Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Torture Question

Johnny Canuck3

Well-Known Member
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

I watched this last night. It discusses the activity at Guantanamo that preceeded the abuses at abu Ghraib.

It talks about the existence of an apparent direct link, a paper trail, leading from Rumsfeld to the Guantanamo abuses, to abu Ghraib.

It talks about how a 'soft' commander at Guantanamo was relieved, in order to bring in someone more hard line.

It talks about how the FBI saw what was going on at Guantanamo, and decided to distance itself from the whole mess.

Well worth watching if you get the chance.
 
Generally speaking, PBS Frontline documentaries are garbage-level anti-American propaganda comparable to what one expects from U.K. leftist rage like the Guardian, etc. This particular episode is no exception. For the rare visitor to urban75 who is interested in actually understanding reality, here's a link to a blog post that might be useful. Be sure to read the comments section also. Ta.

http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/2005/10/pbs-frontline-on-torture.html
 
Are you peebs replacement?

I think you mean 'rag' not 'rage'. And the OP is not particulary known on this board for being a lefty..
 
rogue yam said:
Generally speaking, PBS Frontline documentaries are garbage-level anti-American propaganda comparable to what one expects from U.K. leftist rage like the Guardian, etc. This particular episode is no exception. For the rare visitor to urban75 who is interested in actually understanding reality, here's a link to a blog post that might be useful. Be sure to read the comments section also. Ta.

http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/2005/10/pbs-frontline-on-torture.html

So add to that, or not, [Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez's rules which kind of come down in the fall that say dogs, and then environmental manipulation, all that stuff [can be used]. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld's rules, which come from Guantanamo, [allow] stress positions and lots of other things. Many of the Gitmo ideas that come with Gen. [Geoffrey D.] Miller and his crowd … it sounds like it's a system where as an individual interrogator, you could almost make up your own set of rules and feel pretty comfortable with the authorizations, long as you didn't cross some moral line that you drew.

That's certainly true. Even if you had a single document, a single IRE that some unit had given you, it was hard to make sense of that because there were contradictions within it. So in a way, you could really justify almost anything you wanted to do. So yeah, it made it pretty tough. So all you had to do was look around you and see, "Well, what seems to be acceptable?" And then you do that.

And what seems to be acceptable was a lot harsher than what the rules were, in a lot of ways?

Yes. Yeah.

How much harsher?

Well, it depends on what you're going to say the rules are. Because as I said, Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war don't allow us to really do anything to these prisoners other than talk to them. So all this other stuff we did with freezing them, starving them, sleep manipulation, isolation -- we're not allowed to do those things. …

[So it wasn't just a few bad apples doing things?]

No, not at all. I remember when we had that shipping container in Mosul. We were sort of close to the street, and of course with the loud music, the lights, the sometimes yelling, it would attract people and they wanted to participate in it. And it was very hard because sometimes it was in the middle of the night and I'd be the only person out there. So I was afraid to leave to go get help, to chase these guys off. But they might outrank me, there might be more of them than of me. …

I think it's systemic. And I say that because for instance, if you set up a prison like Abu Ghraib where you have maybe 10,000 Iraqi prisons there, and you have 18-year-old guards guarding them, you know that you're going to have abuse taking place. I mean, if you don't know that, you're an idiot. And that goes all the way up the chain of command. And so they did not create oversight. The Pentagon should have been on this and making sure that abuse wasn't happening.

And there are ways to be effective. I saw good, clean detention facilities and I saw detention facilities that were out of control. And it all came from the leadership. It wasn't because they got lucky and got good privates in there; that wasn't it. …

[Tell me about your feelings during your time in Iraq.]

Editor's Note: Lagouranis was given the task of searching Iraqi casualties for intelligence information. At one point, he says he was ordered to go through the pockets and personal effects of 500 dead Iraqis.

Well yeah, sleeping with 500 dead bodies and going through their pockets was -- I mean, it doesn't get much worse than that, you know? I mean, you really feel just a total sense of despair, and that you've crossed over into a realm where your friends and family are just never going to experience that, you know?

But I think that my experience of despair came in North Babel, when I had just all these prisoners that I knew were innocent, I was powerless to help them. And yet I was forced to interrogate them every day and listen to them cry, and tell me about their families. And I mean, that was just -- it was awful, and I think that's most of where my anger came from in the end, was that experience.

And how angry were you?

I was angry enough that I was being insubordinate to the Marine unit that we were working with. I was yelling at officers. And as I said, when I got back to the United States, it was hard for me to even participate in my unit. Like I just didn't believe in anything that we had done, and I was willing to say that to everyone. They ushered me out of the Army. …


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/lagouranis.html
 
Eita said:
Are you peebs replacement?

I think you mean 'rag' not 'rage'. And the OP is not particulary known on this board for being a lefty..

1) Who is "peeb"? (Please don't answer if I have no reason to care.)

2) Yes, "rags". Typo. So what?

3) So the typical u75 poster is further left than JC2. Again, so what?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Lagouranis:

"But I think that my experience of despair came in North Babel, when I had just all these prisoners that I knew were innocent, I was powerless to help them. And yet I was forced to interrogate them every day and listen to them cry, and tell me about their families. And I mean, that was just -- it was awful, and I think that's most of where my anger came from in the end, was that experience.


Dude chose the wrong line of work. Read the comments section of the blog post I linked to above for more spew from your hero, JC2.
 
Bit touchy arent you? are you on a mission to civilise the heathen parts of the internet or something?

Peebs... like you accept not as hysterical. Typo - good one. JC - I think he would come under the heading libertarian centre right more than anything else.. so not left in any sense, accept maybe to you, but you seem like a bit of a wacko anyway though :)
 
rogue yam said:
1) Who is "peeb"? (Please don't answer if I have no reason to care.)

2) Yes, "rags". Typo. So what?

3) So the typical u75 poster is further left than JC2. Again, so what?

I'll make my position clear. I'm not anti american, and I'm in favour of a war on terror. I just think that the leaders of this particular administration aren't up to the job.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

I watched this last night. It discusses the activity at Guantanamo that preceeded the abuses at abu Ghraib.

It talks about the existence of an apparent direct link, a paper trail, leading from Rumsfeld to the Guantanamo abuses, to abu Ghraib.

It talks about how a 'soft' commander at Guantanamo was relieved, in order to bring in someone more hard line.

It talks about how the FBI saw what was going on at Guantanamo, and decided to distance itself from the whole mess.

Well worth watching if you get the chance.
This has been going on for years yet you and your cohorts refused to believe that these practices were ongoing when we reported them in the first place.

So what's your moral obligation now to report what was there right in your pig fuck face to begin with?

Did you listen then?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I'll make my position clear. I'm not anti american, and I'm in favour of a war on terror. I just think that the leaders of this particular administration aren't up to the job.

Compared to whom? John Kerry? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton? (Bill Clinton?) Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc.? What do you expect from the U.S. Government?
 
rogue yam said:
Compared to whom? John Kerry? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton? (Bill Clinton?) Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc.? What do you expect from the U.S. Government?

What do you expect?

I expect that if their own experts, ie the FBI, tells them that torture doesn't work or produces dicey intel at best, then they'll switch to something more effective.

I expect a nation that invades another country to at least have a plan in place for what will happen after the first three weeks.

I expect a nation invading an arabic country to spend a little money either acquiring arabic translators, or teaching the language to some of their own people.

I expect a nation that has taken control of iraq, not so situate its major detention facility in the middle of the sunni triangle.

etc, ad nauseum.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I'll make my position clear. I'm not anti american, and I'm in favour of a war on terror. I just think that the leaders of this particular administration aren't up to the job.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, John Bolton, John Roberts, Samuel Alito; these people aren't competant?!?

(All selected for their positions by Chimpy Pretzelchoker, btw.)
 
rogue yam said:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, John Bolton, John Roberts, Samuel Alito; these people aren't competant?!?

(All selected for their positions by Chimpy Pretzelchoker, btw.)

Should we go through them one by one?
 
I expect that if their own experts, ie the FBI, tells them that torture doesn't work or produces dicey intel at best, then they'll switch to something more effective.

We do not torture. There is no interrogation technique known that we are not at least considering, if not using. The idea that there are proven techniques being ignored by the U.S. in favor of "torture" because we are evil and stupid is a mastubatory fantasy of yours, Johnny. Nothing more.

I expect a nation that invades another country to at least have a plan in place for what will happen after the first three weeks.

We did, and it has been implemented (and revised continually) since the invasion. Just because a loser-wannabe Presidential candidate and a pimply-faced wanker on the internet say otherwise does not void reality.

I expect a nation invading an arabic country to spend a little money either acquiring arabic translators, or teaching the language to some of their own people.

We have done so. You started this thread to discuss one such person. Stop being a retard, Johnny.

I expect a nation that has taken control of iraq, not so situate its major detention facility in the middle of the sunni triangle.

Why not? It was an existing facility. It was near the source of many of the prisoners (and their familes). What is wrong with it?

etc, ad nauseum.

Saying a lot of retarded things is far less impressive that saying a couple of intelligent things. Learn this, Johnny.
 
rogue yam said:
We do not torture. There is no interrogation technique known that we are not at least considering, if not using. The idea that there are proven techniques being ignored by the U.S. in favor of "torture" because we are evil and stupid is a mastubatory fantasy of yours, Johnny. Nothing more.

.

It was the FBI said it, not me.

I've never been to Cuba nor Iraq.
 
rogue yam said:
We did, and it has been implemented (and revised continually) since the invasion. Just because a loser-wannabe Presidential candidate and a pimply-faced wanker on the internet say otherwise does not void reality.


No Exit Strategy or Timetable
[edit]2005
"Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice told senators on [January 18, 2005] that a U.S. exit strategy from Iraq depends on that country's ability to defend itself against terrorists after [the January 30th] elections. ... Stepping out from her largely behind-the-scenes role as President Bush's national security adviser, Rice said she could not give Congress a timetable for American disengagement. ... 'The goal is to get the mission accomplished,' Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." [10] (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/011905/nat_20050119018.shtml)

"The U.S. has no exit strategy or timetable for withdrawing its forces from Iraq and a pull-out depends on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

"'We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy,' Rumsfeld told soldiers during a surprise visit to Baghdad, according to a pooled broadcast report from the capital. 'The goal is to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security.'" --April 2005 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=&sid=a8sZejFz9ssI).

"Bush had hoped the successful January elections in Iraq would boost the popularity of the conflict and allow him to distance himself from it. But his aides have concluded that recent events in Iraq have contributed to an erosion in support for the president -- and that he needs to shift strategies. Bush's new approach will be mostly rhetorical, however, as the White House does not plan any changes to the policy or time frame for bringing home the 140,000 U.S. troops, as some lawmakers are demanding." --June 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502184.html).

[edit]2003
"Bush sent enough troops to secure Baghdad and a quick military victory, but not enough personnel to keep the peace. And, most ominously, there is no exit strategy." --July 2003 (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/16389).

"George Bush will attempt tonight to convince the American people that he has a workable 'exit strategy' to free his forces from the rapidly souring conflict in Iraq, as Britain prepares to send in thousands more troops to reinforce the faltering coalition effort." --September 2003 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1037015,00.html).

[edit]2002
The leaked July 21, 2002, British memo, "from the summer before the Iraq war, ... makes it clear that President Bush had not in fact decided to go to war yet, although military plans were well advanced."

However, regarding post-war planning, and "noting the risks of a lengthy postwar occupation, the memorandum says that 'U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us [Britain] to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.'" [11] (http://theyellowline.blogspot.com/2005/06/new-british-memo-contradicts-downing.html)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exit_Strategy_from_Iraq
 
Johnny, there is a world of difference between cutting and pasting a bunch of tangentially-related material, much of which is retarded, leftie spew, and engaging in a coherent discussion of ideas. If you weren't retarded, this would be obvious to you.
 
rogue yam said:
We do not torture. There is no interrogation technique known that we are not at least considering, if not using. The idea that there are proven techniques being ignored by the U.S. in favor of "torture" because we are evil and stupid is a mastubatory fantasy of yours, Johnny. Nothing more.

I hope you agree the that the following statement is far more acceptable.

Proven techniques (which some liberals might perceive as torture) that run contrary to various items in the Geneva Convention are being employed because the admin don't know what else to do, have no real friends in the world and so can't get the intel any other way, have little regard for the long-term consequences of such actions and are not interested in what the rest of the world thinks.
 
rogue yam said:
Why not? It was an existing facility. It was near the source of many of the prisoners (and their familes). What is wrong with it?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/07/mil-040712-centcom01.htm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3025C76E-24F0-4316-8BCA-9388509FD5B0.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr04/223716.asp?format=print

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/17/101628.shtml


Abu Ghraib Prison sits in the middle of one of Iraq's nastiest patches. Ever since "major combat" ended a year ago, snipers hidden in the palm groves that surround the vast prison compound have routinely fired on U.S. patrols. The guardrails on the highway in front of the prison are mangled for miles from the large number of IEDs (improvised explosive devices). Helicopters constantly buzz around. At night, soldiers in the guard towers get drawn into raging gun battles. And mortars rain on the prison like a lethal hailstorm. "I can't even count how many mortar attacks we've had," S/Sgt. Joseph Lane, an operating-room technician in the prison hospital, told NEWSWEEK last week. "Sometimes there are two or three in a day."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4934436/site/newsweek


From what I can gather, most of the US personnel are housed in tents on the facility grounds.
 
rogue yam said:
Johnny, there is a world of difference between cutting and pasting a bunch of tangentially-related material, much of which is retarded, leftie spew, and engaging in a coherent discussion of ideas. If you weren't retarded, this would be obvious to you.

Since when is the Free Republic, leftie spew?
 
rogue yam said:
If you weren't retarded, this would be obvious to you.

Well, we can see which direction you'll go in, when you start to lose an argument on the facts.

For a brief moment, I thought you were someone worth arguing with.
 
Jelly said:
I hope you agree the that the following statement is far more acceptable.

Proven techniques (which some liberals might perceive as torture) that run contrary to various items in the Geneva Convention are being employed because the admin don't know what else to do, have no real friends in the world and so can't get the intel any other way, have little regard for the long-term consequences of such actions and are not interested in what the rest of the world thinks.

Closer, but not much. Still, you did nail one point: nobody with any power in the U.S. Government cares what you think. Mat God bless them for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom