We need to pressure the House to do likewise!

Thanks for a great post

http://www.kurtnimmo.com/?=48

October 4th - Business as Usual at Abu Graib.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...07/ixworld.html

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned yesterday.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism.

The veto would be Mr Bush's first use of his most extreme legislative option. But senators pointed out that a presidential veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

For now the amendment's fate depends on negotiations between the Senate and the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, which is more loyal to the administration.

But senators said they were confident that most of the language would survive and that the issue could pose an extremely awkward dilemma for the president.

The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.

That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month.

Son of a B*tch

I hope that Democrats immediately nail Bush to the wall with this, and make him eat his own words about supporting the troops and putting politics aside.

So now Bush will endorse torture. I think that will be the icing on the cake for starting impeachment proceedings.

If that idiot actually vetoes this bill, he'll be putting our armed forces personnel and ordinary citizens traveling anywhere in the world in jeopardy.

For shame, for shame..........that our country could have even produced such a person who would be able to run for political office, much less convince enough supposedly learned people to appoint him president.

Wow....now that's right Christian of ya Dubya. WWJWD. Hrummmph!

Odds are he won't have to. The House will probably cover his tracks for him and kill it in conference committee.

That chickensh*t SOB...
Can't even listen to McCain's experience.

I hope he's captured by whomever and suffers
the pain he endorses. The chickensh*t chickenhawk
deserves it...that's what a Yale cheerleader does...
p*ssy, p*ssy, p*ssy...with apologies to the ladies.
I know you wouldn't accept his inclusion with your
honorable sexuality...he's a punk of no honor. NONE.

It's a shame the POTUS is a PUNK.
Lord forgive the USA.

Time for those new Abu Ghraib photos to hit the press.

This truly pisses me off. Dismissing the will of the people...Damn him.

90-9 was the vote - HELLO This is What America Wants a Moral America and Bush can't give it to us ... On Bill Maher the Republican writer for the Republic said this is outrageous and said Right Now Cheney is trying to muster up the votes to defeat it in the house.

Salmon Rushdie was on tonight's Bill Maher - and he said very poinantly "Don't become your enemy"

That's exactly what this Bush Administration is doing by endorsing TORTURE ... they had a Woman Army Interpreter on that witnessed some blatant acts in Iraq and one non-commissioned officer when approached was told by, well it might of been her, that if you have any innocent people in this prison - when they leave here they will all be Terrorists ... and he said i know.

Bush has turned us into the enemy. We went into defeat Saddam Huesein for all of his torturous "it wasn't for oil" ways and we end up through Gonzales and Bush's little girl toy attorney Meiers, going to promote these people to dominate the supreme courts and run the country in the ground.

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS WE'RE PIECIES OF POOP - FROM THIS ADMINISTRATIONS ACTIONS - AND CHENEY IS GOING TO COME HELL OR HIGHWATER SINK IT MORE INTO HIS LITTLE HALIBURTON ABYSS.

Bush & This Adminitration Should Be Liken'd to that of the 4 C's of Diamonds.

Only Call it the 4 C's of Dumbya's Dick ...

... Cheney

Cash

Croynisim

Corruption

A TRUE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Everyone, please e-mail, call, and/or write your Congressman/woman and demand that they not support torture but stand with the Senate in rejecting barbarism! All of you are eloquent and articulate people. It is time for "we the people" to take a stand and demand that our Representatives comply with the will of the people of this nation.

I have emailed my Reps. Kenny Hulshof & Roy Blunt on this issue.

Don't they have the votes to override the veto?

I believe in this case thay may, Sunshine. If they allow the president to shitcan this...It will be a sad day for this country.

It's been a sad day in this country since the day Bush took office.

I had hopes early wliberty, but they've since been dashed.

Well, we don't know about the House yet. In fact, don't be surprised if the House never even gets to vote on this. It could well just be dropped in conference and vanish. We'll see .... If the House does get to vote on it, especially if it actually approves it, that would be a sure sign that Bush's influence within the GOP has waned.

With a vote of 90-9 it can not be shitcanned in conference. If they try to do that the vote will come up again and again. What surprises me is that Bush had to have known that the Senate was not with him on this before they voted. I just hope the lopsided vote will give some backbone to the House members. I sent a letter to my rep. a day or so ago. She usually follows Senator McConnells lead on issues. I hope she does this time too. I hope she pressures the leadership.

Oh, it could still be, especially if the Senate feels it has made its point and doesn't want to press it any further. It will be *very* interesting to see where this goes from here.

Ah so now the cat is truly out of the bag. Torture is policy. So why are some soldiers in jail?
I hope someone is preparing a dossier of war crimes by Bush. Including putting American soldiers' lives recklessly on the line. This is going to fuel the insurgency. I mean the REAL insurgents not the ones paid by the USA/Israel/UK to kill civilians.

I expect his defense will be Jesus Told me to do it.

The gang of 9 is going to be ALL that Bush has left soon.

Keep those 9 names aside. Means the other 46 aare seeing the light
(at least their own political ones), and can distinguish what the new public wants and does not want, and how it will affect them in 06 and 08.

(if we have a vote still by then)...That is why we MUST win one house at least in 06. It cannot wait until 08, nor can the people running in 06 win and then not have to worry about their own careers in 08.

Should the U.S. Military Be Allowed to Use Torture?

by Harry Browne

January 11, 2005

As you know, the Bush administration has been under fire for its use of torture — and it has become apparent that torture has pervaded the U.S. military's activities not just at Abu Ghraib, but also in other parts of Iraq, in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the argument over the use of torture has focused on whether the nature of terrorism justifies its use: Terrorists do terrible things, so why should they have any rights? And why not use torture against terrorists who might be able to provide information that could prevent another terrorist attack?

Opponents of torture answer "no" — but they do it on the grounds that this is contrary to international law (which could open the door to wider use of torture by our enemies), and that it is inhumane to use torture — even if the person being tortured is a terrorist.

In all the arguing over the presumed rights of a terrorist, one thing is being overlooked: no one knows for sure whether the person being tortured really is a terrorist.

There are three very good reasons we have a 6th amendment in the Bill of Rights:

First, until the accused has had his day in court, until he has had the benefit of an attorney who can call attention to weaknesses in the case against him, until he has had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine those who have accused him, until his case can be judged by people who don't have a vested interest in convicting him, no one can be sure the accused is guilty.

We already have narratives from people who make a pretty good case that they are entirely innocent, but were captured and arrested by the U.S. military, put in jail, denied all contact with counsel or family, and tortured.

Second, if the Bill of Rights isn't adhered to, if the accused isn't given the privileges accorded therein, it's too easy to convict the wrong person — thus allowing the guilty party to go free and continue to commit crimes. So the Bill of Rights doesn't just protect the rights of the innocent, it is also enhances the security of the community.

Third, using torture on prisoners is a poor way to gain information. The moment anyone started to torture me, I'd tell him anything he wanted to know — even if I didn't know anything. I would confess my crimes immediately — even if I had committed no crimes. I would say anything the torturer wanted to hear. But of what value is that to him?

Absolutely no value at all. In fact, if my statements were believed and people acted on what they "learned" from torturing me, they would waste valuable resources by pursuing false leads.

The problem, as so often is the case, comes back to government schools. Because there is virtually no education covering the reasons for the Bill of Rights, very few people in America have an understanding of why we have a Bill of Rights and why it must be enforced without exception — in both civilian courts and in military justice.

P.S. To those who say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-Americans, I say: read the Bill of Rights. Nowhere does it refer to the citizenship of the people affected. The 1st amendment refers to "Congress," the 2nd to "people," the third to "soldiers," the 4th to "people," the 5th to "person," the 6th to "accused," the 9th to "people," the 10th to the "States" and to the "people," while the 7th and 8th don't refer to any specific entities. The word "American" or "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

If the government is allowed to suspend the Bill of Rights for anyone, the security of all of us is diminished.

P.P.S. What is truly amazing is that after the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, George W. Bush was still tsk, tsking about Hussein's alleged use of torture.

harrybrowne.org

If you want future American POWs to be tortured -- yes.

If you want foreigners to say, with credibility, we are hypocrits for our past complainst about our troops being tortured - yes.

If you want results from our interrogations - no.

If you want the US to abandon its moral leadership of the world regarding human rights - yes.

If you want American prisons to someday start torturing prisoners - yes.

No. Although I think feet tickling might be effective. It would make me sing like a canary.

It depends how much you care about our boys and girls.

If you want your son and daughter to be forever worse traumatized
with further loss of body functions, and possible beheadings and all,
go for it.

If you want them to treat ours nice, it goes without saying-NO

Torture? Never.
Terror? Only in the field, under fire.
The horror, the horror.

Good article, Stephen. Thanks for posting it. The FBI opposes the use of torture because it is totally ineffective and counter-productive. FBI agents get much better results by being professional and understanding -- in effect, winning over their targets with kindness. When a good FBI agent has finished talking to a target, the target wants to help the agent and therefore willingly tells the truth. Torture is always morally wrong and it is plain flat stupid. It doesn't work and it results in de-humanizing not only the persons being tortured but the persons performing the torture. I am appalled at Bush for his support of torture. Shame on him, and shame on our nation.

As most of you know I have been posting a lot of articles on this subject (you are probably tired of seeing them ). So, I would like to compliment Steven on providing us yet another great article. IMHO this is a critical issue for our country and I am happy to see that more attention is now being paid in Congress and the Media.

There was one part in this article where the writer mentioned the importance of education. This passage particularly caught my eye because I recently said something similiar in the op-ed section of our website. Here is the authors quote followed by mine. Although his is much better written than mine I think we both have the same idea.






http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...82&#entry407382

October 10, 2005
Who Isn't Against Torture?
By BOB HERBERT

Some people get it. Some don't.

Senator John McCain, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq, has sponsored a legislative amendment that would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military. Last week the Senate approved the amendment by the overwhelming vote of 90 to 9.

This was not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, or left against right. Joining Senator McCain in his push for clear and unequivocal language banning the abusive treatment of prisoners were Senator John Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer who is also a Republican and an influential member of the committee. Both are hawks on the war.

Also lining up in support were more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili.

So who would you expect to remain out of step with this important march toward sanity, the rule of law and the continuation of a longstanding American commitment to humane values?

Did you say President Bush? Well, that would be correct.

The president, who has trouble getting anything right, is trying to block this effort to outlaw the abusive treatment of prisoners.

Senator McCain's proposal is an amendment to the huge defense authorization bill. The White House has sent out signals that Mr. Bush might veto the entire bill if that's what it takes to defeat the amendment.

The Washington Post summed the matter up in an editorial that said:

"Let's be clear: Mr. Bush is proposing to use the first veto of his presidency on a defense bill needed to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so that he can preserve the prerogative to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In effect, he threatens to declare to the world his administration's moral bankruptcy."

Last Wednesday, Senator McCain rose on the Senate floor and said:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that 'No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"On last year's [Department of Defense] authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.

"But since last year's [defense] bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the [Bush] administration's position, even though Judge Abe Sofaer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil."

The McCain amendment would end the confusion and the perverse hunt for loopholes in the laws that could somehow be interpreted as allowing the sadistic treatment of human beings in U.S. custody.

Senator McCain met last week with Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate who was one of three former members of the 82nd Airborne Division to come forward with allegations, first publicly disclosed in a report by Human Rights Watch, that members of their battalion had routinely beaten and otherwise abused prisoners in Iraq. In a letter that he sent to the senator before the meeting, Captain Fishback wrote:

"Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

Senator McCain and Captain Fishback get it. Some people still don't.

Molly Ivins: Why does U.S. condone torture?
By Molly Ivins
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/nati...-14541444c.html
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, October 11, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas -- On one of those television gong shows that passes for journalism, the panelists used to have to pick an Outrage of the Week. Then, each performer would wax indignant about his or choice for 60 seconds or so. If someone asked me to name the Outrage of the Week about now, I'd have a coronary. How could anyone possibly choose?

I suppose the frontrunner is the anti-torture amendment. Sen. John McCain proposed an amendment to the military appropriations bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.

This may strike you as a "goes without saying" proposition -- the amendment passed the Senate 90 to nine. The United States has been signing anti-torture treaties under Democrats and Republicans for at least 50 years. But the Bush administration actually managed to find some weasel words to create a loophole in this longstanding commitment to civilized behavior.

