TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › FBI Agents Complained of Prisoner Abuse, Records Say
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FBI Agents Complained of Prisoner Abuse, Records Say

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
A rather disturbing story

FBI Agents Complained of Prisoner Abuse, Records Say
post #2 of 26
There are more details here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec20.html , including the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners (previously denied by the officer in charge of interrogations first at Gitmo, and then in Abu Ghraib, Miller,) and mention of some authorization by Rumsfeld's deputy, Wolfowitz.
This is really a national disgrace, IMO. And before anyone says, "Well, they're terrorists/enemy combatants", remember how many have already been released because they turned out to be no such thing.
post #3 of 26
Barbaric behaviour is still barbaric regardless of who is dishing it out!
post #4 of 26
Right. The US may want to think we are special and above the law, but if another country did this, we would bust them.
But we are like the parents who say "Do as I say, not as I do" and how effective is that style of parenting?

It's so sad and embarressing. I really feel this is the lowest ebb of american history. At least during the Civil war we were a country that was 50 percent under 21, so you can say "well we were young and foolish" now, what can we say?
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
It's so sad and embarressing. I really feel this is the lowest ebb of american history. At least during the Civil war we were a country that was 50 percent under 21, so you can say "well we were young and foolish" now, what can we say?
I imagine our warmongering administration will use the trite, "The ends justify the means," and "Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks." Quite apart from those Moslem males of a fighting age rounded up wholesale in Afghanistan, and held without due legal process for over three years, does that figure justify the 1,000 plus American service personnel (what will be the final figure?), and the tens of thousands of Iraqis, who've lost their lives in/due to our illegal invasion of Iraq? No WMDs, and no proved connections between Iraq and al Queda - why doesn't that sink in? History is going to label Americans at the start of the 21st century "war criminals". We can really forget about preaching human rights to China, Sudan, Cuba, etc., because there's no justification for our assuming that we occupy some morally higher ground. Now it's all about "might is right"; apparently we've forgotten that the U.S. population pales in comparison to China's and India's, and fail to see that our comeuppance is looming.
I find some solace in the (apparent) fact that many members of Congress have shaken off their post-9/11 stupor and are questioning our country's actions, but I fear that any respect and/or affection for the U.S. abroad has been lost for a very long time to come.
post #6 of 26
I realize it doesn't totally correlate, but I find it interesting that this story is headlines around the world, and discussed at length (and about how horrible the US is in general, by Americans no less... ) in here...but yet the UN scandals including the Oil for Food scandal that allowed Saddam Hussein the funding for his military, prisons, torture and murder of thousands if not millions of people isn't even on the radar. Just that the US are big bullies and mean, but everyone else is fairly exempt? Doesn't make sense to me...

For the record, of course I couldn't condone acts as they are being reported, but then again I'm also not schooled in the art of war.
post #7 of 26
Well the oil scandal hasn't had all the facts out yet, and the intent isn't
so blatant as this. Plus it was Saddam who was the most corupt in the whole thing.And everyone knows he did horrible things, that is the point, now WE are doing horrible things, and having to put the US in the same box is
hard to swallow.
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Well the oil scandal hasn't had all the facts out yet, and the intent isn't
so blatant as this. Plus it was Saddam who was the most corupt in the whole thing.And everyone knows he did horrible things, that is the point, now WE are doing horrible things, and having to put the US in the same box is
hard to swallow.
Call me callous, but I don't think that using an Iron Maiden or amputations and intimidating prisoners with dogs is quite the same thing...
post #9 of 26
The oil for food scandal is the talk of the town here, especially on John Batchelor's (sp)show on WABC. I could be wrong but his broadcast (a republician) is heard in 30 states.
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
The oil for food scandal is the talk of the town here, especially on John Batchelor's (sp)show on WABC. I could be wrong but his broadcast (a republician) is heard in 30 states.
Yeah I think it's partisan, in that the right is more into publicizing it, it discredits the UN and then the right can say "Who cares if they are against this war, they are corrupt" It's
not the entire UN, but I am sure the right is glad to hurt Annan's rep. See it was SO good for a long time. And when he had the balls to speak out about Iraq not doubt it bothered the present administration. But with an asterick by his name they can act superior.
post #11 of 26
Silly me, and here I thought that it was pretty telling when the main countries who were opposed to the US action in Iraq were also heavily benefitting from the illegal activites we're just finding out about. Guess it's just another right-wing conspiracy.
post #12 of 26
Power corrupts. Whomever is in power is usually corrupt somewhere along the line. That's just the way most of we humans are. When the tables were reversed and Sadaam was in power, he did perverse things.

