Coming Into Focus: Rumsfeld OK'd Prisoner Program - AP, NewYorker

[buddy28]

Citing numerous Senior CIA officers and DoD Consultants, the May 15th online issue of the New Yorker detailed the conception, implementation and evolution of a Pentagon-approved physically coercive Iraqi interrogation policy that flagrantly breached governing Geneva Convention provisions - which only a few days earlier Donald Rumsfeld had explicitly assured the Senate Armed Services Committee detainees were protected under:


"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, The New Yorker reported Saturday..."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._pe/us_prison_abuse_rumsfeld&cid=542&ncid=716

and...

"According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact


Finally, Rumsfeld's confirmation of Geneva Convention protection extended to all Iraqi detainees offered at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing investigating relevant detainee abuses:

"RUMSFELD:...the president announced from the outset that everyone in Iraq who was a military person and was detained is a prisoner of war, and therefore the Geneva Conventions apply.

And second, the decision was made that the civilians or criminal elements that are detainees are also treated subject to the Geneva Convention...

LIEBERMAN: I appreciate the clarification, because I was not aware of that; that you would say that all those held in prison, including those who were abused here, had the rights of prisoners of war...

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

LIEBERMAN: ... under the Geneva Convention.

RUMSFELD: Absolutely. That's true..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8575-2004May7_4.html



The New Yorkers investigative report noted the continued 'failure' of US Forces to preempt and quell Iraqi insurgents, largely prompted Rumsfeld and General Myers to personally approve the re-application of an existing counterterrorism Special Access Program (SAP) - whose coercive tactics were traditionally exempt from Geneva Convention Provisions - to the interrogation of Iraqi detainees:

"Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the SAP, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Gharib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact


"...In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the blame. “The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone,” he said. “This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program...”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact


Further, Donald Rumsfelds' Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Dr. Cambone, whom tactical control of the SAP-run Iraqi interrogations was vested, authorized select Military Intelligence officials stationed at Abu Garib operate under SAP jurisdiction:

"Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence official told me: not only would he bring the sap’s rules into the prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap’sauspices. “So here are fundamentally good soldiers—military-intelligence guys—being told that no rules apply,” the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added."

Cambones decision further substantiates General Tagubas’ key finding Iraqi detainee abuse endorsement was not restricted to just lower-ranking Military Police, but also higher ranking Military Intelligence and possible even CIA officials:

"The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses,” the New Yorker reports in its May 10 issue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/iraq/main615133.shtml



It is now coming into focus these abuses were not the sole result of a small group of deviant MP's indulging in some isolated orgy of sadistic self-gratification.

But rather the result of tacit approval granted by top Pentagon commanders, led by Rumsfeld and Myers, who exposed Iraqi detainees to coercive and humiliating interrogation tactics that directly contravened Geneva Convention Provisions - which Rumsfeld himself admitted prisoners were granted protection under.


"RUMSFELD: The pictures I've seen depict conduct, behavior that is so brutal and so cruel and so inhumane that anyone engaged in it or involved in it would have to be brought to justice...

Mr. Chairman, I know you join me today in saying to the world, judge us by our actions..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8575-2004May7_4.html



How will the countries esteemed Armed Services be judged because of this?

How will America be judged?

 

[casualbb]

That's not just shit hitting the fan... that's a turbine engine chewing up a turd the size of condoleeza rice

 

[Forge]

Woah.

 

[WODIN]

Now would someone please fire his sorry ass!

 

[WODIN]

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


The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

 

[Hangfire]

Only the naive and the hypocritical are shocked. I know those stories play right into the hands of the Bush-haters, but is there anybody here who really believes that interrogation consists of polite questioning? Is there anybody here who really believes that it should? If the choice is between lives wasted or kid-glove handling of prisoners, the choice is easy.

 

[buddy28]

Only the naive and the hypocritical are shocked.

Why is it naive to expect elected officials fulfill the laws they are sworn to uphold? Or should officials be empowered to dictate which laws apply to them and which laws don't?

but is there anybody here who really believes that interrogation consists of polite questioning? Is there anybody here who really believes that it should?

