Switch Sides?
- Thread starter Lurker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2004 elections
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
Changing horses 'mid-stream'
For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-Shakespeare, "Macbeth" A3Sce4
For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er
-Shakespeare, "Macbeth" A3Sce4
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,516
Should be even easier than that.rikzilla said:
How much will it take?rikzilla said:
"The video begins with three soldiers huddled around a naked detainee, his thin frame backed against a wall. With a snap of his wrist, one of the soldiers slaps the man across his left cheek so hard that the prisoner's knees buckle. Another detainee, handcuffed and on his back, is dragged across the prison floor. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43785-2004May20.html
"Iraqis Provide New Details of Abuse
Statements Describe Sexual Humiliation And Savage Beatings
By Scott Higham and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 21, 2004; Page A01
Previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq describe in raw detail abuse that goes well beyond what has been made public, adding allegations of prisoners being ridden like animals, sexually fondled by female soldiers and forced to retrieve their food from toilets. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html
Sworn statement from prisoner: witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures. 'The kid was hurting very bad,' he said...
http://drudgereport.com/
How much?
"Unimpeachable proof" is just a way of saying, "I won't believe it ever."
Your offer to vote for Kerry, and work to defeat Bush, appears to be illusory consideration.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
Re: Changing horses 'mid-stream'
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt"
bignickel said:
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt"
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
subgenius said:
Not really SG....I'm a skeptic, yet I'm also a supporter of the WOT which places me in Bush's camp because we all know that Kerry will likely seek a way out of the WOT. At the very least, all I expect out of Kerry is a half-hearted, lukewarm approach to anti-terrorism...an approach I'm familiar with after 8 years of Clinton. It didn't work then,...it won't work in the future.
That said I still am fairly well furious with the DOD and by extension the Bush admin for creating conditions in which such an attrocity as Abu Ghraib could exist. Yet, there is still no proof that is goes any higher than a localizeed command chain failure. Occam whispers in my ear.... Is it really more likely SG, that Bush, Cheney, Rummy or any other left-hated "Chickenhawk" has authored a policy to perform such abuses?
No,..it's not likely is it? That's why I require evidence...not ambiguous links to Drudge. The Post article hints of higher up malfeasence...yet again offers no proof.
I am in earnest here SG....if Nixonesque proof of high level direction of abuse comes out you may count on me....and many, many like me to vote GWB out on his ear. But you'll need alot more than what's been proven so far. Occam tells me this is a localized command chain failure....all things being equal SG, it's the simplest explaination...much simpler than a high level conspiracy to torture.
-z
If WOT means war on terror, you can't seriously think Kerry, or any president would abandon it and allow our country to be attacked. Why in heck would anyone do that?
That's simply wild speculation contrary to all common sense, although you have some very strict requirement of proof of other issues. Seems inconsistent.
On the torture issue: can you see that the refusal to apply the Geneva Convention could lead to confusion, at the very least, on the line as to what the rules are?
And do you see any responsibility for the apparent lack of supervision, and the failure to supervise the supervisors, etc? No one was reporting to anyone as to how things were going?
I'm not going to go all around the forum collecting all the links again, but its overwhelmingly clear that there was a change in policy with respect to how prisoners were going to be handled, based on the fact that the WOT was a whole new ballgame. Starting with the lack of application of the Geneva Convention.
There's no sense in us going around in circles. I'm going to, as you, continue to watch the evidence come in. We're on the same page on that. I don't know anything to an absolute certainty. Its a matter of what standard of proof you or I require to reach a conclusion here. Your "unimpeachable" "Nixonesque" level, in part, is mandated by consequences you have imposed on yourself in the event you arrive at the conclusion, and that's quite understandable. (Like we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt when prison or death is the consequence, but only a preponderence when its just money.)
I have said before there will be no memo found saying "Torture those guys." That kind of thing is never put in writing.
We probably have a different view of the degree of responsibility those up the chain bear for a failure to know, as opposed to affirmative acts.
That's simply wild speculation contrary to all common sense, although you have some very strict requirement of proof of other issues. Seems inconsistent.
On the torture issue: can you see that the refusal to apply the Geneva Convention could lead to confusion, at the very least, on the line as to what the rules are?
