10 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush

Cali Red said:
...you're not going to get valuable information you need from the people that have it with a hand shake and cup of coffee.
Click to expand...
You're not going to get it with torture either. No evidence suggests otherwise, and plenty points to the opposite conclusion.
 
Cali Red said:
Have you actually read the techniques? Serious question because you are comparing pulling off finger nails, chopping off hands and sodomy by plunger with any of these below you're not sane.

Attention grasp

The attention grasp consists of grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator.

Walling

For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall. The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall.

During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash. To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action.

Facial hold

The facial hold is used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face. The fingertips are kept well away from the individual's eyes.

Facial slap

With the facial slap or insult slap, the interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the area directly between the tip of the individual's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. The interrogator invades the individual' s personal space. The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.

Cramped confinement

Cramped confinement involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined space is usually dark. The duration of confinement varies based upon the size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space, confinement lasts for no more than two hours.

Wall standing

Wall standing is used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to five feet from a wall, with his feet spread approximately to shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall. His fingers support all of his body weight. The individual is not permitted to move or reposition his hands or feel.

Stress positions

A variety of stress positions may be used. You have informed us that these positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body, Rather, somewhat like walling, they are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue. Two particular stress positions are likely to be used on Zubaydah: (1) sitting on the floor with legs extended straight out in front of him with his hands raised above his head; and (2) kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle. You have also orally informed us that through observing Zubaydah in captivity, you have noted that he appears to be quite flexible despite his wound.

Sleep deprivation

Sleep deprivation may be used. You have indicated that your purpose in using this technique is to reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with lack of sleep to motivate him to cooperate. The effect of such sleep deprivation will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep.

You have informed us that your research has revealed that, in rare instances, some individuals who are already predisposed to psychological problems may experience abnormal reactions to sleep deprivation.

Even in those cases, however, reactions abate after the individual is permitted to sleep. Moreover, personnel with medical training are available to and will intervene in the unlikely event of an abnormal reaction. You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than eleven days at a time and that you have previously kept him awake for 72 hours, from which no mental or physical harm resulted.

Confinement with insects

You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him, You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact face a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.





Love the UN argument. Bastion of human rights that is. Where were the outcries from them during the Vietnam era? How about when real terrorists and tortures were excuting people by cutting their heads off or bullets to the head, video taping it and releasing it for public viewing on the internet. I've said it many times, the UN is a worthless organization. The sooner the US pulls out of it the better. All you need to do is look at todays UN anti racism conference today. Hilarious that was.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/20/racism.conference/index.html

I'm certainly against all the torture you are talking about but you're not going to get valuable information you need from the people that have it with a hand shake and cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

when other countries did these things, the united states prosecuted them for torture. by i guess when the u.s. does it, it is not. because it's us doing it.

i noticed waterboarding was not on your list. i'll infer your father did not do to you 183 times in two months at the order of the president of the united states. they leave that shit to the frat houses.

the u.n. declaration against torture was signed by leftist communist pussy ronald reagan. he clearly was not willing to make the hard decisions.

killing someone is not torture. killing someone is killing someone. is that the new torture fence post? as long as we do not kill them it is not torture? i wasn't aware that because the enemy kills people it makes us okay to torture. someone should have told every american president before king george ii.

if bush did not like being governed by the geneva convention, he could have requested congress withdraw us from it. he did not, obviously, choosing instead to blatantly violate american and international law by ordering the torture detainees. which makes he and everyone else who tortured a war criminal. this is not rocket science.
 
Chris H said:
You're not going to get it with torture either. No evidence suggests otherwise, and plenty points to the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

''Plenty''?

Looks to me like one or two examples where misinformation was provided which would be normal given the amount of people who have been through the process.

