I'm not completely convinced by the attitude here, that only the Republicans should shoulder the blame for the torture incidents.
From Slate:
All the President's Accomplices
How the country acquiesced to Bush's torture policy.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 8:18 AM ET
The use of torture on suspected terrorists after Sept. 11 has already earned a place in American history's hall of shame, alongside the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment during World War II, and the excesses of the McCarthy era. Even liberal societies seem to experience these authoritarian spasms from time to time. It is the aftermath of such episodes—what happens when a country comes to its senses—that reveals the most about a nation's character. How do we come to terms with having betrayed our ideals?
Of those earlier stains, the forced confinement of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor provides the most useful comparison to our current situation. As with Bush's torture policy, Franklin Roosevelt's decision to relocate more than 100,000 people, most of them citizens, to remote camps out West was born of collective terror following a surprise attack. Expelling those of Japanese descent from their homes was a presidential policy and also an expression of popular will. There was little public objection while it was happening, and Congress passed a law to support FDR's order. As the foreign threat receded, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the policy, and in 1945, FDR rescinded it entirely. The detainees were given $25 and a bus ticket home. America understood it had done something terribly wrong and decided to forget about it. Not until 1983 did a congressional commission officially acknowledge that the detentions were "unjust and motivated by racism rather than real military necessity."
Unlike the Japanese internment, water-boarding was ordered and served up in secret. But it, too, was America's policy, not just Dick Cheney's. Congress was informed about what was happening and raised no objection. The public knew, too. By 2003, if you didn't understand that the United States was inflicting torture on those deemed enemy combatants, you weren't paying much attention. This is part of what makes applying a criminal justice model to those most directly responsible such a bad idea. The issue we need to come to terms with is not just who in the Bush administration did what but how we were collectively complicit in their decisions.
The justification of torture was in the air soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. Time bombs began ticking on 24 in November 2001. That same month, my colleague Jonathan Alter wrote in a Newsweek column (which he has since regretted) that we should be open to the idea of "transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies." Alan Dershowitz argued for legitimizing torture through a system of judicial warrants. "It is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work," Mark Bowden wrote a couple of years later in the Atlantic, referring specifically to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And that's what liberals said. Conservative commentators had few such qualms.
Well before the country re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, our best investigative reporters had unearthed the salient aspects of his torture policy: In December 2002, Dana Priest and Barton Gellman revealed on the front page of the Washington Post that American interrogators were employing "stress and duress" techniques and shipping prisoners to places, like Egypt, where even fewer rules applied, a practice known as rendition. "Each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary," the reporters wrote. "They expressed confidence that the American public would back their view." Those officials weren't wrong.
Seymour Hersh broke the Abu Ghraib story in The New Yorker in April 2004. In May, the New York Times revealed that the CIA had water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In June, another major Washington Post scoop described a Justice Department memo asserting that CIA interrogators couldn't be prosecuted for using torture on detainees. That same month, Newsweek revealed that Cheney's lawyers had declared water-boarding a legal and acceptable practice. The leaked Red Cross report recently published by Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books and the new memos released by the Obama administration add horrible detail to the story. But they do not fundamentally change what we previously knew.
As with Japanese internment, Bush's torture policy wasn't seriously challenged by the other branches of government while it was in effect. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims she wasn't told about it, evidence suggests she and other senior members of the intelligence committees were extensively briefed on the use of water-boarding and other coercive methods in the fall of 2002. According to one official quoted in the Washington Post, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' " In September 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which shielded American interrogators from potential prosecution for torture. The Senate rejected an amendment introduced by Ted Kennedy that would have defined water-boarding as a war crime. In 2008, five years after water-boarding ceased to be used, Democrats finally had the guts to pass legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those covered in the Army field manual. Bush vetoed the bill, and there was no override.
President Obama has done the most important thing: ending Bush's policy of allowing torture and declaring, as the new president did in his April 29 press conference, that it was unequivocally wrong. What we need now is a public airing through congressional hearings and perhaps a high-level commission—Jack Goldsmith and Philip Zelikow, brave opponents of torture and legal casuistry inside the Bush administration, would be excellent choices for it. But pursuing criminal charges would be too hard legally and politically and too easy morally. Prosecuting Bush and his men won't absolve the rest of us for what we let them do.
Torturegate
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Likewise, waiting for the Obamaniacs to spin this one:
Obama will seek to delay photos release
Images reportedly depict the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military in Iraq
The Associated Press
updated 3:44 p.m. ET, Wed., May 13, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of hundreds of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan being abused, reversing his position after military commanders warned that the images could stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.
The pictures show mistreatment of detainees at locations beyond the infamous U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Word of Obama's decision on Wednesday came after top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan expressed fears that publicizing the pictures could put their troops in danger. When the Abu Ghraib photos emerged in 2004 of grinning U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, some being held on leashes, they caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world.
Obama decided he did not feel comfortable with the photos release, and was concerned it would inflame tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan, put U.S. soldiers at higher risk and make the U.S. mission in those two wars more difficult, according to White House officials.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the president was concerned that the photos' release would pose a national security threat, an argument the administration has not made yet in the courts.
"The president does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court and that was a case based on his concern about what the release would do to our national security," Gibbs said.
Criticism anticipated
Gibbs said that the main argument previously was a privacy one. [Where've I heard that one before?]
The move represented a sharp reversal from Obama's repeated pledges for open government, and in particular from his promise to be forthcoming with information that courts have ruled should be publicly available.
As such, it was sure to invite criticism from the more liberal segments of the Democratic Party that want a full accounting — and even redress — for what they see as the misdeeds of previous years under former President George W. Bush.
Federal appeals judges have ruled, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, that the photos should be released. After those losses in federal court, the Justice Department concluded that any further appeal would probably be fruitless.
Last month, Gibbs said the president had concurred, though without commenting on whether Obama would support the release if not pressed by a court case.
Through an arrangement with the court, the Pentagon was preparing to put out, by May 28, two batches of photos, one of 21 images and another 23. The government had also told the judge it was "processing for release a substantial number of other images." The total number of photos to be released was expected to be in the hundreds.
The official emphasized that the president continues to believe that the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But that is not likely to quiet Obama's critics.
Indeed, the ACLU quickly lambasted Obama's move.
"The decision to not release the photographs makes a mockery of President Obama's promise of transparency and accountability," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh, who argued and won the case in front of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York. "It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can examine for itself the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that was conducted in its name."
Top Republican members of Congress welcomed the move.
"I agree with the president that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "The president made the right decision and I applaud him for it."
The president last week instructed administration lawyers to challenge the release in court and to make the case that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented, the official said.
Obama will seek to delay photos release
Images reportedly depict the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military in Iraq
The Associated Press
updated 3:44 p.m. ET, Wed., May 13, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of hundreds of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan being abused, reversing his position after military commanders warned that the images could stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.
The pictures show mistreatment of detainees at locations beyond the infamous U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Word of Obama's decision on Wednesday came after top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan expressed fears that publicizing the pictures could put their troops in danger. When the Abu Ghraib photos emerged in 2004 of grinning U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, some being held on leashes, they caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world.
Obama decided he did not feel comfortable with the photos release, and was concerned it would inflame tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan, put U.S. soldiers at higher risk and make the U.S. mission in those two wars more difficult, according to White House officials.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the president was concerned that the photos' release would pose a national security threat, an argument the administration has not made yet in the courts.
"The president does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court and that was a case based on his concern about what the release would do to our national security," Gibbs said.
Criticism anticipated
Gibbs said that the main argument previously was a privacy one. [Where've I heard that one before?]
The move represented a sharp reversal from Obama's repeated pledges for open government, and in particular from his promise to be forthcoming with information that courts have ruled should be publicly available.
As such, it was sure to invite criticism from the more liberal segments of the Democratic Party that want a full accounting — and even redress — for what they see as the misdeeds of previous years under former President George W. Bush.
Federal appeals judges have ruled, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, that the photos should be released. After those losses in federal court, the Justice Department concluded that any further appeal would probably be fruitless.
Last month, Gibbs said the president had concurred, though without commenting on whether Obama would support the release if not pressed by a court case.
Through an arrangement with the court, the Pentagon was preparing to put out, by May 28, two batches of photos, one of 21 images and another 23. The government had also told the judge it was "processing for release a substantial number of other images." The total number of photos to be released was expected to be in the hundreds.
The official emphasized that the president continues to believe that the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But that is not likely to quiet Obama's critics.
Indeed, the ACLU quickly lambasted Obama's move.
"The decision to not release the photographs makes a mockery of President Obama's promise of transparency and accountability," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh, who argued and won the case in front of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York. "It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can examine for itself the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that was conducted in its name."
Top Republican members of Congress welcomed the move.
"I agree with the president that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "The president made the right decision and I applaud him for it."
The president last week instructed administration lawyers to challenge the release in court and to make the case that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented, the official said.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Just waiting for the Pubes to spin this one...
'Enhanced interrogations' don't work, ex-FBI agent tells panel
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The contentious debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" took center stage on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such techniques -- including waterboarding -- are ineffective.
Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."
His remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing itself.
Soufan, who was involved in the interrogation of CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, took issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said that enhanced interrogation techniques helped the government acquire intelligence necessary to prevent further attacks after September 11, 2001.
The techniques, which were approved by the Bush administration, are considered torture by many critics.
"From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " Soufan noted in his written statement.
Such a position is "shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation."
One of four recently released Bush administration memos showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected planner of the September 11 attacks.
"People were given misinformation, half-truths and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities," Soufan testified.
"I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these ... techniques instead of the tried, tested and successful ones -- the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible."
Soufan was hidden behind a protective screen during his testimony before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Staffers for the committee cited "documented threats" against him, noting his previous interaction with al Qaeda terrorists, as well as his undercover work against Islamic extremists.
Phillip Zelikow, who was a top aide to Condoleezza Rice when she was secretary of state, repeated an accusation during the hearing that Bush officials ordered his memo arguing against waterboarding to be destroyed.
The order, "passed along informally, did not seem proper, and I ignored it," Zelikow said.
He said that his memo has been in State Department files and is being reviewed for possible declassification.
Zelikow slammed the "collective failure" behind the government's adoption of "an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one."
He added that some "may believe that recent history, even since 2005, shows that America needs an elaborate program of indefinite secret detention and physical coercion in order to protect the nation. ... If they are right, our laws must change and our country must change. I think they are wrong."
Committee Republicans warned that the hearing could ultimately contribute to diminished national security.
"As we harshly judge those who had to make decisions we don't have to make, please remember this: that what we do in looking back may determine how we move forward," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.
"And let's not unnecessarily impede the ability of this country to defend itself against an enemy who, as I speak, is thinking and plotting their way back into America."
A top intelligence source familiar with the Bush administration's interrogation program was dismissive of Soufan's credibility as a witness.
"It's puzzling that someone who questioned a single high-value detainee for just a few months claims to be able to talk about the value of a program that lasted nearly seven years after he was part of it," the source said.
"Suffice it to say, there are varying accounts of the facts and circumstances surrounding the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah."
Soufan wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in April arguing that there "was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."
He said that "using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions ... The short-sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
While at the FBI, Soufan was involved with numerous investigations of sensitive international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, opened the hearing by accusing Bush administration officials of lying about the use of techniques that had damaged the country's standing in the world.
"The truth of our country's descent into torture is not precious. It is noxious. It is sordid," Whitehouse said.
"It has also been attended by a bodyguard of lies. ... President Bush told us America does not torture while authorizing conduct that America has prosecuted. ... Vice President Cheney agreed in an interview that waterboarding was like a dunk in the water, when it was used as a torture technique by tyrannical regimes from the Spanish inquisition to Cambodia's killing fields."
'Enhanced interrogations' don't work, ex-FBI agent tells panel
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The contentious debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" took center stage on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such techniques -- including waterboarding -- are ineffective.
Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."
His remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing itself.
Soufan, who was involved in the interrogation of CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, took issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said that enhanced interrogation techniques helped the government acquire intelligence necessary to prevent further attacks after September 11, 2001.
The techniques, which were approved by the Bush administration, are considered torture by many critics.
"From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " Soufan noted in his written statement.
Such a position is "shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation."
One of four recently released Bush administration memos showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected planner of the September 11 attacks.
"People were given misinformation, half-truths and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities," Soufan testified.
"I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these ... techniques instead of the tried, tested and successful ones -- the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible."
Soufan was hidden behind a protective screen during his testimony before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Staffers for the committee cited "documented threats" against him, noting his previous interaction with al Qaeda terrorists, as well as his undercover work against Islamic extremists.
Phillip Zelikow, who was a top aide to Condoleezza Rice when she was secretary of state, repeated an accusation during the hearing that Bush officials ordered his memo arguing against waterboarding to be destroyed.
The order, "passed along informally, did not seem proper, and I ignored it," Zelikow said.
He said that his memo has been in State Department files and is being reviewed for possible declassification.
Zelikow slammed the "collective failure" behind the government's adoption of "an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one."
He added that some "may believe that recent history, even since 2005, shows that America needs an elaborate program of indefinite secret detention and physical coercion in order to protect the nation. ... If they are right, our laws must change and our country must change. I think they are wrong."
Committee Republicans warned that the hearing could ultimately contribute to diminished national security.
"As we harshly judge those who had to make decisions we don't have to make, please remember this: that what we do in looking back may determine how we move forward," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.
"And let's not unnecessarily impede the ability of this country to defend itself against an enemy who, as I speak, is thinking and plotting their way back into America."
A top intelligence source familiar with the Bush administration's interrogation program was dismissive of Soufan's credibility as a witness.
"It's puzzling that someone who questioned a single high-value detainee for just a few months claims to be able to talk about the value of a program that lasted nearly seven years after he was part of it," the source said.
"Suffice it to say, there are varying accounts of the facts and circumstances surrounding the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah."
Soufan wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in April arguing that there "was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."
He said that "using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions ... The short-sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
While at the FBI, Soufan was involved with numerous investigations of sensitive international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, opened the hearing by accusing Bush administration officials of lying about the use of techniques that had damaged the country's standing in the world.
"The truth of our country's descent into torture is not precious. It is noxious. It is sordid," Whitehouse said.
"It has also been attended by a bodyguard of lies. ... President Bush told us America does not torture while authorizing conduct that America has prosecuted. ... Vice President Cheney agreed in an interview that waterboarding was like a dunk in the water, when it was used as a torture technique by tyrannical regimes from the Spanish inquisition to Cambodia's killing fields."
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Maybe everyone should be put through Waterboarding and see if they think it's torture.
But, they would say they don't care if it's torture if it gets us intel, which as many Academics have stated time and time again that torture does not result in enough legitimate and reliable information to be a proven technique.
I believe it was Japan, but in their Feudal era, when a criminal was caught, they were tortured until they confessed. There was no presumption of innocence. It was: you've been proven a criminal, you will confess and eventually everyone did.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1241212038
But, they would say they don't care if it's torture if it gets us intel, which as many Academics have stated time and time again that torture does not result in enough legitimate and reliable information to be a proven technique.
I believe it was Japan, but in their Feudal era, when a criminal was caught, they were tortured until they confessed. There was no presumption of innocence. It was: you've been proven a criminal, you will confess and eventually everyone did.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1241212038
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Not being a Christian myself, I don't presume to guess who are true Christians and who aren't, so I've given up on that line of reasoning. It would seem to me the only true Christians are the ascetics who devote their lives to Christianity to such an extent they live in a Franciscan retreat and keep their mouths shut most of their lives.
But the great majority of people aren't true anythings, but rather a sum total of many things, and people's views are influenced by the social settings they live in. It really has nothing to do with religion. It's that religious Americans tend to be more conservative politically, and in this country 'pro-torture' and 'conservative' happen to be intertwined for now. Perhaps if they were Christians in Somalia, they would think differently, as would steadfast athiest Party members in China. And I think it's more an obligation to oppose the Democratic party than it is to support the "War On Terror". People can talk themselves into being in favor of anything so long as it'll get their candidate to win.
I guess this irks me because it's such a redundant conversation by now. Religious Republicans have always been more pro-war and pro-death penalty, and as long as the concept of torture remains in the abstract for them, they'll be pro-torture as well. But I mean... we've known this for years already. I don't see why this is such a story. Sorry.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1241206962
But the great majority of people aren't true anythings, but rather a sum total of many things, and people's views are influenced by the social settings they live in. It really has nothing to do with religion. It's that religious Americans tend to be more conservative politically, and in this country 'pro-torture' and 'conservative' happen to be intertwined for now. Perhaps if they were Christians in Somalia, they would think differently, as would steadfast athiest Party members in China. And I think it's more an obligation to oppose the Democratic party than it is to support the "War On Terror". People can talk themselves into being in favor of anything so long as it'll get their candidate to win.
I guess this irks me because it's such a redundant conversation by now. Religious Republicans have always been more pro-war and pro-death penalty, and as long as the concept of torture remains in the abstract for them, they'll be pro-torture as well. But I mean... we've known this for years already. I don't see why this is such a story. Sorry.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1241206962
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I'm not really shocked per se, I guess I'm just surprised that the numbers were so high. We are no more progressive today than we were 100 years ago with the mentalities on display here.
And you would think true Christians would be more tolerant and anti-Torture. Do they see what happened to their Christ when he stood up for his people? He was tortured. Not to admit a crime but b/c it was part of his punishment. It's vengeance at its most extreme and they are no better than the Romans if they support such acts.
