The US defence department has issued new instructions prohibiting physical or mental torture of prisoners.

The directive says all detainees shall be treated humanely and it specifically bans the use of dogs to intimidate those in custody.

The US has been criticised by human rights groups over its treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman said it was the first time such a directive had been issued.

Another directive, to be issued in the future, will define exactly what is meant by humane, he added.

On Monday, President George W Bush defended his government’s treatment of detainees after a media allegation that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ran secret jails in eastern Europe.

“We do not torture,” he told reporters during a visit to Panama.

So, the day after he says, “we don’t” — the Pentagon says, “we shouldn’t!” Isn’t that a temporal contradiction?



  1. T.C. Moore says:

    Yeah, “humane” will mean, “not similar in effect to the failure of one or more organs,” which is how they redefined torture.

    This is a feint to say “look, we’ve banned it for the military” while keeping an exception for the CIA.

    Not good enough. Go McCain. Go OS/2.

  2. T.C. Moore says:

    The following story is amazing. It gets good 1/2 way through, where classified details of the interrogation were accidentally exposed to civilians lawyers and made public.

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact

    When it comes to intent, though, I’m not sure the CIA interrogator should hang. He didn’t want to kill him; based on the description of his reaction, he didn’t expect the guy to die. The accumulation of injuries and the “Palestinian hanging” position they put him in killed him. But then I suppose if you “interrogate” someone, and it results in his death, you are responsible. At least according to any reasonable theory of justice.

  3. maria mulford says:

    kill em all and let ala sort it out

  4. mike cannali says:

    “I suppose if you “interrogate” someone, and it results in his death, you are responsible”

    It’s called the Lindbergh Law

    Torture may be more appropriate as a deturent against mass murderers, child killers, and the like. Wait a minute, isn’t this what happened in 911 and Oklahoma City?

  5. T.C. Moore says:

    Great quote from Andrew Sullivan:

    Wars are dangerous things. They corrupt us [into dehumanizing the enemy] unless we remain vigilant. And one real worry is that because the president sincerely believes that his motives are good, he can find ways to dismiss or ignore or even condone things that are objectively wrong. This is especially a danger for those who believe their actions are sanctioned by their own God. If their motives are pure, they can do no wrong …

    This is basically how he can lie to our faces, saying “we do not torture”, while defending the CIA’s right to “torture-lite.” Just like the Clintons’ justified obstructing justice because it was all a partisan witch hunt and their motives as lefties were pure.

    [It was interesting to see Robert Ray, the last Independent Counsel, on The Daily Show talk about seeing Clinton in the Oval Office 2 days after Xmas 2000, where he laid out what he needed Clinton to do so that Ray could decline to prosecute: 1) Admit he gave false statements in his deposition about Paula Jones, 2) lose his law license in Arkansas, and 3) pay a 5 (or 50?) thousand dollar fine. Clinton did so on his last day as President. ]

  6. dog says:

    I argee with mike if there was only 5 minutes until a bomb went off and you had one ofthe bomb makers, would you torture him, hell ya!

  7. dog says:

    sgs

  8. Eideard says:

    If I only had 5 minutes before a bomb went off, I wouldn’t waste it reading crap suggestions. I’d get out of danger.

    More, “if, if, if, if”.

  9. AB CD says:

    Ray is not the last independent counsel. One is still working, about Henry Cisneros paying off his mistress, which extended into Hillary’s friend using the IRS to audit political enemies.

  10. T.C. Moore says:

    Looks like Ray was wrong.

    http://barrett.oic.gov/
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001744.html

    How can you spend $2 million per year when the investigation is over?
    I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate the Independent Counsel. Go get ‘im, Fitz!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4645 access attempts in the last 7 days.