News The SM masters having fun in Iraqs prison

[hughes johnson]

Thank you. I rest my case.

We had lots of oil before the war. We had lots of oil during the war. We have lots of oil now. We would have lots of oil if Iraq didn't even exist. We have so much oil that we don't even bother drilling for a lot of it so as not to wake up the caribou with all the noise. We have enough oil inside the U.S. to supply Iraq for the foreseeable future. We have lots of oil. Plenty. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

 

[pelastration]

sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses

Bush said. "As a result, there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq."

Shocking details from the New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company http://members.tripod.com/~dlgdyer/mugsweb/372mp.html, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added— “detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”

The photographs — several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week — show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib—seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another section of the prison. Wisdom said:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn’t think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, “Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.” I heard PFC England shout out, “He’s getting hard.”

Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that “the issue was taken care of.” He said, “I just didn’t want to be part of anything that looked criminal.”

The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P whose role emerged during the Article 3 hearing against Chip Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is member of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according t an abridged transcript made available to me, “The investigation started after SPC Darby . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of naked detainees.” Bobec said that Darby had “initially put a anonymous letter under our door, then he late came forward and gave a sworn statement. H felt very bad about it and thought it was ver wrong.

Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any “training guidelines” that he was aware of. The M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck explained:

What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how things were supposed to be run.

Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one occasion, “had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest.”

next ...

 

[pelastration]

continu ...

At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick’s co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the courtroom. “The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and discover facts,” Gary Myers told me. “We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no alleged victims to examine.” After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick.

Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client’s defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, “Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?”

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees —was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”

Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two interna Army reports—Taguba’s and one by th Army’s chief law-enforcement officer, Provos Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general

Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib.

There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to “set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews”—a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. “Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state.” General Karpinski’s brigade, Ryder reported, “has not been directed to change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor participate in those interrogations.” Ryder called for the establishment of procedures to “define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.” The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.

Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he found “no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.” His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup.

Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. “Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder’s] assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation,” he wrote. “In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment.” The report continued, “Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder’s report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to ‘set the conditions’ for MI interrogations.” Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”

Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’‘Make sure he has a bad night.’‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’”

When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, “Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing”—where the abuse took place—“belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.”

Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this “they needed to give me paperwork.”) Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a “bunch of people from MI” watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

next ...

 

[pelastration]

continu...

The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from senior commanders. During Karpinski’s seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involvin escapes, attempted escapes, and other seriou security issues that were investigated by officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of “lessons learned” inquiries within the brigade Karpinski invariably approved the reports an signed orders calling for changes in day-to-da procedures. But Taguba found that she did no follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried out. Had she done so, h added, “cases of abuse may have been prevented.

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including some that he considered “without precedent in my military career.” The soldiers, he added, were “poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission.”

General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he described as extremely emotional: “What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.”

Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.

After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major Genera Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraq prison system, had arrived in Baghdad and way on the job. He had been the commander of th Guantánamo Bay detention center. Genera Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators

As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”

Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who pose an “imperative” security threat, but it must establish a regular procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, another Guantánamo.

As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States’ reputation in the world.

Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick’s military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was “attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins.” Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance.”

 

[hughes johnson]

Wow, that's a lot of typing! I really didn't have time to read all of the stuff you wrote because of other obligations, but from what I saw you are unhappy about the treatment of the prisoners. I'm sure a lot of this stuff gets blown out of proportion. We're currently investigating the matter, and I'm sure we'll make some changes if we need to.

 

[pelastration]

Crimes against humanity, War crimes

Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html

The Army Reserve general whose military police officers were photographed as they mistreated Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she had been "sickened" by the pictures and had known nothing about the sexual humiliation and other abuse until weeks later.

But the officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade, said the special high-security cellblock at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, where the abuses took place had been under the tight control of a separate group of military intelligence officers who had so far avoided any public blame.

In her first public comments about the brutality — which drew wide attention and condemnation after photographs documenting it were broadcast Wednesday night by CBS News — General Karpinski said that while the reservists involved were "bad people" and deserved punishment, she suspected they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation.

Speaking in a telephone interview from her home in South Carolina, the general said military commanders in Iraq were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and the reservists.

"We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away."

She said the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen in the large prison and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations.

