Military cites risk of abuse by CIA

[Bob26003]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...f_abuse_by_cia/

Military cites risk of abuse by CIA

New Bush rules on detainees stir concern

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | August 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Top military lawyers have told senators that President Bush's new rules for CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists could allow abuses that violate the Geneva Conventions, according to Senate and military officials.

The Judge Advocates General of all branches of the military told the senators that a July 20 executive order establishing rules for the treatment of CIA prisoners appeared to be carefully worded to allow humiliating or degrading interrogation techniques when the interrogators' objective is to protect national security rather than to satisfy sadistic impulses.

The JAGs expressed their concerns at a meeting late last month with Senators John Warner of Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and an aide representing John McCain of Arizona, who could not attend because he was campaigning for president. All three senators are Republicans who have been key proponents of laws banning the abuse of detainees, and have vowed to monitor the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners.

The top JAG for the US Army, Major General Scott C. Black, followed up on the meeting this month by sending a memo to lower-ranking soldiers reminding them that Bush's executive order applies only to the CIA, not to military interrogations. Black told soldiers they must follow Army regulations, which "make clear that [the Geneva Conventions are] the minimum humane treatment standard" for prisoners.

"This Executive Order does not change the standard for the Army. . . . I want to ensure that there is no confusion concerning the Executive Order's lack of applicability to the Army," Black wrote in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe. "As a Corps, we must be diligent to ensure that all interrogation and detention operations comply with the Army standard."

In an e-mail yesterday, a Justice Department spokesman defended Bush's order as "consistent" with the minimum standards of humane treatment required by the Geneva Conventions.

But the JAGs told the senators that a key part of the order opens the door to violations of the section of the Geneva Conventions that outlaws "cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," officials familiar with the discussion said.

The JAGs cited language in the executive order in which Bush said CIA interrogators may not use "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual." As an example, it lists "sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation."

Among lawyers, "for the purpose" language is often used to mean that a person must specifically intend to do something, such as causing humiliation, in order to violate a statute. The JAGs said Bush's wording appears to make it legal for interrogators to undertake that same abusive action if they had some other motive, such as gaining information.Continued...

[Bob26003]

Why do Republicans have such an affinity for torture. I know everyone saw the debates when the Repub candidates where bragging about who would stomp on the Geneva conventions the most and who could be the most inhumane?

Any ideas?

The psychology of such is interesting.

[Unlimited]

Why do Republicans have such an affinity for torture. I know everyone saw the debates when the Repub candidates where bragging about who would stomp on the Geneva conventions the most and who could be the most inhumane?

Any ideas?

The psychology of such is interesting.

I think they get off on it..I think bush is like some incubus who causes suffering and torture wherever he goes..then he feeds off it?..just a thought

[signal7]

Probably anticipating something. And, perhaps, clarifying reasoning for acts that are about to be disclosed that have already occurred.

We have upped the ante in the War on Global Terror by indemnifying employable tactics, including dispersal of certain technical off stances.

I'd say this is recourse for expected outcomes to be generated from current practice. Where there are to be several conflicts and multiple victims on all parties, involved. Won't hear of ours, of course.

I know personally Bushy is dodging Human Rights Violations by conducting certain no-no's within Territories of a team of individuals whose practice was great compulsion of degradation, through mangling. They were indeed, short work, et al...