Has the U.S. Been Engaged in Systemic Torture?

[Lemur]

There's another thread, but it's getting sidetracked into a U.N. argument that is far, far less important than the question of torture itself. The poll is there, answer as your conscience dictates. I'm making the poll anonymous to encourage people to say what they really think, regardless of whatever stance they wish to maintain here in the Backroom.

Personally, I believe we as a nation are engaged in extensive, systemic torture. And I'm not in the least bit interested in quibbling over the definition of the word, thank you very much. If you wet down a man and chain him to a cold floor to induce hypothermia, it's torture. If you waterboard a man, it's torture. If you attach electrodes to genitals, it's torture. Anybody who argues differently needs to take a hard look at their moral system.

Here are some links to documentation. Some of the organizations hosting the docs are groups I disagree with 90% of the time (the ACLU, for instance). But that doesn't make the documents they've dug up any less valid.

Detainee assaulted and ultimately killed with a baton. (www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD049269.pdf)

Report on detainees beaten until they cannot stand, one of them left to rot in his own feces. (www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DODDIA000208.pdf)

Doctor's report on an Iraqi detainee who had been severely beaten and repeatedly shocked with a taser. Doctor noted that "Eveything he described he had on his body." Doctor then cleared detainee for more interrogation. Nice. (www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD052120.pdf)

Amnesty International's report on the U.S. and torture of detainees. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612006) Key quote: "The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish."

I could go find more documentation, but to be honest, it's too depressing.

It's within the bounds of reason to make the argument that we need to torture, that this is a necessary evil which we will use in some limited way. But I think it's just obdurate to claim that we don't have a problem, and it's nothing more than high-jinks on the night shift at Abu Ghraib.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

No. Anything that suggests otherwise is clearly a biproduct of the communist propaganda system of CNN, ACLU, and Amnesty Internation. To suggest that the US does it to deny freedom to the Iraqi people and thus, if you suggest America does, you hate freedom.

(Sorry I'm feeling rather belligerant today).

[Lemur]

Kaiser, given how quickly you responded, it's obvious you didn't read any of the primary sources I posted. It would be nice if you would at least give them a glance before curling into your partisan crouch.

Another thought -- when someone wants to quibble about what is or is not torture, I think it's useful to imagine a procedure being used against our own soldiers. How would we feel about a U.S. Marine being waterboarded? Would we call it torture? How would we react to hearing about a Green Beret being beaten and choked into collapse, and then being left on the floor in a pool of his own feces? Would we make cute comments about his conditions and sell Club Gitmo t-shirts? Or would we be outraged?

[Kanamori]

I think that the situations can lead to it, but I don't think that Bush directed it. Something more should be done so that they occur much less often though.:balloon2:


Anybody who argues differently needs to take a hard look at their moral system.

It's not even that. They often don't need to resort to physical harm to bring the sheer psychological terror that they use. So, no bodily harm, then none of the disgusting fear that goes along only with it.:dizzy2:

[Ice]

I have no idea, so i just said maybe.

[Soulforged]

It's within the bounds of reason to make the argument that we need to torture, that this is a necessary evil which we will use in some limited way.However the treaty signed and ratified(UN Convention against Torture and other ill treatment) by the US excludes such reasons as a possible arguement to justify torture, in fact it appears that torture is never justified. For that I think that the systematic aspect of it exists, justifying this proceedure under the clause of "war situation"... but it's illegitime. The repeated cases seem to show a clear trace of a system of punishment and treatment to detainees that allows torture in someways. After this proceedures come into the public knowledge actions are taken quickly against the performers to not fall into a violation of the signed treaties, thus the situation is healed rapidly:"The true number of such deaths may be higher as there is evidence that delays, cover-ups and deficiencies in investigations have hampered the collection of evidence." Then they could terminate the case over lack of factual substance.
This is also important: "A soldier who acknowledged inflicting more than 30 consecutive knee strikes to Dilawar (a slight, 22 year old taxi driver) as he stood in shackles, told investigators that the blows were standard operating procedure for uncooperative detainees." - "Military commanders rejected a recommendation by army investigators to prosecute soldiers involved, on the ground that his death had been the "result of a series of lawful applications of force in response to repeated aggression and misconduct by the detainee".
"Despite the shocking nature of the treatment described in the above cases, the government still has not referred to any any of the reported abuses as "torture"..." - Article 1, section 1 of the (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment): "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." - "The investigation found that while all these tactics applied together could be considered abusive and degrading, each of the tactics was "authorized" under the Army field manual guidelines for the "pride and ego down" and "futility" approaches."
"The USA should therefore withdraw its limiting reservations, declarations and understandings to the Convention against Torture." That's in fact what the same treaty and the Convention of Viena prescript, any measure to remove any obstacle for the effectiveness of the treaty, wich includes any act by any of the three gobernamental organs.
I could keep quoting but the article shows a lot of evidence of a system that allows torture, and I think that the answer is evidently yes, the U.S. government has been engaged in systemic torture.

[Fragony]

What else could you call a a zillion seasons of 'Friends'.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes.

Abu Ghraib is both a moral and a public relations disaster.

[lancelot]

Considering that CIA type agencies used to train police squads in countries the US felt might 'fall' to communism to get dogs to rape female suspects, Im of the opinion that the US will probably do whatever the hell it likes and justify it later under the need for 'national security.'

Its sad but I feel the USA has fallen so far from the principles that it was founded on (but that is a different discussion).

[Lemur]

This (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b80cf032-db92-11da-98a8-0000779e2340.html) is just painful to read.


In a report to the committee this week, UK-based Amnesty International said there was evidence of “widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees”.

It accused Washington of creating a climate in which torture and ill-treatment could flourish, by trying to narrow the definition of torture and failing to hold senior officials responsible.

Jennifer Daskal, US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch in New York, said yesterday that senior US officials were still refusing to classify “water-boarding” – a near-drowning technique used in the Spanish Inquisition – as torture.

[Justiciar]

Yes. Could I care less? No. Torture has been used for ages.. it will continue to be used for ages.

[Fragony]

Amnesty international is an extreme-leftist organisation that has no credit whatsoever, just feed them some more money and those females that are so great at getting married will shut up and do what they do best, visit receptions and drink champagne, and what they were so good at to get married in the first place. Professional whiners that are payed to do so. And even if it is true, when was it any different?