----

More photos indicate it were not a number of isolated incidents: http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow

----
Amnesty International: ""Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens". http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004

----

Since it becomes more and more clear that there is a kind of systematic behavior of US military or secret services in the the treatment of prisoners in Iraq we can look under what category of International crime they come.

Make your choice:

Article 7 (1) (f) Crime against humanity of torture 14
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.
3. Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (g)-1 Crime against humanity of rape
Elements
1. The perpetrator invaded 15 the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.
2. The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent. 16
3. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
4. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 7 (1) (g)-6 Crime against humanity of sexual violence
Elements
1. The perpetrator committed an act of a sexual nature against one or more persons or caused such person or persons to engage in an act of a sexual nature by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment or such person’s or persons’ incapacity to give genuine consent.
2. Such conduct was of a gravity comparable to the other offences in article 7, paragraph 1 (g), of the Statute.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the gravity of the conduct.

Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against humanity of persecution
Elements
1. The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law, 21 one or more
persons of fundamental rights.
2. The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such.
3. Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds
that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.
4. The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. 22
5. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (i) Crime against humanity of enforced disappearance of persons 23,24
Elements
1. The perpetrator:
(a) Arrested, detained 25,26 or abducted one or more persons; or
(b) Refused to acknowledge the arrest, detention or abduction, or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons.
2. (a) Such arrest, detention or abduction was followed or accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the
fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
3. The perpetrator was aware that: 27
(a) Such arrest, detention or abduction would be followed in the ordinary course of events by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; 28 or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
4. Such arrest, detention or abduction was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization.
5. Such refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons was carried out by,
or with the authorization or support of, such State or political organization.
6. The perpetrator intended to remove such person or persons from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
7. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
8. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1 War crime of torture
Elements 35
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind.
3. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
5. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
6. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2 War crime of inhuman treatment
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (iii) War crime of wilfully causing great suffering
Elements
1. The perpetrator caused great physical or mental pain or suffering to, or serious injury to body or health of, one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

 

[hughes johnson]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.

 

[studentx]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I don't think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

 

[pelastration]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.

The investigation done by US? For sure is will find that it were 'isolated' incidents. CIA involvement and hired 'interogation' specialists will be kept out if possible.
Why trust US justice?

BTW, I am amazed about your very short comment.

 

[pelastration]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I don't think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

I think that's a very artificial remark. It can be 'new' troops, fresh from Alaska. But a number of faces are recognizable, and can bring identification.

 

[studentx]

They could be from some random porn site and emailed to albasrah by anybody. But if theyre real than i think we all agree these men are animals and want to see them punished just as much as you

 

[russ_watters]

"Torture?"

High school hazing is uglier than this.

Somebody ask McCain if he'd prefer the Hanoi Hilton to kiddy stuff.

I was thinking this too, but was letting it go: While true, this doesn't make it ok.

Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights.

You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.

The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours.

So torture is ok, so long as there is an example of worse torture?

As Adam would say, Zero, that's a straw-man.

 

[selfAdjoint]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

 

[pelastration]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

Good Question Dick.

 

[pelastration]

You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.
The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours.

Human rights? Gitmo is one, but where are the rights of prisoners in the sadistic hands of private contractors 'hired' by the US Government. Hasn't that government any responsibility? No ? Who brings them in the prison? Who let's them do whatever? That's an organized 'outlaw' justice allowing torture without punishment. Gestapo.
"No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”.
Russ if that is a normal procedure about human rights then there is something serious rotten in the US mentality.

About ICC: Do you believe the signatories of the treaty have no governmental duty to their citizens? Of course they have. But these countries forbid themselves to allow in all situations war-crimes. They don't fear to be brought before the ICC. They have no intention. For the newcon lead USA and dreaming about the New Century Empire war-crimes are allowed, can not be avoid. It's intentional. USA wants to stay outside the rules of International law. USA attacked Iraq remember, without real hard facts, and fabricated by the Wurmser cell. See Pentagon cell: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Wurmser and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405-2.html . By the newcons USA became an aggressive state. But not only to the outside but also internal. Now is the reduction of constitutional rights by the Patriot Act a governmental duty to it's citizens? If USA started under newcons to reduce USA citizen rights how would they respect the human rights of citizen of other countries. The Gitmo shame thing was discussed on PF in several posts, yes, no, yes, no ... POW's etc. but what we saw was that it violated 'common sense', a type of nature right to be treated as a human. Njorl hit the essence: This guys can even not defense themselves to be innocent. Newcon leader deny a number of rights to US citizen and other countries citizen. And that's Russ what USA is up to ... if you let Bush and mafia-controlled private contractors do. By privatization of the military ( and police ...?) there will be interrogations in USA by private contractors ... but without liability. Indeed, it will be left to the contractor to “deal with him” if it goes out of hand.


I suggest Russ you take a look to this and see if you can find some resemblance what's happening in US today:
Why? ... of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal and Luftwaffe chief at Nuremberg trials, 1945”

http://www.sundayherald.com/41693
...
But these soldiers aren’t simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two “civilian contract” organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.

California-based Titan Corporation http://www.titan.com says it is “a leading provider of solutions and services for national security”. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush’s Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.

CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping “America’s intelligence community in the war on terrorism”. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI’s board.

No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”. One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had “unintentionally” broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to “fear-up” detainees.

Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.

Kimmitt said: “I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people who might have encouraged the crimes as well because they certainly share some responsibility.”

Last night, CACI vice-president Jody Brown said: “The company supports the Army’s investigation and acknowledges that CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by army officials in connection with the investigation. The company has received no indication that any CACI employee was involved in any alleged improper conduct with Iraqi prisoners. Nonetheless, CACI has initiated an independent investigation.”

However, military investigators said: “A CACI investigator’s contract was terminated because he allowed and/or instructed military police officers who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations which were neither authorised nor in accordance with regulations.”

Bio CACI vice-president Jody Brown: http://www.caci.com/about/bios/brown.shtml”
Titan Service: Developing and Deploying Physical Security Solutions: http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=100

 

[pelastration]

If the Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld doesn't know who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail, who would know? The great mystery.

Role: The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council. http://www.defenselink.mil/osd/topleaders.html[/URL]

BBC: [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695543.stm[/URL]

Defence tactics

Today, one of his tactics was to use the phalanx of officials around him ( Rumsfeld) to deflect the questions.

Their series of statements successfully used up a good portion of the time allocated for the hearing.

But as Mr Rumsfeld started passing questions over to them, it infuriated some of the senators.

John McCain, the independent-minded Republican and former presidential candidate, was clearly exasperated when Mr Rumsfeld passed on to a senior general a question about who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail.

"No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question, and it could be satisfied with a phone call," Mr McCain interjected.

"This is a pretty simple, straightforward question. Who was in charge of the interrogations?"

No clear answer came back from Mr Rumsfeld. And he came under more heat from several Democratic senators.

(snip)

Mr Rumsfeld and his generals were critical of the publication of the pictures - even though that is the event that has really brought this scandal to light.

So that the impression is that the Pentagon views this, above all, as public-relations disaster - not a human tragedy.

...
----
From: [PLAIN]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/191377p-165387c.html
Rumsfeld: Sorry, but there's more
Worse yet to come, he warns - hint murder, rape, kid abuse

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."

Congressional sources said some of the allegations of abuse involved acts against young boys, and Graham said "the worst is yet to come."

----
From: http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040507iraq.html - Full text

(snip)
MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I come to this hearing with a deep sense of sorrow and grave concern. Sorrow for -- after the shock and anger of seeing these pictures for the first time, that so many brave young Americans who are fighting and dying are under this cloud.

I attended the memorial service of Pat Tillman, a brave American who sacrificed his life recently, and he and others, unfortunately, at least in some way are diminished by this scandal.

I'm gravely concerned that many Americans will have the same impulse as I did when I saw this picture, and that's to turn away from them. And we risk losing public support for this conflict. As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one unless this issue is quickly resolved with full disclosure immediately.

With all due respect to investigations ongoing and panels being appointed, the American people deserve immediate and full disclosure of all relevant information so that we can be assured and comforted that something that we never believed could happen will never happen again.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to know -- I'd like you to give the committee the chain of command from the guards to you, all the way up the chain of command. I'd like to know...

RUMSFELD: I think General Myers brought an indication of it, and we'll show it.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

I'd like to know who was in charge of the -- what agencies or private contractors were in charge of interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were their instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: First, with respect to the...

SMITH: We did not bring it.

RUMSFELD: Oh, my.

SMITH: Yes, oh, my is right.

