Journal geoswan's Journal: Special prosecutor on detainee torture, abuse, deaths? 33

Journal by geoswan on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:15PM

Today's Washington Post has an editorial arguing for a special prosecuter to do a proper investigation of the role of senior Bush administration officials, and senior military leaders, in the torture and abuse and wrongful death of security detainees.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then top commander in Iraq, signed an order on Sept. 14, 2003, authorizing a number of interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Conventions, which legally applied in Iraq. These included the use of guard dogs to "exploit Arab fear of dogs," a practice documented in the Abu Ghraib photos. Gen. Sanchez subsequently misled Congress, testifying under oath last May 19 that "I have never approved the use of any of those methods" appearing over his signature.

This editorial, and others, argue that the invulnerability General Sanchez has shown, in the face of documented perjury before the US Congress, shows that the military cannot police its own senior ranks.

Update: 2005/04/26 19:13 EST

I have a persistent critic, who has announced that it is his mission to protect the rest of you from my posts. I think his posts speak for themselves. I have told him, many, many times, that I would be happy to address his comments, once he has figured out how to be civil.. He has already posted posted an attack, which does contain some worthwhile questions. Since he can't be civil, I won't answer him. But if any of my other readers are interested in my opinion on them, I'll happily address them if someone who can be civil repeats them.

Special prosecutor on detainee torture, abuse, deaths?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Load All Comments

Search 33 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

- Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
  
  by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) writes:
  
  You tlak alot - without ever addressing the core issue of perjury in Congressional testimony.
  How do you stand on the Gannon facts [slashdot.org]?
  Sure beats Lewinsky, like 3 Queens beat a pair of deuces. If you think th ematters are unrelated, explain the conection of L'affaire d'Lewinsky to Whitewater - a legal deal which lost the Clintons money.
  BTW: I am not pro-Clinton. He was hand-selected by the Bilderbergers and the Tri-Lateral folks, too.
  - - Re:Well, thats a different story (Score:1)
      
      by gmhowell ( 26755 ) writes:
      
      Now, is the core issue really perjury during Congressional testimony? I don't think it is for geoswan.
      
      I don't care if Al Capone was in jail for tax evasion; I just care that he went to jail.
    - Re:Well, thats a different story (Score:2)
      
      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) writes:
      
      You cannot seem to answer a question. Your word-salad again affirms your convictions and attitudes.
      O.K. nobody is threatening your identity here. Now, what makes you so angry?
      - Thats cute (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Its funny that you accused me of not answering questions, since sometimes I actually don't. But this time your actual question was:
        
        How do you stand on the Gannon facts?
        
        And my response was that its a stupid story and hinted that you are pretty stupid for following it. I don't know how much more complete I can be. If you require further detail, just let me know. If that wasn't your question, in the future you should consider ending questions with this character: ?
      - Deja Vu (Score:2)
        
        by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
        
        Lol. I too was mystified by his hostility, [slashdot.org] when he first directed it in my direction.
        I believe Cyrano is correct, [slashdot.org] he is very predictable. I believe his hostility has nothing really to do with what you or I or any of the other people he has decided are his enemies actually say. He has some really bizarre misconceptions, and he filters the world through them -- so the geoswan he hates is someone I never met. Lol.
        Cyrano's little script was very foresightful. Cyrano predicted that Mr Hawk would level
        
        Re:Deja Vu (Score:2)
        
        by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) writes:
        
        The mistake thing -- makes him a candidate for President in the U.S., right?
- Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
  
  by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) writes:
  
  Well, of course a dog barking at someone isn't torture.
  
  Odd that they would bother bringing a dog into the room at all, then. Seems like nothing more than a waste of time and taxpayers' money. What's the point?
  - Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)
    
    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
    
    It is based on the stereotype that Arab men are afraid of dogs. Weird that a stereotype is the liberal's basis for an allegation of torture. You see, if one isn't afraid of dogs, it can't even possibly be torture to merely be in the same room as one. They assert the stereotype and claim torture.
    
    I'm with you, there really isn't a point.
    - Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
      
      by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) writes:
      
      Oh, so it's just a matter of doing something that you know will incite terror in your captive? Shit, ain't nothing wrong with that!
      - Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Pretty much, that's called interrogation. I don't think policy should be defined by the irrationality of the captive.
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        How about determining policy by the accuracy of the method?
        Scaring someone isn't even effectivly accurate enough to get better than no information from the suspect at all, unless they're a rank amateur, have close family, or have no resistance training at all. And in every one of those three situations, FBI techniques are more accurate than intimidation, torture, or any other coersive method.
        Do you continually reject accuracy because in your heart you enjoy the thought of bad people being hurt? It's a
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        How about determining policy by the accuracy of the method?
        
