What are you telling your children? (Warning: political)
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
I can understand someone thinking that the Democrats on the panel asked partisan questions, but the last time I looked, Senator McCain was a member of Mr. Rumsfeld's own party. I had the impression that he had anticipated how Rumsfeld was going to evade the key issues and he had decided in advance that he wasn't going to let the worm wiggle off the hook.
Senator McCain's questions went to one of two key issues: Who was responsible for putting military personnel in a situation where they were evidently taking orders from civilian interrogators - and where the line of command was so indistinct that Rumsfeld didn't seem to understand it himself.
Senators Kennedy and Clinton focused on the second biggie: Why wasn't something done to curtain the abuse of prisoners when the State Department first confronted the Defense Department about it, months ago?
If not for the "parisans" on the panel, including Senator McCain, anyone watching this hearing could have walked away still believing that the secretary of defense and the president really were shocked last week when this was made public. Only Hilary Clinton got Rumsfeld to finally admit that the thing he and the president were so shocked and outraged by was that someone had broken the law by taking the pictures to the press.
Senator McCain's questions went to one of two key issues: Who was responsible for putting military personnel in a situation where they were evidently taking orders from civilian interrogators - and where the line of command was so indistinct that Rumsfeld didn't seem to understand it himself.
Senators Kennedy and Clinton focused on the second biggie: Why wasn't something done to curtain the abuse of prisoners when the State Department first confronted the Defense Department about it, months ago?
If not for the "parisans" on the panel, including Senator McCain, anyone watching this hearing could have walked away still believing that the secretary of defense and the president really were shocked last week when this was made public. Only Hilary Clinton got Rumsfeld to finally admit that the thing he and the president were so shocked and outraged by was that someone had broken the law by taking the pictures to the press.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
McCain was said to be under consideration to run as Kerry's VP candidate, perhaps the Senator's political lineage is somewhat in question.
The problems in that prison have been addressed, as far back as January. Those accused of crimes are being dealt with through the UCMJ. Not just those that committed the acts, but all the way up the chain of command.
The reason Rumsfeld 'could not' answer McCain's questions, (and McCain knew it), was that it would violate the legal defense of those who have been accused and are under investigation.
Secondly, Rumsfeld did answer, concerning who signed the order placing the prison under Military Intelligence instead of under Military Police control. It was acknowledged that this order contradicted military procedure.
I do not post this to confront you, but to inform others that you did not accurately report what occured.
Has your ideology blinded you to the degree that you could not see a 'real' man answering those questions? One who gave real answers, one who, like most, is appalled at what transpired. Did you really not see him struggle to present this event in as clear terms as humanly possible?
Perhaps you did not watch the entire interview.
amicus
The problems in that prison have been addressed, as far back as January. Those accused of crimes are being dealt with through the UCMJ. Not just those that committed the acts, but all the way up the chain of command.
The reason Rumsfeld 'could not' answer McCain's questions, (and McCain knew it), was that it would violate the legal defense of those who have been accused and are under investigation.
Secondly, Rumsfeld did answer, concerning who signed the order placing the prison under Military Intelligence instead of under Military Police control. It was acknowledged that this order contradicted military procedure.
I do not post this to confront you, but to inform others that you did not accurately report what occured.
Has your ideology blinded you to the degree that you could not see a 'real' man answering those questions? One who gave real answers, one who, like most, is appalled at what transpired. Did you really not see him struggle to present this event in as clear terms as humanly possible?
Perhaps you did not watch the entire interview.
amicus
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
I did, and for those who didn't, here's a link to the hearing transcript.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8575-2004May7.html
Amicus, if you think your own ideology doesn't color what you took away from this interview, you perhaps don't remember how convincingly Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the same committee regarding the urgent need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
The assertion that he failed to inform the Senate because he was protecting defendants' rights, was a bit ironic in view of the issue currently before the Supreme Court regarding the right of the Executive Branch to selectively deny habeus corpus, the most basic of all defendant rights.
Here, for those who need to be reminded of what an effective and earnest witness as well as a "real man" Mr. Rumsfeld can be, is a transcript of the Senate testimony that helped lead us into this abyss. It's from May 7, 2002:
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020507-secdef.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8575-2004May7.html
Amicus, if you think your own ideology doesn't color what you took away from this interview, you perhaps don't remember how convincingly Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the same committee regarding the urgent need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
The assertion that he failed to inform the Senate because he was protecting defendants' rights, was a bit ironic in view of the issue currently before the Supreme Court regarding the right of the Executive Branch to selectively deny habeus corpus, the most basic of all defendant rights.
Here, for those who need to be reminded of what an effective and earnest witness as well as a "real man" Mr. Rumsfeld can be, is a transcript of the Senate testimony that helped lead us into this abyss. It's from May 7, 2002:
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020507-secdef.html
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
CBS Sixty Minutes
March 21, 2004
Leslie Stahl interviews Richard Clark, Steven Hadley
STAHL (exp): {After the President returned to the White House on 9/11, he and his top advisors including Clarke began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin laden and al Qaeda but was surprised when the talk quickly turned to another target.}
STAHL: _You relayed a conversation you had with Sec'y of Defense Rumsfeld.
CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.
CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.
March 21, 2004
Leslie Stahl interviews Richard Clark, Steven Hadley
STAHL (exp): {After the President returned to the White House on 9/11, he and his top advisors including Clarke began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin laden and al Qaeda but was surprised when the talk quickly turned to another target.}
STAHL: _You relayed a conversation you had with Sec'y of Defense Rumsfeld.
CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.
CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Not bait and switch, amicus. A challenge to the credibility of the witness.
Here's a snippet from Joel Achenbach's column in the Washington Post:
"He {Rumsfeld}and the other witnesses took turns declaring that there were many things they couldn't say, because they're all in the (now-famous) chain of command, and must protect the rights of the accused. Never have so many military people spent so much time talking about the integrity of the judicial system. They sounded like defense attorneys. (The Pentagon: Where Due Process Comes First.)"
Here's a snippet from Joel Achenbach's column in the Washington Post:
"He {Rumsfeld}and the other witnesses took turns declaring that there were many things they couldn't say, because they're all in the (now-famous) chain of command, and must protect the rights of the accused. Never have so many military people spent so much time talking about the integrity of the judicial system. They sounded like defense attorneys. (The Pentagon: Where Due Process Comes First.)"
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sher said,
Torture as a means of obtaining information can't be all that effective, anyway. If someone's causing you enough fear or pain, you're going to blurt out something - anything - to make them stop. For every accurate lead, there are bound to be a lot of false leads that somebody has to waste time or even risk his life checking out - like the WMD lies. Meanwhile, we defeat our own alleged purpose. Barbarism rules, in the very house of horrors where Saddam was at his worst.
This pretty well sums it up. It generally doesn't work as a method. Add to that the embarrassment of 'barbarism' and that's another good argument.
----
mabeuse said,I read an article about the ethics and practice of torture in the gathering of information a while ago, but I can’t remember the magazine. There are some tricky ethical issues. For instance, Israel allows “physcially coercive interrogation” if there is a dire impeding threat and the information sought can save lives; for instance, if someone has planted a bomb and won’t tell where it is.
Israeli use of 'physically coercive interrogation' has created many ethical problems and embarrassments. While the 'ticking bomb' problem is often mentioned, afaik, there have been few or no 'ticking bombs' uncovered this way. Another issue, is that the posing of the problem assumes you know the right guy. If there are 10 people who might know (including one who does), you've got to torture all 10, to get the one.
Another problem alluded to by sher: You have to picture that the 'other side' is recruiting. Torture shots and tales make awfully good recruiting material. The raped Algerian woman, Djamila Boupacha, greatly embarrassed the French, who were then trying to hold Algeria, when her book came out. Cases like hers, including, apparently one present rape in the evidence thus far, help build the spirit and anger in 'the enemy'; the woman's family joins the fight.
As has been pointed out, the military has been allowed a certain moral/legal corruption, under Rumsfeld. That ultimately comes back to haunt it. It becomes less able to do its job.
J.
Torture as a means of obtaining information can't be all that effective, anyway. If someone's causing you enough fear or pain, you're going to blurt out something - anything - to make them stop. For every accurate lead, there are bound to be a lot of false leads that somebody has to waste time or even risk his life checking out - like the WMD lies. Meanwhile, we defeat our own alleged purpose. Barbarism rules, in the very house of horrors where Saddam was at his worst.
This pretty well sums it up. It generally doesn't work as a method. Add to that the embarrassment of 'barbarism' and that's another good argument.
----
mabeuse said,I read an article about the ethics and practice of torture in the gathering of information a while ago, but I can’t remember the magazine. There are some tricky ethical issues. For instance, Israel allows “physcially coercive interrogation” if there is a dire impeding threat and the information sought can save lives; for instance, if someone has planted a bomb and won’t tell where it is.
Israeli use of 'physically coercive interrogation' has created many ethical problems and embarrassments. While the 'ticking bomb' problem is often mentioned, afaik, there have been few or no 'ticking bombs' uncovered this way. Another issue, is that the posing of the problem assumes you know the right guy. If there are 10 people who might know (including one who does), you've got to torture all 10, to get the one.
Another problem alluded to by sher: You have to picture that the 'other side' is recruiting. Torture shots and tales make awfully good recruiting material. The raped Algerian woman, Djamila Boupacha, greatly embarrassed the French, who were then trying to hold Algeria, when her book came out. Cases like hers, including, apparently one present rape in the evidence thus far, help build the spirit and anger in 'the enemy'; the woman's family joins the fight.
As has been pointed out, the military has been allowed a certain moral/legal corruption, under Rumsfeld. That ultimately comes back to haunt it. It becomes less able to do its job.
J.
Last edited:
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
Are you really a lawyer? It seems like it. I haven't heard one like that since I was on a jury and the defense attorney claimed his client being in a building across the street a year before explained the client's fingerprints in the rape victim's apartment!amicus said:
McCain's reaction to suggestions that he'd be Kerry's VP candidate was "Ha Ha! No!" (I'm paraphrasing).
I'll bet you $1000 McCain isn't Kerry's VP candidate. PM me and we'll work out the details.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Besides the Taguba report that Cheney didn't read, and didn't worry about because there were no pictures, apparently there is a Red Cross report on US torture, that was sent to the Pentagon or US gov. several months back.
I believe it's been published (W. Post?). Anyone have a url?
I believe it's been published (W. Post?). Anyone have a url?
SlickTony
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 25, 2002
- Posts
- 6,344
For my part, I hope Bush doesn't get re-elected. He and all the rest of the rascals need to be voted out.
Here's some interesting reading material:
http://www.wnyc.org/books/20427
Here's some interesting reading material:
http://www.wnyc.org/books/20427
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
KenJames said:
To the first point - Are you kidding? They'd love to have him on the ticket and out of the Senate! He doesn't have to be given a fraction of the power that Cheney had - No other V.P. ever has. The goal of getting a foot in the door in Iraq has been accomplished. The Project for the New American Century has always known it would have to go on without Cheney in the second term because of his health - if not, he might have made an effort to be a bit more likeable in these three years instead of vanishing to the Undisclosed Location. He clearly could care less what Joe Public thinks of him, and it can only be because he's not planning to run. So who's the ideal person to redeem Dubya right now? A Vietnam P.O.W. with no anti-war protests in his past, and who's known for speaking his mind, would bring two missing elements to the Bush White House: military experience and a clean slate.
To your second point, God I hope you're right. His name would win this election for Bush. I know he's no admirer of Dubya, but imagine the temptation to run as an incumbent vice president in 2008.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Re: Seen the Rummy defense of himself
Do you wonder what their business cards look like? Is there a corporate annual report?
I'm personally not eager for a Rumsfeld resignation. People don't pay close attention to who's responsible for what scandal/lie/debacle, and I think it will give the impression that The Guy Who Screwed Up in Iraq is gone now, and the competent people are left.
The shoving match to the front of the line for Iraq Scapegoat is getting rough. For a while there, it looked like Tenet might be the goat. Then Condi Rice was pushed out of the circle, but she's slipped back in under the rope while the focus is on Rummy. The only ones that nobody seems to question are Dick and Bush.
The only satisfaction I'd get from seeing Rumsfeld go is that Bill Maher would no longer be, as he puts it, "the only person who lost his job over 9/ll."
cantdog said:
Do you wonder what their business cards look like? Is there a corporate annual report?
I'm personally not eager for a Rumsfeld resignation. People don't pay close attention to who's responsible for what scandal/lie/debacle, and I think it will give the impression that The Guy Who Screwed Up in Iraq is gone now, and the competent people are left.
The shoving match to the front of the line for Iraq Scapegoat is getting rough. For a while there, it looked like Tenet might be the goat. Then Condi Rice was pushed out of the circle, but she's slipped back in under the rope while the focus is on Rummy. The only ones that nobody seems to question are Dick and Bush.
The only satisfaction I'd get from seeing Rumsfeld go is that Bill Maher would no longer be, as he puts it, "the only person who lost his job over 9/ll."
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Here are some of the indications of Red Cross docs about Iraqi prisons, going to the US gov.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.redcross/
Red Cross says it urged U.S. action on prison
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 1532 GMT (2332 HKT)
(CNN) -- With new images surfacing in the media of possible U.S. abuse against Iraqi prisoners, the International Committee for the Red Cross said Thursday it had repeatedly asked American authorities to take "corrective action" at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
"Some measures have already been taken," said Red Cross spokeswoman Antonella Notari, without revealing any of her agency's recommendations.
"I do think that our recommendations were taken seriously, and I do think that now, yet even more, there are other measures that are being planned. And we do, of course, intend to continue our visits."
The Washington Post on Thursday published more photos that may be new evidence of U.S. soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
One shows a female soldier holding a leash tethered to the neck of a naked Iraqi prisoner lying on the ground. Another photo shows an Iraqi prisoner chained to a bed frame with women's underwear covering his face.
The initial photographs from Abu Ghraib first appeared last week on the CBS program "60 Minutes II." Those showed naked Iraqi prisoners being forced to simulate homosexual acts and form human pyramids as American troops watched. One also showed a cloaked prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his hands.
The images have been shown around the world, casting a negative light on American soldiers at a time when Iraqis are expressing increasing frustration with the U.S. occupation.
Notari said she did not want to compare the pictures with her agency's findings because she said it would be misleading.
"The prisoners were able to speak with us in total privacy, and based on these discussions, we've been able to make very firm recommendations to the U.S. authorities in a repeated manner," she said.
Notari said the Red Cross has visited the prison since last summer when U.S. forces began using it to house Iraqi detainees. The organization, under a mandate from the Geneva Convention, visits all prisons housing Iraqi detainees across the country.
She said that the Red Cross was aware of the situation at Abu Ghraib but that it does not issue reports to the public.
"It certainly was preoccupying for us, extremely concerning, and we had to call for very serious corrective action, so I hope that indicates of course that we were aware of the situation and that we had acted on it," she said.
"We try and work and change the situation on the spot in the prison where it happens. It doesn't mean that we are always immediately effective. But what it does mean is that there is an independent, mutual humanitarian organization who continuously stays where it happens, who continuously follows up with prisoners."
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators is urging the Pentagon to demolish the Abu Ghraib prison to exorcise what has become a symbol of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers and an embarrassing episode for the U.S. military. (Full story)
=====
Red Cross says it warned US about Iraq jail
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...on=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportID=562588
07.05.2004
8.00am GENEVA -
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Thursday it had repeatedly urged the United States to take "corrective action" at a Baghdad jail at the centre of a scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners. The Geneva-based humanitarian agency, mandated under international treaties to visit detainees, has had regular access to Abu Ghraib prison since US-led forces began using it last year, according to chief spokeswoman Antonella Notari. "The ICRC, aware of the situation, and based on its findings, has repeatedly asked the US authorities to take corrective action," she told Reuters.
Notari declined to give details of what the ICRC had seen during the visits, which take place every five to six weeks, or about its reports to the US authorities. The United Nations said separately it had written to US officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Governor of Iraq Paul Bremer, seeking information on human rights in Iraq over the past year.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has promised a report by the end of the month, said its investigators were ready to visit Baghdad for talks with coalition and Iraqi leaders. The ICRC, which has been operating since the late 19th century, keeps a public silence about what it hears from detainees as the price for gaining access to jails in trouble spots around the world from Chechnya to West Africa.