RUMSFELD: It was all prepared.

SMITH: Yes, it was, indeed.

RUMSFELD: Do you want to walk through it?

MCCAIN: Anyway, who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?

SMITH: I'll walk through the chain of command and...

MCCAIN: No. Let's just -- you can submit the chain of command, please.

WARNER: General Smith, do you want to respond?

MCCAIN: No. Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question. And it could be satisfied with a phone call. This is a pretty simple, straightforward question: Who was in charge of the interrogations? What agencies or private contractors were in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions to the guards?

This goes to the heart of this matter.

RUMSFELD: It does indeed.

As I understand it, there were two contractor organizations. They supplied interrogators and linguists. And I was advised by General Smith that there were maybe a total of 40.

MCCAIN: Now, were they in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: Thirty-seven interrogators, and...

WARNER: The witnesses voice are not being recorded. You'll have to speak into your microphone.

Would you repeat the conversation in response to the senator's question?

SMITH: Yes, sir. There were 37 interrogators that were...

MCCAIN: I'm asking who was in charge of the interrogations.

SMITH: They were not in charge. They were interrogators.

MCCAIN: My question is who was in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: The brigade commander for the military intelligence brigade.

MCCAIN: And were they -- did he also have authority over the guards?

SMITH: Sir, he was -- he had tactical control over the guards, so he was...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary, you can't answer these questions?

RUMSFELD: I can. I'd be -- I thought the purpose of the question was to make sure we got an accurate presentation, and we have the expert here who was in the chain of command.

MCCAIN: I think these are fundamental questions to this issue.

RUMSFELD: Fine.

MCCAIN: Were the instructions to the guards...

RUMSFELD: There's two sets of responsibilities, as your question suggests. One set is the people who have the responsibility for managing the detention process; they are not interrogators. The military intelligence people, as General Smith has indicated, were the people who were in charge of the interrogation part of the process.

And the responsibility, as I have reviewed the matter, shifted over a period of time and the general is capable of telling you when that responsibility shifted.

MCCAIN: What were the instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary...

RUMSFELD: ... is determining...

MCCAIN: ... that's a very simple, straight-forward question.

RUMSFELD: Well, the -- as the chief of staff of the Army can tell you, the guards are trained to guard people. They're not trained to interrogate, they're not -- and their instructions are to, in the case of Iraq, adhere to the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventions apply to all of the individuals there in one way or another. They apply to the prisoners of war, and they are written out and they're instructed and the people in the Army train them to that and the people in the Central Command have the responsibility of seeing that, in fact, their conduct is consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

The criminals in the same detention facility are handled under a different provision of the Geneva Convention -- I believe it's the fourth and the prior one's the third.

MCCAIN: So the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners, under some kind of changing authority as I understand it, according to the Geneva Conventions?

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

MCCAIN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: First, beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman. Second, there are many more photographs, and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this.

In addition, the photos give these incidents a vividness, indeed a horror, in the eyes of the world.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: Well, let me answer a couple of pieces and let General Smith answer the last piece.

First, you say the first rule, if you're in a hole, is to stop digging. I've said today that there are a lot more photographs and videos that exist.

BEN NELSON: I didn't mean that. I mean is anything progressing on today, beyond what we already know and what we're going to find out from past performance?

RUMSFELD: If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe. And so beyond notice. That's just a fact.

And if they're sent to some news organization, and taken out of the criminal prosecution channels that they're in, that's where we'll be. And it's not a pretty picture.

-----
Bio Rumsfeld: http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

 

[pelastration]

In his weekly radio address, Bush called the abuse "a stain on our country's honor and reputation." So also this President has also a Stain-problem. A credibility problem about US values. The whole world looks. The focus is yet on the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said: ""I take full responsibility", without telling what that means. I have no idea what "responsibility" means to him, have you?

The problem for Rumsfeld is that he scores very low on the credibility-index.

How come? Here some points:

1. Rumsfeld is know to be a tough guy. He is a master in word-games. Some people like that for being smart, others don't. Rumsfeld is one of the founders of "The project for a New American Century" (PNAC), promoting world hegemony for USA. The document: Rebuilding Americas Defenses of the NewAmericanCentury.org (september 2000) clearly gave a number of long-term goals. On page 14 of the page numbers (page 26 of the pdf) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you can find the real reason why the Iraq War started: (quote): "In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (end of quote)

This last sentence shows that for the newcons Saddam Hussein was not the real goal, but an alibi to have a "substantial overseas presence and a permanent role in a region of vital importance" of part of a worldwide supremacy of USA. So Richard Clarke was correct when he said that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was being planned by the Administration prior to September 11. You can read it for yourself: The Iraq blue-print.

