Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[vanesch]

You don't honestly think a reasonable proportional of the people who voted actually read the damn thing do you? It was protest. It was not politics.

I think it illustrates nevertheless the identity crisis Europe is going through, otherwise people would not have killed the constitution (even if it was for all the wrong reasons) ; if there were a strong "European" feeling that would have overcome national considerations, it wouldn't have gone that way. So one cannot explain away that no-vote so easily.
And, and... there is a very very serious practical problem that the shooting down of the constitution brought about. The constitution had a new decision mechanism of qualified majority, so that decisions that had a qualified majority were accepted. Until that text, the decision was taken by unanimity. You can do that with 10 or 12, but not with 25 or soon 27. There will always be one joker in the basket who thinks he can blackmail the others by saying "no". Margaret Tatcher invented that game. Austria did it recently. The others will soon learn the tricks. This means that ANY country, no matter how small, has a veto right against EVERY decision taken.
We don't even have a budget for after 2007. Blair and Chirac gave the bad example, but it is sufficient that, say, Malta and Cyprus have a disagreement over something and we won't have one.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think it illustrates nevertheless the identity crisis Europe is going through, otherwise people would not have killed the constitution (even if it was for all the wrong reasons) ; if there were a strong "European" feeling that would have overcome national considerations, it wouldn't have gone that way.

Oh, I quite agree, and I think I alluded to that myself earlier. I think the fragmentation may well last until a significant number of key players have stepped down or been voted out of office and some bright new spark can sell his bright new vision overseas. I don't know, I have a largely British perspective, and where once Europe was a hot topic, now no-one really wants to bring it up except the odd xenophobic conservative leader wannabe presumably fishing for the largely redundant UKIP's votes. A time of healing is required. Nonetheless, referenda on such a, symbolically at least, important decision invites failure (I think we discussed this before and you agreed? Maybe someone else) when so many parties, never in unity, are involved. So while I agree, and said myself, that climate killed it off swiftly, I'm not sure there's ever a good climate to accept a constitution in that manner.

So one cannot explain away that no-vote so easily.
And, and... there is a very very serious practical problem that the shooting down of the constitution brought about. The constitution had a new decision mechanism of qualified majority, so that decisions that had a qualified majority were accepted. Until that text, the decision was taken by unanimity. You can do that with 10 or 12, but not with 25 or soon 27.
There will always be one joker in the basket who thinks he can blackmail the others by saying "no".

That's the other side of the coin. I still think, however, you'll get a more resounding 'no' with 27 referenda than you would with even the EU's bureaucratic pi55ing contests. But, yes, unanimous endorsement, especially with referenda, does make you wonder if they think this will ever actually pass.

Margaret Tatcher invented that game.

No, the French invented that game, as I'm sure arildno could attest were he here (that would make an interesting sub-topic). Thatcher just raised the bar.

We don't even have a budget for after 2007. Blair and Chirac gave the bad example, but it is sufficient that, say, Malta and Cyprus have a disagreement over something and we won't have one.

I agree. I think the Blair/Chirac, subsidies/rebates debacle was kind of to illustrate a point. Blair went in demanding something he knew he wouldn't get, then came out talking about reform. Coincidence? Or sabotage?

 

[ron damon]

I'm not absolutely against it. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Europe, which is suffering a huge identity crisis. What's Europe to be ? I would think that Europe is what has been rooted in Greek-Latin civilisation. Why ? Not because it is "superior" or something like that, simply because it is the common ground of much of what European nations have made what they are. Of course the spread of Christianity did a lot to "preserve this unity" and that's why some think that Europe should be based upon Christianity, but the roots are to be found earlier.
Now, geographically, that puts of course the entire coastline of the Mediterranean in the basket, but let's face it, the islam civilisation erased since long the Greek-Latin tradition on the African and Asian part of it.
Now, I think that in the long run, Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more. I also think that Russia could join, and the Maghreb countries, and the Black Sea countries and... where does it stop ?
By adding more and more countries with DIFFERENT culture to the melting pot, you get such a diluted "union" that it just becomes a trade place and that nothing beyond that can be decided.
With that silly shooting down of the European constitution, ANY decision needs to be taken by unanimity. It has been shown already that with 25 very like-minded countries, that's impossible for most things. If you add totally different countries to the soup, Europe will simply stop existing. Oh, yes, we'll still have our silly parliament, flag, and stuff like that, but NOTHING will happen anymore, except a free market and easier travelling.
But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?
So we should stop now thinking of what would be good for a country when they join Europe, and think more what would be good for Europe.
I would have said that if the Constitution were adopted, and if there were a positive "European" spirit within the union, then there would be no problem with taking in Turkey. But it is not the case at all. Many people within Europe are getting back to their nationalistic reflexes. And Turkey will not improve on it, believe me. I think that we need to stop enlarging for at least a generation, and build up a stronger Europe with the existing members.

