Bushites Split As Gitmo Abuses Continue

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Moderator note - advanced warning.

This thread will be closed when it reaches the 20 page limit without any further warning.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Here's what I think about these terrorists: They are non-uniformed combatants captured in a war zone. They are not entitled to the same treatment and protections as uniformed combatants.

(either you mean that or you don't)</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, ASLANSPAL, I meant exactly what I wrote in that sentence!

Now, ASLANSPAL, I'll quote some additional things I wrote on this subject:

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Persons that don't meet the proper criteria are not prisoners of war and fall into other categories that are not protected to the same degree as those classified as prisoners of war. It should be reasonably clear that terrorists don't meet the definition of lawful combatants given. This, by the way, does not imply that such persons can be mistreated. All persons in our custody must be treated humanely at all times.

This is illustrates exactly what I mean about you spreading lies, exaggerations, and distortions. It's very easy to extract a line or two from someone's writings while ignore the whole message they've communicated. Sometimes that's just an honest mistake but other times is deliberate dishonesty. You really should stop lying about my position on torture.

Aside from this, however, it doesn't really matter whether this is what you or me, either one, want or not. This is according to the law of land warfare and is in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Only specific categories of persons who meet certain criteria are classified as prisoners of war an entitled to the protections of that class. Other combatants don't benefit from those protections.

Let me quote again the Geneva Conventions criteria:

Extract from Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, Art. 4:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Our terrorist enemies don't meet these qualifications, ASLANSPAL!

We don't want to classify them as prisoners of war. We want to be able to prosecute them by military tribunal for their actions. We couldn't do that if they were prisoners of war.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... Colonel Hackworth did a lot of blaming and complaining whilst a lot of officers and non-commissioned officers continued on with the real business of actually straightening out the problems that grew within the military during the Viet Nam war era{Count me his brother! amen..and did you know he won the Congressional Medal of Honor ..oh I guess that slipped your mind )...

I very much aware that COL Hackworth was awarded the Medal of Honor. That has nothing to do with my comments regarding the errors in his thinking about of the subject of detainee treatment in this war.

I'll repeat my comments again:

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Some of the points he made in this specific article are valid but a lot of them are not. He was out for blood at the highest level - the President - in this example. He conveys a great disdain for any level of authority but his own and particularly of general officers to which rank he never attained. He failed to recognize, or acknowledge, that many leaders have and will pay the price for their failures in leadership in this incident just as they have in others before. "All the guilty - no matter what their rank or power - " are being held accountable.

Hackworth also incorrectly equated the Abu Ghriab misconduct to that of My Lai which is not at all the same situation. The latter was cold blooded murder on a grand scale under the direct orders of a miserable junior officer. Both were failures that are very much atypical - meaning they're rare - in the military. Both hurt the credibility of the Army and insulted the overwhelming majority of troops - top to bottom - that would never condone, participate, or turn a blind eye to either of these failures.

Hackworth, however, was very correct when he stated, concerning the typical American "soldier", that their conduct "... has been most honorable and nothing less than magnificent."

 

[Dragoon68]

Extract of Comments by BG Irvine:
[qb]What has gone on over the past few years is completely off the book, the use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the U.S. Government.

Sorry, General, but this is only partly correct!

It is completely correct from the standpoint that inhumane treatment of any detainee is prohibited. That fact has been reinforced in all communications including the instructions of April 16, 2003 regarding specific counter resistance techniques to be applied to certain detainees given by the Secretary of Defense.

Here are the techniques that were authorized, some with restrictions, by the Secretary of Defense:

A. Direct
B. Incentive and Removal of Incentive
C. Emotional Love
D. Emotional Hate
E. Fear Up Harsh
F. Fear Up Mild
G. Reduced Fear
H. Pride and Ego Up
I. Pride and Ego Down
J. Futility
K. We Know All
L. Establish Your Identity
M. Repetition
N. File and Dossier
O. Mutt and Jeff
P. Rapid Fire
Q. Silence
R. Change of Scenery Up
S. Change of Scenery Down
T. Dietary Manipulation
U. Environmental Manipulation
V. Sleep Adjustment
W. False Flag
X. Isolation

Of these, items A through Q are right out of FM 34-52 which is the "book" that BG Irvine mentions. Items R through X are were not covered in that field manual.