Nice straw man.

If abusive interrogation tactics directed at POW's were widely lauded by the Intel community, then why did the CIA balk at strong arming Iraqi detainees - many of whom were civilians with no direct links to the insurgence?

"By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. “They said, ‘No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

If the choice is between lives wasted or kid-glove handling of prisoners, the choice is easy.

Then you become guilty of same tyrannical coercive tactics you claimed to rid Iraq of.

How will that effect Middle Eastern perception of America? How will that save American lives?

 

[Lao Tzu]

I dont get what was going on in Rumsfeld's mind. Someone was guaranteed to break that story sooner or later, tons of soldiers have been complaining for a year and it was only a matter of time before someone listened.

If we were doing this to insurgents i wouldn't mind but many of them are innocent bystanders.

 

[Hangfire]

Why is it naive to expect elected officials fulfill the laws they are sworn to uphold? Or should officials be empowered to dictate which laws apply to them and which laws don't?

It is naive to think that there is never anything more than harsh language used to obtain information from the enemy. We all want to be safe, but we don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors to keep us safe. I'm not outraged by any of the reports of aggressive interrogation techniques used by the U.S. military.

If abusive interrogation tactics directed at POW's were widely lauded by the Intel community, then why did the CIA balk at strong arming Iraqi detainees - many of whom were civilians with no direct links to the insurgence?

"By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. “They said, ‘No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails."

Of course the intelligence community is not publicly embraciong aggressive techniques. That would be stupid. The CIA will interrogate the persons who they believe have useful information, whether it is an army general, a cab driver, or a nun. I can't buy an "expose" that is based entirely on annonymous sources.

How will that effect Middle Eastern perception of America? How will that save American lives?

How could the perception of America be any worse than it was before? Not an issue.

 

[buddy28]

.

 

[WODIN]

Only the naive and the hypocritical are shocked. I know those stories play right into the hands of the Bush-haters, but is there anybody here who really believes that interrogation consists of polite questioning? Is there anybody here who really believes that it should? If the choice is between lives wasted or kid-glove handling of prisoners, the choice is easy.

Yep...you're still and idiot.

 

[Hangfire]

Yep...you're still and idiot.

Your opinion would be worth at least a brief consideration if you ever did more than cut and paste.

 

[buddy28]

It is naive to think that there is never anything more than harsh language used to obtain information from the enemy.

So because it's status quo, that makes it ok? Even though officials endorsing the abuse publicly reassured the nation detainees would be immune to such treatment pursuant to governing international law, the UCMJ and the collective standards of decency the nation holds it's Armed Services to?

I can't buy an "expose" that is based entirely on annonymous sources.

You mean like the purported Iraqi WMD evidence that the US went to war on?

How could the perception of America be any worse than it was before?

How about reaffirming US Government hypocrisy embodied in a contrite Presidential apology condemning the heinous acts of 'a few', which later turned out to be the work of executive Government and senior-ranking military officials.

If you don't think that's going to further damage American perception in the Middle East, you're delusional.

 

[plornive]

It is naive to think that there is never anything more than harsh language used to obtain information from the enemy. We all want to be safe, but we don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors to keep us safe. I'm not outraged by any of the reports of aggressive interrogation techniques used by the U.S. military.

Fucking shit.

Rumsfeld FAILED to maintain the veil of morality covering up "what goes on behind closed doors to keep us safe". If you value a good leader, you should be disappointed by Rumsfeld. He absolutely did not accomplish what he was supposed to accomplish.

 

[plornive]

We all want to be safe, but we don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors to keep us safe.

I love misplaced cynicism. You are a complete fucking fool.

You associate torture of prisoners with "keep us safe". As if someone decided to torture prisoners with the selfless motive of "keeping Americans safe at home".

In EFFECT maybe torture somehow indirectly protects some specific Americans. And that is what you are probably thinking of claiming if I am guessing correctly.

My friend, YOU are the naive one. Intelligent people understand the psychology behind the situation far enough to value honor and dignity. Your morals are devoid of value.

