quote: A Pentagon report last year argued that President George W Bush was not bound by laws banning the use of torture, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The document also argued that torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted, the paper said.
quote:The Army confirmed Tuesday that a former military police officer was injured while posing as a prisoner during a training session at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last year.
Picked these up off SE.
So, should we have the right to torture prisoners if we're not getting enough information out of them?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote:a former military police officer was injured while posing
Pssht. If you get injured posing, you shouldn't be in the military
Posted by Professor Funk (Member # 5608) on :
Well, seeing as the francophobes just got done roasting the French for torture in the Algerian war, I'd say we're pretty hypocritical to claim that we have the right.
And it's things like this that give me the screaming heebie jeebies....
quote: The report then offers a series of legal justifications for limiting or disregarding antitorture laws and proposed legal defenses that government officials could use if they were accused of torture.
A military official who helped prepare the report said it came after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not."
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
The United States should be obeying the Geneva Convention. If it were our people being held, they might have a different view of it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Those who man our defenses and those behind them who build our defenses must have the stamina and the courage which come from unashakeable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all the things worth fighting for.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 6, 1941
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
quote: The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders,"
quote:The Convention Against Torture was proposed in 1984 by the United Nations General Assembly and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," and that orders from superiors "may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
That prohibition was reaffirmed after the Sept. 11 attacks by the U.N. panel that oversees the treaty, the Committee Against Torture, and the March 2003 report acknowledged that "other nations and international bodies may take a more restrictive view" of permissible interrogation methods than did the Bush administration.
[ June 08, 2004, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No wonder that the Bush administration has pushed so hard to have Americans Exempted from prosecution by the international war crimes tribunal.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
For information, I'm not francophobe (of course...) and still think the torture in Algeria was infamous, and that the government should apologize and try to repair.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
If you recall, the reason we refuse to sign/honor treaties involving international human rights courts is (supposedly) that we already hold violations to higher standards.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
quote:US foriegn policy is, in fact, based on the principle that human rights are irrelevant.
-Noam Chomsky
Never thought I would ever agree with Mr. Radical himself.
[ June 08, 2004, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Richard, it doesn't seem like the US is holding itself to a particularly high standard now in this regard.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I cannot believe what these neo-cons think they can get away with.
Sadly, I've heard from a number of people (though not on Hatrack) that torture is justified in Iraq, not only for information-gathering purposes, but also as a vent for our troops' aggression.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That is sad. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I know (I hope) that everyone here has thought this next one out, but I'll post it nonetheless, just to make sure.
If our government can decide--unilaterally--that the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply to us, how can we continue to expect other countries to continue to apply the rules of the Geneva Convention to our soldiers (or civilians) when they are captured.
IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GEORGE W. BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN THE DEGREE OF TORTURE THEY ARE WILLING TO IMPOSE ON THEIR ENEMIES?
quote:A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.
The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.
One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."
(From the lead article in today's New York Times)
Please note the following:
1)...because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve ANY technique needed to protect the nation's security.
2) Do please note that we have now officially justified the "I vas only following orders" defense so much in favor by NAZI WAR CRIMINALS.
All of you, please do me this one favor:
DO NOT VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. HE IS DESTROYING THE COUNTRY AND WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR GOOD NAME!
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I was trying to avoid the "N" word there,and comparisons to a certain European Country circa 1939, but I agree with ssyswak.
Well said.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Troub, of course not. No country should be expected to judge itself impartially, which is why our attitudinal shift against international law was fantastically poor. Just doing my part to point out the hypocracy for those with shorter memories.
[ June 08, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General John Ashcroft said Tuesday he was not aware of any order by President Bush that would violate U.S. laws or treaties banning torture of military prisoners captured in Iraq or elsewhere in the war on terrorism.
"This administration rejects torture," Ashcroft declared under tense questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he steadfastly refused to comment directly about a policy paper on this issue, or say whether Bush ever responded to it.
Seems like we have the Bush admin. refusing congress a look at documents that are neither intel. sensitive nor tactically sensitive. In short they don't want to be caught going completely against what Ashcroft said they are doing: there can be no other reason for not allowing Congress to see this document.
quote:Ashcroft would not comment directly on the 2002 departmental memo that laid out a rationale in which the president was not necessarily bound by anti-torture laws or treaties because of his authority as commander in chief to protect national security.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked Ashcroft whether there is any presidential order that "immunizes (from prosecution) interrogators of al-Qaida suspects?"
"The president has issued no such order," Ashcroft replied.
The attorney general said the policy memo on this issue would not be made available to the committee, however. And Ashcroft said that while he respected the constitutional right of Congress to ask questions, "there are certain things that, in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively, that I think it is inappropriate for the attorney general to say."
If they have nothing to hide, then they better disclose this.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is horrible!! What the hell is going on!
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
The administration may feel that releasing the policy paper may give away non-torture interrogation techniques that actually *have* worked in eliciting information from prisoners.
If they're that worried that Congress will leak the info to the press, which would then tell our enemies what techniques they need to train to counter, they could always have the representatives in question sign a non-disclosure agreement with legal penalties for revealing said info.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Do you really believe that non-torture techniques are powerful enough to need training against?
Even if you say yes, that's not what the memo is supposedly about, the memo is written by lawyers working up ways to interpret law that would allow the Bush admin. to engage in methods that are probably against geneva conventions and the Torture Act.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
See, I took it to be a policy memo on what type of interrogation techniques *would* be allowed/supported. Since nobody's seen the policy memo, I guess we can't actually be sure of just what info it does contain.
And if the techniques are innovative enough, yep, I do believe they'd be classified to prevent adversaries from learning of them and learning to counter them.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Lawyers are the new interrogation technique inventors?????
Come ON
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Nope. Others invent the techniques. But lawyers do research and give opinions on the legality of the techniques available at the time. (Although I guess that'd be the paralegals that actually dig up the info, right?) They assemble the list of available techniques which would be viable to suggest, given the parameters that may have been elaborated after the draft was submitted, and put forth a policy for final approval. It's the way staff taskers go.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: he administration may feel that releasing the policy paper may give away non-torture interrogation techniques that actually *have* worked in eliciting information from prisoners.
I can easily believe that defense.
quote: Do you really believe that non-torture techniques are powerful enough to need training against?
Yes, Human psychology is an amazing field, with endless possibilities.
I'm not sure if I buy the "torture allows soldiers to take there aggressions out on Iraqi's" defense, but I believe that if you have a high ranking officer in a terror related organization (Iraq included) torture may be the only way to get information that could save American lives, and that is what our Military is supposed to do, isn't it?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Look, the memo in question can be altered for public viewing to exclude the language specifically dealing with any of the techniques, and then a committee that signs a non-discolure agreement can view the whole thing to verify what was blanked out was not germane to the inquiry. This kind of thing happens all the time when oversight of possibly-sensitive stuff needs to happen. Why won't Bush do it?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Lawyers are the new interrogation technique inventors?????
No. That's why we have used car salesmen, insurance salesmen, and televangelists.
Silly.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
It just blows me away that Americans aren't out there protesting in the streets. Not about this alone, but about the way it seems that your much-vaunted civil rights are being utterly swept away.
I live in a country where we don't really have a constitution that protects us like yours is supposed to. We get most of what you get by default, but it's not written into the fundamental tenents of our society.
And you're all letting it be taken away from you.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Troub, to put it simply, I just don't agree with your analysis, and I suspect a lot of Americans would say the same.
No one has been prohibited from saying anything they want, so far as I can tell; if there is an attempt at suppressing free speech it has quite plainly failed. No one not involved in fighting in Afghanistan has been incarcerated without trial, and there is no reason to believe they won't eventually be tried. Most people I have talked to believe Dubya is a failure and will be out of office at the end of the year, and there's certainly no way he can hang onto power if we vote him out--we don't even have enough troops to occupy Iraq properly, and they're not here in America anyway, if that's what you think we should be worrying about.