Think of power on any scale. Your boss. The dominant one in a relationship. School boards. Corporate boards. School bus bullys. Power has the greatest potential to corrupt, and it takes a strong person NOT to let power corrupt them, as well as others around them. That's why the checks and balances of power is so important. Because most humans fail when we get it.
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Silly me, and here I thought that it was pretty telling when the main countries who were opposed to the US action in Iraq were also heavily benefitting from the illegal activites we're just finding out about. Guess it's just another right-wing conspiracy.
Sorry Heidi, but that sounds like a Rush sound bite. It isn't so simple.

The facts aren't all out, and from what I hear the only one implicated is France. And look with Blair went through backing this war, no, France wasn't just being corrupt even if the worst rumors come true.

There are many reasons countries were against our invasion. Another is
our economic might isn't there anymore. And countries literally aren't as interested in partnering with the US cause what do they get out of it anymore.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Sorry Heidi, but that sounds like a Rush sound bite. It isn't so simple.

The facts aren't all out, and from what I hear the only one implicated is France. And look with Blair went through backing this war, no, France wasn't just being corrupt even if the worst rumors come true.

There are many reasons countries were against our invasion. Another is
our economic might isn't there anymore. And countries literally aren't as interested in partnering with the US cause what do they get out of it anymore.
Yup, just another right wing nutjob. So easy to dismiss it when you see it so clearly.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Yup, just another right wing nutjob. So easy to dismiss it when you see it so clearly.
Sorry it's just so obvious, I mean come on, the ONLY reason countries didn't want to bomb the crap out of another country that never did them any direct threat, was cause THEY are corrupt? Yeah...right. And the US is just pure and righteous.
post #16 of 26
You know, it's just too close to Christmas for this. My blood pressure is up anyway with the coming holiday, and we both know neither is going to change the others' mind.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Sorry it's just so obvious, I mean come on, the ONLY reason countries didn't want to bomb the crap out of another country that never did them any direct threat, was cause THEY are corrupt? Yeah...right. And the US is just pure and righteous.
Nope, according to your previous post we're the evil empire. And Rome is burning with Bush playing the fiddle...
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Nope, according to your previous post we're the evil empire. And Rome is burning with Bush playing the fiddle...
It's not either/or. I mean it's like you love your husband, but that doesn't mean you ignore it when he messes up right? I love my country but it's making a mockery of it's power and the goals of the constitution. I do think we will survive this, but we are hurting.

There is a great article in the current newsweek about the upcoming politcians and they give one hope.

By the way, I don't think Bush is smart enough to play the fiddle, maybe
the triangle, but not the fiddle. If it was burning, he would just go back inside and say "No, it's not burning, cause my fire chief is doing such a fabulous job"
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
There are more details here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec20.html , including the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners (previously denied by the officer in charge of interrogations first at Gitmo, and then in Abu Ghraib, Miller,) and mention of some authorization by Rumsfeld's deputy, Wolfowitz.
This is really a national disgrace, IMO. And before anyone says, "Well, they're terrorists/enemy combatants", remember how many have already been released because they turned out to be no such thing.
Tricia,

This is possibly even worse than is apparent in the press. These documents were obtained by the ACLU through a lawsuit in federal court demanding that the clear mandate of the Freedom of Information Act be complied with, and they had been concealed by the Administration before the lawsuit. Take a moment to look at the ACLU web site here.

Thank God for organizations like the ACLU and for federal judges. They are our only hope now. There is none to be seen in the executive branch and but little visible in the Congress.

This link takes you to the source of the news articles such as you caught in the Washington Post, enabling one to do one's own analysis. In neither the Post nor the NY Times, nor elsewhere that I can find, does the reporting on this shameful story mention the clear suggestion in the documents that President Bush may have issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. So much for the left wing liberal media conspiracy.

Even worse yet, if there is such an Executive Order there is no doubt but that it was drafted by the man likely to be the next appointee to the U. S. Supreme Court. And there will begin the demise of that third branch of government, that to which we are so indebted.

The truth will come out -- some day. Each administration must learn for itself, to its embarrassment and dismay, that the truth will come out.

Meanwhile we may expect the release of these documents to lead to the prosecution of another low-ranking soldier, but no higher.

All the best to all,

Jim
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
Tricia,

This is possibly even worse than is apparent in the press. These documents were obtained by the ACLU through a lawsuit in federal court demanding that the clear mandate of the Freedom of Information Act be complied with, and they had been concealed by the Administration before the lawsuit. Take a moment to look at the ACLU web site here.

Thank God for organizations like the ACLU and for federal judges. They are our only hope now. There is none to be seen in the executive branch and but little visible in the Congress.

This link takes you to the source of the news articles such as you caught in the Washington Post, enabling one to do one's own analysis. In neither the Post nor the NY Times, nor elsewhere that I can find, does the reporting on this shameful story mention the clear suggestion in the documents that President Bush may have issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. So much for the left wing liberal media conspiracy.

Even worse yet, if there is such an Executive Order there is no doubt but that it was drafted by the man likely to be the next appointee to the U. S. Supreme Court. And there will begin the demise of that third branch of government, that to which we are so indebted.

The truth will come out -- some day. Each administration must learn for itself, to its embarrassment and dismay, that the truth will come out.

Meanwhile we may expect the release of these documents to lead to the prosecution of another low-ranking soldier, but no higher.

All the best to all,

Jim
Thanks for the link.

YEs checks and balances is argueably the most brilliant contribution of our
founding boys. And I seriously, and I am not kidding here, don't think Bush even know what that means. I will bet if you asked him point blank he couldn't explain the concept.
post #21 of 26
I am not too sure how many of you know this but the intimidation by the dogs is not just mere threat of being bitten or physically attacked but it is a form religious intimidation. Some years back I recall playing with two dogs and talking to these two muslim friends. The only way that they are willing to play with the dog is if they use gloves and after talking to them realised that it was a religious thing. So I would guess the imtimidation with dogs is like providing only pork for food for muslim or beef to hindu or non-kosher to jews.

Now as for the opinion provided by the white house counsel, to a certain extent he was just doing his job. I have taken a look at the memo (at least the unlawful combatant memo) and it seems to actually provide coverage of both positions. It is like someone asking you can we do this and you would try to provide answer to both positions so as to allow greater flexibility for the client.

valanhb, have you thought for running for office or perhaps helping someone to run for office. Your mention of the oil for food program is a brilliant example of diverting attention from the issue, just look at the number of posts that followed. And I guess I would bite too. The two nations that benefited most so as to speak was against the war. But if you start talking about benefits then one would have to also question Bush's reasons for war. The benefits to the oil companies, Halliburton, etc.

The UN was created from the ashes of WWII on the grounds that such devastation should never occur again and from the lack of any world wars since the creation of the UN I would say that they are as successful at keeping the peace as the Bush administration is at preventing another terrorist attack. The structure and principles of the UN was geared towards sovereignty of nations, which makes intervention with regards to internal conflict extremely problematic. The UN does not have its own standing army and that its policies is often lead by the 5 permanent members of which the US is one.
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
By the way, I don't think Bush is smart enough to play the fiddle, maybe the triangle, but not the fiddle. If it was burning, he would just go back inside and say "No, it's not burning, cause my fire chief is doing such a fabulous job"
I know the subject is serious and passions run high, but I found that comment funny...'maybe the triangle,...'

Peace to all--well as much peace as can be found in the IMO world.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
I am not too sure how many of you know this but the intimidation by the dogs is not just mere threat of being bitten or physically attacked but it is a form religious intimidation. Some years back I recall playing with two dogs and talking to these two muslim friends. The only way that they are willing to play with the dog is if they use gloves and after talking to them realised that it was a religious thing. So I would guess the imtimidation with dogs is like providing only pork for food for muslim or beef to hindu or non-kosher to jews.
Good point, bumpy.

I have a black dog, and did some research several months ago after noticing that some people seemed to go out of their way to avoid her. I found that there is widespread belief among many Muslims that dogs are unclean (specifically their saliva, which may have a basis in simple fact when you consider rabies and some parasites that couldn't be treated in ancient times), and that the beliefs are especially negative regarding black dogs. If you watched the previous footage of the prisoners being harrassed with dogs, you'll noticed they almost always used black dogs - I'm sure that was intentional, for maximum harrassment value.

One of the sad things about this is that a basic common knowledge seems to have been forgotten or disregarded: that people (even the innocent) will usually confess to just about anything if they're tortured or treated badly enough, just to stop the mistreatment and beatings. This makes the "interrogation techniques" that our international reputation is being dragged through the mud for basically useless. If this is the case, even the tired 'end justifying the means' argument doesn't hold - apparently they're abusing people, some of whom may be innocent, to no useful end.

In the article, FBI agents said that these techniques actually turned cooperative prisoners silent, and interfered with productive questioning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
valanhb, have you thought for running for office or perhaps helping someone to run for office. Your mention of the oil for food program is a brilliant example of diverting attention from the issue, just look at the number of posts that followed.


