classic sign of a despot

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by DKSuddeth, Jun 23, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    This is sure to get me flamed, but this is bullshit.

    Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws

    President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.

    The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al-Qaida prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq.

    "I have never ordered torture," Bush said. "I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."


    One of the classic signs of a despot is the evasion of responsibility. Here's the perfect example. Instead of accepting responsibility for approving 'tougher interrogation techniques' i.e. torture, he uses 'I never ordered torture' and he 'suspends' geneva convention laws on torture. :wtf: He knowingly approved torture by this memo and uses that BS excuse to skirt the legalities and responsibilities of any atrocity that the troops might commit

    I know alot of you don't give a damn about how the detainees or prisoners are treated, thats fine because in the end you'll have to deal with your decision when you meet god like everyone else will, but I personally think this was fucked up and now I have to seriously question the ability of Bush as a leader because of this. You might think it's simply because of the memo that this is the reason but its not. The real reason I question Bushs leadership now is he hung those 7 or 8 troops out to their own fate after implicitly approving their actions in Abu Ghraib. Thats poor leadership.


    news link
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    That's AP, unreal. The press hates him with such vehemence, that they don't seem to realize that they are losing the trust of the American people.
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    are you disputing any part of the article?
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    My bad. Usually I go right for the link, but I was trying to race through posts and it was you so I trusted. What is 'bold' now is your opine I believe. So the front part is the article and that I can see as reasonable coverage. I assumed and we all know what that will make one, that the 'opinion' part was from the article.

    I need to think a bit more about what you are saying about the approval for how to handle the prisoners; my tendency has been to think that while the pictures were horrible, it seemed to me that the government was over reacting. I must admit, I wondered why.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    gotcha. ;)
     
  6. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    from the article:

    Reacting to the White House release, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the administration of continuing to withhold information.

    "Though this is a self-serving selection, at least it is a beginning," Leahy said. "But for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings."


    Again, making a mountain out of a mole hill. The Dems are prolonging this crap just to take a whack at GWB in an election year.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have a complicated response to this turn of events. I think DK goes a bit over the top with the psychoanalysis, yet I also believe that the executive branch did things that could easily lead to the problems that happened 'in the field' in this case in the prisons. I'm copying the rest of the article, which I believe adds some clarity:

    The memos were meant to deal with an election-year headache that followed revelations about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, but the documents also brought to light some practices that the administration decided had gone too far. Amnesty International revived its call for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate any torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

    The Justice Department disavowed a memo written in 2002 that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror. The memo also argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.

    That 50-page document, dated Aug. 1, 2002, will be replaced, Justice Department officials said. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said that some legal memos contained "unnecessary and overbroad discussions" that could be "subject to misinterpretation." But he added, "The analysis underpinning the president's decisions stand and are not being reviewed."

    A new memo will instead narrowly address the question of proper interrogation techniques for al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the Justice Department said.

    Bush had outlined his own views in a Feb. 7. 2002, document regarding treatment of al-Qaida detainees from Afghanistan. He said the war against terrorism had ushered in a "new paradigm" and that terrorist attacks required "new thinking in the law of war." Still, he said prisoners must be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
    "I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time," the president said in the memo, entitled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees."
    Explaining Bush's memo, Gonzales said the United States "is fighting "an enemy that does not fight, attack or plan according to accepted laws of war - in particular the Geneva Conventions."

    In a separate Pentagon memo, dated Nov. 27, 2002, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, recommended that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approve the use of 14 interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, such as yelling at a prisoner during questioning and using "stress positions," like standing, for up to four hours.

    Haynes also recommended approval of one technique among harsher methods requested by U.S. military authorities at Guantanamo: use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing."

    Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:

    - Use of 20-hour interrogations.

    - Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.

    - Removal of clothing.

    - Using detainees'"individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."

    Rumsfeld scribbled a note on Haynes' memo that said, "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours."

    In a Jan. 15, 2003, note, Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of Haynes' recommendations and said a review would be conducted to consider legal, policy and operational issues relating to interrogations of detainees held by the U.S. military in the war on terrorism.

    Rumsfeld's decision was prompted at least in part by objections raised by some military lawyers who felt that the techniques might go too far, officials said earlier this year.

    The review was completed in April 2003, and on that basis Rumsfeld reissued his guidance on April 16, 2003. He approved 24 interrogation techniques, to be used in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, but said that any use of four of those methods would have to be approved by him in advance: the use of rewards or removal of privileges; attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating the use of friendly and harsh interrogators, and isolation.

    The April 2003 review said that removing a detainees' clothing would raise legal issues because it could be construed as degrading, which is against the international convention on torture. The removal of clothing, approved by Rumsfeld for use at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002, was not among the authorized techniques in his revised guidelines issued in April 2003.

    At the Justice Department, senior officials said that the 50-page memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002, would be repudiated and replaced.

    The memo, signed by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.

    Critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere have said that memo provided the legal underpinnings for subsequent abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Reacting to the White House release, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the administration of continuing to withhold information.

    "Though this is a self-serving selection, at least it is a beginning," Leahy said. "But for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings."


    ---

    Associated Press writers Curt Anderson, Robert Burns and Scott Lindlaw contributed to this article.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My conclusion, the executive branch should stay the heck out of day-to-day dealings with war and it's connected components, unless asked for judiciary help from the military. It always leads to trouble for all concerned.

    I also believe that with the speed and scope of the military deployments since 9/11, there is a very good chance that the original memo could be taken as justification by some dimwits for what occured at the Iraqi prison. The administration should not have left those troops in the position they now find themselves. They should have just come out with the memo, said that it seemed that some of the troops were under leadership that focused on the first, without keeping up with the revisions or ignored the revisions.

    The general in charge of the prison should say bye bye to pension, the troops who were involved should be disciplined, but not made the scapegoats they are.

    Better DK?
     
  8. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Like I give a damn about what leahy says. Did you not read MY part of the first post? (in bold). Thats not a 'mountain out of a molehill', its a serious breach of trust to the troops who followed those orders and/or guidelines.
     
  9. Gaebolg
    Online

    Gaebolg Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    That's a trait shared by just about every U.S. president, hell most every politician, that I can remember.
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    yea, thats me. over the top.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    knowing from personal experience how the military deals with civilian beauracracy, it wouldn't surprise me one iota if this particular set of memos wasn't treated like the 'code red' memo in the movie 'a few good men'. That it was given its due course and consideration as a political blunt for legal purposes only, while the continuation was silently approved.

    again, while I agree with you about the commanding general, as well as some of the officers in charge there, the troops should be disciplined. Unfortunately this will not happen as the executive branch moves to protect their collective asses with misinformation and legal speak.

    classic evasion of responsibility.
     

Share This Page