Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and ___

[RightinNYC]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Medical Ethics Lapses Cited in Interrogations - NYTimes.com

The report cites agency guidelines for health professionals involved in interrogations requiring that they document each time a detainee was waterboarded, how long each waterboarding session lasted, how much water was applied, exactly how the water was applied and expelled, whether the detainees’ breathing passages were filled, and how each detainee looked between treatments.

That information led the C.I.A. to make detailed changes in how interrogators conducted waterboarding sessions, the report concluded. Eventually, the agency replaced regular water with saline solution to reduce the detainees’ risk of contracting pneumonia or hyponatremia, a condition of low sodium levels in the blood caused by free water intoxication that can lead to brain edema and herniation, coma and death. The human rights group cited a 2005 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, declassified by the Obama administration, saying that the C.I.A. made the switch to saline solution “based on the advice of medical personnel.”

Separately, the Red Cross report made public last year quoted Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as saying that when he was waterboarded his pulse and oxygen levels were monitored and that a medical attendant stopped the procedure several times.

The C.I.A. had adopted the use of waterboarding from a military survival training program, but the agency modified the technique as its medical professionals gleaned more information and experience. In addition to the switch to saline solution, the agency’s medical personnel introduced a special gurney so that the detainee could be moved upright quickly in case of choking. The agency also used a blood oximeter to measure vital signs, and detainees were placed on liquid diets on the advice of medical personnel so they would be less likely to choke on their own vomit, the report said.

Well, I'm convinced. This is clearly the moral equivalent of when the Nazis gassed prisoners to learn how to make their weapons more effective and sewed twins together to see if they could make a conjoined twin.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

That's not really how it works. If they want to claim that we tortured people for purposes of medical experimentation,

Whoever said that the U.S. tortured "for purposes of medical experimentation"?

the burden is on them to prove it.

Yeah, that's sort of what the report is all about. :roll:

Saying "there were doctors there monitoring things so that makes it experimentation" doesn't quite cut it.

Either you didn't read what was posted, as well as the links to the report, or you did and won't admit what the report is really about. Either way you're being disengenuous with your portrayal of the report.

Same as to your silly question: "Where are you getting the idea that the purpose was to experiment on human beings?" As IF Bush was interested in torturing dogs, to find out where they burried their bones. :roll: Seriously

From the Preface page of this report:

This report tells the largely untold human story of
what happened to detainees in our custody when
the Commander-in-Chief and those under him
authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is
not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of
these individual’s lives on their bodies and minds. Our
national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane
treatment these men received from their captors.

The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none
of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why
they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to
those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through
the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage
this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted —both on
America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values,
which the military, intelligence services, and our justice
system are duty-bound to defend.

In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton
cruelty to which they were subjected, a government
policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva
Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture
was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions,
including physicians and psychologists, became
complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those
the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect.
...
Major General Antonio
Taguba, USA (Ret.)
Maj. General Taguba led the US Army’s official
investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
scandal and testified before Congress on his
findings in May, 2004.[/B]

From the Executive Summary page:

This report provides first-hand accounts and
medical evidence of torture and cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment (“illtreatment”)
of eleven former detainees who were held
in US custody overseas. Using internationally accepted
standards, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) conducted
medical evaluations of the former detainees to document
the severe, long-term physical and psychological
consequences that have resulted from the torture and illtreatment.
The evaluations provide evidence of violation
of criminal laws prohibiting torture and of the commission
of war crimes by US personnel.

Four of the men evaluated were either arrested in or
brought to Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003
and later sent to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they
were held for an average of three years before release
without charge. The other seven were detained in Iraq
in 2003 and released without charge later that year or in
2004, with an average period of detention of six months.All of the former detainees evaluated by PHR reported
having been subjected to multiple forms of torture or
ill-treatment that often occurred in combination over a
long period of time.

Methods of torture experienced by the former
detainees evaluated by PHR included interrogation and
detention practices such as isolation, sleep deprivation,
forced nakedness, severe humiliation and degradation,
and sensory deprivation that were officially authorized
by military and civilian officials during certain periods
when these men were incarcerated. Additional practices
recounted by the interviewees including beatings
and other forms of severe physical and sexual assault
that, while not officially authorized by government documents
now part of the public record, came to be part of
a regime of brutality at the facilities where the detainees
were held.

This report demonstrates that the permissive environment
created by implicit and explicit authorizations by
senior US officials to “take the gloves off” encouraged
forms of torture even beyond the draconian methods
approved at various times between 2002 and 2004. In an
environment of moral disengagement that countenances
authorized techniques designed to humiliate and dehumanize
detainees, it is not surprising that other forms
of human cruelty such as physical and sexual assault
were practiced. The fact that these unauthorized torture
practices happened over extended periods of time at
multiple US detention facilities suggests that a permissive
command environment existed across theatres and
at several levels in the chain-of-command. This climate
allowed both authorized and unauthorized techniques to
be practiced, apparently without consequence.