And you would think true Christians would be more tolerant and anti-Torture. Do they see what happened to their Christ when he stood up for his people? He was tortured. Not to admit a crime but b/c it was part of his punishment. It's vengeance at its most extreme and they are no better than the Romans if they support such acts.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
It strikes me that, on the average, members of more fundementalist denominations view the "War On Terror" as a fight between God and Satan for control of the world, with Chritianity as the side of God and radical Islam as the side of Satan. Others are more likely to view, for example, Iraq turning into a Shiite theocracy or al Qaeda seizing control of Afghanistan, as a tragic situation for the people living there, but not part of a trend towards world domination. As a result, fundamentalists are more apt to support extreme measures in the "War On Terror."
You also have to take into consideration that most of the more stringent religions/denominations focus on the violent aspects of their faith. It's a lot like physical punishment to a child. They learn it from a higher power so they think it should always apply once they reach that point of authority.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I don't know why I'm astounded, but I am...
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
--OscarGuy wrote:Resurrecting an old thread b/c it seems oddly important right now. While I don't condone anyone using techniques like these without standing up against them, I realize that the military is very rigid and orders are orders. So, while these people may feel vindicated, I think they deserve to have their court-martials overturned b/c they were used as scapegoats.
Orders aren't just orders in the military. If someone gives you an unlawful order, and torture is unlawful no matter if someone authorizes you or not, you do not follow it. Even if the President approaches you himself and tells you to do those things or he will have you arrested and court martialed, you don't do it. You disobey and let the legal system take care of you. In a time of war, this offense can be punishable by death.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1241135946
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Resurrecting an old thread b/c it seems oddly important right now. While I don't condone anyone using techniques like these without standing up against them, I realize that the military is very rigid and orders are orders. So, while these people may feel vindicated, I think they deserve to have their court-martials overturned b/c they were used as scapegoats.
Abu Ghraib head finds vindication in newly released memos
By Samira Simone
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
(CNN) -- She said she was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly.
Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so.
Karpinski was one of two officers punished over the aggressive interrogations at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Pictures of detainees caused outrage around the world when they were leaked to the news media in May 2004. The photos showed naked prisoners stacked on top of each other or being threatened by dogs or hooded and wired up as if for electrocution.
Throughout the ordeal, Karpinski maintained that she and her troops were following interrogation guidelines approved by top brass. Today, Karpinski has found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the Obama administration.
"The outrage was over the photographs, because the photographs were living color of what those top-secret memorandums authorized," Karpinski said in an interview Wednesday. "So, it is unfair ... the soldiers may have moved through [the military justice] system, but they never had a fair court-martial. Not any one of them, because they were condemned as one of the 'bad apples.' "
Karpinski, then a brigadier general and commander of Abu Ghraib, was demoted to colonel because of the scandal. A second officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the commander of the military intelligence unit assigned to Abu Ghraib when the offenses occurred, was relieved of duty and fined in May 2005. Seven low-ranking guards and two military intelligence soldiers -- described by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as "bad apples" -- were disciplined.
The memo, by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet. One memo said aggressive techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture absent the intent to cause severe pain.
"I will tell you that when I read those memorandums, when they were first released a few days ago, I did -- I did feel this sense of being able to exhale after five years," Karpinski said.
"That is what we have been saying from the very beginning, that, wait a minute, why are you inside pointing the finger at me, why are you pointing the fingers at the soldiers here? There's a bigger story here."
The Senate Armed Forces Committee released a report Tuesday, five days after the memos were released, stating that senior Bush administration officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, despite concerns from military psychologists and attorneys.
The report points to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of such techniques -- including stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli -- in December 2002 for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His OK prompted interrogators in Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt the aggressive techniques.
The guidance was delivered to Abu Ghraib by then-Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was summoned to Baghdad from Guantanamo to evaluate the prison system.
"We had a myriad of problems in our -- in the prison system, not with detainees who were undergoing interrogations, but with Iraqi criminal prisoners," Karpinski said. "And instead of coming to give us support, he was sent specifically to work with the military intelligence interrogators to teach them the harsher techniques that were being used down in Guantanamo."
Shortly before he left office in late 2006, Rumsfeld said the day the Abu Ghraib scandal broke was the worst in his tenure as defense secretary.
"Clearly the worst day was Abu Ghraib, and seeing what went on there and feeling so deeply sorry that that happened," he said at the time. "I remember being stunned by the news of the abuse."