And do you see any responsibility for the apparent lack of supervision, and the failure to supervise the supervisors, etc? No one was reporting to anyone as to how things were going?
I'm not going to go all around the forum collecting all the links again, but its overwhelmingly clear that there was a change in policy with respect to how prisoners were going to be handled, based on the fact that the WOT was a whole new ballgame. Starting with the lack of application of the Geneva Convention.
There's no sense in us going around in circles. I'm going to, as you, continue to watch the evidence come in. We're on the same page on that. I don't know anything to an absolute certainty. Its a matter of what standard of proof you or I require to reach a conclusion here. Your "unimpeachable" "Nixonesque" level, in part, is mandated by consequences you have imposed on yourself in the event you arrive at the conclusion, and that's quite understandable. (Like we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt when prison or death is the consequence, but only a preponderence when its just money.)
I have said before there will be no memo found saying "Torture those guys." That kind of thing is never put in writing.
We probably have a different view of the degree of responsibility those up the chain bear for a failure to know, as opposed to affirmative acts.
The interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison was run by a military intelligence unit that had served in Afghanistan and that had taken to Iraq the aggressive rules and procedures it had developed for the Afghan conflict, according to documents and testimony.
Some members of the unit, part of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C., have already been quietly punished in connection with the abuse of an Iraqi woman at the prison, according to documents recently released by the Army.
In August 2003, the officer in charge of the unit, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, an experienced Army interrogator, posted her own list of "interrogation rules of engagement," which were inconsistent with those later issued for Iraq by the top American commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, according to Congressional officials.
....
Some of the accused have said they were told or encouraged to harshly treat prisoners by military intelligence officers, as part of a broader effort to soften the detainees up for interrogation.
"Only one with Pollyannaish myopia could conclude that the M.I. community is not deeply involved in the abuse," said Gary Myers, a lawyer whose client, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, is facing a court-martial in the case.
....
General Sanchez issued no rules to govern procedures for interrogations until after a visit last fall by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller. The rules he later issue emerged in stages, and some were contradictory. In a closed briefing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, a senior Army lawyer acknowledged that the process might have left unclear to some officers the degree to which harsh measures, including sensory and sleep deprivation, were permissible.
...
On Sept. 14, General Sanchez approved the first formal policy for Iraq that allowed the use of "sleep management" techniques, like limiting prisoners to four hours' rest each 24 hours, and stress positions, including standing or crouching for up to an hour at a time, Senate aides said.
That policy was sent to the Central Command and to other military, legal and intelligence experts for review. On Oct. 12, in response to objections from military lawyers, General Sanchez issued a second, much narrower policy that Colonel Warren said Wednesday complied with the Geneva Conventions.
Most of the harsher methods that had been automatically authorized in the Sept. 14 directive, like long-term isolation of a prisoner, were dropped in the October version, except in cases in which General Sanchez sanctioned them.
The Oct. 12 directive also ordered that interrogators take control of the "lighting, heating, and configuration of the interrogation room, as well as food, clothing and shelter" given to those questioned at Abu Ghraib, a Senate aide said. The memo directed interrogators to work closely with military police guarding the prisoners to "manipulate internees' emotions and weaknesses" to gain their cooperation.
As the officer in charge of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib, Captain Wood reported to Colonel Jordan, an Army reservist who arrived at the prison in September to take charge of the unit, which was established Sept. 20, according to a chronology provided by Senate officials.
....
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/p...l=1&adxnnlx=1085151520-X24aZ/KQ1EKZyNMbAd4zzQ
Part of the problem was the transference of techniques and policies that had been used in Afghanistan, where it perhaps made sense, to Iraq, which was more a traditional battlefield.
Some members of the unit, part of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C., have already been quietly punished in connection with the abuse of an Iraqi woman at the prison, according to documents recently released by the Army.
In August 2003, the officer in charge of the unit, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, an experienced Army interrogator, posted her own list of "interrogation rules of engagement," which were inconsistent with those later issued for Iraq by the top American commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, according to Congressional officials.
....
Some of the accused have said they were told or encouraged to harshly treat prisoners by military intelligence officers, as part of a broader effort to soften the detainees up for interrogation.
"Only one with Pollyannaish myopia could conclude that the M.I. community is not deeply involved in the abuse," said Gary Myers, a lawyer whose client, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, is facing a court-martial in the case.
....
General Sanchez issued no rules to govern procedures for interrogations until after a visit last fall by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller. The rules he later issue emerged in stages, and some were contradictory. In a closed briefing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, a senior Army lawyer acknowledged that the process might have left unclear to some officers the degree to which harsh measures, including sensory and sleep deprivation, were permissible.
...
On Sept. 14, General Sanchez approved the first formal policy for Iraq that allowed the use of "sleep management" techniques, like limiting prisoners to four hours' rest each 24 hours, and stress positions, including standing or crouching for up to an hour at a time, Senate aides said.
That policy was sent to the Central Command and to other military, legal and intelligence experts for review. On Oct. 12, in response to objections from military lawyers, General Sanchez issued a second, much narrower policy that Colonel Warren said Wednesday complied with the Geneva Conventions.
Most of the harsher methods that had been automatically authorized in the Sept. 14 directive, like long-term isolation of a prisoner, were dropped in the October version, except in cases in which General Sanchez sanctioned them.
The Oct. 12 directive also ordered that interrogators take control of the "lighting, heating, and configuration of the interrogation room, as well as food, clothing and shelter" given to those questioned at Abu Ghraib, a Senate aide said. The memo directed interrogators to work closely with military police guarding the prisoners to "manipulate internees' emotions and weaknesses" to gain their cooperation.
As the officer in charge of the interrogation center at Abu Ghraib, Captain Wood reported to Colonel Jordan, an Army reservist who arrived at the prison in September to take charge of the unit, which was established Sept. 20, according to a chronology provided by Senate officials.
....
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/p...l=1&adxnnlx=1085151520-X24aZ/KQ1EKZyNMbAd4zzQ
Part of the problem was the transference of techniques and policies that had been used in Afghanistan, where it perhaps made sense, to Iraq, which was more a traditional battlefield.
Back to the actual topic, as a human being -- and what he wants to accomplish -- Bush 10, Kerry 0 in my book. As an Administration, Bush has jumped the shark in my book.
My vote will be going to the candidate opposed by the party I deem most likely to be in power in the Senate.
My vote will be going to the candidate opposed by the party I deem most likely to be in power in the Senate.
With regard to what the "actual topic" is I think that rik has put his cards on the table, and taken the discussion out of just hypothetical blabbering. He has pledged to "switch sides" under specific conditions, so in addition to any other discussion this may be a good place to see if it ever occurs. If he (I won't presume to) wants to make it (his pledge to switch) a seperate thread that may be a good idea.
But in the mean time: what are the odds that if there is more than one detention center with similar abuses, that they are all just low level isolated incidents?
______________________
New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal?
NBC News exclusive: Delta Force subject of investigation; Pentagon official denies abuse
By Campbell Brown
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET May 20, 2004BAGHDAD - With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.
The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad’s airport. The battlefield interrogation facility known as the “BIF” is pictured in satellite photos.
According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.
These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.
....
So, does Rumfeld know about the BIF and what goes on there?
Several top U.S. military and intelligence sources say yes, and that he, through other top Pentagon officials, directed the U.S. head of intelligence in Iraq, Gen. Barbara Fast, and others to bring some of the methods used at the BIF to prisons like Abu Ghraib, in hopes of getting better intelligence from Iraqi detainees.
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/
But in the mean time: what are the odds that if there is more than one detention center with similar abuses, that they are all just low level isolated incidents?
______________________
New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal?
NBC News exclusive: Delta Force subject of investigation; Pentagon official denies abuse
By Campbell Brown
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET May 20, 2004BAGHDAD - With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.
The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad’s airport. The battlefield interrogation facility known as the “BIF” is pictured in satellite photos.
According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.
These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.
....
So, does Rumfeld know about the BIF and what goes on there?
Several top U.S. military and intelligence sources say yes, and that he, through other top Pentagon officials, directed the U.S. head of intelligence in Iraq, Gen. Barbara Fast, and others to bring some of the methods used at the BIF to prisons like Abu Ghraib, in hopes of getting better intelligence from Iraqi detainees.
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/
Brutal interrogation techniques by U.S. military personnel are being investigated in connection with the deaths of at least five Iraqi prisoners in war-zone detention camps, Pentagon documents obtained by The Denver Post show.
The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.
Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.
Details of the death investigations, involving at least four different detention facilities including the Abu Ghraib prison, provide the clearest view yet into war-zone interrogation rooms, where intelligence soldiers and other personnel have sometimes used lethal tactics to try to coax secrets from prisoners, including choking off detainees' airways.
Other abusive strategies involve sitting on prisoners or bending them into uncomfortable positions, records show.
"Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law."
Internal records obtained by The Post point to wider problems beyond the Abu Ghraib prison and demonstrate that some coercive tactics used at Abu Ghraib have shown up in interrogations elsewhere in the war effort. The documents also show more than twice as many allegations of detainee abuse - 75 - are being investigated by the military than previously known. Twenty-seven of the abuse cases involve deaths; at least eight are believed to be homicides.
.....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2157003,00.html
Several different locations.
Anything that occurred after the November homicide is done with the consent of the highest officials.
The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.
Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.
Details of the death investigations, involving at least four different detention facilities including the Abu Ghraib prison, provide the clearest view yet into war-zone interrogation rooms, where intelligence soldiers and other personnel have sometimes used lethal tactics to try to coax secrets from prisoners, including choking off detainees' airways.
Other abusive strategies involve sitting on prisoners or bending them into uncomfortable positions, records show.
"Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law."
Internal records obtained by The Post point to wider problems beyond the Abu Ghraib prison and demonstrate that some coercive tactics used at Abu Ghraib have shown up in interrogations elsewhere in the war effort. The documents also show more than twice as many allegations of detainee abuse - 75 - are being investigated by the military than previously known. Twenty-seven of the abuse cases involve deaths; at least eight are believed to be homicides.
.....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2157003,00.html
Several different locations.
Anything that occurred after the November homicide is done with the consent of the highest officials.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
rikzilla said:
I agree with everything except with what action to take if proof is forthcoming.
Instead of voting against Bush, I would not vote at all or vote for the libertarian candidate if there is one, and call for Bush's immediate impeachment, removal, and prosecution.
Skipped autopsies in Iraq revealed
By Miles Moffeit
Denver Post Staff Writer
Autopsies were not performed on at least five Iraqi prisoners who died of mysterious causes at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention camps, according to Pentagon records.
And the lack of forensic investigations may conflict with international standards, including the Geneva Conventions, for the handling of war-detainee deaths.
Among the cases is a prisoner who died, the records show, after "gasping for air." Another detainee who had "prior head injuries" fell out of a hospital bed and struck his head on the floor. One prisoner began having "chest pains and collapsed."
Synopses of the death investigations, which do not disclose whether the prisoners were interrogated, are enclosed in documents obtained by The Denver Post from a high-level Pentagon source this week.
....
And Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he will be demanding answers from the Pentagon: "I want to get to the bottom of this issue or the top of it. If autopsies were waived or not considered, it raises further questions about how high this goes."
....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~6439~2162097,00.html
Hmmm, other detention facilities.
Hmmm, the man had prior head injuries and fell out of bed and struck his head. That's one unlucky dude. What a flippin coincidence.
Hmmmm, a Republican asking questions.
This all must be a political witch hunt.
By Miles Moffeit
Denver Post Staff Writer
Autopsies were not performed on at least five Iraqi prisoners who died of mysterious causes at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention camps, according to Pentagon records.
And the lack of forensic investigations may conflict with international standards, including the Geneva Conventions, for the handling of war-detainee deaths.
Among the cases is a prisoner who died, the records show, after "gasping for air." Another detainee who had "prior head injuries" fell out of a hospital bed and struck his head on the floor. One prisoner began having "chest pains and collapsed."
Synopses of the death investigations, which do not disclose whether the prisoners were interrogated, are enclosed in documents obtained by The Denver Post from a high-level Pentagon source this week.
....
And Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he will be demanding answers from the Pentagon: "I want to get to the bottom of this issue or the top of it. If autopsies were waived or not considered, it raises further questions about how high this goes."
....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~6439~2162097,00.html
Hmmm, other detention facilities.
Hmmm, the man had prior head injuries and fell out of bed and struck his head. That's one unlucky dude. What a flippin coincidence.
Hmmmm, a Republican asking questions.
This all must be a political witch hunt.