ABUSE CRISIS: Abu Ghraib: Fallout of a Secret Rumsfeld Pentagon Program

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The New Yorker is revealing that the real problem behind the horrifying abuse in the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison is not in the gross misconduct of a few disgraced soldiers, but in a decision, approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The decision, to expand a highly secret operation, embittered the American intelligence community and hurt the American prospects in the war on terror.
 
The New Yorker THE GRAY ZONE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. Issue of 2004-05-24 - Posted 2004-05-15 According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. The New Yorker's expose on this issue is a fascinating read and excellent eye-opener for all AboveTopSecret.com members. I strongly recommend that you digest the entire piece and provide you commentary within this thread. Here we find profound commentary on what is the root of the American issues, disintegration of ethics at the very top of the chain of command. I fear this abuse crisis will eclipse every other political scandal preceding it. Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Abuse scandal: Another bombshell... We must show no mercy Related News Special ATSNN Abuse Crisis Coverage Rumsfeld approved Abu Ghraib interrogations: Report Report: Rumsfeld policy allowed Abu Ghraib abuse Before Abu Ghraib , Rumsfeld stumbled [Edited on 16-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord] [Edited on 16-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord] [Edited on 18-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
There is a discussion regarding this here:

Check out Seekerof's info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 5/16/04 by Seth Bullock]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock There is a discussion regarding this here:
Yes... I caught that one. I first considered moving it to ATSNN, but it wasn't really structured for the news site. Good discussion there as well. This... will (and should) get ugly.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials didn't approve methods used at Abu Ghraib according to this report...

Bloomberg.com

Can we believe them?

If this is true.. you are right this will be .. damn I can't think of a word big enough... but it will shake the Bush Adminisration.. and could lead to a sure loss in the election for Bush... His poll numbers have dropped 7 points in his overall approval rating.. and that was just before this report!

Gazz



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I am so torn when it comes to this subject. When the original pictures were released, I thought, big deal, it's not torture it humilation, get over it.

Then the descriptions of actual abuse, torture, etc. and I began to have second thoughts. Aren't we supposed to better than this, how could we violate the Geneva Convention so easily? But maybe it's limited to only a few dozen soldiers and an incompetent chain of command leading right to Karpinski.

Now this is coming out. The actual sanctioning, by the Pentagon, to get intell at all costs. And then just to really screw with your mind, you find out that these interrogations were actually being productive. I noted the following in the article:




They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me. “No names. Nothing that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command. I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it’s working. We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”


This is obviously not a cut and dried situation. Do the ends justify the means? I just don't know anymore.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
So what's next? It’s not like the American public (Joe six-pack) will do anything about Rummy (impeachment anyone, and why haven’t the American public call for impeachment , it's just one lie after another.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Doesn't surprise me...Rumsfeld , Defense Dept. and the CIA are having their own control and power war. Wonder who will win????



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


This... will (and should) get ugly.


Well i just gained a little respect for you my friend.

As prior military i can assure you that the 'abuse' (torture) was not just some rogue soldiers. It came from above.
No doubt in my mind.
As much as people will, and have, tried to spin this into a political issue, it goes much deeper than that. But i will save that discussion for a later time.

What we have is rogue government, not rogue soldiers.

I agree with SO, this SHOULD get ugly, but i have seen too much orwellian action on the part of the media to believe that it WILL get ugly.
The most recent example is how on the day of the release of the Nick Berg video CNN stated clearly that the voice on the tape is not the al-qeada suspect.
"The voice is not his and the accent is incorrect" verbatum.
That report has since vanished.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
So what's next? It’s not like the American public (Joe six-pack) will do anything about Rummy (impeachment anyone, and why haven’t the American public call for impeachment , it's just one lie after another.


Impeachment is not a possibility. Rumsfeld is not aan elected official and therefore can't be impeached. Indicted, maybe, if criminal conduct is found. Fired, yes, if Bush has the balz.

I really think the only way to remove him is through pressure on Bush!



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
It may not be impossible.

Cabinet officials are legally obligated to report to Congress.

Their appointment requires Congressional confirmation.

I don't know if actual impeachment + conviction is possible, but Congress does have some power.

Congress has no power over, say, the National Security adviser, or the head of the CIA, which do not require Congressional Confirmation.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council.

Department of Defence


He really only answers to ONE person as I see it, and hmmm if he had known about this abuse in Iraq and even ordered it and there was any chance he did hide it from the president I am sure he'd be fired already.

Unless the president knew all along!

Gazz



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The power struggle between the Intelligence Communities and the Pentagon are nothing new. They have been ongoing for 50 years. That was one of the reasons for the suspected CIA involvement with the Kennedy assassination. He was going to transfer control of blackops to the Pentagon.

However I think there is a limit one can have when trying to gather intelligence. What a slap in the face for the people of Iraq to have the President of The United States of America tell them that they are there to protect the people from Saddam Hussein's brutal army of torturors and yet the Americans do the same.

Rumsfeld is a dirty player and I have to imagine he's one hell of a poker player. He can lie through his teeth and not show a single twitch.

And one other thing. It's the form of abuse also that you have to look at. Someone did their homework. In terms of a PSYOP against middle eastern enemies what better way than to strip them and make them do sexual acts. Because you know that the Arab world loves public nudity and open sexual acts. I mean Iran stoned a woman to death for making a porno. Public nudity is a no-no in the Arab world.

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by DEEZNUTZ]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
It may not be impossible.

Cabinet officials are legally obligated to report to Congress.

Their appointment requires Congressional confirmation.

I don't know if actual impeachment + conviction is possible, but Congress does have some power.

Congress has no power over, say, the National Security adviser, or the head of the CIA, which do not require Congressional Confirmation.

So is there no one but the pResident who can Indicted / fire,Rummy, witch Bush won't do anyway?



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
A new twist to the plot found here:

marc.perkel.com...

Read up and the pieces come together.

Link from: forums.euphnet.com...

Enjoy.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well I asked about it, I hope it happens to Rummy and G.W.B. for that matter.


Democratic Floor Whip Diana DeGette (D-CO) today called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign his post for the good of the nation.

Office of Congresswoman Diana DeGette

Under Secretary Rumsfeld’s watch American soldiers and private contractors tortured Iraqi prisoners. Proper command and control from the Secretary down would have prevented this from happening. Instead, these abhorrent incidents have irrevocably harmed American relations with the people of Iraq and the Islamic world and increased the danger posed to our soldiers in the field.



[Edited on 17-5-2004 by Sauron]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Well I asked about it, I hope it happens to Rummy and G.W.B. for that matter.


All these SOB's should be taken to Texas and excecuted for what they've done to the United States. All Criminals.... every single one of them. Don't even get me started on Kerry. That guy freaks me out even more than Bush does.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I don't think that anyone would object if this stopped another 9/11, but has this worked? Granted, there may be some things that were prevented that we may not know about, but Bin Laden and a lot of top terrorists are still running around. I feel more scared than before Iraq, because of a whole new generation of people who want to harm us. It seems like one of those things that look great on paper, but just can't be applied to the real world. This is a new type of war, and requires new, smarter, ways to combat it. And the civilain contractors are doing this! Well, I heard today that our special forces (not the Army per se, I mean all services black ops) take off their unifrom, work for civilians contractors, then put there uniform back on again. Because of liability reasons, and promised, you know, a bump in rank when they come back. This is not a Republican/Democrat thing, this is about a crooked government who have damaged America for generations to come.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
just finished reading the article.....none of it surprises me...it just sounds so...so..rumsfield. does this realy surprise anyone?? the govt hiding something????? 911???



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Well I see there starting to close in on Bush 43,
from what I have been reading Ol' Georgie Boy knew in Jan of 02, that they created this system of interrogation.
I can't see how you would get real info from someone with this method, I think you would just be told what you wanted to hear, but on the other hand there is still the blackmail aspect once they have been released to turn informant. This wouldn't have stoped 911, everyone knows the U.S. government did that to it's owne people
Question

If you have a war, you must be fighting soldiers? right
(Geneva Conventions) and if there are no enemy troops, theres no war,but occupation?
But the Taliban, Qaeda and Iraqis say they are "Holy warriors" is that not the same as a soldier? is this not the same as the American war of indipendence from England?

How High Does It Go?
"The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by Newsweek. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war -- designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals -- evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. . . .

"By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by Newsweek, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda."
John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff write in Newsweek:



[Edited on 17-5-2004 by Sauron]





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join