Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[billc]

A quick search, well, you have to go pretty far into the google search to get past all the alleged torture links, and here is a book on Gitmo:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Gitmo-Story-Behind-Guantanamo/dp/006176230X

[h=1]Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay[/h]

The U.S. military detention center at GuantÁnamo Bay—known to the public as Gitmo—has been called the American Gulag, a scene of medieval horrors where innocent farmers and goat herders swept up in Afghanistan and Iraq have been sequestered, tortured, and abused for years on end without access to legal counsel or basic medical services.
Gordon Cucullu, a retired army colonel, was so appalled by these reports that he decided to see for himself. In a series of visits he inspected every corner of the camp and interviewed dozens of personnel, from guards and interrogators to cooks and nurses. The result—coming just as the Obama administration wants to close the facility—is a riveting description of daily life for both prisoners and guards. Cucullu describes the six camps reserved for different levels of compliance, details the treatment of prisoners, and examines their experiences in detail, including the techniques used to interrogate them, the food they eat, their medical care, how they communicate with one another, and the many ingenious ways they contrive to assault and injure their guards.
While some prisoners were indeed treated harshly in the early days, when the hastily built camp was flooded with battlefield captures and fears ran high of another 9/11-style attack, Cucullu finds that these excesses were quickly corrected.
Despite what the public has heard, these are not innocent goatherds but dedicated jihadists whose overriding goal—as they themselves candidly say—is to kill Americans. Should they now be released to return to the fight, perhaps on American soil? Read this book and decide for yourself.

 

[billc]

And here, a story of the female guards at Gitmo:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/may/04/day_life_guantanamo_guard/

"Good morning sir, Chief Simmons Camp 6. We have 112 assigned, 112 present. Last night detainee 765 requested onions and parsley on his salad and requested to see the camp commander regarding his request. 844 wants a better detainee newsletter and 632 has requested a Bowflex machine because he says he is not getting enough of an upper body work out.
"We had 3 significant activities last night: 601 balled up feces and threw it at the guard hitting him in the chest saying next time he would hit him in the mouth. Next, as 155 was being taken to rec, he bit a guard on the arm until it bled. Detainee was not allowed rec and had comfort items removed. When asked why he did it, 155 just laughed. The guard was sent to medical where he is being evaluated. Finally, 767 yelled at female guard saying, 'I am going to rape you. I am going to rape you. And when I get out of here I am going to kill you and your family.' Sir, barring any questions, that concludes my report."
Many may believe the above BUB report is exaggerated or hyperbole. It is not. It could have just as easily been a detainee demanding a lighter gray shirt because the dark gray shirt "hurts his gall bladder." Or a detainee smearing feces on the walls of his cell. The guards refer to these detainees as "painters" or "poo-cassos."
What occurs daily inside the wire is a bizarre mixture of the dangerous, the disgusting, and the absurd. And, despite urban legends and misperceptions, any mistreatment or abuse that goes on inside the camps is that of detainee-on-guard, not the reverse.
Here is the aftermath of the BUB.
Detainee 632 did not get his Bowflex machine. The guard who was bitten is fine. We are working on the parsley and onions request, but not too hard. The feces battles never end. In fact, the latest detainee tactic is to grow their fingernails long, put feces underneath the nails and then try to scratch a guard's face.
Meanwhile, I happen to know the female guard who was verbally abused. Coincidentally we both went to Valley High in Albuquerque, N.M., albeit about 30 years apart. Still, we are both Vikings.
After the briefing, I saw this young soldier and said, "Hey Viking, I heard you had quite a night last night : are you OK?" She said, "Yes sir, I'm fine."
I looked at her with some skepticism to see if what she was saying were true. What I saw in her eyes surprised me, but shouldn't have. She really was fine. That detainee's comments did not bother her in the least.
She is more than he will ever be and she is not alone. Rest assured if the guards at GTMO are any indication, the generation that is now coming of age will do its duty; they will defend our nation with courage, honor, and integrity. So don't elevate the detainees to sainthood and don't talk to me about unprofessional behavior, mistreatment or abuse at GTMO, because, frankly, I am more than a little sick of it.

- Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti is deputy commander of the Joint Task Force-GTMO.

• Favorite

 

[billc]

More stories from Gitmo, and they are from the militaries side of the equation:

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/07/18/the-gitmo-varsity/print

TO ANYONE WITH OPEN eyes, it must be clear that we are treating these hard-core terrorists humanely, and that our interrogators -- men and women, military and civilian -- should be praised, not scorned. Investigation after investigation has showed that there is no torture at Gitmo. But the outrageous and disgusting characterizations of what we are doing at Gitmo continue.

A large bunch of the detainees, about 100 of them, are smarter, better trained, and very knowledgeable of what their pals want to do to. They are the terrorist varsity, the high-value detainees. Up against them, and their ilk, are some of America's finest.
I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES of the soldiers: I didn't ask, and they didn't volunteer. No one -- other than the few top guys, including [URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2005/07/18/the-gitmo-varsity/print#"]General Hood

, his deputy, and the command sergeant major -- wears nametags. If the others' names were visible to inmates, they and their families would be at risk. That goes double for the intel crew. Like every soldier I've ever met, they had to ***** a little. The two enlisted guys I lunched with at the "Cafe Caribe" -- a chow hall that will never be mistaken for The Ritz -- were from towns in Texas and Washington state. The Texan wanted to be home with his infant son. His pal from Washington wondered why the hell was so much detail about the camp on the Internet. "How can you have OPSEC" -- operational security -- "when the whole world can see so much?" he asked.
They tried to do what every soldier is expected to do: shrug off the political floggings inflicted on them and their commanders every day. They meant well, but they couldn't b.s. this old b.s.'er. When someone compares Gitmo to a Nazi death camp, they take it personally. They know it's idiocy, but it still hurts. Their motto is, "honor bound to defend freedom," and they take that personally, too. There are no prisoner abuses at Gitmo. It's a matter of pride among them. The chow is okay, they said, but mail is really slow. It takes almost three weeks for mail to get to them. The Texan -- who is assigned to the psycho ward -- had another concern. "These guys have hepatitis, TB and who knows what other diseases. When they throw feces on us they can give us a disease we can't get over." The medical crew looks after them, and the terrorists, very well. The terrorists can't seem to make up their minds about it, though. Some, like a man who's had surgery for a serious cardiac condition, refuse further treatment.

[/URL]

 

[Makalakumu]

I posted another article earlier. Nothing can be proven because all of it can be denied, except for the cases of waterboarding that were admitted. Other worse cases of torture have been documented by human rights organizations.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to admit that I was (maybe still am) quite ready to believe that the US government used torture in it's interrogation of certain prisoners at Gitmo (or elsewhere off American soil).

I think it's morally wrong that they {allegedly} did so but am not some primping prima donna who does not understand that real politik is often rather unpleasant for my civilian palate.

The cynical side of me says that publications like the ones BillC linked to are propaganda for the domestic market but the realist in me says that they are more than likely nontheless true for all my cynicism :nods:.

 

[billc]

Here is an article on Gitmo and torture from the American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_torture_fraud_of_the_left.html

 

[Sukerkin]

I came across some interesting comments below the "Day In The Life" article. One of the commenters made a few points that caused me to sit back for a moment and apply a different 'filter' of context than we normally do when speaking about the War on Terror. These were, on the whole, things I already knew but, for some reason, have never connected them with these issues as, I fear, I have never seen the War on Terror as a 'real' war. I'll quote them here (the poster is bkgarner) with a bit of reformatting for greater readability:

I am amazed at the ignorance of so many as regards to both history, particularly that of past wars, and as to the Laws of War. As I have stated here before, for a "combatant" to enjoy the full protections of the Laws of War they must operate as a cohesive unit, wear some kind of distinctive garb so that they are distinguishable from noncombatants, and they must represent a legal state, although there is also some provision for those engaged in civil war. It is highly doubtful that any of those held at GITMO meet any of the above qualifications.

In fact, if these individuals had engaged in these actions during say WW2, they would have been executed almost immediately.

They are being treated far better than any requirement can level. Further, there is no requirement in the Laws of War to "charge" an individual with a crime. Those who engage in combat can be held for as long as the conflict lasts. There were numerous prisoners of European militaries, i.e., Holland, Belgium, France, etc., held by the Germans from 1940 until the war ended in 1945. Had the Germans not been defeated in 1945, those individuals could have still been held until that conflict was resolved.

I would also further note that during my training while I was a member of the US Armed Forces we were told that should we be captured we were bound by certain rules. One of those rules, which I am sure that many will find odd, is that attacking a guard at any facility we were being held at or during any transport would remove any protections that the Laws of War afforded us and we could be tried in any court or criminal proceeding that the detaining power wished to convene.

Therefore, even if we afford those held at GITMO the status of POW, which they are not entitled to as they have not complied with the provisions of the Laws of War concerning combatants, then they have still violated the Laws of War by throwing feces, urine, and other objects at the guards, and by verbally threatening them.

Additionally, you may find of interest, if a "combatant" is paroled (released) that individual, under the Laws of War, is not supposed to again engage in combat against the authority that had detained him/her and released him/her. Thus, in WW2, any parolees from Europe, and there were a few, were not returned to combat in Europe, but were transferred to the Pacific theater. This also often was applied to any POWs who managed to escape and return to Allied control.

There have been individuals who have been released from GITMO who have subsequently again been detained on the battlefield operating against US forces. These individuals have lost any and all protections afforded by the Laws of War.

 

[Empty Hands]

Where did this come from? Bloody nose?

You know there is plenty of picture evidence, right? Injured detainees, mock executions, the whole shebang. To blindly assert that no abuse or torture happened is willfully blind, even if you quote some soldiers words to do it.

Soldiers went to jail for this, remember? What was their offense, too many unpaid parking tickets?

Also, if you want to argue that "anything goes" because the detainees don't fit the technical criteria for the Geneva Conventions, then there is something deeply wrong with you. You don't get to torture someone just because they don't wear a uniform. Which is also against our own domestic laws, by the way, and should be a basic point of agreement for anyone who wants to call themselves human. Apparently not.

I hope you at least would have the guts to do it yourself rather than supporting others to do your inhumane, illegal and immoral dirty work.

 

[Sukerkin]

You know there is plenty of picture evidence, right? Injured detainees, mock executions, the whole shebang. To blindly assert that no abuse or torture happened is willfully blind, even if you quote some soldiers words to do it.

I would hope that noone is actually alleging that - after all, as you infer, there was a case that all too clearly involved such things. For the record, touching on earlier discussions, I consider 'water-boarding' to be torture.

Also, if you want to argue that "anything goes" because the detainees don't fit the technical criteria for the Geneva Conventions, then there is something deeply wrong with you. You don't get to torture someone just because they don't wear a uniform. Which is also against our own domestic laws, by the way, and should be a basic point of agreement for anyone who wants to call themselves human. Apparently not.

Speaking just for myself, all I can say is that when a state of war has been declared, those who engage in 'military' activities, who are not covered by the protections of the Geneva convention (recall that America did not sign this accord by the way), are subject to summary execution. Even in those wars considered more 'noble', however, torture was used as a tool of operational advantage. None of us want to acknowledge it, which says good things about our moral sensibilities and the protections our society affords us but reveals, in most cases, a certain 'obliviousness' or self-deception with regard to grim realities.

I hope you at least would have the guts to do it yourself rather than supporting others to do your inhumane, illegal and immoral dirty work.

.

Good lord, no! Again speaking only for myself, I don't condone or support such things going on. I'm not even sure that I could, in cold blood at least, shoot someone guilty of such atrocities as the attack on the WTC. But I have the luxury of such self-serving two-facedness because 'rough-handed' men (physically and politically} will do it without asking for my approval in order to pursue their aims. The only salve to my tattered sense of respect for my culture is that without such horrible actions going on then things might (no certainties here) be much worse. I can't see how but we will not know for some time what terrorist actions were prevented or interrupted by the intelligence gathered by such reprehensible means.



Moving this into the field of the theoretical for a moment to move the discussion on, ask yourself these questions:

1) If by the use of torture on a terrorist suspect, your life would be saved, would you sign off on the order to carry out the torture?

My answer is an unequivocal "No". My life would not be worth living if it was bought at such a price.

2) If by the use of torture on a terrorist suspect, your sisters life would be saved, would you sign off on the order to carry out the torture?

My answer is, I think, a troubled "Yes", as long as she did not know that someone was tortured so that she might live. I would wish that I was morally stronger and could say "No!", consoling myself with the fact that she would understand that for me to sign such an order would torture me for the rest of my days. But I think that my love for my family would win out over my repugnance of the methodology.

 

[billc]

Yes, soldiers went to jail for abusing prisoners. It seems that the military punished the people who did it, and they were investigating the abuse long before the media jumped in. The guilty were punished, and before anyone says the higher ups weren't punished, in any situation, other than the people actually involved in the action or giving the actual order for it to be done, prosecuting people way up the chain of command is difficult to do. It is just the reality of a large command structure.

 

[billc]

Abu Graib and air force survival training:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/05/saving_lt_sevakis.html

All the mea culpas, especially those voiced by Bush to the Arabs, were overwrought and, in the long run, irrelevant. The Abu Ghraib follies took place during and prior to October of 2003. At the beginning of January this year the Pentagon publicly announced that the allegations of abuse were being formally investigated. Prior to the point when the media frenzy took over, even the International Committee of the Red Cross was fairly pleased with the cooperation they were receiving from the U.S. military in Iraq. The pictures get published, the sky falls, the Earth opens up, the deluge inundates, and all is lost.

 

[Sukerkin]

I did a quick Net research and found that whether the USA signed the Geneva Convention or not is a little more complicated than I thought:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_US_ratify_the_Geneva_Conventions

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, I really don't think the issue is going to be resolved here. Did Bush commit war crimes? I think so. A lot of people vehemently disagree.

Now, imagine if Obama would have prosecuted for war crimes. What kind of rift do you think that would have caused? Look at all that has been posted. Is there enough acrimony that it would actually cause a revolt or a coup? At the very least, I can see every Republican shutting off like a light switch the moment he pressed charges.

Personally, I don't think Obama ever had any intention of prosecuting. Therefore, I think this debate is all hypothetical.

 

[billc]

Some consider waterboarding torture, I do not. It is a technique that leaves no permanent physical or mental harm, other than a deep aversion to more waterboarding, and it produces results 100 percent of the time.

Would you condone the use of a non-lethal, non-permanent damage technique, that is so mild that Christopher Hitchens, an overweight smoker, can undergo the process and not be harmed by it? Who probably used a towel to dry off, had a smoke and a nice dinner afterward. I do not condone torture, even for terrorist leaders. I do condone waterboarding terrorist leaders who may have vital information that may save the lives of say, 3000 American citizens and foreign nationals.

 

[billc]

Sukerkin, have you looked at the actual method used to waterboard the three terrorists? To say it is mild in comparison to real, honest to goodness torture is an understatement. Keep in mind, it was used after other methods had failed, and actual usable information on the terrorist plans and organizations was obtained. Not one of these monsters was actually harmed. As soon as they cooperated, the waterboarding stopped. I think too many people think they know what technique was used in the waterboarding process and don't actually know what was done. It has been built up in peoples minds to a degree that is not fair to the interrogators or to the innocent people who will not be saved now that waterboarding is no longer allowed.

 

[billc]

No, Bush did not commit war crimes, and if Obama had pressed to have these people tried for war crimes I think the push back would have been deserved. I think he would love to prosecute but doesn't have the courage of his convictions. They have scared a lot of C.I.A. people into being less aggressive in pursuing leads and this puts everyone at risk.

 

[Sukerkin]

I confess that I do not know in detail how such a technique was actually carried out (beyond the blindingly obvious) or how it actually feels. But, for me, the solitary fact that it induces such a terrified state of mind in otherwise hardened men makes it torture. There being no physical damage does not make it not so in my mind, for psychological harm is just as much torture as physical.

You have to bear in mind that to a degree I am highly sensitive and biased on this as I nearly drowned when I was very young and even now just sitting in a dentists chair having work done, with water building up at the back of my throat, severely challenges my self discipline.

 

[billc]

Some of the enhanced interrogation techniques from the link above:

http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf

The Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
The following are the techniques involved in the CIA enhanced interrogation program.
1. Dietary Manipulation. The detainee is supplied only with commercial liquid meals in place of normal food, resulting in a bland, unappetizing diet. However, the diet is nutritionally compete in terms of calories, vitamins, nutrition and liquidation.
2. Nudity. The detainee is kept naked throughout the interrogation. Articles of clothing are provided as an instant reward for cooperation. Temperature is required to be maintained at least at 68 degrees F.
3. Attention Grasp. The interrogator grasps the detainee by the collar with both hands, and pulls the detainee towards him. Gets the detainee’s focused attention.
4. Walling. The detainee is stood with his back to a flexible, false wall. The interrogator grabs the detainee and pushes him into the wall, which gives but emits a loud, disturbing sound. The detainee’s head and neck are supported with a rolled hood in a C-collar around the back of the neck, which prevents whiplash.
5. Facial Hold. The interrogator grabs the detainee by either side of the face and holds the head immobile while speaking to him.
6. Facial Insult Slap. The interrogator slaps the side of the detainee’s face with an open hand. The purpose here is not to inflict physical pain, but to induce shock, surprise and humiliation.
7. Abdominal Slap. The interrogator strikes the abdomen of the detainee with the back of his open hand between the navel and the sternum. The interrogator may not punch the detainee with a closed fist. The purpose of this technique is again not to inflict physical pain, but to focus the detainee on the need to answer the interrogator’s questions and to dislodge detainee expectations that he will not be touched.
8. Cramped Confinement. The detainee is placed in a dark, confined space, small enough to restrict his movement. In a space where the detainee can stand up or sit down, the confinement is limited to no more than 8 hours at a time, and 18 hours total in a 24 hour period. In a space only big enough for the detainee to sit down, confinement is limited to 2 hours at a time.
9. Wall Standing. The detainee is forced to stand near a wall with his feet spread at shoulder width, and his arms outstretched with fingers resting on the wall and supporting hisThe Interrogation Memos
10. Stress Positions. The detainee is forced to remain standing or seated in various positions for periods of time which, again, produces temporary muscle fatigue.
11. Water Dousing. Cold water is poured on the detainee to create discomfort. The minimum water temperature is 41 degrees and the minimum room temperature is 64 degrees. The maximum exposure is 20 minutes at these temperatures before drying and rewarming, though exposure can last up until one hour at warmer temperatures. The procedure is designed and monitored to avoid hypothermia or other negative health results.
12. Sleep Deprivation. The detainee is deprived of sleep for a number of days. To achieve this, the detainee is shackled in a standing position with hands in front handcuffed to a chain attached to the ceiling, and feet shackled to a bolt on the floor. The detainee can move in a 2-3 foot diameter. The detainee is hand fed by interrogators, and wears an adult diaper which is changed when soiled. About a dozen detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation in this way for more than 48 hours, 3 for more than 96 hours, and one for the maximum of 180 hours, or about a week. The detainee is continuously monitored for any adverse physical or health reactions, and no detainee has suffered any physical harm or injury due to this technique. Both the medical literature and experience establish that the detainee quickly recovers from the effects of this sleep deprivation after 8 hours of sleep.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes. They are guilty of violating international treaties, as well as US law by ordering torture in violation of those laws. Waterboarding IS torture, by every definition, and only apologists and the blind willfully overlook that and justify it. All that was argued in depth to death here previously. Bush, Cheney and the rest should face trial, and if found guilty suffer the same fate as their victims.
Just because many of those victims are pieces of ****, doesn't change the fact that the law was broken, torture happened and the act was wrong.
The results do not justify it. The effectiveness (which was debunked in depth) does not excuse it.

Bush and Cheney should if found guilty, be punished appropriately.

That said, I'm out of here, let the justifications continue.

 

[billc]

And now, Waterboarding as conducted on Three terrorists:

13. Waterboarding. The detainee lies on a gurney inclined downward at a 15 degree angle, on his back with his head on the lower end. A cloth is placed over the detainee’s face, and cold water is poured on the cloth from a few inches above. This must be stopped and the cloth removed after a maximum of 40 seconds. The body naturally reacts to this procedure with feelings of drowning and panic, even if the detainee can still physically breathe and knows it. But the waterboarding does not produce actual physical pain. Such applications of waterboarding may be done no more than 6 times in a maximum of 2 hours. A physician and a psychologist are present at all times during such waterboarding to monitor the detainee and stop the procedure if there is any sign of a severe reaction or severe physical distress.
Such waterboarding may only be used if (1) the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent, (2) there are substantial and credible indicators the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack, and (3) other interrogation methods have failed or are unlikely to yield actionable intelligence in time to prevent the attack. As a result, this technique was used on only three terrorist detainees during the Bush Administration, as discussed above. Despite uninformed public statements to the contrary with no basis or foundation, this technique has a long history of being very effective in obtaining the sought after information. It was in the three cases it was used during the Bush Administration, stopping actual planned terrorist attacks that would have killed thousands of innocent Americans, and yielding reams of additional information, as discussed further below.The Interrogation Memos: Shall We Be Clueless on Terrorism? page 12 The American Civil Rights Union
The U.S. government has applied waterboarding to thousands of American military personal during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training over many years. Yet, there has not been one case of serious physical harm or prolonged mental harm.