the last three years in the US is maybe the biggest desilusion in my life. Luckily there is still Europe.

The insight is nice to see. A strong Europe is good, either as a balance to the U.S., or hopefully as allies again after Bush is gone.

An excellent description of 'the world outside'.
Unfortunately, it will not be understood by those currently 'empowered' by this administration.
I am waiting for the attack... The attack on you.
And, as usual, I will stand beside you and defend your opinion as another 'non-American' who will be denied the right to an opinion.
Why? ... because many Americans who post believe the right to post and to free speech mysteriously ends at the border... As was true of Rome ... they believed that rights are reserved for the 'citizen'.

After 9-11 any dissenting speech was suppressed. Only recently with the Bush administration on the defense has this subsided. Even so, I am still careful what I say to whom here in the States. Many American members like myself have said they participate in PF because of the international input (we even had a poll to get you back!), and because it is a place where one can express opposing views.

Other than that, I would say the U.S. is like Rome if the neocon policies are to continue. Rome fell from corruption within, but mostly from over-extension abroad.

 

[Mercator]

A strong Europe is good, either as a balance to the U.S., or hopefully as allies again after Bush is gone.
abroad.

And I do hope that too. Mind you , I am not a pacifist and I do think that Europe needs a military to intervene in these cases where it is necessary. But we were lucky Clinton was there during the Kosovo crisis. Would it have been for Bush, he would have invaded Nigeria.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And I do hope that too. Mind you , I am not a pacifist and I do think that Europe needs a military to intervene in these cases where it is necessary. But we were lucky Clinton was there during the Kosovo crisis. Would it have been for Bush, he would have invaded Nigeria.

Mornig 'Merc'!

I'm surprised he didn't do that already now that he knows there is 'yellowcake' there.

I know your expertiese is with oil. Does it extend to other comodities like this and where this is actually being used?

Maybe this is a topic for another discussion and diverges too much but it IS a question that has just dawned upon me.

We have a country in Africa with the makings of explosives found in Nuclear devices or power stations ... where is this product being shipped and what is it being used for?

We know Saddam didn't take delivery ... Who did?

 

[Astronuc]

OP/ED - Clueless about torture

Forget, for a moment, the legal and moral questions surrounding government-sanctioned torture and consider the practical one: Does it produce useful information?

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who was tortured repeatedly during his 5½ years of solitary confinement in North Vietnam, answers no: The tortured will say anything to stop the pain.

McCain's insight offers lessons for U.S. conduct in the war on terror: Abusing prisoners elicits intelligence of questionable worth. It also unquestionably undercuts American values and produces international revulsion.

McCain and a majority of senators from both parties understand this. The Bush administration still doesn't get it.

To clear up confusion about the treatment of prisoners and what the United States stands for, McCain is pushing an amendment to a military-spending bill that would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading" interrogations. The Republican-controlled Senate passed the amendment, 90-9. The version of the bill in the House of Representatives contains no such amendment.

Senate and House negotiators are scheduled to meet this week to try to resolve the differences, and the White House is working behind the scenes to scuttle McCain's amendment or, at a minimum, carve out an exception for the CIA. President Bush has even threatened to cast his first veto if the administration doesn't get its way.

You'd think that after the abuse cases in Iraq and Afghanistan and at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bush would recognize the damage to the United States' moral standing, particularly in the Muslim world. But the White House continues to hew closely to the dubious "few bad apples" theory to explain the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

The theory doesn't hold up to even minimal scrutiny. Early last month, Capt. Ian Fishback of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division came forward with evidence of routine abuse that occurred in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Superior officers in Iraq repeatedly told soldiers that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoner treatment do not apply in Iraq, Fishback reported.

Last week, the Army began investigating a charge that U.S. soldiers burned the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and used the smoking corpses to taunt the enemy. And this week, two soldiers in Afghanistan face charges of punching detainees in the chest, shoulders and stomach.

Not only should Congress adopt the McCain amendment, but it also should spurn any exemptions for the CIA. That request came from Vice President Cheney, who doesn't want to tie the hands of U.S. operatives abroad. The CIA has reportedly been running a shadowy "renditions" program that sends al-Qaeda suspects for questioning in countries noted for brutality.

USAToday.com/Yahoo

 

[BobG]

I originally considered the amendment more of a statement about the Senate's opinion of how the executive branch has handled detainees (technically, the Geneva convention and existing law should have adequately covered the matter).

Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre. Forget about any illusion that abuses are just aberrations by a few bad apples. Cheney's pretty much stated that torture is a vital part of the administration's policy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I originally considered the amendment more of a statement about the Senate's opinion of how the executive branch has handled detainees (technically, the Geneva convention and existing law should have adequately covered the matter).
Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre. Forget about any illusion that abuses are just aberrations by a few bad apples. Cheney's pretty much stated that torture is a vital part of the administration's policy.

He's been watching too many episodes of '24'.

 

[Mercator]

He's been watching too many episodes of '24'.

Could be the other way around too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre.

That's just the kind of people they are...or are they Christians...

Christians like those in the Star Chamber...

 

[faust9]

McCain is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1105mccain-torture05.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From the link

The prisoners "can, apparently, be treated inhumanely," McCain said. "This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment."

Bush initially threatened to veto the "must-pass" spending bill for the Pentagon if it contained the Senate provision. Later, he sought simply to exempt the CIA from the ban. McCain called that proposal "totally unacceptable."

Can anyone explain to me why Bush hasn't been run out of town for this alone? This just boggles the mind beyond belief...

 

[Skyhunter]

From the link
Can anyone explain to me why Bush hasn't been run out of town for this alone? This just boggles the mind beyond belief...

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture...

Does that help?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does that help?

I just saw that another member doesn't care about torture.

Yes, more Bushtalk: We don't torture but we won't promise not to.

 

[Mercator]

Bush Declares: 'We Do Not Torture'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

'We outsource it'?

 

[BobG]

McCain has a good article in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/ on torture (or cruel, inhumane, or degrading interrogation techniques).

It also shows how subtly the media can take a shot at Bush. Just about the time you've finished the article and are thinking about what you just read, you glance over to your right and see "I Was Wrong, but So Were You" and a less than flattering photo of George Bush. It makes Bush seem pretty small in comparison to the article you just read. Bush really needs a better stance on Iraq than the one he's been pushing since Veteran's Day.

 

[Astronuc]

* A Deadly Interrogation: Can The CIA Legally Kill a Prisoner? *

DemocracyNow speaks with journalist Jane Mayer of The New Yorker as the Senate rejects demands for an independent commission on torture and the US military. DN looks at whether CIA agents are being allowed to kill detainees in their custody.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/11/157256

 

[Burnsys]

Bush don't torture now Lookheed does!

Meet the New Interrogators: Lockheed Martin

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1827/Meet_the_New_Interrogators_Lockheed_Martin

 

[Gokul43201]

This is almost pathetic now.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK749472.htm

US tells Iraq it will not tolerate prisoner abuse[/size]
17 Nov 2005 13:52:43 GMT
Source: Reuters

BAGHDAD, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. embassy told Iraq on Thursday it would not tolerate abuse of detainees or the involvement of militias in detentions, stepping up pressure on the government following revelations of a secret prison bunker.

"We have made clear to the Iraqi government that there must not be militia or sectarian control of Iraqi security forces, facilities or ministries," senior embassy spokesman Jim Bullock told reporters in Baghdad, reading out a statement.

 

[Astronuc]

This is disturbing -

83,000 Foreigners Have Been Detained in War on Terror
Prisoners in Custody in Iraq Hit a High of Nearly 13,900 on November 1
By KATHERINE SHRADER, AP

Roughly 14,500 detainees remain in U.S. custody, primarily in Iraq.

The number has steadily grown since the first CIA paramilitary officers touched down in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, setting up more than 20 facilities including the "Salt Pit," an abandoned factory outside Kabul used for CIA detention and interrogation.

Paramilitary?? Who are not subject to the Geneva convention? Seems very deliberate. What about non-CIA or non-government paramilitary, i.e. private contractors?

Based on the abuse scandals to date, I have to wonder how many have been tortured.

The Bush administration has showed indifference or even hostility regarding human rights, and in fact, it does not recognize rights of non-US citizens. Arbitrary detention seems acceptable to the Bush administration - this based on the number of detainees who have been released without charge. There is no observance of due process.

And statements like "We will not tolerate abuse" is disingenuous. I don't imagine such a statement being made in good faith, since it comes AFTER the scrutiny and the revelations that prisoners have been abused.

