Powell bitch slaps Bush

[Caminetto]

This guy is finding a pair.

Misguided

 

[Aisengard]

Unfortunately he didn't grow one when it counted. No forgiveness.

 

[palehorse]

one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

 

[Sqube]

"Too little, too late" does come to mind, unfortunately.

I'm glad that he's outraged now and what have you, but where was that outrage when he was in a position of influence? I think that's pretty much all I have to say about that... I'm scared of you P&N guys anyway.

/runs back to the safety of ATOT

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

So because they tend to behead prisoners, that makes it ok for us to violate geneva? 2 wrongs makes a right, right? I thought we were the good guys and being the good guys means you are better than your opponent. :roll:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum.

Powell is not only referring to Al-Qaeda but the fate of American prisoners in all future conflicts.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

That's utterly despicable. The Geneva Convention was signed and entreatied by the US because we hold ourselves to higher standards. Al-Qaida are composed of brainwashed muslims who live in a society that is very much stuck in a dark age. Civil liberties that we take for granted are punishable by public execution in places such as Iran and Afghanistan. Women have no rights whatsoever.

The moral standards of these societies are wrong. To make it so that we can stoop to those same depths of depravity would invalidate everything the US and our supposed freedoms and moral high ground has ever stood for. One hand attempts to usher in freedom and democracy while the other, behind our back, disregards the morales and freedoms that we supposedly fight so hard to protect.

 

[palehorse]

And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

hmm waterboard much . . .

 

[BrownTown]

As soon as someone mentions the geneva convention I pretty much tone them out. NOBODY follows the geneva convention, or the other "international law". Hell, I don't even think my dorm room last year was big enough to be a prisoner cell according to the geneva convention.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

You mislead a lot. You would fit in well in the WH.

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war?designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals?evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone?or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

 

[eilute]

I don't think Powell will have much influence. At this point, the only thing that will have influence is a Democratic majority in the house or senate. Although a multi-lateral bitch slap might help too.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

So because they tend to behead prisoners, that makes it ok for us to violate geneva? 2 wrongs makes a right, right? I thought we were the good guys and being the good guys means you are better than your opponent. :roll:

I would hate to think what would happen if more people with that opinion were in office.....there are NO rules to war!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

You mislead a lot. You would fit in well in the WH.

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war?designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals?evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone?or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

lolol....aanother voice of reason...rofl

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

lolol....aanother voice of reason...rofl

Why do you bother posting? You quote huge blocks of text and then add zero to the discussion. You are a troll, go away boy.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Todd33
You mislead a lot. You would fit in well in the WH.

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war?designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals?evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone?or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

there, i fixed the bolding for you. Like I said, certified interrogators have never been the problem. The only legislation that needs to be written is this: DONT EVER interrogate someone unless you are a certified interrogator; and, dont do or say anything to a prisoner/detainee, other than escort and feed them, if you are not a certified interrogator. period.

second, what is wrong with "fear" as an interrogation method? fear-up and fear-down are perfectly humane and legitimate methods of interrogation; as long as no weapons are used, no direct threats are made, and the EPW's/Detainees are never touched...?

 

[LegendKiller]

I have always immensely respected Powell. He is one of the few "doers" that kept trying to serve the country, only to be backstabbed and treated like utter trash the whole way, whether it was by administrations hoodwinking him while his hands were tied, or political appointees who undermined his authority when he was out of the country. People like Powell have no place in American politics because they are too good for them. They are treated like pariahs and feel out of place.

It's really a shame, the best people for the job can't fit within the structure that we have designed or at least allowed to live. That and his wife doesn't want him to get shot, she has some issues herself that prevents Powell from doing anything more.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

I guess it's not altogether surprising that a lone enlisted troop who thinks he knows more than a retired CJCS would adopt such an uncritical view of the interrogation procedures used since 9/11, but I feel compelled to point out that more than 100 detainees have died in US custody since 9/11, and DoD admits that more than 30 were actual or suspected homicides. Hell, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff (a two-star in their system) died from blunt force trauma to his chest during interrogation. Can you imagine our reaction if an enemy murdered Gen Jumper?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
This guy is finding a pair.

I wouldn't give him that much credit. At this point, it's far too little and far too late.

Powell is just one more sellout. If he really had any integrity, he's one of the few people who could have stopped the Iraq fiasco before it started. He's already admitted publically that he had doubts about the "intelligence" info he used for his dog and pony slide show at the U.N., and he knew Ronald Dumbsfeld's grand schems violated his own "Powell Doctrine" of going wiith overwhelming force because then Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki had advised the administration they would need 300,000 - 400,000 troops to do the job right. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

And you really think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident? That's not what subsequent reports have shown.

