| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40572 Activity:high |
11/14 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14blochemarks.html?hp US using torture techniques learned from the North Vietnamese and North Koreans. w00t!! \_ http://tinypic.com/fneaza.jpg \- the world is flat! globalization! \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US citizens by NV and NK. I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture, it must be OK to torture US citizens. \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US citizens by NV and NK. I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture, it must be OK to torture US citizens. \_ I don't believe in torture but this is not the reason why. Whether or not we torture others has no bearing on what others will do to Americans overseas. No thug has ever said to himself, "Gee, I'd really like to rip this guy's teeth out and cut off some fingers but his country would never do that to me so I'll just give him a holy book of his choice, 3 squares, and hold him indefinitely instead". \_ It doesn't work directly like that. However, the fewer countries do it, the easier it is for the non-torturing countries to exert influence on the torturing countries c countries to exert influence on the torturing countries in a variety of ways. There are lots of other benefits to being a non-torturing country, for example making it easier to get support from moderates in your fight against the extremists. \_ Moderate countries or moderate citizens in your own? Internal support is required to a _limited_ extent in a democracy. In a heavy handed dictatorship, support from the militarty and secret services are the only necessary groups. There are no 'moderate' countries. Countries exist to benefit their population. They are naturally self-interested and will do what is necessary to further their own ends. \_ This is not really how the real world works. I know it works that way in Civ II, but in a dictatorship it is probably even more important to keep the general populace either on your side or in fear of you. \_ I don't play Civ II so I don't know what you're talking about. In a dictatorship, you can isolate and brainwash the people as seen in NK but that sort of isolation is economy crushing, as seen in NK, or you can beat them down with the military and secret service as seen in most dictatorships around the world through out time. Since getting beat down = fear, I think we're in agreement. \- "we've replaced the political science dept with a Civilization lab ..." \_ In other countries. Most moderate Muslims, before 9/11 and subsequent invasions, thought highly of the United States, especially of our freedoms, freedoms they would love to have in their countries. But when you rain down bombs on them and start up torture facilities why would they continue to help us against the fruitcakes in their countries who wish us harm? \_ Exactly who are these moderate Muslims who loved us so? And you have the second part backwards. If they got rid of the fruit cakes in their countries, there'd be no interest in bombing them. \_ http://tinyurl.com/dzngj "In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, three quarters of the people said they were attracted to the United States. After the Iraq War, that had dropped to 15 percent." \_ The United States WAS very popular in Muslim countries before 9/11 -- and so was President Clinton. The fruitcakes can't do much without moderate support. \_ You're nuts. What countries? Are you aware, for example, how often Muslim countries vote with us in the GA at the UN? Last I checked a few years ago it was averaging around 22% (during the Clinton years). The fruitcakes are doing a-OK without moderate support. Pick a year and get a history book and see how many acts of terror were committed around the world that year. You can do it for almost any year from 1960-now and find something. Not every year has a 9/11 but there's some real doosies going all the way back. You're living in a bubble. I think I've been trolled. \_ I even provided a link. And the "fruitcakes" are going to have to work overtime for decades to come even remotely close to the # of civilians the USA has killed in the last 40 years, indirectly or directly. \_ Indonesia was never the source of Muslim terrorists and isn't part of the middle east and although it is the single largest Muslim populated country it is not a majority of Muslims. As far as body count goes, how about 1 nuke? 1 germ? Are terrorists morally justified killing Western civ's until the body counts are equal? Madness. Also, you completely ignored my comments on UN votes and the fact that terrorism pre-dates anything related to the current or previous several administrations. IHBT. \_ Ok, you've convinced me lets torture everyone as payback for the nukes and bio-weapons they've used against us. \_ i'm sure that'll happen right after we stop bombing indonesia. oh wait. we never did that. maybe next time, troll. \- well the US draws lines where it wants like "we feel it is ok to torture irregular fighters who are not in uniform, not serving in a national army" etc. if some fellows in cambodia said "we believe it is ok to torture downed pilots engaging in secret bombings to find out when and where the next bombing run is" i am not sure that is appreciably crazier. oh but BUSHCO will claim it is completely difference because they wrote MEMOS. it is completely difference because we wrote MEMOS. \_ uhm, say what? i'd like to respond but i'm not really clear on exactly what point you're making so i'll leave it until you clarify. \- the source of a lot of resentment against the US is their double standards over many things and their ability to set agendas. e.g. free trade, ip pretection, standards of PoW treatment, what weapons are reasonable etc. \_ All countries are like that. \- all country may wish to be like that but they are not in fact all like that. look up the term "terms of trade". not all countries have sec council vetos. not all countries can dictate IMF policies etc. term "terms of trade" (i mean the vaguer usage). not all countries have sec council vetos. not all countries can dictate IMF policies etc. \_ they are all like that to the extent they are able. double standards are what countries are all about. that is inevitable when you acknowledge the natural "us vs. them" nature of their very existence and reason for being. \- you have defeated me. \_ Not true. Sweden is not like that, nor is The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. \_ Those aren't countries. They're counties. They also all live under the military umbrella of larger nations and have homogenous populations and no foreign policy of note since they lack a military or any real political or economic clout. However, I believe Belgium had their share of colonies in the past and had no problem with all that entails. Feel free to correct me on that if I have my history wrong. \- the congo was actually personally owned by king leopold, rather than being owned by the belgian state. he then left it to belgium in his will. that was a really nasty flavor of imperialism, even compared to other european powers in africa. you may wish to see King Leopolds Ghost etc. The author's sister teached at UCB. \_ You're wrong about Sweden not having a military. For its size its military spending has been rather high in recent decades as a policy of armed neutrality. Of course they must have benefited from NATO's opposition to Soviet aggression. Also it no longer has a homogeneous population as they too have taken on an immigrant population of Turks etc. I think that is true of Belgium and .nl also. They are countries in the traditional sense of the term; they just are not empires like the USA and Russia. \- i think the term you are looking for is "nation state". sweeden also has quite a militaristic past. \_ key phrase: "for its size". This is a very small country. If Ogo Pogo has 2 people and one of them is "the army" that doesn't mean Ogo Pogo has a real military even though they're spending 50% of their man power on the military. You get to the right idea at the end, though. Sweden is too small to be of any real consequence on the world stage of power politics where things like torturing people matters. Sweden is too small to be in a position to ever have captured anyone to torture or be really involved in anything important outside their immediate region. This is a game for world powers and their lackeys. \_ But President Bush told me Sweden had no military! I also rely on Dan Quayle for spelling advice ... \_ It's interesting how this article was written: "General Hill had sent this list - which included prolonged isolation and sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical assault and the exploitation of detainees' phobias - to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who approved most of the tactics in December 2002." Rumsfeld approved /most/ of them. Tell us, which ones were rejected? -emarkp \_ [Updated with better links] Here's Rummy describing what happened: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html This was the request from GTMO to Rummy, upon which he accepted most and rejected a few, and six weeks later, rejected more: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf So which ones did Rumsfeld initially reject? They're listed at the end: the end. Which ones were rejected six weeks later? Those are listed second to last: http://csua.org/u/e0g (usatoday.com) \_ According to this transcript, probably all of them (I *infer*) [that the author listed - sorry, wasn't clear about this], but Rummy said it was only for the 20th hijacker: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html Also, "physical assault" probably meant the legal definition of assault, not punching or slapping them, which in this case just meant poking them among other things. I like this part: I like this part ... Rummy: "The techniques that you described were not used, I'm told, on anyone one other than Katani. We may find out that's not correct at some point in the future, but at least my information thus far is that that's the case." This was the request to Rummy, upon which he accepted/rejected some, and six weeks later, rejected more: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf \_ So the reporter was a liar? He said the list "/included/" x y z and that Rumsfeld approved /most of them/. So we have a lists supposedly developed from SERE, some of which Rumsfeld didn't approve. So the entire claim of using methods we learned because they were done to our soldiers which "include abuse rising to the level of torture" is unfounded. -emarkp \_ Huh, what exactly are you saying the reporter is lying about? Please suggest an easy one first, please be clear, and please be concise. \_ The reporter said "most" were approved. The poster said "probably all of them". -emarkp \_ "all of them" that the author listed. The last sentence in my post was pretty clear that Rummy rejected/accepted some. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14blochemarks.html?hp Help OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS Doing Unto Others as They Did Unto Us By M GREGG BLOCHE and JONATHAN H MARKS Published: November 14, 2005 The Pentagon's interrogation tactics after 9/11, which were based on Red Army methods, have proven both inhumane and ineffective. Breaking news and award winning multimedia New York Times newspaper articles Arts & Dining reviews Online Classifieds It's free and it only takes a minute! |
| tinyurl.com/dzngj -> www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_newsday_122204.htm Experts' Q&A Archive Bush Can Reverse America's Declining Popularity By Joseph S Nye, Jr. December 22, 2004 Reprinted from Newsday Anti-Americanism rose dramatically around the world over the past four ye ars. Poll after poll showed the decline in the attractive power of the United States. America lost 30 points on average in polls in Western European c ountries, including Britain, and the drop was even worse in the Islamic world. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, three quarters of the people said they were attracted to the United States. In Jordan and Pakistan, often termed "friendly" Muslim countries, more pe ople told pollsters that they trusted Osama bin Laden than George W Bus h And these are the people whose help we need if we are to defeat al-Qa ida. The Bush administration has sometimes dismissed this negative evidence as the response of angry people who "hate our freedoms." When asked, people replied that they do not hate our freedoms, they hate our foreign policies. Some analysts say that anti-Americanism is an inevitable reaction to our size as the world's only superpower. The United States is the big kid on the block, and our disproportionate military power is bound to engender a mixture of admiration, envy and resentment. But those who dismiss the recent rise of anti-Americanism as simply the inevitable result of our size are mistaken in thinking nothing can be done about it. The United S tates was even more pre-eminent at the end of World War II than it is to day, but we pursued policies that were acclaimed by allied countries. Si milarly, American leadership was welcomed by many at the end of the Cold War, even though no country could balance American power. But we also p aid more attention to multilateralism, alliances and international insti tutions. It matters if the big kid on the block is seen by the others as a friend or as a bully. Opposition to American policies is not the same as general opposition to the United States. The image of any country is composed of a number of e lements, including the attractiveness of its culture, domestic policies and values, and foreign policies. Reactions to our policies are more vol atile than underlying reactions to our culture and values. The Iraq War is not the first time that a controversial foreign policy has increased anti-Americanism. While the overall popularity of the United States declined, majorities i n most countries continued to express positive opinions of the United St ates. We managed to recover our soft power quite soon after we changed o ur Vietnam policy. Unpopular policies are the most volatile element of our overseas image. T hat is good, because we can change our policies more easily than we can change our culture. Fortunately, there is more stability in the reservoi r of goodwill overseas that rests on the attractiveness of our popular c ulture and values. Unpopular policie s are beginning to affect reactions to American products and American pe ople. A recent poll in Europe found that 20 percent said they would avoi d American products because they disliked American policies. On his recent vis it to Canada, he said his first order of business will be to build multi lateral institutions, reach out to friends and foster a wide internation al consensus. In his first term, he already pursued more multilateral ap proaches toward North Korea and Iran than he did toward Iraq, partly bec ause our military is tied down in Iraq, and there are few good unilatera l options regarding the other two members of his "axis of evil." President Bush's problem, of course, is that the rest of the world will n ot stay still. North Korea and Iran are embarked on dangerous nuclear programs, Iraq rem ains a mess, and regional crises are likely. If Bush is able to hold ele ctions and find a political solution in Iraq; if he can show that he is making serious efforts toward his rhetorical goal of creating a Palestin ian state living at peace with Israel; and if he can make the style of h is foreign policy appear more consultative and less arrogant in the eyes of others, he may be able to reverse the anti-American trends that deve loped during his first term. |
| www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html html or +1 (703) 428-0 711 Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld Sunday, June 27, 2004 Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Interview with David Frost (BBC) DAVID FROST: President Bush, Tony Blair and other NATO leaders are arri ving today at all different hours for a crucial NATO summit. The Presi dent, of course, coming just from Ankara across to Istanbul. So far, British and American troops have bee n the primary force trying to establish security ahead of the handover t o the interim government this week. The US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the man in charge of all American military operations -- the refore, military operations in Iraq. I spoke to him just a few minutes ago for a rare interview and I b egan by asking him whether the NATO alliance remained as important as it was during the Cold War. It is different and a different t ime in our worlds history, but NATO remains the most outstanding militar y alliance on the face of the earth. It serves as the critical linkage between Europe and North America and it fulfills a function and has the potential to perspectively that really cant be filled by any other inst itution. Q: It could, of course, do more on some issues like Iraq. But for the fact, obviously, that you have the three members of old Europe there, Fr ance, Germany and Belgium. It would be difficult to have anything othe r than a coalition of the willing if youre going into a new crisis. RUMSFELD: Well, when you have an organization with that many memb ers, now 26, and you have a operation thats based on consensus, its unde rstandable that it will take some time to discuss and debate and conside r and make sure everyones working off the same fact pattern. To the ex tent people have a same threat assessment, they tend to do the same thin gs and react the same way, to the extent people look at things from a di fferent perspective and they're not working off the same sheet of music, it's not surprising when they go off in different directions. With the case of Iraq, we anticipate that at this summit the heads of sta te will end up agreeing that NATO -- the North Atlantic Treaty Organizat ion -- will in fact have a role in training and equipping the Iraqi secu rity forces which is a very good thing if that happens. Q: Tell me, Mr Secretary, are you where you hoped to be 14 months ago w hen the war came to an end, or not? You know, wa rs are unpredictable and post-war recoveries are unpredictable. I've been reading statements abou t how long it took the United States to move towards a democracy and his tory books on Japan and Germany, and some of the Eastern European countr ies. It's never been easy, it's always difficult, it's frequently viol ent and sometimes it's even ugly. It was Jefferson who said that one o ught not to expect to be transported towards democracy on a feather bed. It is a tough path and the Iraqis are going to go through a tough period, but they're doing pretty well. The schools are open, the hospitals ar e open, the people are coming back in, refugees are returning, internall y displaced people there. They have food, they have electricity, they' re selling oil, they have a budget. They also have a lot of Iraqis bei ng killed by, in some cases, violent Iraqis, extremists in some cases, b y foreign terrorists. But they're on a path, the new government is a good thing and itll take r esponsibility in two or three days. I have a lot of confidence that th ey'll be able to find their way towards a truly Iraqi solution. It won 't look like your country and it won't look like our country, but it wil l certainly look an awful lot better than the Saddam Hussein killing fie lds and mass graves, and shoving people off the tops of buildings to kil l them, and cutting off their hands and pulling out their tongues with p liers and chopping them off, which is what that repressive regime did. Q: But people do all say Mr Secretary, at the same time, that we were responsible, partially, for the security situation. We clearly, complet ely underestimated the degree of violence, lack of security, that there would have been. We would have done something different if we hadn't underestimated the danger on secur ity. There are also peo ple who argue the other side, that the real task of security is not to f lood a country with more and more troops, and become a foreign occupier. If you think about it, the Soviet Union had 300,000 troops in Afghani stan and lost the war. So victory and success is not inversely proporti onal to the number of people you have in the country. In the last analysis governance and essential se rvices and progress economically go hand in hand with successful securit y The Iraqi people are going to have to provide for the security of th at country and they're well on the way to doing it. Q: And in terms though of Mr Allawi, the Prime Minister, when he was w ith us back in December and again just a few weeks ago, said on both occ asions that he thought that one of the big mistakes was to disband the I raqi Army. He could see why it might have been seen as a good idea at t he time, but putting all of those people out of jobs, that was a really serious error and affected our inability to patrol the borders and all o f those things. His hope is to de-constitute some aspects of the Iraqi Army and I think that's a good thing. The reality is that we did not in effect disband the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Army disbanded itse lf. It stopped fighting, it left, it disappeared into its villages and took their weapons with them. And now the task, I think Mr Allawi is e xactly correct, is to try to keep recruiting those people back. We've already recruited back some 206,000 Iraqis into the security forces , the police, the army, the civil defense corps, site protection and bor der patrol. And his goal is to increase that number above the current 2 06,000 by some significant margin. Q: But do you think, I mean, Tony Blair was saying here on the program that he was hoping very much that the number of British troops in Iraq b y the end of next year would be greatly reduced. And the President said you're there for as long as it takes. But it actually is possible, isn 't it, that you will need in this current crisis of the handover, maybe to increase the number of troops. There are reports that your nominee for the next commander wants 25,000 m ore troops. Is it possible in the short term you'll have to put in more troops? RUMSFELD: Well, what the new commander, General Casey, said in his confirmation hearing was that if he needed more troops he would ask for them, number one. Number two, that we were already doing the planning in the event that that requirement became necessary, and that's only pru dent planning. I initiated that some months