[rotorgun]

As the Greeks have said: The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must This is the spector of absolute power corrupting asolutely that all nations should be onguard against. This would not be the first time in the history of the United States that torture has been used. I remember stories from some of the returning Vietnam veterans of incidences of such things....blindfolding some Viet Cong prisoners, loading them unto a helicopter and taking it up to a hover at a reasonably safe altitude, questioning one of them and then throwing him or her out of the cargo bay to make the others believe that they had been thrown to their death. It was an effective technique, usually getting results quickly. It was, however, a form of severe phsycolgical torture. I also heard of instances of villagers being beaten and threatened, even witnessing the murder of a village elder (usually by the Vietnamese interpreters traveling with the Americans) to ellicit information from them. We must all remember the failed policy of relocation (this is what endered Rome to so many of her occupied provinces) that did so much to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese....yeah, that really worked out well.
:stupido2:

This has been the nature of insurgency conflicts since the dawn of war. I daresay that it probably happened in certain places during the Revolutionary War as well. There are accounts of reprisals against both "Patriot" and Tory alike, with public hangings, burning of towns, and denouncing of traitors etc. The nature of our enemies has forced us to confront this phenomena again. It's not that America has never done so in the past, it's that it has, appearently, despite the denials of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, made this a policy in the War against Islamic nutcases who want to see 72 Virgins as my good freind KafirChobee has renamed this war. :bow:

[Soulforged]

Yes. Could I care less? No. Torture has been used for ages.. it will continue to be used for ages.
So your point is... don't do nothing, torture is someway a natural thing...
If the state of USA is found guilty of violations I'm pretty sure you'll start to see penalties imposed to them, even more in public case like this.
Just so you know that this things are not in vain: my state was charged with violations for the Interamerican Court many times, all those times the state was punished in some form, and all those times it worked, it changed something, the administration, the way the executive worked, the jurisprudence.
That it will continue to happen in some form is a certain thing, just as murder will continue, but does this justifies its systematic application...certainly not. Right?

[yesdachi]

I’d say extensive, systematic torture is a bit tinfoil hat but sure there is torture going on and I would like to see the amount of it being done, be reduced. I care more about stopping the threats against us then the treatment of my enemies. The angel on my shoulder says we shouldn’t do it at all but the little devil says we should video record it and play it to all who oppose us in hopes it will discourage anyone from f’ing with us.

This is such a C level issue for me, I would much rather see some of the real issues of the world or even my state be fixed before torture even comes into discussion.

[Tribesman]

Amnesty international is an extreme-leftist organisation that has no credit whatsoever
Thats strange , since the US State Department uses them over 500 times in its recent report .
What is even stranger is if they are extreme leftists , then why are they being used by the US govt as a source to criticise the actions of some leftist governments ?

It would appear that Frags statement doesn't make any sense at all .:juggle2:

[Justiciar]

So your point is...
That even if the UN does manage to force the US to cease the torturing of prisoners, it won't suddenly come to an absolute halt universally. Torture is an action.. and one that anyone can perform. I'm not saying that torture isn't tragic, simply that it will never really go away. The fact that the US is currently under the spotlight for using torture isn't all that big a deal. It isn't the only country to use it and won't be the last.

[Soulforged]

That even if the UN does manage to force the US to cease the torturing of prisoners, it won't suddenly come to an absolute halt universally. Torture is an action.. and one that anyone can perform. I'm not saying that torture isn't tragic, simply that it will never really go away. The fact that the US is currently under the spotlight for using torture isn't all that big a deal. It isn't the only country to use it and won't be the last.
And for that we shouldn't care... I think that this should be a matter of concern for all americans. And you're right, it isn't the only country, but it's the country wich signed, ratified and recognized the international court's competence on this matter. It's the country who has that manifest destiny and has been doing a lot of stuff to transform other countries in democracies, and fighting torture in the process, somehow this doesn't apply to them it seems. Now you should notice that this all is out of the subject, since the question is a factual one, not a valorative one. Has the USA been engaged in systematic torture? The answer is simple, yes or no, I don't even know why there's a maybe option. Perhaps you don't care, but reading at least half of the last article will give you enough information to say if it was or not systematic.

[Justiciar]

Did I say Yes in my first post in this thread? I can't remember.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

UK-based Amnesty International said

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth.

[Tribesman]

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth
So Saudi Arabia has equal rights for women and foriegners , Cuba has a free press and Palestinian groups don't do terrorism :no:
It appears in this case you have no point at all Capo .

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Case and point. Anything they say is the opposite from the truth
So Saudi Arabia has equal rights for women and foriegners , Cuba has a free press and Palestinian groups don't do terrorism :no:
It appears in this case you have no point at all Capo .
Do I ever have a point?

[Tribesman]

Do I ever have a point?
Sometimes Capo :2thumbsup:

[Soulforged]

Did I say Yes in my first post in this thread? I can't remember.
Yes you did, and you added that you didn't care. That's what I'm worried about.

[BHCWarman88]

Do I ever have a point?
Sometimes Capo :2thumbsup:


so,
What your Point??

[PanzerJaeger]

No, the US does not engage in systemic torture. It has happened, but it is not policy.

[KukriKhan]

http://www.answers.com/systemic&r=67 another cross-over word from medicine to politics.

I guess our Lemur, by his citations and usage means:
affecting an entire system

that system being the military, from its commander in chief down to, and understood by, the lowest-ranking West Virginia trailer park reservist private soldier.

Different from 'Systematic'.

The implication being: did/does someone, somewhere in the US military chain of command, direct or condone applying toture?

Clearly, some Privates thought so. And some Sergeants. And some Officers.

Were they all wrong in that "it's OK" thinking? A 'perfect storm' of miscommunication and predisposition to aberrent behavior? Maybe.

Or: was/is there a wink-and-nod approval of such tactics by someone, or several someones, in the chain of command - presumeably, as long as it yielded results? Maybe.

Lots of 'maybe's there, but I voted "No". My Army of 20 years ago would never do such, so I assume today's military likewise would not.

But I recognize that 'my Army' of 30 years ago... might have.

And I fervently hope that those nightmare days of the late 60's/early 70's haven't returned. If they have, we are in big trouble. Politically, militarily, morally. IMO.

[Lemur]

It's true, I meant "systemic" in the sense of affecting an entire system. Immediately after posting, I realized it wasn't really the right word, but I left it alone, since I've never figured out how to edit the title of a thread after posting.

