warpedskydiver 0 #1 March 21, 2006 Jury Finds Abu Ghraib Dog Handler Guilty By DAVID DISHNEAU, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago Army Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 31, of Fullerton, Calif., ... FORT MEADE, Md. - A jury found an Army dog handler guilty Tuesday of abusing detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison by terrifying them with a military dog, allegedly for his own amusement. Sgt. Michael J. Smith, 24, was found guilty of six of 13 counts. He had faced the stiffest potential sentence of any soldier charged so far in the Abu Ghraib scandal _ up to 24 1/2 years in prison if convicted on all counts. With the six counts, he could face more than 8 years in prison, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge. His sentencing was scheduled later Tuesday. The military jury deliberated for about 18 hours over three days before announcing its verdict. The government contended that Smith, of the 523rd Military Police Detachment, Fort Riley, Kan., used his black Belgian shepherd to intimidate five prisoners for fun and competed with another canine handler trying to make detainees soil themselves. In closing arguments Friday, a prosecutor said Smith had violated two tenets of his training: treat prisoners humanely and use the minimum amount of force needed to ensure compliance. The defense argued that Smith was a good soldier who had done what he was supposed to do by having his dog bark at prisoners in a dangerous, chaotic environment where policies were so fuzzy that even the general who supervised interrogations testified he felt confused. Smith, from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with two counts of maltreatment involving three detainees, one count of conspiring to make a contest of making detainees soil themselves, dereliction of duty, assault and an indecent act. The soldier, wearing his green dress uniform, stood at attention staring straight ahead as a panel member read the verdict. The other dog handler, Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 31, of Fullerton, Calif., is to stand trial May 22. Nine other soldiers have been convicted of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib. Among them, former Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. received the stiffest sentence _ 10 years in prison. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Quote What next, charges for running down the hallway? Indictments for dirty looks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #2 March 21, 2006 this is what happens when the establishment refuses to admit the problem was far deeper rooted. So, some henchmen take the fall and life goes on as normal. In a normal world, the supervisors would be on the hook.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #3 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhat next, charges for running down the hallway? Indictments for dirty looks? You think terrifying an unarmed prisoner of war with a police dog for amusement is a negligible offense? Do you really think any of this would have been brought to light were the infractions not egregious and on more than one occasion? Who'd have busted them? One of theirs or one of our own? What would it take for someone to stand up and put a process like this in motion? you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #4 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhat next, charges for running down the hallway? Indictments for dirty looks? No. Charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two counts of maltreatment involving three detainees, one count of conspiring to make a contest of making detainees soil themselves, dereliction of duty, assault and an indecent act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #5 March 21, 2006 QuoteIn a normal world, the supervisors would be on the hook.... And they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #6 March 21, 2006 QuoteAnd they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. or if they were aware of this behavious taking place, yet did nothing to investigate and alter the behaviour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #7 March 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. or if they were aware of this behavious taking place, yet did nothing to investigate and alter the behaviour. When there's so much smoke it's hard to believe there's not a fire somewhere, isn't it. What exactly ARE the officers up to if they're not keeping track of what's going on in their units?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #8 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhen there's so much smoke it's hard to believe there's not a fire somewhere, isn't it. What exactly ARE the officers up to if they're not keeping track of what's going on in their units? Obviously not correctly supervising their troops. Unless I am the pentagon, then they are and this was just a relatively minor incident. Was never reported or rumoured before and therefor I could not have known. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #9 March 21, 2006 Quote You think terrifying an unarmed prisoner of war with a police dog for amusement is a negligible offense? But... But... they're not POWs! They're "enemy combatants" (whatever the hell that is) and not covered under Geneva. Please, tell me how this: "Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." doesn't cover those guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #10 March 21, 2006 Wasn't the argument along the lines that the whole convention did not apply? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #11 March 21, 2006 QuoteWasn't the argument along the lines that the whole convention did not apply? That was her point, I believe - that they argued semantics and technicalities of "POW" and "enemy combatant". I don't know the rules, but if they're unarmed under our lock and key, NO ONE has ANY business amusing themselves with another person's terror. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #12 March 21, 2006 The argument that I heard was that Geneva didn't apply because the prisoners were not POWs and they were not strictly civilian. They were saying that because they couldn't pigeon-hole the prisoners neatly into one of those two categories, that Geneva didn't apply, because the people that are imprisoned are not the people covered by the convention. Both the US and Iraq are signatories to Geneva. Geneva applies to conflicts between nations. There's not a lot of ground to argue that Geneva doesn't apply, other than arguing over the exact status of the prisoners. The problem there is the Article I quoted. Geneva is pretty thorough, so it's got me wondering if the people claiming Geneva doesn't apply have actually read the conventions. The people talking "enemy combatants" are relying on the third Geneva convention, which is the one people are most familiar with (and in that case, in some situations, they may be right and Geneva 3 may not apply. It's rather specific about who is considered a soldier/militia member/army member, etc. Read article 4 of Geneva 3 if you're interested in the exact definition). However, the convention covered everybody else who is being held by a nation that they are not a citizen of during a conflict or occupation (hard to argue that we're not involved in a conflict) under the fourth Geneva convention, article 4, which I quoted in my first post. Hope that helps. Let me know if you want more info, and I'll go dig it up. I wrote a research paper on some of this stuff last semester. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #13 March 21, 2006 Yes; and even further: the point being, these prisoners are either “POWs”, or they are “criminal defendants”. There is no “third category”. The classification of “unlawful combatant” is NOT a “third category”; rather, it is used to distinguish from “prisoner of war” so as to not be classified as a POW under the Geneva Convention. But if a prisoner is not a POW then, by default, he must be considered a criminal defendant (in other words, “unlawful combatant” is a subset of “criminal defendant”) and accordingly he must be charged with crimes under some country’s laws, brought before a judicial body, afforded the assistance of counsel and tried by competent evidence with some degree of promptness. Modern international law does not recognize a “limbo” status for these people that does not fall within the classifications of either “POW” or “criminal defendant”. It’s called the rule of law, and it is the ultimate credo of any democratic country, even in times of war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #14 March 21, 2006 exactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall under SPIES...they get executed. THAT IS THE REASON WE WEAR UNIFORMS MAKING IT EASIER TO IDENTIFY OURSELVES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,110 #15 March 21, 2006 > exactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall >under SPIES...they get executed. Did you read the post you are replying to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #16 March 21, 2006 sorry wrong window open and typed into Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #17 March 21, 2006 Quoteexactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall under SPIES...they get executed. More or less correct, but that's only the half of it. If they are suspected spies, they should be formally charged with espionage before a judge, afforded the assistance of counsel and brought to trial. Technically, under modern international law, summary execution of suspected spies (i.e., without trial) is unlawful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #18 March 21, 2006 Can you be charged as a spy for defending your own country (even out of a recognised uniform)? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #19 March 21, 2006 QuoteCan you be charged as a spy for defending your own country (even out of a recognised uniform)? I assume you mean while on the soil of your home country. Interesting question. Offhand, I don't know; I'd have to research it. It's also a question of whose jurisdiction the charge would come under. If we're using American law as an example, I can't imagine the US being invaded by, say, Denmark (what the hell) and an un-uniformed American civilian firing on enemy troops, while on American soil, being charged with espionage under American law (that is, unless those slippery Danes win the war & take over the government). Seems to me, anyway, that if another country has invaded your country, and you take up arms against the invaders, and they capture you, you're probably pretty fucked anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #20 March 21, 2006 QuoteIndictments for dirty looks? No but breaking the law as set out in the UCMJ by being a sadistic fuck..... sounds like he needs to be right where he is at.. on the other side of the bars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #21 March 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteIndictments for dirty looks? No but breaking the law as set out in the UCMJ by being a sadistic fuck..... sounds like he needs to be right where he is at.. on the other side of the bars. This poor bastard - like the rest of the poor bastards we have put in prison - are not rogue soldiers taking it upon themselves to torture prisoners (or enemy combatants or whatever we're calling them today). The problem is much more profound and is at a much higher level than some reservists. The Gonzales Record Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A18 THE SENATE JUDICIARY Committee begins confirmation hearings today for Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's choice to head the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is in some respects an attractive nominee: His life story is compelling, his views on some issues are comparatively moderate and his calm demeanor would be a reassuring change from that of his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft. Yet senators must scrutinize Mr. Gonzales's record. The man who has served as White House counsel these past four years must not become attorney general without clarifying his role in decisions that helped lead to the prisoner abuse scandal and to restrictions of civil liberties. More broadly, the Senate should ask whether Mr. Gonzales is capable of giving Mr. Bush dispassionate legal advice, rather than -- as he seems to have done so often in the past -- telling the president what he wants to hear. The concerns about Mr. Gonzales begin with his having urged Mr. Bush to deny that the Geneva Conventions apply in Afghanistan. The "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism, reads a January 2002 draft memorandum written in his name, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Mr. Gonzales's aggressive advice was directly counter to that of both the State Department and the military brass. And while Mr. Bush eventually declared that the conventions did apply, he followed Mr. Gonzales's advice not to fully comply with them. Rather, he took the unnecessary step of declaring all detainees "unlawful combatants," and therefore beyond the conventions' protection, without complying with the process international law contemplates for that judgment. This move proved fateful when the headquarters of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, citing the president's position on "unlawful combatants," approved such interrogation techniques in Iraq as hooding, forcing prisoners into "stress positions" and menacing detainees with dogs. Mr. Gonzales commissioned the now-infamous torture memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The memo followed a meeting in his office regarding the interrogation of a key al Qaeda detainee, in which participants discussed such methods as "waterboarding," mock burial and slapping. Mr. Gonzales played a key role in the formation of military commissions, a system that, three years after detainees began arriving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has yet to produce a single trial. The military commissions are now the subject of litigation, with one judge having already declared them illegal. Last year the Supreme Court rejected other Bush administration policies in the war on terrorism as well: its contention that American citizens like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi could be indefinitely detained without access to attorneys and the notion that Guantanamo could operate without judicial supervision. Across a range of areas, in short, Mr. Gonzales appears to have given the president legal advice that may have empowered him in the short term -- to lock up people he deemed dangerous, to try detainees using a system untested for decades, even to torture -- but that have a great disservice to the president and the country in the long run. Positions he has advocated have damaged U.S. prestige, courted judicial rebuke and greatly complicated the long-term goal of establishing legal regimes that will stand over the course of a long war. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Gonzales as his chief counsel gave him only the most cursory briefings on upcoming executions, omitting important facts and mitigating circumstances, according to a 2003 article in the Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps this was what Mr. Bush wanted. But the attorney general's job is not to give the president what he wants. Senators should with great care ask Mr. Gonzales to fill in the aspects of his record that are not known and to explain how he justifies those decisions that appear to have harmed the nation. The country needs an attorney general capable and confident enough to stand up for the law and deliver arm's-length legal advice. Before voting to confirm, senators need to satisfy themselves that -- notwithstanding his history -- Mr. Gonzales can and will deliver such advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #22 March 22, 2006 Oh I know this came down from above..... hell we were humiliating our own people on a daily basis in the "resistance training lab" at the SERE school 30 years ago. BUT we did have some very severe limits. They did keep a fairly good watch on us as instructors to ensure we did not drop into the Guards VS Prisoners syndrome in that training. Some people enjoyed their jobs down there in the little black uniforms just a tad too much and then they needed to be assigned elsewhere( according to the flight surgeon shrinks who watched over us.) When you have a leadership that makes it ok.. then things like this will happen, truth be told.. I think the leadership needs to be there right along side this guy. The damage the whole affair has caused us is going to last for a very long time in the minds of the people of the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #23 March 22, 2006 Quote When you have a leadership that makes it ok.. then things like this will happen, truth be told.. I think the leadership needs to be there right along side this guy. The damage the whole affair has caused us is going to last for a very long time in the minds of the people of the world. Totally agree. The leadership is the real problem. What truly sickens me is the way they are treating the soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #24 March 22, 2006 QuoteThe leadership is the real problem. What truly sickens me is the way they are treating the soldiers. A sadistic soldier who has incompetent, absentee leaders is still sadistic and still merits prosecution for his sadistic acts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,110 #25 March 22, 2006 >A sadistic soldier who has incompetent, absentee leaders is still >sadistic and still merits prosecution for his sadistic acts. Agreed. However, if that sadistic soldier is given a green light by his commanders, the fix is more than just prosecuting that one sadistic soldier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #2 March 21, 2006 this is what happens when the establishment refuses to admit the problem was far deeper rooted. So, some henchmen take the fall and life goes on as normal. In a normal world, the supervisors would be on the hook.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #3 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhat next, charges for running down the hallway? Indictments for dirty looks? You think terrifying an unarmed prisoner of war with a police dog for amusement is a negligible offense? Do you really think any of this would have been brought to light were the infractions not egregious and on more than one occasion? Who'd have busted them? One of theirs or one of our own? What would it take for someone to stand up and put a process like this in motion? you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #4 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhat next, charges for running down the hallway? Indictments for dirty looks? No. Charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two counts of maltreatment involving three detainees, one count of conspiring to make a contest of making detainees soil themselves, dereliction of duty, assault and an indecent act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #5 March 21, 2006 QuoteIn a normal world, the supervisors would be on the hook.... And they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #6 March 21, 2006 QuoteAnd they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. or if they were aware of this behavious taking place, yet did nothing to investigate and alter the behaviour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #7 March 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd they should be if there was any ambiguity in their orders. or if they were aware of this behavious taking place, yet did nothing to investigate and alter the behaviour. When there's so much smoke it's hard to believe there's not a fire somewhere, isn't it. What exactly ARE the officers up to if they're not keeping track of what's going on in their units?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #8 March 21, 2006 QuoteWhen there's so much smoke it's hard to believe there's not a fire somewhere, isn't it. What exactly ARE the officers up to if they're not keeping track of what's going on in their units? Obviously not correctly supervising their troops. Unless I am the pentagon, then they are and this was just a relatively minor incident. Was never reported or rumoured before and therefor I could not have known. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 March 21, 2006 Quote You think terrifying an unarmed prisoner of war with a police dog for amusement is a negligible offense? But... But... they're not POWs! They're "enemy combatants" (whatever the hell that is) and not covered under Geneva. Please, tell me how this: "Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." doesn't cover those guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #10 March 21, 2006 Wasn't the argument along the lines that the whole convention did not apply? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #11 March 21, 2006 QuoteWasn't the argument along the lines that the whole convention did not apply? That was her point, I believe - that they argued semantics and technicalities of "POW" and "enemy combatant". I don't know the rules, but if they're unarmed under our lock and key, NO ONE has ANY business amusing themselves with another person's terror. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #12 March 21, 2006 The argument that I heard was that Geneva didn't apply because the prisoners were not POWs and they were not strictly civilian. They were saying that because they couldn't pigeon-hole the prisoners neatly into one of those two categories, that Geneva didn't apply, because the people that are imprisoned are not the people covered by the convention. Both the US and Iraq are signatories to Geneva. Geneva applies to conflicts between nations. There's not a lot of ground to argue that Geneva doesn't apply, other than arguing over the exact status of the prisoners. The problem there is the Article I quoted. Geneva is pretty thorough, so it's got me wondering if the people claiming Geneva doesn't apply have actually read the conventions. The people talking "enemy combatants" are relying on the third Geneva convention, which is the one people are most familiar with (and in that case, in some situations, they may be right and Geneva 3 may not apply. It's rather specific about who is considered a soldier/militia member/army member, etc. Read article 4 of Geneva 3 if you're interested in the exact definition). However, the convention covered everybody else who is being held by a nation that they are not a citizen of during a conflict or occupation (hard to argue that we're not involved in a conflict) under the fourth Geneva convention, article 4, which I quoted in my first post. Hope that helps. Let me know if you want more info, and I'll go dig it up. I wrote a research paper on some of this stuff last semester. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #13 March 21, 2006 Yes; and even further: the point being, these prisoners are either “POWs”, or they are “criminal defendants”. There is no “third category”. The classification of “unlawful combatant” is NOT a “third category”; rather, it is used to distinguish from “prisoner of war” so as to not be classified as a POW under the Geneva Convention. But if a prisoner is not a POW then, by default, he must be considered a criminal defendant (in other words, “unlawful combatant” is a subset of “criminal defendant”) and accordingly he must be charged with crimes under some country’s laws, brought before a judicial body, afforded the assistance of counsel and tried by competent evidence with some degree of promptness. Modern international law does not recognize a “limbo” status for these people that does not fall within the classifications of either “POW” or “criminal defendant”. It’s called the rule of law, and it is the ultimate credo of any democratic country, even in times of war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #14 March 21, 2006 exactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall under SPIES...they get executed. THAT IS THE REASON WE WEAR UNIFORMS MAKING IT EASIER TO IDENTIFY OURSELVES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #15 March 21, 2006 > exactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall >under SPIES...they get executed. Did you read the post you are replying to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #16 March 21, 2006 sorry wrong window open and typed into Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #17 March 21, 2006 Quoteexactly non uniformed slodiers no matter what the nationality fall under SPIES...they get executed. More or less correct, but that's only the half of it. If they are suspected spies, they should be formally charged with espionage before a judge, afforded the assistance of counsel and brought to trial. Technically, under modern international law, summary execution of suspected spies (i.e., without trial) is unlawful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #18 March 21, 2006 Can you be charged as a spy for defending your own country (even out of a recognised uniform)? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #19 March 21, 2006 QuoteCan you be charged as a spy for defending your own country (even out of a recognised uniform)? I assume you mean while on the soil of your home country. Interesting question. Offhand, I don't know; I'd have to research it. It's also a question of whose jurisdiction the charge would come under. If we're using American law as an example, I can't imagine the US being invaded by, say, Denmark (what the hell) and an un-uniformed American civilian firing on enemy troops, while on American soil, being charged with espionage under American law (that is, unless those slippery Danes win the war & take over the government). Seems to me, anyway, that if another country has invaded your country, and you take up arms against the invaders, and they capture you, you're probably pretty fucked anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 March 21, 2006 QuoteIndictments for dirty looks? No but breaking the law as set out in the UCMJ by being a sadistic fuck..... sounds like he needs to be right where he is at.. on the other side of the bars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #21 March 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteIndictments for dirty looks? No but breaking the law as set out in the UCMJ by being a sadistic fuck..... sounds like he needs to be right where he is at.. on the other side of the bars. This poor bastard - like the rest of the poor bastards we have put in prison - are not rogue soldiers taking it upon themselves to torture prisoners (or enemy combatants or whatever we're calling them today). The problem is much more profound and is at a much higher level than some reservists. The Gonzales Record Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A18 THE SENATE JUDICIARY Committee begins confirmation hearings today for Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's choice to head the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is in some respects an attractive nominee: His life story is compelling, his views on some issues are comparatively moderate and his calm demeanor would be a reassuring change from that of his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft. Yet senators must scrutinize Mr. Gonzales's record. The man who has served as White House counsel these past four years must not become attorney general without clarifying his role in decisions that helped lead to the prisoner abuse scandal and to restrictions of civil liberties. More broadly, the Senate should ask whether Mr. Gonzales is capable of giving Mr. Bush