 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Saf...?ID=17852&c=206
ACLU Obtains September 2003 Memo Central to Abu Ghraib Story
NEW YORK -- A memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army’s own Field Manual, was made public for the first time by the American Civil Liberties Union today.
"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army’s own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."
The ACLU has a lawsuit pending against Sanchez alleging direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The existence of the memo and excerpts of it were previously published in The Washington Post, but it is being reprinted in full here for the first time.
The Defense Department initially refused to release the September Sanchez memo on national security grounds. After the ACLU filed legal papers specifically challenging the withholding of the memo on those grounds, the Defense Department reconsidered its position and released the document to the ACLU late in the afternoon on Friday, March 25, 2005. At the same time, the Defense Department released a previously leaked October 12, 2003 Sanchez memo that superseded the September Sanchez memo.
In a letter sent yesterday to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who is overseeing the case, the ACLU said that the Department of Defense (DOD) "has demonstrated a singular disregard for this Court’s repeated orders and has continued to engage in a pattern of delay." DOD has asked four times for extensions in turning over documents.
The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs…," isolation, and stress positions.
The September Sanchez memo is posted online at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Saf...ID=17851&c=206.
The October Sanchez memo is posted on line at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Saf...ID=17849&c=206.
More than 30,000 pages of other released documents are posted online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia.
Earlier this month, the ACLU and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit charging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The action was the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of the charges are based on documents obtained through the FOIA lawsuit. The ACLU has also filed separate lawsuits naming Brig. Gen. Karpinski, Col. Thomas Pappas and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Details about the Rumsfeld lawsuit are online at www.aclu.org/rumsfeld.
The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
Nothing as far as I can tell. People are claiming that it brought about a cycle of abuse or other such things. I'm not sure they can prove something like that though perjury would be much easier to prove if indeed it occured. I really don't know much about the case.
Last edited by Oerdin on 04-04-2005 at 22:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
What did he say in front of the congress, precisely? That he hadn't authorized dogs, isolation, or stress positions? |
That does seem to be the basic premise, yes.
quote:
What does the Geneva Convention say with regard to POWs? Personally, I find such treatment of POWs to be distasteful and counterproductive, but if it's not against the Geneva Convention then I wonder what case the ACLU really has. |
Well, interestingly enough, I don;t remember any of the western allies during WW2 nor the Germans to the westrn allies ever doing these sorts of things to their millions of POWS. Even if you wanted to mistreat the prisoners, as the Germans did to Soviet ones, the Soviets to Germans, and the Japanese to everyone you really did not even torture them- you simply worked them to death or starved them.
I don;t think the people tortured where therefore even considered POW's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Specifically, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." To which Sanchez replied, using the acronym for Coalition Joint Task Force-7, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year." |
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Saf...?ID=17868&c=206
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
What's wrong with those? |
How could there possibly be nothing wrong with physically threatening people with violence with a vicious looking dog or putting them in long periods of isolation (we're social animals, you know) as interrogation techniques? 
Az, for instance here's a case that demonstrates why isolation is an unjustifiable interrogation technique:
quote:
Under extreme duress at Guantánamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. They also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden. The tape had been made in August 2000.
For the better part of two years, Mr. Rasul and his friends, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, had denied involvement in any terror activity whatsoever. But Mr. Rasul said they eventually succumbed to long months of physical and psychological abuse. Mr. Rasul had been held in isolation for several weeks (his second sustained period of isolation) when an interrogator showed him the video of bin Laden. He said she told him: "I've put detainees here in isolation for 12 months and eventually they've broken. You might as well admit it now."
"I could not bear another day of isolation, let alone the prospect of another year," said Mr. Rasul. He confessed.
The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody.
Mr. Rasul has said many times that he and his friends were freed only because their alibis were corroborated. But they continue to worry about the many other Guantánamo detainees who may be innocent but have no way of proving it. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/7herbert.html
Last edited by Ramo on 04-04-2005 at 23:11
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2005 20:05
)
|