Later on I realized someone might think I mis-typed "systematic," which only added to my agony. Oh, the shame of selecting a not-quite-right word for a title.

[John86]

Im sure they have, yet I dont care. Right or wrong, its still American.

Toture is present, but it in no ways affects our entire system.

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Affecting an entire system"-no.

Disturbingly present? Yes.

Crazed Rabbit

[Leet Eriksson]

Here is my opinion.

NO.

I think the US needs to better control the press, becuase the media eventually snowballs things to hell.

I don't believe its systematic, more like sporadic with some of the ones torturing prisoners going a bit over the top.

[BigTex]

Sure there's probably been some cases were soldiers have brutalized some prisoners, that always happens in war to any country. But no its not systematic. Though I hardly care either way, as most of these organizations complaining consider yelling at someone torcher.

[John86]

Here is my opinion.

NO.

I think the US needs to better control the press, becuase the media eventually snowballs things to hell.

I don't believe its systematic, more like sporadic with some of the ones torturing prisoners going a bit over the top.

Exactly,
The media moves on its own accord with no regard for its country. Like I said before, Right or wrong, its still America.

[Duke John]

The media moves on its own accord with no regard for its country.
Or should it be: "The posters move on their own accord with no regard for the original posters intention?"
If you don't get it, read Lemur's last post again or for the first time.

[John86]

Or should it be: "The posters move on their own accord with no regard for the original posters intention?"
If you don't get it, read Lemur's last post again or for the first time.

No... It had relevance. It was stating that the media can turn a seemingly small event into a huge problem, such as a act of toture, to attempt to lessen the credibilty of the governemnt, and boost their own ratings.

[Lemur]

Hiji, a quick question -- how many well-documented cases of prisoner abuse would you need to consider this a problem? At what point would you start to look at the leadership?

[BigTex]

Hiji, a quick question -- how many well-documented cases of prisoner abuse would you need to consider this a problem? At what point would you start to look at the leadership?

I would need dozens of well documented cases to consider it a problem. I can certainly see some prisoner annoying guards to the point where they get pushed around a bit. Also alot of these terrorists have been taught to make false acusations of torture and to talk up any interrogation technique used so it looks like torture. It would take thousands of cases and some darn good evidence that they were ordered by a leader to torture them. Soldiers are people, and we all have certain breaking points, cases of prisoner abuse happen everywhere, in every country. Just because prisoner abuse happens doesnt mean we blame the president or his cabinet (I'm guessing thats what you meant by leadership) we instead blame the person who abused the prisoner, kinda makes sense to me.

[Lemur]

BigTex, if I'm understanding you correctly, nothing less than "thousands" of well-documented cases would sway your opinion. (BTW, it's spelled "torture.") I'm afraid the die-hard my-country-right-or-wrong folks are starting to remind me of a passage I read last night:

"Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance dispels all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture."

-- Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer.

[BigTex]

BigTex, if I'm understanding you correctly, nothing less than "thousands" of well-documented cases would sway your opinion. (BTW, it's spelled "torture.") I'm afraid the die-hard my-country-right-or-wrong folks are starting to remind me of a passage I read last night:

"Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance dispels all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture."

-- Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer.

Yes fully aware alot of my last post is poorly spelled, bad hangover, and I hadent drank my coffee yet.

Its not that it would take thousands to sway my opinion. Its that it would take thousands or some darn good evidence that the pres or his cabinet ordered the torture to sway my opinion that we should blame the higher ups. My opinion is prisoner abuse is a sad thing that happens in war and you shouldnt blame the leader for it, its the soldiers own fualt. You should also think of the hardcore leftist my leaderships is frooking everything while reading that passage. That passage is a good quote for anyone with an extreme view.

[Soulforged]

Here is my opinion.

NO.

I think the US needs to better control the press, becuase the media eventually snowballs things to hell.

I don't believe its systematic, more like sporadic with some of the ones torturing prisoners going a bit over the top.
Not exactly. There's a SYSTEM of regulations and narrow interpretations of signed treaties that ALLOW torture. Of course is of the interpretation of some that this is not torture, so it will be a normal legal system, instead of one wich allows torture. Another thing, if knowing that there's a clear treaty that you signed stating what is or what is not torture and then you interprete this text or create new law in the contrary sense, then your creating an space for the systematic use of torture.

[Tribesman]

I would need dozens of well documented cases to consider it a problem.
What is the current tally of confirmed investigated well documented cases according to the US military ?
Is it over 800 yet ?
I havn't looked recently , but it was approaching 700 last time I did and had been climbing steadily the more they investigated it .
So Tex , as that isn't just a media figure , do you consider it a problem yet ?

[scooter_the_shooter]

Yes! the USA is torturing the poor people who defend their nation, The american mercs are cutting the freedom fighter's hands off! Sense I am a yankee I Decided to find the nearest a-rab I could and beat him, hook a car battery up to his scrotum and cut one of his toes off every hour!:2thumbsup: Time to go steal some oil!....after I feed his hands to the dogs while he watches!


In all seriousness, I dont think torture is in much(official) use by the USA. Unless you count sleep deprivation and other interrogation techniques of that nature. But we can't control what every guard does when no one is watching.:no:

[doc_bean]

yes, the question is just how widespread it is, and how cruel it ireally gets.

[rory_20_uk]

When someone in the administration tries to define orgn failure as where torture starts something must be up - why else so insanely severe?

Then we move on to the murkier USA-isn't-doing-it-but-allies-are. Is that OK? Giving to an organisation possibly USA backed, but seperate from the USA.

How people can be so dismissibe of sensory deprivation amazes me. Do they have no idea what it must be like?

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

In all seriousness, I dont think torture is in much(official) use by the USA. Unless you count sleep deprivation and other interrogation techniques of that nature.
Thats the thing Ceasar , the US government does count it as such , when other countries do it .
So if they think it is when others do it then it also must be when they do it .
No two ways about it , if something is wrong it is wrong , it can not only be wrong when it is someone else doing it .

Sense I am a yankee I Decided to find the nearest a-rab I could and beat him, hook a car battery up to his scrotum and cut one of his toes off every hour!
Ummmm , that was a little bit embarrasing when the good ol' patriotic yankee got caught running his own torture chamber in Afghanistan wasn't it .:oops:

[Joker85]

In all seriousness, I dont think torture is in much(official) use by the USA. Unless you count sleep deprivation and other interrogation techniques of that nature.
Thats the thing Ceasar , the US government does count it as such , when other countries do it .
So if they think it is when others do it then it also must be when they do it .
No two ways about it , if something is wrong it is wrong , it can not only be wrong when it is someone else doing it .


Would you mind actually posting specifics when you claim the United States government says something. I would like to see the context and the exact words used.

You've done this before and when called about it you dodged the question and escaped the thread.

In a thread a while ago you stated according to specific United States statutes the war in Iraq was illegal. When I asked you to provide them, you dodged and left.

So in the future it would be helpful to actually provide the original evidence you use to make your opinions and interpretations, rather than simply stating your interpretations as fact.

[Tribesman]

Would you mind actually posting specifics when you claim the United States government says something.
Thats simple Joker , what report does the US government now produce every year , about every foriegn country and their human rights record ?
Those for 2005 were released at the start of this month .
Try the Department of your government that deals with foriegn things :idea2:

In a thread a while ago you stated according to specific United States statutes the war in Iraq was illegal. When I asked you to provide them, you dodged and left.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Dodged and left .
errrrr you wrote " kelloggs ? wheat flakes ?crunchy nuts ?" or some such thing .
I replied "well done you got it first time"
Do you understand yet ?:book:

As a decent upstanding citizen Joker , you really should know about your government , its treaties and its workings , its your duty ~;)

[Joker85]

Would you mind actually posting specifics when you claim the United States government says something.
Thats simple Joker , what report does the US government now produce every year , about every foriegn country and their human rights record ?
Those for 2005 were released at the start of this month .
Try the Department of your government that deals with foriegn things :idea2:

In a thread a while ago you stated according to specific United States statutes the war in Iraq was illegal. When I asked you to provide them, you dodged and left.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Dodged and left .
errrrr you wrote " kelloggs ? wheat flakes ?crunchy nuts ?" or some such thing .
I replied "well done you got it first time"
Do you understand yet ?:book:

As a decent upstanding citizen Joker , you really should know about your government , its treaties and its workings , its your duty ~;)

Well I can't prove a negative. If you state "x treaty/agreement/report/law says such and such" it becomes your duty to produce that when asked, or admit you are making it up.

So again, would you mind producing the document/quote instead of your interpretation of those things? I'm sure you have them readily available since you stated with certainty what they said. So it shouldn't be a problem. :)

As for the Cornflakes thing, I thought it was just something random you said, I wasn't aware you were answering my question with a riddle. But, since I am bad at them, feel free at any time to enlighten me with the "American statute" that you were referring to in the other thread. In non riddle form please. ;)

[Tribesman]

Joker , I don't normally do links , go to the State Dept website and read its human rights reports .
While you are in a government site go to the treaties page and look up Kellogg , its on page 4 of the current treaties of the US .

[Joker85]

Joker , I don't normally do links , go to the State Dept website and read its human rights reports .
While you are in a government site go to the treaties page and look up Kellogg , its on page 4 of the current treaties of the US .

If you will not give a link (not sure why) then you can give the quote(s). I'm not going to go scouring through treaties and reports looking for some vague reference to something that could have possibly been the thing you were interepreting as such and such.

Again, this is not difficult. You made a claim that the report said something, you're now being asked to provide the quote that led you to state that.

If you can't do that, then it is dishonest to make statements of fact based off of your interpretations that you are either unwilling or unable to produce.

[Reenk Roink]

Well, actually, Tribesman doesn't do links...

It's his thing, he's actually started a thread with no link and needless to say, it got closed quick because nobody knew what the hell it was about...:tongue2:

It's quite cool in an annoying way...:rockstar:

[Tribesman]

Well, actually, Tribesman doesn't do links...
I do sometimes , not often .
Though come to think of it I did provide Rabbit with a link to the US treaties page when I thought he would be too busy finding the World Banks poverty reports .
Perhaps Joker could ask Redleg , he seems to have every treaty ever written on warfare and its conduct on his favourites menu , probably under Avalon Project~;)

[Redleg]

Well, actually, Tribesman doesn't do links...
I do sometimes , not often .
Though come to think of it I did provide Rabbit with a link to the US treaties page when I thought he would be too busy finding the World Banks poverty reports .
Perhaps Joker could ask Redleg , he seems to have every treaty ever written on warfare and its conduct on his favourites menu , probably under Avalon Project~;)



And a better understanding of them then Tribesman :laugh4:

To bad your up to your same old tactic of misrepresentation.

Just another attempt at the pot calling the kettle black it seems... :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, its easier than honest debate. :wink:

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

To bad your up to your same old tactic of misrepresentation.

Under the pact is war legal or illegal Red ?
Errrrr ....ummmmm ... illegal isn't it , no misrepresentation there , its still on the books isn't it .

[Duke John]

For the people who think that torture (waterboarding is) is ok since that is what happens during war, do you have any concerns about your soldiers? Do you care if they blown apart, after all that is what happens during war? Would it anger you if you hear stories of your country's soldiers being tortured? Should we care at all about the safety of soldiers? In a war people get killed so as long as the mission is carried out we shouldn't think about the amount of casualities? It's war, right?

:no:

[Ironside]

Less than 5 min search after the Human Rights link Tribesman refered to.

State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/)
Haven't red through that one though, it would probably take a few days.

The other one was harder. Is it the Kellogg-Briand Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact) you refer to Tribesman? It seems to be still in force according to the US department (link for that on the bottom of the page).

[Redleg]

To bad your up to your same old tactic of misrepresentation.

Under the pact is war legal or illegal Red ?
Errrrr ....ummmmm ... illegal isn't it , no misrepresentation there , its still on the books isn't it .

Nice attempt - but that was not the misrepresentation.

And war is legal - you might want to check out the part about defense....:oops:


Torture is a different subject from the legality of war.

[Tribesman]

And war is legal - you might want to check out the part about defense....
I see Red , so in the case that joker referred to Iraq attacked the US .
errrrr....nope:no:

Less than 5 min search after the Human Rights link Tribesman refered to.

State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
Haven't red through that one though, it would probably take a few days.

I havn't read through it yet either Ironside . There are lots of countrys in the world , so far I have only read Iraq ,Iran . Saudi , Pakistan , Israel + its added section , Cuba and Ireland .
Afghanistan , Venezuela , Britain and Nepal are next on the things to read list .