But Karpinski said the condition of detainees at the prison should have come as no surprise for the Bush administration.
"I think it was torture, absolutely. You know, I was never inside an interrogation room where they were conducting interrogations, but I read the memorandums many times over," she said. "Waterboarding is torture."
Karpinski said that while she was the commander of Abu Ghraib, she didn't personally witness any of the interrogation techniques.
"The first time I saw the photographs was at the end of January [2004]," she said.
Karpinski said she was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the U.S. commander of operations in Iraq at the time, not to discuss the photographs or the investigation with anybody.
Now, despite any relief felt by the release of the memos and the Senate report, Karpinski said she will have a hard time shaking off the humiliation and disgrace brought on by the Abu Ghraib scandal.
"I think that, you know, you cannot dismiss five years of having to live under these accusations," she said, "and people associating my name and these soldiers' names with what they were so unfairly accused of."
Edited By OscarGuy on 1240495429
Abu Ghraib head finds vindication in newly released memos
By Samira Simone
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
(CNN) -- She said she was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly.
Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so.
Karpinski was one of two officers punished over the aggressive interrogations at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Pictures of detainees caused outrage around the world when they were leaked to the news media in May 2004. The photos showed naked prisoners stacked on top of each other or being threatened by dogs or hooded and wired up as if for electrocution.
Throughout the ordeal, Karpinski maintained that she and her troops were following interrogation guidelines approved by top brass. Today, Karpinski has found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the Obama administration.
"The outrage was over the photographs, because the photographs were living color of what those top-secret memorandums authorized," Karpinski said in an interview Wednesday. "So, it is unfair ... the soldiers may have moved through [the military justice] system, but they never had a fair court-martial. Not any one of them, because they were condemned as one of the 'bad apples.' "
Karpinski, then a brigadier general and commander of Abu Ghraib, was demoted to colonel because of the scandal. A second officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the commander of the military intelligence unit assigned to Abu Ghraib when the offenses occurred, was relieved of duty and fined in May 2005. Seven low-ranking guards and two military intelligence soldiers -- described by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as "bad apples" -- were disciplined.
The memo, by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet. One memo said aggressive techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture absent the intent to cause severe pain.
"I will tell you that when I read those memorandums, when they were first released a few days ago, I did -- I did feel this sense of being able to exhale after five years," Karpinski said.
"That is what we have been saying from the very beginning, that, wait a minute, why are you inside pointing the finger at me, why are you pointing the fingers at the soldiers here? There's a bigger story here."
The Senate Armed Forces Committee released a report Tuesday, five days after the memos were released, stating that senior Bush administration officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, despite concerns from military psychologists and attorneys.
The report points to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of such techniques -- including stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli -- in December 2002 for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His OK prompted interrogators in Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt the aggressive techniques.
The guidance was delivered to Abu Ghraib by then-Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was summoned to Baghdad from Guantanamo to evaluate the prison system.
"We had a myriad of problems in our -- in the prison system, not with detainees who were undergoing interrogations, but with Iraqi criminal prisoners," Karpinski said. "And instead of coming to give us support, he was sent specifically to work with the military intelligence interrogators to teach them the harsher techniques that were being used down in Guantanamo."
Shortly before he left office in late 2006, Rumsfeld said the day the Abu Ghraib scandal broke was the worst in his tenure as defense secretary.
"Clearly the worst day was Abu Ghraib, and seeing what went on there and feeling so deeply sorry that that happened," he said at the time. "I remember being stunned by the news of the abuse."
But Karpinski said the condition of detainees at the prison should have come as no surprise for the Bush administration.
"I think it was torture, absolutely. You know, I was never inside an interrogation room where they were conducting interrogations, but I read the memorandums many times over," she said. "Waterboarding is torture."
Karpinski said that while she was the commander of Abu Ghraib, she didn't personally witness any of the interrogation techniques.
"The first time I saw the photographs was at the end of January [2004]," she said.
Karpinski said she was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the U.S. commander of operations in Iraq at the time, not to discuss the photographs or the investigation with anybody.
Now, despite any relief felt by the release of the memos and the Senate report, Karpinski said she will have a hard time shaking off the humiliation and disgrace brought on by the Abu Ghraib scandal.
"I think that, you know, you cannot dismiss five years of having to live under these accusations," she said, "and people associating my name and these soldiers' names with what they were so unfairly accused of."
Edited By OscarGuy on 1240495429
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin