QandO

These things resulted from a "do whatever it takes" intelligence acquisition policy. And that policy, as we know, was voiced explicitly late last year at (or very near) the highest levels of government.

Posted by: George at May 19, 2004 09:51 AM

Two questions George:

If that is so, what intelligence is garnered from murdering someone?

Secondly, I'd be interested in you cite of those instructions being "voiced explicitly" at or near the "hightest level of government." Note, I'm not asking for your intepretation, I'm asking for your proof that it is so.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 09:55 AM

Some people can died inadvertently as a result of abuse during interrogation.

Condoleesa Rice said it around November. It was quoted yesterday; I probably saw it in the WaPo, the online paper I mostly read.

You're the computer jock -- you find it.

Posted by: George at May 19, 2004 10:56 AM

I didn't make the claim, you did.

To borrow a phrase: "Put up or shut up."

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 10:57 AM

George: you are very unconvincing when you state a "fact" and then refuse to support it.

Jon: I disagree that we should "err on the side of overpunishing these abuses, rather than underpunishing them." The Bible repeatedly says that we should punish the guilty and acquit the innocent (e.g. Exodus 23:7) and not show preferitism toward either side. Let's just try not to err and to give the appropriate amount of punishment.

Posted by: Rory Daulton at May 19, 2004 11:15 AM

Sorry, I mean "overpunish" in the context of "we should throw the book at them" rather than any alternative. And I'd also err on the side of taking out anybody who may be connected with these abuses.

Our credibility is more important than justice, to put it bluntly. Appearances matter.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 19, 2004 11:22 AM

OK, I found it:

Perhaps the guards at Abu Ghraib even believed their marching orders came from the very top. In September 2003, just before the abuse began, Condoleezza Rice told Brit Hume of Fox News about Iraq, "The United States is going to do, as the president said, whatever it takes." In November 2003, about the time the worst abuses were taking place, George W. Bush said from the White House, "We will do whatever it takes" in Iraq. In March 2004 the president said, "Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq." The phrase "whatever it takes" has been a Bush administration standby since 9/11, in use by the president, Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and others; the phrase has also been enthusiastically used by television and talk-radio pundits. The phrase remains in use, even now that the prison abuse fiasco has shown the world graphic images of what it may take. Early in May, at a campaign stop, George W. Bush said, "I will defend our country, whatever it takes."

Source: Gregg Easterbrook of TNR, 17 May, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=easterbrook051704 .

Posted by: George at May 19, 2004 12:18 PM

Oh yeah? Well Bush once said he would "never do that". He was talking about something else, but he did say "never", so he couldn't have done that totally different thing.

(hey, as long as we're playing the "make connections completely at random" game...)

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 19, 2004 12:23 PM

Jon, McQ, etc., your complaint is with Easterbrook, not with me.

I posted a comment and was then (rudely) challenged to name the source. I've now done that. So chill.

Posted by: George at May 19, 2004 12:28 PM

George:

How was my comment or "challenge" rude? I simply ask you to provide proof for your assertion.

I then got "You're the computer jock -- you find it" as a reply. Who's the rude one?

As for your attempt to pass this off to Easterbrook ... no soap. You made the claim. Its obvious that if the Easterbrook cite is what you're basing your claim upon, then you haven't a leg to stand on. Context is always the key and you seem to want to ignore that.

But that doesn't change the fact that you're the one still claiming it to be "true".

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 12:35 PM

Our complaint may inclusively be with Easterbrook, but he's not the one making the assertion on this blog. I will happily include him with yourself, though, when I say that an out of context line drawn between Bush's statement that we will do "whatever it takes" and the Abu Ghraib abuses is no evidence at all.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 19, 2004 12:36 PM

You guys were feasting on this one. Let me help out George a little...
"Washington -- Two of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials were forced to admit Thursday that a tough method "APPROVED" for handling prisoners in Iraq appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions, although both said they were unfamiliar with how the decision to allow such techniques had been approved." --Chronicle Washington Bureau
The two officials are Wolfowitz and Pace, emphasis on 'approve' was mine.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 19, 2004 01:21 PM

Bear in mind, that statement relates to stress positions, sleep deprivation, etc.....not murder.

From the same story:
"There is wide disagreement, even among experts, over how to interpret the Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoner interrogation."

