PDA

View Full Version : The Guardian: Petraeus ran death squads and torture groups



PhaseLockedLoop
03-07-2013, 02:54 PM
His biographer wasn't the only one he was plucking.

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington

Video: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video

TomF
03-07-2013, 03:17 PM
Precisely how do these bastards sleep at night?

Any of them.

skuthorp
03-07-2013, 03:29 PM
I see Cheney's name is prominent in the advancement of this man's career, but he seems to have been doing various regimes dirty work for a long time, and we would be naive in the extreme if we think that such men are not still being employed. You will always find some willing, through ideology, training or personal pleasure to do such work and keep their superiors hands clean by taking the rap if it becomes public. As fro TomF's comment re sleep, just say "Business is Business", the military, politics and business are full of psychopaths. It's the same thinking that precipitated the GFC, just directed differently.

John of Phoenix
03-07-2013, 03:36 PM
This has been a long, long time coming. I hope it's only the beginning.

LeeG
03-07-2013, 03:45 PM
This was being reported on back in 2004-2005. Any concern about the US facilitating torture gets easily obscured in the fog of the Bush-Wolfowitz Doctrine where people who serve tea to terrists are also terrists. Remember in 2004 2/3 of Americans thought Iraq had some kind of connection to 9/11 so Iraqis torturing Iraqis is of little concern. But Iraqis torturing stray US contractors is a big deal.

TomF
03-07-2013, 03:58 PM
This TED talk by Philip Zimbardo describes the psychological descent into evil ... and conversely, the traits of becoming heroic. It's brilliant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 05:08 PM
Why is Holder so quiet? Not worth a look see or was he told to do nothing by the pres.?

Caede
03-07-2013, 06:05 PM
Why is Holder so quiet? Not worth a look see or was he told to do nothing by the pres.?

What does Holder have to do with this? You want him to indict Steele and Petraeus?


Sent from my SCH-I905 using Tapatalk HD

Tom Montgomery
03-07-2013, 06:39 PM
What does Holder have to do with this? You want him to indict Steele and Petraeus?
This is a job for the International Court at The Hague.

Indict G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Tommy Franks, David Petraeus, and all their functionaries, such as Jim Steele, for war crimes. And attempt to try them at The Hague.

Fat chance that any of them could be compelled to appear before the court. But their indictment would be remembered forever.

LeeG
03-07-2013, 06:45 PM
His biographer wasn't the only one he was plucking.

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington

Video: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video

Oof, what a legacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 07:27 PM
Wikileaks, again.


The Guardian says the investigation was sparked by the release of classified U.S. military logs on WikiLeaks that detailed numerous incidents where U.S. soldiers came across tortured detainees in a network of detention centers run by the Iraqi police.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-officers-under-petraeus-advised-iraqi-torturers-report-1114190

LeeG
03-07-2013, 07:57 PM
I just finished watching the video. The invasion opened up power vacuums that we were not able to fill.

Would that we spent 1/10 as much preparing for real threats to our economy.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 08:48 PM
What does Holder have to do with this? You want him to indict Steele and Petraeus?


Sent from my SCH-I905 using Tapatalk HDI don't know except the commander-in-chief more than likely knew.

Tom Montgomery
03-07-2013, 08:52 PM
I don't know except the commander-in-chief more than likely knew.
That would be G.W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney. Correct?

And you want the Obama administration Justice Department to indict them and Petraeus and Steele for war crimes?

Me too. But it will never happen. Only the U.N. and the International Court at The Hague would conceivably do such a thing. I'm not holding my breath,

Ian McColgin
03-07-2013, 08:54 PM
Col Steele was retired before Obama took office. This is not to say that war crimes have not been committed at Obama's behest, but not these war crimes.

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 09:00 PM
The invasion opened up power vacuums that we were not able to fill.


That has been the obligation of an occupying power for some time now.


The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

[In pertinent part . . . ]



The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 09:01 PM
I don't know except the commander-in-chief more than likely knew.

The Chimp?

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 09:02 PM
Why is Holder so quiet? Not worth a look see or was he told to do nothing by the pres.?

Let's say he was. What is your objection?

LeeG
03-07-2013, 09:32 PM
Btw, Patreaus didn't run the death squads, the Special Police Comandos Chief Adnan Thabit did.

CWSmith
03-07-2013, 09:51 PM
Precisely how do these bastards sleep at night?

Any of them.

Confident in the knowledge that the ends justify the means. Except they don't. The means only increase the price we pay in the long run and so far the ends aren't anything to get excited about. We should hand him over to foreign courts.

Osborne Russell
03-08-2013, 05:20 PM
Btw, Patreaus didn't run the death squads, the Special Police Comandos Chief Adnan Thabit did.

It was his certain and sworn moral and legal duty to track them down and stop them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

A few things about this Guardian story are troublesome; and in general, the profession of journalism has failed miserably through out this whole affair.

1. It was on TV, for cryin' out loud !


The Guardian has learned that the SPC units' involvement with torture entered the popular consciousness in Iraq when some of their victims were paraded in front of a TV audience on a programme called "Terrorism In The Hands of Justice."

This is news to me but it's not news.


Broadcast on al-Iraqiya, the state-run network set up by the U.S. occupation authority in 2003, "Terrorism in The Hands of Justice" has become one of most effective arrows in the government's counterinsurgency propaganda quiver.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2005Apr4.html[/quote]

So why does the Guardian say now that they "have learned" of something that "entered the popular consciousness" eight years ago?

Apparently this is new: Petraeus told the SPC to stop showing the victims. Who is the SPC and who cares?

The SPC is the "Special Police Commando" in Iraq, to wit, a Shia goon squad. What's their connection to the US?
The US gave the SPC a TV station. The whole world knew what the SPC did with it -- and the US is directly responsible.

Some Chimpers say the US had no knowledge of what the SPC did. First, that's untrue; we gave them a TV station; they produced a torture show. Why did no journalist ever demand to know what the US was going to do about it? Second, it doesn't matter. As occupiers, it was our duty to find out what they were doing, and subject them to discipline. You break it, you own it, remember, punks? So why didn't we? Because they were our surrogate death squad.

We engineered a war between Shia (armed, trained, paid and directed by us) and Sunni to pacify Iraq by bringing the peace of death to anyone who didn't keep their head down. One of the great war crimes of modern history.

2. What's new: Petraeus knew that the SPC were the ones doing the torturing, not just parading the victims. Says who? "An official speaking for Petraeus." The Guardian better make good on this pretty quick.


An official speaking for Petraeus said: "During the course of his years in Iraq, General Petraeus did learn of allegations of Iraqi forces torturing detainees. In each incident, he shared information immediately with the US military chain of command, the US ambassador in Baghdad ... and the relevant Iraqi leaders."

3. So what? Petraeus told them to stop showing the victims -- which he obviously felt was within his power -- not to stop torturing them; which was also. He easily could have and he didn't. Therefore, Petraeus approved the torture; and by extension, the Ambassador and the entire State Department did also (as all you sputtering Benghazi-oids will confirm as with one voice). And since Rumsfeld's Defense Department was allowed by the Chimp Council to take over the occupation from the State Department, Rumsfeld also condoned torture, and so forth on up to the Chimp himself and thence to We The People.

What's the difference, morally, between Iraqi torturers and we Americans who condoned it? We are far more guilty. We made it possible and helped them get away with it. Of course we got a few licks ourselves; when might the opportunity come again?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/07/article-2289435-187D77A4000005DC-525_634x475.jpg

LeeG
03-08-2013, 06:16 PM
It was his certain and sworn moral and legal duty to track them down and stop them.


Seems to me it's bit much expecting military leaders to manifest moral decisions when they're tasked with implementing a strategy that starts with deception and self-delusion.

pefjr
03-08-2013, 06:36 PM
Really? Duh! Just how do you guys think Imperialism exists, and grows to size of the US and it's 800 + military bases. Why do you think the US is entering 35 different African countries with military forces in 2013? And you thought Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were blowing smoke up your @ss. And you think there is no connection to the gun culture in the streets and schools of America and growing world wide. They say the 700+ billion DOD annual budget cannot be cut. hmphh...

Osborne Russell
03-08-2013, 09:30 PM
Seems to me it's bit much expecting military leaders to manifest moral decisions when they're tasked with implementing a strategy that starts with deception and self-delusion.

Fooey. There are few people on earth in a better position to know, and with a stronger interest in knowing; not just professionally, but as a matter of self-preservation:

Petraeus has a B.S. degree from the United States Military Academy, from which he graduated in 1974 as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class). He was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College class of 1983.[8] He subsequently earned an M.P.A. in 1985 and a Ph.D. degree in International Relations in 1987 from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

-- Wikipedia

Osborne Russell
03-08-2013, 09:39 PM
This smells very like a Cheney back-stab rat-****. There is a saying in the military: **** flows downhill.

At the time he was in Iraq, there were only three people on earth uphill of Petraeus: Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the Chimp. No State Department, no "intelligence community", no nothin'. He's the only one with beans to spill.
If Petraeus were to have spilled the beans, who would have fallen the farthest? Now that the Chimp Squad is out of office, who remains the most highly exposed?

This is how Petraeus meets the chick that brings him down -- Col. Paula Broadwell. She's married to a radiologist and has two young children.


In 2006 [i.e.in the middle of Petraeus' tour of duty in Iraq] Broadwell applied for a job with the FBI . . . The FBI offered her a job, but Broadwell decided instead to go to Harvard University, as a graduate student.

-- Wikipedia

A mother with two young children decides to go off to Harvard for another degree? Right after applying, and being accepted, at the FBI? Right before Petraeus is scheduled to be at Harvard also?

He goes back to Iraq, she starts in on his biography. You know . . . I met this wonderful guy, later for school. I get to collect all manner of information from the man himself, learn who all his friends have been his whole life, interview them, etc etc.

Meanwhile, war's over, he's going along doing his thing. He's appointed and confirmed as Director of the CIA by the senate, by a vote of 94 to zero. Despite his lengthy involvement with the most difficult and controversial aspects of the previous administration; despite any evidence gathered by anybody about anything, presented to the Senate, either in public or in secret, as part of the background investigation of a guy nominated to be the Director of the Cee Eye ****ing A. Zip. Fox, zip. Lamestream media, zip. Tea Party, zip. At this point Cheney realizes, it's time to play some cards.

Next thing you know, a bunch of "theatening e-mails" show up at this other woman's house, supposedly from Broadwell.

What did Petraeus do? Nothing. But suddenly he confesses to "an extramarital affair" and resigns. What happens to Broadwell? Nothing. The e-mails weren't threatening after all, is the conclusion of an investigation done by . . . the FBI. Case closed.

And so, the one guy who could bury the Chimpers, especially Cheney, from direct personal knowledge of the most sensitive discussions, the most carefully hidden operations, and the words from the lips of the suspects themselves, with near to perfect credibility -- suddenly confesses that he has been an adulterer, resigns as Director of the Cee Eye ****ing A and "returns to private life."

Meli
03-09-2013, 01:39 AM
Facinating video from TED.
i cant accept that 90% of ordinary people would electrocute a stranger just because some "teacher" says they will take the responsibility though. For 5 dollars.
There has to be a flaw in the selection process of the participants.

TomF
03-09-2013, 08:11 AM
Unfortunately, the study's been replicated many times over, trying to find the flaw. $5 meant more when the study was first done .... might be closer to $50 nowadays ... but still.

The flaw in the study seems to be the use of humans. :(

pefjr
03-09-2013, 08:23 AM
Unfortunately, the study's been replicated many times over, trying to find the flaw. $5 meant more when the study was first done .... might be closer to $50 nowadays ... but still.

The flaw in the study seems to be the use of humans. :(Flaw?

Meli
03-09-2013, 08:24 AM
Ah come on, do you think that anyone on this forum would torture a stranger for $50?
I can believe it would happen if the button pusher were under believable threat, like we will kill your kids.
but for $50 when they know they can walk away? Sorry dont buy it.

to say that the thing had the same results with women is doubly sus.
women are not as violent by nature, we are societis nurturers.
What, you reckon we will push a button on a screaming kid for $50

nah, wont buy it.

90% ??? no way.

TomF
03-09-2013, 08:46 AM
Ah come on, do you think that anyone on this forum would torture a stranger for $50?
I can believe it would happen if the button pusher were under believable threat, like we will kill your kids.
but for $50 when they know they can walk away? Sorry dont buy it.

to say that the thing had the same results with women is doubly sus.
women are not as violent by nature, we are societis nurturers.
What, you reckon we will push a button on a screaming kid for $50

nah, wont buy it.

90% ??? no way.Unfortunately, the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) has been replicated a lot. Somewhat different percentages in different places, but consistent results. Wiki says that the % was 65%, rather than 90.

Meli
03-09-2013, 07:40 PM
Unfortunately, the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) has been replicated a lot. Somewhat different percentages in different places, but consistent results. Wiki says that the % was 65%, rather than 90.

except for this bit.

" Author Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjects involved. Milgram's unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax,"

now that I would believe.
trust in an authority that they wouldn't really be harming anyone!

If the "teacher" could actually see the "learner" I posit that the results would be different.