tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post6201165171419722432..comments2023-10-21T01:41:25.251-07:00Comments on Invictus: The Foreign Press, Salon.com, & the Army Field ManualValtinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07427976389098964420noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-21148932916911316192009-01-29T22:23:00.000-08:002009-01-29T22:23:00.000-08:00At a hearing , John Conyers clearly mentions "...At a hearing , John Conyers clearly mentions "interrogation of detainees AND OTHERS"<BR/><BR/>It looks like that this may shed some light on the "separation" mentioned ("Like spies and saboteurs"? Where did Kimmons come up with that? ")<BR/><BR/>The reference is made at 8 minutes, 59 seconds into the House Committee Judiciary hearing on Dec 20, 2007.<BR/><BR/>The hearing title is "Federal Laws and Detainee Interrogation" - product ID 203151-1 on C-Span<BR/><BR/>http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=203151-1&highlight=<BR/><BR/>This hearing wa unavailable recently but , for some reason, it is back ...<BR/><BR/>("Interrogation of detainees AND OTHERS" )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-66579637672971880282009-01-29T12:47:00.000-08:002009-01-29T12:47:00.000-08:00As Gen McAuliffe said, "Nuts." Forgot to include ...As Gen McAuliffe said, "Nuts." Forgot to include my email.<BR/>mike.ferner@sbcglobal.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-31949617070878763852009-01-29T12:45:00.000-08:002009-01-29T12:45:00.000-08:00Mr. Kaye,I've been reading your recent articles in...Mr. Kaye,<BR/>I've been reading your recent articles in Alternet and elsewhere re: the "new" AFM. Thanks for your exhaustive work, although I must say that this topic isn't easily followed. <BR/>I want to publicly use some of your references, and I'm trying to come up with something succinct re: the AFM/Appendix M that indicates Obama's "no torture" executive order isn't all it's cracked up to be. What I've come up with is: "the AFM/Appendix M still allows solitary confinement under the name 'separation,' sensory deprivation if only one sense is deprived at a time and other practices out of the SERE manual." <BR/>Accurate? Can you give me one example of the "other" practices so I'm not just saying "etc., etc."?<BR/><BR/>Finally, below is a section from one of your articles that appeared in Information Clearing House, I believe a repost from Alternet. I think it's supposed to say "Stimson" at the second use of "Kimmons." Can you confirm?<BR/><BR/>Many thanks.<BR/><BR/>Mike Ferner, President Veterans For Peace<BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>Kimmons's answer quickly veered into unacceptable territory, and Stimson had to jump in to clarify, as this excerpt demonstrates (emphasis added):<BR/><BR/> Gen. Kimmons: Well, actually, the distinction is in Geneva through the Geneva Convention, which describes the criteria that prisoner -- that lawful combatants, such as enemy prisoners of war -- which attributes they possess -- wearing a uniform, fighting for a government, bearing your arms openly and so on and so forth. And it's all spelled out fairly precisely inside Geneva.<BR/><BR/> Geneva also makes clear that traditional, unlawful combatants such as in the -- 50 years ago, we would have talked about spies and saboteurs, but also now applies to this new category of unlawful -- or new type of unlawful combatant, terrorists, al Qaeda, Taliban.<BR/><BR/> They clearly don't meet the criteria for prisoner of war status, lawful combatant status, and so they're not entitled to the -- therefore to the extra protections and privileges which Geneva affords.<BR/><BR/>But Stimson's clarification was not very helpful. In fact, if a prisoner is judged not a "lawful combatant", then he or she immediately becomes covered by Geneva IV, the "Civilian Convention," which protects anyone "who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever find themselves" held prisoner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com