home

Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:06:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spoke at a graduation ceremony in Texas yesterday. He didn't address torture or the treatment of prisoners in his speech. But, afterwards, in an interview at the office of the U.S. Attorney, he said the U.S. has not engaged in torture of prisoners.

Gonzales... said many of the widely publicized incidents of abuse by the military and civilian contractors cannot be prosecuted as torture. "Torture, as a matter of prosecution, is defined by Congress as the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain or suffering."

"Congress intended a very high bar here in order to be prosecuted for engaging in torture," he said. "There may be conduct that you may find offensive that falls far short of torture."

So, according to Gonzales, these photos do not depict severe physical and mental pain and suffering:

Gonzales continued:

"We live in a new world now, post 9/11, where in order to successfully deal with the war on terror we have to win the war of information and get as much information as we can and do it in a way that is consistent with our values and consistent with our obligations under the law," Gonzales said.

Maybe Gonzales needs to look at the photos again. Here are two more:

[hat tip to Jaye Sutter Ramsey at Winding Road and BlondeSense who has some angry thoughts on both Gonzales' speech and comments.]

< Radical Right Has Takeover Plans | Journalists: Public Enemy Number 1 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture | 77 comments (77 topical)
    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    well, one guy was dead, so he was beyond torture. we never see the punch thrown, but that guy is in jail anyway. the others look mighty uncomfortable and probably humiliated, but they don't have stakes up their nails, hooks under their skin, digits cut off, electrodes hooked to their balls...etc. so, no, it does not look like torture to me. ever wonder why we leave folks that we capture in places like Pakistan and Egypt? it's because they actually can get info from people. they don't put killers in hotel gitmo and give them prayer rugs. ask COL West. for firing off his sidearm in an interrogation room, he lost his job. might have saved some of his men with the info he got, but that doesn't count. ask the marines who have been hauled home because they did their job and (OMG) killed someone. if you want to see torture, i know of a good web site. you can watch the Berg kid get his head sawed off with a dull knife. first he screams, then he gurgles, then his mouth just opens and closes while the air and blood bubble out of his neck. that fits my definition of torture. you can watch various other thing.....the shooting of the only survivor of the helicopter crash after he's told to walk away. other beheadings. saddam tapes of beatings, people thrown off roofs, tongs cut out.......

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Then rider, why did you say in the comments to our post about Gen. Karpinski's demotion that her head should have rolled sooner? Surely not just because as a woman and former member of the military, you believe women should not be in combat or positions of field command? I think you know this is torture as well as anyone.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    i do think it was abuse, and stupid. abuse and torture are not the same thing. karpinski failed to lead her troops. she failed to set standards and make sure that those standards were met. she failed to supervise her troops and to check the prison and see what was going on. cruising by once a month or so does not cut it. if i wanted to know what my guys were doing, i'd pop in in the middle of the night, or at unexpected intervals. i'd hang out for a few days, eat with them, talk to them. karpinski didn't have a clue. that's why her head should have rolled.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    People,people, as far as the boys in the white house go, torture, rape and prison murder is normal, and it can always be covered up, with the good old propaganda line of "we will "investigate" it, and we all know what our non government is saying? the fact is the stage is set and you are next on the list. Its not about what you think it is.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    When good men do the deeds of the devil in service of "some greater good" today, they don't wake up as better men tomorrow. Torture destroys the soul of the torturer far before it ruins the body of its victim. The number of unintended victims of this policy is legion and infamous, noted here at Talk Left and one is noted here as well. Descending to hell to defend heaven puts fire to the angels' wings. We will all fall to hell if we allow this outrage to continue.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    28 people were killed in detention but there was no torture. This was clearly torture no matter how much the apologist yell and scream to the contrary. Yet the admin is in possession of many more photos that they refuse to release but those that have seen them, people from congress, have assured us that we have not seen the worse that exists. There is no doubt in my mind that if our troops were treated the same way these same people would suddenly see this as torture and further reason to kill the ragheads as our troops like to refer to them.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Let's fly the 534 Congressman down to Gitmo and house them for a couple of years in less than desirable living conditions. Let them find out for themselves if they think it is torture or not. I'll leave The Honorable Ron Paul out of the pack of wolves that are there now. Take Mr. Bush and Mr. Gonzales along, too. Pile them up like dogs, strap wires to them, force them into mock sexual positions and the like and ask them if it's ok. A little taste of that kind of medicine would do them some good. Marines screaming obscenities at them would bring them to their Sensenbrenners. Find out how tough they really are. They would change their tune in a New York minute. On second thought, let them stay where they are. Their seats are getting hotter by the second. They've made their bed, they can squirm in it. enough

