• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Guardian/BBC investigation links Rumsfeld and Petraeus to Iraqi death squads and torture centres


darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,868
Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres | World news | The Guardian

The Pentagon sent a US veteran of the "dirty wars" in Central America to oversee sectarian police commando units in Iraq that set up secret detention and torture centres to get information from insurgents. These units conducted some of the worst acts of torture during the US occupation and accelerated the country's descent into full-scale civil war.
...

The allegations, made by US and Iraqi witnesses in the Guardian/BBC documentary, implicate US advisers for the first time in the human rights abuses committed by the commandos. It is also the first time that Petraeus – who last November was forced to resign as director of the CIA after a sex scandal – has been linked through an adviser to this abuse.
...

The Guardian/BBC Arabic investigation was sparked by the release of classified US military logs on WikiLeaks that detailed hundreds of incidents where US soldiers came across tortured detainees in a network of detention centres run by the police commandos across Iraq. Private Bradley Manning, 25, is facing a prison sentence of up to 20 years after he pleaded guilty to leaking the documents.
evidence outlined in 50 minute video:

[video=youtube;q2lN8L2Pjjo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2lN8L2Pjjo[/video]

From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads

follow-up article today: Donald Rumsfeld must be indicted over Iraq militias
 


Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,776
Let's stipulate for now that torture occurred (I don't really think it's worth splitting hairs over whether waterboarding counts as torture in this instance), and that memebers of the White House/army were aware of it. Is there an interest in the US to prosecute former generals/Presedential aides?

Obama doesn't care. He's spoken about looking forward not backward. I've seen no evidence that this is a live issue with the voters. I just don't get where people think followup will occur from.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

I don't think there ever was much doubt but that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were up to their necks in this.
On a broader note, what I find most disturbing is the extent to which otherwise ordinary decent people are coming to justify and accept torture as a necessary weapon in the war on terror. Prior to 9/11, most such people would either have assumed, or at least pretended, that western security forces did not routinely engage in torture and that it could be consigned to history and to the repressive regimes in other parts of the planet. Now, sadly, it is gaining increased support and this will be used to a horrific extent by the likes of Rumfeld & Co. One can only hope that some new enlightenment will prevent this from happening.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,355
Now, sadly, it is gaining increased support and this will be used to a horrific extent by the likes of Rumfeld & Co. One can only hope that some new enlightenment will prevent this from happening.
The best argument against torture came from an expert on the subject, John McCain, who said it didn't work. I'm only sorry he never challenged those in favour to raise their arms above their shoulders.:lol:
 

darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,868
UPI: Report ties Pentagon to torture centers


Huffington Post: Petraeus' Torture Teams

One of Britain's leading newspapers, the Guardian, has just published an exposé of interrogation teams run by two U.S. operatives acting under the authority of General David Petraeus in Iraq in 2003-05. While no smoking gun -- or blood-stained billy club -- has Petraeus' fingerprints, it's clear from this extensive reporting that Petraeus not only knew of the "enhanced interrogation" of suspected insurgents, but likely hired the two thugs who were involved in it for two years.

The Guardian article and video, and earlier reporting by Gareth Porter, reveal that two Americans, James Steele and Colonel James Coffman, created commando units and manned them with Shia militia members from the Badr Brigade. ...

Steele earned his stripes in Ronald Reagan's jihad in Central America in the 1980s, creating exactly the same kind of torture and death squads in El Salvador. The Guardian says that defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent Steele to Iraq to create the commando squads. ...

[video=youtube;0K27oIJlAlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K27oIJlAlA[/video]
 
Last edited:

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
11,005
The best argument against torture came from an expert on the subject, John McCain, who said it didn't work. I'm only sorry he never challenged those in favour to raise their arms above their shoulders.:lol:
Well it didn't work on him and in his particular circumstances apparently, but that doesn't mean it has never worked in any situation? For example there have been examples of PW's being "turned" by their captors after prolonged torture, 34% of US PW's in the Korean War collaborated with their captors for example, and some made propaganda broadcasts against the US. The same happened in the Vietnam War I believe. In these cases it's clear that "Torture", or prolonged ill-treatment with a definite end in mind, did work.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of torture you understand, just doubting if it's really accurate to say "it doesn't work", clearly it has and it does.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,238
American's are right when they say they are an "exceptional nation". Their hypocrisy is exceptional. They lecture the rest of us (except Israel of course) on human rights while doing the exact same.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,892
Let's stipulate for now that torture occurred (I don't really think it's worth splitting hairs over whether waterboarding counts as torture in this instance), and that memebers of the White House/army were aware of it. Is there an interest in the US to prosecute former generals/Presedential aides?

Obama doesn't care. He's spoken about looking forward not backward. I've seen no evidence that this is a live issue with the voters. I just don't get where people think followup will occur from.
Correct as usual. It also explains why the USA refuses to allow the ICC jurisdiction over its actions.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,355
I'm not saying I'm in favour of torture you understand, just doubting if it's really accurate to say "it doesn't work", clearly it has and it does.
It doesn't work because the information is not reliable, you don't know if you're being told the truth or what you want to hear. Brainwashing is a different exercise, they have time to wait.
 