Given the limited number of detainees evaluated, the
findings of this assessment cannot be generalized to the
treatment of all detainees in US custody. The patterns of
abuse documented in this report, however, are consistent
with numerous governmental and independent investigations
into allegations of detainee ill-treatment, making
it reasonable to conclude that these detainees were not
the only ones abused, but are representative of a much
larger number of detainees subjected to torture and illtreatment
while in US custody.

There's plenty of examples of the above accusations in the report. I guess all you have to do is... read it.

Enjoy

 

[ADK_Forever]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Well, I'm convinced.

Somehow I don't think you would admit Bush authorized putting prisoners on the rack until their limbs were pulled off... if he told you in person. Anything goes as long as an (R) is in front of their name, ehh?

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Whoever said that the U.S. tortured "for purposes of medical experimentation"?

...seriously?

From this very thread:

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.

Yeah, but it is exactly what this article states!

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.

I don't understand how you're saying that you never claimed this.

Me: Nothing in the article proved that they did things for the purpose of experimenting on human beings.

You: Yes it does, here, look where it says that! The article clearly says that they conducted medical experimentation on human beings!

2 hours later

Me: If they want to claim that we're doing this for purposes of medical experimentation, they need proof.

You: Who said we were conducting medical experimentation?

If you can't be bothered to read your own source or your own words, why should I bother responding to you any further?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

I just noticed this:

Physicians For Human Rights

That's not a very un-biased source of facts, there. That would be like Bush coming out with evidence against Obama or a sexual-orientation organization coming out with evidence that says that children of homosexual couples behave better :shrug:

Bias is always essential when deciding if it's believable. . . or, well, biased.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

...seriously?

From this very thread:

I don't understand how you're saying that you never claimed this.

Me: Nothing in the article proved that they did things for the purpose of experimenting on human beings.

You: Yes it does, here, look where it says that! The article clearly says that they conducted medical experimentation on human beings!

2 hours later

Me: If they want to claim that we're doing this for purposes of medical experimentation, they need proof.

You: Who said we were conducting medical experimentation?

If you can't be bothered to read your own source or your own words, why should I bother responding to you any further?

I still don't see where I, or the article, claimed "medical experimentation" was being conducted. YOU are the one who first mentioned that term. And it carries a much different meaning than "human experimentation" alone.

Words matter. Their meanings matter.
Your wild assumptions don't.

If you can't be accurate, while quoting posts and articles, why should I bother responding to you any further?

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

I still don't see where I, or the article, claimed "medical experimentation" was being conducted. YOU are the one who first mentioned that term. And it carries a much different meaning than "human experimentation" alone.

You've got to be kidding me.

The article claims that medical personnel performed "illegal human experimentation" on detainees and you're trying to say that that's not the same as claiming that they conducted "medical experimentation"?

The authors seem to disagree, as they use the terms interchangeably:

Declassified government documents indicate that:

* Research and medical experimentation on detainees was used to measure the effects of large- volume waterboarding and adjust the procedure according to the results.

But yea, tell me more about how nobody ever mentioned medical experimentation.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

It's sorta like the Chinese water torture. It's not one drip that breaks you. Or two, or three or four...

drip:::drip:::drip:::

Its funny how you mouthfoam over every anti-bush thing you see....

 

[ADK_Forever]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

You've got to be kidding me.

The article claims that medical personnel performed "illegal human experimentation" on detainees and you're trying to say that that's not the same as claiming that they conducted "medical experimentation"?

Absolutely. The first could be a valid description of testing out various techniques experimenting with efficacy of torture techniques. The second however, gives the impression of Nazi and Frankenstein-like experiments.

The authors seem to disagree, as they use the terms interchangeably:

But yea, tell me more about how nobody ever mentioned medical experimentation.

My mistake. You are correct. The term is indeed mentioned in the article. It is also mentioned only once in the report, page 61. Youssef used it describing his treatment. I don't think Youssef's use of the term should have made it into the article. It gives the wrong impression.