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Sadly, it is only AFTER people like Gonzales actually feel the physical pain of abuse, assault, whatever, that their concrete hearts begin to soften. It is an utter lack of imagination that allows a person to think torture and abuse are the best ways America has to seek truth and spread justice. And it is the utter cowardice of the company man, the lackey, the yes man, that allows him to never search his soul for anything but the next step up the career ladder.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    just as a small point before i go. the military was investigating this before it even hit the press. they'd been at it for quite a while before 60 min even did their "expose ". having been on both ends and in the middle of military investigations, i can tell you, it's not a nice place to be. worse than the old irs. this is a year old, and people are going to jail. people screwed up. they are being prosecuted. would the military have liked to keep it from being splashed all over arab news as it was? sure. between the press, congress, and the military, this thing has been investigated and pounded into the dirt. what do you guys want? btw....having marines scream at you is not fatal. it's not even damaging to your little psyche. it does make you sit up and take notice, and you do try very hard not to repeat the mistake that cause them to scream at you in the first place.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    If that is the case, then George Bush should have never made the mistake of invading Iraq in the first place. enough

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#11)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    between the press, congress, and the military, this thing has been investigated and pounded into the dirt. Actually what has been pounded into the dirt is dignity for everyone involved. Dirt has been pounded into the fabric of our civil society by our pretender defenders. The good name of our land of the free has been sullied by some who pretend to be representing the home of the brave. what do you guys want? Simple justice, not revenge. Justice.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#12)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    There should be one standard for this Rider327: Do you want US soldiers treated this way? I certainly don't and if you don't then you should call it for what it was: torture. You (and Gonzales) should also acquaint yourselves with the Convention Against Torture and and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or as I prefer to call it, the law.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#13)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Calling it abuse, by the way, is merely defining deviancy down.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    The Iraqi with his knee bludgeoned and laying there naked looks like he is ready to go on a picnic. A picnic with roses, cake and happy, liberated Iraqis with coalition soldiers serving them. Such a happy place Iraq has become. We should all be so lucky.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    what do you guys want? Somebody in authority to be held accountable. For this administration to stop mistreating and torturing detainees. And to reestablish this country as a defender of human rights.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    -There should be one standard for this Rider327: Do you want US soldiers treated this way? I certainly don't and if you don't then you should call it for what it was: torture. You (and Gonzales) should also acquaint yourselves with the Convention Against Torture and and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or as I prefer to call it, the law.- i am acquainted with it, and with the ucmj, and with the geneva conventions. unfortunately, very few countries actually follow them. to my knowledge, GB and the US are the only countries that have prosecuted their own for abuse, or war crimes. so, as much as i would like to think that we could love others into treating our soldiers well if captured, i know we can not. you need only look at what has been done to our own in previous wars, and in this one. did i ever defend what was done? i think not. i simply draw a distinction between abuse and torture. the possible murder of detainees is being handled separately. military members convicted, could get the death penalty. would that make you feel better? justice done. -The Iraqi with his knee bludgeoned and laying there naked looks like he is ready to go on a picnic. A picnic with roses, cake and happy, liberated Iraqis with coalition soldiers serving them.- how do you know he wasn't in a car wreck? i have a friend who's knees look like that right now after hitting the dash. my oldest left today for his 3rd deployment. he's happy to go back. he has made friends. he thinks the iraqis are great people and they are very proud to be building a new country. are there problems? yes. it's a dangerous place. he says the rewards and the progress are worth it. i must take his word. he knows better than any of us. now i must go. not only am i one of those bad x military types, now i am a dumb farmer and must feed my stock. enjoy :-)