ago, that we would take a look, and I said t o General Myers, the chairman of our joint Chiefs of Staff, get the work done now in case General Abizaid or General Casey decide they need more troops, I need to know where we would get them, what they would look li ke, where they would be located and how they'd be deployed. it means that we're doing the prudent plannin g to need them. Now, in answer to your other question, we've actually gone from 113,000 t roops up to 141,000 troops over the past three or four months already. Q: Coming on for a moment to the awesome subject really, of the abuse o f prisoners and so on. The headlines about that probably in every count ry in the world have been there all this week, of course, because of the administration's release of the documents regarding prisoner abuse and so on. And reading through them, Mr Secretary, there's one that says about how in December 2002 you approved a list of new interrogation techniques to be used at Guantanamo Bay, which included dogs, nudity, hooding of priso ners, fear of dogs, use of stress positions, isolation of up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, forced shaving and so on. Now, instantly one w ould say that six weeks later you retracted that. I received a proposa l from the commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay, to permit a series of techniques to be used for interrogation. They were checked with the ... |
| csua.org/u/e0g -> www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-22-interrogation-usat_x.htm US interrogation techniques In late 2002 and early 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved s pecific interrogation techniques for extracting information from Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration made the previously classified lists public Tuesday. The final April 2003 list of 24 techniques approved by Rumsfeld, plus t hree he rejected out of hand and seven that were initially approved but apparently later rejected: Approved techniques "Direct": Asking straightforward questions. "Incentive/removal of incentive": Providing a reward or removing a priv ilege, beyond those that are required by the Geneva Conventions. "Emotional love": Playing on the love a detainee has for an individual or a group. "Emotional hate": Playing on the hatred a detainee has for an individua l or a group. "Fear up harsh": Significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee. "Pride and ego down": Attacking and insulting the ego of a detainee, no t beyond the limits that would apply to a prisoner of war. "We know all": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator already know s the answer to the question he is asking. "Establish your identity": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator has mistaken him for someone else. "Repetition approach": Continuously repeating the same question to a de tainee within interrogation periods of normal duration. "File and dossier": Convincing a detainee that the interrogator has a d amning and inaccurate file that must be fixed. "Mutt and Jeff": Pairing a friendly interrogator with a harsh one. "Rapid fire": Questioning in rapid succession without allowing detainee to answer. "Silence": Staring at a detainee to encourage discomfort. "Change of scenery up": Removing a detainee from the standard interroga tion setting generally to a more pleasant location, but not to a worse one. "Change of scenery down": Moving a detainee from the standard interroga tion setting to one less comfortable, but not one that would constitute a substantial change in environmental quality. "Dietary manipulation": Changing the diet of a detainee, but with no in tended deprivation of food or water and without an adverse cultural or m edical effect. Example: substituting MREs (US military "meals ready to eat") for hot rations. "Environmental manipulation": Altering the environment to create modera te discomfort, such as by adjusting the temperature or introducing an un pleasant smell. Conditions would not be such that they would injure a de tainee, and the detainee would be accompanied by an interrogator at all times. ") "Sleep adjustment": Adjusting the sleeping times of a detainee, such as by reversing sleep cycles from night to day. Guidance notes that "this technique is not sleep deprivation." "False flag": Convincing detainees that individuals from a country othe r than the United States are interrogating them. Stress positions, such as standing, for a maximum of four hours. Techniques proposed by Guantanamo interrogators but rejected by Rumsfeld in December 2002: The use of scenarios designed to convince a detainee that death or seve rely painful consequences are imminent for him or his family. Exposure to cold weather or cold water, with appropriate medical monito ring. Use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of su ffocation. Contributing: Source: Defense Department memos declassified Tuesday. |
| usatoday.com Sources: Date for Roberts hearings set Republican officials say they' ll start on Sept. Airwaves for the ages Look backat the greatest radio voices and rank today's broadcasters. Bush approval hits lowest point yet More than half of Gallup poll res pondents disapprove of president's performance. Economy grows at solid rate in Q2 Inflation gauge jumps, but prices - - excluding food and energy -- remain tame. Tiger ties career low In shooting 61 for the second round of the Buic k Open, Woods also matched a course record. Big Hurt lives up to nickname again White Sox slugger Frank Thomas is likely out for the season with a broken foot. Saddam questioned again Hearing for ex-dictator focuses on Shiite rep ression in 1991. |