Geneva Convention

[cantdog]

Really? You mean the type of terrorist who kidnaps aid workers and beheads them deserves the same consideration as a US citizen? I don't think so and I doubt that many thinking people think so.

Actually, all our founding fathers and thousands of people around the world who deal in legal issues think precisely that. If a U.S. citizen kidnapped aid workers and beheaded them, or a Belgian, or a Syrian, it makes no change in the condition of the aid worker. If human rights are universal, whose citizen one happens to be is moot. Where the fuck do you get your idea that U.S. citizens are in some elevated category with respect to the law?

If Achmet is a pro, even a low level pro, he will get the info from terrorist boy without any permanent damage to the outside. Of course, you might consider Achmet's work torture. However, if you consider Achmet's work torture, what do you call Saddam's feeding of people into wood chipper machines? Saddam's rape of the women of his political enemies? Saddam's use of poison gas on a different ethnic group? If Achmet's work is torture, then you need to define a whole new catagory for Saddam's actions.

If a thousand terrorists need to die to save one innocent life, IMNTHO it is worth it.

The ones we hear from have not been "the type of terrorist who..." On the contrary, they have frequently been no type of terrorist at all. DOD estimates are that these people are 70-80 percent innocent. Your simple story of the armed man caught red handed doesn't apply to most of them. It is just false to think of the torturees in this way, and it just misleads you.

Much more often, something explodes. It is NOT a suicide bomber, but a set left in the path of the occupying troops, which they trip. It explodes, disabling a vehicle, perhaps, injuring some kid from Ohio, injuring some woman from Jersey, maybe killing some man from Arkansas and setting a small fire from the fuel. The next detainees to enter this system are people who happened to be in the neighborhood. Some very very pissed off troops are looking around for somebody to blame or somebody who may have witnessed the explosives being set, and they capture these folks by raiding homes nearby. What use is Achmet to you now?

The evidence, the 70-80 percent figure, demonstrates pretty convincingly, to me, that any number of grunts and Achmets, Abu Ghraibs and Gitmos, all combined for months of time, do not get even the simplest information from them. On the contrary. The info they get is that they live in the neighborhood and can't help you, and furthermore don't want to help you. Upon sufficient duress, of course, you can get them to say, for example, that they are al-Q, that they trained in Afghanistan, or any number of other statements. But that information is useless and leads nowhere.

Finally, there is this gem: However, if you consider Achmet's work torture, what do you call Saddam's feeding of people into wood chipper machines? etc. The definition I use is already in the post you were supposedly replying to. It covers both, because it categorizes both. Once you have 'em, if you go out of your way to inflict pain on them, it's torture. I guess you missed it the first few times.

And the motivation is the same. Power and impunity. Given the success rate it certainly isn't doing anyone any good, information wise. Of course, if you believe it will, then your motivation may be different. Believing something completely false doesn't make you look any better, though, when the story comes out about the electrodes and the prisoner's sister.

 

[cantdog]

"They brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my neighborhood!"

That's the story we hear.

 

[R. Richard]

here's what i don't get, r richard,

the Germans had spies and saboteurs and everyone agreed they didn't fall under the Geneva conventions for prisoners. iirc, they may be treated as criminals, subject to summary justice.

so regarding the folks who were in the states for 9-11, or any al qaeda folks in the US, there are clear precedents? why do the rules need to be changed or 'redefined.'

as regards people on the field outside the US, 'irregulars' and 'guerrillas' were not covered. so if there are al queda 'irregulars' in Iraq, as I gather there are, what is so new that demands revising or 'clarifying' the Geneva accords.

was there a Guantanamo type place set up in WWII for the 'unlawful combatants'?

Actually, we did keep German spies and sabateurs in special prisons during WW II. They were interrogated under circumstances that were not allowed for US citizens [No counsel, the IRC not notified, etc.] In most of the cases, there was no useful information gathered from the imprisoned German spies and sabateurs, mainly because they did not have much useful information. The US already knew where they came from and who they were. The one small thing that the US did learn was how they infiltrated the US, but there were only a few ways and those were already known.