Aristodemus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
3,739
The best argument against torture came from an expert on the subject, John McCain, who said it didn't work. I'm only sorry he never challenged those in favour to raise their arms above their shoulders.:lol:
Well, the cheerleaders on this site all wanted Obama as President. Maybe something would have been done about it if people had voted for McCain.
 

cnocpm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
4,841
Well it didn't work on him and in his particular circumstances apparently, but that doesn't mean it has never worked in any situation? For example there have been examples of PW's being "turned" by their captors after prolonged torture, 34% of US PW's in the Korean War collaborated with their captors for example, and some made propaganda broadcasts against the US. The same happened in the Vietnam War I believe. In these cases it's clear that "Torture", or prolonged ill-treatment with a definite end in mind, did work.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of torture you understand, just doubting if it's really accurate to say "it doesn't work", clearly it has and it does.
Apparently yes with regards Senator John McCain, in his 1999 autobiography, Faith of my Fathers, "eventually I gave my ships
Name and squadron number and that my target had been a named power plant".
In a later torture session he signed a document confessing to war crimes,( his treatment in both instances in flagrant abuse of the Geneva
Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war)
With regards turned POWs and propaganda videos,the governments of those involved stated clearly at the time (Korea,Vietnam )
That their production was a result of brainwashing/duress/ torture the vast majority of civilians viewing such arrived at the same conclusion.(John mc Cain appeared in one such video,indicating that he had in fact been well treated by his captors).
The argument is taken into a hall of mirrors debating if torture works or not,the line in the sand is the legal threshold that should never be crossed,torture is a barbarous act against humanity,it is illegal under international law.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
Well, the cheerleaders on this site all wanted Obama as President. Maybe something would have been done about it if people had voted for McCain.
Its actually less likely McCain would have done anything about it.
 

darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,868
Well, the cheerleaders on this site all wanted Obama as President. Maybe something would have been done about it if people had voted for McCain.
Sadly, you may well be correct.


More details on the activities of the Shia death squads in this documentary :

[video=youtube;pt1_kT6Skj4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt1_kT6Skj4[/video]


What's new in the Guardian/BBC investigation is the information on direct links to Petraeus and the Pentagon.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
So does this mean Saddam Hussein should have been left in power then?

Saddam had to go.

Tragic as the bloody civil war that followed was and despite abuses of the US and pro-US Iraqi forces and the often callous disregard for civilian casualties by coalition forces, today Iraq is a multi-party parliamentary democracy.

The vast majority of deaths in Iraq post 2003 were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shia militias.

Most of the deaths were caused by Iraqis killing fellow Iraqis.

The anti-war left wanted to do absolutely nothing about Iraq in the 12 years following the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam was killing thousands of people every month and presiding over a vast system of torture.

There were no WMD as most were destroyed by Saddam in secrecy after 1991.

I don't care if Bush was delusional about the threat of WMD or whether he deliberately misled the American public.

Who honestly gives a f*ck now?

Iraqis can now chart their own future. They are in control of their country.

That was worth all the billions spent and all the lives lost.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,278
As soon as John Negroponte was appointed as Ambassador to Iraq in 2004 people were talking about an "El Salvador option" as he had been Ambassador to Honduras during the worst excesses of the civil war in El Salvador and the Contra attacks in Nicaragua.
Let's face it, he wasn't appointed because of his background in middle eastern affairs.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
It doesn't work because the information is not reliable, you don't know if you're being told the truth or what you want to hear. Brainwashing is a different exercise, they have time to wait.
What if making cups of tea and serving sticky buns doesn't work?
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
So does this mean Saddam Hussein should have been left in power then?

Saddam had to go.

Tragic as the bloody civil war that followed was and despite abuses of the US and pro-US Iraqi forces and the often callous disregard for civilian casualties by coalition forces, today Iraq is a multi-party parliamentary democracy.

The vast majority of deaths in Iraq post 2003 were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shia militias.

Most of the deaths were caused by Iraqis killing fellow Iraqis.

The anti-war left wanted to do absolutely nothing about Iraq in the 12 years following the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam was killing thousands of people every month and presiding over a vast system of torture.

There were no WMD as most were destroyed by Saddam in secrecy after 1991.

I don't care if Bush was delusional about the threat of WMD or whether he deliberately misled the American public.

Who honestly gives a f*ck now?

Iraqis can now chart their own future. They are in control of their country.

That was worth all the billions spent and all the lives lost.
1st bold point- You start off with a question which has little relevance to the discussion, ie torture. The war in Iraq did not need to involve torture to get rid of Saddam. So you haven't really got off to a running start.

2nd bold point- Your opinion, don't state it as if its fact. Also, there are better ways of introducing democracy into a country, apart from bombing the sh!t out of it.

3rd bold point- Its a democracy until the policies of the government run counter to the policies of the western governments, mainly theUS. A brief look at other countries down through the decades will show this.

4th bold point- It was expected before the invasion on the us side that terrorism would multiply many fold. So they can hardly call it a War on Terror.

5th bold point- Generalisation. Outside Organisations are limited to what they can do to help out, apart from promoting the idea of democracy in the country and giving aid. And theUS admin. obviously didn't care either, as they supported Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds.

6th bold point- Link to evidence? SO what was the reason they invaded so?

7th bold point- SO, in effect, your saying that the people shouldn't decide what their president does?!

8th bold point- You obviously give a fvck if your writing long statements like this.

9th bold point- Unfortunately they're not. See above point.

10th bold point- I don't think that even needs to be addressed in any meaningful way. The statement speaks for itself.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top