[Redleg]

And war is legal - you might want to check out the part about defense....
I see Red , so in the case that joker referred to Iraq attacked the US .
errrrr....nope:no:

Misrepresentation of the statement once again. You are having a problem, and it seems that it is sailing right over your head.. Edit: I will give you a clue if its to tough for you to figure out...


Again look at the legality of war as it relates to defense - not what joker stated...

Systemic Torture is not warfare, even though it might or might not occur during a war.

[Lemur]

I'm both pleased and disappointed that someone finally voted Gah. On the one hand, it felt wrong to have Gah sitting at zero votes. On the other hand, torture is an important enough issue that it doesn't seem Gah-worthy.

[Papewaio]

Well the definition of Gah! is to make head soup of your enemies... so it is quite apt for being indifferent to torture.

If you add in Hollywood, the emmys, golden globes, friends and the Oscars (particularly Whoopi's version) then yes the US has been systematically torturing people for years. :juggle2:

[Tribesman]

Again look at the legality of war as it relates to defense
Look at the actual treaty and find the word defense Red .
You know the pact , as in ....Under the pact is war legal or illegal Red ?

Are you trying to misrepresent statements you naughty young man .:laugh4:

Misrepresentation of the statement once again. You are having a problem, and it seems that it is sailing right over your head.. Edit: I will give you a clue if its to tough for you to figure out...

Do you mean the absence of a signature of ratification Red ?
Think again , its covered by another signatory on their behalf .:book:

Again look at the legality of war as it relates to defense - not what joker stated...

Ah I see , don't talk about what you are talking about , talk about someting else entirely .....right :no:

Torture is a different subject from the legality of war.
Yep , but it wasn't myself who raised the subject in this thread , was it .~:wave:

[Redleg]

Again look at the legality of war as it relates to defense
Look at the actual treaty and find the word defense Red .
You know the pact , as in ....[I]Under the pact is war legal or illegal Red ?

Your getting warm....



Misrepresentation of the statement once again. You are having a problem, and it seems that it is sailing right over your head.. Edit: I will give you a clue if its to tough for you to figure out...

Do you mean the absence of a signature of ratification Red ?
Think again , its covered by another signatory on their behalf .:book:


You just went cold.



Again look at the legality of war as it relates to defense - not what joker stated...

Ah I see , don't talk about what you are talking about , talk about someting else entirely .....right :no:

You are getting even colder....




Torture is a different subject from the legality of war.
Yep , but it wasn't myself who raised the subject in this thread , was it .~:wave:

However it was you, who misrepresent .. :oops: :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Short summary question, for the purpose of interpreting Tribesman-speak.

Tribe':

Is it accurate to summarize your point about U.S. actions vis-a-vis the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928 as follows:

The USA signed the Pact in 1928, ratifying same in 1929 and therefore abjuring the use of war as a tool for achieving policy objectives forever after.

Yes or No?

If Yes, are you further asserting that any war engaged in by one of the signatories that is not directly (as in no counter-attacks or pre-emptive efforts) for defense of one's homeland is an "illegal" war and inherently wrong because of a "breach of contract" under the terms of the pact?

[Tribesman]

I see the problem here Red , you are using Redlegs ultimate book of word definitions again aren't you .
So , does that mean Your getting warm....
is defined as , well the word is not in the treaty , but I don't want to talk about the treaty, and when you mention teaty it is not the treaty as it is written it is the version as printed in redlegs ultimate guide to international treaties
You just went cold.
is defined as I am not talking about the treaty that is mentioned here I am talking about the one I have in my head
You are getting even colder....
is defined as ,I am not not talking about the posts in this thread , the posts in this thread that I am talking about can be found in Redlegs ultimate guide to posts in this thread
However it was you, who misrepresent
is defined as oops I don't seem to be making any sense so i will keep repeating this statement and adding some smileys


Seamus .
Until such time as a country decides to withdraw from the pact and remove it from the countries laws the answer is yes .

Your second question needs lots more specifics to be correctly answered , There is a passage that Red is trying to allude to , in regards to self defense in relation to this treaty , though of course he won't because it is not actually part of the pact and to call it part of it would be one of those ....errr......misrepresentations (in the normal definition of the word not the ultimate one ~;) ), that deals with the issue of defense , and not only defense of the homelands .
In relation to that exchange this invasion (the side track subject of this topic) fails miserabley under the conditions put forward , and as time goes on it fails increasingly .
So in terms of the treaty , this current war is illegal , and under the conditions set out in later exchanges in the US government , it is very very illegal .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus .
Until such time as a country decides to withdraw from the pact and remove it from the countries laws the answer is yes .

Your second question needs lots more specifics to be correctly answered , There is a passage that Red is trying to allude to , in regards to self defense in relation to this treaty , though of course he won't because it is not actually part of the pact and to call it part of it would be one of those ....errr......misrepresentations (in the normal definition of the word not the ultimate one ~;) ), that deals with the issue of defense , and not only defense of the homelands .
In relation to that exchange this invasion (the side track subject of this topic) fails miserabley under the conditions put forward , and as time goes on it fails increasingly .
So in terms of the treaty , this current war is illegal , and under the conditions set out in later exchanges in the US government , it is very very illegal .

Thanks for clearly stating your position on this. I like your wit, but you sometimes get so caught up in the cut and thrust that you fail to state your own position in simple terms.

Despite what my State Department says and UN charter asserts, I think K-B has been dead for a long time, like since 1930 or 1931. It's not quite as pointless to outlaw war as it is to outlaw breathing, but only by a narrow degree. While I must acknowledge your techinically correct interpretation of international law regarding this issue, in practical terms K-B has not been relevant in foreign affairs for some time, if ever. Your home country may well be the only signatory that hasn't acted against the spirit or letter of the document. So, for me, "that dog don't hunt."

[Redleg]

I see the problem here Red , you are using Redlegs ultimate book of word definitions again aren't you .
So , does that mean Your getting warm....
is defined as , well the word is not in the treaty , but I don't want to talk about the treaty, and when you mention teaty it is not the treaty as it is written it is the version as printed in redlegs ultimate guide to international treaties

Oh so close - the pact does not make defensive war illegal because it does not state nor does it define it - it only make condemns the use of war as a national policy to solve conflicts between nations.

And I thought you understood the document.. :laugh4:





You just went cold.
is defined as I am not talking about the treaty that is mentioned here I am talking about the one I have in my head

LOL - so cold once again.



You are getting even colder....
is defined as ,I am not not talking about the posts in this thread , the posts in this thread that I am talking about can be found in Redlegs ultimate guide to posts in this thread

LOL - getting even colder.



However it was you, who misrepresent
is defined as oops I don't seem to be making any sense so i will keep repeating this statement and adding some smileys


Still not even close.

[Tribesman]

Congratulations Red , so a new revised definition in full .
I am not talking about what is in the pact I am talking about things in the pact that are not in the pact , when I say in this treaty I do not mean this treaty at all
Any luck with a publisher yet ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Congratulations Red , so a new revised definition in full .
I am not talking about what is in the pact I am talking about things in the pact that are not in the pact , when I say in this treaty I do not mean this treaty at all
Any luck with a publisher yet ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Probably as much luck as you have. :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Please forgive me for interrupting what has become a private conversation between Ren and Tribes, but there's a new development (http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=16764):

05.10.06

THE MANUAL OF TORTURE AND FORGETTING

In the midst of Eric Schmitt's profile of Steve Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, comes this:


In an effort to enhance military interrogations, Mr. Cambone is also overseeing the politically sensitive task of rewriting the Army's field manual. Just last week, he and other top Pentagon officials briefed senior senators on a Pentagon proposal to have one set of interrogation techniques for enemy prisoners of war and another, presumably more coercive, set for the suspected terrorists imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, said Senate aides, who were granted anonymity because the discussions were confidential.

Feel free to smack yourself on the forehead. (If that's permitted by the Geneva Conventions.) To create differing sets of interrogation techniques for different sets of captives is to ensure that, in practice, they "migrate," as the Schlesinger commission on Abu Ghraib famously put it. This isn't even controversial--it's the official, Pentagon-sponsored explanation of how Abu Ghraib happened. To give a sense of the real, practical concerns involved: What happens when you're an elite task force hunting Al Qaeda insurgents, whom the Bush administration says aren't protected by Geneva safeguards for enemy POWs, in a battlefield like Iraq, which the Bush administration says falls under Geneva? The answer is you get the Black Room at Camp Nama (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?ex=1300424400&en=e8755a4b031b64a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), whose motto, according to Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall, was "No Blood, No Foul."

The rewrite of the Army's interrogation field manual--formerly known as FM 34-52 and formerly mandating compliance with the Geneva Conventions--was supposed to clear up precisely this ambiguity. So, of course, was John McCain's amendment to last year's defense bill, which mandated that all interrogations conform to the Geneva-compliant field manual. Cambone's response is to remove Geneva's protections from at least some section of the manual. If this goes through, absolutely no one should be surprised when another Abu Ghraib happens, and no one in the Office of the Secretary of Defense can plead ignorance.

--Spencer Ackerman

[Lemur]

And this: (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?ex=1300424400&en=e8755a4b031b64a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

March 19, 2006
Task Force 6-26
In Secret Unit's 'Black Room,' a Grim Portrait of U.S. Abuse
By ERIC SCHMITT and CAROLYN MARSHALL

As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.

In the windowless, jet-black garage-size room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball. Their intention was to extract information to help hunt down Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to Defense Department personnel who served with the unit or were briefed on its operations.

The Black Room was part of a temporary detention site at Camp Nama, the secret headquarters of a shadowy military unit known as Task Force 6-26. Located at Baghdad International Airport, the camp was the first stop for many insurgents on their way to the Abu Ghraib prison a few miles away.

Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, "NO BLOOD, NO FOUL." The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. "The reality is, there were no rules there," another Pentagon official said.

The story of detainee abuse in Iraq is a familiar one. But the following account of Task Force 6-26, based on documents and interviews with more than a dozen people, offers the first detailed description of how the military's most highly trained counterterrorism unit committed serious abuses.

It adds to the picture of harsh interrogation practices at American military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as at secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centers around the world.

The new account reveals the extent to which the unit members mistreated prisoners months before and after the photographs of abuse from Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, and it helps belie the original Pentagon assertions that abuse was confined to a small number of rogue reservists at Abu Ghraib.

The abuses at Camp Nama continued despite warnings beginning in August 2003 from an Army investigator and American intelligence and law enforcement officials in Iraq. The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August.

It is difficult to compare the conditions at the camp with those at Abu Ghraib because so little is known about the secret compound, which was off limits even to the Red Cross. The abuses appeared to have been unsanctioned, but some of them seemed to have been well known throughout the camp.

For an elite unit with roughly 1,000 people at any given time, Task Force 6-26 seems to have had a large number of troops punished for detainee abuse. Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners, and at least 11 members have been removed from the unit, according to new figures the Special Operations Command provided in response to questions from The New York Times. Five Army Rangers in the unit were convicted three months ago for kicking and punching three detainees in September 2005.

Some of the serious accusations against Task Force 6-26 have been reported over the past 16 months by news organizations including NBC, The Washington Post and The Times. Many details emerged in hundreds of pages of documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union. But taken together for the first time, the declassified documents and interviews with more than a dozen military and civilian Defense Department and other federal personnel provide the most detailed portrait yet of the secret camp and the inner workings of the clandestine unit.

The documents and interviews also reflect a culture clash between the free-wheeling military commandos and the more cautious Pentagon civilians working with them that escalated to a tense confrontation. At one point, one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's top aides, Stephen A. Cambone, ordered a subordinate to "get to the bottom" of any misconduct.

Most of the people interviewed for this article were midlevel civilian and military Defense Department personnel who worked with Task Force 6-26 and said they witnessed abuses, or who were briefed on its operations over the past three years.

Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives.

Virtually all of those who agreed to speak are career government employees, many with previous military service, and they were granted anonymity to encourage them to speak candidly without fear of retribution from the Pentagon. Many of their complaints are supported by declassified military documents and e-mail messages from F.B.I. agents who worked regularly with the task force in Iraq.

A Demand for Intelligence

Military officials say there may have been extenuating circumstances for some of the harsh treatment at Camp Nama and its field stations in other parts of Iraq. By the spring of 2004, the demand on interrogators for intelligence was growing to help combat the increasingly numerous and deadly insurgent attacks.

Some detainees may have been injured resisting capture. A spokesman for the Special Operations Command, Kenneth S. McGraw, said there was sufficient evidence to prove misconduct in only 5 of 29 abuse allegations against task force members since 2003. As a result of those five incidents, 34 people were disciplined.