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected? Wouldn't turning the back on them just empower reactionary Muslim movements to take back power and turn back the clock on modernization?

You raise some very interesting points, mainly that the European Union should remain European. But, lacking the perspective of living in Europe myself, couldn't one make the argument that Turkey, unlike the Maghreb or the rest of Mediterranean, has imbibed enough of European culture to consider it just the last of the many waves of "barbarians" pouring in from central Asia, and who went on to build those fabulous European civilizations, from Portugal to Finland? In other words, I see them as the last stage of the millennium-long process of European formation.

What I think is the real worry of most Europeans, is that despite their professed toleration and acceptance of diverse cultures, they're afraid to have more Muslims living among them. Let me emphatically say first that this is not to condemn Europeans, and reduce their complex feelings to such pathetic labels as "racism", and garbage like that. But it is clear they are worried about their cultures being drowned and superseded by a people who to the moment have not being willing to play ball and enrich, rather than supplant, European culture. However, like I hinted at in the previous paragraph, Turkey will not behave anything like the Muslim immigrants you have at present, because unlike them, the Turks will feel at home in Europe, rather than strangers in a hostile environment.

Really, what it comes down to is, the communitarian-Leftist paradigms that you currently live under are not flexible enough to accommodate the rich variety of human experience, and thus, even while maintaining beautiful French, Austrian, German, or Spanish cultures, you are unable to evolve and adapt to a more universal global culture. What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ), can't compete with dynamic Asia and America, nor generate economic growth, investment, and jobs, and ultimately will be reduced to a quaint, pretty, little forgotten corner of the world.

I've always been fascinated by (if not in love with) Europe, but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

 

[Anttech]

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards

Have you any idea how many Muslims live in Europe right now? how many Doctors are, how many 'city' folk in the riches area of Europe (London City) there are? Probably more than you can imagine.

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected?

Turkey didnt start reforming to join Europe, They started reforming at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

I think you should read up a bit on the history of that area, if you want to have more perceptive on the reasons behind letting Turkey in or not…

I've always been fascinated by (if not in love with) Europe, but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

Lol why do you think this? If this was the case, why are we so engaged in making history, with sciences, politics, arts, music?

 

[vanesch]

But how do you think the Turkish people will react if after many decades of difficult reforms, implemented with an eye to joining Europe, they are rejected? Wouldn't turning the back on them just empower reactionary Muslim movements to take back power and turn back the clock on modernization?

In a way, yes. So there are people who say that, because of that reason, we are now OBLIGED to take in Turkey in the long run, because you cannot ask of them to do all what we ask of them, just to say no in the end. And there are others who think that, if we were to say no, this would be such a slap in the face of Turkey that they'd turn away (towards radical islamism, for instance). That's exactly why I regret that we are talking already about integration in the EU, and not about a partnership.

Really, what it comes down to is, the communitarian-Leftist paradigms that you currently live under are not flexible enough to accommodate the rich variety of human experience, and thus, even while maintaining beautiful French, Austrian, German, or Spanish cultures, you are unable to evolve and adapt to a more universal global culture.

Don't you think you're a bit suffering from that universally hated complex of superiority your nation is sometimes known for ?
The way you guys are "evolving and adapt to a more universal global culture" is by thinking that you should bomb all those who are not willing to adapt to YOUR standards and value system. When is the last time you "evolved and adapted" something else than your home brew ?

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ),

US: 1% Muslim
Germany: 2.6% of the population is Turkish ; 3.7% Muslim
France: 5-10% Muslim
UK: 2.7% Muslim
Netherlands: 5.5 % Muslim
(from the CIA factbook)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What this means is that you can't assimilate Muslim immigrants like the US does (where, believe it or not, Muslims enjoy higher than average living standards ),

Could this be any more ignorant?

