« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | The Other Front »

The ACLU's Dishonesty Knows No Bounds

Over at Daily Kos they're shilling for the ACLU [Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Perjurer], repeating charges of perjury against Lt. Gen. Sanchez made by the American Civil Liberties Union [Ed - The page isn't loading anymore - Google cache to the rescue]. Here's the ACLU's claim.

The memorandum, dated September 14, 2003, was signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez and laid out specific interrogation techniques, modeled on those used against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for use by coalition forces in Iraq. These include sleep "management," the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to "exploit [the] Arab fear of dogs."

During sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Sanchez flatly denied approving any such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false.

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 [emphasis mine] any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year."

That looks pretty damning on the face of it, so much so that I was ready to jump on the story. In the course of preparing my own story highlighting the ACLU findings, I did something that apparently neither the Kosites nor the ACLUnatics bothered to do - I actually read the memo. Had the ACLU actually read the memo they were busy proclaiming a "smoking gun," they should have noted this paragraph on the second page:
Use of techniques B, I, O, X, Y, AA and CC on enemy prisoners of war must be approved by me personally prior to use. Submit written requests for use of these techniques, with supporting rationale, to me through the CJTF-7 C2. A legal review from the CJTF-7 SJA must accompany each request.
An what are those techniques? From the memo [PDF] [Ed - Their memo link is down too, backup link here] :
B: Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege, above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention, from detainee.

I. Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to and EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War).

O. Mutt and Jeff: A team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator. The harsh interrogator might employ the Pride and Ego Down technique.

X. Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment.

Y. Presence of Military Working Dog" Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations. Dogs will be muzzled and under control of MWD handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.

AA. Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong captive shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury.

CC. Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, knelling, prone, etc) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.

The "sleep management" technique provides for a minimum of 4 hours sleep per 24 hour period, not to exceed 72 hours. It's a stretch to call that "sleep deprivation," so I believe Sanchez was accurate in his claim that he had not approved sleep deprivation.

Since the techniques in question are specifically forbidden without Lt. Gen. Sanchez's personal approval (and accompanying documentation and legal review), I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he would remember approving or disapproving individual requests. Approval would also be part of the record, but the ACLU has already proved that they're not really interested in reading...

Perhaps the Kosites should stick to one story they've shown some aptitude for - flogging the carcass of James Guckert/Jeff Gannon.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The ACLU's Dishonesty Knows No Bounds:

Comments (16)

Kev, I can't think of a bet... (Below threshold)

Kev, I can't think of a better way to start the morning than proving how stupid Kos is.

Thanks.

It's amazing that some of t... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

It's amazing that some of those ACLU folks passed the bar, considering their reading comprehension is that bad.

They should have deprived t... (Below threshold)
bill:

They should have deprived the terrorists of food and water. I hear that isn't torture and results in a euphoric end.

Wasn't it, approved by 2/3 of the people in a recent poll?

Jeez, I got less sleep duri... (Below threshold)

Jeez, I got less sleep during some periods on my last project at work. I don't recall the ACLU or Kos intervening on my behalf.

What are the interagaters s... (Below threshold)
The Masked Coservative:

What are the interagaters supposed to do give them flowers and hope they'll tell them what they want to know?

Cardinal Biggles........ (Below threshold)

Cardinal Biggles.....
It is time for the COMFY CHAIR!

I'm so going to sue the uni... (Below threshold)
Rick:

I'm so going to sue the university and my employer for depriving me of sleep. I often have to operate on 4-6 hours of sleep. It sucks. I don't like it. I'm tired, but class starts in five minutes. Where is my form...?

Another lie in the MSM? Tha... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

Another lie in the MSM? That must be the umpteenth in just the last week! Of course the ACLU would spread the anti_American lie; they like the MSM hate America. Thank God for talk radio, Captn Ed, Malkin,lgf, et. al.

Let's see, in a typical wee... (Below threshold)

Let's see, in a typical week I sleep LESS than 4 hours in a 24 hour span at least 4 out of 7 days.

I am put into a "stress position" any time I sit down in any of my classes or hoist my bag onto my shoulder. (BTW - Why do the books weigh and cost so much, and WHY IN THE WORLD would a COLLEGE buy desks that are barely big enough for 5th grade students?)

I am subjected to loud and obnoxious music ALL THE TIME from my neighbors' kids.

I consider it a GOOD DAY if I get ONE MEAL!

So, like Rick, I want to know why the ACLU hasn't sued my school/employer/neighbors on my behalf, and I can answer that question......

THEY DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US! All they care about is FORCING their LIBERAL/COMMUNIST agenda down the throats of Americans, even though more than 75% of Americans want (or just have no problem with) prayer in schools. Most Americans are against abortion (in one way or another), and the most IN-TOLERANT people in the world are the ones SCREAMING for "tolerance".

Hey, I was just working on ... (Below threshold)
G:

Hey, I was just working on this story myself.

I am currently in an email discussion with the editor in chief of the internet edition of Norway's most read newspaper. The Norwegian Telegram Bureau (NTB) had a wire story about Sanchez supposedly authorizing the "mistreatment" that happened at Abu Ghraib, of course shilling for the ACLU completely. They claimed that the policy Sanchez had authorized was the same one as the one they used in Guantanamo.

VG (Verdens Gang), the newspaper in question, ran the NTB story, which was actually pretty short, as most wire feeds are. I wrote to the editor in chief and asked him why he was printing lies from NTB in his newspaper. Then I explained to him the error of NTB's ways.

To my surprise, I actually got a response from him a few days later. He had contacted someone at NTB to get their defense of what I said. Put shortly, they misrepresented my argument and pulled a duck and cover. Their last "argument" was that other media sources had angled it the same way. Heh, you know you're in trouble when your argument is that "others did it too!"

My main argument against this hack piece of a story is the fact that none of the stories mention one inescapable fact: the memorandum says precisely that the Guantanamo policy was revised to be used in a theater of war where Geneva Conventions apply. It says this in the cover letter of the memo.

How odd that none of the press stories I have read about this mention that simple thing - that Sanchez wrote on the cover letter than this policy was revised to fit with the Geneva Conventions.

Then you add in the fact that the rest of the memo repeats over and over that Geneva is to be followed, and rule number 3 for the policy states that prisoners are to be treated humanely at all times.

None of the media stories mention any of this. They are too busy taking things out of context to fit their predetermined storyline.

The headline from NTB in VG:
"USA general approved mistreatment of prisoners"

How about that. Then their own documentation proves them wrong. Michael Moore would be proud.

Kevin Aylward writes... (Below threshold)
s9:

Kevin Aylward writes: The ACLU's Dishonesty Knows No Bounds

Okay... did Kevin bother to read the ACLU press release?

"We deserve to know if our military commanders are being honest when reporting to Congress and the American people what’s been done in our country’s name," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The attorney general clearly has to bring us those answers by appointing an independent investigator, and possible perjury is a good place to start."

Where is the dishonesty? Are you honestly expecting that the ACLU Legislative Counsel doesn't really believe in its heart of hearts that General Sanchez could have lied to Congress about this issue? What evidence do you have for that scandalous accusation?

"...deserve to know..."..."... (Below threshold)
-S-:

"...deserve to know..."..."clearly has to bring us..."possible perjury is a good place to start..."

There's an nearly inobservable line between "dishonesty" and "suppository allegations" of the demanding kind.

The very language in that statement by the ACLU is based upon a positioning that is not proven, established, defined, but assumed by the ACLU itself.

Make a request, pose an understanding of/observation about a discrepancy but the very reliance by the ACLU, ongoing and continuously, of the abundant assumptive language is worse than any edict by any dictator in any realm, far worse than a Monarchy proclaiming whatever.

The very language they use to -- what is it, because it's not interactive communication -- launch their inaccuracies as facts is a sure giveaway to many that they're working just too hard to sell that car.

No, they do not "deserve to know" and no, no one is under any obligation to "bring to" the ACLU anything. It's also not "clearly" motivated, that there wrongful demand.

s9 I did read and link to t... (Below threshold)

s9 I did read and link to the press release, in case you weren't paying attention.

Here's how it started.

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking him to open an investigation into possible perjury by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the theater commander at the outset of the Iraq War. The ACLU said that a memo sent by Lt. Gen Sanchez flatly contradicts sworn testimony given by him before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which he denied authorizing highly coercive interrogation methods.

Given what I've just documented (from the ACLU's document no less), exactly which part of that paragraph is true, or in contradicts the record I've shown? Answer - none. They are accusing a man of perjury based on a sloppy reading of a memo they sought under the FOIA. Sounds dishonest to me...

And, as to the "possible pe... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, as to the "possible perjury is a good place to start" statement, anything and everything is POSSIBLE. That the ACLU then attaches the act of "perjury" to that "possible" as a starting point is terribly threatening -- AND INACCURATE AND MISLEADING -- language.

"Everyone assumes that...terrible things clearly have possibly been committed by (name a name here)..."

That sort of language is among the most arduously irresponsible that anyone can author. And the ACLU is surprised that THEY are suspect to the view of many?

Let's engage in the ACLU's word plays:

"We (not defined as to who that is) all (who is "all" since we don't know who "we" are yet) clearly (um, no, not yet, not even close, still waiting for the first two definitions so there's anything but clarity so far) deserve (um, no, there's no relationship defined as to who is who, what is what and why anyone merits anything from anyone) to be provided with (um, no, there's also no defined or described fiduciary relationship by or for anyone's as-yet-undefined relationships with whoever or provisions/provisional relationship/s yet even identified)..."


I always get the impression after reading that sort of language that it represents intentional obfuscation. As in, whoever wrote it is attempting to blow smoke in someone else's face. As in, smokescreen. Railroading tactics.

Kevin writes: The... (Below threshold)
s9:

Kevin writes: They are accusing a man of perjury based on a sloppy reading of a memo they sought under the FOIA. Sounds dishonest to me...

Now, look who's jumping to dishonest conclusions! They have not quite accused the man of perjury— rather, they have called for investigation into the possibility that he gave perjured testimony.

The facts are: 1) the memo says that illegal interrogation methods could be used if he personally authorized them; 2) illegal interrogation methods (even beyond those authorized by the memo) were used; 3) the general swore before Congress that he did not authorize any illegal methods; and 4) the ACLU thinks the general may have lied to Congress.

Look, somebody is lying under oath. It's either the general, who says that he never authorized what the grunts in the cellblocks were doing, or it's the grunts who are on trial for it, who say that they were following orders from their chain of command.

If you had any sense of responsibility to the truth, you wouldn't be so quick to believe General Sanchez would never lie under oath while you are practically rushing to lock up the grunts in the cellblock who are swearing on a stack of bibles that their superiors had authorized everything.

If you're so sure Sanchez is a white knight in all this, then why not have the perjury investigation so you can see your hero cleared of the charges? Wouldn't that be a win for you? You'd get to see the ACLU humiliated and you'd see the grunts in the cellblock exposed as the lying whores you know they have to be.

If you're so sure Sanche... (Below threshold)
julie:

If you're so sure Sanchez is a white knight in all this, then why not have the perjury investigation so you can see your hero cleared of the charges?

Because we don't believe in illegally harassing people. Obviously, you do.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy