Two years ago, in acknowledging that the US took prisoners to other countries for "questioning," George Bush said (I'm quoting from a NYT article that appeared 3/15):
“...the C.I.A. used an alternative set of procedures.” He added: “These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.” (emphasis mine.)
The article is worth reading in full . Among the descriptions of "safe" and "lawful" procedures:
"I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck; they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room.” The prisoner was then put in a coffin-like black box, about 4 feet by 3 feet and 6 feet high, “for what I think was about one and a half to two hours.” He added: The box was totally black on the inside as well as the outside.... They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe. When I was let out of the box I saw that one of the walls of the room had been covered with plywood sheeting. From now on it was against this wall that I was then smashed with the towel around my neck. I think that the plywood was put there to provide some absorption of the impact of my body. The interrogators realized that smashing me against the hard wall would probably quickly result in physical injury.”
There's much more. It should also be said that the article is based on a comprehensive report by the International Red Cross, which conducted extensive interviews, and that the prisoners had had no contact with each other; in addition, they were told that the information would not be made public. That they described virtually the same things lends believability.
“They placed a cloth or cover over the box to cut out all light and restrict my air supply. As it was not high enough even to sit upright, I had to crouch down. It was very difficult because of my wounds. The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful. I think this occurred about three months after my last operation. It was always cold in the room, but when the cover was placed over the box it made it hot and sweaty inside. The wound on my leg began to open and started to bleed. I don’t know how long I remained in the small box; I think I may have slept or maybe fainted."
The conclusion of the IRC report states:
“The allegations of ill treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill treatment to which they were subjected while held in the C.I.A. program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Some might ask, "So what?"
Let's leave aside the issue of whether torture is useful (I do so, in part, because it's pretty clear it isn't) and whether we should be doing it (since it gives unreliable information and eliminates trying the prisoners in a court of law, we shouldn't). Let's just ask this: does it serve US interests to have our president get up and lie, bald-faced?
And what should we call a "Department of Justice" which ignores the law to serve up only what the president wants to hear?
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
In the past, the US has been instrumental in seeing to it that others who committed the same offenses were tried in international courts. After WW II, we tried at least one Japanese soldier for the crime of waterboarding. What the previous administration did, changing the definition of torture and thus "legalizing" torture, will always be a shameful part of our history. One of that administration's enduring legacies is a stain on the reputation of the US on par with the genocide of the Native Americans.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: What the previous administration did, changing the definition of torture and thus "legalizing" torture, will always be a shameful part of our history. One of that administration's enduring legacies is a stain on the reputation of the US on par with the genocide of the Native Americans.
Apples and alligators DG, the two not even in the same ballpark.
Sid, presidents for the most part were at some point lawyers. After becoming a lawyer they went into politics. Both professions are well known to produce liars from time to time.
I am not defending President Bush but let’s not forget that just about every single President of the United States of America has lied while in office.
Some of the more notable lies that resulted in the deaths of many, many people
President Truman August 6, 1945: "The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians."
Hiroshima was not a military base, in fact it was never previously bombed due to its low strategic value.
President Kennedy April 18, 1961: "I have previously stated and I repeat now that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba."
One day after Kennedy made the above statement, an American pilot was shot down on a bombing mission over Cuba. Castro recovered the pilot's bodies and kept it frozen for the next 18 years as proof. (He returned the body when he heard that the pilot's daughter was looking for her father who, she had been told, disappeared on a training flight.) Over 100 Cuban exiles, 14 Americans, and an unreported number of Cubans died in the invasion.
President Johnson, August 5, 1964: "As President and Commander in Chief it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply."
There was no unprovoked Vietnamese attack on a U.S. warship. President Johnson ran with the untrue story to gain support for American involvement in Vietnam.
President Reagan, November 13, 1986 "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages -- nor will we."
President Reagan approved the sale of over 2,000 anti-tank weapons to Iran in return for promises to release the American hostages there.
President Clinton, January 26, 1998 "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
The president told this lie during a televised presentation on child care to the nation when questioned about the "affair"; he might have very well said the same (lie) under oath.
All these presidential lies trump President Bush’s lie about torture with the exception of President Clinton’s lie. I only included that one because he looked his wife, family, and the American people bald-faced straight in the eye when he lied.
Posts: 4125 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Comparing President Bush’s lie or “legalization” of torture as a similar stain on our country’s reputation as that of slaughtering thousands and thousands of Native Americans, raping the women and stealing their land certainly is apples and alligators.
