BREAKING: As Torture Amendment Nears Passage, Pentagon Rewrites Army Detainee Standards
BREAKING: As Torture Amendment Nears Passage, Pentagon Rewrites Army Detainee Standards
With Congress on the verge of passing the sweeping McCain amendment, the Bush administration has taken its drive to permit torture to new depths.
The basis of the McCain amendment is establishing the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation as the uniform standard for interrogation. That manual explicitly prohibits the use of so-called “coercive interrogation techniques.” As former Army interrogator Peter Bauer has written, “the standard interrogation techniques found in the US Army Field Manual 34-52 were far more effective than such abusive behavior as stress positions, sensory deprivation, and humiliation. We obtained more information – and more reliable information – with our basic skills than we did with even days of harsh treatment.”
Realizing this, the Pentagon has one-upped McCain, and simply rewritten the manual:
The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods that may complicate negotiations over legislation proposed by Senator John McCain to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in American custody, military officials said Tuesday.
The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual that was forwarded this week to Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, for final approval, they said.
The addendum provides dozens of examples and goes into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances. Army interrogators have never had a set of such specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.
The political fall-out from this move is sure to be significant. The New York Times notes that McCain will likely be “furious” with the changes, and an unnamed Pentagon official is quoted, “This is a stick in McCain’s eye. It goes right up to the edge. He’s not going to be comfortable with this.”
The idea that we have a “Vice President for Torture” now appears quaint. What we really have is an entire administration, openly and unapologetically for torture.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You are right. There can no longer be any doubt that the entire administration is for torture. There can no longer be any doubt about something else. These people are flat out liars. When is the MSM going to stop tiptoeing around the truth and call these B*stards out on their lies.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:45 amFor this administration it has always been their way or the highway. Why would we think that they could be forced to follow the rule of law?
We must remember that they have stated that “they make their own reality, by the time we of the reality based world figure out what they are doing they have created their own new reality.”
These guys really mean exactly what they say. We just have to believe that what we hear from them is exactly what they meant to say and do.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:47 amWhen in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
December 14th, 2005 at 1:59 amIf the self-described conservatives that post their comments here at Think Progress are any indication of the US population at large, then too many people in the US are more than comfortable with torture.
These people are actually asking torture be conducted as a matter of internal policy and used as a valid interrogation technique.
To paraphrase Nico:
The idea that we have an “Administration for Torture” now appears quaint. What we really have is an entire electorate, openly and unapologetically for torture.
Here are some figures: The Torture Debate
December 14th, 2005 at 2:05 amI think it is just about time to go back to the original spelling of the Bush name.
BUSCH.
Funny, their name, was a derogatory, comment during the war, like Kraut.
Well, all heil Busch, and die neu, tausand jarh reich.
We got the tanks, we got the torture, we got the prisons.
Sieg freakin Heil
December 14th, 2005 at 2:18 amI am frightened by this administration. They are hell bent for nuclear war. Herr Bush does not realize that China and Russia can crush us in about a week. What does he plan to do when Camp David, Washington DC and Crawford, Texas are converted to molten slag? This is his aim when he says “Mission Accomplished” – Armageddon. Talk about the religious wrong!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:19 amI don’t know about the rest of you, but I think the American life that needs to be saved by torturing people, neither needs, nor deserves to be saved.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:21 amIn a conventional war, we would not stand a chance against the new Chinese-Russo alliance.
They are already training together, to invade Taiwan and possibly to drive us out of Iraq. I would not be too surprised if we suddenly notice a large build up in or around Iran, of the new Chinese-Russo alliance.
I have written long posts on this, but for some reason no one wants to explore this. Fear I imagine.
I’m glad to see you have seriously considered it.
One things for sure, with 215,000 Iraqi troops that could turn on us on a dime, trained with our tactics, our weapons, the battlehardended Iranian army, and about 750,000 Chinese and Russian troops, not to mention air and armour support, I imagine if this were to happen, the casualty rate may begin to climb slightly. :|
December 14th, 2005 at 2:28 amMy concern is that brainless W would opt for the nuclear option when all hope was lost for a conventional victory. He is preping Israel for raids in Iran. As Peter, Paul and Mary said in song – ‘the answer is blowin in the wind’. But it is an ill wind.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:38 amAs good a place as any, I would like tyo offer this observation: George H W Bush managed along with Ronald Reagan to destroy the Soviet economy, George W Bush is well alonmg to destroying ours.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:47 amNighty-nite
December 14th, 2005 at 2:48 amCorrection:
December 14th, 2005 at 2:50 amAs good a place as any, I would like to offer this observation: George H W Bush managed along with Ronald Reagan to destroy the Soviet economy, George W Bush is well along to destroying ours.
What’s exactly is the problem with this ?
So the Army spells out for interrogators what they can and cannot do. Yes this will spell out how to take coercive techniques right up to the legal limit.
What did you think the alternative was ? That interrogators wouldn’t be told what they can or cannot do ?
That it would have been preferable for people to continue being tortured however the interrogators decide and then just punish interrogators after the fact if they crossed the line rather than “walking right up to it” ?
