Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Doctors Group Says Bush Administration Conducted Medical Experiments On Detainees
Source:
RAW STORY
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0607/do ... medical-experiments-detainees/
Published: Jun 7, 2010
Author: RAW STORY
Post Date: 2010-06-07 11:18:03 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 10190
Comments: 59
A new report by the watchdog group Physicians for Human Rights alleges Monday that the Bush Administration experimented on terrorism suspects during their enhanced interrogation program put in force starting in 2002. The group's review, which examined Bush-era documentation, asserts that the administration violated laws set up in the wake of the Holocaust to prevent medical testing on prisoners of war. (Nazi doctors sometimes experimented on their prisoners.) The report states that, "Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures." Notes the Associated Press: For example, the report said, doctors recommended adding salt to the water used for waterboarding, so the patient wouldn't experience hyponatremia, "a condition of low sodium levels in the blood caused by free water intoxication." The report interpreted that doctor-recommended practice of using saline solution as "Waterboarding 2.0." It also said information was gathered on the pain inflicted when various techniques were used in combination. Raymond said the purpose was to see if the pain caused violated Bush administration definitions of torture, rather than as a safeguard of the detainees' health. Medical personnel, the report said, also monitored sleep deprivation, with sleepless stints from 48 hours to 180 hours — again to make sure it did not cause prolonged physical and mental suffering, as per those Bush administration definitions, rather than to watch out for harm to the detainee. "We're not writing the indictment here," author Nathaniel Raymond told the Associated Pres. "We're seeing there needs to be a search warrant. If the White House does not act on this, it's turning its back on something that could be perceived as a war crime." The CIA vehemently denied the allegations in the report. "The CIA did not, as part of its past detention program, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told a reporter. Mother Jones, the investigative liberal magazine, says that the Bush Administration may have -- ironically -- engaged in "experimentation" in an effort to shield it from accusations of torture. In the documents review by the watchdog group, a Bush Administration lawyer wrote, "Human experimentation without the consent of the subject is a violation of international human rights law to which the United States is subject; federal statutes; the Common Rule, which comprises the federal regulations for research on human subjects and applies to 17 federal agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense; and universally accepted health professional ethics, including the Nuremberg Code... Human experimentation on detainees also can constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity in certain circumstances." "Ironically, one goal of the 'experimentation' seems to have been to immunize Bush administration officials and CIA interrogators from potential prosecution for torture," writes Mother Jones' Nick Baumann. "In the series of legal papers that are now popularly known as the 'torture memos,' Justice Department lawyers argued that medical monitoring would demonstrate that interrogators didn't intend to harm detainees; that 'lack of intent to cause harm' could then serve as the cornerstone of a legal defense should an interrogator be targeted for prosecution. In 2003, in an internal CIA memo cited in the PHR report, the CIA's general counsel, Scott Muller, argued that medical monitoring of interrogations and 'reviewing evidence gained from past experience where available (including experience gained in the course of U.S. interrogations of detainees)' would allow interrogators to inoculate themselves against claims of torture because it 'established' they didn't intend to cause harm to the detainees."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#5. To: Brian S (#0)
I doubt the administration will do the honorable thing and look into this.
This adminstration has one difference and one difference only from Boy Blunder vis-a-vis national defense...ending DADT...
This torture stuff really turned off a lot of military and former military folks to BushCo. But apparenlty our self-proclaimed Vet wasn't bothered a bit by it.
You make an assertion you cannot back up, followed by a smear you resent only because of what it says about yourself, freddie. Sucks to be you, I guess.
I am outraged at the torture and waterboarding is torture, as are a number of fellow veterans I know personally. Plus, over the years notable retired generals and below have taken similar outlooks as I've read in the print media. I'm not your file clerk. Look it up.
Waterboarding is not torture First and foremost, let us clarify the details of what this process actually entails. The technique itself involves an interrogation subject’s lying on his back in a reclining position (knees angled above the head). The subject is then restrained, a cloth is placed over his face (covering the nose, mouth, and eyes), and a constant stream of water is poured over the cloth for a maximum period of a few minutes. Water boarding is an enhanced interrogation technique that is only applied in the late stages of an interrogation; further, it can only be applied with approval and much deliberation from the highest level of the CIA (as confirmed by ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou). Much to the dismay of critics, waterboarding is not applied carelessly, recklessly, and without good reason. The United States Code of Law, specifically Title I, Chapter 113C, section 2340, defines torture as the following: (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. First and foremost, the technique of waterboarding is not intended to “inflict severe physical or mental suffering” with regards to provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation is to withdraw valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain. Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary anguish. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway? Tortured subjects generally give false, misleading “confessions” that are intended immediately to stop the procedure, and to send agents on a “wildgoose chase.” Techniques that violate section 1 are actually against the interests of the CIA, and could never produce valuable intelligence. The practice of waterboarding, however repulsive, does not violate section 2. Like I previously stated, there is no exclusive intention of inflicting “severe physical pain or suffering.” Further, the interrogator never physically strikes or attacks the subject; the water is made to simulate the gag reflex of drowning, and there is no physical pain. The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but “some discomfort” does not equate to “severe suffering.” Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation, and could not provide legitimate intelligence. Remember, the CIA is not looking for a culprit; to date, the three individuals who have been waterboarded were known terrorists. Rather, the CIA is looking for new intelligence that it can use in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. The CIA does not benefit from measures that cause prolonged mental harm because the subject cannot provide the needed information. Your Ad Here My aforementioned statements deal primarily with sections A and B; sections C and D deal with the concept of “the threat of imminent death.” Many waterboarding critics liken the technique to a mock execution; for example, if an “executioner” were to trigger a gun filled with blanks in front of a panicking subject. These comparisons could not be more ludicrous; in a mock execution, much like the example I mentioned, the interrogator causes the subject undeniably to feel the threat of imminent death. There should be no question regarding whether the subject is going to die or the subject should believe he is going to die. With waterboarding, no such question exists; the subject is never verbally, nor physically threatened with imminent death. Waterboarding is a simulation, and is not actual drowning. When waterboarded by CIA professionals, the subject can never face nor expect a legitimate threat of imminent death; further, CIA professionals know the technique is not being used to murder the subject, and subsequently do not intend to kill the subject. Section 2, C and D, like A and B, do not apply to waterboarding because there is no imminent threat of death; it is a simulation designed to produce valuable intelligence, not maliciously to harm or kill terrorists. The last provision, found in the latter half of Section 2, D, which mentions “the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality,” also does not apply to waterboarding. The only “substance” used in the technique is water; certainly, we can agree that water is not mind-altering like LSD, PCP, Cocaine, or any major hallucinogen or narcotic. Second, why would the CIA even want to use a mind-altering substance? Once again, the purpose of an enhanced interrogation is to produce valuable, legitimate, and trustworthy intelligence. By using substances to alter the normal thought processes of subjects, could the CIA honestly expect legitimate results? In order to understand whether or not the CIA should use waterboarding, we must examine their interests; torture renders the subject useless, and thus, cannot aid the CIA with any investigations. Further, only “illegal enemy combatants” are waterboarded by CIA officials; not soldiers, not civilians. Soldiers and civilians are protected by international accords, namely the famed Geneva Conventions. Illegal enemy combatants however, have no allegiances to countries, are not sufficiently recognized by international agreements, and have access to valuable intelligence regarding imminent terrorist threats. This has been proven by the CIA’s use of waterboarding with three prominent terrorists: Abu Zubaydah (Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations), Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole), and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). The results of Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s enhanced interrogation were brought to light during December 2007, when ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou admitted that he was present during Mohammed’s interrogation, and the technique yielded significant intelligence without rendering the subject useless. Thanks to this technique, we realized Mohammed was responsible for over thirty organized terror plots, including 9/11 for which he was accountable “A-Z.” In an age where our enemy is small in number but dangerous nonetheless, waterboarding is and should absolutely remain a lawful and legitimate enhanced interrogation technique. CIA interrogators do not waterboard recklessly or without deliberation; further, these interrogators are professionals, and can waterboard correctly. Lastly, it is against the interests of the CIA to torture their subjects; history has taught us (during the Spanish Inquisition, for instance) that torture is only useful if you want someone to admit being a witch, or to having had intercourse with the Devil. And to those who are still skeptical concerning whether or not waterboarding will cause “prolonged physical and mental suffering”, remember this: CIA agents are waterboarded during their training. Will they ever be able to work?
They prefer the Leftwingnut myth to the reality, as the above demonstrates. My view is pretty straight forward. If waterboarding can save one American life, do it.
Wrong answer.
Fair enough. Any American life but yours. How's that? (laughing)
How many new enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? How many Americans did it kill? How's that?
How's that? Well, lets break this ridiculous post down, shall we? 1. How many enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? Zero. The only people 'recruited' by it are found outside of Islamic fundementalists. Basically readers of the NY Times, Huffpuff, etc. YOU can't name ANYONE that was 'recruited' due to waterboarding. Nor can anyone elese. Its a Liberal Talking Point memo, that has no basis in truth, and no cooroboration. 2. How many Americans did it kill? Zero. Americans have been killed by Islamic Fundementalists for DECADES. Over 800 between the 72 Olympic Massacre and 9/10/01 as is documented. They don't scream 'Abu Ghraib!' when they self detonate, or go on a shooting rampage on an Army post, Freddie. This isn't about 'torture'. Its not even about Israel. Its about America guarantee's if you live here, you can worship as you choose, or not worship at all. The Islamic Fundementalists say this in every speech, every communication. You should actually listen to one some time. Have a nice day...and again, okay, waterboarding to save ANY American life but yours, or lets add somebody YOU care about. How's that?
The Great And Powerful Boofer Has Spoken!!!! Of course, it's all crap... Funny tho, how people like Boofer cited "torture rooms" as justification for invading Iraq. So is it your point, Boof, that allegations of torture work on recruiting Americans to support killing Ba'ath Party members but not on "Islamic Fundamentalists" because...they're smarter? And what was Hasan's issue about again...what was it again...US WAR CRIMES? You're a fucking asshole Boofer... World Clsss...
World Clsss... But he owns three companies. He's a mogul.
I will never understand why he believes he can get away with lying his ass off all the time. This isn't a difference of opinion, this is the promotion of absolute falsehoods in the face of what is a well established public record. First it was his claim to Fred that no vet or ex officer was against water boarding...now this...
There are no replies to Comment # 35. End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"We're seeing there needs to be a search warrant. If the White House does not act on this, it's turning its back on something that could be perceived as a war crime."
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: war (#6)
#8. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
#10. To: Badeye (#8)
You make an assertion you cannot back up
#16. To: Fred Mertz (#10)
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#16)
#20. To: Badeye (#18)
If waterboarding can save one American life, do it.
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
If waterboarding can save one American life, do it. Wrong answer.
#29. To: Badeye (#28)
#30. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
How many new enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? How many Americans did it kill?
#32. To: Boofer, Fred Mertz (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: war (#32)
You're a fucking asshole Boofer...
#35. To: Skip Intro (#33)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]