I think the point is, we just don't know how valuable the information gathered has proven to be.
 
and in regards to the walling and confined spaces - you know, kiddie stuff - this is what abu zubaydah's "interrogators" said about it:

"The escalation to especially brutal interrogation tactics against the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, including confining him in boxes and slamming him against the wall, was ordered by officials at C.I.A. headquarters based on a highly inflated assessment of his importance, interviews and a review of newly released documents show.

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, 'seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?_r=2&hp

and then they all did bong hits afterwards and had a charity car wash with their sister sorority.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
''Plenty''?

Looks to me like one or two examples where misinformation was provided which would be normal given the amount of people who have been through the process.

I think the point is, we just don't know how valuable the information gathered has proven to be.
Click to expand...

i think the onus is on those that have decided the rules of western civilization do not apply anymore to demonstrate the ends justify their disgusting means.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Be realistic though. There are obviously very serious security concerns with regards to the release of such sensitive information.
Click to expand...

well, yes and no. firstly, what was learned from torture doesn't matter. by law, we cannot torture. the president cannot authorize the cia to break the law, treaties, and u.n. conventions of which the u.s. is party. he does not have the authority. they could have uncovered a nuke under yankee stadium from waterboarding and it still would mean cheney is war criminal.

secondly, there should be a truth commission to determine what information was garnered via torture and how useful it actually was in comparison to all that bad intel we got. specific intelligence need not be made public, but it does need to be analyzed by an independent authority. i am certainly not going to trust bush et al - anyone that does is out of their fecking minds.
 
Blimey it's The Rock, next thing Henry will be running down the wing at Highbury.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
''Plenty''?

Looks to me like one or two examples where misinformation was provided which would be normal given the amount of people who have been through the process.

I think the point is, we just don't know how valuable the information gathered has proven to be.
Click to expand...
Which is why I welcome the release of the information Cheney continues to allude to, and will be talking up on Hannity's show later this evening. But I don't think this release will ever happen, not because of security concerns, but because no such information exists.

As for "plenty", I'm referring to the study by Darius Rejali cited on page one of the thread, the statements of US Army interrogator Colonel Stuart Herrington (also page one), and those of other intelligence professionals...
 
...such as these.

Top Interrogators Declare Torture Ineffective in Intelligence Gathering

Fifteen former interrogators and intelligence officials with more than 350 years collective field experience have declared that torture is an unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive way to gather intelligence, in a statement of principles released today.

The group of former interrogators and intelligence officials released a set of principles to guide effective interrogation practices at the conclusion of a meeting convened by Human Rights First last week in Washington. The meeting participants served with the CIA, the FBI and the U.S. military.

The principles are based on the interrogators and intelligence officials' experiences of what works and what does not in the field. Interrogation techniques that do not resort to torture yield more complete and accurate intelligence, they say. The principles call for the creation of a well-defined single standard of conduct in interrogation and detention practices across all U.S. agencies. At stake is the loss of critical intelligence and time, as well as the United States' reputation abroad and its credibility in demanding the humane treatment of captured Americans.
Click to expand...
We believe:

1. Non-coercive, traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.

2. Torture and other inhumane and abusive interview techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive. We reject them unconditionally.

3. The use of torture and other inhumane and abusive treatment results in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence, and has caused serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. The use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the United States of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.

4. There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.

5. There is no conflict between adhering to our nation's essential values, including respect for inherent human dignity, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.
Click to expand...
Signed by:

* Frank Anderson

Frank Anderson worked for the CIA from 1968 until 1995. He served three tours of duty in the Middle East as an agency station chief, headed the Afghan Task Force (1987-1989), and was chief of the Near East Division. He now runs a consulting practice that focuses on the Middle East.

* Jack Cloonan

Jack Cloonan served as a special agent with the FBI from 1977 to 2002. He began investigating Al Qaeda in the early 1990’s and served as a special agent for the Bureau's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002.

* Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, US Army

Stu Herrington served thirty years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he recently taught a three-day seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army’s 201st MI Battalion, Interrogation, during its activation at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

* Pierre Joly

Pierre Joly has more than 39 years of military intelligence experience. He currently serves as the Vice President of Phoenix Consulting Group where he leads more than 350 employees involved in providing human intelligence training to members of the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies of the United States. Immediately before joining Phoenix he served as the Chief of Controlled Operations at DIA from 2005- 2006 and the Chief of Operations for the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad from 2003-2004.

* Brigadier General (Ret.) David Irvine, US Army

General Irvine enlisted in the 96th Infantry Division, United States Army Reserve, in 1962. He received a direct commission in 1967 as a strategic intelligence officer. He maintained a faculty assignment for 18 years with the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School, and taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law to soldiers, Marines, and airmen. He retired in 2002, and his last assignment was Deputy Commander for the 96th Regional Readiness Command. General Irvine served 4 terms as a Republican legislator in the Utah House of Representatives, has served as a congressional chief of staff, and served as a commissioner on the Utah Public Utilities Commission.

* Steven M. Kleinman

Steve Kleinman is an active duty intelligence officer who has twenty-five years of operational and leadership experience in human intelligence, special survival training, and special operations. He has served as a case officer, as a strategic debriefer, and as an interrogator during Operations JUST CAUSE, DESERT STORM, and IRAQI FREEDOM. He previously served as the DoD Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training and is currently assigned as the Reserve Director of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at the Air Force Special Operations Command. As an independent consultant, his engagements have included serving as a senior advisor to the Intelligence Science Board's Study on Educing Information and as a member of the faculty for the U.S. Army Behavioral Science Consulting Team Course.

* Dr. George Mandel

Dr. George Mandel, born in Berlin, Germany, came to the US in 1937. He was inducted into the U.S. Army in 1944, and after basic training was transferred to Camp Ritchie, MD, for training in military interrogation because of his knowledge of German. He was then transferred to P.O. Box 1142, outside of Washington, D.C. where he conducted interrogation of German scientists brought to this country as prisoners of war. After a brief stint at Fort Strong, outside of Boston, he returned to 1142 to continue his previous work in military intelligence until the end of the War in Europe. After discharge in 1946 he returned briefly to 1142, and then entered graduate school at Yale University, specializing in organic chemistry. After receiving his Ph.D. he began his career in biochemical pharmacology, at George Washington University School of Medicine, starting as Research Associate in 1949, and promotion to the ranks to Professor. He became chairman of the Department of Pharmacology in 1960, stepped down from that position in 1996 and currently is working there as Professor of Pharmacology & Physiology. His research work has been in drug metabolism, cancer chemotherapy and carcinogenesis.

* Joe Navarro

For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division’s Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psycopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.

* Torin Nelson

Torin Nelson is a veteran Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Specialist and interrogator with 16-years of experience working with military and government agencies. He has worked in major theaters of operation in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Nelson has worked in tactical and strategic environments, both as a soldier and civilian advisor. Primary assignments include the 66th Military Intelligence and 300th Military Intelligence Brigades. He has also worked for the US Army Intelligence Center, Southern European Task Force (SETAF), the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA, later DTRA), Combined Joint Task Force 170 (later CJTF-Gitmo), CFLCC (Iraq), CJTF-76 (later -82/-101) (Afghanistan), NATO (IFOR, SFOR, and ISAF), as well as numerous military to military joint training exercises. Mr. Nelson is one of the founding members at the Society for Professional Human Intelligence (SPHI). He is currently working in the Middle East as a senior interrogator and mentor.

* William Quinn

William Quinn served in the United States Army from 2001 to 2006 as a human intelligence collector, interrogator, and Korean linguist. He was deployed to Iraq from February 2005 to February 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was stationed at Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. Will is currently studying International Politics and Security Studies at Georgetown University and is a cadet in Army ROTC.