You can site military manuals all you want, but when the Bushwhackos are begging Congress for legislation that would retroactively legalize their previous practices of torture, "rendition" to secret prisons outside the U.S. and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of American citizens on American soil, and to authorize them to continue their crimes, it's more likely that the practices of torture prohibited in any manual are honored more in the breach than in practice. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

I guess it's not altogether surprising that a lone enlisted troop who thinks he knows more than a retired CJCS would adopt such an uncritical view of the interrogation procedures used since 9/11, but I feel compelled to point out that more than 100 detainees have died in US custody since 9/11, and DoD admits that more than 30 were actual or suspected homicides. Hell, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff (a two-star in their system) died from blunt force trauma to his chest during interrogation. Can you imagine our reaction if an enemy murdered Gen Jumper?

Powell's criticism was of Bush's intent to re-write our interpretation of the GC's, -not- of the interrogation techniques currently taught to our certified interrogators.

And no, I'm not here to defend the CIA. I have no clue what they use or are taught. I am only here to defend military interrogators who, I know for a fact, are never taught to use inhumane methods.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

And you really think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident? That's not what subsequent reports have shown.

You can site military manuals all you want, but when the Bushwhackos are begging Congress for legislation that would retroactively legalize their previous practices of torture, "rendition" to secret prisons outside the U.S. and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of American citizens on American soil, and to authorize them to continue their crimes, it's more likely that the practices of torture prohibited in any manual are honored more in the breach than in practice. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

for the record, there was not a single interrogator involved, accused, indicted, or charged in the crimes at Abu G.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

I guess it's not altogether surprising that a lone enlisted troop who thinks he knows more than a retired CJCS would adopt such an uncritical view of the interrogation procedures used since 9/11, but I feel compelled to point out that more than 100 detainees have died in US custody since 9/11, and DoD admits that more than 30 were actual or suspected homicides. Hell, the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff (a two-star in their system) died from blunt force trauma to his chest during interrogation. Can you imagine our reaction if an enemy murdered Gen Jumper?

Powell's criticism was of Bush's intent to re-write our interpretation of the GC's, -not- of the interrogation techniques currently taught to our certified interrogators.

And no, I'm not here to defend the CIA. I have no clue what they use or are taught. I am only here to defend military interrogators who, I know for a fact, are never taught to use inhumane methods.

So why bother posting since clearly what Powell objects to is ANY endorsement of methods that would violate the CURRENT version of Common Article III? It doesn't really matter if it's CIA or DOD. Gitmo is a DOD facility where much of the early interrogation was by CIA. Abu Ghraib was a DOD facility where much of the interrogation was by CIA. The black sites run by CIA often received prisoners directly from DOD. Now CIA is transferring those prisoners back to DOD at Gitmo.

In the eyes of enemies and allies alike . . . it's still actions of the US government.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

for the record, there was not a single interrogator involved, accused, indicted, or charged in the crimes at Abu G.

That observation falls into the category of True_ But_Irrelevant. The misdeeds at Abu Ghraib obviously got tremendous attention because they were photographed, and the photos released to the public, but they were clearly - at most - the tip of the iceberg when it comes to maltreatment of detainees.

I'll also submit that although you may well be right that "certified interrogators" (actually one of my closest friends is one, when she isn't serving as an AFOSI agent) are trained not to abuse prisoners, it's only relevant to the extent the administration only uses certified interrogators. Instead, they have widely used civilian agents and contractors to perform interrogation, perhaps partially to give them plausible deniability. The upshot is that many dozens of detainees have died under interrogation. This just does not put us in "good guy" territory IMO.

 

[ajf3]

Dunno... just watched the press conf on tv. All they want to do is clarify article 3's vague language. The supreme court asked them to since it had never been defined before. Seems reasonable...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

passaro CIA contract interrogator

No CIA officials testified that Passaro was authorized to hit or kick Abdul Wali, whom Passaro was interrogating about rocket attacks on a remote military outpost. The only concession the defense secured was from Passaro's boss, a career CIA employee, who acknowledged that agency policy permitted force if the agent's safety was at risk.

Defense lawyers failed to get before the jury the Bush administration's "torture memo." The Geneva Conventions forbid physical or mental coercion of detainees. The 2002 Justice Department memorandum redefined torture as being only actions that cause organ failure, impairment of a bodily function or death.

"Passaro wanted to peel that onion to show he was serving the masters and their dictates," Silliman said.