"We take all those allegations seriously," Gen. Bryan D. Brown, the commander of the Special Operations Command, said in a brief hallway exchange on Capitol Hill on March 8. "Any kind of abuse is not consistent with the values of the Special Operations Command."

The secrecy surrounding the highly classified unit has helped to shield its conduct from public scrutiny. The Pentagon will not disclose the unit's precise size, the names of its commanders, its operating bases or specific missions. Even the task force's name changes regularly to confuse adversaries, and the courts-martial and other disciplinary proceedings have not identified the soldiers in public announcements as task force members.

General Brown's command declined requests for interviews with several former task force members and with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who leads the Joint Special Operations Command, the headquarters at Fort Bragg, N.C., that supplies the unit's most elite troops.

One Special Operations officer and a senior enlisted soldier identified by Defense Department personnel as former task force members at Camp Nama declined to comment when contacted by telephone. Attempts to contact three other Special Operations soldiers who were in the unit — by phone, through relatives and former neighbors — were also unsuccessful.

Cases of detainee abuse attributed to Task Force 6-26 demonstrate both confusion over and, in some cases, disregard for approved interrogation practices and standards for detainee treatment, according to Defense Department specialists who have worked with the unit.

In early 2004, an 18-year-old man suspected of selling cars to members of the Zarqawi terrorist network was seized with his entire family at their home in Baghdad. Task force soldiers beat him repeatedly with a rifle butt and punched him in the head and kidneys, said a Defense Department specialist briefed on the incident.

Some complaints were ignored or played down in a unit where a conspiracy of silence contributed to the overall secretiveness. "It's under control," one unit commander told a Defense Department official who complained about mistreatment at Camp Nama in the spring of 2004.

For hundreds of suspected insurgents, Camp Nama was a way station on a journey that started with their capture on the battlefield or in their homes, and ended often in a cell at Abu Ghraib. Hidden in plain sight just off a dusty road fronting Baghdad International Airport, Camp Nama was an unmarked, virtually unknown compound at the edge of the taxiways.

The heart of the camp was the Battlefield Interrogation Facility, alternately known as the Temporary Detention Facility and the Temporary Holding Facility. The interrogation and detention areas occupied a corner of the larger compound, separated by a fence topped with razor wire.

Unmarked helicopters flew detainees into the camp almost daily, former task force members said. Dressed in blue jumpsuits with taped goggles covering their eyes, the shackled prisoners were led into a screening room where they were registered and examined by medics.

Just beyond the screening rooms, where Saddam Hussein was given a medical exam after his capture, detainees were kept in as many as 85 cells spread over two buildings. Some detainees were kept in what was known as Motel 6, a group of crudely built plywood shacks that reeked of urine and excrement. The shacks were cramped, forcing many prisoners to squat or crouch. Other detainees were housed inside a separate building in 6-by-8-foot cubicles in a cellblock called Hotel California.

The interrogation rooms were stark. High-value detainees were questioned in the Black Room, nearly bare but for several 18-inch hooks that jutted from the ceiling, a grisly reminder of the terrors inflicted by Mr. Hussein's inquisitors. Jailers often blared rap music or rock 'n' roll at deafening decibels over a loudspeaker to unnerve their subjects.

Another smaller room offered basic comforts like carpets and cushioned seating to put more cooperative prisoners at ease, said several Defense Department specialists who worked at Camp Nama. Detainees wore heavy, olive-drab hoods outside their cells. By June 2004, the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib galvanized the military to promise better treatment for prisoners. In one small concession at Camp Nama, soldiers exchanged the hoods for cloth blindfolds with drop veils that allowed detainees to breathe more freely but prevented them from peeking out.

Some former task force members said the Nama in the camp's name stood for a coarse phrase that soldiers used to describe the compound. One Defense Department specialist recalled seeing pink blotches on detainees' clothing as well as red welts on their bodies, marks he learned later were inflicted by soldiers who used detainees as targets and called themselves the High Five Paintball Club.

Mr. McGraw, the military spokesman, said he had not heard of the Black Room or the paintball club and had not seen any mention of them in the documents he had reviewed.

In a nearby operations center, task force analysts pored over intelligence collected from spies, detainees and remotely piloted Predator surveillance aircraft, to piece together clues to aid soldiers on their raids. Twice daily at noon and midnight military interrogators and their supervisors met with officials from the C.I.A., F.B.I. and allied military units to review operations and new intelligence.

Task Force 6-26 was a creation of the Pentagon's post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorism, and it quickly became the model for how the military would gain intelligence and battle insurgents in the future. Originally known as Task Force 121, it was formed in the summer of 2003, when the military merged two existing Special Operations units, one hunting Osama bin Laden in and around Afghanistan, and the other tracking Mr. Hussein in Iraq. (Its current name is Task Force 145.)

The task force was a melting pot of military and civilian units. It drew on elite troops from the Joint Special Operations Command, whose elements include the Army unit Delta Force, Navy's Seal Team 6 and the 75th Ranger Regiment. Military reservists and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel with special skills, like interrogators, were temporarily assigned to the unit. C.I.A. officers, F.B.I. agents and special operations forces from other countries also worked closely with the task force.

Many of the American Special Operations soldiers wore civilian clothes and were allowed to grow beards and long hair, setting them apart from their uniformed colleagues. Unlike conventional soldiers and marines whose Iraq tours lasted 7 to 12 months, unit members and their commanders typically rotated every 90 days.

Task Force 6-26 had a singular focus: capture or kill Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant operating in Iraq. "Anytime there was even the smell of Zarqawi nearby, they would go out and use any means possible to get information from a detainee," one official said.

Defense Department personnel briefed on the unit's operations said the harsh treatment extended beyond Camp Nama to small field outposts in Baghdad, Falluja, Balad, Ramadi and Kirkuk. These stations were often nestled within the alleys of a city in nondescript buildings with suburban-size yards where helicopters could land to drop off or pick up detainees.

At the outposts, some detainees were stripped naked and had cold water thrown on them to cause the sensation of drowning, said Defense Department personnel who served with the unit.

In January 2004, the task force captured the son of one of Mr. Hussein's bodyguards in Tikrit. The man told Army investigators that he was forced to strip and that he was punched in the spine until he fainted, put in front of an air-conditioner while cold water was poured on him and kicked in the stomach until he vomited. Army investigators were forced to close their inquiry in June 2005 after they said task force members used battlefield pseudonyms that made it impossible to identify and locate the soldiers involved. The unit also asserted that 70 percent of its computer files had been lost.

