Wash. Times editorial whitewashed Bush administration's role in detainee abuse
SUMMARY: A Washington Times editorial asserted that "[j]ust as a few MPs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq acted disgracefully ... there may be legal wrongs and/or morally questionable acts that interrogation personnel conducted at Gitmo or other sites." But in suggesting that responsibility for detainee abuse at those detention facilities was limited to "a few MPs" at Abu Ghraib and "interrogation personnel" at Guantánamo, the Times ignored the conclusions of a Senate Armed Services Committee report that found: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
A January 23 Washington Times editorial asserted that "[j]ust as a few MPs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq acted disgracefully ... there may be legal wrongs and/or morally questionable acts that interrogation personnel conducted at Gitmo or other sites." But in suggesting that responsibility for detainee abuse at those detention facilities was limited to "a few MPs" at Abu Ghraib and "interrogation personnel" at Guantánamo, the Times ignored the conclusions of a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report released jointly by chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member John McCain (R-AZ). That report found: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, while former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney have asserted that torture at Abu Ghraib was, in Cheney's words, "not policy," the Senate Armed Services Committee report found that the "abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own" and that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."
Moreover, the same report found that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there."
From the Senate Armed Services Committee report:
(U) The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the Committee's inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.
[...]
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of [Department of Defense general counsel] Mr. [William] Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
From the January 23 Washington Times editorial:
The prison at Guantanamo Bay, or "Gitmo," as the swabs call it, has become a symbol. Just as a few MPs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq acted disgracefully (seven were convicted by courts martial, sentenced to prison and given dishonorable discharges), there may be legal wrongs and/or morally questionable acts that interrogation personnel conducted at Gitmo or other sites. The Cuban naval base is not considered by the court system to be a part of the United States, and therefore detainees are denied rights granted to criminals under the U.S. Constitution.

















Operation Rewrite History of Bush Administration: Go!
I am still unlcear why Obama thanked Bush?
Being polite... Thank you for your service...and thanks for not vandalizing the keyboards in the White House. Otherwise, I think Obama's inauguration speech made clear what he thinks of the Bush legacy.
good point irony. But even Obama thinks Bush is not a horrible person, like most of the haters on the left think.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/16/obama.interview/index.html?section=cnn_latest
My great-aunt was a lunatic...but one of the nicest people you could meet. Fortunately for all of us she never served as President of the USA.
So lunatics can be nice? none of those definitions below mean i want to meet a "lunatic" or think they are "nice".
lunatic (colloquially: "looney" or "loon") is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable: a condition once called lunacy.
lunatic (colloquially: "looney" or "loon") is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable: a condition once called lunacy.
I'll agree with that definition...but even a lunatic can act nice. Let me help you out here by giving you a reading assignment...just Google the last eight years. ;>)
I have lived it i don't need to google anything. 9/11, Katrina, recession, Iraq. Missing anything? Enron and Ken Lay.
Quite a bit, actually.
Are unclear as to whether or not you are unclear?
Thanks Governor, i meant Unclear.
With an upward inflection?
Yeah Governor, whatever.
"The Bad Apple Defence".
I'm surprised no one used that at Nuremberg.
So much for the world loving America now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28811723/
I thought a military base was considered US soil even if located in another country?
...a few MPs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq acted disgracefully...
Picture this... A kid from your neighborhood commits a terrorist act...plants a bomb, for example. So the police come to your neighborhood (or subdivision) and round up all the males 15 or over and put all of you in a prison. You're held without charges for months while the guards place you in sexually compromising positions with other men against your will and take pictures. They beat you and interrogate you but determine that you are not connected to any terrorist activity. However, they blackmail you with the compromising photos, threatening to show your family and friends the pics if you don't become a snitch. Oh, and you live in a culture where even the suggestion of homosexuality will make you a pariah. This is what happened to about 90% of the detainees at Abu Ghraib according to a well-researched article I read in The Atlantic a while back. Abu Ghraib wasn't the result of a few bad MPs. It was a systematic approach to obtain intelligence of local terrorist activity by turning men into snitches through torture, humiliation and blackmail. And we wonder why the Iraqis hate us?
I have been told Iraqis will love us now that Obama is President. All is forgiven?
Who told you that and why would you believe it?
Don't you have troll work to do?
In these threads the past few days I have been told America will now be held in good standing. Nice use of the "troll" word.
...I have been told America will now be held in good standing.
Yea...because the world knows it's no longer dealing with a lunatic sitting as President of the USA. As for the Iraqi people I could understand why they might stay angry for a while. People are funny that way when you come in uninvited and destroy their country...even if you did take out the mean dictator who was probably already on borrowed time.
They were probably angry at us when we imposed the harsh sanctions on them after the first gulf war also? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died during the Bush Sr and Clinton administration.
Blame America first, huh...?
I always thought America was wrong after the first Gulf war. Damm right I blame America.
Who told you that, Sean Hannity? They may not love us but at least they know they're not dealing with a lunatic sitting as President of the USA any more.
Who told you that, Sean Hannity?
No some fellow posters
They may not love us but at least they know they're not dealing with a lunatic sitting as President of the USA any more
Amen to that.
One of the lasting pictures of the lunatic that was the President.
Taken moments after Barack Obama rightfully trashed the Bush legacy...
I guess the lunatic was not listening, he even called him a "good man" when he arrived back in Texas.
Obama is a good man...even a lunatic should see that.
Obama is a good man. he even thinks the lunatic is a good man.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/16/obama.interview/index.html?section=cnn_latest
I would never let my wife and Children near a lunatic
Only if the Secret Service was around... ;>)
They were protecting the lunatic
I would never let my wife and Children near a lunatic
Do you have two homes?