 

[Anttech]

Could this be any more ignorant?

I doubt it...

I thought this was "quant"

but sadly I realize you are a tired people, exhausted by having given birth to the modern mind and all its wonders, and longing for some quiet and tranquility, just wanting to be left alone in the sidelines of History.

Arent we just so Quant and Cute, us Europeans

 

[ron damon]

Could this be any more ignorant?

Could you be more of a jerk?

From Cornell University:

American Muslims are Affluent
U.S. Average income is $42,158 per year (U.S. Census 2000)
66% of American Muslim HH’s earn over $50,000 / year
26% of American Muslim HH’s earn over $100,000 / year

From Policy Review:

Immigrant Muslims tend to concentrate in the professional and entrepreneurial vocations, and especially in engineering and medicine, which jointly employ about one-third of Muslims in the United States. With such high educational levels, it comes as no surprise that many members of this community have done well; average income for Muslims appears to be higher than the U.S. national average. Although new, the community boasts a good share of millionaires as well as many other accomplished individuals (including one Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Ahmed H. Zewail, and such notables as the movie actor Omar Sharif, the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, and the model Iman). Muslim Americans proudly say that theirs is “the richest Muslim society on earth” (as Muqtedar Khan put it in the December 1995 edition of the Message), and they are right; more than that, it may be the most accomplished.

From Foreign Affairs:

Unlike their U.S. counterparts, who entered a gigantic country built on immigration, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Their influx was a new phenomenon for many host states and often unwelcome. Meanwhile, North African immigrants retained powerful attachments to their native cultures. So unlike American Muslims, who are geographically diffuse, ethnically fragmented, and generally well off, Europe's Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots: Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Turks in Germany, and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom.

The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism.

As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, "neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children ... full fellow citizens." Small wonder, then, that a radical leader of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, curses his new homeland: "Oh sweet France! Are you astonished that so many of your children commune in a stinging naal bou la France [**** France], and damn your Fathers?"

I'm not in the mood for dealing with Leftist meanness, so I'm done with this topic.

And I came to Physics Forums looking for intelligent people to have political conversations with, outside the usual aggressiveness and knee-jerk attitudes found in more pedestrian forums. So much for the notion that scientists are endowed with a higher capacity for intelligent debate.

 

[Anttech]

In the Uk we have 1 person from the ubijanatingonismologicolickasimsisation. Funny enough this person earns 100,000$/mnth...
Hey guess what the ubijanatingonismologicolickasimsisatits on 'average' make way more money than Oxford or Cambrige grads do (per month)!
Strange world we live in?

 

[meL]

You people aren't talking about
anything here.

The power structure is greed.

It is all useless.

 

[Mercator]

Could you be more of a jerk?
From Cornell University:
From Policy Review:
From Foreign Affairs:
I'm not in the mood for dealing with Leftist meanness, so I'm done with this topic.
And I came to Physics Forums looking for intelligent people to have political conversations with, outside the usual aggressiveness and knee-jerk attitudes found in more pedestrian forums. So much for the notion that scientists are endowed with a higher capacity for intelligent debate.

There are a few countries in Europe where Muslims on average are even better off than in the US; Luxemburg, Monaco, Liechtenstein... Because you can only become a Monegask for example if you have lots of money. What I mean is that your statement is misleading at best. Europe has welcomed poor North African Muslim immigrants for a long time, while the US just does not allow these into the country. On the other hand we have very little problems with poor Mexicans trying to sneak into Europe. On my last visit to Texas I saw that they were very well integrated into your glorious society. They looked so happy to do the dirty jobs in your refineries for peanuts, but unfortunately we will not know for sure because besides other Mexicans nobody seemed to even want to talk to them.

