The Stomach-Turning Truth About Bush's Torture Programs

The occult world-goverment & their minions are trying to keep the general-population unaware of the truth about their long history of torture & other criminal-activities. Barry Soetoro is 1 of many meat-puppets, who want us to forget about the major crimes against innocent & harmless children, which tyrants (like his masters & cronies) continue to harm for no good reasons.

The Stomach-Turning Truth About Bush's Torture Programs (3-part Article):

Page 1: "The Broken Myths"
Page 2: "The Emerging Reality"
Page 3: "The New Disclosures"

Source: Alternet.org « The Stomach-Turning Truth About Bush's Torture Programs - Page 1 of 3

As public and Congressional calls for appointment of a prosecutor and the creation of a truth commission have proliferated, President Obama stepped in quickly to try to turn down the heat. A commission would not be helpful, he argues, and he has made plain his aversion to any form of criminal law accountability. Republicans, meanwhile, bristle with anger as they attempt to defend against the flood of new information. But, in the end, Obama’s assumption that the torture debate has run its course and that the country can now “move on,” as conservative pundit Peggy Noonan urged, may rest in some serious naïveté: Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have different ideas. They’re convinced that Bush-era torture policy is a promising political product for a party down on its luck. Its success on the political stage is just one more 9/11-style attack away.

The latest disclosures can best be grouped in terms of the destruction of a series of long-enduring myths and the emergence of some new truths.

Scott Horton, The Daily Beast «The Broken Myths

The Broken Myths

1. Torture was connected to some “rotten apples,” mostly enlisted personnel from rural Appalachia who were improperly supervised.

The Senate Armed Services Committee meticulously documents the abuses that were chronicled at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base, and other sites and links them directly to techniques that were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials in the Bush administration. Even in the case of Abu Ghraib, it shows step-by-step how directions given by Rumsfeld that the harsh techniques he adopted for Guantánamo be imported to Iraq, specifically for use on high-value detainees at the Abu Ghraib facility. Among the 232-page report’s conclusions: “The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.

2. The torture techniques were derived as a last resort, only after other techniques had failed and that interrogators in the field pushed for their use.

The report shows, however, that the effort to identify and seek authority to use harsh new techniques started shortly after 9/11—that is, in 2001, well before there were any prisoners on whom they could be used. It also shows that the effort had its origin in the White House, specifically in the office of Vice President Cheney and involved a series of persons who had Cheney’s confidence.

Conversely, the report and other documents emerging since its release shows that interrogators in the field raised sharp objections to the use of the techniques and steadily questioned their efficacy. The team dealing with one prisoner, for instance, voiced the view that he had already furnished all the evidence he was likely to produce and that further waterboarding would be pointless. Nameless “higher-ups” overrode their judgment. That group might well include Cheney, who is known to have maintained a sharp interest in this particular detainee and kept on his desk a file marked “detainees” in which he collected data related to the use of torture. The Senate report documents a series of military officers who raised objections against the use of torture and insisted that their opposition be recorded. And today a further report has emerged from July 2002 (just as the OLC memos were being commissioned), in which the military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) expressly referred to the techniques which were being reverse engineered from the SERE program (that JPRA oversaw) as “torture” and insisted that if used they would not produce reliable intelligence.

3. Bush lawyers may have made “honest mistakes” in their legal analysis owing to the extreme pressure that existed in the immediate wake of 9/11, in which they were pressed quickly to give opinions before matters could be fully evaluated.

One of Bush’s OLC chiefs, Jack Goldsmith, makes the argument, now accepted as a mantra-like defense for the Bush-era torture lawyers, that tremendous pressure and short deadlines were to blame for their failure to properly assess the law. The torture memoranda gave seriously faulty analysis of the law, Goldsmith claims, because of this pressure-cooker environment. We should all be prepared to excuse their lapses for this reason. Goldsmith is not the most objective analyst of the question, and his adamant insistence that he was divorced from the process of giving a green light to torture appears less persuasive as time passes. But the writings of the torture memo writers, particularly of John Yoo, look suspiciously like their academic writing, in which they sought to expand presidential power and authority at the expense of the rights of the other branches. It seems more plausible to conclude just the opposite of Goldsmith’s claims, namely, that they seized upon the crisis that arose in the wake of 9/11 as an opportunity in which they could realize their ideas about limitless presidential powers in wartime.

Alternet.org « The Stomach-Turning Truth About Bush's Torture Programs - Page 3 of 3

Obama insists America must "look forward" on the question of torture and accountability, but we're far from closure.

