War Crimes - this is why the ACLU is good for America

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was wondering if punching someone counts as torture

American Liberator punching prisoner

Do you approve of forced homosexual activity?

American soldiers enjoy gay sex

Get a good look at those pics, RIP?

RIP has again attempted to switch the subject from the U.S. torture of Iraqis, approved by the Bush administration, to the torture of Iraqis approved by Saddam.

What's the difference, RIP?

The difference is this. The Bush administration is torturing Iraqis while telling the world they are "liberating" them, as the world sees pictures of Americans torturing Iraqis in the same prison where Saddam tortured Iraqis. Do you have any idea what damage that does to American credibility? Do you have any idea what a powerful recruitment tool that is for terrorist organizations?

Bush used WMD as his excuse to invade Iraq unprovoked, switched his reason to regime change, switched it again to "liberation", then approved the torture of Iraqis just as Saddam did. When are these facts going to sink in, RIP? How can you defend Bush and castigate Saddam when they both used torture?

Like I said before, you're just angry because the ACLU busted your "Christian" leader using the same tactics Saddam used. So you desperately change the subject to Saddam. But you have one problem. As far as torture goes, by all the evidence, Bush and Saddam are one and the same.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was wondering if punching someone counts as torture

American Liberator punching prisoner

Do you approve of forced homosexual activity?

American soldiers enjoy gay sex


I just WISH that anyone who shows approval for this type of behavior will allow it to be done to themselves by Iraqis to prove their point ;)



Can we conclude that Riprorin approves homosexual activity??

I thought those Bible thumpers were anti-gay. Here they are with a born again "Christian" approving homosexual activity. Maybe that's the real problem, they're all sexually repressed closet queens. ;)



 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???





 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was wondering if punching someone counts as torture

American Liberator punching prisoner

Do you approve of forced homosexual activity?

American soldiers enjoy gay sex

Get a good look at those pics, RIP?

RIP has again attempted to switch the subject from the U.S. torture of Iraqis, approved by the Bush administration, to the torture of Iraqis approved by Saddam.

Um, I'm afraid that you brought it up.

U.S. occupiers used the same tactics Saddam used in the very same prison. - BBOND

Do you still stand by this statement?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???


:laugh:
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???

Yeah, we all know that Saddam never killed or tortured anyone. :disgust:
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???

Yeah, we all know that Saddam never killed or tortured anyone. :disgust:

And now we all know Bush DID! ;)

 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???

Yeah, we all know that Saddam never killed or tortured anyone. :disgust:

I can only conclude that George Bush and yourself approve of forcing men in homosexual positions and activity and taking pictures of it as souvenirs. Obviously you find nothing wrong with it and you keep dodging the question so I can only conclude that you approve of it.


 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???

Yeah, we all know that Saddam never killed or tortured anyone. :disgust:

I can only conclude that George Bush and yourself approve of forcing men in homosexual positions and activity and taking pictures of it as souvenirs. Obviously you find nothing wrong with it and you keep dodging the question so I can only conclude that you approve of it.

Here's what the EO allegedly authorized:

the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs.

I believe that you conclude falsely.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
How do you know what Saddam authorized? And I can also conclude that what the EO authorized was window dressing. Obviously from the multiple pictures and many high level military figures approved of it or didn't care. Aren't you worried that our military is filled with sinful homosexuals?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: BBond
Heh. I just noticed something about RIP's BBC link:

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq.

And the date: Monday, 2 December, 2002, 09:38 GMT

RIP used a link to the information Blair used in his "dodgy dossier". :roll:

While the link PROVING Bush's complicity in the Iraq torture scandal is from FBI documents.

I wonder which is the more reliable source???

Yeah, we all know that Saddam never killed or tortured anyone. :disgust:

I can only conclude that George Bush and yourself approve of forcing men in homosexual positions and activity and taking pictures of it as souvenirs. Obviously you find nothing wrong with it and you keep dodging the question so I can only conclude that you approve of it.

Here's what the EO allegedly authorized:

the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs.

I believe that you conclude falsely.


Um.. ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS ;)

look at the pictures RIP.. that is all the evidence you need.
 

NarcoticHobo

Senior member
Nov 18, 2004
442
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The specific methods mentioned in the email as having been approved by the unnamed Executive Order and witnessed by FBI agents include sleep deprivation, placing hoods over prisoners? heads, the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs. One of the more horrifying tools of intimidation, Army canines were used at the prison to terrorize inmates, as depicted in photos taken inside Abu Ghraib.

Link

And you compare this to Saddam?

Are you serious????

Let's examine some of Saddams favored methods of torture:

They included eye-gouging, piercing of hands with an electric drill, suspension from a ceiling, electric shock, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, beating of the soles of feet, mock executions, extinguishing cigarettes on the body and acid baths.

Link

U.S. occupiers used the same tactics Saddam used in the very same prison. - BBOND

Uh, huh.


From the reports I've heard and seen this "suspension from a ceiling", this "electric shock", this "other forms of sexual abuse", this "beating of the soles of feet", this "mock executions", and this "extinguishing cigarettes on the body" have all been done by US troops.
 
Jan 6, 2005
57
0
0
Quite frankly, I don't give a rats' ass what happens to these terrorists. For all you liberals out there, listen up. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE LIKE LIBERALS. THEY WILL NOT ASK YOU ARE YOU A LIBERAL? DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL ASK DO YOU AGREE WITH US? NO! They won't, they'll just rip, no SAW, your head off. THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN! When they look at you, they only see WESTERNER (don't know who is in this forum though). They would gladly torture you instead of doing all this goody goody BS that the ACLU makes us go through.
By the way, I am serious when I say that liberals discriminate. Look at Affirmative Action, they have destroyed what should be a meritocracy. Now if you're a minority or a female, you have a better chance of getting into a school because you're not a white male, even if they are better than you in certain fields. All this in order for the evil whit male to repay for slavery, and other discriminations against women and other minorities (I know women aren't a minority), that we never were alive to committ back in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
By the way, if the ACLU is so good, why is it that before supreme court jsutice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a in the Supreme Court, when she was a TOP OFFICIAL IN THE ACLU, THEY SPONSORED A STUDY THAT SAID THAT LEGAL AGE FOR INTERCOURSE SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM 16 TO 12! (Savage, Michael; The Enemy Within, 2003, WND Books; Nashville, Tenn.) They also defend NAMBLA, for those of you who don't know, that is the North American Man Boy Love Association. This is an organization that promotes an illegal act. Like the old analogy says, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Don't forget Sultana Freeman, the women the ACLU defended because her brand of Islam prevented her from lifting her veil for a Drivers license photo. You also should know that her sect of Islam also says that women can't drive. And on top of that, later when she was charged with child abuse, she also said that her religion prevented her kids from being examined in that manner.
The ACLU is good my ass!
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Quite frankly, I don't give a rats' ass what happens to these terrorists. For all you liberals out there, listen up. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE LIKE LIBERALS. THEY WILL NOT ASK YOU ARE YOU A LIBERAL? DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL ASK DO YOU AGREE WITH US? NO! They won't, they'll just rip, no SAW, your head off. THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN! When they look at you, they only see WESTERNER (don't know who is in this forum though). They would gladly torture you instead of doing all this goody goody BS that the ACLU makes us go through.
By the way, I am serious when I say that liberals discriminate. Look at Affirmative Action, they have destroyed what should be a meritocracy. Now if you're a minority or a female, you have a better chance of getting into a school because you're not a white male, even if they are better than you in certain fields. All this in order for the evil whit male to repay for slavery, and other discriminations against women and other minorities (I know women aren't a minority), that we never were alive to committ back in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
By the way, if the ACLU is so good, why is it that before supreme court jsutice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a in the Supreme Court, when she was a TOP OFFICIAL IN THE ACLU, THEY SPONSORED A STUDY THAT SAID THAT LEGAL AGE FOR INTERCOURSE SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM 16 TO 12! (Savage, Michael; The Enemy Within, 2003, WND Books; Nashville, Tenn.) They also defend NAMBLA, for those of you who don't know, that is the North American Man Boy Love Association. This is an organization that promotes an illegal act. Like the old analogy says, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Don't forget Sultana Freeman, the women the ACLU defended because her brand of Islam prevented her from lifting her veil for a Drivers license photo. You also should know that her sect of Islam also says that women can't drive. And on top of that, later when she was charged with child abuse, she also said that her religion prevented her kids from being examined in that manner.
The ACLU is good my ass!

I will be the first to ask who where you before you got banned?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
What Did Rumsfeld Know?

ACLU releases documents of U.S. torture of detainees by more than 'a few bad apples'
by Nat Hentoff
January 4th, 2005 10:55 AM

U.S. officials who take part in torture, authorize it, or even close their eyes to it, can be prosecuted by courts anywhere in the world [under international law].
Kenneth Roth, executive director, Human Rights Watch, December 27, 2002

U.S. Navy documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union reveal that abuse and even torture of detainees by U.S. Marines in Iraq was widespread. . . . ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero [said] "this kind of widespread abuse could not have taken place without a leadership failure of the highest order."
American Civil Liberties Union, December 14, 2004

The president insists that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will remain in office, and on December 19, Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card Jr., said on ABC News' This Week that "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job and the president has great confidence in him."

However, on December 9, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, wrote Rumsfeld to express his "deep concern over issues related to detainees being held in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Recent reports indicate that not only were detainees mishandled and interrogated in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions, but that subsequent internal reports of abuse appear to have been suppressed . . .

"While the abuse of detainees is unacceptable under any circumstance, reports of the suppression of evidence regarding abuse are extremely disturbing. . . . Please inform me of the actions you intend to take." As of this writing, there has been no response.

For two years?in this column, as well as from human rights groups and the press, particularly the reporting of Dana Priest in The Washington Post?there has been mounting evidence of torture of prisoners by American forces, including "ghost prisoners" in secret CIA interrogation centers.

These reports include stories of "extreme interrogation techniques" used by Special Operation Forces (Navy SEALs, Delta Force, et al.) under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld and his close associates in the Defense Department. Rumsfeld has long encouraged the use of Special Operation Forces.

But now, with the release by the ACLU of actual government documents not intended for the public to see, the president is confronted with irrefutable evidence of continued violations of not only the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, but also our own torture statute forbidding such practices.

As for the suppression of evidence, there is this December 8 report in The New York Sun by Paisley Dodds of the Associated Press on the documents released by the ACLU:

"[U.S.] Special Forces [accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq] . . . monitored e-mail messages sent by [troubled Defense personnel in the field] and ordered them 'not to talk to anyone' in America about what they saw."

U.S. Navy documents released by the ACLU include "interviews with Navy personnel [about] routine abusive treatment of detainees by U.S. Marines in Iraq. . . . In one interview, a Navy medical officer described the regular process by which Iraqis classified as Enemy Prisoners of War would be taken to an empty swimming pool, handcuffed, leg-cuffed, and have a burlap bag placed over their head.

"They would then remain in kneeling position for up to 24 hours awaiting interrogation. Despite this description, the [navy medical] officer stated that he 'never saw any instances of physical abuse' towards the detainees."

And from Richard Serrano in the December 15 Los Angeles Times:

"Marines in Iraq conducted mock executions of juvenile prisoners last year, burned and tortured other detainees with electrical shocks, and warned a Navy corpsman they would kill him if he treated any injured Iraqis."

That was one of the stories based on documents released by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that was joined by Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans for Peace, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The latter organization has compiled a massively documented indictment of Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet, and other U.S. officials and military personnel for war crimes perpetuated against Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

The charges have been filed at the German federal prosecutor's office at the Karlsruhe Court in Karlsruhe, Germany, where, "under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, suspected war criminals may be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located." (Emphasis added.) (Also see James Ridgeway's "'War Crimes' Murmurs," Mondo Washington, December 22-28, 2004.)

After the photographs of the repellent Abu Ghraib abuses were circulated around the world, the president attributed those atrocities to "a few bad apples" in the lower ranks of the military.

One of those "bad apples" is Lynndie England, the soldier smiling, pointing to the genitals of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib, and holding a naked prisoner by a leash. She could face a prison term of up to 38 years. But how long will Donald Rumsfeld and other august officials in the Defense Department, along with administration lawyers who have provided contorted permission to these crimes, avoid accountability?

How many members of Congress will join Senator Jeff Bingaman in his attempt to open the Defense and Justice departments to the rule of American law? Will we hear from New York senators Schumer and Clinton, who have been silent on the question of torture? Or will a judgment on Rumsfeld et al. be made only in Germany?

Will the president speak about an FBI agent's account, released by the ACLU on December 20, of interrogations at Guantánamo in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor and kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time until most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves?

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Terror Suspect Alleges Torture

Detainee Says U.S. Sent Him to Egypt Before Guantanamo

By Dana Priest and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01

U.S. authorities in late 2001 forcibly transferred an Australian citizen to Egypt, where, he alleges, he was tortured for six months before being flown to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to court papers made public yesterday in a petition seeking to halt U.S. plans to return him to Egypt.

Egyptian-born Mamdouh Habib, who was detained in Pakistan in October 2001 as a suspected al Qaeda trainer, alleges that while under Egyptian detention he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten, and he contends that U.S. and international law prohibits sending him back.

Habib's case is only the second to describe a secret practice called "rendition," under which the CIA has sent suspected terrorists to be interrogated in countries where torture has been well documented. It is unclear which U.S. agency transferred Habib to Egypt.

Habib's is the first case to challenge the legality of the practice and could have implications for U.S. plans to send large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records.

The CIA has acknowledged that it conducts renditions, but the agency and Bush administration officials who have publicly addressed the matter say they never intend for the captives to be tortured and, in fact, seek pledges from foreign governments that they will treat the captives humanely.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on Habib's allegations, which were filed in November but made public only yesterday after a judge ruled that his petition contained no classified information. The department has not addressed the allegation that he was sent to Egypt.

An Egyptian official reached last night said he could not comment on Habib's allegations but added: "Accusations that we are torturing people tend to be mythology."

The authority under which renditions and other forcible transfers may be legally performed is reportedly summarized in a March 13, 2002, memo titled "The President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captive Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations." Knowledgeable U.S. officials said White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales participated in its production.

The administration has refused a congressional request to make it public. But it is referred to in an August 2002 Justice Department opinion -- which Gonzales asked for and helped draft -- defining torture in a narrow way and concluding that the president could legally permit torture in fighting terrorism.

When the August memo became public, Bush repudiated it, and last week the Justice Department replaced it with a broader interpretation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the practice under all circumstances. The August memo is expected to figure prominently in today's confirmation hearing for Gonzales, Bush's nominee to run the Justice Department as attorney general.

In a statement he planned to read at his hearing, made public yesterday, Gonzales said he would combat terrorism "in a manner consistent with our nation's values and applicable law, including our treaty obligations."

Also yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union released new documents showing that 26 FBI agents reported witnessing mistreatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, indicating a far broader pattern of alleged abuse there than reported previously.

The records, obtained in an ongoing ACLU lawsuit, also show that the FBI's senior lawyer determined that 17 of the incidents were "DOD-approved interrogation techniques" and did not require further investigation. The FBI did not participate in any of the interviews directly, according to the documents.

The new ACLU documents detail abuses seen by FBI personnel serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, including incidents in which military interrogators grabbed prisoners' genitals, bent back their fingers and, in one case, placed duct tape over a prisoner's mouth for reciting the Koran.

In late 2002, an FBI agent recounted that one detainee at Guantanamo Bay had been subjected to "intense isolation" for more than three months and that his cell was constantly flooded with light. The agent reported that "the detainee was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma," including hearing voices, crouching in a corner for hours and talking to imaginary people.

According to the e-mails, military interrogators at Guantanamo Bay tried to hide some of their activities from FBI agents, including having a female interrogator rub lotion on a prisoner during Ramadan -- a highly offensive tactic to an observant Muslim man.

Habib was taken to the Guantanamo Bay prison in May 2002.

Three Britons released from the prison -- Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul -- have said Habib was in "catastrophic shape" when he arrived. Most of his fingernails were missing, and while sleeping he regularly bled from his nose, mouth and ears but U.S. officials denied him treatment, they said.

Habib's attorney, Joseph Margulies, said Habib had moved to Australia in the 1980s but eventually decided to move his family to Pakistan. He was there in late 2001 looking for a house and school for his children, Margulies said. U.S. officials accuse Habib of training and raising money for al Qaeda, and say he had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Australian media have reported that authorities in that country cleared him of having terrorist connections in 2001 and have quoted his Australian attorney as saying he was tortured in Egypt.

On Oct. 5, 2001, Pakistani authorities seized Habib, and over three weeks, he asserts in a memorandum filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, three Americans interrogated him.

The petition says he was taken to an airfield where, during a struggle, he was beaten by several people who spoke American-accented English. The men cut off his clothes, one placed a foot on his neck "and posed while another took pictures," the document says.

He was then flown to Egypt, it alleges, and spent six months in custody in a barren, 6-foot-by-8-foot cell, where he slept on the concrete floor with one blanket. During interrogations, Habib was "sometimes suspended from hooks on the wall" and repeatedly kicked, punched, beaten with a stick, rammed with an electric cattle prod and doused with cold water when he fell asleep, the petition says.

He was suspended from hooks, with his is feet resting on the side of a large cylindrical drum attached to wires and a battery, the document says. "When Mr. Habib did not give the answers his interrogators wanted, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity" went through the drum, it says. "The action of Mr. Habib 'dancing' on the drum forced it to rotate, and his feet constantly slipped, leaving him suspended by only the hooks on the wall . . . This ingenious cruelty lasted until Mr. Habib finally fainted."

At other times, the petition alleges, he was placed in ankle-deep water that his interrogators told him "was wired to an electric current, and that unless Mr. Habib confessed, they would throw the switch and electrocute him."

Habib says he gave false confessions to stop the abuse.

The State Department's annual human rights report has consistently criticized Egypt for practices that include torturing prisoners.

After six months in Egypt, the petition says, Habib was flown to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

U.S. intelligence officials have said renditions -- and the threat of renditions -- are a potent device to induce suspected terrorists to divulge information. Habib's petition says the threat that detainees at Bagram would be sent to Egypt prompted many of them to offer confessions.

His petition argues that his "removal to Egypt would be unquestionably unlawful" in part because he "faces almost certain torture."

The U.N. Convention Against Torture says no party to the treaty "shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

"The fact that the United States would contemplate sending him to Egypt again is astonishing to me," said Margulies, the attorney.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Army Doctors Implicated in Abuse

Medical Workers Helped Tailor Interrogations of Detainees, Article Says

By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A08

U.S. Army doctors violated the Geneva Conventions by helping intelligence officers carry out abusive interrogations at military detention centers, perhaps participating in torture, according to an article in today's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Medical personnel helped tailor interrogations to the physical and mental conditions of individual detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to the article. It says that medical workers gave interrogators access to patient medical files, and that psychiatrists and other physicians collaborated with interrogators and guards who, in turn, deprived detainees of sleep, restricted them to diets of bread and water and exposed them to extreme heat and cold.

"Clearly, the medical personnel who helped to develop and execute aggressive counter-resistance plans thereby breached the laws of war," says the four-page article labeled "Perspective."

"The conclusion that doctors participated in torture is premature, but there is probable cause for suspecting it."

The article was written by M. Gregg Bloche, a law professor at Georgetown University and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, and by Jonathan H. Marks, a London barrister who is a bioethics fellow at Georgetown University Law Center and Johns Hopkins. It is based on interviews with more than two dozen military personnel and on a review of documents released to the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act.

Pentagon officials said yesterday that the article is inaccurate and misrepresents military officials' positions and acts. Doctors did not violate the Geneva Conventions, said William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. Some functioned as consultants to intelligence officers but never acted unethically, he said.

"We have no evidence of maltreatment by physicians, or of physicians participating in torture or torturous activity," he said. "We just do not have evidence of that."

The article in the medical journal purports to add new facts to the public record and put others in context. But it is most significant because it adds to a chorus of concern expressed by respected medical institutions, said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"The New England Journal of Medicine plays a unique role in serving as a moral beacon for the health profession; when they take it on, it's important," Caplan said.

Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy organization based in Cambridge, Mass., added: "This underscores the pressing need for a transparent and full investigation, which the Pentagon has consistently refused to initiate."

The Geneva Conventions forbid the use of abusive techniques in questioning prisoners of war. Tactics used in Iraq and Cuba were "transparently coercive," the article says. It discloses that the Army's surgeon general is developing new rules for medical personnel who work with detainees, and its authors call for a broad, public effort to develop new guidelines for military doctors.

"The therapeutic mission is the profession's primary role and the core of physicians' professional identity. If this mission and identity are to be preserved, there are some things doctors must not do," the article says. "They should not be party to interrogation practices contrary to human rights law or the laws of war."

Doctors also have a duty to document abuse and report it to commanders, the article says, concluding that "by these standards, military medicine has fallen short."

Defense Department officials challenged that assessment, saying that military doctors are always expected to act ethically. Doctors who function as caregivers fulfill a different role than doctors who consult with intelligence officers, they said. Often, the consulting doctors help ensure that interrogators do not inadvertently endanger a detainee's health, they said.

"We always expect a physician to behave ethically in any circumstance," Winkenwerder said. "There is no question about that. We just would take offense to the implication that there are situations or circumstances where we would advise people to look the other way."

He rejected implications that medical personnel control interrogations, and said detainees' medical records are treated in manner similar to those of U.S. prison inmates. When incarcerated, he said, "the individual does not have a complete and absolute right to privacy of medical information. That is the standard in prisons."

The article is the most recent criticizing the medical treatment of detainees. In July, an essay in the New England Journal of Medicine urged U.S. military doctors to come forward with any evidence of recent abuse. In August, the British medical journal the Lancet charged that medical workers at Abu Ghraib had falsified death certificates and did not report injuries from beatings. After an inspection at Guantanamo Bay last summer, the International Committee of the Red Cross charged that methods used there were tantamount to torture.

The Washington Post reported in June that military interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had been given access to the medical records of individual prisoners despite repeated objections from the Red Cross, a breach of patient confidentiality that ethicists said violated international medical standards. The article in the New England Journal of Medicine says that interrogators in Iraq also had access to prisoners' medical files.

The article says that David N. Tornberg, deputy assistant secretary of defense for clinical and program policy, confirmed in an interview that interrogation units at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay had access to detainee medical records. In fact, interrogators "couldn't conduct their job" without such access, Tornberg is quoted as saying.

He and other military officials argue in the article that when a doctor participates in interrogation, he is acting as a combatant, so the Hippocratic oath does not apply.

Tornberg is on leave and was unavailable to comment yesterday. Winkenwerder said that he believes Tornberg's comments were misrepresented in the article, and that they did not represent the Defense Department's views.

 

imported_brad

Member
Jan 6, 2005
172
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) government agencies are required to disclose records requested in writing by any person.

The ACLU apparently requested and received information. How does this make them special?

Then how come Connie Rice was the only one who had to talk about the 9/11 blunders? The WH only answers what it wants to, or at least that was my perception.
 

lkm

Junior Member
Jan 5, 2005
19
0
0
I thank the ACLU. I wasn't born in America but i live and like this country but their are some serious issues that should be taken care off instead of pushed under the carpet. America has glorified history but the truth is what is blinded from your eyes alot. For example, does anyone happen to know the total number of Iraqi's dead since the war began? Some loony on the Daily show on thursday said it to be around 100,000. It may be around 50k-100k is what i put it at.

Another thing, what is the motivation for the US to be in Iraq. I know its not WMD's and that democracy crap is worthless. no one spends billions of dollars just to bring democracy to a third world country.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...p-dyn/A20986-2004Dec22

War Crimes

Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22

THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.

Though they represent only part of the record that lies in government files, the documents show that the abuse of prisoners was already occurring at Guantanamo in 2002 and continued in Iraq even after the outcry over the Abu Ghraib photographs. FBI agents reported in internal e-mails and memos about systematic abuses by military interrogators at the base in Cuba, including beatings, chokings, prolonged sleep deprivation and humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag. "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." Two defense intelligence officials reported seeing prisoners severely beaten in Baghdad by members of a special operations unit, Task Force 6-26, in June. When they protested they were threatened and pictures they took were confiscated.

Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody. In many cases, Army investigations of these crimes were shockingly shoddy: Officials lost records, failed to conduct autopsies after suspicious deaths and allowed evidence to be contaminated. Soldiers found to have committed war crimes were excused with noncriminal punishments. The summary of one suspicious death of a detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison reads: "No crime scene exam was conducted, no autopsy conducted, no copy of medical file obtained for investigation because copy machine broken in medical office."

Let me just say, for the record, that I have NO PROBLEM with the abuse and torture of these prisoners. If these guys know ANYTHING about the insurgent groups, the terrorists or anything else of use to us, I say beat the piss out of them and get that information. This whole "Let's play nice" attitude is a crock of sh1t that's only helping to get more and more of our guys killed.

Jason
 
Jan 6, 2005
57
0
0
To Ilkm.
There is no simple answer to your question. As of right now, it's so we don't look like a bunch of fools in front of the world and a bunch of wimps. You could blamem the panyisation of America on the Left but I go off topic.
Right now, we are the most powerful Empire ever to walk the face of the earth. One of our autonomous subject states is Israel. Many will say that Israel isn't our problem but it is. Hezbollah is our problem. Hamas is our problem. Islamic Jihad is our problem. This is another front in the War on Terror. Which we could win if THE RADICAL LEFT WOULD ALLOW US TO FIGHT LIKE MEN INSTEAD OF PLAYING NICEY NICE IN THE SANDBOX. I have this to say to whoever is the President of the ACLU. THIS IS A WAR. IF YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH, GO TO IRAN AND THEN TELL US HOW HORRIBLE WE ARE!:|