Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally: "Neither were they specifically banned."
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com /* ---- overrides for post page ---- */ .post { padding: 0; border: none; }

Thursday, April 28, 2005

"Neither were they specifically banned."

Quoting atrios,

LIARRRRRRRS...!


The new [new interrogations] manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners [*], keeping them in stressful positions [*] for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions [*], employing police dogs [*] to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation [*] as a tool to get them to talk, the officials said.

Those practices were not included in the manual in use when the bulk of the abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003, but neither were they specifically banned.

[* see below]

Bullshit! How friggin' disingenuous can you get? They were not only not "specifically banned," they were specifically AUTHORIZED. C'mon, NYT, for god's sake. STOP turning a blind eye to the facts. Saying that they "were not incuded in the manual" is only covering your ass. General Sanchez wrote out those practices in cold black and white on September 14, 2003, and they were definitely in force "at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003.". They were quite clear and specific and addressed each one of the practices mentioned in your article. And, when asked in sworn testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee whether or not he HAD written them. General Sanchez LIED UNDER OATH.

* B. Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention from detainees. [Caution: Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see Geneva III, Article 34).]

* T. Dietary Manipulation: Changing the diet of a detainee; no intended deprivation of food or water; no adverse medical or cultural effect and without intent to deprive subject of food or water, e.g., hot rations to MREs.

* Y. Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations. Dogs will be muzzled and under control of MWD handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.

* Z. Sleep Management: Detainee provided minimum 4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period not to exceed 72 continuous hours.

* CC. Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, etc.) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.

It's time the real actors in this abomination get the spotlight. Starting with Dubya, down through Rummy, CENTCOM, and on to Ricardo Sanchez, the message was loud and clear. GENEVA DOES NOT APPLY SO YOU BETTER FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NOW! Goddamit! GODDAMIT!! Of all the things you SHOULDN'T be pussy-footing around on, it's this!

Submit To Propeller


And, yes, I DO take it personally home page