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#17)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    ever wonder why we leave folks that we capture in places like Pakistan and Egypt? it's because they actually can get info from people. they don't put killers in hotel gitmo and give them prayer rugs. If you read anything that professional interrogators, they will tell you that you're full of it:
    BRANCACCIO: Daniel Coleman is troubled, too. Up until his retirement last year, he was the FBI's foremost expert on Al Qaeda. Coleman spoke frequently with FBI agents assigned to Guantanamo. He says they often complained about how interrogations were being conducted. COLEMAN: It's illegal. It's immoral. It's unethical. And it doesn't work. BRANCACCIO: Coleman and his colleagues had developed a methodical approach to interrogation based on years of experience. COLEMAN: You have to develop a rapport with them. BRANCACCIO: Even if it's from the so-called high value senior Al Qaeda guys? COLEMAN: Them even more. BRANCACCIO: That approach helped solve the East Africa embassy bombings, resulting in the convictions of four Al Qaeda operatives. And, Coleman says, some of his sources in that case are still talking to this day, providing potentially life saving information. COLEMAN: Some of the witnesses that we gathered, you know, several years ago, are still able to come up with information, because we've developed them into, they're almost like repositories. BRANCACCIO: But you develop these resources, as you call them. COLEMAN: Yes. BRANCACCIO: … in part by not beating them. COLEMAN: No. They wouldn't still be with us and still talking to us if we'd done that. BRANCACCIO: Coleman believes abusive treatment poses another problem: it can produce unreliable information which can end up in the hands of policy makers. Consider this: former Secretary of State Colin Powell's UN speech from February 2003. In it, he spoke of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda — information credited to an interrogation of an Al Qaeda operative named Al Libi.
    now i am a dumb farmer and must feed my stock. I certainly don't believe farmers are dumb. My father-in-law is one. The difference is, he knows where to spread manure, you obviously don't.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    What information could anyone get out of raping men, women, and children in custody? What is amazing about this is how people who are pro Bush can justify this behavior. Torture is wrong no matter who is doing it. We shouldn't do it because it doesn't get information and more importantly, it means we are as scummy as those who do it. If Clinton had ordered torture, would Republicans support it? If other nations don't follow the law that is no excuse for us not to follow the law. Didn't your mother ever ask you that if your best friend shot smack therefore you think you are justified in shooting smack? Why are people so afraid to say that Gonzalez is wrong? It takes a big nation to admit it made a mistake and a really small one to keep making it until people believe it is the right thing to do.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Rider, wasn't it Col. David Hackworth who brought the photos to 60 Minutes II after receiving them from a family member of a soldier? What military investigation of Abu Ghraib are you referring to?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#20)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Drronchee, didn't you hear, that the congressman, said that this kind of abuse is ok because it "happens in our college", oh yes, its also done in our nice prisons, oh my gos what next some congress-person doing it at home. but randy paul good point, but how long before its use here? and has it stopped any terror attacks, here?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#21)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    David Hackworth, RIP Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 – Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    No, it can't be torture, because torture is what bad countries do. So a prisoner dies while being hung from the wrists. Big deal. It's just an interrogation technique.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    I also know a national guardsman that was in Iraq. He came back with these words: "They've got it better than we do." I would like to know why the US government, i.e. suckered taxpayers footing the bill, takes on the job 'liberating' a people, but incarcerates its own with a world's largest prison population at 2.1 million behind bars? Seems as though we should be taking care of our own instead of incarcerating even more. A stupid farmer? My uncle farmed for 50 years and made millions. He had one helluva head on his shoulders. He was hardly stupid. He gave so others could prosper. I wish the US government would do the same.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Thanks, Heretik. I wrote a detailed post on Col. Hackworth's passing here.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Boy, this guy is soulless. And folks who defend and excuse the abuse/torture? Just turn it around. Do you want your brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers treated this way?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Randy Paul - Coleman may know a lot, and he likes to talk about what they did before he retired. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. I mean, who are these people he is still getting information from? And how long did it take to get this unspecified information? And, if and when he got it, how much value did it have? Based on what happened on 9/11, I would say very little. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I wonder if the retirement was actually a retirement. CA writes - "Do you want your brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers treated this way?" Actually CA, what we would want if they were captured by the terrorists means absolutely nothing to the terrorists. So why do you think of this as a "bargaining chip?"

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    please define torture. is it col west firing a round into the floor to intimidate a prisoner, is it sleep deprivation, is it pulling someone's intestines out and laying them on their chest as they slowly die? it seems some think all these are equal. west got intel that probably saved the lives of some of his men. if the prisoner had not talked, should he have sat down and tried to "establish a rapport" with him while wests men died, or should he have put the next round into the prisoners foot? for what he did, he was "encouraged" to retire. wonder what he'd do next time. bet he'd do the same. if you had a prisoner, say one of the 9/11 highjackers you caught on 9/10 , would you put on tea and invite him home to meet mom, or would you do whatever you had to do to stop the attack? say you had intel on a bio attack in a city, your city, and you caught a member of a cell....what would you be willing to do to stop the attack? it's nice to sit here and say we don't condone torture, but when it's your life, or the life of your family, what would you not do? the experience of most government interrogators is from the rather civil interrogations of the cold war. a cuppa and mom might have worked there..along with some money and a new life to "flip". rather doubt it would work here. clarifications: i said "dumb farmer". i was called that by a nice, open minded, left leaning person, because they were sure you had to be a dumb redneck to be conservative. the investigation into Abu Ghraib : [lengthy text deleted, this space is reserved for comments] the story broke on 60 min 2 in late april or early may 2004. may i recommend a book. it is not written by a conservative, so you don't have to risk being warped by the right. it is by Yoseph Bodanski "the secret history of the iraq war". very detailed and lots of references. don't try to read it in bed, but well worth the effort.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#28)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Coleman may know a lot, and he likes to talk about what they did before he retired. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me. I mean, who are these people he is still getting information from? And how long did it take to get this unspecified information? And, if and when he got it, how much value did it have? Based on what happened on 9/11, I would say very little. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I wonder if the retirement was actually a retirement. [my emphasis] Coming from someone who doesn't even use his full name, your comments would be risible, if it wasn't for that baseless and groundless smear. As for this comment, "Based on what happened on 9/11, I would say very little," allow me to quote the president to you: "We have to be right 100% of the time, they only need to be right once." Perhaps Coleman had a hand in writing the Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike in the U.S.," the one the president received August 6, 2001 when he was on his month long vacation. I guess clearing brush in Crawford was more important than addressing the issues in the briefing. As I said before, PPJ, with you it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I should start doing this blindfolded. At least then it would be challenging.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    rider...what the hell you complaining about the other guys for when you are so busy justifying their methods?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#30)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    if you had a prisoner, say one of the 9/11 highjackers you caught on 9/10 , would you put on tea and invite him home to meet mom, or would you do whatever you had to do to stop the attack? say you had intel on a bio attack in a city, your city, and you caught a member of a cell....what would you be willing to do to stop the attack? I'll defer to the experts, specifically Mr. Coleman who I cited above. As for this silly ticking bomb scenario, one of the best comments on it was found here.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    bush cutting brush.....not the first prez to be warned. seems one that had 8 years and many shots at ubl might bear some blame? what do you do with a warning like that? round up every arab in the country and "establish rapport" with them? RP: "silly ticking time bomb" was that not what the highjackers were? granted they had a very long fuse. some were here for years. even so, when we got our hands on one, we were not allowed to extract info from him, or from his computer. opportunity missed. any planned attack is by definition a ticking time bomb. with luck, you catch them before the bomb goes off.....what then?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#32)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Coleman, by the way, was the agent whose interrogation of Mohammed Sadeeq Odeh linked Al Qaeda to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998:
    In a criminal complaint an FBI agent, Daniel Coleman, said Mr Odeh told FBI agents the bombings were carried out by al-Qaeda, an international terrorist group headed by Mr Bin Laden. According to the FBI, Mr Odeh said all the bomb plotters except one left Kenya the day before the attack, shaving their beards so they would not raise suspicions. He said he was told that members of Mr Bin Laden's terrorist group in Afghanistan were moving to avoid US retaliation.
    His interrogations also led to the knowledge that Osama bin Laden had ordered his followers to unite with Shiite opponents against the US:
    An earlier affidavit by FBI Agent Daniel Coleman, based on information provided by former members of al Qaeda, reported that bin Laden personally exhorted his followers to “put aside [their] differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezbollah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies.”
    This too me about a minute to find on Google. I guess it's just easier for some to smear.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#33)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Rider, Clinton did not receive a briefing saying "Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US." Bush did. The buck never stops anywhere and doesn't even slow down to catch its breath with Bush and his defenders.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#34)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    So torture is okay when the stakes are high and it really matters? Who decides what really matters and what doesn't? Reductio ad absurdum: at what point do you not torture people you control?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Gonzales says that torture is the "intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain or suffering." What part of his criteria did the abuse at Abu Ghraib not meet?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    And yet the U.S. howled for blood in the Persian Gulf war when pilots appeared on Iraqi tv with puffy faces... "They've been tortured!" America shrieked. "Blood!!!" Words fail Blaghdaddy...and Blaghdaddy will repeat what he's already said- "When the next Al Jazeera blockbuster starring a headless American hits the airwaves, remember who America's really fighting. Torturing and abusing naked Iraqis who haven't yet been found guilty of one f#*king crime is justified in the eyes of some Americans. So is blowing up the World Trade Center to some terrorists. Who's right? You're all wrong and you're all going to hell...and you'll have lots of company...

