classic sign of a despot

[DKSuddeth]

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. 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

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

are you disputing any part of the article?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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. 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

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

gotcha.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

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.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 believe the timing of this predates the discovery of the Iraqi prison abuses in late 2003?

"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."

More on why Bush claims that he never meant to be condoning torture.

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.

And that is why this article to me seems a bit disingenuous, it is an election year. While I would agree that they may have gone too far with the first 'orders' 'exceptions' whatever, it's obvious that review was ongoing, hardly the sign of an administration or president 'out of control.

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?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
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.

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.

 

[Gaebolg]

One of the classic signs of a despot is the evasion of responsibility.

That's a trait shared by just about every U.S. president, hell most every politician, that I can remember.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

yea, thats me. over the top.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

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.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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.

Hey, I said 'A BIT' over the top. :

As far as the 'evasion of responsibility' that's true in the private sector as well. IF you come up with a great idea, the boss will co-opt it 9 out of 10. IF (s)he screws up, the hammer usually falls below.

It sucks.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Hey, I said 'A BIT' over the top. :

:cof:

As far as the 'evasion of responsibility' that's true in the private sector as well. IF you come up with a great idea, the boss will co-opt it 9 out of 10. IF (s)he screws up, the hammer usually falls below.

It sucks.

certainly does suck, the serious thing about this issue is that the military troops deserve better. If they are expected to follow through with orders from the CiC, they should also expect to have his complete backing. I don't feel they got this, from their OiC and up.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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.

I read the article and your post. If the adminstration is going to hang the troops out to dry, I agree with you that that is 110% BS. That is why the politicos should stay the hell out of day to day operations of the military. As I've said before, I think it was a policy to use the tactics that MI used on the detainees. Policy obviously isn't made up by the "grunts". If they would have came right out and said this, we wouldn't be debating this.

My point is that if this were not an election year, and their wasn't such a deep hatred of the executive branch, this would not be getting the attention that it is. If your going to hold the current administation up to this holier then thou, totally perfect, can't make any mistakes standard, you need to do the same to the other branches of government.

 

[Gaebolg]

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.

Of course, you have proof that the practices in question are approved by the U.S. military and used by more than the .0001% of the troops implicated?

See, I served in the active military as well, for quite a few years and I know for a fact that you're full of crap when you try to insinuate that this is wide spread. I also know for a fact how the military responds to hot topics like this one, how training classes on the Geneva Convention, POW procedure, and refresher courses on unlawful orders probably popped up for every ground troop there. I love how a handful of soldiers, out of hundreds of thousands, doing something wrong is all of a sudden an admission of guilt for the whole military...and a FICTION movie is used in your dismissal of corrective actions the military would take. If you served in the military, I doubt it was a ground combat branch...you don't speak as if you have that kind of experience which is a completely different experience than serving the military from an office, truck or airfield. Not that support jobs aren't important but that the training, job, lifestyle and service experience are no where near the same as the guys that train and fight on the ground.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
:cof:



certainly does suck, the serious thing about this issue is that the military troops deserve better. If they are expected to follow through with orders from the CiC, they should also expect to have his complete backing. I don't feel they got this, from their OiC and up.

On that we agree. They were not trained properly, although they should have used much better judgement themselves. They did not have the oversite that was necessary, given some of their apparent proclivities towards prison abuse, (remember that one of them, I believe that weird girl's boyfriend, had previous experience and complaints as a prison guard).

Seems most of them were victims of the situation they found themselves in. As I said in the longer post, it seems to me wrong that the administration was so quick to hang them out to dry. Real politik take would be they knew the previous memos and revisions would divert some of the blame their way, as it should. I don't know that it IS blame as much as sticking their oars in waters that should be left to those with training.

I don't think the generals would have been so quick to try an end run around the conventions, they are used to dealing with them.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
My point is that if this were not an election year, and their wasn't such a deep hatred of the executive branch, this would not be getting the attention that it is. If your going to hold the current administation up to this holier then thou, totally perfect, can't make any mistakes standard, you need to do the same to the other branches of government.

I do. Many is the time I've slammed both congress and the judicial for idiocies done by either republicans or democrats.

I also expect for ANY administration to make mistakes, but not break the law or redefine words to fit their agenda.

 

[dilloduck]

I did hear that the defense attorneys will be allowed to question the superior officers. Maybe Tom Cruise can drag the truth out.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I do. Many is the time I've slammed both congress and the judicial for idiocies done by either republicans or democrats.

I also expect for ANY administration to make mistakes, but not break the law or redefine words to fit their agenda.

I know you do, I think I was trying to speak in general terms. They always say the coverup is worse then the crime

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Gaebolg
Of course, you have proof that the practices in question are approved by the U.S. military and used by more than the .0001% of the troops implicated?

See, I served in the active military as well, for quite a few years and I know for a fact that you're full of crap when you try to insinuate that this is wide spread. I also know for a fact how the military responds to hot topics like this one, how training classes on the Geneva Convention, POW procedure, and refresher courses on unlawful orders probably popped up for every ground troop there. I love how a handful of soldiers, out of hundreds of thousands, doing something wrong is all of a sudden an admission of guilt for the whole military...and a FICTION movie is used in your dismissal of corrective actions the military would take. If you served in the military, I doubt it was a ground combat branch...you don't speak as if you have that kind of experience which is a completely different experience than serving the military from an office, truck or airfield. Not that support jobs aren't important but that the training, job, lifestyle and service experience are no where near the same as the guys that train and fight on the ground.

so our experiences in the military, being different, makes me full of crap? fuck you then. Do NOT dismiss my opinion out of hand simply because YOU didn't see it from your perspective. Your bullshit attitude is what happens when you deal with shit from a closed mind perspective. As an air traffic controller, or what you would call a 'support job', I've been responsible for lives as well as billions of dollars worth of aircraft. It doesn't matter that it wasn't 'ground combat' because I still received the same training as a marine that you probably received in whatever branch you were in.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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. 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

Cmon DK---are you really afraid that Bush will become a despot with every Dem in the US waiting for him to make the slightest mistake so they can hang him.? Our checks and balances are securely in place.