TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Abu Ghraib: The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels; military's critics are proved wrong

Abu Ghraib: The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels; military's critics are proved wrong

With so much left-wing retoric regarding Abu Ghraib it's hard to find any concrete evidence of what the U.S. was actually doing about Abu Ghraib.
99% of what we do find on the subject is a lot of finger-point and conjecture but few actual facts.
I did find this, and it justifies my hunches that the U.S. upper administration and military is willing to hunt their own...

quote:

The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels Pfc. Lynndie England is convicted, and the military's critics are proved wrong. BY ROBERT L. POLLOCK Sunday, October 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. It's hardly a secret that Pfc. Lynndie England was sentenced last week for her role as "leash girl" in the infamous abuses photographed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in late 2003. But it was also noticeable that the denouement of this spectacular story was relegated to the innards of newspapers that had once given it weeks of front-page treatment. That's almost surely because the trial of the last of the Maryland Army Reservists to face justice--like those of the others that came before her--offered no evidence to support claims that the abuses were caused by a Bush administration that had "created the climate" or "set the tone" for "torture." That was, of course, the widespread and explosive charge last (election) year. Almost immediately the leaked photos of Pfc. England and her compatriots generated calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. So-called torture memos were unearthed, in which administration lawyers had discussed the range of permissible interrogation techniques--for al Qaeda suspects in the wake of 9/11. And by one of the greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse, those memos were said to have caused the behavior of soldiers in Iraq who knew nothing beyond the limits outlined in the Army Field Manual. Ted Kennedy, for one, offered up a useful reminder of why Americans have never wanted him to be president by declaring that "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." The writer Heather Mac Donald dubbed this the "torture narrative." And it persists today despite the conclusion a year ago of the Independent Panel to Review DOD Detention Operations that the abuses "were not part of authorized interrogations nor were they even directed at intelligence targets" (emphasis added). Or in the words of the panel's chairman, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger--whose bipartisan cabinet career included a stint in the Carter administration--what those pictures showed was sick behavior by the "night shift." But don't just take his word for it. "You feel that by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations," a judge asked Private England in a hearing earlier this year. "No, sir," she responded. "So this was just a way to embarrass them?" he continued. "Yes, sir," was her reply. Or consider the testimony of Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits: "Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay." In all, seven guards and two military intelligence personnel have now faced justice for the Abu Ghraib abuses, with even those pleading guilty undergoing detailed sentencing hearings. No evidence has emerged to support the theory that abuses had anything to do with interrogation. It's worth remembering too that these prosecutions were based on investigations conducted with dispatch that did the Army nothing but credit: A criminal probe was begun within a day of the abuse reports traveling up the chain of command on Jan. 13, 2004; two days after that, Central Command issued a press release about the investigation; on March 20 it was announced that charges had been brought against six of those involved. Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba had completed an investigation whose conclusions have now stood the test of nine courts martial. And this all more than a month before the photos were leaked to the press. Have detainee abuses occurred elsewhere in the war on terror? Of course. But they were "widespread" only if you define that term geographically instead of by frequency. The adjective "systematic" has been similarly misused. Overall, more than 70,000 detainees have passed through U.S. military custody since late 2001. About 500 criminal investigations have been conducted into allegations of related misconduct, many of which were found to be unsubstantiated. But more than 200 people have already been disciplined for actions ranging from failure to report to prisoner abuse itself. There have also now been 12 major inquiries--including investigations led by Maj. Gen. George Fay and Vice Adm. Albert Church--into detainee treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. More than 2,800 interviews have been conducted and 16,000 pages of documents produced. And there have been 31 congressional hearings and 45 staff briefings. Given that track record, we can be quite sure that the latest abuse allegations to surface (from an officer of the 82nd Airborne) will get the thorough hearing they deserve. In short, all the evidence suggests a low rate of detainee mistreatment, one that compares favorably with U.S. civilian prisons, never mind that of other and earlier militaries. "The behavior of our troops is so much better than it was in World War II," Mr. Schlesinger told me last year. I called him this week to ask what we've learned since. "That the press exaggerated," he replied. The suggestion that Mr. Schlesinger and countless others--from decorated officers to military juries--have lent their good names to some kind of whitewash only reveals the remaining accusers for the crackpots they are. Let me add some final words on how the Abu Ghraib scandal has affected America's image in Iraq. It hasn't been helpful, of course. But--having traveled there three times in the past 2 1/2 years, most recently in August--I can attest that the dominant image of the American soldier in the minds of most Iraqis is that of liberator, as depicted in the sculpture shown here by a craftsman from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. Americans can be proud of the way their young men and women have performed in Iraq and elsewhere in the war on terror. And they can be proud of the way the military has meted out justice for those few abuses that have occurred. Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal.

Ya I read that article before - I think it was in the Friday WSJ.

Pollock writes some good point, there was another piece (non-editorial) in the WSJ that summed up the findings (basically the night shift went bad) a bit nicer. This piece complimented it.


... they also had a good piece on Delay's aqusation, which will probably sum up to be nothing (despite Delay's already admonished ethical record).

