U.S. generals to urge Obama to act quickly on torture issue
By Randall MikkelsenDecember 2, 2008 3:54 PM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama should act from the moment of his inauguration to restore a U.S. image battered by allegations of torturing terrorism suspects, said a group of retired military leaders planning to press their case with the president-elect’s transition team Wednesday.
“We need to remove the stain, and the stain is on us, as well as on our reputation overseas,” said retired Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, former Navy inspector general.
Gunn and about a dozen other retired generals and admirals, who are scheduled to meet Obama’s team in Washington, said they plan to offer a list of anti-torture principles, including some that could be implemented immediately.
They include making the Army Field Manual the single standard for all U.S. interrogators. The manual requires humane treatment and forbids practices such as waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning widely condemned as torture.
Other immediate steps Obama could take are revoking presidential orders allowing the CIA to use harsh treatment, giving the International Red Cross access to all prisoners held by intelligence agencies and declaring a moratorium on taking prisoners to a third country for harsh interrogations.
“If he’d just put a couple of sentences in his inaugural address, stating the new position, then everything would flow from that,” said retired Maj. Gen. Fred Haynes, whose regiment in the Second World War raised the American flag on Iwo Jima.
Obama has denounced waterboarding and other forms of harsh questioning allowed by secret orders.
“Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them,” he said in October 2007. He has also vowed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorism suspects, an international symbol of prisoner abuse.
President George W. Bush has repeatedly denied condoning torture, but the denials have widely rung hollow among U.S. and international audiences. A Justice Department report this year found the White House ignored reports it received that FBI agents viewed some interrogations as ”borderline torture.”
Obama, vice-president-elect Joseph Biden and SenatorHillary Clinton, Obama’s pick to be secretary of state, all met with the group of generals speaking out against torture during the Democratic presidential nomination race.
The group also has worked with Obama’s defeated opponent in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain, in passing anti-torture legislation in the past, and he can continue to play a vital role, the officers said.
Some officers said they were comfortable with Obama’s decision to retain Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command, said he was confident Gates was willing to carry out Obama’s agenda. He said Gates had done well since succeeding Donald Rumsfeld, who was blamed for fostering prisoner abuse.
© Copyright (c) Reuters
-
03-12-2008, 09:20 AM #371
Last edited by Football16; 03-12-2008 at 09:22 AM.
-
-
03-12-2008, 09:32 AM #372
-
03-12-2008, 09:36 AM #373
Thanks for that link Football, I think that says it all. Also on the BBC today the recently resigned head of prosecution at Guantanamo hits out at torture and unfair trails of suspected terrorists.
So the Generals don't like it, the prosecution don't like it....seems us armchair intellectualls are not living in fairy land after all.
Oh and Obama doesn't like it quoting from above:
Obama has denounced waterboarding and other forms of harsh questioning allowed by secret orders.
“Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them,”Last edited by hullexile; 03-12-2008 at 09:37 AM.
-
03-12-2008, 09:42 AM #374
The example of the soldier wrongly shooting an innocent women was used in comparison to the scenario whereby a soldier decides to torture a prisoner of war. This was in response to a claim that there is no difference between the 'heat of battle' and interrogation situations. I state that the incorrect killing of the innocent women in the heat of battle is a 'notion that I can understand' - please (and this is specifically for you aussiegal and special) check your dictionaries if you cannot differentiate between the words 'understand' and 'approve' or 'justify'.
This was purely used to highlight the difference in human nature in the two different scenarios, if you cannot comprehend this, or honestly believe that there is no difference between the two then, well...
-
03-12-2008, 09:48 AM #375
*offers around the popcorn*
This is the thread that just keeps giving
-
03-12-2008, 09:55 AM #376
Hindsight is 20/20.
Are asking me whether or not I 'approve' of the shooting or the way the inquest has been handled? As I have already explained above, you have actually drawn the false implication from my post highlighting the difference in circumstances, that I approve of shooting innocent people...so I assume you are attempting to throw mud at me here by throwing this link in...
As for the inquiry itself, if Sir Michael Wright has come to the conclusion that the evidence presented before the court does not allow, in law, for a verdict of unlawful killing to be given by the jury, then I would suspect that he is right.
-
03-12-2008, 09:59 AM #377
If this story in USA Today has any validity (stats) then a lot of Americans believe in torture DESPITE THE FACT THAT TORTURE IS A FEDERAL CRIME IN THE USA regardless of where a US citizen does it. Hardly a statement that they understand they are endorsing law-breaking.
Part of the story below - the rest is here:
USATODAY.com - Torture in the name of ...
Posted 2/19/2006
Torture in the name of ...
By Gerald L. Zelizer
"Surely, Jack Bauer, hero of 24, a popular series on Fox, would say, "Go for it." Bauer's torture menu for 24's bad guys has included denying them medical treatment, threatening family members and executing them outright.
That's just TV, right?
Yet even in real life, nearly two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances, according to Pew Research.
Moreover, more than half would agree to send them to a foreign country where U.S. restrictions do not apply, an ABC/Washington Post poll shows.
So Americans — most of whom have some religious background or at least a belief in God — apparently find torture to be a necessary evil...."
--
"Torture degrades the victim, but it also degrades the society condoning it. Rationales such as the greater good or self-defense are slippery slopes. The definition of self-defense becomes looser and looser, and the greater good more arbitrary.
A quick walk through history shows that even the greatest religions have wallowed in dark periods in which human abuses were perpetrated in the name of God. Enlightenment often followed.
The world's greatest governments would do well to look at the lessons of history, and faith, in determining whether to venture over to the dark side or to use restraint. No religion can reflect proudly on having taken such an immoral route as torture. Surely the same holds true for governments and nations tempted to do the same."
Gerald L. Zelizer, rabbi of Neve Shalom, a Conservative congregation in New Jersey, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
-------------------------
I had posted some Dershowitz quotes saying that Israel has not used the ticking time bomb for torture but this story says they did use 90 more times:
"Israeli watchdog group B'tselem says torture in Israel was not unusual before 1999, when Israel's Supreme Court outlawed it under most circumstances. Before the court ruling, the group said, 85% of Palestinian prisoners were physically abused.
From 1999 to 2002, the last years for which statistics exist, Israel approved only 90 cases in which interrogators could use "exceptional means of interrogation" because of "ticking bombs" scenarios, the newspaper Haaretz reported.Last edited by Football16; 03-12-2008 at 10:01 AM.
-
03-12-2008, 10:19 AM #378
Football16, I am not (sadly) very surprised by such numbers.
-
03-12-2008, 02:00 PM #379
so those numbers meant,
1. since israelis are fairly successful against terrorist acts in their country (no impression of large iconic attacks against israelis in the last few years)
2. since israelis have managed to kill quite a few of their adversaries
it implies that the torturing as quoted (i.e. 90 cases) are useful in providing them with information that aid their battle against one of the most aggressive terrorists in the world..
so now its up to mat to prove to us why torturing in israel failed ?
-
03-12-2008, 02:11 PM #380
Quote
Originally Posted by gilleshk:
in Financial Advisors: We have 20 years of experience in Asia and Australia and
in Financial Advisors: Affordable, Comprehensive Cover from Lifestyle Insurance
Lifestyle
in Cantonese and Mandarin: When you speak Mandarin, people listen! Become fluent in