http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-22-rumsfeld-abuse-usat_x.htm


By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary disclosure of classified material, the Bush administration released 258 pages of internal documents Tuesday that portray harsh interrogation techniques — including stripping terror suspects and threatening them with dogs — as a necessary response to threats from al-Qaeda terrorists.

The release of lists of interrogation techniques and other documents previously kept secret even from U.S. allies was a bid by the administration to quiet harsh criticism over its handling of prisoners in the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq.

Though some of the memos argued that Bush had the right to approve torture, the administration said it had never done so, and pointed to techniques it said fell far short of torture. In a separate press briefing Tuesday, the Justice Department backed away from a memo written in 2002 that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror. That memo argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.

Bush made his most explicit comments yet about the issue Tuesday: "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture," Bush said.

The documents reveal Bush, senior administration officials and hard-pressed commanders in the field grappling with the need to extract information about future terror attacks from suspects skilled at defeating many interrogation techniques. In a Feb. 7, 2002, finding, Bush said the Sept. 11 terror attacks require "new thinking in the law of war." (Related item: White House memo)

Bush said al-Qaeda members and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan were not covered by the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But he ordered U.S. armed forces to treat them "humanely" anyway, and to observe Geneva Conventions standards "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."

Just such a necessity arose months later when the first anniversary of Sept. 11 brought new fears of terror attack. Intelligence officers at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told their superiors that Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to be the would-be 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot, was withholding information about new attacks, Daniel Dell'Orto, the Pentagon's deputy general counsel told reporters at a White House briefing Tuesday.

The alert set in motion a review that culminated with a Nov. 27, 2002, "action memo" in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques that included "removal of clothing" and "inducing stress by use of detainee's fears (e.g. dogs)."

Rumsfeld also approved placing detainees in "stress positions," such as standing for up to 4 hours, though he apparently found this approach unimpressive. Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, scrawled on the memo, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours? D.R." (Related link: View memo)

-> http://www.dod.gov/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc5.pdf

Eventually, after military officers raised moral and legal concerns about the techniques and the Pentagon conducted an internal review, Rumsfeld issued revised rules for Guantanamo in April 2003 that omitted the stripping and use of dogs.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc5.pdf

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

What about "waterboarding"? Isn't that torture?

What about "waterboarding"? Isn't that torture?

Depends... could be hazing.

---

Water boarding is torture.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Water boarding is torture.

Water boarding is not torture.

Wow is that easy.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Water boarding is torture.

Water boarding is not torture.

Wow is that easy.

I take it you will volunteer for waterboarding to prove your point?

Waterboarding involves drowning the victim (water in the lungs). Sure sounds like torture to me.

---

BOINC WIKI

'We don't do torture'... However, we do lie a lot... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I take it you will volunteer for waterboarding to prove your point?

Of course not--I didn't take the position that it wasn't extremely uncomfortable.

Not, of course, that that was the point of the post. You obviously figured out that self-serving statements of conclusion aren't an argument.

Waterboarding involves drowning the victim (water in the lungs). Sure sounds like torture to me.

Really. And how much information do you think a person that has drowned is going to reveal?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

For anyone who likes the idea of waterboarding or thinks it should be used

If it is ok for US (Americans) to use it on our POWs (opps, we don't call them POWs anymore, that would give them to many rights) do you think it would be Ok for Iraqis or for that matter al qaeda or anyone to use waterboarding on their POWs(our soldiers)?

Thanks,
Chris.

---

For anyone who likes the idea of waterboarding or thinks it should be used

If it is ok for US (Americans) to use it on our POWs (opps, we don't call them POWs anymore, that would give them to many rights)...

Depends. Iraqi soldiers caught on the battlefield in uniform were calls EPWs for Enemy Prisoners of War. They were fighting (usually surrendering) according to the accepted rules of combat, hence they were accorded the protections the law of war has provided.

do you think it would be Ok for Iraqis or for that matter al qaeda or anyone to use waterboarding on their POWs(our soldiers)?

Generally, every country or group has used and does use such aggressive techniques, even as sometimes some of them decry their use. In other words, people do it anyway.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

But do you think that people who want us to use waterboading on people we catch, people who might be bad, would mind if the same people use it on our people?

This is what gets me. I want the people who support waterboarding to say ... if our guys are caught and the enemy uses waterboarding we would be ok with that. That is the only way I can be ok with us using it and saying that it is not torture. I have a big problem with hypocrisy.

Lets me be clear. I am not saying that we should not torture, nor am I saying that we should. However, if we are saying that this procedure is not torture then we need to back that up by saying that anyone can use it. We are not special people.

Chris.

For anyone who likes the idea of waterboarding or thinks it should be used

If it is ok for US (Americans) to use it on our POWs (opps, we don't call them POWs anymore, that would give them to many rights)...

Depends. Iraqi soldiers caught on the battlefield in uniform were calls EPWs for Enemy Prisoners of War. They were fighting (usually surrendering) according to the accepted rules of combat, hence they were accorded the protections the law of war has provided.

do you think it would be Ok for Iraqis or for that matter al qaeda or anyone to use waterboarding on their POWs(our soldiers)?

Generally, every country or group has used and does use such aggressive techniques, even as sometimes some of them decry their use. In other words, people do it anyway.

---