Bush authorized interrogation techniques?
Author
I've seen this posted on a few news sites. Most of them are blogs or news organizations from other countries. One of the only big US news agencies I've found that has the article is the NY Times.
NYTimes Article
In a nutshell, it says that there is evidence in FBI emails that Bush gave an executive order that interrogation techniques like we've seen at Abu Ghraib and heard about at Guantanomo Bay could be used. It's not posted on many (if any) other major US news sites. I think this could be because they don't want to post anything like the Dan Rather memo or something.
Anyways, I'm inclined to believe this. I'll tell you why. Just do a google search for Rumsfeld Interrogation. He was talking about "taking off the kid gloves" and using harsher interrogation techniques before we even knew Abu Ghraib happened. I remember watching it.
I also don't believe the soldiers that got implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal dreamed this up by themselves and then carried it out on their own for that long, taking pictures and everything, in front of everybody without some higher consent. They also used techniques that were geared towards softening up men and women of Arabic descent. Judging from what I've seen, they didn't think this up themselves. Some of those implicated even said they were told from higher ups to do this, getting orders such as "soften them up". We also know now that it was known about by the pentagon and Rumsfeld for a long time. For those reasons, I buy it, at least until further evidence says otherwise.
If it does turn out there was an executive order by Bush to carry out these acts, do you think he should be impeached? Do you think that because the soldiers were following orders that they should be freed? Do you think that in a war that this type of thing is necessary to prevent further harm to US citizens?
My answers:
1. If its true, Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
2. If we've learned anything from the nazis, it's that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse, so the soldiers should still be punished just as severely
3. I don't think it is ever necessary. The US is "supposed" to be fighting a war to win over hearts and minds in the middle east. You hardly win over hearts and minds and lose credibility when you behave this way. Also, intelligence suggests that people who are tortured will tell you anything to stop the torture and that intelligence obtained this way is often no better than intelligence obtained by more conventional means.
Last question, why don't you think this is on more major news sites? If it's true, shouldn't this be a huge deal? I mean, a US president might have authorized the use of extremely harsh interrogation techniques tantamount to torture and you can only find a handful of links about it? What's up with that? Does that mean it's less credible or something else?
Quote:Original post by xg0blin
Last question, why don't you think this is on more major news sites? If it's true, shouldn't this be a huge deal? I mean, a US president might have authorized the use of extremely harsh interrogation techniques tantamount to torture and you can only find a handful of links about it? What's up with that? Does that mean it's less credible or something else?
ive seen it on google news several days ago already.
i considered making a thread about it, but then again, nothing surprizes me anymore, and certainly not this.
not that ive been in iraq or cuba, but unless proven otherwise, i have no single reason not to believe bush and rummy have known and encouraged this from the beginning.
they might seem so, but they are not complete morons.
Author
Quote:i considered making a thread about it, but then again, nothing surprizes me anymore, and certainly not this.
not that ive been in iraq or cuba, but unless proven otherwise, i have no single reason not to believe bush and rummy have known and encouraged this from the beginning.
Nor does it surprise me. I've always suspected it. What DOES surprise me is that there might be evidence. That changes the situation totally. That means that it is not just some random act by a couple of bad soldiers, but authorized all the way up to the top with supporting evidence.
Quote:they are not complete morons.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with that statement :)
Quote:Original post by xg0blinQuote:i considered making a thread about it, but then again, nothing surprizes me anymore, and certainly not this.
not that ive been in iraq or cuba, but unless proven otherwise, i have no single reason not to believe bush and rummy have known and encouraged this from the beginning.
Nor does it surprise me. I've always suspected it. What DOES surprise me is that there might be evidence. That changes the situation totally. That means that it is not just some random act by a couple of bad soldiers, but authorized all the way up to the top with supporting evidence.
what does it matter?
it would only serve to make america more polarized. liberals will hate bush even more, and conservatives will defend him more rabbidly.
If the ACLU story has any legs, then Bush and Republicans will look *even* worse.
However, I doubt that political sentiment would be high enough for any impeachment. None of the techniques allegedly authorized in the report are war crimes or illegal. In fact, they are pretty much the standard CIA techniques: sensory and sleep deprevation, isolation, etc. They also don't even remotely equate to the tortures used at Abu Gharaib. I think Bush is pretty safe.
However, I doubt that political sentiment would be high enough for any impeachment. None of the techniques allegedly authorized in the report are war crimes or illegal. In fact, they are pretty much the standard CIA techniques: sensory and sleep deprevation, isolation, etc. They also don't even remotely equate to the tortures used at Abu Gharaib. I think Bush is pretty safe.
Quote:Original post by xg0blin
If it does turn out there was an executive order by Bush to carry out these acts, do you think he should be impeached?
I don't know, but if that ever happens then that day I'll belive again in that freedom-democracy slogan the US has propagandized all this decades about themselves and that turned out to be BS.
I read a reprint of the ACLU press release: Bush Approved Torture Techniques.
The Times story completely left that part out. At least, there's no mention of executive orders as it stands now. Maybe that part of the story has been redacted - or the Times is waiting for further evidence to support the allegation, such as the exact number of the order in question.
The ACLU has put the FBI memos online: Records Released in Response to Torture FOIA Request.
Quote:
...
The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.
...
The Times story completely left that part out. At least, there's no mention of executive orders as it stands now. Maybe that part of the story has been redacted - or the Times is waiting for further evidence to support the allegation, such as the exact number of the order in question.
The ACLU has put the FBI memos online: Records Released in Response to Torture FOIA Request.
Quote:Original post by The Frugal Gourmet
If the ACLU story has any legs, then Bush and Republicans will look *even* worse.
However, I doubt that political sentiment would be high enough for any impeachment. None of the techniques allegedly authorized in the report are war crimes or illegal. In fact, they are pretty much the standard CIA techniques: sensory and sleep deprevation, isolation, etc. They also don't even remotely equate to the tortures used at Abu Gharaib. I think Bush is pretty safe.
There are really two main camps (pun not intended):
Those who say that the actions mentioned constitutes torture and should never be used against either own or foreign citizens in a _civilized_ society.
The other camp say these are the hard facts of war. When a soldier posseses knowledge that can save lives on the other side, the other side will of course use any means nessesary to get him to talk, should they capture him, including torture. The soldier has entered battle with these premises.
Then there are those in the middle who think you can define how much torture is okay and what is not. Of course, then it's not torture, it's "moderate physical pressure". This is the so-called "mild" torture or "harsh interrogation methods" used in Iraq but also by police all over the world.
Even though Abu Ghraib's a whole different ball-game (emotion based and not explainable), many people believe that when small violations are santioned or even institionalized, the people doing the deeds kinda loose their grip, so to speak.
I thought we dealt with this a long time ago...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
