Beheading Video

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Yes indeed, I suspect we saw the same documentary. (Gwynn Dwyer).

As for the US not using henious methods, it is almost correct that the US Army does not widely use such methods. Most often they are used by employees of the US, which is technically different. "Independent contractors" (what the heck is that, if one is at war??), dictators on the US payroll, and 'insurgent groups(doing the US' bidding) are often the main culprits. Mind you, they are funded and trained by the US, with US objectives, but rarely ever are they US citizens.

[kaper1999]

The abuses commited by the yanks have been comparatively minor and few, and generally much more focused on people who are very strongly suspected of being members of terrorist/guerrila groups

Maybe you dont read the news but if you followed the detentions in america of hundred of muslims after 911. Not one of them was a suspect related to terrorism. It was the offical policy in all the detention centers to physically abuse them. 95% of the people in guantanamo bay cuba have nothing to do with al qaeda over 1000 have been released already and those who have been released have reported physical abuse. US army is investigating prisoner deaths in afghanistan and iraq. Rapes have been reported and photographed but you consider this low level stuff. What is high level stuff to you?

The Yanks might be humiliating people by stripping them naked but they're not gouging their eyes out with spoons

the yanks are killing people in prisons by torture. And a death is death no matter what method was used. Killing is wrong no matter who does it. Its such a simple idea that someone with even a limited Intelligence can understand it.

[Argus]

The abuses commited by the yanks have been comparatively minor and few, and generally much more focused on people who are very strongly suspected of being members of terrorist/guerrila groups

Maybe you dont read the news but if you followed the detentions in america of hundred of muslims after 911. Not one of them was a suspect related to terrorism. It was the offical policy in all the detention centers to physically abuse them.

The Americans went a little overboard with their newfound determination to find out which among its muslims were sympathetic to the enemy. But while there have been numerous cases of people held as suspects and then released, I have heard nothing suggesting widespread abuse. Perhaps you can provide a credible cite? In addition, many were held on immigration warrants, but that aside I would suggest fear of terrorism was indeed the main reason behind their apprehension.

  95% of the people in guantanamo bay cuba have nothing to do with al qaeda over 1000 have been released already and those who have been released have reported physical abuse.

I question your numbers, and from what I've heard the international bodies which monitor prisoner abuse have been generally satisfied with their access to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and with American treatment of them. Again, perhaps you can provide credible cites which suggest otherwise. Individual testimony is not without value but cannot be relied on for its accuracy or truthfulness given the circumstances.

  US army is investigating prisoner deaths in afghanistan and iraq.  Rapes have been reported and photographed but you consider this low level stuff.  What is high level stuff to you?

No one has yet provided proof of rapes. The supposed photos of muslim women being raped turned out to have been actors on an internet porn site. And all prisons have problematic deaths of prisoners. If any were killed without good reason I hope and believe the individuals involved will be properly punished. But you cannot compare the situation, even in that infamous cell block in Iraq, to the general, widespread, purposeful torture and murder of prisoners in place like Iran, China, North Korea, Syria or Sudan.

[kaper1999]

The Americans went a little overboard.

Little overboard is a cute term. They have always been a lil overboard. Look at history little overboard with the red indians and then the blacks. List goes on and on but nothing to it. What i dont understand is how can some one who kills others with such ease can turn around and claim to be a humane. 55,00 death certificates issued in iraq this year for deaths due to unnatural causes. Who killed them.

I have heard nothing suggesting widespread abuse. Perhaps you can provide a credible cite

try reading the new york times, washington post, time magazine, the guardian, the village voice, bbc or yahoo's full coverage news. Give these sources a lil time and if you still cant find related news ill be more than glad to give you specific links.

I question your numbers, and from what I've heard the international bodies which monitor prisoner abuse have been generally satisfied with their access to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and with American treatment of them. Again, perhaps you can provide credible cites which suggest otherwise

yes the red cross gave the conditions in iraq, afghanistan and guantanomo bay an A+.

No one has yet provided proof of rapes.

wait for the new pics to come out. Members of congress have already seen it.

[Black Dog]

I also have to hear theories on what Saddam would have done if he was trying to extract information from anyone in his shere of influence.

Hey, let's take it a bit further, how would Iran, Syria, Saudi do it? Any theories like 'skip the sandbags and cut off their heads instead and let the others watch and talk?'

Totally beside the point. This is a country that claims to be there to bring freedom to an oppressed people, but is now using the same tactics as the old boss (in the old bosses' old digs no less) against predominately innocent detainess.

he Americans went a little overboard with their newfound determination to find out which among its muslims were sympathetic to the enemy. But while there have been numerous cases of people held as suspects and then released, I have heard nothing suggesting widespread abuse. Perhaps you can provide a credible cite? In addition, many were held on immigration warrants, but that aside I would suggest fear of terrorism was indeed the main reason behind their apprehension.

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror

yes the red cross gave the conditions in iraq, afghanistan and guantanomo bay an A+.

Red Cross blasts Guantanamo

[kaper1999]

red cross blasted afghanistan iraq and guantanomo. They have witnessed abuse at all three places

[kaper1999]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics.../26ABUS.html?hp

well you wanted links to prove abuse--you got it

also check www.pbs.org and there program frontline. enjoy

[Argus]

Totally beside the point. This is a country that claims to be there to bring freedom to an oppressed people, but is now using the same tactics as the old boss (in the old bosses' old digs no less) against predominately innocent detainess.

Hardly the same tactics, not even close.

suspects and then released, I have heard nothing suggesting widespread abuse. Perhaps you can provide a credible cite? <cite deleted>

Interesting information, though I had heard some of it before. But you misunderstand. I was not speaking avout the US war on terror, and the sometimes harsh actions used against terrorists, but whether the abuse was widespread in Iraq or even in that particular prison. There were 20,000 prisoners in that prison. I believe the abuse was confined to a few score of the ones considered the most dangerous on cell block one.

yes the red cross gave the conditions in iraq, afghanistan and guantanomo bay an A+.

Red Cross blasts Guantanamo

Your cite says that the Red Cross had no complaints about the conditions or treatment at Guantanamo. They were merely complaining that the people there were being held indefinitely.

[Argus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics.../26ABUS.html?hp

well you wanted links to prove abuse--you got it

also check www.pbs.org and there program frontline. enjoy

Cites from the NYT don't work. You need a membership to view them.

[August1991]

Cites from the NYT don't work. You need a membership to view them.

Just sign up. It's free.

[Black Dog]

Hardly the same tactics, not even close.

Arrest and detention without due process or without regard to guilt or innocence, torture and murder were hallmarks of the Hussein regime. Now the U.S. and its allies are doing the same things, the only difference is the means.

I believe the abuse was confined to a few score of the ones considered the most dangerous on cell block one.

Roots of torture.

Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

The Bush administration's emerging approach was that America's enemies in this war were "unlawful" combatants without rights. One Justice Department memo, written for the CIA late in the fall of 2001, put an extremely narrow interpretation on the international anti-torture convention, allowing the agency to use a whole range of techniques—including sleep deprivation, the use of phobias and the deployment of "stress factors"—in interrogating Qaeda suspects. The only clear prohibition was "causing severe physical or mental pain"—a subjective judgment that allowed for "a whole range of things in between," said one former administration official familiar with the opinion. On Dec. 28, 2001, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel weighed in with another opinion, arguing that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to review the treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone—or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

The approach at Gitmo soon reflected these changes. Under the leadership of an aggressive, self-assured major general named Geoffrey Miller, a new set of interrogation rules became doctrine. Ultimately what was developed at Gitmo was a "72-point matrix for stress and duress," which laid out types of coercion and the escalating levels at which they could be applied. These included the use of harsh heat or cold; withholding food; hooding for days at a time; naked isolation in cold, dark cells for more than 30 days, and threatening (but not biting) by dogs. It also permitted limited use of "stress positions" designed to subject detainees to rising levels of pain.

Check out some of Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker articles, especially "America's Gulag" for more.

Your cite says that the Red Cross had no complaints about the conditions or treatment at Guantanamo. They were merely complaining that the people there were being held indefinitely.

Does unlimited detention without due process not constitute a violation of human rights? Also, British nationals who were detained at Gitmo alleged torture interagation techniques were used. Amnesty International and Human Rights watch have both chronicled allegations of abuse at various U.S. detention facilities, as well as the U.S.'s practice of exporting prisoners to Pakistan, Jordan, Uzbekistan and Morrocco, countries less squeamish about torture.

There's info everywhere that indicates what happened at Abu Gharab is the rule, not the exception.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Does unlimited detention without due process not constitute a violation of human rights?

Evidently not. The US Base in Cuba, it is argued by the US, is not covered by the laws and constitution of the USA. Further, it is on a US military outpost, so international laws do not apply (according to the US).

The US (and Israel) recently announced that they are 'above the law' regarding 'war crimes', and their troops cannot be tried, nor held accountable, by anyone.

So, human rights violations? Sure. Who has the power to arrest or penalize them? No one.

[takeanumber]

So, human rights violations? Sure. Who has the power to arrest or penalize them? No one.

Exactly.

International law is a lot like American domestic law: if you're rich (ie powerful), you can buy your innocence, but there's the rub. Everybody knows OJ did it. Everybody knows the US did it.

They've squandered their greatest weapon: moral superiority.

[Liberal Krusty]

My Orotu Tribe does no such thing. They have survived for thousands of years simply by killing every last member of every people that come within a hundred miles of them. We can learn a lot from this primitive tribe. Torture is unheard of. Matter of fact, the closest word in their vocabulary to torture is 'waca wuco wie' (off with his head.)

In the US vocabulary 'put on the underwear' is heard all too often. Bastards.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

They've squandered their greatest weapon: moral superiority.

Hate to be a naysayer, but the USA never had this. Throughout their history, perfidy was merely a tool, as is overwhelming force now.

[kaper1999]

more moral superiority. Check it out

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22ABUS.html