(Cambridge, MA) In the most comprehensive investigation to date of health professionals' involvement in the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation program (EIP), Physicians For Human Rights has uncovered evidence that indicates the Bush administration apparently conducted illegal and unethical human experimentation and research on detainees in CIA custody. The apparent experimentation and research appear to have been performed to provide legal cover for torture, as well as to help justify and shape future procedures and policies governing the use of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
--
This evidence indicating apparent research and experimentation on detainees opens the door to
potential additional legal liability for the CIA and Bush-era officials. There is no publicly available evidence that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel determined that the alleged experimentation and research performed on detainees was lawful, as it did with the "enhanced" techniques themselves.
If true... bang! bang! bang!
That's the hammer on more nails in Bush & Cheeney's treason coffin.
Well that's nice. Seeing anything good in this story...
I think we should wait before evidence becomes public to pass any kind of judgement. Though if true, everyone involved should be tried in accordance to the Geneva Convention.
It's a press release from a liberal advocacy group with little to support its allegations.
The claim of "torture experimentation" is based on the fact that the government was strict about having doctors present to document all of the interrogation procedures and monitor the detainees. Of course, had the government not done so, there would be another liberal advocacy group decrying the Bush Administration's policy of not providing adequate medical assistance.
The idea that having a doctor present to monitor a detainee's health = "torture experimentation" is just absurd.
^ This.
Honestly, this is really blowing things out of proportion. It appears the entire basis for calling this "experimentation" and "research" is the fact doctors were present, took notes, and made suggestions on how to make it more humane. Honestly, would they be happier if doctors had not been there, not been able to say whether these techniques were too harmful, and not suggested ways to minimize long-term damage?
I find offense that these "experiments" were allegedly even taking place.
Nobody is saying that you're not entitled to object to the interrogation methods that were used, but all of the information necessary to support your concerns was made public years ago. Nothing in this report is any more objectionable than that which we already knew.
How so?
We were told torture was illegal and it is in the civilized world. The excuse was that it was to gather information about "attacks".
Now, we find out it was to experiment on human beings. This is more Nazi like...and NOT legal in ANY International court.
Where are you getting the idea that the purpose was to experiment on human beings? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what the evidence indicates.
Physicians For Human Rights has uncovered evidence that indicates the Bush administration apparently conducted illegal and unethical human experimentation and research on detainees in CIA custody. The apparent experimentation and research appear to have been performed to provide legal cover for torture, as well as to help justify and shape future procedures and policies governing the use of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques. The PHR report, Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the 'Enhanced' Interrogation Program, is the first to provide evidence that CIA medical personnel engaged in the crime of illegal experimentation after 9/11, in addition to the previously disclosed crime of torture.
This evidence indicating apparent research and experimentation on detainees opens the door to potential additional legal liability for the CIA and Bush-era officials. There is no publicly available evidence that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel determined that the alleged experimentation and research performed on detainees was lawful, as it did with the "enhanced" techniques themselves.
"The CIA appears to have broken all accepted legal and ethical standards put in place since the Second World War to protect prisoners from being the subjects of experimentation," said Frank Donaghue, PHR's Chief Executive Officer. "Not only are these alleged acts gross violations of human rights law, they are a grave affront to America's core values."
Once again, your wordsmithing fails."In their attempt to justify the war crime of torture, the CIA appears to have committed another alleged war crime – illegal experimentation on prisoners,"
Yeah, but it is exactly what this article states!
Once again, your wordsmithing fails.
So, now the accusations that the Bush administration acted like a bunch of Nazis... is now another sad truth about the Worst Presidency in History.
It's a press release from a liberal advocacy group with little to support its allegations.
The claim of "torture experimentation" is based on the fact that the government was strict about having doctors present to document all of the interrogation procedures and monitor the detainees. Of course, had the government not done so, there would be another liberal advocacy group decrying the Bush Administration's policy of not providing adequate medical assistance.
The idea that having a doctor present to monitor a detainee's health = "torture experimentation" is just absurd.
You're free to claim that this is proof that we tortured people for the purpose of medical experimentation. I think that's an unsupportable claim (to put it mildly), but I don't see much value in trying to convince you otherwise.
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.—Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.),
June 2008 preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives
Well, they sure seem to have some damning proof of their claims.
Do you have any proof to support that this "advocacy" group is not credible?
I find offense that these "experiments" were allegedly even taking place.
Now, we find out it was to experiment on human beings. This is more Nazi like...and NOT legal in ANY International court.
So, now the accusations that the Bush administration acted like a bunch of Nazis... is now another sad truth about the Worst Presidency in History.
Are you referring to the interrogations themselves or are you actually suggesting that having doctors there to insure minimal harm is a bad thing?
I don't care if there were doctors there or not, we shouldn't have been torturing people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?