Bushites Split As Gitmo Abuses Continue

Moderator note - advanced warning.

This thread will be closed when it reaches the 20 page limit without any further warning.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

(either you mean that or you don't)</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, ASLANSPAL, I meant exactly what I wrote in that sentence!

Now, ASLANSPAL, I'll quote some additional things I wrote on this subject:

This is illustrates exactly what I mean about you spreading lies, exaggerations, and distortions. It's very easy to extract a line or two from someone's writings while ignore the whole message they've communicated. Sometimes that's just an honest mistake but other times is deliberate dishonesty. You really should stop lying about my position on torture.

Aside from this, however, it doesn't really matter whether this is what you or me, either one, want or not. This is according to the law of land warfare and is in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Only specific categories of persons who meet certain criteria are classified as prisoners of war an entitled to the protections of that class. Other combatants don't benefit from those protections.

Let me quote again the Geneva Conventions criteria:

Our terrorist enemies don't meet these qualifications, ASLANSPAL!

We don't want to classify them as prisoners of war. We want to be able to prosecute them by military tribunal for their actions. We couldn't do that if they were prisoners of war.

 

I very much aware that COL Hackworth was awarded the Medal of Honor. That has nothing to do with my comments regarding the errors in his thinking about of the subject of detainee treatment in this war.

I'll repeat my comments again:

 

Sorry, General, but this is only partly correct!

It is completely correct from the standpoint that inhumane treatment of any detainee is prohibited. That fact has been reinforced in all communications including the instructions of April 16, 2003 regarding specific counter resistance techniques to be applied to certain detainees given by the Secretary of Defense.

Here are the techniques that were authorized, some with restrictions, by the Secretary of Defense:

A. Direct
B. Incentive and Removal of Incentive
C. Emotional Love
D. Emotional Hate
E. Fear Up Harsh
F. Fear Up Mild
G. Reduced Fear
H. Pride and Ego Up
I. Pride and Ego Down
J. Futility
K. We Know All
L. Establish Your Identity
M. Repetition
N. File and Dossier
O. Mutt and Jeff
P. Rapid Fire
Q. Silence
R. Change of Scenery Up
S. Change of Scenery Down
T. Dietary Manipulation
U. Environmental Manipulation
V. Sleep Adjustment
W. False Flag
X. Isolation

Of these, items A through Q are right out of FM 34-52 which is the "book" that BG Irvine mentions. Items R through X are were not covered in that field manual.

Here's some clarification of what techniques R through X involve:

I find no infamous "approved torture techniques" in this listing. What's given are additional interrogation techniques to be applied to unlawful combatants who, failed to respond to other techniques, while still treating them humanely and using extra caution to not cross the line.

I seriously doubt most Americans - Christian or otherwise - have a problem with these interrogation techniques being applied to terrorists.

I repeat here Secretary Rumsfled's "warning" communicated in the same order:

I'll address one more of BG Irvine's comments regarding the use of the counter resistance techniques described.

Sorry, General, but I believe you're wrong on this point!

This enemy isn't going to treat us, if captured, according to any law of warfare. There not even a recognized State and don't subscribe to any part of the Geneva Conventions. They will torture - really torture - and murder anyone if it gets them the publicity they need.

Recognized States, including our own, remain obligated to treat prisoners of war according to the Geneva Conventions if they're a party to it. We haven't lowered to bar one inch on any aspect of it.

 

Senator McCain and others are correct when they say that torture doesn't really work. They're incorrect when they imply that this is some new revelation they bring to the table. The military has known this a long time and it's included in our field manual.

Here's what the "infamous" Army field manual conveys on that subject:

Therefore, Senator McCain, doesn't need to worry about generating yet another federal law to cover something that's already addressed.

 

The left is selective in their complaints about human rights abuse, Ladies and Gentlemen. The really horrible cases in the world are not even being mentioned by the left as they major in the minors. For example, a couple of guys who worked for Campus Crusade For Christ showing the Jesus film and passing out medical supplies were threatened and murdered. Where is the left?

 

(Again spin on humiliation lite and torture lite again away from the worldly view it's not something Jesus would do...he suffered from humiliation and Christians who know their bible know this)</font>[/QUOTE]The death and resurrection of Christ Jesus was God's plan that He, in the person of Jesus Christ, would suffer death - the penalty for sin - on behalf of all His chosen children AND then rise from that death, overcoming the power of death, thereby having provided the perfect one and only atonement needed for our sins.

God will, in fact, inflict great suffering - eternal suffering - upon all those He does not save. God's love is balanced by His wrath. The person of the Lord Jesus Christ will, according to the Bible, be the one who makes that judgment of us all.

 

Dragoon68 to Aslanspal: "You're incapable of discerning
the difference between what is inhumane treatment and
what is legal aggressive interrogation technique."

Strangely, i was thinking the same thing of Dragoon68.
But does Aslanspal need to know the difference in his
line of work? No. Does Dragoon68 need to know the
difference in his line of work/ Yes. IMHO those who
practice inhumane treatment should be banished from
this country. Get it straight, do your job right.

Torture and humiliation are degrading to the torturer
and the humiliator. Torture and humiliation are not
vialble data collection techniques. Tortute and
humiliation are NOT American family values, Christian
values, values among Baptists, or even human values.

 

Brigadier Jim Wallace, former commander of Australia’s elite SAS troops, wrote recently that the time-honored standard for a soldier to determine what to do has been, ‘Who am I and what do I believe?’ But, he said, this is now rapidly moving away from this absolute basis to ‘What is most expedient in this situation?’ Bottom line: If our cultural beliefs change, so will our behavior—and that of our soldiers.

This is an excerpt from an artical by Carl Wieland. You can find out more by going to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0525torture.asp

 

Inhumane treatment is just that. Torture is just that. Legal interrogation techniques are just that. There IS a difference. Those differences HAVE BEEN defined.

If there were not so then we couldn't interrogate any one for any thing.

 

Our cultural beliefs relative to treatment of prisoners of war, haven't changed at all in recent times. However, in the course of our entire nation's history they've evolved to a much higher and better standard. In the course of mankind's history they are far better yet and America, and its Armed Forces, hold to a very high standard.

The article was correct that the misconduct at Abu Ghraib was unacceptable conduct for our Armed Forces. I've always maintained that to be the case since I first learned about it. It is incorrect however to label it as wholesale, widespread, endorsed, condoned, or ordered "torture" that represents a "cultural" problem with the US military as a whole. That is absolutely not the case.

 

Those that have been convicted of inhumane treatment are spending some time at the USDB in Ft. Leavenworth where they belong compliments of the US military justice system. Were you paying attention to that?

Lecture someone else of this topic, Ed Edwards, because you're off base. You don't even know what my job is!

 

Agreed in principle! I've communicated just about the same thing several times since the beginning of this discussion as well as when the news first became public.

In fact, if you'll read the specific posting you'll see that this is well recognized within the US military and words to such effect are included in the appropriate field manuals.

However, making this statement and also implying that we are "torturing" detainees as a matter of policy or practice are two entirely different things. This is not our military's policy or practice despite the breakdowns that have occurred and which have been addressed with severe discipline to those involved.

You, and a few others, need to get that right because, when you don't, it hurts the reputations of a whole lot of very fine troops out there devoted to doing the "job" right.

 

I don't have to know
your job to tell you to "do your job right".
It is a generic saying that all should do.
I don't even want to know your job, but you
should do it as best you can.

Dragoon68: "Those that have been convicted of inhumane treatment are spending some time at the USDB in Ft. Leavenworth where they belong compliments of the US military justice system. Were you paying attention to that?"

Yes. And that is as it should be.

 

(what bizarre theology is this..in other words it is okay to humiliate and torture the un chosen??)</font>[/QUOTE]It is very solid theology, ASLANSPAL.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the issue of torture - real or implied - just as the suffering of Christ on the cross for our sins has nothing to do with issue of mistreating detainees. That's the connection you were trying to make, ASLANSPAL, and there isn't one.

 

I don't have to know your job to tell you to "do your job right". It is a generic saying that all should do. I don't even want to know your job, but you should do it as best you can.</font>[/QUOTE]Then, as a citizen, do YOUR job right, and give support to those you've sent to defend the liberty you enjoy. Don't harm their reputation by edorsing lies, exaggerations, or distortions which expand the misconduct of a few misfits unto all. Learn the truth and spread that instead.

Yes. And that is as it should be. </font>[/QUOTE]Then we have no issue on this one point alone!

 

I again call attention to the discipline given of two high ranking officers - one demoted from General - who were directly responsible for the order and discipline of the two major commands involved at Abu Ghraib. They didn't actually perform the misconduct but they didn't do their jobs to prevent the conditions that contributed to it. That has cost them their careers.

Futher, the "low ranking" enlisted men are, for the most part, non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who are the backbone of the military and responsible to directly interface with the troops and keep everything in line. They don't get a free ride!

 

The officer in charge of Abu Ghraib was a female, which again brings into question the role of women in war zones--I think that we should revert to the WW II policy whereby women were not used in combat and in war zones.

 

"Then, as a citizen, do YOUR job right, and give support to those you've sent to defend the liberty you enjoy."

This has a very righteous and patritoic overtone to it Dragoon. Never the less it is misplaced in the context of this war, IMHO. The troops you and I support were not sent to Iraq to defend the liberty we enjoy. They were sent to protect the interests of a very wealthy few in high global offices and those individuals will never even be named let alone be held accounatable.

If they were indeed sent to defend our liberty then one would think George Bush would have higher reguards for our unalienable rights than to push agreements and Acts that reduce our liberties, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.