Pictures of grinning US soldiers abusing naked Iraqis at Abu Ghraib -- the largest prison in the country and notorious for torture under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- have sparked an international outcry. In a bid to limit damage to the US image, President George W. Bush went on two Arabic satellite television stations on Wednesday to tell an outraged Middle East that soldiers guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners would be punished.
The jail was also been the focus of a separate earlier probe by a US general. That report by Major-General Antonio Taguba, covering the period October-December 2003 and completed on March 3, cited incidents of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses".
Notari poured cold water on some US media reports suggesting that the ICRC had not had access to a special wing in the jail where the abuse took place. "To the best of our knowledge we have had access to all sectors," she said. And she rejected a proposal from the new head of the jail, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, that the ICRC set up a permanent presence there, saying: "We are not going to be part of their organisation."
The ICRC has visited thousands of prisoners under the control of US and British forces, which are also being investigated after a British newspaper published pictures of a soldier apparently urinating on an Iraqi detainee. But Notari declined to comment on what officials had seen in British-run jails. Under the Geneva Conventions on both prisoners and the treatment of civilians in wartime, the ICRC must be allowed to interview detainees in private and on a regular basis. On these terms, it has carried out two visits to Saddam, in US custody since his capture shortly before Christmas. "It is important that people understand our role, which is to be present and to have a dialogue with the authorities," Notari said.
But on a few occasions the Red Cross has broken its vow of silence because either the authority concerned has issued a partial account of the ICRC's findings or has simply failed to take any action after a long period. The ICRC recently expressed mounting frustration over the situation of Afghan and other detainees at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, announcing that its concerns about conditions and treatment were not being addressed. - REUTERS
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.redcross/
Red Cross says it urged U.S. action on prison
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 1532 GMT (2332 HKT)
(CNN) -- With new images surfacing in the media of possible U.S. abuse against Iraqi prisoners, the International Committee for the Red Cross said Thursday it had repeatedly asked American authorities to take "corrective action" at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
"Some measures have already been taken," said Red Cross spokeswoman Antonella Notari, without revealing any of her agency's recommendations.
"I do think that our recommendations were taken seriously, and I do think that now, yet even more, there are other measures that are being planned. And we do, of course, intend to continue our visits."
The Washington Post on Thursday published more photos that may be new evidence of U.S. soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
One shows a female soldier holding a leash tethered to the neck of a naked Iraqi prisoner lying on the ground. Another photo shows an Iraqi prisoner chained to a bed frame with women's underwear covering his face.
The initial photographs from Abu Ghraib first appeared last week on the CBS program "60 Minutes II." Those showed naked Iraqi prisoners being forced to simulate homosexual acts and form human pyramids as American troops watched. One also showed a cloaked prisoner standing on a box with wires attached to his hands.
The images have been shown around the world, casting a negative light on American soldiers at a time when Iraqis are expressing increasing frustration with the U.S. occupation.
Notari said she did not want to compare the pictures with her agency's findings because she said it would be misleading.
"The prisoners were able to speak with us in total privacy, and based on these discussions, we've been able to make very firm recommendations to the U.S. authorities in a repeated manner," she said.
Notari said the Red Cross has visited the prison since last summer when U.S. forces began using it to house Iraqi detainees. The organization, under a mandate from the Geneva Convention, visits all prisons housing Iraqi detainees across the country.
She said that the Red Cross was aware of the situation at Abu Ghraib but that it does not issue reports to the public.
"It certainly was preoccupying for us, extremely concerning, and we had to call for very serious corrective action, so I hope that indicates of course that we were aware of the situation and that we had acted on it," she said.
"We try and work and change the situation on the spot in the prison where it happens. It doesn't mean that we are always immediately effective. But what it does mean is that there is an independent, mutual humanitarian organization who continuously stays where it happens, who continuously follows up with prisoners."
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators is urging the Pentagon to demolish the Abu Ghraib prison to exorcise what has become a symbol of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers and an embarrassing episode for the U.S. military. (Full story)
=====
Red Cross says it warned US about Iraq jail
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...on=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportID=562588
07.05.2004
8.00am GENEVA -
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Thursday it had repeatedly urged the United States to take "corrective action" at a Baghdad jail at the centre of a scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners. The Geneva-based humanitarian agency, mandated under international treaties to visit detainees, has had regular access to Abu Ghraib prison since US-led forces began using it last year, according to chief spokeswoman Antonella Notari. "The ICRC, aware of the situation, and based on its findings, has repeatedly asked the US authorities to take corrective action," she told Reuters.
Notari declined to give details of what the ICRC had seen during the visits, which take place every five to six weeks, or about its reports to the US authorities. The United Nations said separately it had written to US officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Governor of Iraq Paul Bremer, seeking information on human rights in Iraq over the past year.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has promised a report by the end of the month, said its investigators were ready to visit Baghdad for talks with coalition and Iraqi leaders. The ICRC, which has been operating since the late 19th century, keeps a public silence about what it hears from detainees as the price for gaining access to jails in trouble spots around the world from Chechnya to West Africa.
Pictures of grinning US soldiers abusing naked Iraqis at Abu Ghraib -- the largest prison in the country and notorious for torture under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- have sparked an international outcry. In a bid to limit damage to the US image, President George W. Bush went on two Arabic satellite television stations on Wednesday to tell an outraged Middle East that soldiers guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners would be punished.
The jail was also been the focus of a separate earlier probe by a US general. That report by Major-General Antonio Taguba, covering the period October-December 2003 and completed on March 3, cited incidents of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses".
Notari poured cold water on some US media reports suggesting that the ICRC had not had access to a special wing in the jail where the abuse took place. "To the best of our knowledge we have had access to all sectors," she said. And she rejected a proposal from the new head of the jail, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, that the ICRC set up a permanent presence there, saying: "We are not going to be part of their organisation."
The ICRC has visited thousands of prisoners under the control of US and British forces, which are also being investigated after a British newspaper published pictures of a soldier apparently urinating on an Iraqi detainee. But Notari declined to comment on what officials had seen in British-run jails. Under the Geneva Conventions on both prisoners and the treatment of civilians in wartime, the ICRC must be allowed to interview detainees in private and on a regular basis. On these terms, it has carried out two visits to Saddam, in US custody since his capture shortly before Christmas. "It is important that people understand our role, which is to be present and to have a dialogue with the authorities," Notari said.
But on a few occasions the Red Cross has broken its vow of silence because either the authority concerned has issued a partial account of the ICRC's findings or has simply failed to take any action after a long period. The ICRC recently expressed mounting frustration over the situation of Afghan and other detainees at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, announcing that its concerns about conditions and treatment were not being addressed. - REUTERS
Last edited:
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
I think Cheney will run again. Even if he doesn't, I think you underestimate the neo-con's hatred of McCain. They hate Democrats more than communists and hate moderate Republicans even more than Democrats.shereads said:
Everything I've ever seen about McCain indicates he's an extremely rare individual; a man of principle who happens to be a politician, rather than a politician who will sacrifice his principles out of expediency, or simply for his own gain.
Although I see problems with both parties, I decided many years ago that the Republicans were much more likely to harm me and the people and things I care about than the Democrats. I reevaluate my position frequently and have found no reason to change my view.
McCain is one of the only Republicans I would consider voting for, even though I don't agree with him on every issue. I can't imagine him as George II's running mate.
More objectively, why should he leave the Senate to become a no-power Vice President? Whether Bush wins or loses, the field will be wide open in 2008 and he won't have the Iraq fiasco hanging around his neck, the way whoever is elected will.
SlickTony
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 25, 2002
- Posts
- 6,344
He was the one who said that the evidence of WMD, which Bush used as one of his pretexts for invading Iraq, was a "slam dunk."
Rummy should have listened to a different Dick--when talking to Richard Nixon about what career path he should follow, Nixon said, "stay out of the Middle East--nothing can be done about that place," or words to that effect.
My son hasn't asked very many questions about this issue, although he's aware of it. As I might have mentioned, he is an Asperger kid, and it doesn't coincide with any of his areas of interest.
Similar threads
