Bush Admin. to blame for prison abuses

[JimH52]

George's Bottom Line

Biden not ruling out taking actions against them.

 

[DiamondDave]

blog

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geneva Convention `catch’
By Rosa Brooks
June 30, 2006 in print edition B-13

THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda – a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants – including prisoners – in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration’s arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.

This novel theory served as the administration’s legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.

Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as “waterboarding,” placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
The Geneva Convention `catch' - Los Angeles Times

 

[Old Rocks]

Posted on: June 25, 2008 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

A new report put out by Physicians for Human Rights documents multiple instances of torture and abuse of prisoners by American personnel at Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq and in other prisons on military bases around the world. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Pentagon's investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib, minces no words in the introduction to the report:

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.
Once again, this is not coming from someone that can be dismissed by Bush apologists as some wild-eyed liberal ACLU type. This is the man that the Pentagon picked to investigate a major incident of abuse. And there is more, both in Taguba's introduction to the report and in the report itself. His full statement below the fold.

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual's lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.
The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted --both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.
Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Retired General: Bush Administration Committed War Crimes

 

[Gunny]

George's Bottom Line

Biden not ruling out taking actions against them.

An illogical decision such as this just proves the members of the SASC are morons.

 

[elvis]

George's Bottom Line

Biden not ruling out taking actions against them.

Biden can't take action against a wet dream.

 

[editec]

Bush Admin. to blame for prison abuses

Duh!

They were in charge.

Ergo, they are responsible for what happened on their watch.

I don't much care if they ordered these crimes, or they merely weren't competent enough to prevent them, they are responsible because they were in charge.

I'm a old time kinda guy in that respect.

The captian of the ship is ultimately responsible for his crew's actions and the well being of the ship under his command.

 

[DiamondDave]

Duh!

They were in charge.

Ergo, they are responsible for what happened on their watch.

I don't much care if they ordered these crimes, or they merely weren't competent enough to prevent them, they are responsible because they were in charge.

I'm a old time kinda guy in that respect.

The captian of the ship is ultimately responsible for his crew's actions and the well being of the ship under his command.

1) That only goes so far, and you know it. While it is always lip service when we hear this, those in upper echelons are not always ultimately responsible for the actions of those below or for preventing all of said actions. There is a little thing called free will and personal choice which are not totally controllable.
2) And it is the MAJOR key here if they did order these 'crimes'. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any criminal order was ever issued. To 'not care' or to simply ignore this in an attempt to yet again 'stick it' to this administration, is simply laughable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1) That only goes so far, and you know it. While it is always lip service when we hear this, those in upper echelons are not always ultimately responsible for the actions of those below or for preventing all of said actions. There is a little thing called free will and personal choice which are not totally controllable.
2) And it is the MAJOR key here if they did order these 'crimes'. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any criminal order was ever issued. To 'not care' or to simply ignore this in an attempt to yet again 'stick it' to this administration, is simply laughable.

I hope they go after them, then we can get to that needed civil war. We can finally run the liberals out at gun point.

 

[Silence]

I hope they go after them, then we can get to that needed civil war. We can finally run the liberals out at gun point.

Trust me when I tell you, there are more of US than there are of YOU! so good luck wth running us out of the country at gun point you freakin looney fuck!

I find it disgusting that those on the right are so willing to look the other way regarding the crimes committed by this administration but ya'll wanted to run Clinton out of office on a rail for getting blown and lying about it! where the fuck is your common sense people?

The things this administration ALLOWED to happen are deplorable! they go against EVERYTHING this country has EVER stood for! There is no getting around the fact that crimes were committed and SOMEONE should be made to face those consequences!

and sorry but to say that the higher ups don't always know what is going on? what kind of mamby pamby cop-out bullshit is that? If the higher-ups didn't know what was happening they were negligent in their duties as commanders and therefore are just as responsible as if they had known! They were in charge, it was their JOB to know!

 

[DiamondDave]

Trust me when I tell you, there are more of US than there are of YOU! so good luck wth running us out of the country at gun point you freakin looney fuck!

I find it disgusting that those on the right are so willing to look the other way regarding the crimes committed by this administration but ya'll wanted to run Clinton out of office on a rail for getting blown and lying about it! where the fuck is your common sense people?

The things this administration ALLOWED to happen are deplorable! they go against EVERYTHING this country has EVER stood for! There is no getting around the fact that crimes were committed and SOMEONE should be made to face those consequences!

and sorry but to say that the higher ups don't always know what is going on? what kind of mamby pamby cop-out bullshit is that? If the higher-ups didn't know what was happening they were negligent in their duties as commanders and therefore are just as responsible as if they had known! They were in charge, it was their JOB to know!

The difference, silence, is that the crime of perjury by Clinton, was clearly committed and there was direct evidence of this. There is no charge and no evidence of any crime being committed by Bush... rhetoric is not evidence..

As for higher ups not knowing.. ask any platoon sgt or company commander on how things go on without knowledge.. and those are FIRST LINE in the chain... get real silence

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trust me when I tell you, there are more of US than there are of YOU! so good luck wth running us out of the country at gun point you freakin looney fuck!

I find it disgusting that those on the right are so willing to look the other way regarding the crimes committed by this administration but ya'll wanted to run Clinton out of office on a rail for getting blown and lying about it! where the fuck is your common sense people?

The things this administration ALLOWED to happen are deplorable! they go against EVERYTHING this country has EVER stood for! There is no getting around the fact that crimes were committed and SOMEONE should be made to face those consequences!

and sorry but to say that the higher ups don't always know what is going on? what kind of mamby pamby cop-out bullshit is that? If the higher-ups didn't know what was happening they were negligent in their duties as commanders and therefore are just as responsible as if they had known! They were in charge, it was their JOB to know!

