ACLU Accuses Lt. Gen Sanchez of Perjury

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A lawsuit doesn't prevent him from being brought before court martial. I suspect it's only to get the facts aired. But Sanchez lied to Congress. he's in deep doodoo. Which, I suspect, won't stop him from becoming the darling of the right , ala Ollie North.

corrected.

[DanS]

What did he say in front of the congress, precisely? That he hadn't authorized dogs, isolation, or stress positions?

What does the Geneva Convention say with regard to POWs? Personally, I find such treatment of POWs to be distasteful and counterproductive, but if it's not against the Geneva Convention then I wonder what case the ACLU really has.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
What did he say in front of the congress, precisely? That he hadn't authorized dogs, isolation, or stress positions?

That does seem to be the basic premise, yes.

What does the Geneva Convention say with regard to POWs? Personally, I find such treatment of POWs to be distasteful and counterproductive, but if it's not against the Geneva Convention then I wonder what case the ACLU really has.

Well, interestingly enough, I don;t remember any of the western allies during WW2 nor the Germans to the westrn allies ever doing these sorts of things to their millions of POWS. Even if you wanted to mistreat the prisoners, as the Germans did to Soviet ones, the Soviets to Germans, and the Japanese to everyone you really did not even torture them- you simply worked them to death or starved them.

I don;t think the people tortured where therefore even considered POW's.

[DanS]

That does seem to be the basic premise, yes.

I never asked what the basic premise was. I asked what he said.

[Ramo]

Specifically, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." To which Sanchez replied, using the acronym for Coalition Joint Task Force-7, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year."

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17868&c=206

[DanS]

Hmmm...

[Ramo]

What's wrong with those?

How could there possibly be nothing wrong with physically threatening people with violence with a vicious looking dog or putting them in long periods of isolation (we're social animals, you know) as interrogation techniques?

Az, for instance here's a case that demonstrates why isolation is an unjustifiable interrogation technique:

Under extreme duress at Guantánamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. They also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden. The tape had been made in August 2000.

For the better part of two years, Mr. Rasul and his friends, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, had denied involvement in any terror activity whatsoever. But Mr. Rasul said they eventually succumbed to long months of physical and psychological abuse. Mr. Rasul had been held in isolation for several weeks (his second sustained period of isolation) when an interrogator showed him the video of bin Laden. He said she told him: "I've put detainees here in isolation for 12 months and eventually they've broken. You might as well admit it now."

"I could not bear another day of isolation, let alone the prospect of another year," said Mr. Rasul. He confessed.

The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody.

Mr. Rasul has said many times that he and his friends were freed only because their alibis were corroborated. But they continue to worry about the many other Guantánamo detainees who may be innocent but have no way of proving it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/7herbert.html

[Dinner]

So Sanchez claimed in a Congressional inquiry that he did not authorize "highly coercive interogation techniques" and the ACLU is claiming that some of the techniques he did authorize were coercive? It does seem the ACLU has enough to at least get a court date for perjury but one wonders why they haven't brought up anything about his supposed authorization of torture (and there's been a bunch of newspapers claiming that since the prison scandal) so I can only assume they know they don't have a case on the latter. Perjury does seem like they have enough for a trial but it will all depend upon definitions.

[Q Classic]

So we're getting dirt on Sanchez now?

Dirty Sanchez?

[Dinner]

[Az]

I wanted to make this joke on first reply. Shame on you, q^3.

( I snooze and I lose )