 

[Mercator]

Concerning the European constitution: Europe obviously is not ripe yet for one. We come from very far in a continent that has been torn to pieces in two world wars. While the US could become the world dominating power, we needed to glue the pieces together. The generations that fought each other in the last WW are only now nearing their end. I had family on both sides, Germany and Belgium, and I still remember the first time my grandfather visited the German side of the family in the sixties. The traumas were enormous. Nevertheless, thanks to people like Paul Henri Spaak and Jean Monnet we have been on the road to construct our "network Europe" ever since. The mistake many Americans make is to compare the European Union to their own federal union. Europe functions differently and is in fact much better adapted for the future than the US. Perhaps we don't even need a constitution. Against the "brute power" of American politics, the with us or against us bully-mentality, we put the attraction of becoming part of this network Europe, built on laws, respect, adequate social services and an economic power that is much stronger than Americans will ever admit. It is so powerful that countries like Turkey want to become part of it. They even went so far to refuse cooperation with the US in Iraq in order not to blow their chances in Europe. That shows where the new power is coming from.
Europe is still under construction and it is not perfect. But it is amazing to see all these nations and different cultures unite. And while we have kept our dignity and gained respect throughout the world, the US is on the same path as the Roman empire at it's end. If for the sole reason of not admiting to be wrong , under any circumstances, a country allows it's administration to invade another country under false premises, allows concentration camps and torture and tolerates blatant lies from it's president, history has learned us that the only outcome will be disaster sooner or later. Which brings us back to the thread: I have donated after 9/11, but would I have known that the same people would tolerate that their leaders have no scruples to torture people, I would not have done it. Under Clinton I had the impression that the US, and therefore the world was working in the direction of making this world liveable for everyone. What happened the last three years in the US is maybe the biggest desilusion in my life. Luckily there is still Europe.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Concerning the European constitution: ...

An excellent description of 'the world outside'.

Unfortunately, it will not be understood by those currently 'empowered' by this administration.

I am waiting for the attack... The attack on you.

And, as usual, I will stand beside you and defend your opinion as another 'non-American' who will be denied the right to an opinion.

Why? ... because many Americans who post believe the right to post and to free speech mysteriously ends at the border... As was true of Rome ... they believed that rights are reserved for the 'citizen'.

 

[SOS2008]

...Which brings us back to the thread: I have donated after 9/11, but would I have known that the same people would tolerate that their leaders have no scruples to torture people, I would not have done it. Under Clinton I had the impression that the US, and therefore the world was working in the direction of making this world liveable for everyone. What happened the last three years in the US is maybe the biggest desilusion in my life. Luckily there is still Europe.

The insight is nice to see. A strong Europe is good, either as a balance to the U.S., or hopefully as allies again after Bush is gone.

An excellent description of 'the world outside'.
Unfortunately, it will not be understood by those currently 'empowered' by this administration.
I am waiting for the attack... The attack on you.
And, as usual, I will stand beside you and defend your opinion as another 'non-American' who will be denied the right to an opinion.
Why? ... because many Americans who post believe the right to post and to free speech mysteriously ends at the border... As was true of Rome ... they believed that rights are reserved for the 'citizen'.

After 9-11 any dissenting speech was suppressed. Only recently with the Bush administration on the defense has this subsided. Even so, I am still careful what I say to whom here in the States. Many American members like myself have said they participate in PF because of the international input (we even had a poll to get you back!), and because it is a place where one can express opposing views.

Other than that, I would say the U.S. is like Rome if the neocon policies are to continue. Rome fell from corruption within, but mostly from over-extension abroad.

 

[Mercator]

A strong Europe is good, either as a balance to the U.S., or hopefully as allies again after Bush is gone.
abroad.

And I do hope that too. Mind you , I am not a pacifist and I do think that Europe needs a military to intervene in these cases where it is necessary. But we were lucky Clinton was there during the Kosovo crisis. Would it have been for Bush, he would have invaded Nigeria.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And I do hope that too. Mind you , I am not a pacifist and I do think that Europe needs a military to intervene in these cases where it is necessary. But we were lucky Clinton was there during the Kosovo crisis. Would it have been for Bush, he would have invaded Nigeria.

Mornig 'Merc'!

I'm surprised he didn't do that already now that he knows there is 'yellowcake' there.

I know your expertiese is with oil. Does it extend to other comodities like this and where this is actually being used?

Maybe this is a topic for another discussion and diverges too much but it IS a question that has just dawned upon me.

We have a country in Africa with the makings of explosives found in Nuclear devices or power stations ... where is this product being shipped and what is it being used for?

We know Saddam didn't take delivery ... Who did?

 

[Astronuc]

OP/ED - Clueless about torture

Forget, for a moment, the legal and moral questions surrounding government-sanctioned torture and consider the practical one: Does it produce useful information?