Re: Abu Ghraib: The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels; military's critics are proved wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r With so much left-wing retoric regarding Abu Ghraib it's hard to find any concrete evidence of what the U.S. was actually doing about Abu Ghraib. 99% of what we do find on the subject is a lot of finger-point and conjecture but few actual facts. I did find this, and it justifies my hunches that the U.S. upper administration and military is willing to hunt their own...

Ya know, one might surmise that you're simply trying to find something that you would want to agree with, rather than what we know is out there so far. So you go to none other than the BushCo cheerleading squad of the OpEd WSJ and sure enough, you'll pretty much find anything you so desire. Pollock has got to be one of the biggest fucking numbnut "yes" men there are out there, and I fail to see anything in what he wrote as a confirmation that the problem plaguing Abu Ghraib, Guitmo, and Afghanistan is not systematic. There is much that has not been answered so far, so you are right about some conjecture.

However, that conjecture is not far off the mark, and one has to wonder why this Administration continues to sidestep the issue altogether and block any further investigation in the matter. So the dumbass England was convicted for her idiocy in the matter - that somehow means that all is fucking well and that there is no systematic abuse involved here? Where the fuck do you come up with this shit, Pollock? Of course overall the level of mistreatment is low - does that somehow discount the fact of the widespread abuse patterns that we know have occurred? Does that discount the fact that the Republicans and this Administration continue to block all efforts into a further investigation on how far up this truly goes? Does that discount the fact that memos were fucking created on this subject by our new Attorney General on toeing the line of legality on these abuse patterns that were known to have occurred not just in Abu Ghraib?

It's fucking irrelevant as shit to point out that these were few and far between - they were fucking too few too many, and Pollock knows that. It amazes me the utter disconnect that GOP mouthpieces exhibit on this issue - you do realize they just let out 500 more prisoners from Abu Ghraib, right? Was it worth torturing individuals whom we let free? Of course it was just a fucking "frat-prank", right Limbaugh you fucking pill-popping piece of amoeba shit?

Things about Abu Ghraib are being blocked for a reason, Fir3start3r, and it's not because some fucking "liberal" media is out to get you or any Bush supporter out there. Of course I don't deny when the media smells blood on any Administration (no pun intended), but there is a reason why the fucking military when investigating itself puts the brakes on just how far up they want this sucker to go.

So you felt all your beliefs were confirmed by the biggest pom-pom acrobat on the Bush media whore team, huh? Well, I'll just answer your op-ed with one of my own:

quote:

Andrew Sullivan: How America tiptoed into the torture chamber Meet an American hero. He�s Army Captain Ian Fishback, a decorated graduate of West Point, and in training to become a member of the elite special forces. He has served two combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is described by friends as a devout Christian who prays before every meal and carries a copy of the US constitution in his pocket. And while serving at Camp Mercury near the Syrian border in Iraq, he observed horrifying abuse of prisoners, in testimony that was released last week by Human Rights Watch. He has testified to habitual beatings to the face and body before interrogation, the pouring of burning chemicals on prisoners� faces, routine shackling in positions that led to physical collapse, forced exercises that led prisoners to lose consciousness, and stacking prisoners in pyramids in the same mode as Abu Ghraib. These abuses occurred before, during and after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. Fishback testified that commanders directed and condoned the abuse. �I would be told, �These guys were IED (improvised explosive device) trigger men last week.� So we would f*** them up. F*** them up bad . . . But you gotta understand, this was the norm.� Prisoners were apparently called �PUCs�, for �Persons Under Control�. Another sergeant testified: �Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. One day (another sergeant) shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy�s leg with a mini-Louisville slugger, a metal bat. As long as no PUCs came up dead, it happened. We kept it to broken arms and legs.� Fishback finally decided to take a stand when he saw Donald Rumsfeld testify to the Senate on television that the Iraq war was subject to the Geneva conventions. He went to his superiors and told them he believed that what was going on was a clear, continuing violation. They ignored him and told him his career would suffer if he persisted in his complaints. But Fishback went all the way to the secretary of the army and Senate aides. Finally one man responded: Senator John McCain, another war hero, who endured five years of torture by the Vietcong. Fishback�s letter to McCain is a poignant illustration of what has happened to America these past three years: �Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al-Qaeda�s we should not be concerned . . . Others that clear standards will limit the president�s ability to wage the war on terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.� Of course it is unacceptable. But we have presidential memos dating from 2002 exempting the US military from the Geneva conventions in the war against Al-Qaeda and somehow those exemptions �migrated� to the war in Iraq. It is now beyond dispute that the abuses were condoned, enforced and tolerated by commanders throughout the war zone. We know, for example, that the general in charge of Guantanamo, where torture was formally permitted, was told to Guantanamo-ise Abu Ghraib in the early stages of the insurgency. The notion that the widespread abuse was the invention of a few �bad apples� on the night shift in one prison is preposterous. Reports of inhumane treatment can now be found throughout Iraq and Afghanistan involving hundreds of prisoners, with 36 confirmed deaths in interrogation. This summer Republican Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham have tried to pass legislation laying down clear guidelines for humane interrogation of prisoners. Behind the scenes Vice-President Dick Cheney has threatened to veto any such attempt to curtail presidential power in wartime. Alberto Gonzales, the man who helped craft the memos redefining torture to meaninglessness, is now attorney-general of the United States. The one sane, principled man who objected to the policy change, Colin Powell, got the boot. Even now, while the administration insists that it doesn�t condone torture, its definition of what is permitted short of �torture� is murky. In written answers to a senator�s inquiry, leaked last week to The Washington Post, a key official in the White House counsel�s office who helped craft the new policy, Timothy Flanigan, gave nonanswers to clear questions. He was asked if �water-boarding� was inhumane. �Water-boarding� entails tying a prisoner to a wooden plank and immersing his head in water to the moment of drowning, saving him at the last second, and then repeating this terrifying process again and again. Flanigan replied that �whether a particular interrogation technique is lawful depends on the facts and circumstances�. Without knowing these, �it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the legality of the techniques you describe�. Suddenly you understand what has been going on. The Bush administration has abandoned the Geneva conventions for the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda on the grounds that they are not legitimate warriors as defined by Geneva. And Flanigan is nominated to be Gonzales�s deputy at the Justice Department. You can�t make this up. In the US military, responsibility goes directly up the chain of command, even if the commanders are unaware of misconduct. But Fishback shows that they were fully aware and condoned it. US law, international treaties and military law have all been junked. Last Thursday a judge finally ruled that the remaining photos and tapes from Abu Ghraib will be released, and Bush administration memos specifically related to torture will be made public. There will be appeals, but we will soon be reminded of what really went on: rape and murder. One wonders when the American public will demand accountability for the abandonment of civilised warfare in their own military and by their own president, who is after all commander-in-chief and ultimately responsible. Fishback is now sequestered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, being interrogated by military officials. From all we know of Fishback he will not crack under pressure. He wrote something to McCain that still rings in my ears: �If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is �America�.� Alas, I fear a large part of that idea has already been abandoned � by a president who swore an oath to uphold it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1806906,00.html