When GW Bush came in power Rumsfeld was the guy to organize this PNAC long-term goal asap. The tragic events of 9/11 were an opportunity to call a "War on Terror" - al long term definition without a real enemy - and to go to Afghanistan and topple the Taliban. But remember Donald Rumsfeld urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq almost immediately after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and said also: "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are lots of good targets in Iraq." concerned about the business turnover of his PNAC related friends in the military industry.

2. The creation of "the immediate justification" to attack Iraq and get support for a International coalition.

Several "events" occurred like the fake Nigeria Yellow cake purchase by Saddam, but Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration (PNAC-ers Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Perle, Wurmser, ...) set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the 'official' case for invading Iraq.

Quote from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html:

In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called "Iraq Needs a Revolution" and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq. At AEI, Wurmser wrote Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, essentially a book-length version of "A Clean Break" that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith.

The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted.

Rumsfeld particularly enjoyed harassing the CIA staffer who briefed him every morning, using the type of data produced by the intelligence unit. "What I could do is say, 'Gee, what about this?'" Rumsfeld noted. "'Or what about that? Has somebody thought of this?'"

Last June, when Feith was questioned on the same topic at a briefing, he acknowledged that the secret unit in fact looked at the connection between Iraq and terrorism, saying, "You can't rely on deterrence to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism because [of] the possibility that those state sponsors might employ chemical weapons or biological weapons by means of a terrorist organization proxy.
(snip)
Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists.

"It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."

It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war. (end of quote)

In the Herald Tribune on the Feith-Wurmser cell: http://www.iht.com/articles/517591.html: (snip) In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists.

Some intelligence experts charge that the Feith unit had a secret agenda to justify a war with Iraq and was staffed with people who were handpicked by conservative Pentagon policy makers to arrive at preordained conclusions about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Feith defends his analysts. He said his group had not been set up as a rival to the CIA. "We were not bypassing, we were not being secretive, we were not cutting the intel community out of this," he said.

But the effort aroused suspicions at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Feith and his analysts were closely linked to Richard Perle, then chairman of a Pentagon advisory group and a leading neoconservative who had long advocated toppling Saddam and was a vocal critic of the CIA.
... Despite their access to the Pentagon leadership, Maloof and Wurmser faced resistance from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.
They were initially denied access, for example, to the most highly classified documents in the Pentagon computer system. So Maloof returned regularly to his old office in another branch of the Department of Defense, where he still could get the material.

The team's conclusions were alarming: Old barriers that divided the major Islamic terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, were coming down, and these groups were forging ties with one another and with secular Arab governments in an emerging terrorist war against the West.
...
By early 2002, the team had completed a 150-page briefing and slide presentation for Feith.
Soon after finishing the report, Wurmser moved to the State Department and then joined Cheney's staff.

(Now) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit - named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy - exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.
The CIA and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas.

(Then) Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq's terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Bush administration turned its focus to the peril posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, as the central rationale for war.

In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists. (end of quote).

Since Rumsfeld is inside the PNAC circle he knew all this. Of course.

continue ...

 

[pelastration]

continue ...

3. Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney stated Rumsfeld was "the best secretary of defence the U.S.has ever had" and that people should "get off his case." But is he the "best" ever?

Rumsfeld made a number of perceptional failures, such as his pre-war prediction of the coming short high-tech war with precision bombs, etc:

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm

Other newcons agreed:
• March 4, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

• March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

• March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

Today we know it took another direction.

Some ask:"Where is an exist plan? The answer is rather simple: The PNAC blue-print doesn't include an exit. Now Syria is the next door to open.

4. Was Rumsfeld informed about the problems in the Iraq prisons?

It is almost unbelievable that the Secretary of Defense wasn't aware of the last year reports from the International Red Cross and claims by Amnesty International. The International Red Cross and human-rights groups have repeatedly complained during the past year about the America military’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners, with little success. That the Army had been slow in transfering information because of built-in safeguards is a weak reasoning in view of the potential PR damage.