No ? Then quit inventing things to be outraged by and do something useful for a change.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:05 amIt doesn’t “work”. It’s not effective. Unless your goal is to extract false information so you can justify an illegal war.
Clearly, the real enemy is among us. Fortunately their number is diminishing but eventually we will have to deal with them.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 amThen again, we probably need some false intelligence justifying out next invasion into Syria or Iran. Possibly even Lebanon now, since we have destabilized the entire region. It’s time for an intervention. The sane members of the global community need to put a stop to this rogue nation, America.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:22 amThis is all for show. The tortures will never stop.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:13 amBush is going to get us nuked.
Army trying to circumvent intention of McCain…
This administration will stop at nothing — nothing — to get its way. It reminds me of a little boy who can’t take “no” for an answer and is always looking for ways around the rules — you know, those things that define what is right and wrong. Thi…
December 14th, 2005 at 6:36 amdid anyone think that this group of monstors won’t do anything to get their way? I am almost embarassed to have to point out this simple fact. As the fading AA show Morning Sedition’s Mark Maron said-”Wake Up Sheeple!”
December 14th, 2005 at 6:58 amThe haven’t gotten around to…
- Securing ports
- Insuring adequate funding for first responders
- Synchronizing local and national communications systems
- Funding and driving the securing of Soviet-era nuclear materials
- Developing any kind of long-term strategy for Iraq (where most of military is bogged down)
But when it comes to making sure that torture is not only legal, but routinely used this administration is tireless. It isnn’t about security; it has to be a fetish.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:38 amlet me guess, they’re now gonna need to reprint all the army field manuals
how much you wanna bet, the printing will be done by a busch crony for three times the old rate, it’ll not be printed on recycled paper, it’ll go thru four printings until someone uses a spell checker, and finally in the spring of 2007, they’ll get the order to put it back the way it was, and a new print order will be issued …
December 14th, 2005 at 7:47 am#15
Here’s a link to a wonderful article written before the 2004 election with a relevant, beautiful quote from Lincoln about how the real danger to our country would come from within.
Vote As If It Matters, This Time It Really Does
http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=8612
(paragraph 18)
‘This election is about the new legal drug this administration pushes: fear.
In a real sense, this election is non-partisan, it is not about being liberal or conservative. My God, what real liberal or conservative would ever sanction the Patriot’s Act? What liberal or conservative would sanction false information about weapons of mass destruction? What liberal or conservative thinks the torture chambers we created in Baghdad were right and proper?
What I am driving at was said a long time ago by someone I’ve always paid heed to:
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth . . . in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Well, I agree with Mr. Lincoln, our first Republican president. And I’m not up for suicide. This election matters because this country matters and it must return to the path of law, decency, courage and compassion.’
December 14th, 2005 at 8:08 amToo little to late. This policy should have been made when we started to collect detainees. At the very least they should have made it after Abu Ghriabe. The fact that they let abuses go on for this long not only show us their ignorance but also their complete disrespect for human life. Their is now a good possiblity that our soldiers will be tortured as a reaction to this policy. I hope there is a god out there that will judge this administration for thier actions.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:12 amRE: #6 by WaltTheMan
I’m completely against all of the pro-torture posturing of this Administration. But, to suggest as Walt does, that Russia and China could “crush” the USA “in a week” is NOT true, based on any set of facts I’m aware of.
If you’re talking conventional war, I would be surprised if Russia or China could EVER penetrate our borders with any substantial military force, and certainly not in one week!
If you’re talking nuclear war, then we have BY FAR the most weapons, and almost certainly the best and most deliverable nukes. But, the whole world will lose in that war, within a matter of hours.
Do the math…..
December 14th, 2005 at 8:50 amRE: #24 by LTJ
Why are we so concerned about terrorists and their homemade WMDs then? Because it’s a scam.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:58 amPerhaps I’m missing something here, but according to the Times article, the new rules attempt to clarify terms that had been vague. Besides, walking up to a line is different than crossing it. From the Times article, these details:
To the extent that Times reporting is accurate, this doesn’t sound like anything to be outraged about but welcomed.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:02 amLet just one of the neocons get captured and subjected to “interrogation techniques” and they will be calling it TORTURE. Long, load and clear and from the roof tops.
But that’s the point they know that they and their loved ones would never be in a situation to be captured.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:22 amTank and Beep5s and others praising the clarifications in the Army manual…
Remember what the guy said who has actually read this classified information – it is a stick in McCain’s eye. In other words, it circumvents the very restrictions against the techniques McCain would specifically prohibit.
Therein lies the outrage.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:41 amGive me a basement, some yard tools and one Dick Cheney. Oh Gawd, the fun I’ll have!
December 14th, 2005 at 9:47 amOnce again Bush and friends have made a horse’s ass out of McCain…can’t wait for Johnny to go on all the talk shows this Sunday praising Bush..McCain never learns…just waiting for the Bush boys to bend over Leiberman next..