Sure thing honey, hope you own some weapons. You dumb shits want to disarm us in the fight for our lives. Fuck that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

George's Bottom Line

Biden not ruling out taking actions against them.

ROFL...

Biden is an imbecile and those who lend his idiocy credence are fools beyond measure.

I AM BEGGING JOE BIDEN TO "TAKE ACTION"... PLEASE JOE! GO FOR IT! TAKE "ACTION" AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR ITS WORK IN THE WAR ON MARXIST MUSLIM TERRORISM WHILE YOU'RE SERVING THE MARXIST MUSLIM PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS ELECTED ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS~

'... and when the day comes that they will be held accountable for their foolishness, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Bring it on...

 

[WillowTree]

Biden can't take action against a wet dream.

damn you! you made me spit coffee on my keyboard. curse you to hell with the F bomb..

 

[editec]

1) That only goes so far, and you know it. While it is always lip service when we hear this, those in upper echelons are not always ultimately responsible for the actions of those below or for preventing all of said actions. There is a little thing called free will and personal choice which are not totally controllable.

Yeah, okay. I don't mean to overstate it.

But when a persistent pattern of bad behavior manifests (as it did in this case) then the people in charge cannot simply say that this was abhorent behavior of a few bad apples.

In the case of Abu Ghriab, for example, the chain of command IS responsible.

2) And it is the MAJOR key here if they did order these 'crimes'. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any criminal order was ever issued. To 'not care' or to simply ignore this in an attempt to yet again 'stick it' to this administration, is simply laughable.

No, sorry.

That excuse won't wash in this case.

Those in charge are responsible for the bad behavior of their subordinates.

They sanctioned that bad behavior and they ought to be held accountable for it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah, okay. I don't mean to overstate it.

But when a persistent pattern of bad behavior manifests (as it did in this case) then the people in charge cannot simply say that this was abhorent behavior of a few bad apples.

In the case of Abu Ghriab, for example, the chain of command IS responsible.




No, sorry.

That excuse won't wash in this case.

Those in charge are responsible for the bad behavior of their subordinates.

They sanctioned that bad behavior and they ought to be held accountable for it.

But it just does NOT go up the chain like dominoes... There are investigations on whether e-5's, e-6's, o-3's etc were involved in the policy, orders, or just subtle suggestions as to treatment... but there is NO evidence showing that this was ordered from the upper echelons, and we WOULD have seen this in the courts martial of the soldiers committing actions against policy

IMHO... the big thing that I would change in all of this is not the use of harsh interrogation techniques.. but in using the everyday soldier for questioning etc.. this should be the job of only those soldiers specially trained and/or CIA/NSA/DHS personnel

Even when we had "the buck stops here' on the presidential desk.. it was more lip service than anything else, as that kind of micro-management is not going to happen in any way, shape, or form

 

[editec]

Sure thing honey, hope you own some weapons. You dumb shits want to disarm us in the fight for our lives. Fuck that.

What fucking punk you are. Veiled threats aimed at people on this board.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[QUENTIN]

ROFL...

Biden is an imbecile and those who lend his idiocy credence are fools beyond measure.

I AM BEGGING JOE BIDEN TO "TAKE ACTION"... PLEASE JOE! GO FOR IT! TAKE "ACTION" AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR ITS WORK IN THE WAR ON MARXIST MUSLIM TERRORISM WHILE YOU'RE SERVING THE MARXIST MUSLIM PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS ELECTED ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS~

'... and when the day comes that they will be held accountable for their foolishness, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Bring it on...

1.) You're insane. Seek help. The idea that Barack Obama, awful president that he will be, is a "Marxist Muslim" cannot be held by any functioning, rational human being living in the real world. Seriously, get treatment.
2.) You clearly have no idea what Marxism is. Islamic terrorists want theocratic fascism. They support a religious, oppressive, totalitarian regime led by high priests following Sharia. That is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of Marxism.

Marxism n. the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Origin:
1895–1900; Marx + -ism

Marxism is irreligious, leaderless, egalitarian. Everything Muslim extremists don't want.

 

[Xenophon]

The Democrats controlled the senate that authorized the invasion of Iraq, and were along and approved all Bush and co did, if they have a 'trial' they would have to convict themselves.

In short, not going to happen.

 

[sealybobo]

The Democrats controlled the senate that authorized the invasion of Iraq, and were along and approved all Bush and co did, if they have a 'trial' they would have to convict themselves.

In short, not going to happen.

Dems approved torture? Boy, there is some revisionist history.

And we were lied to. Even Senate and House Republicans say they were lied to.

So in this case, I will let other Republicans distance themselves from the White House. But that also means distancing the Democrats from their shinnanigans too.

So what does all this mean? Does this mean we can take back some of the billions Haloburton & Blackwater stole from us all these years?

Torture-gate: News that, starting in 2002, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, then-Sec. of State Colin Powell, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft and others, met to draft torture guidelines for CIA interrogators has been met with a collective yawn by the media.

Their blase reaction is revelatory of the fact that they (along with most Americans) have simply become inured to Cheney’s black-hearted depravity. It is also yet another instance in which the corporate media is too focused on something trivial — the Democratic candidates’ bashing each other — to do its job.

There’s no better evidence that Cheney and the others were fully aware that what they were doing was wrong than this quote from Ashcroft, a devout Christian, during one of the sessions:

“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

In her capacity as national security adviser, Rice was in charge of the project.


Pensito Review » Ashcroft on White House Torture Guidelines: ‘History Will Not Judge This Kindly’