Iraq's government said Tuesday that it had ordered an urgent investigation of allegations that many of the 173 detainees American troops discovered over the weekend in the basement of an Interior Ministry building had been tortured by their Iraqi captors. A senior Iraqi official who visited the detainees said two appeared paralyzed and others had some of the skin peeled off their bodies by their abusers.
An Interior Ministry statement said flatly that torture had occurred and that "instruments of torture," which it did not describe, were found in the building.
The Interior Ministry's undersecretary for security, Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, was similarly blunt. "They were being abused," he told Reuters. "This is totally unacceptable treatment and it is denounced by the minister and everyone in Iraq."
Rather hard to complain about Saddam's torture chambers when caught doing the same thing. The difference, obviously, is it appears this wasn't sanctioned by the Iraqi government (or at least at this point it appears that way).
However this is where ambiguity toward torture leads.
The dismay among American officers involved in the operations on Sunday was evident from a report on Tuesday in The Los Angeles Times, which on Monday carried the first report of the raid in Jadriyah. In its report on Tuesday, the newspaper quoted Brig. Gen. Karl Horst of the Third Infantry Division, the commander of the raid, as saying that there would be more operations directed at uncovering secret detention centers. "We're going to hit every single one of them," he said.
And yet it is alleged the US has secret detention centers all over the world. Now, whether anything at all like this is going on in them is completely unknown. But it should be known, as our position on the use of torture should be completely unambiguous. Yes, yes, I know, Bush says "we don't torture", but it's hard to argue that's our position when you have the VP out there claiming we need legal exemptions:
Cheney told his audience the United States doesn't engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.
It also comes off as slightly hypocritical when we are shocked at finding torture in Iraq while pushing for torture exemptions for ourselves.
I think it’s useful to compare reactions. The Bush administration immediately went into defensive mode and attempted several weak justifications, while General Kamal basically said, "I’m pissed and we refuse to let that happen."
Not that this torture wasn’t state-sponsored (it very well may have been), but it seems the Iraqis are responding to it in a way more credible than the President.
blockquote>It also comes off as slightly hypocritical when we are shocked at finding torture in Iraq while pushing for torture exemptions for ourselvesIt also seems a bit of a self-contradiction to the complaints raised by Dale about giving detainees access to the American court system.
Mind you, I don’t think much of their having access to the court system, either. But let’s leave all the sweat and tears over the ’victims of torture’ where it belongs.
In the trash. As Dale himself says... this is a war, not a courtroom drama.
People get upset about Cheney wanting an exception from a prohibition on "Cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment, and for some reason automatically assume the desire is to be cruel and inhuman, rather than to do things (like the Evil Wrapping In The Flag Of The Zionist State(tm)) that are considered "degrading" by the whining-class, but are not in any sensible use of the word, either inhuman or torture. (They might be cruel, but in the "calling you names" way, not the "prying off your fingernails" way. Of course, for some reason people always want to assume the latter is the case in these contexts.)
Cheney’s on perfectly solid ground if he’s arguing what I think he’s arguing. At least as much blame must be assessed to those who combine the "inhuman" dn "cruel" (in sense 2 above) with "degrading" and "cruel" (in sense 1), thus making it impossible to argue for the acceptability of the latter, but not the former, without using entire paragraphs. (Which is very difficult to do in soundbite-sized chunks.)
Just because this was found does not mean the US was to BLAME. I KNOW PERSONALLY people who are charged with prison management. High Power Professionals and again, I assure you this has less to do with the U.S. Military in Iraq than the secretarian strife existant between secretariat groups DOES.
No need to look at that prison. START in North Korea, and then move to GTMO - the Cuban controlled side prisons. Then Yander on over to the Prisons run in China.
If you want to run the gauntlet, just say it. Otherwise, Understand that it is not US policy to do this but there may be exceptions to anyone who does not fight according to the Geneva Convention, and if they fall outside of this realm of coverage of law? - ; If they fall within NO RELIGIOUS or National identity? - ; Or if they HAVE NO CODE WHATSOEVER IN THE HUMAN RACE? - ;
Then, what defence could you give to those so UnGodly as to term a Religion as a reason to fall OUTSIDE of LAWS even I AM WILLING to Adhere to?
If I AM not Mistaken, they use GOD as a reason, Should not then they have to adhere to God’s Laws? At least One?
So, Wait.... Are you telling me you are willing to grant people who cannot even adhere to the Bible, The Torah, Or the Koran, or even COMMON LAW, DESERVE "Constitutional Laws"? People with NO CODE are protected? Even if they have KILLED NUMEROUS PEOPLE and are released and KILL MANY MORE?