        Sounds great. Thing is, neither you nor I is qualified to judge the "accuracy" (or efficiency) of this particular method used in this particular way since you don't know anything about how well its been working in Iraq in 2005. The boots on the ground seem to want to keep doing it ("it" being having a dog in the room while questioning a captive) though, so that would seem to indicate to the open-minded and observent person that they think the
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        The boots on the ground seem to want to keep doing it ("it" being having a dog in the room while questioning a captive) though, so that would seem to indicate to the open-minded and observent person that they think they are having success.
        
        Are you suggesting that we conduct science by the whim of those involved in war?
        Do you know why evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in a court of law?
        If you actually had proof that they were not getting any useful information from this method (and you
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Neat. Those are a bunch of articles published about FBI techniques from before the war. They may or may not pertain to techniques utilized by Pentagon human intelligence support teams. You are making certain assumptions that are invalid. Its quite rediculous to without question equate the police interrogation of an American with the military interrogation of someone from a very different culture. Or does this fact elude you? You have no proof about what is happening in Iraq re: dogs barking at captive
        
        It went beyond just barking (Score:2)
        
        by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
        
        Mr Hawk has volunteered to smear menstrual blood on suspects. [slashdot.org] Their possible innocence doesn't matter to him. [slashdot.org] So, he probably doesn't care the use of dogs went a bit beyond just barking.
        cowering [typepad.com]
        bleeding [typepad.com]
        first aid [typepad.com]
        I started a JE about the use of dogs for "softening up" suspects. [slashdot.org]
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        You don't seem to realize the possibility that our people can be at greater risk from false information, which is known to be more likely obtained by coersion, than from no information at all. Accuracy is of paramount importance, regardless of war or peace.
        I think it's obvious from the tone of your comments that you are unable to put your reason above your emotion when it comes to prisoner interrogation.
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        You don't seem to realize the possibility that our people can be at greater risk from false information, which is known to be more likely obtained by coersion, than from no information at all. Accuracy is of paramount importance, regardless of war or peace.
        
        I understand that very possibility very well. Where I disagree with you is who is qualified to make that decision. You cite research into FBI techniques in the 90's and consider it conclusive. I suggest I would let those very same "our people" who
        
        Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        soldier in the field who may find a dog barking at someone to be quite effective
        
        How is the soldier going to know what techniques are more accurate? Do you really want to trust their gut feelings? Are they keeping careful enough statistics to say for certain, or are they serving their instincts more than mathematics?
        
        I'll repeat (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Is it torture?
        
        C'mon js7a, set a good example for mean people like myself. Answer the question. Its the core question in this journal. Everything else is bullshit.
        
        1. How is the soldier going to know what techniques are more accurate? 2. Do you really want to trust their gut feelings? 3. Are they keeping careful enough statistics to say for certain, or are they serving their instincts more than mathematics? (Annotated by yours truly for your pleasure.)
        
        1. Same way anyone else would, trial and erro
        
        Re:I'll repeat (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        If the dog bites, sure, that would be torture. If it doesn't, it's just intimidation. Both forms of coercion are uniformly less accurate than non-coercive interrogation techniques. I can't think of any reason why that would be diferent in Iraq or Afghanistan than anywhere else. I find it hard to believe that the military is keeping close enough track of the results to be able to tell for sure, but who can say? (We do know that during the 2003 Abu Gharib tortures, they were so very understaffed that the
        
        Re:I'll repeat (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Well, since we agree on so much here, I just have a few more things to clarify.
        
        I'm very glad that we both expect them to prove the advantage of whatever techniques that they decide to use.
        
        Well, they only need to prove it to themselves. Their lives are on the line; I will allow them to determine their own means to gather the intelligence since they have to act on it, and certainly so if its just in the realm of intimidation.
        
        If they were actually doing the stats they would need to figure out if t
        
        Re:I'll repeat (Score:2)
        
        by js7a ( 579872 ) writes:
        
        People whose lives are on the line tend to make more mistakes than those who have plenty of time and graduate students to proofread their work, and aren't being shelled every day.
        
        Re:I'll repeat (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Well there you have it folks. Since js7a has stated one of the immutable truths of the universe, what more is there to say on the subject? Noone knows more about conducting an evolving global war than a bunch of academics in a university that probably is so afraid of the armed forces they won't even allow recruiters on campus. How could I possibly argue with that?
        
        Oh, geoswan, this one said its not torture. I give him an immense amount of credit for being honest. I'm done here.
        
        What President Bush should ask of the troops (Score:2)
        
        by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
        
        And I'm sure geoswan will be along in just a moment to paste something way off-topic again...
        