As the NewYorker writes: "The official chain of command flows from General Sanchez, in Iraq, to Abizaid, and on to Rumsfeld and President Bush. “You’ve got to match action, or nonaction, with interests,” the Pentagon official said. “What is the motive for not being forthcoming? They foresaw major diplomatic problems.”

Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib. “They always want to delay the release of bad news—in the hope that something good will break,” he said. The habit of procrastination in the face of bad news led to disconnects between Rumsfeld and the Army staff officers who were assigned to planning for troop requirements in Iraq.http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

It would be more logic that Rumsfeld was NOT interested in such information, exactly like he only read Major General Antoni M. Tagub's report the night before going to Congress. Another quote of the NewYorker: "The Pentagon’s impatience with military protocol extended to questions about the treatment of prisoners caught in the course of its military operations. Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America’s treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”. Rumsfeld decided not to apply the Geneva Convention to detainees at Guantanamo Bay or other al-Qaeda prisoners.

When Rumsfeld was able to say about the "enemy combatants" of Guantanamo :"I do not feel the slightest concern at their treatment. They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else," why would Rumsfeld feel concerned or interested about those in other similar secret prisons like in Diego Garcia, or in Abu Ghraib.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1762529.stm

For Rumsfeld "It's my way or no way."
"When you come to him, you don't bring bad news." and Officers are supposed to be "can do," not naysayers. "You never heard bad news from the chain of command," said the crusty father of the nuclear Navy, Adm. Hyman Rickover. The ornery Rickover always went looking for trouble himself. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934778

continue ...

 

[pelastration]

continue ...

5. The President had privately rebuked his Defense Secretary for not advising him of the extent of the problem. But is this correct? Or are semantics involved?

"The next day [January 14, 2004], Gen. John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. forces in the region, was on the phone to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. ‘General Abizaid informed the leadership within hours of the incident,' said a senior Pentagon official. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the military's spokesman in Iraq, also called the Pentagon, though with more alarming words. ‘He said, "We've got a really bad situation," recalled one official, who like others requested anonymity. ‘The evidence is damaging and horrific,' ‘We've got a really bad situation…'

"Abizaid talked daily with Rumsfeld about Iraq, and the prison investigation likely came up often, officials said. Top Pentagon leaders, such as Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as President Bush were kept aware of the situation, said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the CBS Early Show yesterday. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch

Check these words and sentences. They give the impression that Bush was not informed about the abuse ... but it's only about 'the handling', 'the photo's', 'the details', the way he was informed 'about the pictures'.

It's NOT about the abuse itself:

A. "President Bush on Wednesday chastised his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, for Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of a scandal over the American abuse ..."
B. "...the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse ..."
C. "In his interviews on Wednesday with Arab television networks, Mr. Bush said that he learned the graphic details of the abuse case only when they were broadcast ...
D. "The president was not satisfied or happy about the way he was informed about the pictures ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CABI.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Can you read somewhere that Bush was not informed about 'the Abuse'? No. He was informed.

6. Credibility and international support for Iraq:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops9may09,1,5346761.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The Bush administration's hopes for a major NATO military presence in Iraq this year appear doomed, interviews with allied defense officials and diplomats show.
The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.
...
International outrage over disclosure of mistreatment of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison have added to allied discomfort.

"The tide is still ebbing," said one European official, describing the regional enthusiasm for sending troops.
...
Even so, most NATO members take the view that "Afghanistan is where NATO's credibility is on the line," said a NATO official. "In Iraq, it's the U.S.' credibility that's on the line."

7. The Price of Arrogance http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882 give a good synthesis.

(quote)Since 9/11, a handful of officials at the top of the Defense Department and the vice president's office have commandeered American foreign and defense policy. In the name of fighting terror they have systematically weakened the traditional restraints that have made this country respected around the world. Alliances, international institutions, norms and ethical conventions have all been deemed expensive indulgences at a time of crisis.

Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained that the conventions did not apply to today's "set of facts." He and his top aides have tried persistently to keep prisoners out of the reach of either American courts or international law, presumably so that they can be handled without those pettifogging rules as barriers. Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were antiquated.

Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions did not "precisely apply" and were simply basic rules.

The conventions are not exactly optional. They are the law of the land, signed by the president and ratified by Congress. Rumsfeld's concern—that Al Qaeda members do not wear uniforms and are thus "unlawful combatants"—is understandable, but that is a determination that a military court would have to make. In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply arrest and detain people indefinitely on the say-so of the secretary of Defense.

The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait."

As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. (end of quote).

8. For now I come back to the essence: USA got involved in this war because it was planned by a very selective group of people behind and involved PNAC. There was a PNAC Iraq blue-print (see point 1 - read the pdf).

USA will pay the price of this newcon megalomania:
1. Lost of international prestige and trust
2. Lost of life of troops and many injured for life.
3. Taxes: http://costofwar.com : The War in Iraq Cost the United States ...

A first rebuilding of trust to the international community is to fire Rumsfeld. He is considered to be one of the PNAC architects of this "aggressive USA". He's a bad outside PR face for the USA.

 

[russ_watters]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

Sorry I didn't respond sooner...

Zero's comment was flawed on at least two levels: The straw-man is the implicit assumption that Bystander was saying torture is ok.

The second flaw is the one several people are operating on: there is a big problem here with the very definition and use of the word "torture," and I think that's what Bystander meant to imply.

Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain inflicted as a means of punishment. Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture. Note to avoid the application of the same straw-man again: This doesn't mean I'm saying its ok.

Quite frankly, altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest on a science BB, as science (as opposed to philosophy) is a field where words have very specific meanings.

 

[Adam]

Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture.

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ.

 

[hughes johnson]

...altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest...

russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

 

[kat]

hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~!

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Much ado about nothing. I'm surprised these sob's aren't summarily executed in the field.

 

[Njorl]

russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives.

Most conservatives are hateful in life, and they spend a great deal of money trying to muck things up for anyone who is thoughtful. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their money annoying anyone who has been "un-American". It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own hatefulness in the first place. They are the voluntarily embittered. What really pisses them off is when "multimillionaires" from the upper classes promote egalitarian views leaving their "brethren" to wallow in hatred. Look at the way they treat George Soros, James Hormel and Ted Kennedy.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ.

Be specific. Give me a specific example of torture and connect it to the definition with a specific argument. IE, 'here is a picture of a US soldier beating a prisoner. Beatings are torture because they are inflicting physical pain.'

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose.

I go back and forth on this one. I think it varies from one to the next. There are several people here who have Orwell's "doublethink." Its the ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believe both are true. Its human nature to want to believe certain things, but what separates some is when they manufacture or manipulate evidence in order to show it. Could that be done unconsciously? Maybe, but I don't think so. In fact, I have heard in here peple say that its ok to lie if necessary to get your point across. Sooner or later though, I think these guys do think about the fact that they always have to lie/manipulate information to make their argument and realize that means there is a flaw in their argument. After that, either the intellectual honesty takes over or the desire to have the world match their perception takes over.

hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~!

Yeah, that too, kat: if its not bad enough on its own, exaggerate it.

Question: which is THIS, hyperbole or straw-man? It is a photo gallery with a pic of a Iraqi prisoner in a leash mixed in with famous photos of things like the Holocaust, the Rodney King beating, and the charred bodies of murdered American civilians hanging from a bridge in Falluja. The implication being made is that there is something in common - even equal - about all these pictures. It sickens me that the media would play it that way. Maybe all they care is that shocking images sell newspapers, but what they are doing is generating and spreading anti-American propaganda.

 

[hughes johnson]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.

 

[hughes johnson]

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

True enough. A female friend of mine does this for a living; she says torture costs extra.

 

[russ_watters]

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives.

Who exactly was howling treason about what? I think I know the thread and person you are talking about (if that's all this is) - but take another look: he wasn't the first to use the word. Its a clever tactic, use a word that doesn't apply in order to get it into a conversation for others to use as ammo.

 

[Njorl]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.

I don't actually believe what I posted. It was more an exercise to point out that what you posted was silly. Most of my friends are successful liberals. Many of the "failures" I've known have been bitter racists that I would never classify as liberal in a million years. It isn't liberals who complain about blacks and women getting jobs through affirmative action, illegal immigants undercutting their salary and mysterious Jewish conspiracies stealing all the money. Well, maybe we complain about the illegal immigrants, but only because they're being exploited .

Njorl