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#37)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Great interview on NPR Fresh Air with Erik Saar, military linguist stationed at Guantanamo. According to Saar, not only were these extreme techniques morally repugnant but also ineffective and even counter productive. Other interesting facts I picked up on: the military reduced the official number of suicides at Guantanamo by classifying these attempts not as suicides but as "self injurious manipulative behavior". There was a significant number of detainees who the military knew were going to be released but were kept there because they didn't want to politically embarass the Bush administration by releasing a large number of detainees prior to the election.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    RP: thanks, you kind of made part of my point for me. i don't want to get into a clinton/bush argument, but i'd like to point out that the warning that "al qaeda wanted to attack the us" CAME from the clinton admin. in addition, the '93 wtc bombing and the embassy bombings were known to be al qaeda, and the uss cole was a pretty sure bet. clinton attacked a ubl training camp in '98. you might also find this interesting. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html now....the guy with 8 years and multiple attacks....or the guy with 8 months.....kind of a no brainer. bet you would have been having a fit if bush had gone into afghanistan the day he was elected. war mongering cowboy! JH: you are missing my point. perhaps i was not clear. let me try once more. as a matter of principal, i do not condone torture any more than i would condone killing. as a matter of reality, i can see where i would engage in both. without a tick of conscience, i would do anything to a prisoner to save my men, or my family, or even NY city. without hesitation, i would shoot an intruder in my house. my point is this: it is nice for us to sit here an say "torture is wrong". we will probably never face a situation where we would have to put that belief aside. i am willing, however, to consider the situation where others might not have the same luxury. and...in my heart of hearts, i would hope that my son, when he gets to wherever he's going, would end up under a west and not a legalistic coward. so then, i think i can not make it any more clear. we deal from our armchairs, in theory. others must face the harsh reality of it, and make the hard decisions. for the moment, i will not second guess them. it is enough for me that those who have been proven to have done wrong are being punished, and the rest of it will work out with time. BD: refresh my memory. were any iraqis punished for what was done to our POW's? seems we are putting folks in jail, and a couple face the death penalty. small difference in how things were handled? you all act like nothing is being done. perhaps i missed something?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    sorry, forgot to add this. you can get the 9/11 report at your library, or you can buy it. i'd also recommend that you read the full Duelfer and Kay reports. they are on the cia web site. the press neglected to give us the full story. anyway, here's what i forgot to add. this was not given to the bush admin. also not reported on by the press. -Among the report's other new disclosures: Bill Clinton also got a strong warning that bin Laden wanted to hijack planes. On Dec. 4, 1998, Clinton was presented with a President's Daily Brief (PDB) with the eye-catching title "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and other attacks," Newsweek has learned. The PDB, which has just been declassified, was prompted by a British intelligence report that the son of the Egyptian "blind sheik" Omar Abdel- Rahman -- who had been convicted of a plot to blow up New York City landmarks -- proposed to hijack airplanes and ransom the passengers in exchange for his father's release- from the 9/11 report.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#40)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    as a matter of principal, i do not condone torture any more than i would condone killing. as a matter of reality, i can see where i would engage in both. John Locke, meet Thomas Hobbs. No one denies that these are tough times. Principles and our rights rarely need be invoked in easy times. I will not speak to the logic of the highlighted statement above except to say that what people find disturbing in such statements is the evasion of responsibilty for the acts committed. If you kill someone in your home, you go to court, defend yourself, and maybe you will leave court found not guilty by the doctrine of justifiable homicide. Whether you call the subject here torture or not, to me a good deal of fuel is added to the outrage when the actors claim their acts are beyond judicial review.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    without a tick of conscience, i would do anything to a prisoner to save my men, or my family, or even NY city. The problem arises when it turns out that the prisoner, now bleeding, broken, and/or dead turns out not to have had any knowledge and perhaps no fault in the matter in which they have now been tortured. This possibility has caused civilized nations to create pacts like the convention against torture. Our nation signed it once upon a time. But now this country is run by people like Rider and Alberto who think that times have changed. These people are known as war criminals.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    CA good point as we know many of the people imprisoned in Iraq were picked up in sweeps and were guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet they were tortured. This admin only cares about power intimidation and force. Any act carried out by the US must, by definition, be good becasue they tell us that we are good. And the sheep eat up this circular argument.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#43)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Rider, I didn't make your point for you. The document titled "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack in the US" was a Presidential Daily Briefing dated August 6, 2001 when George W. Bush was president, not Bill Clinton. Mere contradiction doesn't make an argument. Facts do.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#44)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Also unsourced comments don't rise to the level of fact, either.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#45)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Randy paul do you know who was in power in 1991? bush one who was best friends whith the saudi government? and why he was really expels? bin laden was removed from the kingdom? or was he?. bin laden buys a comfortable brick house in suddan on the blue nile and in 1992 who was in the area at the time? and what was going on with al qaeda in yemen do you know that bush one was told what old bin was up to, and what bush one said? check out who was who in 1988 and in 89 and who ordered the U.S. Army to do what!...who made bin laden what happened to the 43 million in cash just before 9/11, and how did the funding happen for the world islamic front in 1997, and who backed the system of terror in the mideast and who had billion in BCCI.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Torturing and abusing naked Iraqis who haven't yet been found guilty of one f#*king crime is justified in the eyes of some Americans. So is blowing up the World Trade Center to some terrorists. Who's right? You're all wrong and you're all going to hell...and you'll have lots of company
