Memos show that Abu Ghraib was authorized at higher levels

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/us....ski/index.html

So tell me... do you support the administration, who said that Abu Ghraib was just an isolated incident by 'bad apples', or do you support the view that the soldiers were doing what they were ordered to do?

[RandomGuy]

Neither. Both.

Quite honestly, all this new revelation has done is simply confirm what I was reasonably sure about all along.

The "tone at the top" said that anything goes.

That sense of what was appropriate got communicated down through the organization (military), and the relatively untrained guards and interrogators who got handed the responsibility of running Abu Gharaib did what they thought was appropriate.

They were "bad apples" in the sense that few or none really questioned what they were doing, and some were outright enthusiastic about it. But the blame can't be entirely dumped on them, because the general tone of what was going on encouraged, or at the very least, condoned it.

[LnGrrrR]

Neither. Both.

Quite honestly, all this new revelation has done is simply confirm what I was reasonably sure about all along.

The "tone at the top" said that anything goes.

That sense of what was appropriate got communicated down through the organization (military), and the relatively untrained guards and interrogators who got handed the responsibility of running Abu Gharaib did what they thought was appropriate.

They were "bad apples" in the sense that few or none really questioned what they were doing, and some were outright enthusiastic about it. But the blame can't be entirely dumped on them, because the general tone of what was going on encouraged, or at the very least, condoned it.

Agree with you there. Do you throw a bone to the military because of the "Milgram" effect, or do you think they should be better for that because they are trained on what are lawful/unlawful orders are?

Personally, I think the military should not just perform LOAC training, but come up with much better Geneva Conventions training as well.

[RandomGuy]

Agree with you there. Do you throw a bone to the military because of the "Milgram" effect, or do you think they should be better for that because they are trained on what are lawful/unlawful orders are?

Personally, I think the military should not just perform LOAC training, but come up with much better Geneva Conventions training as well.

I think *someone* should have really spoken up and stopped it, but personally, it is hard to know how much of the Milgram effect there was.

The general tone in the military helped contribute to the sense that what they were doing was "lawful".

I think that training on the Geneva Convention should be emphasized.

The thing is that we are now expecting combat soldiers to act as police. They aren't. If we expect them to do those kinds of functions, give them the training they need.

If you ever get a chance, read up on the "Pentagon's New Map".

The guy basically says that the military must change its Cold War thinking and organization to acquire the "nation-building" skills that it needs, and I agree.

[JoeChalupa]

This is not surprising.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/us....ski/index.html

So tell me... do you support the administration, who said that Abu Ghraib was just an isolated incident by 'bad apples', or do you support the view that the soldiers were doing what they were ordered to do?

Well stated that they did these things to protect America from future terrorist attacks... oh wait Iraq had nothing to do 9/11 or any attacks on the USA prior to our invasion...

and Bush ordered people captured in Iraq tortured?

[Wild Cobra]

Before you all jump to conclusions and believe an article that may be in error, read about the The Bybee Memo. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this, but I don't see anything that indicates it was for military usage. It was clearly an opinion for the CIA!

since when does a General take orders from Jay Bybee? An ASSistant legal council?

Anyone read the full text of the memo? I only see opinion. Haven't searched much, but shouldn't we be reading the memo ourselves instead of believing others people's opinions like sheeple, or kool-aid drinking lemmings?

[FaithInOne]

Blame the Coach.

[ChumpDumper]

Before you all jump to conclusions and believe an article that may be in error, read about the The Bybee Memo. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this, but I don't see anything that indicates it was for military usage. It was clearly an opinion for the CIA!

You seriously don't think that memo could apply to the military as well?

since when does a General take orders from Jay Bybee? An ASSistant legal council?

You don't know what legal counsel is, do you?

Anyone read the full text of the memo? I only see opinion.

A legal opinion?

Haven't searched mush, but shouldn't we be reading the memo ourselves instead of believing others people's opinions like sheeple, or kool-aid drinking lemmings?

I certainly don't think anyone should take your word for it.

[Wild Cobra]

You seriously don't think that memo could apply to the military as well?

It was for the CIA and they get different guidelines.

The Bybee Memo, 8/1/02

[Winehole23]

since when does a General take orders from Jay Bybee? An ASSistant legal council?

Do generals answer to the President? That is much the the same. The OLC is the president's own legal shop, and its opinions have executive authority.

Besides, interrogation was collaborative as b/w intel and the military.

The FBI forbid its agents from participating in Gitmo interrogations in [2002 Ed.]. Have you considered why, WC?

[ChumpDumper]

It was for the CIA and they get different guidelines.

Where is the different legal opinion for the military?

If you seriously think this opinion can't be applied to the military, give your reasons why not.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, page 2 of the memo states that one section of the memo deals with torture as it relates to the president's powers as commander-in-chief.

Explain to us all how that can't be applied to the military.

[Winehole23]

Blame the Coach.

Jack Goldsmith was horrified at the incompetence and the utter lack of any legal basis for the OLC's torture memos. Bybee and Yoo ignored precedents and invented novel theories of power to craft policy for a pre-existing program of interrogation. That's very unlawyerly. They also ignored the military's objections to the rules.

The policies they crafted brought dishonor to our country and morally corrupted our warriors. Bybee and Yoo deserve the flames and deserve to be disbarred and impeached, at a minimum.

[Marcus Bryant]

Were they not the ones who came up with the unitary executive theory? I recall Rep. Paul being dismissed as a crank because he actually thought the Congress should at least have a vote on declaring war before, well, engaging in war. As, you know, that old archaic Cons ution requires.

And, of course, the current and former occupant of 1600 Penn Ave have felt that the Cons ution is a thing of the past. Sadly, they are correct.

[Winehole23]

Were they not the ones who came up with the unitary executive theory?

I don't know that they came up with it, but their opinions made it the law, if only briefly.

[Wild Cobra]

If you seriously think this opinion can't be applied to the military, give your reasons why not.

The difference in training of those holding the detainees. I don't recall which one, but there is an Army Field Manual that covers such things.

Ever serve in the military?

[ChumpDumper]

The difference in training of those holding the detainees. I don't recall which one, but there is an Army Field Manual that covers such things.

Ever serve in the military?

Who was your commander-in-chief?

[Wild Cobra]

Who was your commander-in-chief?

President Reagan, then president Bush (41).

[ChumpDumper]

President Reagan, then president Bush (41).

So you see why the Bybee memo can apply to the military.

[Wild Cobra]

So you see why the Bybee memo can apply to the military.

No. At least not at any level. For such a thing to apply, it would only be done by qualified personnel. Not the group that was doing it. It doesn't matter how that General>Colonel tries to weasel out of it. Unqualified people were doing the actions, and worse yet, do enting them for fun.

[ChumpDumper]

No. At least not at any level. For such a thing to apply, it would only be done by qualified personnel. Not the group that was doing it. It doesn't matter how that General>Colonel tries to weasel out of it. Unqualified people were doing the actions, and worse yet, do enting them for fun.

I can't tell whether you are purposely making a straw man to beat up or you truly have no idea what is being discussed here.

[Yonivore]

Where in the memos are the criminal acts perpetrated at Abu Ghraib authorized or sanctioned?

[ChumpDumper]

Where in the memos are the criminal acts perpetrated at Abu Ghraib authorized or sanctioned?

The memo came to the conclusion that most of those acts aren't crimes.

[Wild Cobra]

The memo came to the conclusion that most of those acts aren't crimes.

Yes, and it simply does not wash to have low level enlisted playing such games with prisoners. Anyone knowing or participating should be jailed. Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners. It shouldn't be done for fun.