Sanctioning sleep-dep does not necessarily constitute sanctioning far worse.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 19, 2004 01:30 PM

C'mon, Jon. Of course, they aren't going to put 'murder' as one of the techniques. The 'murder' part happens due to some of the techniques approved.
Taken from your blog...Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 19, 2004 01:39 PM

Anyone who can interpret "stress positions" into a naked prisoner in shackles and a dog coller held by a female soldier or wiring up of genitals or beatings, etc. wins the "I'm not sure but I think this is what they mean" Dumbass of the Year award.

Stress positions (i.e. making them stand for extended periods, kneel for extended periods, etc) will NOT lead to "murder", dannyboy.

Murder requires someone act overtly to take the life. That is completely outside the parameters of 'stress positions'. I defy anyone to point to a technique contained in "stress positions" which will "cause" murder to take place.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 01:55 PM

Dannyboy: Stress techniques do not require anyone to touch the prisoner. So smothering or chest compression are NOT "stress techniques".

They're OUTSIDE the bounds of the acceptable.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 01:58 PM

"Anyone who can interpret "stress positions" into a naked prisoner in shackles and a dog coller held by a female soldier or wiring up of genitals or beatings, etc. wins the "I'm not sure but I think this is what they mean" Dumbass of the Year award."-- I know this is a serious subject matter but that was just funny...anyway...
I never said that stress 'positions' result in murder. I referenced Jon's blog on the stress 'technique'. Obviously, this technique resulted in murder, don't you think?
Actually, according to Rumsfeld and Sanchez, it is a "stress matrix".
"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war." -- you have to keep in mind that these were 'approved' methods/ techniques.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 19, 2004 02:33 PM

Obviously, this technique resulted in murder, don't you think?

Obviously I don't think so, Dannyboy, or I wouldn't have written "Murder requires someone act overtly to take the life. That is completely outside the parameters of 'stress positions'. I defy anyone to point to a technique contained in "stress positions" which will "cause" murder to take place."

Technique is simply the method in which you accomplish something. For instance, the technique that may be used in sleep deprivation is to keep the prisoner in an uncomforatable room (possibly a cool or a very warm temperature), with the light always on, in an uncomfortable position (perhaps standing) and not allowing them to go to sleep. That's A technique.

A stress matrix is most likely a combination of techniques (sleep, nutritional, isolation) which produces the level of stress within the prisoner and makes him or her more amenable to interrogation.

NONE of these techniques would necessarily require a single other person lay their hands on the prisoner in order to accomplish the "stress" required or desired prior to interogation.

So no, the accepted "techniques" wouldn't be acceptable if they could or would result in murder.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 03:47 PM

Hmmm, I'm not sure but.....hmmm, let me re-post what I found on Jon's blog:
"Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents."
Hmmm, stress technique, I think, as the name implies, that it's a technique.
And I hope you're not wasting my time because of the word "murder". These techniques caused people to die. Now, call it what you want to call it but death was the end result out of these techniques.
I, honestly, don't know what you're arguing. These "stress positions", "stress techniques", "stress matrix", "whatever" resulted in death.
Then you state,"So no, the accepted "techniques" wouldn't be acceptable if they could or would result in murder." The techniques, as admitted by Wolfowitz and Pace, were APPROVED.
I have no idea how or why you're arguing against this.
Jon, what do you have to say about this?

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 19, 2004 08:46 PM

If Bush authorized prison guards to feed inmates, and the guards fed the inmates poison...would that make Bush culpable for murder?

Hardly.

There's a difference between legitimate stress techniques and illegitimate techniques. Clearly, the line was crossed. The problem lies with the person who crossed the line....in this case, the soldiers.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 19, 2004 08:55 PM

Wow, Jon. You guys leave me speechless sometimes, lol. Are they or are they not APPROVED techniques?????
"If Bush authorized prison guards to feed inmates, and the guards fed the inmates poison...would that make Bush culpable for murder?" -- stop using analogies. You're purposely confusing the debate.
"There's a difference between legitimate stress techniques and illegitimate techniques." -- yes, there is a difference. In this case an illegitimate technique was approved as ADMITTED BY WOLFOWITZ AND PACE.
Geez, guys, c'mon now.
"Clearly, the line was crossed. The problem lies with the person who crossed the line....in this case, the soldiers." -- I'll rebut this w/ McQ's post..."I have a feeling many more higher up the chain are going to eventually be charged ... in my estimation they should be." And honestly, I thought you were on the same boat w/ this issue.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 19, 2004 09:39 PM

No actually what was admited by Wolfowitz and Pace is that they approved certain techniques, none of which would result in murder.

They're to prepare a prisoner for interrogation, Dannyboy. Dead men are of no use to interrogators.