Looking at the numbers - 83,000 vs 14,500 - almost 70,000 are not in custody. If they were released without charge, does this simply mean the US government could prove anything - or does it mean innocent people were detained? How would people in the US feel if anyone could be swept off the streets at someone's whim and held without trial or charges indefinitely. The Constitution and Law in the US is supposed to prevent that - but apparently it does not apply to the rest of the world.

 

[Art]

Janis Karpinski the former head of Abu Ghraib who was demoted following the outing of the torture employed there has just published her autobiography in which she claims the reasons behind the abuse went all the way to the top.

White House blamed for Iraq abuses
Thursday 17 November 2005, 15:56 Makka Time, 12:56 GMT

The former US commander of Abu Ghraib prison says that she was held up unfairly as a scapegoat by "male warriors", but the real blame for the abuse scandal rests with military leaders and the White House.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FACAF766-CD1A-473B-88F4-1E9F60AAB609.htm

 

[Informal Logic]

...How would people in the US feel if anyone could be swept off the streets at someone's whim and held without trial or charges indefinitely. The Constitution and Law in the US is supposed to prevent that - but apparently it does not apply to the rest of the world.

This has been done under the Patriot Act, which is under review at this moment by congress. It appears there will be some modifications (?), but nonetheless the Patriot Act will be made permanent. At the same time there is Alito, who appears to have the same disregard for civil liberties.

 

[Astronuc]

CIA Chief Calls Interrogation Methods 'Unique' but Legal
By John Diamond, USA TODAY

(Nov. 21) -- CIA interrogators use "a variety of unique and innovative ways" to collect "vital" information from prisoners but strictly obey laws against torture, CIA Director Porter Goss said.

In his first interview since the clash this month between the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Senate on restricting interrogations, Goss said the CIA remains officially neutral on the proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees by CIA or military officers. But Goss made clear that techniques that would be restricted under McCain's proposal have yielded valuable intelligence.

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

- http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-20-cia-detainees_x.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON: A former top US state department official has told CNN.com that vice president Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to detainee torture in US facilities.

..."There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it," Wilkerson said on CNN's 'Late Edition.'

"There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated - in the vice president of the United States' office," he said. "His implementer in this case was (defence secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and the defence department." [continued]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1303369.cms

 

[Skyhunter]

It apears that part of the justification for the Iraq war was based on false intelligence derived by torture.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html

 

[Informal Logic]

It apears that part of the justification for the Iraq war was based on false intelligence derived by torture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html

What gets me even more is the Bush administration has then tried to use this as proof that the intelligence was faulty--not "fixed." However, the Bush administration was made aware several times that the informant/information was NOT reliable. So they torture then they perpetuate the lies. It would be great if we could take Cheney to the salt pit and get the truth out of him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So Bush finally caves on torture; being the good Christian that he is [what a joke!].

Could it be that everyone has been reminded that torture is not only immoral and illegal, it also doesn't work.

 

[Art]

Stalin used to enjoy telling an amusing anecdote regarding Beria one of his favourite people in his secret police (He referred to him fondly as our Himmler). He mentioned to Beria one day he had lost his favourite pipe. Beria rang him a few days later and Stalin told him he had found it under the sofa. Beria responded "Impossible! Three people have already confessed to stealing it"

It seems Stalin who had more than a little knowledge about such matters understood the problem with information extracted under torture.

 

[Art]

As this article points out the Bush stance toward torture is seriously undermining the US' standing in the world.

Critics: Light Sentence May Tarnish U.S.


By JON SARCHE Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

DENVER — An unexpectedly light sentence for an Army interrogator who once faced life in prison for the death of an Iraqi general could tarnish the government and hurt human-rights efforts around the globe, critics said.
Prosecutors said during Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr.'s court-martial that his interrogation of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush "could fairly be described as torture" and had stained the military's reputation. During the trial, testimony showed he stuffed Mowhoush in a sleeping bag and straddled his chest.

If the tables were turned and an American general had suffered the same fate from interrogators in an enemy's hands, there would have been an uproar in the U.S., said Eugene Fidell, president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Institute of Military Justice, a private group that monitors military justice policy.

"How is this going to look overseas?" he said.

Mowhoush, the former commander of Saddam Hussein's air defenses, surrendered to the Army on Nov. 10, 2003, in hopes of seeing or securing the release of his four sons.

The sentence was

Late Monday, a military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 in pay, and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months. The sentence will still be reviewed by Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert W. Mixon.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3610957.html

Just to refresh people's memory of what the UN Convention Against Torture says;

Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Any breeches of these articles sound familiar??