 

[The Wenis]

Now would someone please fire his sorry ass!

not likely. there is no accountability in this administration.

 

[Hangfire]

So because it's status quo, that makes it ok? Even though officials endorsing the abuse publicly reassured the nation detainees would be immune to such treatment pursuant to governing international law, the UCMJ and the collective standards of decency the nation holds it's Armed Services to?

No, the actions of the few U.S. soldiers that abused Iraqi prisoners is not OK. That type of abuse is not U.S. policy. My point was that aggressive interogation tactics ARE necessary and ARE used to extract important information. The real professionals aren't abusing prisoners of war just for their own entertainment. They do employ tactics designed to break down the enemy and get what they want. Nobody could call it torture, though and there is no evidence of physical torure. Best I can tell from credible sources, some Iraqis got their feelings hurt and were embarrassed.

You mean like the purported Iraqi WMD evidence that the US went to war on?

That again? You mean the same information Great Britain and Spain assessed and found credible? It was not from anonymous sources--it was from collective military intelligence.

How about reaffirming US Government hypocrisy embodied in a contrite Presidential apology condemning the heinous acts of 'a few', which later turned out to be the work of executive Government and senior-ranking military officials.

If you don't think that's going to further damage American perception in the Middle East, you're delusional.

The so-called heinous acts were the work of a few--not the policy of the defense department. Regardless of public rhetoric, the Arab countries dislike the U.S. because of our support for Israel. That has always been the case and this prisoner-abuse case isn't going to create hatred where it did not already exist. The Arab countries' coopoeration with the U.S. is the result of political and economic calculations--nothing more.

 

[Hangfire]

Fucking shit.

Rumsfeld FAILED to maintain the veil of morality covering up "what goes on behind closed doors to keep us safe". If you value a good leader, you should be disappointed by Rumsfeld. He absolutely did not accomplish what he was supposed to accomplish.

Disappointed by Rumsfeld? You must be joking. By any measure, the operation in Iraq is a success. Unless you are determined to ignore the obvious results, there is no way you can say Rumsfeld failed.

 

[Hangfire]

I love misplaced cynicism. You are a complete fucking fool.

You associate torture of prisoners with "keep us safe". As if someone decided to torture prisoners with the selfless motive of "keeping Americans safe at home".

In EFFECT maybe torture somehow indirectly protects some specific Americans. And that is what you are probably thinking of claiming if I am guessing correctly.

My friend, YOU are the naive one. Intelligent people understand the psychology behind the situation far enough to value honor and dignity. Your morals are devoid of value.

What torture? Emotional and psychological abuse for sure, but not torture. If you really believe that maintaining a facade of your notions of honor and dignity takes precedence over the mission of defeating the enemy, then you are the fool. It is time to for you to grow up and understand what goes on in this world.

 

[bluepeter]

What torture? Emotional and psychological abuse for sure, but not torture. If you really believe that maintaining a facade of your notions of honor and dignity takes precedence over the mission of defeating the enemy, then you are the fool. It is time to for you to grow up and understand what goes on in this world.

Now I know you don't have a clue. Sodomizing prisoners with broomsticks doesn't constitute torture? Plus the rumours are that the yet to be released photos contain rape and even murder.

As for the 'mission' in Iraq being a success..........BWAHAHHAAHA what defines success for you?

Let me guess, a brutal dictator has been removed from power. True and good riddance but that's not why your President said he was putting American lives on the line was it?

and where are all the Iraqis with flowers for the 'liberators'? Does it look like Iraqis wanted to be 'liberated' by Americans?

Where are those pesky WMD? Nice try......

Where are the 'links' to Al Quaeda in Iraq? There were none. Oh, there are some links to Al Quaeda in Iraq now but only in response to dubya 'The Holy Christian Crusader' Bush and his band of merry war mongers.


So, how is the loss of hundreds of American lives and 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of an invasion based on lies and a personal agenda on the part of the President of the United States constitute a success?

What a joke

 

[plornive]

hangfire,

Your responses are hilarious.