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who was tortured repeatedly during his 5½ years of solitary confinement in North Vietnam, answers no: The tortured will say anything to stop the pain.

McCain's insight offers lessons for U.S. conduct in the war on terror: Abusing prisoners elicits intelligence of questionable worth. It also unquestionably undercuts American values and produces international revulsion.

McCain and a majority of senators from both parties understand this. The Bush administration still doesn't get it.

To clear up confusion about the treatment of prisoners and what the United States stands for, McCain is pushing an amendment to a military-spending bill that would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading" interrogations. The Republican-controlled Senate passed the amendment, 90-9. The version of the bill in the House of Representatives contains no such amendment.

Senate and House negotiators are scheduled to meet this week to try to resolve the differences, and the White House is working behind the scenes to scuttle McCain's amendment or, at a minimum, carve out an exception for the CIA. President Bush has even threatened to cast his first veto if the administration doesn't get its way.

You'd think that after the abuse cases in Iraq and Afghanistan and at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bush would recognize the damage to the United States' moral standing, particularly in the Muslim world. But the White House continues to hew closely to the dubious "few bad apples" theory to explain the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

The theory doesn't hold up to even minimal scrutiny. Early last month, Capt. Ian Fishback of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division came forward with evidence of routine abuse that occurred in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Superior officers in Iraq repeatedly told soldiers that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoner treatment do not apply in Iraq, Fishback reported.

Last week, the Army began investigating a charge that U.S. soldiers burned the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and used the smoking corpses to taunt the enemy. And this week, two soldiers in Afghanistan face charges of punching detainees in the chest, shoulders and stomach.

Not only should Congress adopt the McCain amendment, but it also should spurn any exemptions for the CIA. That request came from Vice President Cheney, who doesn't want to tie the hands of U.S. operatives abroad. The CIA has reportedly been running a shadowy "renditions" program that sends al-Qaeda suspects for questioning in countries noted for brutality.

USAToday.com/Yahoo

 

[BobG]

I originally considered the amendment more of a statement about the Senate's opinion of how the executive branch has handled detainees (technically, the Geneva convention and existing law should have adequately covered the matter).

Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre. Forget about any illusion that abuses are just aberrations by a few bad apples. Cheney's pretty much stated that torture is a vital part of the administration's policy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I originally considered the amendment more of a statement about the Senate's opinion of how the executive branch has handled detainees (technically, the Geneva convention and existing law should have adequately covered the matter).
Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre. Forget about any illusion that abuses are just aberrations by a few bad apples. Cheney's pretty much stated that torture is a vital part of the administration's policy.

He's been watching too many episodes of '24'.

 

[Mercator]

He's been watching too many episodes of '24'.

Could be the other way around too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney actually pursuing an exception for CIA interrogations is just bizarre.

That's just the kind of people they are...or are they Christians...

Christians like those in the Star Chamber...

 

[faust9]

McCain is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1105mccain-torture05.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From the link

The prisoners "can, apparently, be treated inhumanely," McCain said. "This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment."

Bush initially threatened to veto the "must-pass" spending bill for the Pentagon if it contained the Senate provision. Later, he sought simply to exempt the CIA from the ban. McCain called that proposal "totally unacceptable."

Can anyone explain to me why Bush hasn't been run out of town for this alone? This just boggles the mind beyond belief...

 

[Skyhunter]

From the link
Can anyone explain to me why Bush hasn't been run out of town for this alone? This just boggles the mind beyond belief...

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture...

Does that help?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does that help?

I just saw that another member doesn't care about torture.

Yes, more Bushtalk: We don't torture but we won't promise not to.

 

[Mercator]

Bush Declares: 'We Do Not Torture'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture

'We outsource it'?

 

[BobG]

McCain has a good article in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/ on torture (or cruel, inhumane, or degrading interrogation techniques).

It also shows how subtly the media can take a shot at Bush. Just about the time you've finished the article and are thinking about what you just read, you glance over to your right and see "I Was Wrong, but So Were You" and a less than flattering photo of George Bush. It makes Bush seem pretty small in comparison to the article you just read. Bush really needs a better stance on Iraq than the one he's been pushing since Veteran's Day.

 

[Astronuc]

* A Deadly Interrogation: Can The CIA Legally Kill a Prisoner? *

DemocracyNow speaks with journalist Jane Mayer of The New Yorker as the Senate rejects demands for an independent commission on torture and the US military. DN looks at whether CIA agents are being allowed to kill detainees in their custody.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/11/157256

 

[Burnsys]

Bush don't torture now Lookheed does!

Meet the New Interrogators: Lockheed Martin

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1827/Meet_the_New_Interrogators_Lockheed_Martin

 

[Gokul43201]

This is almost pathetic now.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK749472.htm

US tells Iraq it will not tolerate prisoner abuse
17 Nov 2005 13:52:43 GMT
Source: Reuters

BAGHDAD, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. embassy told Iraq on Thursday it would not tolerate abuse of detainees or the involvement of militias in detentions, stepping up pressure on the government following revelations of a secret prison bunker.

"We have made clear to the Iraqi government that there must not be militia or sectarian control of Iraqi security forces, facilities or ministries," senior embassy spokesman Jim Bullock told reporters in Baghdad, reading out a statement.

 

[Astronuc]

This is disturbing -

83,000 Foreigners Have Been Detained in War on Terror
Prisoners in Custody in Iraq Hit a High of Nearly 13,900 on November 1
By KATHERINE SHRADER, AP

Roughly 14,500 detainees remain in U.S. custody, primarily in Iraq.

The number has steadily grown since the first CIA paramilitary officers touched down in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, setting up more than 20 facilities including the "Salt Pit," an abandoned factory outside Kabul used for CIA detention and interrogation.

Paramilitary?? Who are not subject to the Geneva convention? Seems very deliberate. What about non-CIA or non-government paramilitary, i.e. private contractors?

Based on the abuse scandals to date, I have to wonder how many have been tortured.

The Bush administration has showed indifference or even hostility regarding human rights, and in fact, it does not recognize rights of non-US citizens. Arbitrary detention seems acceptable to the Bush administration - this based on the number of detainees who have been released without charge. There is no observance of due process.

And statements like "We will not tolerate abuse" is disingenuous. I don't imagine such a statement being made in good faith, since it comes AFTER the scrutiny and the revelations that prisoners have been abused.

Looking at the numbers - 83,000 vs 14,500 - almost 70,000 are not in custody. If they were released without charge, does this simply mean the US government could prove anything - or does it mean innocent people were detained? How would people in the US feel if anyone could be swept off the streets at someone's whim and held without trial or charges indefinitely. The Constitution and Law in the US is supposed to prevent that - but apparently it does not apply to the rest of the world.

 

[Art]

Janis Karpinski the former head of Abu Ghraib who was demoted following the outing of the torture employed there has just published her autobiography in which she claims the reasons behind the abuse went all the way to the top.

White House blamed for Iraq abuses
Thursday 17 November 2005, 15:56 Makka Time, 12:56 GMT

The former US commander of Abu Ghraib prison says that she was held up unfairly as a scapegoat by "male warriors", but the real blame for the abuse scandal rests with military leaders and the White House.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FACAF766-CD1A-473B-88F4-1E9F60AAB609.htm

 

[Informal Logic]

...How would people in the US feel if anyone could be swept off the streets at someone's whim and held without trial or charges indefinitely. The Constitution and Law in the US is supposed to prevent that - but apparently it does not apply to the rest of the world.

This has been done under the Patriot Act, which is under review at this moment by congress. It appears there will be some modifications (?), but nonetheless the Patriot Act will be made permanent. At the same time there is Alito, who appears to have the same disregard for civil liberties.

 

[Astronuc]

CIA Chief Calls Interrogation Methods 'Unique' but Legal
By John Diamond, USA TODAY

(Nov. 21) -- CIA interrogators use "a variety of unique and innovative ways" to collect "vital" information from prisoners but strictly obey laws against torture, CIA Director Porter Goss said.

In his first interview since the clash this month between the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Senate on restricting interrogations, Goss said the CIA remains officially neutral on the proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees by CIA or military officers. But Goss made clear that techniques that would be restricted under McCain's proposal have yielded valuable intelligence.

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

- http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-20-cia-detainees_x.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON: A former top US state department official has told CNN.com that vice president Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to detainee torture in US facilities.

..."There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it," Wilkerson said on CNN's 'Late Edition.'

"There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated - in the vice president of the United States' office," he said. "His implementer in this case was (defence secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and the defence department." [continued]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1303369.cms