A little about torture in the Obama Administration.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12041On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects. Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.
When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”
The ACLU summarized the new orders:
President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.
Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:
These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.
Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed. Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.
Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”
The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.
The order states in part:
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].
Look at what he does, not at what he says.... usually they are 180 degrees apart.
Isn't this pretty much what he wants to prosecute Bush for?
Last edited by Crunch; 10-12-09 at 05:19 PM.
Sullivan leaves out a few details. He says:
How do "we" know this? The detainee claims it was said. The government denies it. There is no evidence that it was said other than the detainee's own testimony.We know that an American interrogator, operating under the authority of the US government, said the following words to a detainee: “There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”
Accordingly, I fail to see how this indicates that the government "knowingly tortured an innocent man to procure a false confession." In fact, if you read the actual order, which Sullivan neglects to link, you'll see that the government continued their interrogation practices precisely because they believed he was lying to them about his confession. Sort of the opposite of what Sullivan is implying.
If the goal of the interrogators was to get him to make up a false confession, then why would they be getting angry when he made up false confessions? That makes absolutely no sense.From that point forward, AI Rabiah provided his interrogators with countless confessions that followed the same pattern: Interrogators told Al Rabiah the "evidence" they had in their possession (whether it really existed or not), Al Rabiah would request time to pray or otherwise ask for a break, and then he would provide a full confession through an elaborate or incredible story. Significantly, the interrogators never believed these confessions, observing that they contained "inconsistencies" and "vast holes," and expressly concluding that Al Rabiah was creating a ''tale'' to "please interrogators." Ultimately, his interrogators grew increasingly
frustrated with the inconsistences and implausibilities associated with his confessions...
The judge further notes that:
If the interrogators have credible evidence from multiple sources indicating that a suspect was deeply involved with Al-Qaida, the fact that that evidence later turns out to be false doesn't mean that they were wrong to continue the interrogation before they discovered the truth. We can take issue with some of the threats made by the interrogators (which the judge concludes were in fact violations of the Army Regulations and Geneva), but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the evidence-gathering was improper.Notwithstanding this evaluation, XXXXXXX and several other detainees provided interrogators with allegations against Al Rabiah that have now been discredited but that were apparently believed at the time.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.