dispassionate legal advice, rather than -- as he seems to have done so often in the past -- telling the president what he wants to hear. The concerns about Mr. Gonzales begin with his having urged Mr. Bush to deny that the Geneva Conventions apply in Afghanistan. The "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism, reads a January 2002 draft memorandum written in his name, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Mr. Gonzales's aggressive advice was directly counter to that of both the State Department and the military brass. And while Mr. Bush eventually declared that the conventions did apply, he followed Mr. Gonzales's advice not to fully comply with them. Rather, he took the unnecessary step of declaring all detainees "unlawful combatants," and therefore beyond the conventions' protection, without complying with the process international law contemplates for that judgment. This move proved fateful when the headquarters of Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, citing the president's position on "unlawful combatants," approved such interrogation techniques in Iraq as hooding, forcing prisoners into "stress positions" and menacing detainees with dogs. Mr. Gonzales commissioned the now-infamous torture memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The memo followed a meeting in his office regarding the interrogation of a key al Qaeda detainee, in which participants discussed such methods as "waterboarding," mock burial and slapping. Mr. Gonzales played a key role in the formation of military commissions, a system that, three years after detainees began arriving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has yet to produce a single trial. The military commissions are now the subject of litigation, with one judge having already declared them illegal. Last year the Supreme Court rejected other Bush administration policies in the war on terrorism as well: its contention that American citizens like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi could be indefinitely detained without access to attorneys and the notion that Guantanamo could operate without judicial supervision. Across a range of areas, in short, Mr. Gonzales appears to have given the president legal advice that may have empowered him in the short term -- to lock up people he deemed dangerous, to try detainees using a system untested for decades, even to torture -- but that have a great disservice to the president and the country in the long run. Positions he has advocated have damaged U.S. prestige, courted judicial rebuke and greatly complicated the long-term goal of establishing legal regimes that will stand over the course of a long war. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Gonzales as his chief counsel gave him only the most cursory briefings on upcoming executions, omitting important facts and mitigating circumstances, according to a 2003 article in the Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps this was what Mr. Bush wanted. But the attorney general's job is not to give the president what he wants. Senators should with great care ask Mr. Gonzales to fill in the aspects of his record that are not known and to explain how he justifies those decisions that appear to have harmed the nation. The country needs an attorney general capable and confident enough to stand up for the law and deliver arm's-length legal advice. Before voting to confirm, senators need to satisfy themselves that -- notwithstanding his history -- Mr. Gonzales can and will deliver such advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #22 March 22, 2006 Oh I know this came down from above..... hell we were humiliating our own people on a daily basis in the "resistance training lab" at the SERE school 30 years ago. BUT we did have some very severe limits. They did keep a fairly good watch on us as instructors to ensure we did not drop into the Guards VS Prisoners syndrome in that training. Some people enjoyed their jobs down there in the little black uniforms just a tad too much and then they needed to be assigned elsewhere( according to the flight surgeon shrinks who watched over us.) When you have a leadership that makes it ok.. then things like this will happen, truth be told.. I think the leadership needs to be there right along side this guy. The damage the whole affair has caused us is going to last for a very long time in the minds of the people of the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #23 March 22, 2006 Quote When you have a leadership that makes it ok.. then things like this will happen, truth be told.. I think the leadership needs to be there right along side this guy. The damage the whole affair has caused us is going to last for a very long time in the minds of the people of the world. Totally agree. The leadership is the real problem. What truly sickens me is the way they are treating the soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 March 22, 2006 QuoteThe leadership is the real problem. What truly sickens me is the way they are treating the soldiers. A sadistic soldier who has incompetent, absentee leaders is still sadistic and still merits prosecution for his sadistic acts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #25 March 22, 2006 >A sadistic soldier who has incompetent, absentee leaders is still >sadistic and still merits prosecution for his sadistic acts. Agreed. However, if that sadistic soldier is given a green light by his commanders, the fix is more than just prosecuting that one sadistic soldier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