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, all our founding fathers and thousands of people around the world who deal in legal issues think precisely that. If a U.S. citizen kidnapped aid workers and beheaded them, or a Belgian, or a Syrian, it makes no change in the condition of the aid worker. If human rights are universal, whose citizen one happens to be is moot. Where the fuck do you get your idea that U.S. citizens are in some elevated category with respect to the law?

The point is that US citizens are NOT kidnapping aid workers and not beheading them. You say, "If human rights are universal, whose citizen one happens to be is moot." Your statement is so naive and so wrong. There are lage numbers of Muslim women who are denied such basic "rights" as health care, because they can't be examined by a male doctor and Muslim women in fundamentalist areas are not allowed to learn to read and write because they are women [This last is a well documented fact.] If someone/some group in the US tried to deny women health care because they were women, there would be an enormous outcry and legal and enforcement action to see that the practice ended. THAT'S where I get my idea that US citizens are in an elevated category with respect to the law. If you believe that human rights are truly universal, you need to get yourself to a fundamentalist Muslim area and set things right. The ball is in your court.

The ones we hear from have not been "the type of terrorist who..." On the contrary, they have frequently been no type of terrorist at all. DOD estimates are that these people are 70-80 percent innocent. Your simple story of the armed man caught red handed doesn't apply to most of them. It is just false to think of the torturees in this way, and it just misleads you.

Much more often, something explodes. It is NOT a suicide bomber, but a set left in the path of the occupying troops, which they trip. It explodes, disabling a vehicle, perhaps, injuring some kid from Ohio, injuring some woman from Jersey, maybe killing some man from Arkansas and setting a small fire from the fuel. The next detainees to enter this system are people who happened to be in the neighborhood. Some very very pissed off troops are looking around for somebody to blame or somebody who may have witnessed the explosives being set, and they capture these folks by raiding homes nearby. What use is Achmet to you now?

The evidence, the 70-80 percent figure, demonstrates pretty convincingly, to me, that any number of grunts and Achmets, Abu Ghraibs and Gitmos, all combined for months of time, do not get even the simplest information from them. On the contrary. The info they get is that they live in the neighborhood and can't help you, and furthermore don't want to help you. Upon sufficient duress, of course, you can get them to say, for example, that they are al-Q, that they trained in Afghanistan, or any number of other statements. But that information is useless and leads nowhere.

Finally, there is this gem: However, if you consider Achmet's work torture, what do you call Saddam's feeding of people into wood chipper machines? etc. The definition I use is already in the post you were supposedly replying to. It covers both, because it categorizes both. Once you have 'em, if you go out of your way to inflict pain on them, it's torture. I guess you missed it the first few times.

And the motivation is the same. Power and impunity. Given the success rate it certainly isn't doing anyone any good, information wise. Of course, if you believe it will, then your motivation may be different. Believing something completely false doesn't make you look any better, though, when the story comes out about the electrodes and the prisoner's sister.

I would like to see sources for your statement that "DOD estimates are that 'these people' are 70-80 percent innocent."

I don't doubt that US troops have, upon occasion, overreacted to IEDs injuring/killing their comrades. In general, the IEDs are set off from inside houses in the area where the IED has been planted. The terrorists use the houses and probably force the owners to let them use the houses. Achmet comes in and extracts the identities of the terrorists from the owners. Achmet does not even get warmed up before he gets the info. The owners would be killed by the terrorists if they just gave up the info, but if Achmet forces them into giving up the info, the terrorists can't really retaliate or the whole neighborhood may turn against them. Actually, whole neighborhoods are turning against the terrorists, because they get nothing but pain from the terrorist's efforts. [I will point out that it is getting very difficult for the terrorists to kill US troops and they are more and more turning to things like mortar attacks and suicide bombings AGAINST THER OWN IRAQI MUSLIM PEOPLE! Read your damn newspaper.]

I have read about Muslims at GITMO being "tortured" by being interrogated by scantily clad US women. If that last is torture, and the women look any good at all, sign me up for torture!

 

[Pure]

A Rovian Masterpiece "My opponent favors MORE rights for terrorists"

note to rr. your post confirms my impression. there are really NO new circumstances, regarding spies and sabateurs, that necessitated 'clarifying' Geneva Con III. the reasons given are lies.

NEW BILL: Authorizes the Pres to do what he's already been doing, but was coming before the courts. Hold 'unlawful combatants' and use military tribunals to try them.

Non citizens do NOT have a right to habeas corpus (be brought before a judge and charged, with the judge being shown some reason for the charges). For example, anyone in the US on a visitor's visa e.g. foreign students.

Serious torture is banned, BUT anyone doing serious torture before Dec 30, 2005 is exempted from prosecution.

The aim is to seriously embarrass some candyass Dems.


Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush
Constitutional Challenges Predicted

By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 29, 2006; Page A01

Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.

The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.


The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue. Underscoring that strategy, the House last night voted 232 to 191 to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, with GOP leaders hoping to add it to their list of accomplishments even though it has no chance of Senate passage before this weekend's scheduled adjournment. On the final wiretapping vote, 18 Democrats joined 214 Republicans to win passage. Thirteen Republicans, 177 Democrats and one independent voted nay.

Democrats resisted both measures and nearly amended the detainee bill to allow foreigners designated as enemy combatants to challenge their captivity by filing habeas corpus appeals with the federal courts. But Republicans held fast, gambling that Democrats will fail in their bid to convince voters that the GOP is sacrificing the nation's traditions of justice and fairness in the name of battling terrorists and winning elections.

"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," Bush said after the vote.

With control of both houses possibly at stake this fall, yesterday's debates were often impassioned and deeply partisan. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called Democrats "dangerous." Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the nation is losing its "moral compass."

The Senate approved the detainee legislation after Bush's allies narrowly fended off five amendments. The vote on final passage drew support from 53 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while 32 Democrats, one independent and one Republican -- Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- voted nay.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.

The Supreme Court triggered the congressional action by striking down in late June Bush's earlier system for trying suspects in military commissions.

The new bill is designed to legalize military commissions and to clarify interrogation techniques that CIA officers may use on terrorism suspects considered "unlawful enemy combatants," who are granted fewer protections than are prisoners of war. Hundreds of such detainees have been held for several years without trial at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while others were held at secret prisons overseas.

The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.

It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.

Yesterday's main drama involved Specter's bid to amend the bill to grant the habeas corpus right to foreign detainees. Habeas corpus appeals -- a legal cornerstone -- allow prisoners to ask a judge to rule on the legality of their detention.

Specter and his allies said the habeas corpus right must apply to all persons -- including noncitizens -- held in U.S. custody. Most other Republicans said foreigners designated by the military as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not deserve habeas corpus protections.
Specter's amendment failed, 51 to 48. Senate Republicans voting for the habeas corpus amendment were Specter, Chafee, Gordon Smith (Ore.) and John E. Sununu (N.H.). Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat who opposed the amendment. Four amendments drafted by Democrats also failed, mostly along party lines.
Republicans, especially in the House, plan to use the military commission and wiretapping legislation as a one-two punch against Democrats this fall. The legislative action prompted extraordinarily blunt language from House GOP leaders, foreshadowing a major theme for the campaign. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) issued a written statement on Wednesday declaring: "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists."

Many Rights in U.S. Legal System Absent in New Bill
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; Page A13

The military trials bill approved by Congress lends legislative support for the first time to broad rules for the detention, interrogation, prosecution and trials of terrorism suspects far different from those in the familiar American criminal justice system.

President Bush's argument that the government requires extraordinary power to respond to the unusual threat of terrorism helped him win final support for a system of military trials with highly truncated defendant's rights. The United States used similar trials on just four occasions: during the country's revolution, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and World War II.


Included in the bill, passed by Republican majorities in the Senate yesterday and the House on Wednesday, are unique rules that bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions. They allow prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or coercion to seek criminal convictions.

The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial and limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys. Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions, except in death penalty cases, and appeals must go through a second military panel before reaching a federal civilian court.

By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities. Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions, as they are known, and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.

At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects.

Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are "the tools" needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture.
For more than 57 months

 

[Pure]

cant wait, RR?

rr- I have read about Muslims at GITMO being "tortured" by being interrogated by scantily clad US women. If that last is torture, and the women look any good at all, sign me up for torture!

It will be interesting to see Americans' reaction when the first films are released of Americans facing scantily clad interorogators and being forced to masturbate and anally fuck each other. Broadcast by Al Jazeera. Still ready for sign up RR?

 

[R. Richard]

rr- I have read about Muslims at GITMO being "tortured" by being interrogated by scantily clad US women. If that last is torture, and the women look any good at all, sign me up for torture!

It will be interesting to see Americans' reaction when the first films are released of Americans facing scantily clad interorogators and being forced to masturbate and anally fuck each other. Broadcast by Al Jazeera. Still ready for sign up RR?

If you are charging that GITMO detainees were forced to masturbate and/or anally
fuck each other, please present your verifiable evidence.

 

[Pure]

rr, not so much fun being on the receiving end, eh?

 

[Pure]

see other thread -- furth note to rr.

Since the improvement of the American democracy and legal system are far broader than Geneva related issues, I've started a separate thread on efforts to fix the Bill of Rights and its foolish guarantees for NONcitizen residents.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=464266

---
rr-
all to whether you can lawfully, at your captor's urging-- be buggered by a fellow inmate--i.e., consensually-- you might look at the NY Times summary of issues in this new thread. the new guidelines for 'torture lite' disallow rape, but allow, they say, other 'noncoercive' forms of sexual assault.

 

[R. Richard]

rr, not so much fun being on the receiving end, eh?

It's never fun to be in custody. However, I don't find it necessary to take up weapons and kill people for free because I don't agree with their religious preferences. If I were an amateur and felt compelled to kill people for free because I don't agree with their religious preferences. I might have an entirely different outlook on the matter. It may be that amateurs who feel compelled to kill people for free because the amateur doesn't agree with the people's religious preference might like some sort of sexual punishment.

 

[champagne1982]

It's never fun to be in custody. However, I don't find it necessary to take up weapons and kill people for free because I don't agree with their religious preferences. If I were an amateur and felt compelled to kill people for free because I don't agree with their religious preferences. I might have an entirely different outlook on the matter. It may be that amateurs who feel compelled to kill people for free because the amateur doesn't agree with the people's religious preference might like some sort of sexual punishment.

How do you define a "professional"? Wouldn't all volunteers be classed as amateurs even though they've had a great deal of practice at killing people? It's interesting to see that your definition changes with how much you get paid to do so. Wouldn't being allowed to defend yourself, your property and your liberty be pay enough?

Witness an American's right to bear arms. Ahh, militia, pity they weren't being paid when they fought in the revolution, they would have been pro's then.

 

[R. Richard]

How do you define a "professional"? Wouldn't all volunteers be classed as amateurs even though they've had a great deal of practice at killing people? It's interesting to see that your definition changes with how much you get paid to do so. Wouldn't being allowed to defend yourself, your property and your liberty be pay enough?

Witness an American's right to bear arms. Ahh, militia, pity they weren't being paid when they fought in the revolution, they would have been pro's then.

The difference between an amateur and a professsional is more a state of mind, rather than a pay difference. A professional kills people that the professional is contracted to kill. An amateur usually winds up killing other than those the amateur intended to kill.

Chief Joseph was an incredibly skilled amateur. He was defeated only because he was an amateur and listened to other amateurs who delayed the flight of his people to Canada. A professional would have force marched his tired people into the safety of Canada.

 

[Pure]

you missed the point, rr,

If I were an amateur and felt compelled to kill people for free because I don't agree with their religious preferences. I might have an entirely different outlook on the matter. It may be that amateurs who feel compelled to kill people for free because the amateur doesn't agree with the people's religious preference might like some sort of sexual punishment.

your understanding of al qaeda seems a bit limited. but. leaving that aside. let's ASSUME your raghead captive doesn't mind jerking off and being buggered for the network news. what i asked about is this: when his raghead friends capture you and start with your jerking off and proceed with insisting on your sucking off your ofay pals--turn about, as it were-- are YOU're going to mind?

or could it be that professional soldiers are prone to enjoy this sort of kink.

 

[R. Richard]

your understanding of al qaeda seems a bit limited. but. leaving that aside. let's ASSUME your raghead captive doesn't mink jerking off and being buggered for the network news. what i asked about is this: when his raghead friends capture you and start with your jerking off and proceed with insisting on your sucking off your ofay pals--turn about, as it were-- are YOU're going to mind?

or could it be that professional soldiers are prone to enjoy this sort of kink.

When I work as a professional, I have no interest in subjecting terrorists to any sort of sexual punishment. There is no money in it and it is a waste of my time.

You keep bringing up charges of terrorists being subjected to sexual punishment. I am not aware of terrorists being subjected to sexual punishment. I am not talking about being interviewed by scantily clad women as sexual punishment.

 

[Liar]

The point is that US citizens are NOT kidnapping aid workers and not beheading them. You say, "If human rights are universal, whose citizen one happens to be is moot." Your statement is so naive and so wrong. There are lage numbers of Muslim women who are denied such basic "rights" as health care, because they can't be examined by a male doctor and Muslim women in fundamentalist areas are not allowed to learn to read and write because they are women [This last is a well documented fact.] If someone/some group in the US tried to deny women health care because they were women, there would be an enormous outcry and legal and enforcement action to see that the practice ended. THAT'S where I get my idea that US citizens are in an elevated category with respect to the law. If you believe that human rights are truly universal, you need to get yourself to a fundamentalist Muslim area and set things right. The ball is in your court.

This kind of statements always flabbergast me.

No, fundamentalist muslims don't honor human rights. I think we all pretty much agree on that.

Why does that mean that we shouldn't?

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

Read your damn newspaper.

and the women look any good at all

(<- that's the embarrassment smiley)

 

[R. Richard]

I asked :
[I would like to see sources for your statement that "DOD estimates are that 'these people' are 70-80 percent innocent."]

I still have no response.


I said:
[I don't doubt that US troops have, upon occasion, overreacted to IEDs injuring/killing their comrades. In general, the IEDs are set off from inside houses in the area where the IED has been planted. The terrorists use the houses and probably force the owners to let them use the houses. Achmet comes in and extracts the identities of the terrorists from the owners. Achmet does not even get warmed up before he gets the info. The owners would be killed by the terrorists if they just gave up the info, but if Achmet forces them into giving up the info, the terrorists can't really retaliate or the whole neighborhood may turn against them. Actually, whole neighborhoods are turning against the terrorists, because they get nothing but pain from the terrorist's efforts. [I will point out that it is getting very difficult for the terrorists to kill US troops and they are more and more turning to things like mortar attacks and suicide bombings AGAINST THER OWN IRAQI MUSLIM PEOPLE! Read your damn newspaper.]]

Each day I read of atrocities perfomed, mainly by Muslims against Muslims. Every so often I read on the front page about alleged torture performed on someone like a GITMO detainee. Several days leter I read, on the back pages, that the allegations are unsubstantiated.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I asked :
[I would like to see sources for your statement that "DOD estimates are that 'these people' are 70-80 percent innocent."]

I still have no response.

....Every so often I read on the front page about alleged torture performed on someone like a GITMO detainee. Several days leter I read, on the back pages, that the allegations are unsubstantiated.

Here is a link to a comprehensive report, based on DOD documents obtained through the FOIA.

Here is more commentary on the same report, which I had trouble opening because it's a PDF file and the server seems to be unreliable.

Now, show me an example of torture allegations that have been retracted.

 

[R. Richard]

Here is a link to a comprehensive report, based on DOD documents obtained through the FOIA.

Here is more commentary on the same report, which I had trouble opening because it's a PDF file and the server seems to be unreliable.

Now, show me an example of torture allegations that have been retracted.

Your source cites 55% of detainees who have not been proven to be guilty, not 70% to 80% innocent.

The following link shows five incidents where there was some mishandling of a Koran. It also cites 15 incidents where the detaineees defiled a Koran.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-03-koran_x.htm

 

[Huckleman2000]

Your source cites 55% of detainees who have not been proven to be guilty, not 70% to 80% innocent.

The following link shows five incidents where there was some mishandling of a Koran. It also cites 15 incidents where the detaineees defiled a Koran.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-03-koran_x.htm

It says 55% committed no hostile act, and 92% were not even fighters for Al Qaida.

Moreover, 86% weren't even captured by US forces - they were captured by Afghanis and turned over at a time when US forces were paying large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

While your example of the Koran desecration has been discredited, that's hardly an example of the sort of torture we are discussing, or even the sort that BushCo is trying to legitimize.

 

[Pure]

reply to rr.,

RR saidk You keep bringing up charges of terrorists being subjected to sexual punishment. I am not aware of terrorists being subjected to sexual punishment.

I'm sure your aware of the army reports, including that of Taguba,
of charges being laid, and persons dishonorably discharged and/or found guilty. I believe one was Chuck Graner.

But just for the record, here's a piece about rape and sexual torture of detainees in Iraq; that torture by soldiers sometimes being under the supervision of CIA officers or independent 'contractors.'
The British Newspaper, the Guardian, Friday April 30, 2004.
[start excerpt]

The killing of four private contractors in Falluja on March 31 led to the current siege of the city.

But this is the first time the privatisation of interrogation and intelligence-gathering has come to light. The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in the functioning of Abu Ghraib.
Titan, based in San Diego, describes itself as a "a leading provider of comprehensive information and communications products, solutions and services for national security".

It recently won a big contract for providing translation services to the US army, and its involvement in Abu Ghraib is believed to have been to provide translators.

CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".
Neither responded to calls for comment yesterday.
According to the military report on Abu Ghraib, both played an important role at the prison.

At one point, the investigators say: "A CACI instructor was terminated because he al lowed and/or instructed MPs who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by setting conditions which were neither authorised [nor] in accordance with applicable regulations/policy."

Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, speaking for central command, told the Guardian: "One contractor was originally included with six soldiers, accused for his treatment of the prisoners, but we had no jurisdiction over him. It was left up to the contractor on how to deal with him."

She did not specify the accusation facing the contractor, but according to several sources with detailed knowledge of the case, he raped an Iraqi inmate in his mid-teens.

Col Morgenthaler said the charges against the six soldiers included "indecent acts, for ordering detainees to publicly masturbate; maltreatment, for non-physical abuse, piling inmates into nude pyramids and taking pictures of them nude; battery, for shoving and stepping on detainees; dereliction of duty; and conspiracy to maltreat detainees".

One of the soldiers, Staff Sgt Chip Frederick is accused of posing in a photograph sitting on top of a detainee, committing an indecent act and with assault for striking detainees - and ordering detainees to strike each other.

He told CBS: "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things ... like rules and regulations."

 

[Pure]

PS for rr.

I know you will say charges are one thing and convictions another, etc. etc.

So here is the story of the outcome for Sgt Graner:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/iraq/main665758.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Graner Gets Ten Years
[Jan 10, 2005]
Faced Up To 15; Said Superiors Ordered His Abu Ghraib Actions


FORT HOOD, Texas, Jan. 15, 2005

(CBS/AP) Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was sentenced to 10 years behind bars Saturday for physically and sexually mistreating Iraqis in the first court-martial stemming from at Abu Ghraib prison scandal, an embarrassment to the U.S. military fueled by the release of graphic photographs.

Graner, labeled the leader of a band of rogue guards at the Baghdad prison in late 2003, will be dishonorably discharged when his sentence is completed. He also was demoted to private and ordered to forfeit all pay and benefits.

But I suspect you knew this and are just funnin' the critics. Or maybe, to use a phrase, it's a "State of Denial."

 

[cantdog]

The point is that US citizens are NOT kidnapping aid workers and not beheading them. You say, "If human rights are universal, whose citizen one happens to be is moot." Your statement is so naive and so wrong. There are lage numbers of Muslim women who are denied such basic "rights" as health care, because they can't be examined by a male doctor and Muslim women in fundamentalist areas are not allowed to learn to read and write because they are women [This last is a well documented fact.] If someone/some group in the US tried to deny women health care because they were women, there would be an enormous outcry and legal and enforcement action to see that the practice ended. THAT'S where I get my idea that US citizens are in an elevated category with respect to the law. If you believe that human rights are truly universal, you need to get yourself to a fundamentalist Muslim area and set things right. The ball is in your court.

Quite so. Because YOUR court is completely useless, isn't it? I am in Amnesty, have been for twenty years, almost. I write letters every week to people LIKE YOU who love to torture people. I write them to everyone EXCEPT the United States, because that's the way the Amnesty system operates.

You have cited a garbled bunch of semi facts, RR, none of which bears on the position of a citizen of any country before the law of the United States.

In fact, before the law of the U. S., citizens of any country are equal. Or were, before this iniquitious bill was passed this past week.

Men of draft age, from any country, were liable to be conscripted into the armed forces of the United States, when the old Selective Service Act was in force, for instance. A citizen or subject of any country in the world who dealt drugs, murdered someone, etc., etc., was and is liable to prosecution for the crime committed, regarless, unless diplomatic immunities apply.

THAT'S what I mean. I think, still, that you are acting obtuse to make a point. I am willing to laugh it off if you are.

I would like to see sources for your statement that "DOD estimates are that 'these people' are 70-80 percent innocent."

I doubt that. You love torture.

I don't doubt that US troops have, upon occasion, overreacted to IEDs injuring/killing their comrades. In general, the IEDs are set off from inside houses in the area where the IED has been planted. The terrorists use the houses and probably force the owners to let them use the houses. Achmet comes in and extracts the identities of the terrorists from the owners. Achmet does not even get warmed up before he gets the info. The owners would be killed by the terrorists if they just gave up the info, but if Achmet forces them into giving up the info, the terrorists can't really retaliate or the whole neighborhood may turn against them. Actually, whole neighborhoods are turning against the terrorists, because they get nothing but pain from the terrorist's efforts. [I will point out that it is getting very difficult for the terrorists to kill US troops and they are more and more turning to things like mortar attacks and suicide bombings AGAINST THER OWN IRAQI MUSLIM PEOPLE! Read your damn newspaper.]

Torture. You love it. You are of a piece with the people I write respectful letters to, every week. You disgust me. Read your damn soul.

I have read about Muslims at GITMO being "tortured" by being interrogated by scantily clad US women. If that last is torture, and the women look any good at all, sign me up for torture!

Ha fuckin ha.

 

[cantdog]

I have no inclination to waste time on pusillanimous cowards like you, RR, who are so afraid of the people of the world at large that you are willing to consign them to a lifetime of torture with no hearing. The German man who happened to have the same name as someone on their list and who recently spent some months in Afghanistan, courtesy of the US government, being tortured, is a case in point. A simple hearing would have established who he was, but no. Fear, sheer panic, made him have to be tortured first-- for months! Brilliant. And you claim to be a rational being.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think there were some gray areas, and was suppose to clarify. does anyone think that radical's are treating our troops with respect?

True that. To beat the enemy, we need to be the enemy.