Here's some clarification of what techniques R through X involve:

Extract from Secretary of Defense Rumsfled's memorandum (order) to the Commander, U.S. Southern Command:
R. Change of Scenery Up: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogation setting (generally to a location more pleasant, but no worse).
S. Change of Scenery Down: Removing the detainee from the standard interrogation setting and placing him in a setting that may be less comfortable; would not constitute a substantial change in environmental quality.
T. Dietary Manipulation: Changing the diet of a detainee; no intended deprivation of food or water; no adverse medical or cultural effect and without intent to deprive subject of food or water, e.g., hot rations to MREs.
U. Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g., adjusting temperature or introducing unpleasant smell). Conditions would not be such that they would injure the detainee. Detainee would be accompanied by interrogator at all times. [Caution: Based on court cases in other countries, some nations may view application of this technique in certain circumstances to be inhumane. Consideration of these views should be given prior to use of this technique.]
V. Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleeping times of the detainee (e.g., reversing the sleep cycles from night to day.) This technique is NOT sleep deprivation.
W. False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating them.
X. Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment. [Caution: The use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approval for extensions of the length of isolation by the appropriate chain of command. This technique is not known to have been generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days. Those nations that believe detainees are subject to POW protections may view use of this technique as inconsistent with the requirements of Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that POWs must be protected against acts of intimidation; Article 14 which provides that POWs are entitled to respect for their person; Article 34 which prohibits coercion and Article 126 which ensures access and basic standards of treatment. Although the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to applications of the technique.]

I find no infamous "approved torture techniques" in this listing. What's given are additional interrogation techniques to be applied to unlawful combatants who, failed to respond to other techniques, while still treating them humanely and using extra caution to not cross the line.

I seriously doubt most Americans - Christian or otherwise - have a problem with these interrogation techniques being applied to terrorists.

I repeat here Secretary Rumsfled's "warning" communicated in the same order:

Extract from Secretary of Defense Rumsfled's memorandum (order) to the Commander, U.S. Southern Command:
I reiterate that US Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. In addition, if you intend to use techniques B, I, O, or X, you must specifically determine that military necessity requires its use and notify me in advance

I'll address one more of BG Irvine's comments regarding the use of the counter resistance techniques described.

Extract of Comments by BG Irvine:
[qb]We've lowered the bar ourselves - if X-Y-Z is OK for us to do, it's OK for the same treatment to be meted out to our people if they're captured. It's not rocket science; it's the Golden Rule.

Sorry, General, but I believe you're wrong on this point!

This enemy isn't going to treat us, if captured, according to any law of warfare. There not even a recognized State and don't subscribe to any part of the Geneva Conventions. They will torture - really torture - and murder anyone if it gets them the publicity they need.

Recognized States, including our own, remain obligated to treat prisoners of war according to the Geneva Conventions if they're a party to it. We haven't lowered to bar one inch on any aspect of it.

 

[Dragoon68]

Senator McCain and others are correct when they say that torture doesn't really work. They're incorrect when they imply that this is some new revelation they bring to the table. The military has known this a long time and it's included in our field manual.

Here's what the "infamous" Army field manual conveys on that subject:

Extract from FM 34-52, Ch. 1:
Experience indicates that the use of prohibited techniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources. Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

Revelation of use of torture by US personnel will bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. ...

Therefore, Senator McCain, doesn't need to worry about generating yet another federal law to cover something that's already addressed.

 

[church mouse guy]

The left is selective in their complaints about human rights abuse, Ladies and Gentlemen. The really horrible cases in the world are not even being mentioned by the left as they major in the minors. For example, a couple of guys who worked for Campus Crusade For Christ showing the Jesus film and passing out medical supplies were threatened and murdered. Where is the left?

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Orginally posted by Dragoon68:
They do, however, permit aggressive interrogation which isn't very comfortable for the person being interrogated. Some persons would like to expand the definition of humiliation to include these tactics. That would be a fatal mistake which would harm our ability to obtain valuable intelligence from detainees. Approval of the extraordinary tactics, which are completely legal, is required to provide just one more safeguard for the proper handling of detainees.

(Again spin on humiliation lite and torture lite again away from the worldly view it's not something Jesus would do...he suffered from humiliation and Christians who know their bible know this)</font>[/QUOTE]The death and resurrection of Christ Jesus was God's plan that He, in the person of Jesus Christ, would suffer death - the penalty for sin - on behalf of all His chosen children AND then rise from that death, overcoming the power of death, thereby having provided the perfect one and only atonement needed for our sins.

God will, in fact, inflict great suffering - eternal suffering - upon all those He does not save. God's love is balanced by His wrath. The person of the Lord Jesus Christ will, according to the Bible, be the one who makes that judgment of us all.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dragoon68 to Aslanspal: "You're incapable of discerning
the difference between what is inhumane treatment and
what is legal aggressive interrogation technique."

Strangely, i was thinking the same thing of Dragoon68.
But does Aslanspal need to know the difference in his
line of work? No. Does Dragoon68 need to know the
difference in his line of work/ Yes. IMHO those who
practice inhumane treatment should be banished from
this country. Get it straight, do your job right.

Torture and humiliation are degrading to the torturer
and the humiliator. Torture and humiliation are not
vialble data collection techniques. Tortute and
humiliation are NOT American family values, Christian
values, values among Baptists, or even human values.

 

[Rocko9]

Brigadier Jim Wallace, former commander of Australia’s elite SAS troops, wrote recently that the time-honored standard for a soldier to determine what to do has been, ‘Who am I and what do I believe?’ But, he said, this is now rapidly moving away from this absolute basis to ‘What is most expedient in this situation?’ Bottom line: If our cultural beliefs change, so will our behavior—and that of our soldiers.

This is an excerpt from an artical by Carl Wieland. You can find out more by going to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0525torture.asp

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Dragoon68 to Aslanspal: "You're incapable of discerning the difference between what is inhumane treatment and what is legal aggressive interrogation technique."

Strangely, i was thinking the same thing of Dragoon68. But does Aslanspal need to know the difference in his line of work? No. Does Dragoon68 need to know the difference in his line of work/ Yes. IMHO those who practice inhumane treatment should be banished from this country. Get it straight, do your job right.

Torture and humiliation are degrading to the torturer and the humiliator. Torture and humiliation are not vialble data collection techniques. Tortute and humiliation are NOT American family values, Christian values, values among Baptists, or even human values.

Inhumane treatment is just that. Torture is just that. Legal interrogation techniques are just that. There IS a difference. Those differences HAVE BEEN defined.

If there were not so then we couldn't interrogate any one for any thing.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Rocko9:
Brigadier Jim Wallace, former commander of Australia’s elite SAS troops, wrote recently that the time-honored standard for a soldier to determine what to do has been, ‘Who am I and what do I believe?’ But, he said, this is now rapidly moving away from this absolute basis to ‘What is most expedient in this situation?’ Bottom line: If our cultural beliefs change, so will our behavior—and that of our soldiers.

This is an excerpt from an artical by Carl Wieland. You can find out more by going to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0525torture.asp

Our cultural beliefs relative to treatment of prisoners of war, haven't changed at all in recent times. However, in the course of our entire nation's history they've evolved to a much higher and better standard. In the course of mankind's history they are far better yet and America, and its Armed Forces, hold to a very high standard.

The article was correct that the misconduct at Abu Ghraib was unacceptable conduct for our Armed Forces. I've always maintained that to be the case since I first learned about it. It is incorrect however to label it as wholesale, widespread, endorsed, condoned, or ordered "torture" that represents a "cultural" problem with the US military as a whole. That is absolutely not the case.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
... IMHO those who practice inhumane treatment should be banished from this country. ...

Those that have been convicted of inhumane treatment are spending some time at the USDB in Ft. Leavenworth where they belong compliments of the US military justice system. Were you paying attention to that?

Get it straight, do your job right.

Lecture someone else of this topic, Ed Edwards, because you're off base. You don't even know what my job is!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
... Torture and humiliation are degrading to the torturer and the humiliator. Torture and humiliation are not vialble data collection techniques. ...

Agreed in principle! I've communicated just about the same thing several times since the beginning of this discussion as well as when the news first became public.

In fact, if you'll read the specific posting you'll see that this is well recognized within the US military and words to such effect are included in the appropriate field manuals.

However, making this statement and also implying that we are "torturing" detainees as a matter of policy or practice are two entirely different things. This is not our military's policy or practice despite the breakdowns that have occurred and which have been addressed with severe discipline to those involved.

You, and a few others, need to get that right because, when you don't, it hurts the reputations of a whole lot of very fine troops out there devoted to doing the "job" right.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Lecture someone else of this topic, Ed Edwards, because you're off base. You don't even know what my job is! [/QB]

I don't have to know
your job to tell you to "do your job right".
It is a generic saying that all should do.
I don't even want to know your job, but you
should do it as best you can.

Dragoon68: "Those that have been convicted of inhumane treatment are spending some time at the USDB in Ft. Leavenworth where they belong compliments of the US military justice system. Were you paying attention to that?"

Yes. And that is as it should be.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
... The Lord Jesus Christ has already saved the souls of those he's chosen. ...

(what bizarre theology is this..in other words it is okay to humiliate and torture the un chosen??)</font>[/QUOTE]It is very solid theology, ASLANSPAL.

Romans 8:26-30:
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the issue of torture - real or implied - just as the suffering of Christ on the cross for our sins has nothing to do with issue of mistreating detainees. That's the connection you were trying to make, ASLANSPAL, and there isn't one.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

This is not about hurting the troops in total
this is about getting rid of bad culture and policy conducted in the dark and hidden from
the eyes of the American people ..but in Gods
sovereign power he uncovers it ..sometimes through
a christian who was offended to the 4th estate
and good investigative reporting.
__________________________________________________

policy taking advantage of soldiers

The salient point of this article is "guilty on
both sides" on the scales I see the policy and
the leadership weighing heavy on the scales as
for the soldier less so..he was disciplined
and carried out the orders and policy..but a
true believer imho would reject this and yes
would be persecuted but still save his spirit
from damage.

Galligan said the larger issue is that, while the government is blaming a low-ranking enlisted man for the December 2002 deaths of the two Afghani detainees, "officers who may have designed the programs that led to those deaths are left unscathed."

It is more that just a soundbite calling them
"misfits" I think it is bad policy and if not
rooted out poisons peoples souls. It really is
about us and not them..we are to be leaders
in goodness and we are but lets not step down
to their level.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Lecture someone else of this topic, Ed Edwards, because you're off base. You don't even know what my job is!

I don't have to know your job to tell you to "do your job right". It is a generic saying that all should do. I don't even want to know your job, but you should do it as best you can.</font>[/QUOTE]Then, as a citizen, do YOUR job right, and give support to those you've sent to defend the liberty you enjoy. Don't harm their reputation by edorsing lies, exaggerations, or distortions which expand the misconduct of a few misfits unto all. Learn the truth and spread that instead.

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Those that have been convicted of inhumane treatment are spending some time at the USDB in Ft. Leavenworth where they belong compliments of the US military justice system. Were you paying attention to that?

Yes. And that is as it should be. </font>[/QUOTE]Then we have no issue on this one point alone!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... Galligan said the larger issue is that, while the government is blaming a low-ranking enlisted man for the December 2002 deaths of the two Afghani detainees, "officers who may have designed the programs that led to those deaths are left unscathed. ...

I again call attention to the discipline given of two high ranking officers - one demoted from General - who were directly responsible for the order and discipline of the two major commands involved at Abu Ghraib. They didn't actually perform the misconduct but they didn't do their jobs to prevent the conditions that contributed to it. That has cost them their careers.

Futher, the "low ranking" enlisted men are, for the most part, non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who are the backbone of the military and responsible to directly interface with the troops and keep everything in line. They don't get a free ride!

 

[church mouse guy]

The officer in charge of Abu Ghraib was a female, which again brings into question the role of women in war zones--I think that we should revert to the WW II policy whereby women were not used in combat and in war zones.

 

[poncho]

"Then, as a citizen, do YOUR job right, and give support to those you've sent to defend the liberty you enjoy."

This has a very righteous and patritoic overtone to it Dragoon. Never the less it is misplaced in the context of this war, IMHO. The troops you and I support were not sent to Iraq to defend the liberty we enjoy. They were sent to protect the interests of a very wealthy few in high global offices and those individuals will never even be named let alone be held accounatable.

If they were indeed sent to defend our liberty then one would think George Bush would have higher reguards for our unalienable rights than to push agreements and Acts that reduce our liberties, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.