December 14th, 2005 at 9:59 amThe Torture President
As Congress gets ready to pass McCain’s Anti-Torture amendment
December 14th, 2005 at 10:02 amWhen faced with the person or representative person of a group who has killed, tortured, planned to kill far more of your friends, family, or countrymen who among us can with surety say we would not humiliate, torture, whatever?(despite a ‘manual’). Those that have walked in those shoes are best fitted to develop guidelines.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:09 amIt is clear from reading many of the posts throughout this site- their vile language, abusive comments- that they are out of control on the keyboard and we are to believe or accept their stance? Sorry- that just ‘don’t fly’.
#32:
Look out, typo. Let me fix that for you…
I think that’s a bit more honest, considering how well we’ve been doing kidnapping and torturing people who are patently not terrorists at all. Oops.
And stop trying to phrase this as a “what would you do if faced with your attackers” issue. It isn’t. This is about military personnel breaking into houses, taking people – sometimes, not even the right people, just whomever happens to be there – then torturing them for months to get information they may not have, until they a) die, b) make something up, or c) someone finally gets around to realizing that they have the wrong guy and dump in in the middle of a forest somewhere.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:20 am#32: “When faced with the person or representative person of a group who has killed, tortured, planned to kill far more of your friends, family, or countrymen who among us can with surety say we would not humiliate, torture, whatever?”
So, what you are saying is that torture is acceptable?
Or are you saying that retribution (vigil-ante-ism) is acceptable?
You’re ccreating a straw man argument to support torture. “If you have to torture someone in order to save innnocent people, then it’s wrong not to torture.”
Name me one single instance when we were forced to do this in order to save one single innocent person. Just one instance.
The people being questioned have not been proven to be enemy combatants (that wonderful euphemism for ‘prisoner of war’). They are being questioned to find out what they know. If you torture someone, they’ll do one of three things:
1 – Tell you anything you want to hear (lie) in order to make the torture stop.
2 – Tell you false information (lie) in order to make the torture stop.
3 – Not say anything and let you torture to your hearts content.
If these are the same people who commit suicide in order to take one other person with them, do you think torture will change their mind?
If they did not support our ‘enemies’, do you think torturing them will make them like us more?
If we commit the same attrocities that Saddam committed when he was in charge, but we dress it up with ‘We had to do it to save people!’, how does that make us different then Saddam? Rationalizing torture is becoming like the worst in those we oppose.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:24 amThe McCain Treaty with al Qaeda bill is not an “anti-torture” bill. It bans much more than torture, which is already illegal.
Stop lying Nico.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:29 amIt’s stuff like this that comes out we realize what we need is someone in the media/blogsphere that is willing to pull a Pentagon Papers thing and actually publish the new “classified” Army Field Manual.
In a Democratic Republic such as ours, this should not be a secret. Those who consider that it should be a secret are, guess what word fits this description… it’s thrown around an awful lot, you all know what I’m gonna say…
NAZI’S. That’s right, fu***ng NAZI’s!
December 14th, 2005 at 10:36 amhello wwallybaby. I think it was providence that I followed you here. Hmmmm, maybe there’s a link. What could it be? Let me think about this for a minute…
btw – do you listen to Wagner much?
December 14th, 2005 at 10:39 amWORFEUS -#5
I believe that’s, “Sig Howdy!”
*credit to Jello Biafra/Melvins
December 14th, 2005 at 10:40 amkindness’ Nazi sympathies are well known.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:42 amI’m so ashamed of America. :(
December 14th, 2005 at 10:44 amAmerica is ashamed of you, Gary.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:46 amBravo Democrat Soldier!
I think you have proven the point quite well.
When former a Army interregator can claim that coersive techniques are ineffectual, why can’t the establishment listen to common sense? Furthermore, there is perhaps no better advocate of anti-torture legislation in the Senate than Senator McCain. Yet, the bill he proposes will more than likely be vetoed by Bush. What incompetence! It is obvious that the current administration is a warmongering, despotic, travesty. I am sadden that our young men and women of the Armed Forces have to fight under its direction.
Jack B. Critical
December 14th, 2005 at 10:59 amTorture, or anything resembling such, is not the American way, is unethical and illegal, and everyone of us has a duty to work towards abjudicating these war crimes. Our memories will not fade.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:05 amPlease, please continue in the logical direction you are heading. The convergence of the sadists of all genders into the Young Republicans in the 70s, led by the sexually ambiguous Rove, Norquist, Abramoff and Reed, has morphed into a Torture Administration. Chickhawk during Vietnam, phoney professional marriage, extreme social conservatism as a front to secret behaviors–it’s a consistent pathology. The GOP was hijacked by people who don’t exactly despise the little guy–they think we’re ALL rubes ’cause we don’t see through their disguises. A little more outing of DC topsiders and whip-wielders would be a good thing for democracy. Might save some lives, too.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:04 pmAs I understand it, the Army Field Manual has never before been a classified document. It’s absurd for it to be so, given its function. The fact that this edition will be (or will have classified sections), is a condemnation on its face.
What is the internal Army process for approval? The mil personnel involved send it to a civilian, political appointee, he approves, and suddenly it’s the ‘law’?