Despite the task force's access to a wide range of intelligence, its raids were often dry holes, yielding little if any intelligence and alienating ordinary Iraqis, Defense Department personnel said. Prisoners deemed no threat to American troops were often driven deep into the Iraqi desert at night and released, sometimes given $100 or more in American money for their trouble.

Back at Camp Nama, the task force leaders established a ritual for departing personnel who did a good job, Pentagon officials said. The commanders presented them with two unusual mementos: a detainee hood and a souvenir piece of tile from the medical screening room that once held Mr. Hussein.

Early Signs of Trouble

Accusations of abuse by Task Force 6-26 came as no surprise to many other officials in Iraq. By early 2004, both the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. had expressed alarm about the military's harsh interrogation techniques.

The C.I.A.'s Baghdad station sent a cable to headquarters on Aug. 3, 2003, raising concern that Special Operations troops who served with agency officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive. Five days later, the C.I.A. issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations. Separately, the C.I.A. barred its officers from working at Camp Nama but allowed them to keep providing target information and other intelligence to the task force.

The warnings still echoed nearly a year later. On June 25, 2004, nearly two months after the disclosure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, an F.B.I. agent in Iraq sent an e-mail message to his superiors in Washington, warning that a detainee captured by Task Force 6-26 had suspicious burn marks on his body. The detainee said he had been tortured. A month earlier, another F.B.I. agent asked top bureau officials for guidance on how to deal with military interrogators across Iraq who used techniques like loud music and yelling that exceeded "the bounds of standard F.B.I. practice."

American generals were also alerted to the problem. In December 2003, Col. Stuart A. Herrington, a retired Army intelligence officer, warned in a confidential memo that medical personnel reported that prisoners seized by the unit, then known as Task Force 121, had injuries consistent with beatings. "It seems clear that TF 121 needs to be reined in with respect to its treatment of detainees," Colonel Herrington concluded.

By May 2004, just as the scandal at Abu Ghraib was breaking, tensions increased at Camp Nama between the Special Operations troops and civilian interrogators and case officers from the D.I.A.'s Defense Human Intelligence Service, who were there to support the unit in its fight against the Zarqawi network. The discord, according to documents, centered on the harsh treatment of detainees as well as restrictions the Special Operations troops placed on their civilian colleagues, like monitoring their e-mail messages and phone calls.

Maj. Gen. George E. Ennis, who until recently commanded the D.I.A.'s human intelligence division, declined to be interviewed for this article. But in written responses to questions, General Ennis said he never heard about the numerous complaints made by D.I.A. personnel until he and his boss, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, then the agency's director, were briefed on June 24, 2004.

The next day, Admiral Jacoby wrote a two-page memo to Mr. Cambone, under secretary of defense for intelligence. In it, he described a series of complaints, including a May 2004 incident in which a D.I.A. interrogator said he witnessed task force soldiers punch a detainee hard enough to require medical help. The D.I.A. officer took photos of the injuries, but a supervisor confiscated them, the memo said.

The tensions laid bare a clash of military cultures. Combat-hardened commandos seeking a steady flow of intelligence to pinpoint insurgents grew exasperated with civilian interrogators sent from Washington, many of whom were novices at interrogating hostile prisoners fresh off the battlefield.

"These guys wanted results, and our debriefers were used to a civil environment," said one Defense Department official who was briefed on the task force operations.

Within days after Admiral Jacoby sent his memo, the D.I.A. took the extraordinary step of temporarily withdrawing its personnel from Camp Nama.

Admiral Jacoby's memo also provoked an angry reaction from Mr. Cambone. "Get to the bottom of this immediately. This is not acceptable," Mr. Cambone said in a handwritten note on June 26, 2004, to his top deputy, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. "In particular, I want to know if this is part of a pattern of behavior by TF 6-26."

General Boykin said through a spokesman on March 17 that at the time he told Mr. Cambone he had found no pattern of misconduct with the task force.

A Shroud of Secrecy

Military and legal experts say the full breadth of abuses committed by Task Force 6-26 may never be known because of the secrecy surrounding the unit, and the likelihood that some allegations went unreported.

In the summer of 2004, Camp Nama closed and the unit moved to a new headquarters in Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad. The unit's operations are now shrouded in even tighter secrecy.

Soon after their rank-and-file clashed in 2004, D.I.A. officials in Washington and military commanders at Fort Bragg agreed to improve how the task force integrated specialists into its ranks. The D.I.A. is now sending small teams of interrogators, debriefers and case officers, called "deployable Humint teams," to work with Special Operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senior military commanders insist that the elite warriors, who will be relied on more than ever in the campaign against terrorism, are now treating detainees more humanely and can police themselves. The C.I.A. has resumed conducting debriefings with the task force, but does not permit harsh questioning, a C.I.A. official said.

General McChrystal, the leader of the Joint Special Operations Command, received his third star in a promotion ceremony at Fort Bragg on March 13.

On Dec. 8, 2004, the Pentagon's spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said that four Special Operations soldiers from the task force were punished for "excessive use of force" and administering electric shocks to detainees with stun guns. Two of the soldiers were removed from the unit. To that point, Mr. Di Rita said, 10 task force members had been disciplined. Since then, according to the new figures provided to The Times, the number of those disciplined for detainee abuse has more than tripled. Nine of the 34 troops disciplined received written or oral counseling. Others were reprimanded for slapping detainees and other offenses.

The five Army Rangers who were court-martialed in December received punishments including jail time of 30 days to six months and reduction in rank. Two of them will receive bad-conduct discharges upon completion of their sentences.

Human rights advocates and leading members of Congress say the Pentagon must still do more to hold senior-level commanders and civilian officials accountable for the misconduct.

The Justice Department inspector general is investigating complaints of detainee abuse by Task Force 6-26, a senior law enforcement official said. The only wide-ranging military inquiry into prisoner abuse by Special Operations forces was completed nearly a year ago by Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica, and was sent to Congress.

But the United States Central Command has refused repeated requests from The Times over the past several months to provide an unclassified copy of General Formica's findings despite Mr. Rumsfeld's instructions that such a version of all 12 major reports into detainee abuse be made public.

[Haudegen]

Off topic:

Congrats on senior membership, Lemur! You definitely deserved it! :2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

I'm pretty sure it's a mistake ...