Where you're making the mistake is lumping everything into one category and calling them "stress techniques". There are approved stress techniques, which I've described, and ones which aren't approved, which Jon has described.

Those that Jon has described have lead to death either by accident or purpose.

That ISN'T the purpose of the techniques, thus they would hardly be techniques "approved" by anyone interested in the information the prisoners had.

Now if you can come up with an argument that says Wolfowitz and Pace weren't interested in the info the prisoners had but only in their death, you might have a point.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 10:07 PM

Oh and yes there will be and should be charges against those on up the line, but mostly for dereliction of duty. Not because they "approved" techniques which led to death.

Posted by: McQ at May 19, 2004 10:10 PM

Dude, they approved techniques which violated the Geneva Convention. The techniques which they are talking about are the ones from the abuse pics. Within the abuse taken place, some detainees died due to some of these techniques which were approved. Now, they're not suppose to end in death. And obviously, they would rather have the detainees talk than die but DUE TO SOME OF THE APPROVED METHODS some of them died. You can't just say, "oh, we approve some but not the others." The whole questioning techniques came into question. I'm aware that there are techniques that are solely 'stress positions' and results are far away from death BUT the approved methods this time went far and beyond the regular 'stress positions' which is why they are getting the flak.
I have no idea why you guys are arguing this position when it's true. I mean, you write:
"No actually what was admited by Wolfowitz and Pace is that they approved certain techniques, none of which would result in murder."---'they' don't say "none of which would result in murder." You said that. Don't put your two cents into it as then you're distorting it. They are being questioned because of abuse pics, some of which contained dead bodies.
Honestly, I have no idea what you guys are doing arguing this.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 08:00 AM

Dannyboy: Simple question. If the techniques in the picture were "approved", what's the fuss all about?

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 08:03 AM

And this:
"Oh and yes there will be and should be charges against those on up the line, but mostly for dereliction of duty. Not because they "approved" techniques which led to death."
That is sad for soldiers to be pulled into duty, do as they are told, and then have the military turn around on them and say they are wrong for doing what they did.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 08:05 AM

You mean besides the fact that they violate the Geneva Convention? And the fact that some of these techniques resulted in death? Hmmm, I don't know. I always wondered that myself.
Wow, I can't believe I'm still trying to make sense of you guys.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 08:10 AM

I grow tired of trying to explain this, and having you misunderstand and misrepresent what we've written.

It comes down to this: "stress positions" include a certain set of activities, which cannot lead to murder. The activities that DID lead to death were not a part of approved "stress positions". i.e., the soldiers went over the line.

Now, you seem to see anything they do as "part of the directive" so long as they call it "stress techniques". What McQ and I are pointing out is that what they did was far beyond the sort of actions that were approved.

See my analogy above. The same principle applies.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 08:15 AM

Ok, tell me if I have this right...

"It comes down to this: "stress positions" include a certain set of activities, which cannot lead to murder."--- I understand this so far.

"The activities that DID lead to death were not a part of approved "stress positions". i.e., the soldiers went over the line."--- Like I stated before, the APPROVED "stress positions", NOT the simple ones you guys are talking about, the APPROVED "stress positions" this time around went beyond the original "stress positions".
Wait, please don't tell me it's the words "stress positions" you guys are riding on? If it is, this debate is just sad. What do you guys get out of arguing over a couple of words and purposely overlooking the point?

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 08:34 AM

Ok, then you tell us - specifically - which approved stress position technique caused a death. Be specific.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 08:47 AM

This is unbelievable. Jon, I've been trusting your own blog. You posted it yourself...
"Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents."
Now, like I said, if you guys are word playing, then yeah, you're right because in that blog you posted they use "technique" and not "position".
So, can we agree to this?

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 08:53 AM

All right Dannyboy, you avoided the question I asked above. See if you can answer this one.

Since you seem to be the self-appointed expert on what specific "stress positions" were approved, do us the favor of describing, in detail, what they were ... the one's approved by Wolfowitz and Pace. What are those 'approved' stress positions?

As a further note ... every year, by regulation, soldiers are given a mandatory class on the laws of land warfare. In this class they are told what is and isn't acceptable in terms of treatment of prisoners and they are told that they MUST refuse unlawful orders and report them up the chain of command. I've taught that class many times.

The soldiers being indicted for Abu Gharib failed to do both, i.e. refuse an unlawful order and report it up the line.

I'll say it one more time: the "I was following orders" defense was unacceptable when the Nazi's used it and it is just as unacceptable today when our soldiers use it.

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 08:54 AM

Dannyboy, I really want to believe that you're simply misunderstanding me, rather than being this obtuse. Please ask me a question if you don't understand what I've written.

Also, please answer the question I've asked.

The "stress techniques" that resulted in deaths were NOT the stress techniques that were approved. In fact, the approved stress techniques REQUIRED medical monitoring to ensure they did not cause harmful stress.

So, which approved stress technique caused a murder? Be specific.

Or, are you just assuming that what the soldiers did was approved technique?

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 09:00 AM

Ok, my posts look like they will be limited if I don't stop altogether as you guys love this word playing game.
"All right Dannyboy, you avoided the question I asked above." -- I answered in form of sarcastic questions but obviously you didn't get it. Here it is w/out the "?": If the techniques in the picture were "approved", what's the fuss all about? Not only do they violate the Geneva Convention, but some of these techniques resulted in death (according to Jon's blog). Seems like a reasonable answer, no?
"Since you seem to be the self-appointed expert on what specific "stress positions" were approved," -- not only are YOU making this assumption, I am far from it.
"do us the favor of describing, in detail, what they were ... the one's approved by Wolfowitz and Pace. What are those 'approved' stress positions?"-- I've posted it a dozen times but HERE IT IS AGAIN:"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war." Is this not specific enough? And I answered one question twice, and I answered this one.
"I'll say it one more time: the "I was following orders" defense was unacceptable when the Nazi's used it and it is just as unacceptable today when our soldiers use it." -- so you're saying that those that approved the orders shouldn't be reprimanded, just the soldiers?

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 09:10 AM

Not only do they violate the Geneva Convention, but some of these techniques resulted in death (according to Jon's blog). Seems like a reasonable answer, no?

No. Were they APPROVED? That's the question.

placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war." Is this not specific enough?

No. How would this position lead to "murder"? That is the question you've avoided. You claimed that the positions Wolfowitz and Pace "approved" lead to murder. If this is the best you can do, you don't have a case.

...so you're saying that those that approved the orders shouldn't be reprimanded, just the soldiers?

Please point to where I've said or even intimated that. Obviously, based on many things I've written right here, I believe exactly the opposite of what you're implying. However you continue to miss the point or deliberatly ignore it. The fact that unlawful orders were given does NOT excuse the soldier from the responsiblity of a) refusing it and b) reporting it. If he obeys it HE is held responsible for doing so.

What part of that don't you understand?

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 09:37 AM

McQ, you're good. But I'm not falling for it.
The question from YOU was not "Were they APPROVED?" Your question was "If the techniques in the picture were "approved", what's the fuss all about?" Go ahead and scroll up and see for yourself. And I believed I answered it.

The other question was "What are those 'approved' stress positions?" While I answered w/ only one stress position/technique, as that is all the article had and it was quoting Pace himself, I thought that would be suffice to answer your question.

Now, forget the actual word 'murder'. You guys were attacking the word, so forget the 'murder'. My point about that was from what Jon blogged on. Does not his blog say that "Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," ????
From this alone, I don't know if this particular technique was approved (which is your point of attack) but in the context of everything - Wolfowitz and Pace getting questioned for techniques surfacing from the Abu Ghraib pics and their admittance to the fact that techniques used are in violation of the Geneva Convention, Jon's blog of a detainee dying as a result of the techniques in question, I believe that they are talking about techniques (plural).

And you want me to point where you intimated that those that approved the orders shouldn't be reprimanded, in your own words: "Oh and yes there will be and should be charges against those on up the line, but mostly for dereliction of duty. Not because they "approved" techniques which led to death."

And I have one question, when techniques are approved, are they approved on a technique by technique basis or is it that they get approved under a blanket approval?

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 10:11 AM

I don't see the difference. If the technique in the picture was "approved", i.e. "ok", then why all the fuss over the results? The fuss is because it is NOT an approved technique. My question to you is "was this particular technique approved" ... the one in the picture you reference. You haven't answered that question. If you don't know, then just say so ... that will end the discussion as it then becomes one of speculation.

I'm not talking about the position Pace was was being questioned about ... I'm talking about the picture.

As to Pace, obviously if he denied they were approved or acceptable as you state ("their admittance to the fact that techniques used are in violation of the Geneva Convention") and if the SOP was to follow the Geneva Conventions, then how in the world are Pace and Wolfowitz held responsible for this?

As to the second point ... if a man is placed in a squat with a bag over his head and arms raised for 45 minutes, would that lead to murder?

I'm asking your opinion here.

Murder is the point of this post, Dannyboy. Your contention is that the "approved" positions could or might lead to MURDER. I say that's nonsense. So the question is salient. WOULD THAT POSITION LEAD TO MURDER? If so, how?

The dereliction of duty charge should be against those in the MP Brigade. THAT is the group I've talked about. The leadership FAILED to properly exercise their command responsiblities and supervise their soldiers. That's dereliction of duty. THEY didn't issue the orders in question.

There certainly is a possiblity that there will be charges against the MI interrogators based on any orders they gave. But at this point, its still being investigated and there's not enough information available to ascertain whether, in fact, that occurred.

If it did, they TOO should be charged.

As to the techniques used, it is my understanding that they came from MG Miller's assessment prior to the abuses (see Taguba report). Miller is the commander of GITMO. Miller has been very clear that the abuses were above and beyond any recommended technique found in his assessment.

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 10:35 AM

And yes, Dannyboy, they were approved on a technique by technique basis. There were 20 specific techniques that were approved....and, along with those techniques was the requirement that the subject be medically monitored to prevent harm.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 10:45 AM

Look, I can't do this anymore. If your point was to frustrate me w/ jumping all over the place, nit-picking words, and making new questions out of old ones, then you have succeeded.
McQ - what picture did I reference? Since there has never been a specific picture ever brought up in our debate, I assumed you meant this, which was taken word for word from the article I referenced....
"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war." -- you have to keep in mind that these were 'approved' methods/ techniques."
So please acknowledge the fact that I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION which was "If the techniques in the picture were "approved", what's the fuss all about?" Please, because if you don't, I can't continue.
You go on to state "I'm not talking about the position Pace was was being questioned about ... I'm talking about the picture." Cool, but like I said, I don't know what picture you're talking about.
Then you state "As to the second point ... if a man is placed in a squat with a bag over his head and arms raised for 45 minutes, would that lead to murder?" -- I, for myself, don't think so but it is a violation of the Geneva Convention...do we agree on this?
So, no, I'm not saying that this particular position leads to death. I'm saying that other positions did, as w/ what Jon blogged on.
As for the rest of your response, we're in total agreement except for the fact that if someone APPROVED these methods that the soldiers are being accused of, shouldn't they be reprimanded as well for approving these methods?

Jon -
Thanks for your response on the technique by technique basis. Do you know for a fact that there were 20 specific techniques approved? Not being an ass, just asking. Because why would Pace say that (on his quoted response,at least the one they are talking about) that method was approved but didn't know by whom? Is this one of the 20 you're talking about?

Guys, I'm trying to keep my calm because I like debating, we can only grow from it. So don't think I'm debating you guys because I'm trying to be an ass or something. But you guys, and I know because I took these courses in critical thinking in college, love to nit-pick words in order to discredit a whole point. So I like debating w/ you guys but stay away from these little tactics, they're not worth it, unless your point is to frustrate me.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 12:07 PM

Yes, I'm sure there were 20 approved stress positions. That is what news reports have indicated.

I'd take exception to your claim that you are using critical thinking skills here, though. You have not established a connection between the stress positions approved and the stress positions that led to death.

Without that, you are arguing that correlation is causation. What you have to do, to prove your point, is show that a specifically approved stress technique led directly to the death of the subject. Otherwise, you are speculating.

And as regards the Geneva Convention, I'd point out that experts continue to disagree about what constitutes a violation.

You are not dealing with novice debaters here, either.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 12:20 PM

Jon, again, I'm using YOUR blog. I'm guessing you guys know more about this than I do. Which is why I took it from YOUR blog. You had no problem going with it when you blogged it.
"Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents."---You blogged this. Then you followed it up w/ "And this happened at multiple prisons...not just Abu Ghraib. This was clearly not just a "few bad apples".
Does not your blogging say "another detainee died while undergoing stress technique interrogations"?

"You are not dealing with novice debaters here, either." --- don't do that, it makes you look novice.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 12:27 PM

Dannyboy: someone dying from asphixiation due to a gag can mean many things but it doesn't necessarily mean he was murdered or that the technique was intended to kill him. For instance, he may have vomited and aspirated this which caused asphixiation. Because his hands were tied, he was unable to clear his own air passages. While that's negligent as hell, its not MURDER.

As is pointed out in my latest post, most of the techniques used, such as "chest compressions" were put together locally and apparently in violation of guidance which specifically prohibited it.

Now, I've got to ask ... what is your point in all of this? It seems to have been lost in all of the back and forth. Do me a favor and restate it.