* Buck Revell

Mr. Revell served a 30-year career (1964-1994) in the FBI as a Special Agent and senior executive. From 1980 until 1991, Mr. Revell served in FBI Headquarters first as Assistant Director in charge of Criminal Investigations (including terrorism); then as Associate Deputy Director he was in charge of the Investigative, Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and International programs of the Bureau (1985-91). In September 1987, Mr. Revell was placed in charge of a joint FBI/CIA/U.S. military operation (Operation Goldenrod) which led to the first apprehension overseas of an international terrorist. Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Revell served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps, leaving active duty in 1964 as a Captain. He currently serves as the President of an international business and security consulting group based in Dallas.
Click to expand...
 
Chris H said:
You're not going to get it with torture either. No evidence suggests otherwise, and plenty points to the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm against torture. But IMO there's nothing wrong with agressive interogation tactics. And for me, most of those techniques on that list are just that. Not all, but most.

Kevrockcity said:
when other countries did these things, the united states prosecuted them for torture. by i guess when the u.s. does it, it is not. because it's us doing it.

i noticed waterboarding was not on your list. i'll infer your father did not do to you 183 times in two months at the order of the president of the united states. they leave that shit to the frat houses.

the u.n. declaration against torture was signed by leftist communist pussy ronald reagan. he clearly was not willing to make the hard decisions.

killing someone is not torture. killing someone is killing someone. is that the new torture fence post? as long as we do not kill them it is not torture? i wasn't aware that because the enemy kills people it makes us okay to torture. someone should have told every american president before king george ii.

if bush did not like being governed by the geneva convention, he could have requested congress withdraw us from it. he did not, obviously, choosing instead to blatantly violate american and international law by ordering the torture detainees. which makes he and everyone else who tortured a war criminal. this is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

No, no he never water boarded me but trust me, he'd be on trial for war crimes by those standards. I left water boarding off because I don't want that to happen to innocents. As for KSM and his ilk, they're less than human so I could care less.
 
Cali Red said:
I left water boarding off because I don't want that to happen to innocents. As for KSM and his ilk, they're less than human so I could care less.
Click to expand...
Waterboarding is the main issue, the rest pale in comparison.

I doubt there are too many who would shed a tear for Mr. Muhammed, and I know I certainly wouldn't. But I think a death sentence is more humane than torturing a man until he begs for his life, as I believe Abu Zubaydeh did.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
He wasn't weak minded though.

You should know me well enough by now to know that I wouldn't dare use one phrase to describe every single liberal out there. ;)
Click to expand...

Do I take that to mean "not all liberals are weak minded idiots and thus not all bad" or "I have less offensive things to call him"?:lol::lol:
 
Kevrockcity said:
ksm was waterboarded 183 times, largely because the bush administration thought he had more info and was higher up the bin laden food chain than he actually was. so he was waterboarded 183 times, because apparently that 182nd time he still wasn't giving him the info they wanted. probably because he did not have it. maybe if they crushed his nuts instead, which i gather the bush justice department would have come up with some tangled logic about how that wasn't torture either.

in what world is waterboarding not close to torture? bizarre.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get much sympathy for a guy who planned 9/11.
 
Raoul said:
You're not going to get much sympathy for a guy who planned 9/11.
Click to expand...

probably not, but it's still torture, dictated from the highest office in the executive branch. remember when abu ghraib broke and people said it was just a bunch of bad apples (including myself). clearly it was not. you yourself said:

https://www.redcafe.net/f13/torture-iraqi-prisoners-47512/#post771986

Raoul said:
The US soldiers have to operate within a strict set of guidelines when dealing with prisoners. No hitting, and certainly to torturing. The soldiers that did this are bad apples and will be dealt with.
Click to expand...

so what about now?
 
Raoul said:
The problem isn't torture, but what we define as torture. As was said above, the practices cited earlier in the thread don't appear to be anything more than the hazing that occurs on University campuses. To characterize this as torture is really an insult to the people who have been legitimately tortured in the past.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. That very indistinction about what is 'torture' and what is 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT)' is where governments start reinterpreting acts. Thing is, both are just as illegal.

Is waterboarding torture? If no, it certainly is CIDT and just as illegal under all circumstances.

Cali Red said:
The methods used on this list are nothing compared to what toture really is. The only one I'd listen to is water boarding. Broken bones, knife wounds, starvation, electrocution and various others are what springs to mind when a discussion about torture comes up. Sleep deprevation is nothing when put into context with these. Hell, the US trains it's military with some of these techniques. There is a specific militay course called SERE school so pilots and special forces operators will have an idea of to expect if captured. I was part of one in the late 80' at Ft. Bragg. And as to the list, the US does know that torture doesn't work, that's why these methods were developed. And while I understand and agree with not torturing, I'll certainly cry no tears for Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed.

BTW, "japs"? Really?
Click to expand...

Read Darius Rejali's Torture and Democracy. As human rights monitoring has improved, governments and states (democratic and undemocratic alike) have moved from what Rejali calls 'hard tortures' which leave marks (your broken bones for example) to 'soft tortures' which leave no marks (psychological torture, stress positions, forced standing etc).

These measures have the same effect upon individuals than simply beating someone up - there is no difference to the victim.

However, because states are not doing what is stereotypically thought of as 'torture', (e.g. broken bones), they can deny what they are doing is torture and so muddy the waters. As happened with the Bush administration (although this government was by no means on its own for this - rendition started under Clinton for example).
 
Kevrockcity said:
probably not, but it's still torture, dictated from the highest office in the executive branch. remember when abu ghraib broke and people said it was just a bunch of bad apples (including myself). clearly it was not. you yourself said:

https://www.redcafe.net/f13/torture-iraqi-prisoners-47512/#post771986



so what about now?
Click to expand...

The important thing that needs to be underscored is that its a mistake to try and lump the actions of deviant, untrained, national guard members who obviously shouldn't have been unsupervised at Abu Ghurayb - with trained professionals who are carrying out officially sanctioned interrogations. I have friends who work in this field who are all decent and honest people who don't believe in torture. As has been said earlier in the thread, this debate is being fanned as an indictment on Bush administration policies rather than the merits of what defines torture, as evidenced by the fact that some continue to clumsily tie Abu Ghurayb with Gitmo when they are starkly different in every way, the only common thread being that they are both affiliated with the Bush Administration.
 
Raoul said:
The important thing that needs to be underscored is that its a mistake to try and lump the actions of deviant, untrained, national guard members who obviously shouldn't have been unsupervised at Abu Ghurayb - with trained professionals who are carrying out officially sanctioned interrogations. I have friends who work in this field who are all decent and honest people who don't believe in torture. As has been said earlier in the thread, this debate is being fanned as an indictment on Bush administration policies rather than the merits of what defines torture, as evidenced by the fact that some continue to clumsily tie Abu Ghurayb with Gitmo when they are starkly different in every way, the only common thread being that they are both affiliated with the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

starkly different in every way? not sure how you can say this, raoul. most of the things we saw at abu ghraib were actually softened version of things being done at gitmo, with the full authorization of the bush administration.

the physical abuse, the hoods, stress positions, sodomy - all these things were imported from gitmo to abu ghraib. they didn't develop independently of each other. come on now.
 
Raoul said:
The important thing that needs to be underscored is that its a mistake to try and lump the actions of deviant, untrained, national guard members who obviously shouldn't have been unsupervised at Abu Ghurayb - with trained professionals who are carrying out officially sanctioned interrogations. I have friends who work in this field who are all decent and honest people who don't believe in torture. As has been said earlier in the thread, this debate is being fanned as an indictment on Bush administration policies rather than the merits of what defines torture, as evidenced by the fact that some continue to clumsily tie Abu Ghurayb with Gitmo when they are starkly different in every way, the only common thread being that they are both affiliated with the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

The news has been discussing the 'Walling' technique... and it almost seems as if they are laying cover for the National Guards morons by saying that, in order to properly 'Wall' a person, a collar and leash is necessary.'


Truthfully, they look to be sweeping over their dirty tracks, in the event of a trial.
 
Kevrockcity said:
starkly different in every way? not sure how you can say this, raoul. most of the things we saw at abu ghraib were actually softened version of things being done at gitmo, with the full authorization of the bush administration.

the physical abuse, the hoods, stress positions, sodomy - all these things were imported from gitmo to abu ghraib. they didn't develop independently of each other. come on now.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges. The people at Abu G were breaking the law by abusing prisoners. The guys at Gitmo were using tried and tested techniques that were officially sanctioned and predated the Bush administration. Its convenient to try and lump them together to further a point, but they really are apples and oranges. For your information, there are interrogators in many different Government agencies who operate on guidelines sanctioned by their own organization. What the hillybillys in the guard unit did to the poor Iraqis at Abu Ghurayb was a result of lack of training and lack of on site management, for which heads should have rolled. This is completely different to what career professionals at the CIA, DIA, FBI etc do for a living, which has a methodical law enforcement component to it. These guys are well trained at what they do and if the Government decides to release additional information on this topic, it may shed some light on this.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
The news has been discussing the 'Walling' technique... and it almost seems as if they are laying cover for the National Guards morons by saying that, in order to properly 'Wall' a person, a collar and leash is necessary.'


Truthfully, they look to be sweeping over their dirty tracks, in the event of a trial.
Click to expand...

They were just unethical people Rob. They had no clue what they were doing and they thought their power over the prisoners was beyond the scrutiny of ethics.
 
Raoul said:
They were just unethical people Rob. They had no clue what they were doing and they thought their power over the prisoners was beyond the scrutiny of ethics.
Click to expand...


You can not be that naive... I certainly am not. Watch the HBO documentary, Raoul.

The spooky part of that documentary, is that one of the soldiers interviewed mentions that even more awful things had been done to the prisoners by the private contractors, much more awful than shown in the pictures or even too horrific, he couldn't say.


The thing is, I know the type of people shown in the photos of Abu Ghraib. I go camping at Rocky Gap State Park, only a couple miles from the town where all the national guardsmen had been from. These rednecks would be lucky if they knew how to tie their boots properly.



They clearly state in the doc. that the orders came from above. So don't be trying to sell us this story about how they were a few bad apples. The photos of Abu Ghraib show an entire wing of a prison that represented a torture chamber.



I'm hoping that Pres. Obama and the Dept. of Defense come around to understanding that this scar on America's reputation will be scratched and picked until it is properly addressed. It has to be frustrating for lots of people at the DOD, that this story will not go away.
 
Raoul said:
Apples and Oranges. The people at Abu G were breaking the law by abusing prisoners. The guys at Gitmo were using tried and tested techniques that were officially sanctioned and predated the Bush administration. Its convenient to try and lump them together to further a point, but they really are apples and oranges. For your information, there are interrogators in many different Government agencies who operate on guidelines sanctioned by their own organization. What the hillybillys in the guard unit did to the poor Iraqis at Abu Ghurayb was a result of lack of training and lack of on site management, for which heads should have rolled. This is completely different to what career professionals at the CIA, DIA, FBI etc do for a living, which has a methodical law enforcement component to it. These guys are well trained at what they do and if the Government decides to release additional information on this topic, it may shed some light on this.
Click to expand...

was waterboarding officially sanctioned prior to the bush administration? what about sodomizing prisoners? sexual humiliation? stress positions? these were all officially sanctioned?
 
Raoul said:
They were just unethical people Rob. They had no clue what they were doing and they thought their power over the prisoners was beyond the scrutiny of ethics.
Click to expand...

you could be describing the bush administration and the treatment they authorized at gitmo. treatment outsides the bounds of ethics and the rule of law.
 
Kevrockcity said:
you could be describing the bush administration and the treatment they authorized at gitmo. treatment outsides the bounds of ethics and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

When Haliburton hired Raoul, they must have locked him in a box and brainwashed him into thinking that laws are nothing more than a inconvenient nicety, nothing more nothing less.

By the way Raoul, why do you find it amusing that I suggest you watch the HBO Doc.?

Your chosen ignorance is blocking you from the people involved discussing the facts of what happened. What exactly about the truth are you afraid of?
 
ooeat0meoo said:
When Haliburton hired Raoul, they must have locked him in a box and brainwashed him into thinking that laws are nothing more than a inconvenient nicety, nothing more nothing less.

By the way Raoul, why do you find it amusing that I suggest you watch the HBO Doc.?

Your chosen ignorance is blocking you from the people involved discussing the facts of what happened. What exactly about the truth are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

I just find it amusing that so many people form their opinions from journalists and TV shows when so much of it can edited to skew the story in a certain direction. It can perpetuate ignorance just as it can inform.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
When Haliburton hired Raoul, they must have locked him in a box and brainwashed him into thinking that laws are nothing more than a inconvenient nicety, nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

This is why your posts aren't taken seriously.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
When Haliburton hired Raoul, they must have locked him in a box and brainwashed him into thinking that laws are nothing more than a inconvenient nicety, nothing more nothing less.

By the way Raoul, why do you find it amusing that I suggest you watch the HBO Doc.?

Your chosen ignorance is blocking you from the people involved discussing the facts of what happened. What exactly about the truth are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

Oh yes documentaries are always so unbiased and forthright. Right? Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11, Right America, Not Evil Just Wrong, etc. Unfortunately journalism died long ago, so for the most part docs are just art films now.

The more I read your posts the moreI just think you're always on a wind-up. I don't think you believe most of what you say.
 
Cali Red said:
Oh yes documentaries are always so unbiased and forthright. Right? Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11, Right America, Not Evil Just Wrong, etc. Unfortunately journalism died long ago, so for the most part docs are just art films now.

The more I read your posts the moreI just think you're always on a wind-up. I don't think you believe most of what you say.
Click to expand...

i believe bob is referring to taxi to the dark side, which is a very well done motion picture. won an oscar. same filmmaker as the enron doc. it's not sensationalist michael moore bullshit.

certainly would not dismiss it out of hand because it says torture is bad. i'm not sure when this became a controversial idea.
 
Kevrockcity said:
i believe bob is referring to taxi to the dark side, which is a very well done motion picture. won an oscar. same filmmaker as the enron doc. it's not sensationalist michael moore bullshit.

certainly would not dismiss it out of hand because it says torture is bad. i'm not sure when this became a controversial idea.
Click to expand...

Did see an Enron piece, Smartest Man In The Room is what I think it was. Pretty good piece. I'd the other and wouldn't make any judgments but coming from LABOB I'd have to think it might have just ever so slightly left "perspective". ;)


EDIT: BTW, best thing from the Enron piece is this:

Harvard Interviewer: Do you think you're smart?

Skilling: No, I'm fecking smart.

:lol:
 
:eek:

The following is a dead-on serious question...

You have admitted to working for KBR or Haliburton, several times in the past. I am sure it was in Afghanistan, but come'on... Do you mean to tell me that your position in Bahgdad has no affiliation with Kelov Brown and Root or Halliburton? Or that you past work for the KBR corporation didn't lead you to the position (whatever it is) in Iraq?


And Raoul... I completely agree with you... the media works wonders in bending the perception of the story they tell. The documentary I'm attempting to get you to see has no agenda, other than to present the players and explore into the events of Abu Ghraib.


Are you afraid that you might see the ugly truth and be swayed in some way, to the reality of how ugly things are behind the scenes?


Am I wrong, but I vaguely remember you saying something, a while back, about helping set up the modern Iraqi media, in some fashion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.