So just what rights are you saying are being swept away?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No one not involved? strange . . . I know there were, among others, at least 4 british citizens who were not, as far as I know, involved in the fighting, imprisoned in guantanamo.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Furthermore, many of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib were not involved in the fighting. If there were, we wouldn't have let several hundred of them go just a bit ago -- yes, these same people we felt we could treat inhumanely we also thought were innocent enough we could just let go -- and by we, I mean the military governors of Iraq.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Thank you for the correction about Guantanmo, Fugu. Can you direct me to a news page about these prisoners?
And I said nothing about Abu Ghraib. Despicable though the events are, it's not clear to me that they are a deadly danger to human rights in general. Note that Troubadour was referring to the loss of American rights, specifically.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Sure, speak out as much as you want. But then the FBI will use their newfound Patriot Act powers to check into pretty much any supposedly private record held on you. Medical, library and student records can all be accessed without your consent, and if the poor librarian even questions their right to do so, they can throw her in jail too.
So your much-vaunted free speech will get you a long way in the new America. That's how they'll know who the "terrorists" are.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Additionally, when things like this are going on to foreign nationals arbitrarily labeled as "illegal combatants" it wouldn't exactly inspire me to huge amounts of faith in my government.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I'm not convinced, by any reporting I have seen so far, that the prisoners in Abu Ghraib (sp?) were actually innocent ("not involved in the fighting"). Where did you get that from? The info I've seen just indicates that the treatment they received as prisoners was abominable by any American prison standards, and in some cases (like the guy on the crate with the electrodes) equivalent to the type of ill-treatment conducted by Vietnam against American POWs during that conflict.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
In fact, that latter article makes it clear that many people weren't picked up for violence at all, but because of "suspected links" to Al Quaeda. That's right, civilians of many nationalities ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/guantanamo_nationalities.html ) locked up without trial because we "suspected" they were involved in Al Quaeda. Furthermore, many are being released as innocent.
I can tell you right now why this administration wasn't/isn't allowing them to come to trial: because they knew/know so many are innocent, or at least have no proof they are a member of Al Quaeda. I have no proof you're a member of Al Quaeda, Mac, lets lock you up so you don't talk to your compatriots (see the flaw in this chain of reasoning?).
Also, I fail to see the problem with allowing people there access to (potentially Al Quaeda allied) lawyers.
1) they were in Afghanistan. Its unlikely they possess information that Al Quaeda didn't already know.
2) even if they did, the situation changed so much just one or two months after their capture, a slight delay would have been acceptable. A couple years is not a slight delay (and for many the delay is ongoing).
While its good the US is releasing those believed to be innocent, note that its only doing it under extreme international pressure from the countries of nationality. We should be releasing the innocent because we have given them an impartial chance to demonstrate that and they have done so, not because its politically expedient.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As many as 70 to 90% of people arrested and imprisoned in Iraq in general are noncombatants.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem is, Mabus, do you really want any President to have the right to ignore the law whenever s/he wants? In this case, he had his Pentagon/appointees ask some Pentagon/civilian lawyers to write up some briefs containing legal arguments "justify"ing the use of torture on foreigners. Based on war powers, true. But one would be very hardpressed to find moments in which the US wasn't at war, in one way or another.
One can always find some lawyers who will attempt to justify absolutely anything whatsoever. Should the President -- who directly or through his appointed aides selects the lawyers to write those opinions supporting what s/hewants to be law -- be the one to decide that those lawyers' supporting argumentsis the law.
If so, why not use the "War on Poverty" to justify the torture of Americans who support the SalvationArmy?
[ June 09, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
quote: If so, why not use the "War on Poverty" to justify the torture of Americans who support the SalvationArmy?
Ok, that's just silly. Are you sure you're not Bob_S in disguise? Thank you for lightening the mood.
And, I stand corrected. I'd have thought the Army would have learned better prisoner-handling procedures after the mass surrenders in the wake of Desert Storm.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I wish it were funny, Fishtail. But the lawyers are playing absurd word games. If the mention of 'war' justifies the President doing whatever s/he wants if s/he gets a supporting statement from a lawyer, then the declaration of the War on Povery surely justifies attacking "Army"s on the wrong side of the war.
It is illegal for an American to belong to or to support an army not under the control of the US Commander-in-Chief (ie the President). According to the PatriotAct, the President (through his appointed AttorneyGeneral and Secretary of State) has the right to decide who is on the wrong side. So the "funny" legal wordgames can be used to "justify" torture of anyone whosoever for any "reason" whatsoever Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Nope, sorry, can't sign on to that fear-mongering.
Your example was silly. The U.S. has plenty of lawyers to oppose the odd policeman or military commander who tries to overstep his bounds. Isn't that why the ACLU exists?
Despite the idiocy and horrible acts of Abu Ghraib, I can't see this litigous (sp?) society changing that much.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Unfortunately, in U.S. legal tradition in order to challenge a government policy or statute you must have standing. That means typical American lawyers can't do anything about this issue until one of their clients is personally affected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or they can simply find a client this is affecting. It's a time-honored tradition and served the NAACP well in Brown v. Board.
Dagonee
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Last I checked they're not letting lawyers into Gitmo...
The good news of the day is, people in Washington appear to finally have had enough. Sen. Leahy didn't mince words when Ashcroft came to visit his committee again (read the link, it's not too long and well worth it).
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Torture should be an option...but as a very last resort. I am reminded of the scene in Dirty Harry where Inspector Callihan catches the murderer who has taken a young woman as hostage and inflicts great pain upon him to get him to tell where the woman is located. I think most of us would do the same thing -- or condone it if it were our daughter being in danger of death or a prisoner who has vital information that could save the lives of innocent people.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Sure, speak out as much as you want. But then the FBI will use their newfound Patriot Act powers to check into pretty much any supposedly private record held on you. Medical, library and student records can all be accessed without your consent, and if the poor librarian even questions their right to do so, they can throw her in jail too.
So your much-vaunted free speech will get you a long way in the new America. That's how they'll know who the "terrorists" are.
Troub, I'll eat my filthy Cracker Barrel cap if the FBI could find anything damning in my private records. I have all the liberal credentials of Rush Limbaugh (not saying my views are the same), I've never done anything more illegal than driving 10 mph above the speed limit, and the only fear I have regarding my medical records is that someone might use them to justify bankrupting the government to provide universal health care.
I have nothing to hide. That's how I live.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I'm in complete agreement, Mabus. However, we cannot trust the intentions of so-called authority figures to interpret public records alone, or even to leave them untampered. Now if we could all have access to the politician's records, that would be a worthy tradeoff.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Fine. Your record is clean. Perhaps you're the right colour and are of a religious creed that the goverment agrees with. You should be fine for the moment.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That sounds like a good idea, Mr. Berg.
Troub, if the government decides to start persecuting members of my faith, it doesn't need private records to find me out, and in any case there is nothing particularly new about such behavior, which has been in decline throughout the US's existence. At worst, this is a "bubble" in the statistics.
{Edit to remove inflammatory statement. Sorry...I'm grouchy right now.}
[ June 09, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So here's a hypothetical:
I'm Callahan. Some woman is kidnapped, and I track down the kidnapper. But I don't know where the woman is. The kidnapper does, though.
So I torture him. Break a few fingers, break a few bones, shoot a few kneecaps.
(How many of you can see where this is going? Let's see a show of hands.)
But the slimebag continues to insist that he had nothing to do with the kidnapping; that he has no idea where the woman is.
So I put a gun to his head, and threaten to kill him if he doesn't tell me. And he still refuses. So I blow off his ear.
And then my chief comes to get me: they've found the girl, and with her the kidnapper.
So what am I now? Am I still the hero?
How often do you see that in the movies?
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Well good luck to you then.
It seems to me that the current US administration is blatantly cutting into the American people's rights and curtailing their freedoms. For your sake, I find this frightening, especially when you have members of the administration essentially saying that dissent = unpatriotic = terrorist.
According to the patriot act you can now be picked up and held for seven days without charges on the mere suspicion of terrorism. Not only that, but the government can seize your assetts without a hearing or conviction:
quote: The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism.
Nice work if you can get it.
Now I realise this is coming from the ACLU, so not exactly the quietest or most objective kid on the block, but there's still valid stuff in there.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Troubadour, if Bush lasts another term and these things continue, or if Kerry should continue with these kinds of laws as well, maybe then I will get worried. At present, I find it hard to be concerned about a wide variety of governmental actions because they are unlikely to last. One president throws out half of what the last one did, good things along with the bad. And the Supreme Court, of course, continues striking down laws at the drop of a hat.
I am glad you're concerned for us, Troubador. I don't mean to make light of your worries. I just don't think they're all that well-founded. If the US didn't turn into a police state in the early 1800s following the Alien and Sedition acts, I don't see why it should now.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Well my concern is somewhat selfish. Whatever the US does, Australia dutifully follows. And we don't have a constitution that's as hard to get around as yours.
Having said that, Australian pollies are a little less likely to go to the extremes that Bush has done. But only a little.
Our political system is also both a blessing and a curse. We don't vote for a man, we vote for a party. Whoever is the head of that party is the Prime Minister. And while that doesn't usually change between elections, it can. We also don't have a term limit for our Prime Minister. It means that the national policy doesn't come down to the whim of one man... and also that we're far less in awe of our PM. Our pollies don't get "bought" quite as much either. Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Now the FBi claim they're working on finding further evidence, but at this stage it looks like all they've got is that his views might or might not be entirely moderate. Except that he's a member of a moderate muslim group in the US and helped organise a blood-drive for victims of 9/11.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
What's pathetic is that this is so obviously a prosecution designed purely for electioneering politics; ie to prove that Dubya's Department of Homeland"Security" is effective.
The defendent was chosen because he was presumed to be too poor to effectively defend himself -- the prosecution's thinking being "Why else would anyone attend an Idaho university rather than the more prominent universities?" -- and thus easily railroaded into either making a false confession in exchange for a promise of leniency, or through an easy conviction. Ashcroft would have been better served if he had run a family background check before the arrest.
The state was chosen because its electorate / juror pool is the most neo-conservative, as well as its judges, and hence most likely to convict. So even excluding the acquittals, the mistrials on the remaining three false statement and five visa fraud counts is a slap to the prosecutor for presenting such a poor case.
Not saying I have the slightest clue as to Sami Omar Al-Hussayen actual motivations or deeds. Just that irrespective of his guilt or innocence, the prosecution tried to frame him.
USAttorneyGeneral Ashcroft has been pushing politically-motivated cases throughout his tenure. Especially after 9/11, such as his attempt to deceive the public into believing that StevenHatfil was behind the the anthrax attack on Democratic USSenators.
[ June 13, 2004, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
"I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general" Ashcroft..."that..." due to a Justice Department
quote:...memo signed by [an] assistant attorney general...to justify use of torture...and...contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture...[because]...the president's powers as commander-in-chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.
Apparently including Dec2002's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approval of "such tactics as forcing a detainee to stand up for up four hours, forced isolation for up to 30 days, deprivation of light, use of 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, "inducing stress by use of detainee's fears (eg dogs), and use of mild physical contact that did not cause injury."
"Rumsfeld abruptly rescinded most of the aggressive tactics in a Jan. 15, 2003" -- though one must wonder about far down the chain of command that particular bit of news went considering that "stripping prisoners and the use of dogs for interrogations...later appeared...at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq" -- until April 2003, when Rumsfeld approved of 24 "interrogation techniques that permitted significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee, "sleep adjustment," "changing the diet of a detainee"...and isolation of detainees."
As a gesture of humane treatment, prisoners are spared the torture of having "a female interrogator" taking "off her blouse", keeping "her T-shirt on", sitting on the "detainee's lap", and running "her hands through his hair".
[ June 23, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)