1. Rumsfeld failed to maintain a veil of morality in a system where people are punished for not maintaining a veil of morality. This is problematic. Nice dodge.

2. I find your patronization comic. You are a cynic, but I trump you in cynicism. No one was trying to protect Americans. Just admit it.

Going to Iraq was not meant to protect Americans and now that the veil of supposed morality has been removed from the already clearly immoral act, the leaders involved should suffer.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, morality is a white lie to prevent the beast inside of us from tearing us apart. Willingly shedding our morals is irresponsible.

 

[buddy28]

No, the actions of the few U.S. soldiers that abused Iraqi prisoners is not OK. That type of abuse is not U.S. policy.

How can you be sure the actions of a 'few bad apples' were solely motivated by perverted self-gratification, as you suggest, when General Tagubas investigation concluded the MP's in question acted at the behest of Military INtelligence and CIA officers?

"The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses,” the New Yorker reports in its May 10 issue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615133.shtml

That again? You mean the same information Great Britain and Spain assessed and found credible? It was not from anonymous sources--it was from collective military intelligence.

What crediable British intelligence are you refferring to?

You mean the ‘credible’ British intelligence Iraq had sought uranium from Niger that Bush used in his State of the Union Address, only to have the White House later concede was based on forged documents?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/24/iraq/main569829.shtml


Or are you reffering to the 'irrefutable' WMD mobile labs evidence that provided the cornerstone in Powells stirring UN presentation, that he now admits was bogus?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....X5P1ZCCRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5156653


If you have credibility concerns with the New Yorker article quoting several unnamed CIA officials whose story has not been refuted, then why don’t you also harbor the same credibility concerns for the CIA as a whole whose Iraqi-WMD claims have been repeatedly demonstrated as false, and in some cases, ‘intentionally misleading’?

The so-called heinous acts were the work of a few--not the policy of the defense department.

Says who? Donald Rumsfeld?? LOL!

At the end of the day, you have simply no way of disproving the DoD actively colluded to abuse those detainees as New Yorker article suggests.

Substituting a statement for an opinion, doesn't make your case any stronger.

If you take a look, the article cites MULTIPLE sources that corroborate e a very detailed account of inner Pentagon workings.

If the author was bullshitting, someone in the know would have refuted his fantastic lies by now, point-by-point. Why hasn't this happened?

Regardless of public rhetoric, the Arab countries dislike the U.S. because of our support for Israel. That has always been the case and this prisoner-abuse case isn't going to create hatred where it did not already exist.

It's called *degrees* of intensity.

Or are you just arguing degrees of intensity don't exist because that would hurt the Republican platform that obviously dominates your mindset?

 

[Hangfire]

How can you be sure the actions of a 'few bad apples' were solely motivated by perverted self-gratification, as you suggest, when General Tagubas investigation concluded the MP's in question acted at the behest of Military INtelligence and CIA officers?

"The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses,” the New Yorker reports in its May 10 issue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615133.shtml

What crediable British intelligence are you refferring to?

You mean the ‘credible’ British intelligence Iraq had sought uranium ............................................................................................................................................If the author was bullshitting, someone in the know would have refuted his fantastic lies by now, point-by-point. Why hasn't this happened?

It's called *degrees* of intensity.

Or are you just arguing degrees of intensity don't exist because that would hurt the Republican platform that obviously dominates your mindset?

It is pointless to debate this issue with you when you are bound and determined to believe the worst and, obviously, hope for the worst. Ignore the harsh realities if you like. The New Yorker article is just another clumsy attempt by the Left at political assassination.

 

[buddy28]

It is pointless to debate this issue with you

Now that you're losing.

when you are bound and determined to believe the worst and, obviously, hope for the worst.

Where’s the hope? I've argued my points with substantiated facts and sources.

All you've offered is recycled arguments care of Rush Limbaugh that have been refuted by the same Government agencies you say support them.

Start backing up your arguments with sources, and we can have a real debate.

The New Yorker article is just another clumsy attempt by the Left at political assassination.

Because you can't refute it?? LOL!

Thanks for revealing your inability to be objective. I'll be sure to avoid you again in the future.