    That, my friends, says it all. Well done blagh.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    RP not sure what you thought was unsourced. you are welcome to google away and prove me wrong. i don't mind apologizing and correcting the record if i make a mistake. here is 9/11 report (pdf) chapter 4. the entire thing is just to long to download. as i said, it's at the library. and yes, the report takes issue with things done in the bush admin as well. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911Report_Ch4.pdf take note of page 21. now do a little research of your own. it's pretty easy.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#48)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    re:"without a tick of conscience, i would do anything to a prisoner to save my men, or my family, or even NY city." One problem with torture, as critics have pointed out ever since the Inquisition, is that the information that is often obtained is often unreliable. The information that would be obtained from torture is more likely to endanger lives than save lives. Torture and degrading treatment is, in fact, counterproductive. One reason that interrogation experts at the FBI did not believe in torture was that they wanted to be able to continue using the detainees for information after they had been released. In order to do that you had to obtain their cooperation. The degrading treatment shown the detainees effectively closed the door to future cooperation from the detainees (and also from the clan, family or village that the detainee came from). Again this increases the danger that our servicemen in Iraq must operate in. Perhaps the most damning thing I can think of is that noone has produced any evidence (and you would think Charles Graner would have done this at his trial) that any of the information obtained from these detainees under these extreme techniques has saved even a single life.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#49)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Randy Paul - And we know your name is Randy Paul? Based on what proof? And no I do not use my name, I use a moniker. There are far too many nut cases in the world. As for Coleman, I only make a comment based on the fact that he has retired, yet wants to continue in the battle. His methods may have worked at the time he was using them, but they weren't effective enough to know any information about 9/11. So really, what good were they? No, I think Coleman is someone who doesn't like Bush, is most likely anti-war and wants to snipe. That is fine with me, but I don't find his experise, expert. fred - You make some interesting observations. I'd love to read more. Can you provide us a link? Heretik - Good men fight and die so that you can lecture on principles and ethics. Enjoy the war bed, hot food, cold beverages and the comfort brought by family and friends. But understand someone else is paying for them. Randy Paul - By now we all know that Bush was told that al-Qaida was trying to attack the US. Since Bush had directed in February 01 that we should solve the problem, and since in July 01 he had his NSA advisor tell the FAA, FBI, CIA, etc., to be on the highest alert, I kind of think he knew about it long before August. He just didn't have any details. I kinda wonder were Coleman was. You also need to consider that nothing has changed. al-Qaida still wants to attack us. Since Bush also knows that, what evil thing do you think that protends?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#50)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Randy Paul - And we know your name is Randy Paul? Based on what proof? And no I do not use my name, I use a moniker. There are far too many nut cases in the world. As for Coleman, I only make a comment based on the fact that he has retired, yet wants to continue in the battle. His methods may have worked at the time he was using them, but they weren't effective enough to know any information about 9/11. So really, what good were they? No, I think Coleman is someone who doesn't like Bush, is most likely anti-war and wants to snipe. That is fine with me, but I don't find his experise, expert. fred - You make some interesting observations. I'd love to read more. Can you provide us a link? Heretik - Good men fight and die so that you can lecture on principles and ethics. Enjoy the war bed, hot food, cold beverages and the comfort brought by family and friends. But understand someone else is paying for them. Randy Paul - By now we all know that Bush was told that al-Qaida was trying to attack the US. Since Bush had directed in February 01 that we should solve the problem, and since in July 01 he had his NSA advisor tell the FAA, FBI, CIA, etc., to be on the highest alert, I kind of think he knew about it long before August. He just didn't have any details. I kinda wonder were Coleman was. You also need to consider that nothing has changed. al-Qaida still wants to attack us. Since Bush also knows that, what evil thing do you think that protends?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    they have arrested al-zarqowis # 2 man. put on the tea kettle.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    -One problem with torture, as critics have pointed out ever since the Inquisition, is that the information that is often obtained is often unreliable. The information that would be obtained from torture is more likely to endanger lives than save lives. Torture and degrading treatment is, in fact, counterproductive. One reason that interrogation experts at the FBI did not believe in torture was that they wanted to be able to continue using the detainees for information after they had been released. In order to do that you had to obtain their cooperation. The degrading treatment shown the detainees effectively closed the door to future cooperation from the detainees (and also from the clan, family or village that the detainee came from). Again this increases the danger that our servicemen in Iraq must operate in. Perhaps the most damning thing I can think of is that noone has produced any evidence (and you would think Charles Graner would have done this at his trial) that any of the information obtained from these detainees under these extreme techniques has saved even a single life.- again, define torture. if you define it down to where you can not use intimidation, sleep deprivation, drugs, humiliation, isolation....if you put all these things in the same category as beatings, chopping off fingers, electrocution, etc. what have you left investigators to work with? it is true that interrogations of any kind, do not always produce accurate info. it is the job of the intel community to gather all info and try to weed the fiction out. first, you must get the info.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#53)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    rider, Torture according to Gonzalez is "the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain or suffering." Regarding the effectiveness of torture in "getting the info" listen to that link I provided above to the NPR interview with Saar. There is some question about whether these extreme techniques are effective. Even if they were effective I would be opposed to them for some of the reasons I stated above. Let me provide another perspective on torture. Pete Peterson was the first ambassador to the unified Vietnam. He was also a resident of the infamous Hanoi Hilton. His op/ed in response to Abu Ghraib is one of the best I've ever read. Here is some of what he had to say (sorry no links). "As a former POW in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival. While the Vietnamese rarely abided by the rules, the international pressure on them to do so forced them to walk a line that ensured they did not perpetrate the sort of shocking abuses at Abu Ghraib." (emphasis mine) "Life in a Vietnamese prison was hell, but I was never subjected to such degrading sexual humiliation. The human body can withstand enormous physical pain and recover. But the human mind is different: One seldom fully recovers from ruthless psychological or sexual torture. I am certain my treatment would have been worse had the Geneva Conventions not been in place and had the world not insisted that Vietnam abide by them." (emphasis mine). "I am disgusted, angry, outraged and at the same time grossly embarrassed by what my government has sought to justify in the name of freedom! This is not the principle of freedom that I nearly gave my life to defend. Americans not only subjected prisoners to pain, suffering, isolation, hunger and degenerate sexual humiliation; some were apparently theatrically killed." I share Peterson's disgust, anger and embarassment.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    again, show me where i defended what was done in Abu Ghraib. it appears it is being taken care of. the failure of leadership has been addressed. my point is and has always been this: blanket rules and blanket statements are for people in comfy armchairs at home. as far as i can see, what went on in Abu Ghraib was not interrogation. it was sadistic behavior by unsupervised, undisciplined, and apparently mentally inferior people. i will not pre-judge those who are actually interrogating prisoners. they literally have our lives in their hands if they fail to get info. the geneva convention is pretty vague on specifics of treatment, and give latitude on treatment of non POW's. read it. in my opinion, the press and many (especially on the left) consider any interrogation techniques to be torture. still, even though i have asked here and elsewhere, no one can/will give me even their personal definition of torture. if you can not define it from your safe and all knowing vantage point, what do you expect of our interrogators and they face, and learn about, a new enemy? question...how would you handle this #2 guy they just reported capturing? he may have intel that requires immediate action. he is reported to be the mastermind of the iraq car bombings and ied attacks among other things. it seems it would be imperative to get info from him on imminent attacks.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    btw JH..i found Pete Peterson on the kerry/edwards page. perhaps a less partisan reference could be found? does explain what said........