Is it that you believe this to have been "command policy" formulated at the very top?

Are you using Jon's specualation that it was "not just a few bad apples" as proof you're correct?

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 12:37 PM

Goddammit, DB, I'm going to give you ONE more chance before I assume you're just a troll.

Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation,"

- - -Great. Now ALL you have to do to make you point is show us that the specific stress technique used in this interrogation is one of the stress techniques approved.

Can you do that? Because, otherwise you are simply assuming that the actions performed by the interrogators were in line with the approved actions. That, from the start, has been the weakness in your argument.

Now please, don't quote back to me stuff I've already blogged without answering that specific question we've been asking you all day.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 12:41 PM

It all stemmed from GEORGE stating "Some people can died inadvertently as a result of abuse during interrogation." I then used the article I referenced to help GEORGE out a little as he came at you guys all wrong w/ his words and references.
The word 'murder' derived from Jon and I, like a sucker, went w/ it. That's why later on I kept saying to forget the word 'murder' and substitute it w/ 'death'. So, in critical thinking mode, the word 'murder' was then used to argue against me. Like what you stated on your last post "someone dying from asphixiation due to a gag can mean many things but it doesn't necessarily mean he was murdered or that the technique was intended to kill him. For instance, he may have vomited and aspirated this which caused asphixiation. Because his hands were tied, he was unable to clear his own air passages. While that's negligent as hell, its not MURDER."
I agree completely, it isn't murder, it's death. Some of these techniques can lead to death was the point I was trying to make. Same w/ Jon's blog.
"Is it that you believe this to have been "command policy" formulated at the very top?" -- I don't think it goes to the very top but I think it's bigger than the 7 currently charged due to the fact that it seems to be bigger then Abu Ghraib especially if some of these methods (or at least one, the Pace one) were admitted to have been approved and go against the Geneva Convention. Just my opinion.
"Are you using Jon's specualation that it was "not just a few bad apples" as proof you're correct?" -- no, not at all, I was using it for him to see that when it fit his argument, he was all for it. When I used it, he was against it.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 01:04 PM

Oh, I believe it was more than just a "few bad apples" if "a few bad apples" is defined as the soldiers currently on trial. I believe it was probably a result of loosely controlled Military Intelligence units took the limits they were given and - with higher-level pressure, or possibly even encouragement - went way past the limits established by policy.

How far up it goes, I wouldn't know, but I am fairly sure it's not just "7 MPs".

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 20, 2004 01:10 PM

All this actually stemmed from George saying this:

"These things resulted from a "do whatever it takes" intelligence acquisition policy. And that policy, as we know, was voiced explicitly late last year at (or very near) the highest levels of government."

I asked him to provide cites which would back his claim. He never did. For whatever reason, you felt compelled to pick up the gauntlet. Its gone from there.

Now I still haven't seen anything provided by you or George which makes George's point.

And Jon's point about "bad apples" means that it was more of a systemic problem than just the problem of 7 guards. He's right. I think that is coming to light now and is something I've been saying since this story broke.

Some of these techniques can lead to death was the point I was trying to make.

First, the technique in question, as far as I can tell, wasn't an approved technique. So that takes it out of the realm of policy and puts it squarely on the shoulders of whoever decided to use it. Secondly it was neglegently used ... the man obviously wasn't being monitored or watched and most likely choked to death because of that ... more the fault of the person employing the technique than the technique itself.

Last ... just about anything can lead to death if improperly used or done. That's why medical monitoring, which wasn't at all present at Abu Gharib, is REQUIRED when using APPROVED techniques. That alone should point to the likelihood that the activities of the guards at Abu Gharib were outside accepted policy and regulations concerning the treatment of prisoners.

Posted by: McQ at May 20, 2004 01:36 PM

Forget it, can't do it any longer. Then you wonder why all the partisanship in the U.S. You guys know that I'm against Bush and his administration (obvious) so you can't find it in your heart to agree on anything w/ me. All I was trying to say was that these techniques can result in death and in some cases it did. And that some of these techniques that were approved went against the Geneva Convention. THAT'S IT!

And George isn't too into the Bush administration either (evident by his posts) so you guys took his post of horrible wording and trashed him as you guys could not certainly be in agreement w/ this anti-Bush person.

And Jon, YOUR MOTHER'S A FUCKING TROLL! Don't ever come at me like that cuz I can get ghetto on your ass pretty quick, and I mean ghetto. I told you, I tried to keep calm, keep it civil, but you couldn't do it.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 20, 2004 01:55 PM