That's a pretty damning article there Mr.Opus.

Are we suggesting then that America is willing to win at all costs?
Isn't that what war is about?

What should a country do to prisoners then if they need information that might led to an intervention that saves thousands of lives?
We already know that America is target number one anyways so an emminant attack is not so unlikely, especially given the terrorist festering time under the Clinton years.

btw, HRW isn't exactly a great example of a shining beacon of global liberal authority either...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's a pretty damning article there Mr.Opus. Are we suggesting then that America is willing to win at all costs? Isn't that what war is about? What should a country do to prisoners then if they need information that might led to an intervention that saves thousands of lives? We already know that America is target number one anyways so an emminant attack is not so unlikely, especially given the terrorist festering time under the Clinton years. btw, HRW isn't exactly a great example of a shining beacon of global liberal authority either...

Nor is the OpEd of the WSJ a shining beacon of pretty much any authority (aside of occasional fiscal matters), so I'm glad you get my point. . Regardless, what Sullivan discusses in the article pertaining to the actions of this Administration are 100% accurate, and keep in mind Sullivan actually supports the war in Iraq last I checked. It should raise eyebrows on how this Administration is handling the situation.

But you're asking the very question that led to Abu Ghraib:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

And it was a question that led me to believe that there was no grand conspiracy theory about Bush invading Iraq with knowledge beforehand that no WMD would be found. I didn't have much stock in the thought in the first place, because as mentioned countless times here before- other Administrations believed he had at the very least intentions to aquire them (if not have them outright). Now of course there was a "stovepipe" effect of information and evidence being passed through to make any and all evidence positive for Bush's WMD case, but to me that's because he and the neocons WANTED to believe it so damn bad that they were willing to discount any evidence to the contrary.

I say all this because we do know that the general in charge of Gitmo was told to "Guantanamo-ise" Abu Ghraib. This was done because by this time we weren't finding jack shit on WMD at all, and our sources (which turned out to be fucking lying shits from Chalabi) were running dry as the desert itself. So they began turning to torture to obtain the info. they desperately needed.

But what did they find with these passed-down torture techniques? I mean it's one thing to torture a select few fucks in Gitmo who may very well have AQ and bin Laden ties, and ties to the fucks who attacked us. Believe me I lose no sleep on that concept. But it is another thing to have these torture techniques passed down to people in Iraq to obtain information that simply wasn't there in the first place.

And that is the essence of the problem with Abu Ghraib. No information was to be found. But this shoudn't be surprising really - nearly every study that has come out on torture has shown that obtaining information via torture can be shoddy and questionable at best, because the tortured eventually will say anything the torturee wants to hear in order for the pain to cease.

Unfortunately for my country, a big black shit stain has resulted from Abu Ghraib and the other places known to have torture. Not only have we toed the line on International Treaties, we have created a very useful recruiting tool for any terrorist cause against us. It was a stupid fucking maneuver in the first place, one that should have been questioned not just on legality (thanks Gonzales), but on merit in the fucking first place. And it's only one of many dumbshit maneuvers this Administration has created in both the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

so a private in the US army got the stick for abu gharaib and this writer thinks that the US Army has shown willingness to go after its own.

wow great article! really delivers the point home to the rabid left.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.