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    There's something very "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" about this distinction between torture and abuse. rider doesn't think fear is psychologically damaging. he's as ignorant as a child on that one. and in that case to such a degree to me it's not even an argument. of course fear can be psychologically injurious. what the f do you think emotional and psychological abuse are about. they're about power and control and breaking the mind and will of the other person. ack, it's just too depressing. someone pass me a gin fizzy.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    and i should add, i MUST add, that "what the meaning of 'is' is" came about from an inquiry into a possible blowjob, which is something far inferior in importance and effect to the discussion of torture and abuse. but somehow the right is getting a pretty big pass for the glaring logical inconsistency and gaping moral chasm.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    west made his prisoner believe that he would be killed if he did not talk. he put fear into the man. he got actionable intel that saved lives. it would seem to me that people would need to believe that they have something to lose, or something to gain, by talking. how would you have handled things? now you have defined torture all the way down to making people fearful. we are back to tea and mom. and "he" is a "she"

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    how would you handle this #2 guy they just reported capturing? he may have intel that requires immediate action. he is reported to be the mastermind of the iraq car bombings and ied attacks among other things. it seems it would be imperative to get info from him on imminent attacks. Let's torture the hell out of him. Once we know everything he knows, let's torture him some more. Let's hang him by his wrists and pound him. Let's just beat him to death. We don't need any proof that he's Zarqawi's #2 or that he has done anything wrong. We don't need to follow any due process. We don't need to include the Red Cross. Let's just beat him to death. He MAY have knowledge that could save lives. When we are done with him, I suggest we move on to Rider, Jim, Dr. Ace. I know they know something that could save lives and I bet we can get it out of them if we beat them to death slowly. Good God, Rider, do you see any problem with your approach? Do you have any knowledge about the law or due process or any appreciation of why the law and due process are important?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    heart of darkness