December 14th, 2005 at 12:08 pmWWJD?
Anyone who supports a doctrine of torture is an evil person. They stand against the teachings of Jesus and of civilized humanity. No matter what boogeyman they try to dress up to justify their evil, it is still evil.
And don’t tell me that it is necessary, because there was/is another way to do this, the way Jesus would have done it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p01s04-wome.html
If you support torture, even in naivete’, God’s judgment will be upon you, even if man’s is not.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:20 pmPeople who torture, and more importantly people who support torture, will burn in hell for eternity.
VICIOUS CIRCLE
KILL THEM TO DEATH or worse. Let them live and make them wish they were dead. Is there any hope for civilization in a time of war? And if the Global War on Error Terror Everything TM will last
December 14th, 2005 at 12:27 pmAnyone else watch the Brian Williams interview with Bush and catch him claiming his administration was prepared to accept the McCain language as written? Pretty easy to say when you already know you’ve changed the book on which that language is based.
I hope Williams nails him for being so misleading.
Also, I hope McCain finally wakes up and stops being the dupe for this administration.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:32 pm“America is ashamed of you, Gary.”
Comment by wwallace
Is “America’ the name of that rodent you carry in your pocket? If not, then this American (I would never be so divorced from reality to claim knowlege of what the entire country did or did not feel on any particular subject, but that’s just me bein’ me) thinks you should switch ’shrinks, ’cause the guy (or lady) yer now using ain’t gettin’ the job done. I’d also consider asking for a refund.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:37 pmUber-Wallace dreams of the exalted position he will hold in the coming Fourth Reich (under-secretary of glow-sticking).
December 14th, 2005 at 12:47 pmAs an American, I never thought I would see something like this from an Administration. What Nixon did is one thing, re-writing the “rules” of war to include the use of Torture by American troops/citizens is a ’stick in the eye’ to every American who has come before us. It’s just sickening to me that Bush supports this then talks about how godly he is. Even God would be disgusted by this Administration.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:52 pm#38 whiskeypete
Lol, that’s pretty funny,,,,,, hey wait a minute,,,,your not being funny, are you?
Sieg Howdy ay? Hmmm…that does make sense.
The new, Crawdad salute.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:16 pmFrom CNN.com
December 14th, 2005 at 3:38 pmPresident Bush today accepted responsibility for going to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence. “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,” the president said.
He went on to say that even knowing what he knows today, he would still go to war in Iraq.
Does that sound like a contradiction to anyone else, as it does to me?
He accepts responsibility up to faulty intelligence; but today, even knowing of the faulty intel, he would not change behavior.
Question for all the Christians-for-Torture like Bush/Cheney:
Name a SIN more evil than torture ?
Not too many are there ? (if any)……
NOTE: Oral sex is not a correct answer.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:41 pmWe’ll Stop Calling This Crew Orwellian…
…when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual. [...]
December 14th, 2005 at 5:17 pm@ Ryan Neat — December 14, 2005 @ 3:17 am
Tank, Quit inventing excuses to not be outraged about torture. It’s unamerican, unpatriotic, uncivilized, and uncouth. Apparently just the shortlist of ‘uns’ that you qualify for.
Unlike you Ryan I haven’t differentiated my denouncement of torture based on who is in office.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:46 pmApparently though once again you cannot understand what is being discussed so you need to invent assessments of people to denounce rather than what they actually write.
Put simply, you aren’t intelligent enough to participate.
@ Comment by Jeff — December 14, 2005 @ 9:41 am
Tank and Beep5s and others praising the clarifications in the Army manual…
And for everyone else who hasn’t I ask WTF is wrong with you ? Let’s start with you Jeff.
The article here says you should be outraged because by clarifying what abusive techniques are allowed interrogators will be able to “walk right up to the limit”. If you missed the point that means after limits on torture are introduced, by specifying the limits they are able to be adhered to.
So tell us why you are unhappy with this. Also what scenario you were hoping for which involved a legal limits on torture which was non-specific and not adhered to.
Remember what the guy said who has actually read this classified information – it is a stick in McCain’s eye. In other words, it circumvents the very restrictions against the techniques McCain would specifically prohibit. Therein lies the outrage.
Screw McCain’s feelings. They are irrelevant. He drafted and submitted the bill he wanted. If he wanted to specify these things himself then he should have done that to start with.
So again I ask… suggest the alternative. I was under the impression the whole “the Pentagon can decide for itself whether it is following the rules” was the point of this legislation.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:57 pmTell us all why that is still preferable after the Iraq and Afghanistan scandals. Apparently you are annoyed because McCain’s bill won’t allow the same grey areas to continue.
Yes this will spell out how to take coercive techniques right up to the legal limit.
Comment by Tank — December 14, 2005 @ 3:05 am
Unlike you Ryan I haven’t differentiated my denouncement of torture based on who is in office.
Comment by Tank — December 14, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
First you seem to say “coercive techniques” are ok, then you seem to denounce them. Maybe you have already stated it, but I am going to ask you anyway: Can you please clarify your position on the torture of detainees under US custody? Is torture justified in some scenarios? If so, which ones?
If you missed the point that means after limits on torture are introduced, by specifying the limits they are able to be adhered to.
So tell us why you are unhappy with this.
Comment by Tank — December 14, 2005 @ 11:57 pm
Simply because they would complicate the political negotiations regarding the amendment proposed by McCain.
If the Pentagon, and the Bush Administration were sincere in their repudiation of “coercive interrogation techniques” they could have proposed these and other changes to the lawmakers involved.
[McCain] drafted and submitted the bill he wanted. If he wanted to specify these things himself then he should have done that to start with.
This argument is specious. McCain could not have foreseen what changes were going to be introduced to the manual by the Pentagon or when.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:52 am@ Gregor Samsa — December 15,
First you seem to say “coercive techniques†are ok, then you seem to denounce them.
I was quoting the ThinkProgress article. If your interpretation is that by referring to legal limits on coercive techniques is endorsing them then welcome to ThinkTorture. Enjoy your stay and the complimentary nippleclamps.
Simply because they would complicate the political negotiations regarding the amendment proposed by McCain.
How is having a specific reference NOW while these negotiations are going on for how the Pentagon interprets them a bad thing rather than good ?
You do realise this issue isn’t about stopping McCain from torturing people right ? Or people being shown the word “degrading” on a bill ? This is actually about how these principles are put into practice by the military.
And you think knowing that up front is a bad thing. Quite clearly you don’t have the capacity to think for yourself.
This argument is specious. McCain could not have foreseen what changes were going to be introduced to the manual by the Pentagon or when.
You seem to be suggesting that when you propose legislation that dictates policy to the military there would be no expectation that military policy would be effected.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:44 am@ Ryan Neat — December 15, 2005
That’s a nonsense statement. I’m opposed to torture, or anything that resembles it.
Of course. Just as you are opposed to even contemplating that similar practices took place under the previous administration.
CIA renditions for example. You are no doubt just as opposed to them then as you are now… you just pretend they didn’t start until Bush took office. Right ?
December 15th, 2005 at 2:51 amThe Bush/Cheney Administration likes to push the argument that our warriors-on-terror can’t be limited by quaint rules when trying to save America from destruction by WMD-based terror. OK, let’s say there actually is a one in a billion case of a suspected terrorist in custody who knows the location of a “ticking” nuclear bomb in one of our large cities. In the event that such a thing happens, the heroic CIA/FBI/DOD Agent on the spot is going to do “whatever” is needed, rules be damned – forgiveness later, IF the facts are proven as stated. For this, we do not need, or want, a law. This should be a rare judgement call. It should not be the basis for a law of the land. As someone said “extreme cases generally make for bad law”. The only civilized Law must be that torture is never legal. And, if the occassional, would-be hero has to go out on a legal limb (BEYOND the law) to save all of humanity – don’t expect this situation to be precisely covered by a bureaucratically-defined statute. James Bond knew the difference – VP Cheney does not.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:18 amBAD FAITH
WITH AN APPEAL the devil himself might appreciate, Assistant Secretary Secretary of of Defense Stephen Cambone is at the center of an effort to get around John McCain’s no torture amendment. Even as the House gave notice of support
December 15th, 2005 at 10:40 amTank said – How is having a specific reference NOW while these negotiations are going on for how the Pentagon interprets them a bad thing rather than good ?
Because they were written with the intention of allowing the bill to pass, and then to have the manual ‘accept’ the behavior the bill was meant to stop. It was an attempt to be very sneaky, and they were caught (the admin did not bring this up to the House and tell them, “Hey, befoe you vote, you might like to know we made some changes to the FM”). They hoped to stealth his by. The administration is advocating torture by their actions, though the words they say are “We do not torture”. The actions comapred to the words of the administration are not compatable. Having limits is not bad in a general sense, but it depends ENTIRELY on what those limits are. They made the Army FM classified. That means if you don’t have clearance, you can’t look at it.
