Pentagon: Gitmo interrogation techniques lawful

[UpInArms]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/20/gitmo.interrogation/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In response to criticism from its own military attorneys, the Pentagon insisted Thursday that interrogation techniques used on al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are "fully consistent with international law."

The Pentagon refused to disclose what techniques are employed. But it insisted they were "in accordance with the Geneva Conventions," even though the Bush administration argues those protections do no apply to terrorist groups or individuals.

Two top Pentagon lawyers -- one civilian and one military -- who spoke on condition of anonymity described how a range of acceptable interrogation practices was drawn up between January and April of 2003, resulting in guidance issued by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year.

Under that guidance, certain aggressive techniques could only be used with the direct approval of the Secretary of Defense, the officials said.

...more...

[democracyindanger]

1. That's fine

So why don't these two 'top Pentagon lawyers' go on the record?

[saigon68]

15. THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS

ALONG WITH THEIR BOSS RUMDUMB

[happynewyear]

17. Crummy needs to go now saigon68!

RESIGN CRUMMY RESIGN CRUMMY RESIGN CRUMMY RESIGN!!!!!

[shraby]

2. I wonder what has happened to

the films of beatings at Gitmo that were supposed to have been delivered to Sen. Leahy on Wednesday?

[Tellurian]

6. good question..

I started a thread last Thurs or Fri referencing Rumsfeld ordering Carbone to increase the intensity of interrogation at all prison facilities. It seems everything is getting swept under the rug.

When I have a min- I'll try doing a search.

[lovedems]

3. Yeah, and Zarqawi killed Nick Berg and we DIDN'T bomb a wedding

party.

I carry the shame our leaders don't seem to have.

[Just Me]

4. Those two lawyers should be disbarred for breaking ethics rules.

Whomever they are,...they are NOT suppose to expose their lawyer/client communications.

Hee heee heee.

[Tellurian]

8. what difference does it make...They're both lying.

Republicans only hire liars..

[Just Me]

12. Double-whammie. Lawyers lose their license to practice law

when they misrepresent facts or the law and/or when they breach their duty in securing lawyer/client communications.

These two,...should lose their license to practice law.

[Tellurian]

18. What on earth are you talking about? Bush owns the court!

The only time an attorney can be disbarred for lying is if he does so under oath! That is call perjury.

[meow2u3]

13. One lies and the other swears to it

...and the third tells everybody else to lie--under penalty of perjury!

[Politicub]

5. How many have died at Guantanamo?

And what do they do with the dead? A mass grave is going to be unearthed somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan, folks The photos of torture get worse and worse. The latest photos have American soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs-up next to an Iraqi corpse.

This is not the work of a few. It is a policy decision.

[bluestateguy]

7. Well I guess that puts us in our place

The Pentagon said it was legal so that should just be enough for all of us.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. When was the last time you took their word for anything?

Sell me a used car, Rummy!

[Eloriel]

10. They're "in accordance" BECAUSE

the Pentagon has defined their status so as to be excluded from Geneva Conventions, and that's the only way they're "in accordance" with Geneva.

That's well documented.

And, of course, they're also prone to lying.

[Eloriel]

16. Here's one mention

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/site/newsweek/

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

[Miss Authoritiva]

11. Just some more shades-of-meaning synonyms that,

in a court of international law, may or may not come in handy.

[Elidor]

14. Wait a moment, let me turn up my credulity to the highest setting

"The things we are doing in Gitmo are fully consistent with international law - but we can't tell you what they are. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Qaeda and Taliban detainees. Never mind the JAGs who are on record speaking out against these unnamed acts. We're telling you - off the record and anonymously - that you should trust us."

I find this interesting:
"...Certain aggressive techniques could only be used with the direct approval of the Secretary of Defense."

Perhaps these anonymous wankers are trying to play a double-game against the prince of darkness?