Posts: 4125 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Actually, when one applies then contemporary standards to each, what the US did to the Native Americans was not outside the norm for the "civilized" nations. What Bush 'legalized' was, and is, outside the norm of "civilized" nations. This in no way lessens the severity of the actions of the US regarding Native Americans, it merely places each action in perspective when viewed in contemporary standards of conduct.
How did Truman's Hiroshima statement, after the bombing, result in "the deaths of many, many people "? It was, in any case, an irrelevancy.Everyone concerned must have known, and the world would soon know, how the bomb had killed thousands.
How did Reagan's statement result in the deaths of many, many people? It may have saved the lives of some Americans.
Kennedy's statement did not, could not, result in the deaths of many people.At worst it had the nation's interests in not declaring any plans to the enemy. We all know what Castro was planning.
Clinton's statement didn't either. It also says a lot more about the American people than it does about Clinton (ask any French person). Americans were so 'moral' that they thought the President having sexual relations was of relevance to his being a good or bad leader.By what logic did they arrive at this startling conclusion ?It's no wonder he lied about it What choice had the superbly moral American people given him?
LBJ's Tonkin statement sounds familiar. Who was it who was telling the world and his people that Iraq was an immediate threat, that Saddam possessed WMD and that invading the country was the only option? Now, that was a statement that resulted in the deaths of many people, Iraqi and American. What do you suppose Bush and his advisers had as their motive? Could it be that this claim was the only one which the innocent Americans would accept as a valid excuse and no other e.g. suddenly deciding, after years that Saddam was not good for his people and had to go or that Iraq needed democracy, would be accepted ? Was that in the interests of the American people? Cynics might say 'oil' was the motive. How wrong would they be?
DG is right. There is one law for America and everyone else ( except when it suited President G. W. Bush to say and act otherwise. The extent of this dishonesty is exemplified by the ingenuity in creating Gitmo.Was there any valid reason for picking that one place?If so, what was it?). How exactly is this instance to be justified?
A distinction I'd make between the Bush/torture lying and the ones Koz mentions is this: the Bush lies did our country great harm, and not just the lies but the activities about which he was lying. In this dangerous era, in which we must defend ourselves against terrorists, the good will of the world is vital. Because, contra what Cheney would have us believe, the so-called war on terrorism IS a law enforcement issue. Invading countries, particularly ones that have nothing to do with it, is, as we've seen, not fruitful. Those successes we've had in uncovering terrorist plots (mostly in other countries: the ones hyped here turned out, for the most part, to be a bunch of idiots tricked into it) have been with the cooperation of people willing to help. The more we're seen as torturing liars, the less willing people will be to help. Whatever else might be true about Koz' list, none put the survival of our country at risk. Bush, arguably, did.
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
To be fair (and honest), bush is not the only US president to use the double standard with regard to foreign relations. One example, and its ripples through time:
Operation Ajax was a 1953 coup d'etat arranged by Eisenhower's CIA, which, along with MI6, orchestrated and abetted the overthrow of the democratically-elected Iranian prime minister and restored the Shah to power. The Shah, aided by the US, grew to be one of the more brutal dictators in the last half of the 20th Century. His military and secret police (SAVAK) were US trained and equipped; that training and equipment included how to apply torture and various 'necessary' equipment for torture. This, of course, led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, of which the taking of American citizens in Iran was the revolution's opening on the world stage. (Thank you, Canada, for your brave actions at that time!) The revolution led to the installation of the Khomeni-led theocracy in Iran, the same theocracy that is still in power today, and may be developing nuclear weapons. This possible development is rather scary, since anyone familiar with US/Iran relations in the last 50 years realizes that Iranians are justified in their hatred for the US, or at least, the US government. So, Eisenhower (and every president since) by his use of the double standard with regard to democratically-elected governments (i.e. They must be OUR democratically-elected government.) has given us the current situation with Iran. When you plant radishes, don't expect a rose garden.
I understand what you mean by contemporary standards DG, but I don’t agree with it. Just because everyone was doing it at the time does not make it right or in the same league in a comparison sense in my opinion.
I think comparing the slaughter of Native Americans to slavery as shames to our country could be drawn as they were both horrible on a similar scale. But we won’t agree on that and that’s fine.
Fred, I was just made my comment to point out that sitting presidents did indeed lie, and many times those lies resulted in many deaths or the people were already dead and the president tried to spin it. (I can’t seem to put down into words what I feel and think sometimes, like at the moment )
President Truman’s lie was made to make the USA as a “civilized” country feel better about ourselves after incinerating over 100,000 civilians. Maybe I worded myself incorrectly by saying “resulted in the deaths of many, many people”.
I guess a case can be made that three days later after President Truman’s lie that deaths resulted from it in Nagasaki but that would be a stretch at best.
President Reagan’s lie may have saved American lives, but the ones that eventually ended up on the receiving end of those weapons would not care much about that.
I guess a legitimate case can be made that this lie resulted in many American deaths as some of those weapons received by Iran helped kill American Forces occupying Iraq. (again I know a long stretch but,,,)
I think we have a winner with President Kennedy’s lie resulting in many deaths. His lie tried to disguise 14 American deaths and over 100 Cuban exiles. I consider that “many” deaths and he lied about the whole situation.
I agree with you about President Clinton’s lie. It was no business other than his family’s and the woman (women) he was having an affair(s) with. He was just a liar is all, no one hurt with those lies asides from a blue dress .
President Johnson’s lie about The Gulf of Tonkin incident reminds me a lot of the build up to invading Iraq too. LBJ & President Bush’s lies about those two subjects certainly and unarguably directly caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of Americans. They also resulted in many, many deaths of Vietnamese and Iraqi people.
Gitmo was picked as I am sure you know Fred for it’s close proximity to the US and there was no chance of any pesky unauthorized reporters or anyone else getting in the way . Those are two valid reasons, as for justifying the place, I won’t.
Sid, I think saying that President Bush’s invasion of Iraq put our country at risk of surviving is wrong. How does it put our country at risk to continue as The United States of America? (I am not being sarcastic at all, I really don’t see how that is possible)
I feel President Kennedy’s lies (not just the one I mentioned) put our country at much more of a risk of widespread annihilation and being eventually conquered by the USSR. He was playing hardball and thankfully he won the game of poker he was playing with millions of American lives. The whole situation could have easily ended up differently and I am thankful for his lies and that things ended up as they did.
DG, our government has done and will continue to do some unspeakable things. We have experimented and tortured our own people in the name of “science”, but I really don’t want to get into that here. I am serious about the subject but some folks think I am a little “off” when I mention it so Shhhhhh .
My aluminum foil cap is at the shop getting an “adjustment” so I am very vulnerable at the moment.
Posts: 4125 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Gitmo was picked as I am sure you know Fred for it’s close proximity to the US and there was no chance of any pesky unauthorized reporters or anyone else getting in the way
There was a lot more to it than geography. It was chosen on legal advice. It could be argued (and was) that it was on foreign soil and not part of the US. The US had a lease but did not own the land. Nor was it under Cuban jurisdiction.The US had the lease making it de facto the sole owner. This was all an ingenious and dishonest effort to keep Gitmo detainees out of American courts while having them under sole American control.
Koz: first, I was referring to his lying about torture. That we are now seen as a country that tortures and lies about it has put us at risk by increasing the number of people who wish us ill and decreasing the number who'd like to help us protect ourselves against terrorism.
The Iraq war is even clearer: it's depleted our military, cost us, in the end, three trillion dollars, emboldened our enemies (Iran, in particular), destabilized the region, distracted us from the real fight, and is a material factor in the economic meltdown in which we find ourselves.
There's no evidence torture has produced useful information, and there IS evidence it's produced false information, ie, that which was used to justify the invasion. There's no evidence the war has strengthened us in any way, and plenty that it's weakened us. To me it seems self-evident that Bush's lies, and the things about which he lied have produced only damage, which could still, in fact, lead to our non-existence.
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Whatever it achieved, invading Iraq doesn't appear to have frightened Iran much.If anything it has made Iran stronger in the region.
One might have hoped that losing American and Iraqi lives in such a spectacular fashion and at such spectacular cost would have scared America's potential enemies. They might have thought " If the Americans are crazy enough to do that,in an utterly pointless exercise, what on Earth wil they do if the find an exercise which does have a point?"
At least Obama thinks like a sane man with a grasp or realpolitik. His problem is that Bush did everything to make his, Obama's, life as difficult as possible (not that Bush could see that).
The article, along with the comments, show that what the terrorist-loving, Commie, Pinko, unAmerican, loony Left was saying was right all along. I wonder if it ever will be possible to determine just how many terrorists the Idiot-in-Charge created.
bush's entire Global War on Terror was a Moe/Larry operation with Curly as the figurehead.
. 
. Those are two valid reasons, as for justifying the place, I won’t.
