Policy set by Bush in '02:No torture
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 06-23-2004 - 3:41pm |
White House Says Prisoner Policy Set Humane Tone
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: June 23, 2004
WASHINGTON, June 22 — In a February 2002 directive that set new rules for handling prisoners captured in Afghanistan, President Bush broadly cited the need for "new thinking in the law of war." He ordered that all people detained as part of the fight against terrorism should be treated humanely even if the United States considered them not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, the White House said Tuesday.
That statement of principle, which has been described publicly but never before released in its entirety, came at a time of intense debate within the Bush administration over how far the military and the intelligence agencies could and should go in using coercive interrogations and torture to extract information from detainees, administration officials said as they released hundreds of pages of previously classified documents related to the development of a policy on the detainees.
By late 2002, the documents showed, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was fleshing out the policy under intense pressure to squeeze more information from people seized in Afghanistan. He briefly approved techniques including the use of dogs, and by April 2003 he approved the use, under some conditions, of interrogation techniques including changes in diet, reversing sleep cycles, and isolation.
But the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, told reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Bush never considered more aggressive options set out by administration lawyers, including those in an August 2002 Justice Department memo that appeared to offer a permissive definition of torture. The Justice Department on Tuesday essentially disavowed that memo, saying it was now considered irrelevant. It is being rewritten, a senior department official said.
The documents released Tuesday did little to settle some of the central questions surrounding what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, including whether the administration tacitly or explicitly encouraged military personnel and intelligence officers — in Afghanistan, at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba and finally in Iraq — to be more aggressive than the written policies for dealing with detainees would permit.
The White House rejected any link and said Mr. Bush had made clear what the policy of the United States was.
"The president has given no order or directive that would immunize from prosecution anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture," Mr. Gonzales said. "All interrogation techniques actually authorized have been carefully vetted, are lawful and do not constitute torture."
Directly addressing any suggestion that the administration's consideration of more aggressive interrogation might have sent a signal to military personnel that abusing prisoners was justified and therefore contributed to what happened at Abu Ghraib, Mr. Gonzales said, "We categorically reject any connection."
Democrats said the documents released Tuesday appeared to represent only a portion of important legal documents related to detainees.
The administration released the documents after months in which its policies toward interrogation and torture have been called into question by the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib. The documents showed that the effort to draw up new rules for interrogation after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks drastically widened the scope of techniques considered at the highest levels of the administration, but also in the end a reluctance to endorse many of them.
The release of the documents seemed to be driven by a sense at the White House that the gravity of the prison abuses required a fuller disclosure of the legal papers and internal debate that formed the basis for Washington's handling of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Administration officials said that the documents did not circulate widely in the government at the time they were prepared and that there was no connection between their exploration of the legalities of various interrogation techniques and what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Senate Democrats prepared a subpoena last week requesting more than a dozen documents beyond those released Tuesday. That subpoena was blocked last Thursday in a 10-to-9 party-line vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On Tuesday, Democrats dismissed the administration's document release as highly selective and said it failed to address important questions about its handling of detainee issues.

Pages
Renee ~~~
They're already trying to spin it away and ignore it-a black and white memo long before Abu Ghraib from the president himself, stating that all detainees should be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva conventions. Some people just don't want any good news about the president or the administration to be true.
Do you know why? This administration has said "truths" before that were later found not be so true. Remember when Bush said Iraq had WMD? Remember when Bush said we were in danger from Iraq? Remember when he said we are protecting the U.S. citizens? Remember he wanted to liberate Iraq?
No WMD, no threat, no loss of civilians, and a poll showed that Iraqis want us out. But since entering Iraq almost 1,000 U.S. citizens have been killed in Iraq, even more innoncent people have been killed, and right now they are breeding a new generation of "terrorists". Each generation is more violent than the last and now they have even more reason to hate the U.S.
So break out the whiskey! I am proud of Bush stating another true story for the record. I just cant wait to hear what comes from this truth.
Yes, I remember how the UN and Congress agreed on all of those points with him, and I'm well aware that none of the above has been shown to be false.
This is not Bush "stating" anything-it's a memo written by Bush (pre-Abu Ghraib) that directs top level administration officials that all detainees be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva conventions, whether they fall under them or not. Yet the other side wants to continually characterize what a few soldiers did at Abu Ghraib as broad policy directed from the top, in order to elect John Kerry. Talk about your untruths-it's hurting our efforts in Iraq, and it's endangering lives. It's irresponsible and immoral.
How can we the people possibly make it worse than the adminstration has already done..please that one doesn't fly.
By unfairly demonizing our administration and our entire armed forces for the actions of a few misguided soldiers, left-wingers are giving sick justification to those who are beheading civilians, as well as turning the Iraqi citizenry against an effort they once largely supported, and causing the support of once strong allies to waver. I'm still waiting for the reports of "widespread abuse" we kept hearing were coming-we were all told Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the iceberg, funny how no other reports have come out, despite the frenzied attempts by the media to blame it on (non-existent) administration policies.
"Americans still believe that Bush is a man of character, but they now also see character flaws: 53% say Bush was "mostly lying" or "hiding important elements" as he made the case for war."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2003/nf20031117_7402_db015.htm
What one says and what one actually does are 2 entirely different things. The memo said we will not go against the Geneva Convention, but alas we did.
The UN did agree didnt they? But they also wanted to let the inspectors have more time and was against invading Iraq. Up until the time of the war there were still NO WMD found were there? By the way what was found? Was it enough to warrant a war?
I would also like to agree and say "what a few soldiers did" however I am not so sure on that. I truly believe there will be more to come out from this story.
"The scandal over U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison remains a serious concern in the minds of more than four in five Americans. There is more suspicion of a cover-up today than there was two weeks ago, and 81 percent now say the behavior cannot be justified.
Most Americans continue to think that the behavior was confined to just a few soldiers, and was not widespread. 5 percent think it was limited to the few soldiers involved in these incidents, while 34 percent think it was more widespread.
The public also thinks the Pentagon has not been forthright in dealing with the situation. An increasing number of Americans believe officials at the Pentagon tried to cover up the story. 51 percent think it did so, while 39 percent think they tried to investigate what happened as quickly as possible. Almost two weeks ago, 43 percent believed the Pentagon was covering the story up."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
The truth is what is hurting our efforts in Iraq is the TRUTH. The real truth not the truth that Bush speaks when he speaks publicly.
Some soldiers did, the problem I have is the effort to try and make it look like this was the administration's policy, when clearly it was not.
I won't go into to what has been found up to this point again because that's been gone over to death here-but yes, given what we have found I believe the threatw as even greater than we first were told. Even if nothing was found though, to say Bush lied when everyone else in the world completely agreed with him is simply wrong. Want to say he was mistaken? Okay-I don't believe it but I can respect that point of view. But until someone has proof that he lied about anything that claim will continue to be shot down as baseless character assasination.
Most Americans continue to think that the behavior was confined to just a few soldiers, and was not widespread. 5 percent think it was limited to the few soldiers involved in these incidents, while 34 percent think it was more widespread.>
No one said it is not a serious concern. But to try and blame Bush for what happened or inpugn the entire administration or armed forces over it with no basis whatsoever is what I have a problem with. It's a political game, in this case a deadly one.
Again, if you have proof that Bush has deliberately said anything he knew to be untrue, let's have it. And I don't agree with your statement-yes, the actual events are hurting, but not as much as they NEED to be-the twisting and distorting of them for political gain is hurting our troops, and our nation every bit as much as the events themselves, IMO.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5506040
DENVER (Reuters) - The U.S. Army plans to file charges against two military intelligence officers in the suffocation death of an Iraqi general during questioning in Iraq in November, The Denver Post reported on Thursday.
The newspaper said negligent homicide and manslaughter charges were being brought against two warrant officers over the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, commander of Saddam Hussein's air forces.
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, based at Fort Carson, Colorado and a member of the 66th Military Intelligence Group, is accused of suffocating the general in a sleeping bag while sitting on his chest and covering his mouth, according to Pentagon documents obtained by the newspaper.
The other soldier, Chief Warrant Officer Jeff Williams, was involved in the interrogation at a U.S. military facility at Qaim, Iraq, the newspaper said.
The general's death was among more than 30 prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Pentagon said last month it was investigating.
The treatment of prisoners came under scrutiny after photographs of physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad emerged earlier this year.
The general had undergone more than two weeks of daily interrogations while in U.S. custody, the newspaper said.
The U.S. military said at the time that he apparently died of natural causes after complaining that "he didn't feel well and subsequently lost consciousness." But an autopsy released by the Pentagon in May said Mowhoush died of asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression.
A spokesman at Fort Carson said he had no comment.
Pages