President Obama and his advisors have reacted to these disclosures through a series of unconvincing gyrations. It is clear that Obama’s principal concern throughout this process has been that the controversy surrounding torture will prove a distraction that might encumber his efforts to push through an ambitious agenda including financial industry reform, bailouts, health care reform and an array of foreign policy initiatives. While Obama came though on an election campaign promise to honor Freedom of Information Act requests by publishing previously classified government materials dealing with torture, he has also sought to dampen public reaction. But his steps have been ham-handed. On the question of possible prosecutions, Obama went to the CIA to deliver public assurances that no intelligence officers who relied on government legal opinions would be investigated or prosecuted for what they did. Shortly thereafter, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel and press secretary, Robert Gibbs, announced that there would be no prosecution of legal memo writers or policy makers either—steps violating clear-cut rules about the involvement of White House political figures in criminal justice matters. The White House was forced to pull back the next day, insisting that the Justice Department would handle these questions.

Obama mishandled calls for a commission of inquiry into the torture question in the same way. First he signaled that he would sign legislation creating a commission if it reached his desk. Then, forty-eight hours later, in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he signaled he would oppose such an effort. In the days that followed, White House spokesmen attempted to reconcile and explain the conflicting statements.

Obama insists America must “look forward.” He views the torture question as resolved by a series of orders he issued coming into office. But Cheney and Rove suggest another idea. It’s clear that in their view America is just one more 9/11 attack away from a transformation in which their use of the “dark arts” will again carry popular endorsement and provide a powerful wedge issue to use against Obama. Obama’s optimism about closure on the torture issue may therefore be seriously misplaced.

(Read full article at: Alternet.org)

[edit on 28-4-2009 by News And History]

Good post.

Here is the few helpful links for those who wish to engage this discussion...

I hope it's gonna prevent delusional statements on what torture really is and how it affects the subjects and help in understanding controversy of the term "unlawful combatant" (US government all favorite "excuse")

TORTURE

UNLAWFUL COMBATANT

As an POW in war in Bosnia I was heavily tortured (been in concentration camp for more then 11 months), therefore I have the first hand experience on the subject, If anybody have any questions, I would be more then happy to answer them

Carry on

reply to post by 5thElement

Thanks for sharing truth with me & others.

Questions about your experience (especially what you witnessed while you were a prisoner of war):

1. Where you forced to listen to annoying music while imprisoned?
2. Did the soldier(s), who tortured you keep any children (18 or younger) in their facilities?
3. Did they take photographs or video(s) of you & other prisoners while you were being tortured?
4. Did those tyrants have their faces covered while torturing you?
5. Where you forced to act like a homosexual in front of soldiers during your time in their prison?
6. Were you permanently scarred (not just mentally-scarred: forced to "re-live"/remember the torture you went through or have random flashbacks of being tortured) by those soldiers?
7. Did you witness any prisoners killed by any of those prison-guards/torturers?

HBO broadcasted a documentary called, Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (see below), which shows torturers admitting that they snatched children (pre-teens & above) & tortured them in front of their parents in Iraq & Guantanamo Bay.

GHOSTS OF ABU GHRAIB

documentary on the abuses at abu ghraib prison in iraq

Google Video Link

• Ghosts Of Abu Ghraib website - Action Campaign and Outreach Site

[edit on 29-4-2009 by News And History]

reply to post by News And History


1. Where you forced to listen to annoying music while imprisoned?

No. They did not have that "capability" as I was imprisoned in very primitive facilities (one of the locations used to be hangars for military airplanes).

2. Did the soldier(s), who tortured you keep any children (18 or younger) in their facilities?

Yes, I remember kids as young as 15. They were there as civilians (separated from their parents) and were kept in different part of the facility...

3. Did they take photographs or video(s) of you & other prisoners while you were being tortured?

No, not when torturing took place, it is possible, however, that they took photos with other prisoners, I honestly do not know.

They did take photos of the facilities later, when the truth broke out, to "prove" to other nations and International Red Cross that we are doing just "fine".

However, they denied the access to the ICRC for almost 9 months.

4. Did those tyrants have their faces covered while torturing you?

No, they did not. Ever.

5. Where you forced to act like a homosexual in front of soldiers during your time in their prison?

I was fortunate in that department, however many were not. Some of the people I knew were raped as well.

6. Were you permanently scarred (not just mentally-scarred: forced to "re-live"/remember the torture you went through or have random flashbacks of being tortured) by those soldiers?

Yes. I refused to believe that they were actually gonna let me go. I finally realized that it actually took place when I recognized Vienna (Austria) through the window of the UN vehicle (UN and ICRC negotiated prisoner exchange and release).

It took me long time to recover, about maybe 6 years ago nightmares suddenly started to fade away ... I know a few people who were not that lucky

7. Did you witness any prisoners killed by any of those prison-guards/torturers?

Yes, many.

From shooting through the walls at night while we were sleeping, randomly pulling someone and shooting him in front of everybody, to "getting rid" of those too hungry and exhausted to stand on their feet while walked to the front line, where hard labor work was performed.

Occasionally they would make "lazy" ones to walk though the mine fields just for fun, to see how long they are gonna last

They also stationed their long range artillery in the middle of the camp, knowing the other side will not dare to shoot back.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by 5thElement]