Gen. Petraeus: US violated Geneva Convention, the court of law could try terrorists: we made mistakes after 9/11: Close Gitmo
By John Amato Friday May 29, 2009 10:47am
Gen. Petraeus joined FOX News and Martha MacCallum today and gave a blockbuster interview, but probably not the one Fox expected. Once again, he called for the responsible closure of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. He also said that mistakes were made after 9/11 and that the Army Field Manual is all that we need to use to interrogate prisoners. In addition, he said that we have to have faith in our judicial system and we should try the Khalid Sheikh Muhammads in a court of law.
Martha tried to give him the ticking time bomb scenario to justify torture and he really didn't bite. He did say maybe an Executive Order could be appropriate, but that it really wasn't necessary. Petraeus repudiated pretty much most of what Limbaugh Republicans and the Rove/Newt/Cheney Party have been saying.
(rush transcript)
MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.
Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we're doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.
MacCallum: So you're confident that they will never go free.
Gen. Petraeus: I hope that's the case.
MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)
Gen. Petraeus: ....T here might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them -- those techniques work, that's our experience in this business.
MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Wow, there was a lot in that interview. I couldn't transcribe it all. He admits that we violated the Geneva Convention. Is he saying that the Bush/Cheney administration failed our "value system" in their leadership in the two wars and how America responded to the 9/11 attacks?
He obviously is against torture. He is also saying to let the chips fall where they may in prosecuting these detainees and use our legal system to try terror suspects. Martha didn't go into the military commissions, but if they come here, just let them stand trial. All the conservatives and Republicans anointed Gen. Petraeus as the true leader of the wars when George Bush decided he didn't want to take the heat on the war any longer.
Remember when to question him was sacrilegious? Will they now disavow what he is telling them today?
After the interview, the other Fox host predictably tried to intimate that Petraeus was working for Obama now so, ya know, he's in the tank for him. Whatever happened to listening to the generals on the ground being critical to our "victory" in Iraq? He said that our values as a country do change in a time of war -- a scary notion -- so Bush is just all right. Don't they ever give up with their Bush-hero worshiping?
How long will it take Rush Limbaugh to lash out at the General? What about Newt and Rove?
Login or Register to post comments.
Petraeus, sir, you rock.
Patreus does not rock. He is a coward. A stooge.
A tool of the military industrial congressional mediatainment big pharma insurance bankster complex.
Why wasn't he saying this in 2006?
Because he is a tool!!
because after seeing his colleagues get fired left and right for saying anything against the party line, he decided to hold his tongue until the time was right.
Whaddaya know, he's got the same master plan as Obama. No wonder they get on so well.
So let's put career before the lives of the soldiers under your
command. The first class we took in Boot Camp was about illegal
orders, the Geneva Convention and War Crimes. Knowing illegal
shit is going on and NOT stopping it makes you equally as guilty.
Like I said, a coward, a stooge and a tool.
Now the superior is Obama. There's nothing real surprising here.
Heard that before...good name there Pawn
Checkmate!
Though there is something unique about Petraeus being used by his superiors in the political system, media, and battlefield for their campaigns. Nobody questions him, besides us dirty hippies :-)
BTW...we're all pawns in this game.
Everything you said upthread is 1000% on the money.
There is nothing, NOTHING that rocks about Petraeus.
That is for sure. He blows whichever way the wind does. He sacrificed the lives of those under his command to get ahead under Bush. it doesn't get any lower than that. If he had real moral authority he would have resigned a long time ago and made a public statement why. Instead he is figuring out the best way to run for president.
I'm going to have to go with Leadership's take on GP...He's singing like a GD canary to save his own ass.
War is not healthy for anyone. Time to take all our "Armed Forces" and give them a new mission....Saving this amazing planet. That would be something to freak out in moonage day dream about.....yeah, me and Bowie think a lot alike.
I thank him for FINALLY admitting the truth. However, people should not go overboard praising Petraeus for what he should have done from the start. This doesn't excuse him not standing up for his men by telling the truth when he was given the opportunity.
Drunk driver hits a pedestrian and drives home...hit and
run. The next day he shows up at the police station and
admits his guilt. The cops say, "Oh thank you citizen,
here's a $25 Applebee's gift card."
LOL!!!
...just give Petraeus a little credit. He could have kept his mouth shut and played "good soldier" like Powell.
you on my ignore list so i can only guess at the
vitriolic BS you are spewing. You are jealous because
Patreus is more of a douche than you are!!!
Keep trying practice makes perfect!
I think you miss the point of "ignoring" someone.
This guy was a total cheerleader when Rummy Dummy and the rest were lying like hell. So much for looking out for your soilders and following that whole ethics thing. What's that code of honor all about if not protecting our troops when the enemey withing is crying wolf.
Still makes me sick to my stomach. Heads should be rolling. Everyone in the entire world knows that, and is watching and waiting.
I don't need to read the guy's bio. Petraeus' admissions hurt Cheney's and the other war criminals bullshit arguments.
RE:
LOL!
He hit the pedestrian because he "took the rear view mirrors off the bus"!
Petraeus' way forward: "Let's take these mirrors off this bus" - is not a very safe metaphoric strategy for the future. Surely the rear view mirrors are not meant to distract... rather they are intended to make you safer by offering an additional perspective to make future judgements and to keep you from danger. But now, apparently, it is time to take off those pesky mirrors that point, metaphorically, to the mistakes the Bush administration, made.
Don't look behind you. Just think of Applebee's.
and since he admits that gitmo has been used as a recruiting tool...he has blood on his hands
and what is up with the fox idiot saying that values are fungible?
lincoln suspended habeaus corpus because the war was right on our shores....you fucking tool
Thanks Unc!!
So here it is again
In the bubble after the interview AFTER the interview out of earshot of the General...that republican ted baxter gives a lesson in patriotic situational ethics....
'and what is up with the fox idiot saying that values are fungible?
Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus because the war was right on our shores....you fucking tool'
Further the General is certainly admitting to, at least, being aware of violations of the Geneva Conventions. Those are called War Crimes.
This stuff is being recorded. I would love to have this fauxnews tape played at the Hague.
Fungible, yeah! I am totally against stealing, unless I need something. I'm totally against killing, unless I want to. Values, what values?
the definition of a coward.
It's amazing what happens when you change horses, and the bureaucrats are allowed to speak freely. Military and foreign policy decisions are made based on facts, scientists are allowed to reveal their findings, etc.
Patraeus was allowed to BUT didn't speak the truth when he should have. Maybe he would have been replaced, but would have at least saved his honor and protected his soldiers.
Thank you!!
We know that Fox would have never asked him the question during Bush's term but what about the other MSM? The corporations still control the message and the questions.
Would he have even have said such a thing during the Bush regime. I think not. So he's looking out for his own ass. "Betrayus" is right.
I mean, it's good he said it, on Fox no less, but... I already know who he is.
General Patreus was fighting two wars. He may well have spoken out, but the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld trio would not listen. Because the General is a man who cares about his soldiers, he did his best to plan the surge, so that he could be in the midst to lead his command. He is a hero, who did not give up on his soldiers or his country when he was faced with the ignorance of the armchair warriors in Washington who were so damn sure of themselve. Thank God, the soldiers in the field had Patreus on their side.
With a hero like that who needs genocidal enabling,
sycophantic, spineless, duplicitous, triangulating,
fair weather patriots. He knew atrocities were being
committed and didn't act. Was Nuremberg that long ago?
I was worried a couple of threads back, now things are back to normal.
Wait until 420 today, you'll be in trouble then....
moderation is teh key!
"Petraeus, sir, you rock...."
He says anything about the progress in Iraq, then he's a dirty, lying tool of the right wing ;)
If we broke the Geneva Conventions, then it's time to make some
arrests.
MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it's not for a soldier to say.
Ha!!
http://boisdejustice.com/Guillotine_16.JPG
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive.html?site...
for oversight. Once they have finished their "committee hearings" and have the evidence in hand, they can recommend prosecution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVS4a0MAiu8&fe...
Rush calls him..."General Betrayus"...in 5,4,3...
I was wondering when the Bush/Cheney apologists would start using General Betrayus as well.
Guess he has a new commander in chief so he can speak freely with the truth without fear of retribution from the prior "troop and generals supporting" administration.
Now how long before we hear the cries of "General Betrayus!" from the right wing?
Next: Newt and Rush elope to Iowa.
More likely Idaho.
So all the men there pretend to their wives that they don't know Ida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B3SUpzw4cw
Ooh, that's gotta sting after all the rhetoric in support of Pertraeus not so long ago. If they actually resort to using the "General Betrayus" cheap-shot (which I didn't think much of before, either), it's going to be so hypocritical it's hard to believe.
Then again, the far right wing of the US media has turned into a self-parody recently.
Now here's parody:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/d%20cup/Fr...
Not this time, not this General.
Funny how this group went ape sh*t with the "Betray Us" ad, now they are singing a different tune - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2259...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYb8Wm6-QfA
Exigent circumstances??? Are you f**king kidding me? Hitler thought it was the right thing to do too, but we don't usually make excuses for him.
So now they're essentially admitting it was torture; it wasn't the right course of action; but it's ok because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I'm gonna shift my values around a little, and don't you dare call me a relativist. I'm just following the moral standards of Fox News and the party of American Religion.
Generally, I'm against stealing, but if I really need the money...
Generally, I'm against meaningless sexual conquests outside of a committed relationship, but if I really need the sex...
Generally, I'm against nepotism, but if its my own relatives...
Wait, those really are Republican frat boy values. It's not a joke at all. Let's all drink to firm moral standards and the exigent circumstances that render them quaint.
I love me some exigent circumstances!
what is going through Hannity's mind right now... "Gen. Betray us much?"
They'll say that the General Betrayed em. Lol.
Like all the war dudes are getting pwned and stuff...huh huh...
I guess the new boss isn't just like the old boss.
Your on my ignore list I am just heckling you and "war dudes"
Obama is telling the Israeli's to stop new settlements. I almost
passed out. But keep projecting like you ALWAYS do you fucking
robot.
...talked bullshit to get my attention. If I'm truly on your ignore list show some "leadership" and don't correspond.
So now the backstabbers are being backstabbed.
Perfect Shakespearean karmic retribution, aka "payback".
I knew this was going to get interesting!
But at least she has her talking points down.
1. Never admit to being wrong no matter how good the evidence.
2. Always make an excuse for why the interviewee may not share FOX opinions.
3. Never wear anything but short skirts. (Our Viewers do not care about these news things anyway)
This will get digested and spat out as:
- Petraeus believes there ARE circumstances in which torture is necessary, and all it takes is an executive order.
- "Never go free?" Why, I have a report right here that shows umptiddly-zillion of those released went right back to being terrorists!
- Our interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed gave us high-value intelligence that saved lives! If we'd simply let him go as Petraeus suggests*, why, it's certain that more American lives would have been lost. Is that what you want?
*Yes, we know Petraeus didn't say 'just let him go.'
He's at least on the side of law now, which I admire him for, but the reason he's doing it is despicable: self-preservation. It's the same reason he went along with Bush's bullshit, he'll do whatever necessary to protect his career first, country second. Any way the wind blows...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs
Why is that baby killer still walking freely among us? He committed treason against the United States and yet he's still free.
Same reason Oliver North is and st. ronnie is considered a "true American hero".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzEb5IzdcrU
I was hoping that was a GI Joe video, oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG1UnOwJht8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBtO5HfXbzA
... [we] have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized.
WOW!!!
WON'T THIS TAKE THE WIND OUT OF THE SAILS OF THOSE WHO HAVE CALLED US TRAITORS
for criticizing the repug administration?
What will O'Liar and inSannity invoke now?
They'll just say "the Geneva Conventions are not a suicide pact". Or they'll go back to their old standby "they are quaint and no longer apply in this post 9/11 world".
What I care is when will the idiot dems do something about it. It's not as if there haven't been enough public confessions to war crimes already. Would we really need a "commission" to find out the "truth", please. Oh right, the dems are covering the repubs asses to cover their own as well, carry on.
Fri, 05/29/2009 - 12:21 — ronhohn
What will O'Liar and inSannity invoke now?
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abQh1anE9lI&fe...
An interview that borders on politics, and is civil and law related, not military opinion.
No matter whichever we agree or disagree with what he says, that breaks the established US army code on serving personal and what is permissible in uniform off duty.
... heck at some point during the surge you could swear he was the spokesperson for the GOP.
11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:
a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.
(3) Except when authorized by competent Service authority, when participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration (including those pertaining to civil rights), which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
(4) When wearing of the uniform would tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
(5) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned.
I do not expect to see this man on prime time any time soon.
Whatever the case of his motives, etc etc etc., I think there's a line in there that would make a wonderful talking point.
"I don't think we should be afraid of our values we're fighting for."
I've got mixed feelings about the person, but I just really like that line. I really hope a few more people use it. Be really nice if a few more people took it to heart too. Ah well, I can hope.
"I don't think that we should be afraid to live our values. That's what we're fighting for."
I disagree that we're actually fighting for our values, but his point certainly neutralizes the position of those who argue that torture--not to mention indefinite detention/wiretapping/suspension of habeus corpus/etc.--is necessary for our safety.
We either believe in the rule of law, or we don't. We either live by our Constitution, or we don't. And if we don't, we have only ourselves to blame.
Rush cant respond right now, he has a cyst on his butt that requires his attention.
Rush will be calling him a fake soldier in 5..4..3......
Petraeus is one of the Conservatives hero, and it'll further corrode their crediblity if they go after him.
Some have been hoping to run him for 2012.
Maybe had they cut and chopped his interview, it might have been his last with the propaganda artists. But playing it seems like it could wake up a few geriatric/red necks that tune in for the dose of hate and bull shit??
I'm thinking liz vader-cheney is going to be interviewed next to challenge General Patreaus on every point. Some VERY important comments were made by the good General, and it's going to take a LOT of shit flinging now to cover up the effect.
...where the vapid male-type talking head waved his hands around hypnotically to sell his point about shifting our values around as it suits "our" needs. He had me convinced until I stabbed myself brutally in the hand with a pen, a defensive technique I worked up over the years for just such an emergency.
... Gitmo was not his area of responsibility. He may have had some influence if he had told Bush of his opposition, then again, he may have, but I don't think anything would have convinced Bush to change anything.
Second - it is not the subordinate's job to lecture his superiors, except when he has been ordered to do something that is illegal, which I don't believe was the case here.
and now Gen. Petraeus is top Boss. in ME/Asia, so is Bagram the current operating mil/CIA hellhole.
Gitmo was the local zoo the DC people could daytrip to, to see the 'animals' perform and or be tortured.
The VIP visitors log for Gitmo would make interesting reading.
A couple of (possibly incorrect) observations:
1) Is Petraeus a closet civil libertarian? That's probably going too far, but he clearly left no doubt in Faux's mind as to what his viewpoint was.
2) The Faux anchors gave Petraeus the space to say exactly what he meant to, even with their love for the "ticking timebomb" scenario. Most others would not have received that kind of latitude.
3) The Faux anchors were clearly in a pickle over this. They couldn't dispute or really rebut the "Great General Petraeus" (TM), so there was some serious cognitive dissonance as to what to say when the interview ended.
4) And so, since they couldn't disagree with the Great One, what did they do? Spin. ("Exigent circumstances" my a$$.)
I laughed all the way through this clip.
If you view this post as a commentary on Petraeus' complicity and whether progress towards justice for torture is being made, you'll be disappointed. If you view it as simply another shot fired across the circle that the GOP has become, it's quite entertaining.
It's both of those things.
The cowardly deserter George W. Bush, five times draft-dodger Dickless Cheney who, in his own words, "had other priorities," than to serve his nation during time of war, and that marshmallow-soft wuss "male" Fox co-host dare to line up against the combat experienced General as cheerleaders for war and torture.
We see this scenario played out over and over again by Republican cowards who never saw one second of combat, but cheer for war and torture and use childish television shows such as "24" to support their delusional and dead-wrong claims. Most military men and women do not support these fools because we know what war is.
If ever there was a strong argument for mandatory 4-years military service by ALL young men and women immediately upon graduation from high school, this is it. NO exceptions other than those with extreme mental and/or physical disability.
The chickenhawks are always overcompensating cowards. The draft would weed these sick bastards out of our society.
Gettin tired of having little drips and drabs of info coming out revealing shit we all know about and have been screaming about for years.
Bush admin broke U.S. and international law on a whole range of issues, and everyone knows this. They don't even argue about whether it was done or not anymore, they just argue about how effective it was. Makes me want to throw up. You hear Carl Levin talking about having seen the classified docs Cheney wants released because he says it backs up the claim that torture saved lives? Levin says the docs don't say that. SO WHAT!?! How can a U.S. Sen. talk about torture and his only problem is that its not effective as some people claim? If we're not going to investigate and prosecute, then stop jerking my dick everytime it seems like something new has been revealed.
Has the flip flopping conservatives on Faux Noise started trashing Gen, Petraeus yet???
