Rumsfeld signed papers allowing torture

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Afraid the article is in Spanish, but the Dutch article linking to it won't help you people much either

Janis Karpinski told the Spanish newspaper El País that Rumsfeld signed the papers giving permission to use 'harder' methods for questioning.

 

[sadguy]

story from yahoo / reuters

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Thanks, didn't have time to check a whole lot of sites, and didn't see it on BBC

 

[judasmachine]

He's a civilian now right? Sic em!

 

[compuwiz1]

Not a big supporter of Rummy, but do you guys seriously believe everything you read?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Not a big supporter of Rummy, but do you guys seriously believe everything you read?

I don't, but i don't refuse to believe everything I read either. This seems rather believable considering the sources involved.

 

[maluckey]

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ...

Oh no!! He (Rumsfeld) underlined standing them up! He also insinuated that they shouldn't have Barkaloungers!! How cruel!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

trying to wiggle yourself out of this are you

read this for starters
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

then go through all this
http://www.answers.com/torture&r=67

Now, is there an argument of what the definition of torture is? or do you still change definitions to suit your own wishes

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

The most damning aspect is clearly not the specific methods listed in the article . . . it's this tidbit

Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."

Let me guess, a prisoner wouldn't be registered b/c they were going . . . home?:roll:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

trying to wiggle yourself out of this are you

read this for starters
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

then go through all this
http://www.answers.com/torture&r=67

Now, is there an argument of what the definition of torture is? or do you still change definitions to suit your own wishes

No wiggle needed (I feel)

From first link:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This exceeds the Geneva convention (which everyone attempts to use)
And it is very idealistic declaration - it is a shame that probably most countries do not follow it. And reading all of the articles, I will agree that the most every countries within the news theses days do not follow every article. Some is because it may be against their political or cultural grain.

Based on the second link; torture is subjective; which I attemtped to imply in my examples.

Even if the perps in gitmo were put into a 5 star hotel; they could claim torture becuase of mental pain. So, it becomes at what level does one wish to draw the line.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Not a big supporter of Rummy, but do you guys seriously believe everything you read?

I don't, but i don't refuse to believe everything I read either. This seems rather believable considering the sources involved.

Really? Because of the sources involved or because it backs up your hatred towards Rummy?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

trying to wiggle yourself out of this are you

read this for starters
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

then go through all this
http://www.answers.com/torture&r=67

Now, is there an argument of what the definition of torture is? or do you still change definitions to suit your own wishes

No wiggle needed (I feel)

From first link:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This exceeds the Geneva convention (which everyone attempts to use)
And it is very idealistic declaration - it is a shame that probably most countries do not follow it. And reading all of the articles, I will agree that the most every countries within the news theses days do not follow every article. Some is because it may be against their political or cultural grain.

Based on the second link; torture is subjective; which I attemtped to imply in my examples.

Even if the perps in gitmo were put into a 5 star hotel; they could claim torture becuase of mental pain. So, it becomes at what level does one wish to draw the line.

if your local police would use those methoods against local suspects, would you call that torture or just harsh interrigation?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Not a big supporter of Rummy, but do you guys seriously believe everything you read?

No, but I totally believe this about pretty much everyone in Bush's administration. I've said from day one that they were all equivalent to the anti-christ, and I stick by it. the only thing that surprises me is when they do something intelligent or decent.

 

[Lemon law]

Its my understanding that Janet karpinski clains to have seen a paper with rummy signature on it that authorized civilian contractors to violate the geneva convention.

Until that actual document with attached rummy signature can be produced---its mere he said she said.

But I am quite prepared to believe Janet Karpinski---her story fits the facts---and I certainly hope such documents surface---and rummy gets to tell it to the judge at the Hague or elsewhere---and is punished to the full extent of the law.

But so rumor has---rummy has spent many months shredding papers----but I hope some of the good german types under him have saved some copies---because if rummy is willing to make a scapegoat out of General Karpinski---he would be willing to make a scapegoat out of anyone under him.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

trying to wiggle yourself out of this are you

read this for starters
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

then go through all this
http://www.answers.com/torture&r=67

Now, is there an argument of what the definition of torture is? or do you still change definitions to suit your own wishes

No wiggle needed (I feel)

From first link:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This exceeds the Geneva convention (which everyone attempts to use)
And it is very idealistic declaration - it is a shame that probably most countries do not follow it. And reading all of the articles, I will agree that the most every countries within the news theses days do not follow every article. Some is because it may be against their political or cultural grain.

Based on the second link; torture is subjective; which I attemtped to imply in my examples.

Even if the perps in gitmo were put into a 5 star hotel; they could claim torture becuase of mental pain. So, it becomes at what level does one wish to draw the line.

if your local police would use those methoods against local suspects, would you call that torture or just harsh interrigation?

What is descriped in the article, I would consider to be harsh interrigation.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its my understanding that Janet karpinski clains to have seen a paper with rummy signature on it that authorized civilian contractors to violate the geneva convention.

Until that actual document with attached rummy signature can be produced---its mere he said she said.

But I am quite prepared to believe Janet Karpinski---her story fits the facts---and I certainly hope such documents surface---and rummy gets to tell it to the judge at the Hague or elsewhere---and is punished to the full extent of the law.

But so rumor has---rummy has spent many months shredding papers----but I hope some of the good german types under him have saved some copies---because if rummy is willing to make a scapegoat out of General Karpinski---he would be willing to make a scapegoat out of anyone under him.

The most damning documents were in the hands of the guy actually in charge of interogations. He is Col Thomas M. Pappas and he gave up his documents in exchange for immunity. The government was eventually forced to give him a slap on the wrist.

 

[Specop 007]

Maybe we should just cut their heads off, the world doesnt seem to view that as torture.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Oh no!! He (Rumsfeld) underlined standing them up! He also insinuated that they shouldn't have Barkaloungers!! How cruel!!

So, you don't believe Rumsfeld knew anything about any torture committed by troops under his command.
[/quote]Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."[/quote]
Isn't it sweet to have the luxury oif engaging in a little selective reading and mind blanking when the possiblity arises that the truth conflicts with the pablum your criminally malevolent leaders have been spoon feeding you? :roll:

If you haven't seen enough evidence of malfeasance and incompetence by this entire adminstration, either you haven't been awake for the last six years, or your view of the world is centered between your gluteal cheeks.

 

[imported_Aelius]

"A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an ?act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.? A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim?s death. "

Source for the above.

 

[maluckey]

So where's the proof? Where is the accusation that Rummy advocated more than is listed in the above article, which isn't torture at all. I've been through worse at the DMV!!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So where's the proof? Where is the accusation that Rummy advocated more than is listed in the above article, which isn't torture at all. I've been through worse at the DMV!!

That's what investigations are for, and that's what's coming, hopefully both in Congress and in international tribunals.

General Karpinski's testimony isn't the only source of charges that Rumsfeld and others in the administration were aware of and/or authorized torture. In case you've forgotten, it took our own Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, to reject the administration's position that they could ignore little niceties like the Geneva Conventions.

We won't know the truth unless and until it is made public, but considering what's already known, only some weird Bushwhacko sycophant, or someone who has remained willfully ignorant of reality, could be so cavalier as to assume that those who had attempted to justify their use of torture would not have already done so before attempting to cover their asses and protect themselves from prosecution. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[sdy284]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Maybe we should just cut their heads off, the world doesnt seem to view that as torture.

exactly!

I'm sorry, but if torturing a few people means that the rest of the country is safer as a result of the information provided by those being tortured...then its fine by me