        I have told you this before There is absolutely no way I am going to agree to let you tell me what is "offtopic" in my own journal.
        Where I disagree with you is who is qualified to make that decision... I suggest I would let those very same "our people" who have the first-hand experience decide what methods (in this case signing off on having dogs bark at people) they think will work based on their
        
        Is scaring the shit out of someone torture? (Score:2)
        
        by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
        
        If the dog bites, sure, that would be torture. If it doesn't, it's just intimidation.
        
        What about when guards brought the loudly barking angry dogs to within inches of biting distance of detainees, to try to see if they could scare the detainees to the point where they lost control of their bowels, or voided their bladder? I'll call that torture.
        Further it is not just torture that the Geneva Conventions prohibit.
        Using a captive's religious beliefs against them is prohibited. So, stomping on t
        
        Heh (Score:1)
        
        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
        
        Who would think that just calling someone impotent would be enough to cause them to do something completely irrational? [msn.com]
        One was that young Arab toughs cannot tolerate insults to their manhood. So, as American armored columns pushed down the road to Baghdad, 400-watt loudspeakers mounted on Humvees would, from time to time, blare out in Arabic that Iraqi men are impotent. The Fedayeen, the fierce but undisciplined and untrained Iraqi irregulars, could not bear to be taunted. Whether they took the bait or sa
      - Mr Hawk does not believe in the rule of law (Score:2)
        
        by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
        
        What you have to understand about Mr Hawk is that he says he does not believe in the rule of law. He has made this very clear in some of his previous comments.
        He has explained that: his morality is based solely on personal selfishness, [slashdot.org] and he claims he was proud to admit this. [slashdot.org]
        He advocates [slashdot.org] abusive interrogation methods. [slashdot.org] He doesn't care if the suspects are innocent. He has denounced me -- accused me of "trying to render US forces ineffective" [slashdot.org]. And what did he mean by this? Wait for it -- in Mr H
- Some points I think you should consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
  
  by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * writes:
  
  REPUBLICAN: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA YOU BABY EATING LIB'RAL FAGGOT
  
  PROGRESSIVE: I say, my good man, shant we at least try to have a mature exchange of ideas?
  
  REPUB: NO I THINK YOUR IDEAS ARE STUPID I THINK YOU SHOULD STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T YOUR NOT STANDING WITH 'MERICA AND YOU HATE OUR TROOPS.
  
  PROGRESSIVE: Surely, you must agree that a civil discourse is vital to the health of a Democracy? Now, let us dispense with this ad homiem and...
  
  REPUB: YOU SHUT UP STUPIDHEAD
  
  PROGRESSIVE
  - Awesome (Score:1)
    
    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) writes:
    
    Geo, this guy is great! He's pretty much the reason I'm here to begin with. You have him to thank. Your little post is quite clever. Good job. Its also ironic considering that its a post about your belief in the inherent superiority of "progressives" and yet is never really on-topic and the poster screens who is allowed to post in his journal. I love you guys. This is too much fun.
    - Indeed... (Score:2)
      
      by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * writes:
      
      Nothing is ever George Bush's fault. If something bad happens he is not to blame, and neither is anyone associated with him - because he chose them and that would mean he is to blame. Nor can any policy associated with his administration be to blame. The second thing that needs to be pointed out is that America's actions cannot be to blame. America does not do anything significant wrong. Therefore America cannot be at fault. The caveat to number two is that certain people who live in America aren't Americ
- It went beyond just barking (Score:2)
  
  by geoswan ( 316494 ) writes:
  
  Mr Hawk has volunteered to smear menstrual blood on suspects. [slashdot.org] Their possible innocence doesn't matter to him. [slashdot.org] So, he probably doesn't care the use of dogs went a bit beyond just barking.
  cowering [typepad.com]
  bleeding [typepad.com]
  first aid [typepad.com]
  I started a JE about the use of dogs for "softening up". [slashdot.org]

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Journal geoswan's Journal: Special prosecutor on detainee torture, abuse, deaths? 33

Special prosecutor on detainee torture, abuse, deaths? More Login

Special prosecutor on detainee torture, abuse, deaths?

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Well, thats a different story (Score:1)

Re:Well, thats a different story (Score:2)

Thats cute (Score:1)

Deja Vu (Score:2)

Re:Deja Vu (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)

It went beyond just barking (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:1)

Re:Tsk tsk tsk (Score:2)

I'll repeat (Score:1)

Re:I'll repeat (Score:2)

Re:I'll repeat (Score:1)

Re:I'll repeat (Score:2)

Re:I'll repeat (Score:1)

What President Bush should ask of the troops (Score:2)

Is scaring the shit out of someone torture? (Score:2)

Heh (Score:1)

Mr Hawk does not believe in the rule of law (Score:2)

Some points I think you should consider... (Score:3, Insightful)

Awesome (Score:1)

Indeed... (Score:2)

It went beyond just barking (Score:2)

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot