Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Elvis]

I don't mean literal training like training for a marathon, just that they are told if they are ever captured to claim they were tortured.

And I was just skeptical about everything that Kuya posted there. I don't doubt we tortured people, but everything he just posted comes from people who are told to lie about being tortured.

I don't doubt that these people may lie, Swamp. I understood what you meant by lying btw except that you're implying it's an institutionalized tactic amongst terror cells/insurgents/'the enemy'/etc.

We lie too, you know?

So the pertinent question is - is there proof? Does existence of such 'proof' build context for other similar incidents?

Like if we know for sure that we engaged in torture (we did) and it was documented (it was) -> do these facts build a certain context by which we begin to be more inclined to believe the prisoner over the guard?

I think it does.

Now in the reverse, can you show me proof that there is a lot of lying going on by these types of prisoners within the context of the war on terror?

I have heard of one such instance actually and it was widely publicized years ago but I can't recall the details.

If prisoners are lying about torture (and they weren't tortured) and we're lying about torture (and we tortured) then the next filter in our questioning should be one of extent/frequency/degree.

So how many cases of prisoners lying about being tortured, are there? How many cases of guards torturing and we know they did it beyond a reasonable doubt, are there?

I would weigh both scenarios. We still have to look into each case but the skepticism that both of us have for these issues depending in large part on our ideologies, should be put in context.

My basic point after all of this blah blah, is that skepticism is needed but too much skepticism can become a non-starter for discussion and can imply self-delusion/denial. That's when it becomes obvious ideology has taken precedent over objectivity.

[Rhinox]

you need more credible evidence than a prisoner's testimony to prosecute - especially in high profile cases of this magnitude

There are no assumptions in the court of law, whether it be assuming true or false

Scott Peterson disagrees

[Demosthenes11]

Scott Peterson disagrees

your mom disagrees

[Rhinox]

http://dave.matusiak.org/weblog/wp-c...nder_woman.jpg

[Kuya]

Conservative Radio Host “Mancow” Waterboarded, now says its torture

I wonder how long Cheney can keep up the argument that it wasn't torture.

[quannum]

forever of course

[0ni0n]

Conservative radio host: "waterboarding isn't torture." Agrees to be waterboarded, lasts six seconds, then says, "Yep, waterboarding is torture"

Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture // Current

[Shiroikage]

Conservative radio host: "waterboarding isn't torture." Agrees to be waterboarded, lasts six seconds, then says, "Yep, waterboarding is torture"

Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture // Current

So, I'm taking it you don't read threads before you post in them?

[0ni0n]

So, I'm taking it you don't read threads before you post in them?

not really

[Blarg]

Liberal spam forum says tub boarding may or may not be the new choking game.

[Kuya]

Nothing on Obama and his decision to censor the release of the photos, but to reiterate that what he said about them is not true, it's not just a bunch of photos that show "nothing sensational". This has essentially been repeated, for those who saw it, the previous report i posted:

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency....

It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires.

Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman’s “stick” all of which were apparently photographed.

[Beckwin]

well now we have a reason for not letting gays in the military?


bad jokes aside: release these photos and investigate, Obama. clean up our fucking act.

[Elvis]

but guys, people will hate us more if we release these pics

im super cereal

[Kuya]

It seems Salon has confirmed, with in interview with Gen. Takuba, that the photos he described where rape occurred, are not the same photos Obama is trying to block. Which would mean that Obama wasn't lying, or may not be lying in regards to the photos he is blocking, but that at the same time, other photos exist which are the ones Takuba was talking about. This also raises the question of why, if they really aren't worse than what we've already seen, are they such a danger to the US.

[Leif]

I wonder how long Cheney can keep up the argument that it wasn't torture.

I think its funny that liberals feel so threatened by intellectual conservatives like Dick Cheney. Their arguments have been powerful, convincing, thought-out, and calm. They completely destroy the arguments of the current administration and other cheerleaders like Pelosi.

It's hard to debunk any part of their argument. There was a threat and they responded to it, saving potentially hundreds of thousands of lives.

[archibaldcrane]

It's hard to debunk any part of their argument. There was a threat and they responded to it, saving potentially hundreds of thousands of lives.

And killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, including thousands of Americans.

You're completely right, I just don't like the "sacrifice thousands of Americans to potentially save hundreds of thousands" in this particular situation. It just takes a giant dump on our military if you ask me.

[Elvis]

UK forces taught torture methods | UK news | The Guardian

The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources.

The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

One former British special forces officer who returned last week from Iraq, said: "It was clear from discussions with US private contractors in Iraq that the prison guards were using R2I techniques, but they didn't know what they were doing."

He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.

[...]Using sexual jibes and degradation, along with stripping naked, is one of the methods taught on both sides of the Atlantic under the slogan "prolong the shock of capture", he said.

Female guards were used to taunt male prisoners sexually and at British training sessions when female candidates were undergoing resistance training they would be subject to lesbian jibes.

"Most people just laugh that off during mock training exercises, but the whole experience is horrible. Two of my colleagues couldn't cope with the training at the time. One walked out saying 'I've had enough', and the other had a breakdown. It's exceedingly disturbing," said the former Special Boat Squadron officer, who asked that his identity be withheld for security reasons.

Many British and US special forces soldiers learn about the degradation techniques because they are subjected to them to help them resist if captured. They include soldiers from the SAS, SBS, most air pilots, paratroopers and members of pathfinder platoons.

[...]"The crucial difference from Iraq is that frontline soldiers who are made to experience R2I techniques themselves develop empathy. They realise the suffering they are causing. But people who haven't undergone this don't realise what they are doing to people. It's a shambles in Iraq".

[Kuya]

This is some serious bullshit, for starters, the Obama administration is now using the same arguments as the Bush administration for denying the release of the Uighurs in the US even though they are not considered enemy combatants and the US could not find a country that would receive them due to pressure from China.

The Obama administration, picking up the argument of its predecessor, is opposing the release of Chinese Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay into the United States.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court late Friday, the administration says a group of Uighurs are being lawfully held at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba even though they are not considered enemy combatants.

The administration says a federal appeals court ruling that blocked the Uighurs' release in the United States should be upheld. The government is trying to find another country to take them.

A federal judge determined in October that the Uighurs should be freed because the Pentagon no longer considered them enemy combatants. U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said they should be allowed into this country because the administration could find no other country willing to accept them.

The Bush administration appealed Urbina's decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Urbina had gone too far in ordering the men released into the United States.

The Uighurs argue that last year's Supreme Court ruling that granted Guantanamo detainees the right to go to federal court to seek their freedom is meaningless if they can continue to be held.

Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but since has balked at taking others, partly for fear of diplomatic repercussions from China.

As if that isn't infuriating enough, now you have both the executive and Congress trying to retroactively change the law so they don't have to release the photographs as per the FOIA, what's even more absurd is because it seems like the administration is going to lose in court and be forced to release the documents. You can read the pdf that shows that the government is likely to lose the case (it's 52 pages), and here you have Greenwald discussing the absurdity of what the government is doing (archi, an example of the Congress giving the executive more power):

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

Just imagine if any other country did this. Imagine if a foreign government were accused of systematically torturing and otherwise brutally abusing detainees in its custody for years, and there was ample photographic evidence proving the extent and brutality of the abuse. Further imagine that the country's judiciary -- applying decades-old transparency laws -- ruled that the government was legally required to make that evidence public. But in response, that country's President demanded that those transparency laws be retroactively changed for no reason other than to explicitly empower him to keep the photographic evidence suppressed, and a compliant Congress then immediately passed a new law empowering the President to suppress that evidence. What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.

Other than creating an illusion of transparency and accountability, what's the point of having laws that purport to restrict what the Government can do if political officials just retroactively waive those laws whenever they want? What's the point of having a FOIA law if the Government will simply pass a new law exempting itself from FOIA's mandates any time it loses in court and wants to conceal evidence anyway? And what conceivable rationale is there for limiting the President's new secrecy powers to post-9/11 photographs? Given that anything which reflects poorly on our Government can be said to endanger our troops and American citizens, why stop here? Why not just have a general power of suppression whereby the President can keep any evidence secret as long as his Defense Secretary decrees that its disclosure will "endanger" the troops?

All this, while (inside the same link i gave from Glenn) this is going on:

Combine all of this with the increasingly disturbing spectacle taking place in a California federal court in the Al-Haramain case -- where the Obama DOJ is on the verge of being sanctioned by a federal judge for defying the court's order to make available documents relating to Bush's illegal eavesdropping activities -- and the infatuation with excessive presidential secrecy, the linchpin of government abuse, appears alive and well in the new administration. Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court's order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence -- the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA -- are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?

What the fuck is this shit?

[Dimmauk]

They need to get the troops out, publish the pics, and apologize.

[Araelus]

This is some serious bullshit, for starters, the Obama administration is now using the same arguments as the Bush administration...

What the fuck is this shit?

No logical explanation springs to mind other than "there's something else we're not being told about" and that makes me even more angry.



“Politics: 'Poli' a Latin word meaning 'many'; and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.” --Robin Williams

“A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.” --Winston Churchill