According to the Bushies, if the United States is holding a prisoner on foreign soil, our soldiers can still subject him or her to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- the very forms of torture used by the soldiers who were later prosecuted for their conduct at Abu Ghraib. Does this make any sense, moral or common?

So deeply does President Bush feel our country, despite all its treaty commitments, has a right to torture that he has threatened to veto the bill if it passes. This would the first time in five years he has ever vetoed anything. Think about it: Five years of stupefying pork, ideological nonsense, dumb administrative ideas, fiscal idiocy, misbegotten energy programs -- and the first thing the man vetoes is a bill to pay our soldiers because it carries an amendment saying, once again, that this country does not torture prisoners.

This is the United States of America. It is our country, not George W. Bush's personal property. The United States of America still stands for the rights of man, for freedom, dignity and justice. We do not torture helpless prisoners. Our soldiers are not the SS, not the North Vietnamese who tortured McCain and others for years on end, not bestial Argentinean fascists, not the Khmer Rouge.

Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was such a horrible brute that he tortured people. This is beyond disgusting. The House Republicans, which have no shame, will try to weaken McCain's amendment. They need to hear from decent Republicans all over this country. Don't leave this hideous stain on your party's name. This is NOT what America stands for. We've had more loathsome and more dangerous enemies than Al-Qaida and managed to defeat them without resorting to torture.

And leading the charge in the House will be Tom DeLay, that pillar of moral rectitude and Christian mercy. Wait a minute: Didn't DeLay have to step down from his leadership position after he got indicted? Well, yes, but some step-downs are more down than others. There was The Hammer in full glory last Friday, twisting arms and working the floor on behalf of a real cutie of a bill to benefit the oil companies.

Even Republicans revolted. As Rep. Sherwood Boehlert said, "We are enriching people, but we are not doing anything to give the little guy a break." This bill was so awful the leadership had to hold the vote open for 40 minutes, a clear violation of House rules -- there's a five-minute limit on votes of this kind -- while the Republican leaders roamed the floor, cajoling, bullying and threatening.

I have become inured to Bush's idea of foreign policy, which is to tell the rest of the world, "Kiss my behind." But the policy does result in some lovely ironies. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the highly respected head of the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Quite apart from whether you support George Bush or not, ElBaradei and the IAEA deserve the honor -- they have been both diligent and effective.

ElBaradei was right when he repeatedly warned the Bush administration Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and has said the day the United States invaded "was the saddest in my life."

But you know our boy George: not for him the gracious, "Gee, you were right, and we wrong after all." Nope, after ElBaradei was proved right, Bush tried to have him fired. And the man in charge of carrying out the campaign to have the guy fired for being right? John Bolton, now our ambassador to the United Nations.

Liar of the week: George W. Bush said on his Saturday radio address a week and a half ago that Iraq has 100 battalions of battle-ready soldiers. By the time he got to his television address on Thursday, it was 80 battalions. (I guess it's worse to lie if they're taking pictures of you.) Unfortunately, the next day Gen. George Casey, who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said of those 80, the number of Iraqi battalions fit to fight independently of U.S. support had slipped from three to one. One, three, 80, 100 -- if this is Tuesday, it must be ...

I know this Bob Herbert is trying to make a moral point, and one I hope everyone would agree with, but I am disarmed by how little these journalists seem to be researching into the whole history of the Iraqi debacle and come up with links they assume, but might not be factual. Like the reference to Al Qaeda.

One British journalist, a long time ago wrote 'Why do our leaders treat us like children', referring to the lies we have been fed. Does anyone really know who Al Qaeda are. The whole reason for the war.

Sorry, I did not mean to take this off topic, but I think it is a rather important point that if we have all been duped with lies and propaganda in preparation for this war then no wonder the torture became even a possiblilty, when added to tough military training and a few private security people who are paid a great deal to 'get the information from the enemy.'

October 15, 2005
Judge Is Urged to Deny More Access to Detainees on Hunger Strike
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 (AP) - Terrorism suspects on a hunger strike at the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should not be allowed to speak in person or even by telephone with relatives and friends because of security risks, the government argued on Friday in federal court.

Lawyers for the detainees on hunger strike said they might be persuaded through such discussions to resume eating and drinking. The inmates have pledged to starve themselves to death unless they are released or brought to trial after more than three years at the center.

Terry Henry, a lawyer for the Justice Department, told Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court that one relative had tried to send a detainee a DVD that named various people who had died or were in jail, raising concerns about whether some kind of message was being sent. The disk was not cleared and not delivered to the detainee.

"There are all kinds of security issues there," Mr. Henry said.

He also suggested that the government lacked the resources to monitor detainees' telephone calls.

Lawyers for the detainees on hunger strike, who have complained of inhumane and cruel treatment, are also seeking greater access to their clients and copies of their medical records.

Mr. Henry dismissed such accusations as "storytelling and misunderstanding."

As of late Thursday, 24 detainees were rejecting food and drink, Mr. Henry said. Seven were hospitalized and being force-fed through nose-to-stomach tubes. Some of the other 17 detainees were also not eating or drinking, but were in a special cell block and were not yet being fed against their will, Mr. Henry said.

At Guantánamo, the American military is holding about 500 detainees suspected of terrorist activities.

Judge Kessler adjourned the emergency hearing without saying when she would issue a decision. Lawyers have until Wednesday to file additional motions in the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/politics...agewanted=print

FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/

- This Week: "The Torture Question " (90min.),
Tuesday, Oct. 18 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings)
- Inside FRONTLINE: The tip of an iceberg
- Live Discussion: Chat with producer Michael Kirk this Wed. at 11 am ET

Some time ago, FRONTLINE asked one of its veteran producers, Michael
Kirk, to take another look at what happened at Abu Ghraib. In the
course of investigating the story, he found that Abu Ghraib may be just
the tip of an iceberg.

In Kirk's report this Tuesday, "The Torture Question," American soldiers
give first-hand accounts of their involvement in the harsh treatment of
prisoners. Moreover, one former Army interrogator and member of a
special intelligence team insists that the use of torture was happening
all over Iraq. Other military sources, some of whom had to be disguised,
confirm that prisoner abuse is a more widespread problem than previously
reported.

Even as late as this August, the official story was that of a few bad
apples on the night shift at Abu Ghraib. But as one soldier who
requested anonymity told FRONTLINE, "most of the abuses around Iraq are
not photographed --".... in the back of a Humvee or in a shipping
container, there's no camera. And there's no one looking over your
shoulder, so you can do anything you want."

Kirk traveled to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib for pieces of the story, but
the spine of this report traces what happened from the very beginning
when, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Administration's top legal
minds developed a rationale for putting the Geneva Convention and the
military code of conduct aside in order to permit what was called
'coercive interrogation.' "The Torture Question" tracks how techniques
that began at Guantanamo eventually migrated to Abu Ghraib and beyond.
One interrogator describes the use of dogs during interrogations to
frighten the prisoner. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has stated this was
never authorized. Yet it was done. Tuesday's report provides the context
for understanding how the rules were confused, how lines of authority
were blurred, and what happens when the authorization of 'coercive
interrogation' makes it way into the battle zone.

We hope you'll join us Tuesday night for "The Torture Question" and in
addition to the program's new revelations, you will find more on our Web
site, including FRONTLINE's interviews with White House, Pentagon,
Justice Department, FBI and CIA officials, special photos, a chronology
of the 'new rules of war,' plus the option to watch "The Torture
Question" again online beginning this Wednesday. And, take the
opportunity to express your opinion about it at
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/torture/

Louis Wiley Jr.
Executive Editor




--------------------------

+ Live Online Discussion on Washingtonpost.com ...

Producer Michael Kirk will be online this Wednesday, Oct. 19th, at 11am
ET, to discuss "The Torture Question"

For details, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101101129.html

----------------------------

To purchase a VHS or DVD copy of current or past FRONTLINE programs,
click on http://www.ShopPBS.com/

----------------------------

Where are thoes Abu Ghraib pictures that the ACLU won the release of? I'd like to see them hitting the news about the same time that the Plame indictments come down, and Bush vetoes the anti-torture bill.

Thanks for posting this notification about Frontlines program.

Just a reminder that this show is supposed to be on tonight.

It's almost time...catch you guys later. Thanks again Ulrika for posting this thread.

You are welcome nrns ....you get to see it before I do...I have to wait four more hrs..

America doesn't care about this.

I hope, with every fiber of my being, that one day soon there will be an independent counsel assigned to investigate our treatment of prisoners in this war. This horrendous chapter in our history is just screaming to have someone take responsibility to get to the bottom of this and end it.

When that interrogator talked about using ice water to lower the prisoners body temperature and then inserting a thermometer in the prisoners rectum to make sure that his temperature didn't go low enough to kill him I just died inside. My god, Joseph Mengele employed sadistic hypothermia experiments in Auschwitz. Is that what we want our country to stand for? How many more horror stories must we hear before we stop dismissing this as a minor issue? What kind of a people have we become where we can see those photos and hear first person accounts over and over that this is not just a few low level people run amok as we were told and do nothing?

I know the people on this website are just as angry as I am. I hope that each of you keep up the pressure on your politicians, the media and your neighbors so that we can obtain a full, independent investigation that has teeth.

Freezing / Hypothermia

The freezing / hypothermia experiments were conducted for the Nazi high command. The experiments were conducted on men to simulate the conditions the armies suffered on the Eastern Front. The German forces were ill prepared for the bitter cold. Thousands of German soldiers died of freezing or were debilitated by cold injuries.

The experiments were conducted under the supervision of Dr. Sigmund Rascher at Birkenau, Dachau and Auschwitz . Dr. Rascher reported directly to Himmler. Dr. Rascher publicized the results of his freezing experiments at the 1942 medical conference entitled "Medical Problems Arising from Sea and Winter".

The freezing experiments were divided into two parts. First, to establish how long it would take to lower the body temperature to death and second how to best resuscitate the frozen victim.

The two main methods used to freeze the victim were to put the person in a icy vat of water or to put the victim outside naked in sub-zero temperatures.

The icy vat method proved to be the fastest way to drop the body temperature. The selections were made of young healthly Jews or Russians. They were usually stripped naked and prepared for the experiment. A insulated probe which measured the drop in the body temperature was inserted into the rectum. The probe was held in place by a expandable metal ring which was adjusted to open inside the rectum to hold the probe firmly in place. The victim was then placed in the vat of cold water and started to freeze. It was learned that most victims lost consciousness and died when the body temperature dropped to 25 C.

Two Russian men were seen by a prisoner doctor in the cold vat. They were very strong men and had said a comment to the SS doctor performing the experiment. The prisoner doctor was shocked at how long the Russian men could take the cold without loosing consciousness. He asked the directing doctor to take them out of the tank. He did not allow this and increased the temperature slightly to prolong their pain. They died after a long painful stay in the tank.

The second way to freeze a victim was to strap them to a stretcher and place them outside naked. The extreme winters of Auschwitz made a natural place for this experiment.

The resuscitation or warming experiments were just as cruel and painful as the freezing experiments.

http://www.remember.org/educate/medexp.html

Here is a partial transcript from the interview of Spc. Tony Lagouranis. This part of the transcript includes his comments about the hypothermia "technique" that had widespread use.

Spc. Tony Lagouranis (Ret.) was a U.S. Army interrogator from 2001 to 2005, and served a tour of duty in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005. He was first stationed at Abu Ghraib; in the spring he joined a special intelligence gathering task force that moved among detention facilities around the country. Here, he talks about how he found a "culture of abuse" permeating interrogations throughout Iraq. "The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture people in their homes," he tells FRONTLINE. "… They would smash people's feet with the back of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was serious stuff." He says he sent reports of the abuse he saw up the chain of command, but he does not believe his claims were followed up on. Lagouranis also talks about the confusion on the ground over whether Iraqi prisoners were subject to the Geneva Conventions. "I mean, there's just no way that what we were doing and what was sanctioned by the Pentagon through the IRE, the interrogation rules of engagement -- there's no way that fit in within the Geneva Conventions," he says. And he describes his own use of military working dogs to intimidate prisoners. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Sept. 25, 2005.





http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/to...gouranis.html#2

This was a very good show. 1-1/2 hours.

I don't see why Rumsfeld is still in his job. He should be charged with war crimes [again]. So should Majors Miller and Sanchez.

In 2003, the Bush administration got his first charge at the World Criminal Court withdrawn.