In the Senate, Rumsfeld said that US Defence Department lawyers say depriving prisoners of sleep and forcing them to maintain inconvenient positions of body is legal.

Next, he also said that US troops in Iraq obey Geneva convention, but Geneva regulations don't apply to Al-Quaeda terrorists who don't obey them.

This raises the following doubts:

1. What is the US administration opinion about forcing American POWs into strange positions and depriving them of sleep? Let me guess, "thoroughly illegal unhuman practice"?

2. Who decides that the US is free from the boundaries of treaties they've signed? The US Secretary of Defence?

3. What if, given the incidents in Abu Ghraib and on Guantanamo, the enemies of US decide that the US have broken the laws of war and henceforth no human standards of treating prisoners apply? Will the hell it be legal?

4. Has it, in any moment, occured to Mr Rumsfeld that not everyone speaking Arabian and hating America is from Al Quaeda? Particularly that Iraqi prisoners aren't exactly the same people as Osama's boys or Talibans from Afghanistan?

Talk about exceptionalism, heh. It seems the lesson hasn't been learnt. Rumsfeld will still balance on the verge of open lying and will still create double standards. I want him deposed.

BTW, Myers basically said that no matter what goes on prisons, morality is on the US' side.

I wonder if those guys never listen to themselves or are cynical enough to believe no one will see through their verbal manipulation.

Nick Berg's father says that Nick died for the sins (edit: sins, sins, sins, it's beyond me how I managed to make since of it, sorry) of Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest. I'm going to agree.

Edit: I've dug up the record of Rumsfeld's hearing in the Senate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8575-2004May7?language=printer

[ May 15, 2004, 13:38: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Nick Berg would have died anyway, regardless of what happened in Abu Ghraib. Al Qaeda hasn't shown much mercy before what happened overthere, so blaming Bush, or Rumsfeld for this doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, i'm amazed how Rumsfeld keeps making an ass out of himself time and time again, with statements like that. He's by far the biggest dumbass i've seen in a long time. Just when you thought you've heard it all, he comes along with even more stupidity. How in god's name do the Americans put up with representatives like that ?

I was watching an interview Rumsfeld was giving when he ws in Iraq. He said that the Geneva convention didnt apply to Guantanamo, since these people were unlawful combatants. They did not wear uniforms, blah,blah,blah. The same argument we have always got.

Now in Iraq, he has tried to prevent further pictures coming out. as it is prohibited by the Geneva convention. He said it is to protect the dignity of these detainees. Now, I know I'm slow, but I'm a bit confused. These prisoners are not soldiers. They did not wear uniforms, carry open arms, and all the rest. Why are they called lawful combatants or whatever Rumsfeld wants to call them?
Sorry if I'm skeptical, but is it just me or is the only reason he is using the Geneva convention here just to cover his own ass and protect the administration from further damage? I think this is another example of the highly hypocritical nature of the Bush administration, and a pathetic attempt to keep the truth locked away.

Another thing is that Iraqi POWs have been shown on the TV from the very beginning of Gulf Wars Episode II. Those were not peasant partisans, but full time Iraqi soldiers surrendering and getting detained. Rumsfeld didn't see anything wrong in that. Now, however, he has started to. Though still, I believe that he would come up with a semi-logical explanation of why it was good to show Iraqi POWs on the TV all the time and why now it's bad to show even "unlawful combatants".

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/14/torture_at_abu_ghraib_followed_cias_manual/

Let me sum it up: The US in the 1970s revolutionised torture by inventing the no-touch approach. In the first stage, interrogators employ the simple, nonviolent techniques of hooding or sleep deprivation to disorient the subject; sometimes sexual humiliation is used as well.
Once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move on to a second stage with simple, self-inflicted discomfort such as standing for hours with arms extended. In this phase, the idea is to make victims feel responsible for their own pain and thus induce them to alleviate it by capitulating to the interrogator's power.

(About this Gen. Miller said the US won't use this anymore in interrogations, implying they have before.)
(...)
Although seemingly less brutal, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more crippling than physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to cruelty and lasting emotional problems.
(...)
Following the CIA's two-part technique, last September General Miller instructed US military police at Abu Ghraib to soften up high-priority detainees in the initial disorientation phase for later "successful interrogation and exploitation" by CIA and military intelligence. As often happens in no-touch torture sessions, this process soon moved beyond sleep and sensory deprivation to sexual humiliation.
(...)
For more than 50 years, the CIA's no-touch methods have become so widely accepted that US interrogators seem unaware that they are, in fact, engaged in systematic torture. But now, through these photographs from Abu Ghraib, we can see the reality of these techniques.No judicial hair-splitting (like Gitmo isn't under Geneva Convention rules because it's offshore) can change a thing about it: When Rummy is talking about breaking down personalities not being torture he's deluding himself and those who like to believe him (what is just the plan).