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    A little review of the Geneva Conventions for the benefit of those who think those were business parties: Art 3 That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. Art 5 "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." Art 13 "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Art 17 No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. I know it's inconvenient that we helped develop these rules and signed them very solemnly, but we did so for very important reasons which are easily forgotten in the heat of passion and fear by those whose hearts and minds are not strong enough to hold fast to these important principals.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Shame on anyone who makes excuses for these travesties. Have you no shame, madam?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#63)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    CA - You leave out, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." After`it has been determined that they are not prisoners of war, they no longer enjoy the protections. What they are are illegal combatants. Go back and read Article 4. No uniforms, no identifable superior officers, no open carrying of weapons, etc and etc. Repeat after me, CA. They are not POW's. Their status has been determined as illegal combatants. They are guerrillas. Now, the historical fate of guerrillas and spies has been death. These folks have it good. (This time remember where you read it.) dadler - I assume you aren capable of understanding that the Genevea Convention does not apply here.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    ah PPJ you beat me to it. general provisions, 3rd convention, article 4 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#65)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Jim, Think about what you post. When you quoted the Geneva Convention that "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal", did you realize that you undermined you own arguement? Simple question. Has a "competent tribunal" been held to determine the status of the detainees? If not, then don't these detainees "enjoy the protection of the present Convention"?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Jim, I hope you know when you full of sh*t. If I have to hear that tired, immoral, illogical, counterproductive, destructive, dunderheaded, hardly-the-product-of-a-self-critical-free-mind argument again, I'm going to lose my lunch. And there it went. Mmm, corn. My Texas ruse, we have more than a slight disagreement on the meaning of the Geneva Convention. I would say it's on the order of the world being flat versus round. We tend to interpret words, events, actions differently, especially in such documents, which goes to the Scalia discussion about his dead and lifeless constitution. You live in an odd world of black and white, where I see many shades of grey. And that is that.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    rider, perhaps it's because i myself lived a significant portion of my life in constant fear, and my brain was fried because of it, and i started suffereing from the kind of ulcers kids who live in war zones do. and maybe i know adults who've suffered similar fates. you simply seem ignorant. and you have no idea that any intelligence has been actionable or saved lives. the military has absolutely NO HISTORY of being truthful with citizens or its soldiers. now, what would i have done? i never would've gotten us into this mess of asinine violence and chaos into the first place. i would've taken the greatest gifts america has to the furthest reaches of the globe, i would've started a rational discussion about religion, i would've stated clearly and concisely that we will not go headlong into pointless butchery for the sake of revenge. and if you think we can't win a "war" with principles only, then i guess the cold war never existed. blue jeans and rock and roll did more to end soviet tyranny than any threat or warhead or tool of war.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#68)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    John H - You fail to recognize the total statement, which is: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Now, you were saying? dadler - Like it or not, certain things in life or black and white. And no amount of argument about shades of gray will change that. The terrorists want to kill us.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    dadler the old love them into loving us approach. or compromise to avoid war at any cost? something similar to the chamberlain, or carter approaches. sometimes life just sucks and so do the choices you have to make. following your line of thinking, we'd be drinking tea with our biscuits. the only question? would the tea be black or green?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#70)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    PPJ, There is considerable doubt about the status of illegal combatants. You probably don't realize that you differ from the Bush administration on one key point. You think that the treatment of these detainees is allowable under the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration knows better. They argue that the Geneva Convention is not applicable. When the Bush administration uses the term "illegal combatant" that status is derived from Presidential orders, not from the Geneva Convention. According to the 4th Geneva Convention, a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful combatant according to the laws of war must be must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". (see wikipedia definition here)