Tank said – “You do realise this issue isn’t about stopping McCain from torturing people right ? Or people being shown the word “degrading†on a bill ? This is actually about how these principles are put into practice by the military”
Absolutely, but what soldiers will be able to see the manual? The common soldier will still have ZERO guidance, as the manual is classified. You may be surprised, but security clearance is not required (not offered) in order to gain military rank. A soldier can no more ask to get clearance than you or I can. Is every soldier going to have to get clearance, now? That would mean an INCREDIBLE amount of paperwork and work (i.e. LOTS of money – something AMerica does not have anymore, and the value of the dollar is STILL dropping in the world market). That would also mean slower entry into the military, and it would mean that there would be MANY, MANY people who would make good soldiers who cannot join because they can’t get clearance (arrest records, for the normal people (not Bush) affect obtaining clearance). Not wise when soldiers are needed badly. So, the other option is that the manual intended for the soldier to give them a lot of useful info is now not available to the soldiers. And they still do not know what the guidelines for them are. It MAY be a good move, but it HAS to be unclassified to be of any value. And secrecy in method? Please!!! NOTHING (I repeat NOTHING) in the methods of violent interrogation has changed EVER (I’m talking a broader scope than, say, electricity). Study the inquisitions and witch hunts (I have). The methodology is the same, it is incredibly primitive, and always ineffectual. Period. It is quite obviously NOT just some clearer guidelines that will be useful – it is justifying torture:
December 15th, 2005 at 12:05 pm“The New York Times notes that McCain will likely be “furious†with the changes, and an unnamed Pentagon official is quoted, “This is a stick in McCain’s eye. It goes right up to the edge. He’s not going to be comfortable with this.—
Five on Torture
Rumsfeld’s Epiphany
December 6, 2005
Rumsfeld usually spit out bromides for his excuses for failures but since last Wednesday Rumsfeld been choking back on some. In “Rumsfeld calls for clear rules on U.S. troops lacing Iraq torture†by the Washington Post describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is ready to flail about in a fog of his own making called the Iraq war. Last Wednesday (Nov. 30), Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, publicly contradict Rumsfeld’s allowing U.S. backed Iraq forces to torture Sunnis and others with impunity. Now Rumsfeld ordered military commanders to come up with rules in what should our troops do when they witness the mistreatment of detainees. This is typical of Rumsfeld: it’s his job to come up with that answer. That’s what he’s paid for. Apparently, passing the buck is the only technique he had perfected as Secretary of Defense and then have the consequences of it dumped on our troops in the battlefield. Thus it’s no surprise that Rumsfeld hasn’t opposed the campaign of torture and murder against the Sunnis by the U.S. trained Shiite militia. Again, the consequence of failure isn’t in Rumsfeld’s universe, but the price of war is ours.
Condi’s Comfort
December 9, 2005
The Bush administration’s addiction to torture on this holiday season may end and the “cold turkey†shakes begins. In “British court rejects evidence obtained through torture†by the Press Democrat News Services spelled that Britain’s highest court have ruled that evidences obtained through torture in other countries cannot be used in the British courts. British Law Lords question the detention of a group of foreigners whose rights to hear the evidences against them were never told. The Law Lords found this unacceptable; especially those abuses involved which are popular in Guantanamo Bay. As expected, Amnesty International declared the decision as victory for human rights. Meanwhile, in Belgium, Condoleezza Rice objected, stating that the U.S. can’t guarantee that detainees won’t be abused. Aside from offering assurances that violators of the detainees will be punished Rice’s plead is as empty as President Bush’s denial that he had no knowledge that extraordinary retention involved torture. Bad as Bush’s denials are what’s worse are Rice’s reassurances that everything is going to be okay. At this moment that okay offers little comfort for someone who is being torture in some spider hole in Russia, courtesy of the U.S. of A.
No Fair Peeking
December 10, 2005
Bush’s secret backyard fence is crumbling as the international Red Cross demanding to visit all of the detainees in “undisclosed locations.†International Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger has been pushing the U.S. for access to all detainees. Although the Red Cross had visit detainees in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq but access to secret U.S. detainees in Europe were denied. The excuse is that U.S. has the authority to say no, stating that members of al-Qaeda are not cover by the Geneva Convention. All this begs the question: Has the overall revelation of detainee abuse convince the U.S. that rendering the Geneva Conventions “quaint” is the source of our government’s discontent in its widespread abuse at U.S. prisons? The answer is yes. Although the Geneva Conventions, signed and ratified by the United States to protect those involved in international armed conflicts a January 2002 memorandum issued by the Bush administration claims the war on terrorism renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of al Qaeda detainees, exempting them from the provisions on the legal treatment of prisoners. Thus opened the door for widespread abuse of detainees which Bush would rather have it shut.
The Big Fat Denial
December 11, 2005
The thing that keeps cropping up in government as well as in the media is the denial of wrong doing. In “A new—and tedious—defense against torture allegations†by THE ECONOMIST throws a new twist in justifying the existence of torture by the U.S. THE ECONOMIST waste no time in bailing out Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice of all culpability in supporting CIA’s secret prisons in Eastern Europe. For some reason, President Bush and Condi Rice expect Europe to believe everything they say about the U.S. deniability concerning torture. Then they get miff if they’re disbelieved. But for the THE ECONOMIST to call Europeans “Americanophobes†just because they can see right through Rice’s lies isn’t ust another lie but manipulative tack; an unconvincing tack, at least with me. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghriab, and “extraordinary rendition,†just to name a few, make liars of the entire Bush administration in the issue of torture and then the disparaging attack at Europe for seeing through Bush’s deception. There is one Big Fat Lie (beside the Iraq war) that when exposed the U.S. determination for torture will be undeniable and unjustifiable: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Condi’s fairy Dust
December 12, 2005
Why torture is still a headliner? Because the Bush administration still haven’t come to terms with it. This time I’m going to editorialize two articles at the same time: “13 cases of torture found at Iraq prison†by Ellen Knickmeyer, and “Furor over torture charges may cloud U.S. image†by Tom Raum. In Knickmayer’s, 13 prisoners were discovered in a Baghdad detention center. The prisoners were in a sorry condition, requiring mediate medical care. Predictably, of the 625 prisoners found to date, 56 automatically were freed. Is there any question that the U. S. is aware that the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution is behind these secret tortures? As for Raum’s article, we and Europe have finally seen who’s behind the curtain, torturing suspects in the dark. Both Condi Rice, while at Europe and that buffoon, Michael Mandelbaum, of Johns Hopkins, tried desperately to sprinkle fairy dust on the public’s eyes, treating us like idiots and hoping we won’t catch wise to secret torture detentions that the U.S. are behind in Eastern Europe. So why is all this is happening? Because the Bush administration have thumbed its nose at the Geneva Convention and International Law. Condi, shut up and come home.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:31 pm[...] CNN.com is reporting that The White House has come to an agreement with Senator John McCain regarding his desire to explicitly ban torture by U.S. military personnel. Not so fast. McCain’s bill would establish the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation as the uniform standard for interrogation. The problem is that the Pentagon has reportedly rewritten the Manual to include new interrogation standards and methods that make McCain’s bill futile. Is this another case of the main stream media being duped by the Bush Administration? That remains to be seen. [...]
December 15th, 2005 at 3:25 pmEnjoy your stay and the complimentary nippleclamps.
Comment by Tank — December 15, 2005 @ 2:44 am
I asked for clarification -no need to get huffy and puffy. Let me ask again: Can you please clarify your position on the torture of detainees under US custody? Is torture justified in some scenarios? If so, which ones?
Can you please answer these simple questions?
How is having a specific reference NOW while these negotiations are going on for how the Pentagon interprets them a bad thing rather than good ?
I haven’t said having the specifics now is a bad thing, so please stop repeating it. But because the negotiations are based on the original manual, not the new, modified version these changes will put a dent on the approval of McCain’s amendment.
You do realise this issue isn’t about stopping McCain from torturing people right ? Or people being shown the word “degrading†on a bill ? This is actually about how these principles are put into practice by the military.
I didn’t need the explanation but I appreciate the effort you put into it.
And you think knowing that up front is a bad thing. Quite clearly you don’t have the capacity to think for yourself.
Again, I never said knowing it beforehand is a bad thing. You said it. Let me repeat what I said before: If the Pentagon, and the Bush Administration were sincere in their repudiation of “coercive interrogation techniques” they could have proposed these and other changes to the lawmakers involved instead of sneaking through the back door to make changes to the document central to the negotiations.
You seem to be suggesting that when you propose legislation that dictates policy to the military there would be no expectation that military policy would be effected.
I am not suggesting anything. You said: “[McCain] drafted and submitted the bill he wanted. If he wanted to specify these things himself then he should have done that to start with.”
My reply to that is that McCain could not have known if and what changes were going to be introduced to the manual by the Pentagon and/or when. To say “he could have specified these himself” is disingenuous. In other words, your argument is weak. This is not a suggestion.
Finally, let’s keep our exchange from slipping into abusive name-calling, shall we?
December 15th, 2005 at 3:42 pm@ mysticagent — December 15, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
Because they were written with the intention of allowing the bill to pass, and then to have the manual ‘accept’ the behavior the bill was meant to stop.
So you think this is the case, the Thinkprogress is wrong and notone of the people who read their article was smart enough to pick up on this ?
The reason you are trying to spin this into something worse than it is should be self evident.
The actions comapred to the words of the administration are not compatable. Having limits is not bad in a general sense, but it depends ENTIRELY on what those limits are. They made the Army FM classified. That means if you don’t have clearance, you can’t look at it.
Which of course means that when you state that these amendments are incompatible with the McCain amendment you are simply talking shit.
Absolutely, but what soldiers will be able to see the manual? The common soldier will still have ZERO guidance, as the manual is classified.
The manual isn’t classified and you really shouldn’t be commenting if this is how little you understand about the topic.
“The New York Times notes that McCain will likely be “furious†with the changes, and an unnamed Pentagon official is quoted, “This is a stick in McCain’s eye. It goes right up to the edge. He’s not going to be comfortable with this.â€â€
We discussed this already.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:27 pm@ Gregor Samsa — December 15, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
I asked for clarification -no need to get huffy and puffy. Let me ask again: Can you please clarify your position on the torture of detainees under US custody? Is torture justified in some scenarios? If so, which ones?
Can you please answer these simple questions?
No. You asked for clarification. I considered this irrelevant and serving only to distract from the topic.
If you read today’s newspapers you can see President Bush’s position on the McCain amendments. He has veto power over the bill and hence his opinion is relevant. Yourself and I don’t and therefor ours aren’t.
I haven’t said having the specifics now is a bad thing, so please stop repeating it.
You stated the problem with them was that they would complicate the political negotiations over this bill. Since you’ve never said they were bad I take it you meant they were “good complications” then.
Either way the negotiations seem to have gone quite well.
But because the negotiations are based on the original manual, not the new, modified version these changes will put a dent on the approval of McCain’s amendment.
That’s a strange assessment seing as they’ve all but been approved.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:37 pm@ Gregor Samsa — December 15, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
I asked for clarification -no need to get huffy and puffy. Let me ask again: Can you please clarify your position on the torture of detainees under US custody?
It is the same as my position for those being tortured via renditions who are not in US custody. You remember renditions right ? Where the US is so poor at torturing people and keeping it quiet so instead they hand them over to other countries who are much better at it and know how to keep it quiet.
For all the wailing about morals and human rights and American values on this website not one of you seems to have a problem with this bill being more concerned with stopping torture scandals than it is with stopping torture.
After all, if you get the Egyptians to do your torturing for you that’s not American personnel breaking American laws or American values right ?
Rather than parroting every single issue raised by websites like this try using your heads instead. The very first issue about laws being broken in regard to torture was in regard to the law prohibiting extradition to countries where there was an expectation of torture.
Read the McCain amendment again. Notice how that remains uneffected ? Yeah now go back to pretending your values are somehow different that the people who are running these programs to start with.
December 16th, 2005 at 12:48 amYou stated the problem with them was that they would complicate the political negotiations over this bill. Since you’ve never said they were bad I take it you meant they were “good complications” then.
Comment by Tank — December 15, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
No, I didn’t mean that. I meant the way the changes were introduced was bad. I am sure you can see the difference.
That’s a strange assessment seing as they’ve all but been approved.
I could not have known at the time I wrote the comment.
For all the wailing about morals and human rights and American values on this website not one of you seems to have a problem with this bill being more concerned with stopping torture scandals than it is with stopping torture.
Comment by Tank — December 16, 2005 @ 12:48 am
You could have said this from the very beginning and saved a lot of time. It could also have steered the discussion into a more meaningful direction.
After all, if you get the Egyptians to do your torturing for you that’s not American personnel breaking American laws or American values right ?
Torture is wrong no matter where it is done.
The very first issue about laws being broken in regard to torture was in regard to the law prohibiting extradition to countries where there was an expectation of torture.
Right, and that should be stopped. Why didn’t you say so to start with?
Read the McCain amendment again. Notice how that remains uneffected ? Yeah now go back to pretending your values are somehow different that the people who are running these programs to start with.
Again, if instead of coming out swinging you had stated this and the previous thoughts clearly, you had the potential of steering the discussion into a more positive terrain. Too bad you chose not to.
Your last sentence is completely uncalled for.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:53 amAgain, if instead of coming out swinging you had stated this and the previous thoughts clearly, you had the potential of steering the discussion into a more positive terrain. Too bad you chose not to.
And what did I start out saying eh ?
That when you are FOR a ban on torture and AGAINST the Pentagon putting that into practice you are doing nothing other than seaching for pointless things to complain about.
This remains uneffected by anything I’ve posted since and these idiots are still carrying on about it. Thinkprogress actually has a followup story to obscure the fact they got this first one so wrong.
Meanwhile you’re left defending the next Republican presidential candidate against the Rupublican who isn’t running on the basis that his torture loophole is less obvious than the current.
Don’t talk to me pal. You and all the rest of these people have chosen to be this pointless from start to finish. And for no other reason than Thinkprogress told you to be outraged about a non-issue rather than discussing real ones.
Now get back to the War on Christmas issue before it’s too late.
December 16th, 2005 at 3:09 amSo much wisdom, but I could only scroll past about 30, and that was enough. Has anyone examined the deeper implications
December 16th, 2005 at 11:55 pm0f an jury being buried, with large numbers of translations of telephone calls and fax transmissions(400,000),and trying to remain alert as proscutors read from scripts, trying to re-create the drama of those actual phone calls.
Our Governments decision to not introduce those calls where
Nahla (Sami’s wife calls him at school, and tells him “not to forget to stop and pick up a loaf of cuban bread and a half gallon on milk”)served the purpose of cutting the time of trial down to just six months. The proscutors were speechless as Judge Moody kept slapping them in the face with the Bad News, tens of millions spent to snoop and listen in, yes!even when in the quiet of his home, when he turned the palms of his hands up and prayed to God, they were listening and translating, trying to install the proper
inflection in his remarks. All of their repressive efforts, blown away, all the evidence to be repacked and sent for storage, all for who knows what, all those “documents”should be piled in front of the Courthouse and burned. The jury has spoken (and kicked the Patriot Act
in the balls). So Professor Al-Arian will not be burned at the stake, merely deported. Unless we have something to say ! Jesse Kern
[...] Unfortunately, interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual are classifed as of December 2005, and so while the public now has more information available on what has been done in the past, we’re still in the dark about what is going on now. [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 10:11 am[...] [...]
March 10th, 2006 at 3:52 am[...] [...]
March 11th, 2006 at 7:55 am[...] YouTube link to Colbert on rewriting the army field manual’s definition of torture. Maybe an interesting example for the definitions unit in a tech comm class? [...]
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 amHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! HE5imb9ZOyeKK
January 12th, 2007 at 1:24 amtoo many comments, not enough info on front page
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmszsedm
January 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm0204
March 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 1:23 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:25 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pmPayday Loan Advance
Outstanding online pay day loans that was swift along with straight forward to sign up for as you absolutely need money.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm