More questions over torture raised....

bonkey

I assume everyone has seen it at this stage, given that there seems to be an article about it in virtually every online newsie I can think of.

If not, here's the long and the short of it :

Some US newspapers this week received leaked documents from the Pentagon.

These documents (this document?) are (is?) supposedly a report prepared for Donald Rumsfeld which argue the stance that President Bush is not bound by laws prohibiting torture when dealing with certain groups (it varies across the reports - some say foreigners, some say terrorist suspects). Furthermore, it also argues that anyone carrying out such tirture on behalf of a direct order of the President is immune from prosecution.

There is also, apparently, a "redefinition" of torture which excludes many techniques from being considered as torture - apparently by redefining what constitutes torture in the first place.

Now....its a leaked document who's veracity is therefore immediately suspect. Furthermore, whether or not it was prepared doesn't mean it is in any way sinister - it could have been prepared as a "counter point" argument to challenge existing policy, for example. Even if that is not the case, the fact that it was prepared doesn't in any suggest that it was adopted, or even that it was considered acceptable by the Administration.

Its gets more interesting, however.

Apparently, the Bush Administration is insiting that ti is not engaged in torture because it had its techniques assessed by civilian lawyers who said they were acceptable. Now, I'm immediately suspicious of how this information is allowed to be given to civilian lawyers when there have been so many situations (concerning Gitmo, for example) that the US Administration has taken the stance that allowing access to information - even to lawyers - was too high a security risk.

Bush et al will apparently not, however, provide details of the authorised interrogation techniques, nor will they provide the findings of these civilian lawyers who said that the techniques did not constitute torture.

So now - if all this is true - its ok to let lawyers know whats going on, but not the Congress.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the US Administration went to impressive lengths (well - impressive for the current Administration, in my opinion) to show that this was a genuine mistake and that they were genuinely innocent of collusion in said events and would get to the bottom of it.

Now, however, as people are actually trying to get to the bottom of these things, the US Administration is reverting back to its "cards close to the chest" approach of "no, you can't know whats going on, but trust us, its ok".

If this is all a storm in the proverbial teacup, then why oh why will Bush not allow Congress access to these non-condemning documents which are civilian in nature, and therefore cannot be militarily sensitive. Why will they not clarify what techniques were authorised to be used - even to a body like Congress?

Regardless of whether or not there is any truth behind the allegations, this incident - to me - shows that the US Administration isn't really interested in convincing anyone that it is genuinely remorseful about Abu Ghraib, and that it really did have no active role in what transpired there.

Then again...ask yourself this....when is the last time you heard the US talk about "winning hearts and minds"? Last time I can recall was before Bush declared an end to "major combat" a year-ish ago. Why is that? Why did we stop hearing about Hearts and Minds once the army was defeated? Surely all that should have been left after the army was defeated was winning hearts and minds.

Refusal to discuss the very issues that are pivotal in undermining whatever trust the US would like to build in the region seems like a terribly poor way to win anything.

jc

dahamsta

Haven't had a chance to read this properly meself yet, got it via Dave Farber...

Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 8, 2004

ASHINGTON, June 7 — A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

[...]

Memnoch

the problem here bonkey is really the issue of underlying assumptions. Just because Bush and co are running america everyone assumes that these guys must be "trustworthy" or "worthy of respect".

But if we take a list of all their actions from past to present, and their apparent motivations, not to mention the benfits they have milked of their office, its clear that these men are no more than petty thugs in high office, out for themselves and no one else.

Once you take the assumption, that even people in government CAN be criminals, then their actions become a lot clearer....

again this comes as no shock to me.. and it really should come as no shock to you bonkey, considering that you have KNOWN for SOME time that this administration exports prisoners to be tortured in other countries. Kinda throws the whole "innocent till proven guilty" arguement. We know that these people ARE guilty of authorising torture and doing their utmost to circumvent the laws that prevent it.

So we all know the "moral" stance of this government towards torture. That being, to employ it where they wish but to try and appear that they are against it. But in reality when as you can see they clearly use semanitical arguements to defend their crimes. Such as changing the definition of torture, or the exportation to other countries so they can say that legally it wasn't them committing it.

I guess that is a problem with the law, and lawmakers. They tend to be able to avoid the spirit of the law by distorting the letter of it.

It was the same with the invasion of iraq, we all know how it was unjustified, wrong, morally unacceptable and an act of abhorrant human behaviour, not to mention motivated by selfish reasons. Yet the arguement has been its not "illegal, because of the way the definition of illegal works." Or using cluster bombs is not a war crime because they haven't been specifically included in a list of "WMDs" even though they kill indiscriminately in a large area.

so to re-iterate, does this REALLY come as a true surprise to anyone? apart from the Bush fanatics off course who seem to live in a constant world of self-delusion and think this guy is a "great" president who is fighting terror and making america and the world a much safer place.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
the problem here bonkey is really the issue of underlying assumptions. Just because Bush and co are running america everyone assumes that these guys must be "trustworthy" or "worthy of respect".

No. I assume that - like every other individual - they are worthy of the standard "innocent until proven guilty" approach.

But if we take a list of all their actions from past to present, and their apparent motivations,

No offence, Memnoch, but I haven't once seen you take their apparent motives. You've taken the motives that you believe are apparent to you, based - from what I can see - on a prejudgement that they are already up to no good and are doing something illegal.

You seem to fit the action to the pre-formed assumption of intent, and then try to use that to show that the action implies the intent, thus clearly making them guilty.

Once you take the assumption, that even people in government CAN be criminals, then their actions become a lot clearer....

No. Once you assume that they are guilty even though you can't prove it, then their actions become a lot clearer.

I believe they could be guilty. I also believe they could be inept. Allowing assumptions of guilt gives me more options, thus making the reasons for their actions less clear not moreso.

It is only through eliminating assumptions of motives (like the fact that they may not be guilty) that things become clearer.

again this comes as no shock to me.. and it really should come as no shock to you bonkey, considering that you have KNOWN for SOME time that this administration exports prisoners to be tortured in other countries.

Does it? I didn't know that. I remember Bush - or some member of his administration - commenting about it at some point, either suggesting it or saying that it might be a possibility, but I was never aware that it had become policy.

Could you provide any references, perchance?

Kinda throws the whole "innocent till proven guilty" arguement.

No. It doesn't. If they are doing that, then they are guilty of doing just that. Nothing else. It doesn't mean taht Abu Ghraib was actually official policy, it doesn't mean that IRaq was about oil, and it doesn't mean any of the other myriad of crimes that you lay at their feet are true.

We know that these people ARE guilty of authorising torture and doing their utmost to circumvent the laws that prevent it.

Again - no, I do not know that. I was not aware that the US had every actually carried out that policy. I'm not saying they haven't, I'm saying I'm not aware of it.

So we all know the "moral" stance of this government towards torture.

So what? Bush is a Christian fundamentalist. As such, he is vehemently opposed to abortion. But thats still legal in the US. The opinion of the individual and the actions of the Administration are not necessarily linked.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush personally may have no qualms about ordering people to be tortured, but I am not convinced that he has done so. And even if he has handed people over to other nations specifically to be tortured (as you allege), that still doesn't mean he has ordered the torture in Abu Ghraib, or that he acted on this document.

I guess that is a problem with the law, and lawmakers. They tend to be able to avoid the spirit of the law by distorting the letter of it.

As opposed to armchair lawyers, who ignore and avoid the spirit of the law by distorting the burden of proof.

You know : "he's an unsavoury character, who might have done something like this before, so clearly he's guilty, and lets not wait for proof."

It was the same with the invasion of iraq,

Yes, it was the exact same.

Bush said "look, this guy is unsavoury, and he's done bad things in the past, so he must be guilty of having WMDs today like we say. The burden of proof is too much to be bothered with. Guilty I say. Guilty. Now lets invade".

See. Exactly the same.

Or using cluster bombs is not a war crime because they haven't been specifically included in a list of "WMDs" even though they kill indiscriminately in a large area.

WMDs and war-crimes are virtually unrelated. You can commit a war-crime with a small hammer, but thats not on the list of WMDs either.

IF you're going to make outraged allegations, you should at least know how to make them accurately. Otherwise your cries of "guilty, I say. Guilty." sound remarkably similar to the reasons offered for a war you say was unjustified.

so to re-iterate, does this REALLY come as a true surprise to anyone?

What? That there are questionable documents surrounding a US Administration?

Nope. It doesn't. They'be had proposals on the Senate floor to seize control out near-earth Space, and to shoot down any satellite that wasn't US-sanctioned.

Does it really come as a surprise to me that you see yet another questionable action surrounded in uncertainty as a clear-cut case of "they must have done this, and they're guilty as hell". Nope. That doesn't surprise me either.

I'll still wait until some more facts are learned. In the meantime, I'm perfectly willing to speculate on what might be behind this, but I draw the line far short of your certain condemnation.

apart from the Bush fanatics off course who seem to live in a constant world of self-delusion and think this guy is a "great" president who is fighting terror and making america and the world a much safer place.

Because thats what the world is compose of, Memnoch, isn't it. There are those who know that Bush is guilty, and the rest all think he's the greatest thing since sliced pan. No middle ground.

Clearly, I don't exist by your logic. One would wonder who you're having this discussion with, then.

jc