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Don't bother, john horse... Some people don't get the concept of how it's inherently illegal (not to mention stupid to try to defend the U.S. on this). EVEN if unlawful combatants didn't warrant humane treatment, how do you find someone to be an unlawful combatant? Don't you have to try them of the crime and have them convicted first? Imagine if the U.S. simply fried people suspected of capitol murder...isn't this the same thing? You can't torture suspects because they're exactly that- suspects...they haven't been found guilty of anything yet, so torturing any suspect in custody is illegal and immoral. Naturally, others will quibble and try to change the subject, but there it is...how do you call someone something and act as if it's been proven? You can't....

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Rider, what competent tribunal determined the status of the detainees? Barring a determination by a competent tribunal, these detainees are entitled to the protection of the Conventions. Jim, look at those pictures and tell me again that you believe these people have it good. Have you no shame, no common decency?

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#73)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    John H - No, you misunderstand. My position is that the Convention does not apply, based on the convention itself. The writers of the convention wrote based on a premise that you wouldhave wars between nation states, or civil wars. They had no idea that the next big problem would be terrorists from many different countries operating in a very loose organization. That's why I have commented several times that the GC needs to be revised. Until then, these terrorists get what we want to give. I would hope the changes would provide justice. Blaghdaddy - You sure are strong on telling other people what do and think. Perfect personality for a Leftie. Your points are so scattered it is hard to follow, which is your typical shot gun approach. But, I will joyfully try. "Don't you have to try them of the crime and have them convicted first?" As a matter of fact, NO. Read article 3 of the GC. It begins: "Should any doubt arise.." If there is no doubt, a tribunal is not called for. "Imagine if the U.S. simply fried people suspected of capitol murder...isn't this the same thing?" No. This isn't about capitol murder. Why do you ask such a left field question? (Make that right field. Wouldn't want to be biased.) BTW - Asking a stupid question doesn't make the subject stupid. That old ploy won't fly. Suspects? They aren't suspects. That's your problem. You think you're watching Court TV. This is not a criminal justice issue, but a war. These people have been caught in battle, or doing some other act that we think they shouldn't do. Now. Are there some mistakes? Yes. And we're trying to fix those. Is that good enough, or do you want them released because we didn't follow "due process." CA - Read article 3. And yes, as compared to having their necks stretched, they are being treated extremely well. CA, as rider wrote, the world isn't fair, and we have some bad people in it. I have admitted time and again that we went too far in some cases. But agressive questioning by insulting their beloved cultural sexual hang ups re women, isn't one of'em. Maybe we could make up for our actions by letting them do a honor killing or two. You know. Punish some 16 year old for being raped.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    rider237... Welcome... good posts Just an FYI.... You'll find that trying to convince many people on here some simple 'facts' about the Geneva Convention and how it should or should not be applied, that most of the terrorists attacks on this country took place under Clinton's watch, that most of the world (and congress including John Kerry) agreed Saddam had WMD's, that (as much as they'd like to blame him for everything) GW isn't responsible for what every single soldier does in the field, that torture is a relative thing (as far as I'm concerned, listening to rap music is a form of torture) and last but not least, that this country isn't the center of all evil in the world..... Is a monumental task... but welcome aboard & good luck.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Since the war is now a PROVEN conspiracy, and since a platoon of Gitmo soldiers have broken ranks to tell the world that 99% of the people being held there did nothing to nobody, then your racism and chest-thumping support of 'America' (with all the inconvenient laws and rights stripped off) is nothing but an MRI showing that poor Terri Shiavo had more braincells functioning than you. And that's not much. Lying the country into a war for airbases, and another war for oil pipelines, is treason. No amount of torturing innocent people is going to cover those crimes.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Lunacy, Jim, to suggest that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to people detained/captured in an occupied territory during hostilities that our president calls the war on terrorism.

    Re: Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    "Detained" is the key word, drronchee... How do you torture a suspect who hasn't been proven guilty of anything? What if he's innocent? "Oops, so sorry," doesn't cut it, hasn't since the fall of the British Empire. Anyone who advocates torture needs to go fight for the other side...maybe then we'll get our hands on them and give them a little of their own medicine. The Geneva Convention bans ALL torture, and America's "unlawful combatant" is an American invention and exists nowhere in Geneva...which makes it irrelevant and illegal. Who wants to quibble with those assertions? Real arguments please, Blaghdaddy's "Chatterer" tolerance is pretty low this morning...

    Gonzales: Prisoner Abuse Was Not Torture | 77 comments (77 topical)