No I am not John McCain
besides other things I wont mention you must also be a phychiatrist. It's obvious you are gullible, hanging out with Hannity eh?
How ridiculous. You really think it would have been better for our country if Obama had spit on him and shoved him down some stairs? He was being generous and humble, as any incoming leader should be...
I would not expect President Obama to act that way. he has too much class, unlike most of the haters who supported him.
And another thing, Former Presidents form a bond. Bush sr and Clinton perfect examples. I would never expect any harm to come of Bush by Obama in way of Investigations (sorry MSNBC).
Doesn't change the fact that Bush's Presidency was lunacy. Lunacy is as lunacy does... Good riddance to a lunatic who was not qualified to serve as President and who hurt his country.
Well I wish the current President would have said that, that would have set the tone and punished the lunatic once and for all.
By thanking Bush , Obama was able to advance Conservative misinformation. Can you imagine if Charlie Gibson /Katie Couric /Brian Williams said" thank you Mr President for your 8 years of Service and hugged the former President" MMFA would have a special report.
Thanking Bush for complying with the transition of power is not advancing misinformation.
Obama also said he thought Bush made "the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.
That is not advancing misinformation?
It's a cropped quote, so, yes, you are, in a way, advancing misinformation.
I am not the one who said it , so how am I advancing it?
What the heck is your point?
My point is misinformation in my view was advanced by President Obama .
Typical for a filthy, devious Marxist... ;>)
Who is a Marxist?
Barack Hussein Obama...! Man, have you been living under a rock? ;>)
He is not a Marxist, i know you are being funny. But it is not funny , that is what people like Rush and Hannity spew.
I guess you were WRONG when you wrote that "he has too much class."
No , CNN should have corrected him. Just because someone makes a mistake does not mean they are not classy.
CNN quoted Obama as saying he thought Bush made:
"the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances. That does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years, we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices."
How should CNN have "corrected him"?
They should have said, Mr President right decisions? Going into Iraq was the right decision ? Taking the summer of 2001 off to clear brush was the right decision.
Why are you protecting CNN Governor?
Who?
Obama has been against the war from the very beginning. But maybe they should have said, "Please elaborate."
Like he's not going to be diplomatic in his answer. I would rather him be polite in his response to Bush while at the same time getting rid of everything bad from the last eight years.
Agreed.
Hey we had no idea of the depth of hatred we were facing for so long. That realization of this and its quality might inspire some hard feelings along the way to coming up with better, more effective ways of argument. This is somehow surprising?
A certain agressivness is still useful when dealing with wingnuts as otherwise they don't see you and tend to walk right over you. Reasonableness and self critque tend to be viewed by them as exploitable weaknesses. Otherwise once you have a nominal level of attension from them, other options arise.
The above was directed at Casey. Who has decided that Obama supporters are haters.
Just the ones say some of the most vile things about the former President. Yes he was a disaster. Do the attacks have to be so personal on him?
Bush is a lunatic...just to be absolutely clear. And I say that with complete absence of hatred in my heart...
LOL you have a good sense of humor Irony
All 36 of your posts in this thread are funny, in that they're incoherent classy Obama CNN misinformation lunatic Bush hate Marxist spew. Pop a pill or something.
What now Governor?
Victor is a partisan hater.
No i don't think he is a partisan hater. I just think he plays games.
Could somebody please turn off this Eliza test that has gotten out of hand?
Well, since Obama and his CNN enablers won't do it, on account of them having either too much or too little class, I guess I will. But first..... Goodnight, Casey! Try not to dream of any classless partisan hate smears!
* C L I C K *
Night Governor.
And a bloody-fine night to you too, Guvna
I don't hate Bush...I hate what he did to our country. I look at Bush as a f***ed up man who was totally unqualified to be President. If Bush came to my door right now I would shake his hand. I might not invite him in...but that's just because my wife is a terrible housekeeper. I've already taken down the Bush Sucks! banner from in front of my house. So there... Anyway, I'm too giddy that he's gone to hate him right now. ;>)
I don't hate Bush...I hate what he did to our country.
I agree with you
But he's still a lunatic... ;>)
If he hasn't shown up at your door yet, you might to keep that sign up (Bush put up a threat level sign and we haven't been attacked since ;').
Thats as much as is availible about this most secetive of administration, to the average citizen. You maybe oversensitive to criticism to him. As information about his administration finally sees the light of day in the near future, expect to see more anger directed at him.
There's plenty of non personal critques arround, though your ability to see them as such is questionable.
Well said. An epic 8 year failure that will only come into sharper focus with each passing day. He'll probably drink himself to death.
I am really, really, tired of this "haters on the left meme." As I was watching the crowds on the Mall on Tuesday, it struck me that it was the first time in decades that I had seen so many hand-held American flags waved in joy, with no hint of anger and triumphalism. I would submit that anyone who's been awake for the last eight years, and who loves his country, would have the right to be angry at what the Cheny/Bush Administration did, and attempted to do, to the USA.
As far as "hate" goes, I haven't heard any lefties come close to matching the hatred of the Hannittys, Limbaughs, Coulters (advocating shooting liberals) and more mainstream Republicans like what's-his-name Rogers.
Bush isn't a lunatic, he's a sociopath.
Exactly. And there is a BIG difference between the two in terms of responsibility for one's own actions.
So true. Bush thinks god told him to go along with his brain trust. He's just a tough talking fool who read lies written by others.
You just said good night, now your back. Happy to have you back.
and you are wrong, God told Bush to go to War.