And thanks to Jim for the nice redirect.
post #24 of 26
[QUOTE One of the sad things about this is that a basic common knowledge seems to have been forgotten or disregarded: that people (even the innocent) will usually confess to just about anything if they're tortured or treated badly enough, just to stop the mistreatment and beatings. This makes the "interrogation techniques" that our international reputation is being dragged through the mud for basically useless. If this is the case, even the tired 'end justifying the means' argument doesn't hold - apparently they're abusing people, some of whom may be innocent, to no useful end.QUOTE]

So very true, Tuxedo. You have put your finger on one of the lesser known reasons for our Supreme Court's famous, or infamous to some, Miranda ruling. It was not solely grounded in our nation's "values." (I really hesitated to use that word now that it has taken on such political undertones).

While there may have been a difficult period of adjustment for our law enforcement agencies due to this decision they now understand that reliable testimony is of much more value than a coerced confession, as was demonstrated by members of the FBI in this case.

It is also the case that for our military personnel to use barbaric interrogation methods on their prisoners is well-calculated to produce similar actions by any future enemies. "Sauce for the goose...." is a fundamental rule of International Law and the Law of Warfare.

Cheers,

Jim
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
Tricia,

This is possibly even worse than is apparent in the press. These documents were obtained by the ACLU through a lawsuit in federal court demanding that the clear mandate of the Freedom of Information Act be complied with, and they had been concealed by the Administration before the lawsuit. Take a moment to look at the ACLU web site here.

Thank God for organizations like the ACLU and for federal judges. They are our only hope now. There is none to be seen in the executive branch and but little visible in the Congress.

This link takes you to the source of the news articles such as you caught in the Washington Post, enabling one to do one's own analysis. In neither the Post nor the NY Times, nor elsewhere that I can find, does the reporting on this shameful story mention the clear suggestion in the documents that President Bush may have issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. So much for the left wing liberal media conspiracy.

Even worse yet, if there is such an Executive Order there is no doubt but that it was drafted by the man likely to be the next appointee to the U. S. Supreme Court. And there will begin the demise of that third branch of government, that to which we are so indebted.

The truth will come out -- some day. Each administration must learn for itself, to its embarrassment and dismay, that the truth will come out.

Meanwhile we may expect the release of these documents to lead to the prosecution of another low-ranking soldier, but no higher.

All the best to all,

Jim
Thanks for the link, Jim. The FBI emails made for quite interesting reading, but also all the reports of detainees' deaths by "natural causes". The German press, i.e., the national papers, has picked up the story, and the alleged Executive Order is referred to in a subtitle in "Die Welt". I'm including the link for anyone who understands German. The article appears to be based on one in yesterday's NY Times, and the ACLU Web site. http://www.welt.de/data/2004/12/21/378265.html

The Washington Post has another article on widespread abuse, based on the documents obtained by the ACLU and veterans' organizations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec21.html

I have a feeling that at least the independent press will be reporting on this situation beyond the January 31 deadline for the documents' release, but does anybody want to take bets that an "Independent Counsel" won't be appointed to investigate?
Note: Over 1,400 U.S. soldiers have now been killed in Iraq. Two more Gitmo detainees have been released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumpy
valanhb, have you thought for running for office or perhaps helping someone to run for office. Your mention of the oil for food program is a brilliant example of diverting attention from the issue, just look at the number of posts that followed. And I guess I would bite too. The two nations that benefited most so as to speak was against the war. But if you start talking about benefits then one would have to also question Bush's reasons for war. The benefits to the oil companies, Halliburton, etc.
Good points! Besides, there have been plenty of reports on the UN "oil-for-food" scandal, also in the "left-wing" Washington Post, New York Times, and TIME, and on CNN. Not to mention the anti-war German media, which appear to suspect that the U.S. government is blowing things out of proportion as revenge for Annan's calling the invasion of Iraq illegal. TIME has insinuated as much, also.
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Good points! Besides, there have been plenty of reports on the UN "oil-for-food" scandal, also in the "left-wing" Washington Post, New York Times, and TIME, and on CNN. Not to mention the anti-war German media, which appear to suspect that the U.S. government is blowing things out of proportion as revenge for Annan's calling the invasion of Iraq illegal. TIME has insinuated as much, also.
Crank into your computer, Tricia, the fact that John Negroponte was sent by Bush from posted as our Ambassador to the UN over to Baghdad as our Ambassador to Iraq. Think that was an accident?? I find even the latter title to be a moron's oxymoron, since (a) Iraq is hardly an independent nation now, and (b) Negroponte is a conqueror's plenipotentiary - hardly an ambassador in the formal sense.

Given my view of this situation I find it somewhat ironic that I worked for Negroponte when I was in our Foreign Service.

Cheers,

Jim
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › FBI Agents Complained of Prisoner Abuse, Records Say