Why are all the ignorant women on Faux Noise all bleach blonde, head bobbing, stupid bimbo's?
...from exercising any critical judgment (if they possess any) while listening to whats being said.
Ya. Something for male FOX news veiwers to approve of and something for female FOX news veiwers to aspire to.
I was just listening to Thom hartmann on AirAmerica and a caller made a very interesting statement. His comment was about the definition of salvery according to the 13th amendment. In a nutshell slavery is defined as confinement without prosecution in USA and its territories and extracting something of value without compensation. It sounded like a good legal basis for a lawsuit vs Bush et al on those grounds. Any legal eagles out there that can expound on this?
...definitely a good case for kidnapping. Snatching these people off the street and holding them without charging them with no legal authority would fit the bill nicely. I also think the fact that the detainees were specifically held in gitmo, outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts would nullify any argument made that they had some kind of legal authority.
I may have to issue a formal apology to the General. I have been hard on him because of his knowingly acting upon illegal orders to commit war crimes. I will wait and see, and hope...
that this isn't one of the "I'm so sorry, I won't do it again" lines that Nazi generals used to defend the atrocities they committed in battle. If so, apology express is rolling down the tracks.
We can no more allow our own people to get away with war crimes than we did the Nazi's or the Japanese, in WWII. Or we are the dirt upon which the world should spit.
The only way to truly look forward we must look back to what the evil regime of bushco has done to this country. The perpetrators of this evil must be dealt with and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Torture was used before the start of the war with Iraq in order for bushco to get the "intelligence" they wanted. The consequences of that action has cost America over 4,000 military lives and the lives of countless Iraqis. This does not need to be prosecuted? This needs to be left behind as we start looking forward? How wrong is that?
To look forward without bringing the evil that was perpetrated upon this country and other countries is to invite the same type of evil or worse into our political offices. If there are no consequences to what was done sets an awfully bad precedent for future administrations , and indeed a bad precedent for this administration who is gladly perpetuating some of the worst bush policies.
Where do we find a patriot?
Neither MSNBC or CNN online have the story at this late hour. The revolution has been canceled.
This conversation with Patreus, clearly indicates that President Obama is listening to the generals in the field and following their advice. General Patreus chose during the Bush/Cheney years to be silent, in order to fulfill his duty to the military in war. He cares deeply about the soldiers under his commande. He is honest when he calls waterboarding "torture", and he candidly speaks about what should happen to GITMO. What is also interesting, in his belief in the American judicial system. A system that he is fighting to uphold around the world. I respect this man and believe him.
Next time I find myself in court, I'm going to tell the judge to put away his rear view mirror. We all good now, judge?
(Not that I've been in court.)
so if petraeus now admits that the geneva conventions were abrogated by soldiers who were following orders relayed from above, and petraeus himself was in that chain of command, why hasn't he resigned his commission?
the HONORABLE thing to do.
But it's not as if he hasn't pretended ignorance of a culture of abuse in the past.
In May 2007, Petraeus spoke to the Associated Press' annual meeting by live link to express his misgivings about a newly released ethics report. But the report was actually finished in November 2006, and Petraeus had kept quiet for over six months, until it's public release, before deciding to draft an "urgent" memo to his command about ethical lapses! That's how "greatly concerned" he is.
So now it suits his PR to speak out - back then it suited him to remain silent. Sure, it helps the White House on these issues and that's great but still, color me unimpressed with the PR General himself.
Regards, Steve aka Cernig
That is the definition of coward.
General "Betrayus". Hey, wait a minute...
demand the truth
Why does Gen Petraus hate America more than the terrorists ??
WTH ? Why didn't this " great General " speak out before ? Another fart going which ever way the wind blows . Another Powell .
Generals and comedians should probably stay out of politics even though they are more competent and certainly less corrupt than the clowns we elect to govern.
To the critics, Patraeus was not in charge of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib. He was brought in for the surge and waged it intelligently, an attribute previously missing from the Bush administration. He is on OUR side - don't make him a scapegoat for Bush/Cheney. The wish to have absolutely pure allies is the mistake the Republicans are making. Friends don't have to be perfect. It's enough he's sticking his finger in the eye of the armchair warrior Cheney.
he's for upholding the law and prosecuting war crimes I don't have a problem with him. On the other hand I do have very big problems with anyone who thinks that the torture and war crimes can be swept under a rug.
Login or Register to post comments.