PBS Documentary Names U.S. Torture Commanders

[G_j]

http://villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=69754&page=hentoff&issue=0545&printcde=MzM5NDc4MTY4Mg==&refpage=L25ld3MvaW5kZXgucGhwP2lzc3VlPTA1NDUmcGFnZT1oZW50b2ZmJmlkPTY5NzU0

Liberty Beat
On Rumsfeld's Watch
A PBS documentary names U.S. torture commanders

by Nat Hentoff
November 7th, 2005 2:28 PM

Laws, like the spiders' webs, catch the small flies and let the large ones go free. — Balzac La Maison Nucingen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like Rumsfeld, George W. Bush echoes the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, in assuring us that the riveting photographs in the cell blocks at Abu Ghraib did not reflect "a widespread problem"—just them bad apples. But "The Torture Question" declares—and proves—that:

"A close examination of the evidence behind 12 official investigations . . . FBI internal e-mails . . . and dozens of interviews by Frontline tells a fuller story of what happened at Abu Ghraib and of policies, practices, and patterns that bring the torture question to the highest levels of the American government."

Donald Rumsfeld and the White House, determined to get "actionable intelligence" from the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and our other detention legal holes, "wanted 'Geneva' out of the way."

Early in the program, Frontline illuminates the repellent complicity of the "small circle of lawyers who surrounded the president" and "together would create a legal theory that would permit the United States to act unilaterally in defining the "rules of war"—and justifying the unprecedented powers to be given to George W. Bush—including the authorization of torture
..more..

[cliss]

1. Just some bad apples? The White House would have us

believe it. But if you look at the chain of command, it goes all the
way
up
to
the

TOP. All the way up, George.
And Dick.
How about it, Dick? I think that Don RumsFailed is not as big on torture as Dick is. I believe we have found our source.
Right, Mr. Marquis de Sade?

[Sensible]

2. Torture?

Seems that too much gets made of this. Leaving cocktail party chatter aside, in the real world, does anyone seriously argue that a captured terrorist with information about a nuclear bomb planted in New York, or San Francisco, etc., should not be tortured if necessary to get that information and save the millions of lives which would otherwise be lost?

[Sydnie]

3. Do tell ...

:popcorn:

[TahitiNut]

6. (Psst... pass the salt.)

:popcorn: Where're the marshmallows?

[darkmaestro019]

4. Too much TV.

Much, much too much TV. In the real world, torture doesn't work. People in extreme pain will say anything to make it stop. And that's about as much reply as I think you justify.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Oh please stop. Stupid scenario, and highly unlikely.

Torture is torture and if it was your son or your daughter being tortured, would we be making too much of it? Torturing prisoners has opened the door for OUR soldiers to be tortured. I suppose too much is made of that too. :eyes:

[progdonkey]

7. okay...

so because in some extremely unlikely scenario more likely found in "24" where the torture of a prisoner might possibly save the world, we should allow the president to enact policies that allow any mildly retarded Army private to sodomize any prisoner he doesn't like with a broomstick in a gulag prison cell?

[G_j]

8. "The Torture Question"

link for Frontline show:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

you can watch the show online