The report itself downgrades its use:

Youssef’s apparent credibility does not, however,
necessarily mean that all of his perceptions and interpretations
were accurate. For example, his description
of medical experimentation and involvement in forced
experiments may reflect a paranoid interpretation of
events. Such a paranoid interpretation of ambiguous
events is consistent with the presence of PTSD, as individuals
typically become hypervigilant with a heightened
expectation of additional ill-treatment. His perception
that the treating psychologist had conveyed information
to the individuals who subsequently interrogated him
seems plausible and convincing because of credible,
independent reports that the Guantánamo Behavioral
Sciences Consultant Teams had access to detainees’
personal health information.58 On the other hand,
Youssef’s perception may reflect a heightened sensitivity
to ill-treatment that often results from exposure
to traumatic abuse (i.e., torture). Youssef may also have
made mistaken assumptions about the identity of various
personnel he encountered; for example, it may be that
medics or nurses were present at interrogations or beatings,
not physicians.

I hold my position that the report is not about "medical experiments" but, about "torture experiments". There is quite a difference.

 

[American]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Well that's nice. Seeing anything good in this story...

Well we got our obigatory Bush-is-guilty post from ADK. :roll:

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

America needs to grow the balls to either put Bush on trial for having people tortured or to rewrite our laws to retroactively make legal what he already admitted to doing.

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Who cares? There terrorists.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Who cares? There terrorists.

Doesn't matter.

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Doesn't matter.

Yeah it does. Last i recall the UN made a bill on human rights, not animal rights.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Yeah it does. Last i recall the UN made a bill on human rights, not animal rights.

And they are human, so your point is negated.

 

[German guy]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

The problem is, they are not even all terrorists. Many of them have been found innocent later -- after they had been held for months or even years and tortured.

Court Orders Release of 17 Innocent Guantanamo Detainees into U.S. | Center for Constitutional Rights
FOXNews.com - Ex-Bush Official: Many at Guantanamo Bay Are Innocent

Last time I checked, in a free, constitutional republic, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Unless that has happened, he is not to be considered guilty, but as a suspect. It's up to independent courts to determine that guilt, not to the government. Only in dictatorships and tyrannies, people are treated guilty without a fair trial, based on nothing but a government order.

Bush changed that. He introduced laws that said the government's word is good enough to determine the guilt of a suspect. Which means the government can basically just detain and torture anybody they wish, and the victims have no choice to escape, because legal defense and fair trials are denied -- all the government needs to do is claiming they are terrorists, and the people is supposed to take the government's word for it.

Ever thought about how this invites abuse? For example, the government has an incentive to detain random people, because that makes them look "tough on terror". If they are guilty or innocent doesn't matter, because they won't face a court anyway, and the people doesn't care. The people believes the government, as long as the officials wrap their words into the flag. So why not just kidnap random people from the streets?

Even if the Bush administration has not massively abused these laws (if they did is a different topic), some government in the future certainly will eventually, sooner or later, if there horrible laws aren't skipped.

When that's not "big government", I don't know what else is. And if this topic wasn't so sad, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing about people who think a tax rise equals "fascism" or "tyranny", but neither had nor have problems with this practize of extralegal rendition and torture Bush started and Obama did not end.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

The problem is, they are not even all terrorists. Many of them have been found innocent later -- after they had been held for months or even years and tortured.

Exactly 3 people were waterboarded - KSM, Abu Zubaydeh, and Abd Al-Rahin Al-Nashiri. Unless you're trying to claim that the other detention practices constituted torture, there were no "innocents" involved.

Last time I checked, in a free, constitutional republic, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. Unless that has happened, he is not to be considered guilty, but as a suspect. It's up to independent courts to determine that guilt, not to the government. Only in dictatorships and tyrannies, people are treated guilty without a fair trial, based on nothing but a government order.

Bush changed that. He introduced laws that said the government's word is good enough to determine the guilt of a suspect. Which means the government can basically just detain and torture anybody they wish, and the victims have no choice to escape, because legal defense and fair trials are denied -- all the government needs to do is claiming they are terrorists, and the people is supposed to take the government's word for it.

No, Bush didn't change anything. The practice of detaining individuals via executive order and subjecting them to military tribunal has been around since the 19th century. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the executive detention, trial by secret military tribunal, and execution of unlawful combatants (including a US citizen) in Ex Parte Quirin.

Ever thought about how this invites abuse? For example, the government has an incentive to detain random people, because that makes them look "tough on terror". If they are guilty or innocent doesn't matter, because they won't face a court anyway, and the people doesn't care. The people believes the government, as long as the officials wrap their words into the flag. So why not just kidnap random people from the streets?

Because the incentives you refer to don't really exist. If I asked you (or anyone else) to guess at the number of detainees at Gitmo and Bagram, I doubt that more than 5% of people would be anywhere in the ballpark. Picking up a random innocent person does not make the government look tough on anything, because nobody really hears about it. In fact, their eventual release (like the ones in the links you mentioned above) makes the government look worse.

When that's not "big government", I don't know what else is. And if this topic wasn't so sad, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing about people who think a tax rise equals "fascism" or "tyranny", but neither had nor have problems with this practize of extralegal rendition and torture Bush started and Obama did not end.

Why is it that so many people think history started with the Bush Administration?

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism...

Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition | American Civil Liberties Union

Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Kesher Talk: "Go Grab His Ass"

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Who cares? There terrorists.

It doesn’t matter who or what they are, we have laws saying we can’t torture. This isn’t about them being scumbags, it’s about us being a nation ruled by law.

The ex-president has explicitly stated he ordered torture, meaning he violated those laws. Either we uphold those laws by putting him on trial, or we get rid of those laws and make it legal. Having a president openly flout the law (especially on such a prominent and emotional issue) is a statement to ourselves and the rest of the world that we really don’t give a **** about our written word. That’s not a good precedent, and it sucks even more for people who aren't in the majority party.

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

It doesn’t matter who or what they are, we have laws saying we can’t torture. This isn’t about them being scumbags, it’s about us being a nation ruled by law.

The ex-president has explicitly stated he ordered torture, meaning he violated those laws.

Oh god. Need he say it?
Guantanamo bay? Are you actually surprised?

I supported Bush's policies to be able to give government special laws to keep terrorists and interrogate them. I have no problem with that. If that is a violation of law (not that Obama is respecting the constitution) then, well, Congress has some business to do this summer.

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

And they are human, so your point is negated.

Thats disputed, lol.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Thats disputed, lol.

Not really. There bad guys, but there still people.

 

[German guy]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Thank you very much for your informative reply.

Exactly 3 people were waterboarded - KSM, Abu Zubaydeh, and Abd Al-Rahin Al-Nashiri. Unless you're trying to claim that the other detention practices constituted torture, there were no "innocents" involved.

There were other practizes that are generally considered torture, and there are at least 14 known cases when they were applied:

Barack Obama releases Bush administration torture memos | World news | guardian.co.uk

Also, there were many more cases when the US did not do the torturing, but handed over prisoners to allied states that regularly employ torture. We don't know how many other cases of torture have taken place, because not everything has been made public.

And I want to add that even one single incident of employed torture is abhorrent and a shame for a country that claims to respect human rights and be the leader of the free world.

No, Bush didn't change anything. The practice of detaining individuals via executive order and subjecting them to military tribunal has been around since the 19th century. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the executive detention, trial by secret military tribunal, and execution of unlawful combatants (including a US citizen) in Ex Parte Quirin.

If that's the case, then this practize has been in violation of basic human rights for a long time. Shame on everybody responsible, and shame on Bush for exapanding this practize.

Because the incentives you refer to don't really exist. If I asked you (or anyone else) to guess at the number of detainees at Gitmo and Bagram, I doubt that more than 5% of people would be anywhere in the ballpark.

That it weren't many doesn't change that these practizes are in direct violation of basic human rights, and it doesn't change the fact that many of those stripped of all their human rights turned out to be innocent later. That's a shame, in my opinion. Free countries must never resort to such kinds of human right violations, no matter if a few dozen people are concerned, hundreds or thousands. We in the West are better than that.

Picking up a random innocent person does not make the government look tough on anything, because nobody really hears about it. In fact, their eventual release (like the ones in the links you mentioned above) makes the government look worse.

That's a good point. But I would object that people did hear about it: It was well known that people are extralegally held, denied fair trials and "interrogated", because the government said as much, claiming they are "terrorists"/"evil guys". Many people did not question this word by the government, but accepted it, trusting they are indeed guilty of horrible crimes. These people would certainly assume the government is "tough on terrorism". You can see that today as well: Although it has become known that many were innocent, only the fewest of those who supported these practizes care.

I hope you understand where I am coming from when I tell you my opinion that I don't think this situation is acceptable for a free country with certain legal standards. It gives me severe stomach pain.

Why is it that so many people think history started with the Bush Administration?

Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition | American Civil Liberties Union

Kesher Talk: "Go Grab His Ass"

Thanks, that is a very valuable bit of information, I didn't know that. So I say shame on Clinton for starting these pracitizes, and shame on Bush for expanding them. And shame on Obama for not ending them.

 

[kaya'08]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Not really. There bad guys, but there still people.

It was a joke. -.-
I do think a legal framework should be produced which basically legitimize's Guantanamo. I think its an essential part of national security. We cant treat terrorists like average criminals.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Not really. There bad guys, but there still people.

Or savages. :shrug:

 

[Your Star]

Re: Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Torture Experiments and

Or savages. :shrug:

Still people :shrug:

I thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorist's?