That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
The Congress knows. They are the ones responsible for oversight, not random people posting on the internet. If you know exactly what they are doing, so do people that shouldn't.
You should probably look into the legal doctrine of in loco parentis.
If two parents are divorced and share custody of the children, does that mean that neither of them does parenting? After all, neither of them does it full time.
Al Qaida and company have picked up more than one idea for weapons, attacks, or operations from discussions about them in the media.
The details for some things matter. There may be countermeasures that can be taken to work around a particular technique, for at least a short critical time when it matters.
I'd believe "only 300 numbers" a lot more readily if the various Internet services that have come forth all seem to report requests numbering in the thousands.
Was it FBI or NSA? Or maybe state or local police? They could potentially all make requests.
It wasn't just unqualified/. posters pointing out the extreme difficulties, it was also people who are actually well qualified.
The "well qualified" person that many were pointing to was that chemistry student. His web post hosted on another site was nonsense. His base assumptions were stupid.
While it's no doubt convenient to pigeon hole all your would-be detractors as irrational,
I didn't actually write that, and don't believe that is true. It is true that many people on Slashdot aren't well informed on subjects like this and post nonsense.
with your 'only three waterboarded' post you've indicated quite clearly that you're prepared to cherry pick information/articles to fit your narrative
There aren't a lot of correct numbers to "cherry pick" from. If you have data to show differently I would love to see it.
which is that of the US intelligence services and government being reasonable and honourable when it comes to these matters. (torture etc.)
I think that the US intelligence services will generally operate in accordance with the law. In practice that can mean something rather different than other people know or suppose. One of the biggest sources if misbelief about that is confusing the standards of criminal law with those of the Law of War and aspects of national security law. They are different bodies of law, and have different standards. Beyond that, many people ignore the very existence of the Law of War.
I also find it odd that on Slashdot many in effect take statements by al Qaida and company at face value when they make allegations but do not extend any credibility to their own democratic governments. Totalitarian extremist terrorists have more credible than democratically elected governments with oversight on its operations? Someone is ready for a new overlord. I doubt they would care for it in practice. Few Muslims do when they get a taste of the al Qaida imposed lifestyle.
... given all the stuff they've been shown to have already lied about. That, and the fact that deception is basically their whole 'thing'.
NSA would prefer to not say anything. And it is worth remembering that the US is at war with al Qaida and company.
Just looking up the phone number will not provide the useful sorts of things that NSA can do with additional analysis.
Binary explosives certainly exist, and are available commercially. The posting on Slashdot about that plot and the explosives was execrable. Everyone kept pointing to a posting by a chemistry student who admitted to having no background in explosive that concocted a ridiculous scenario for preparing the explosives as a final product. It was so bad you almost have to wonder if it was active disinformation.
As to the Enigma business, many people posting here don't think that the US keeping a similar secret would be OK. They demand to know what is being done and how, even if it make the program useless, and would open the possibly of many people being killed.
You know, I'll bet that al Qaida is wondering the same kinds of things, along with the security services of Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba, Russia, and other adversaries of the US. They want to know so that they can beat the surveillance. What do you bet that if people keep howling at the NSA that it will release that information? Just to satisfy random curiosity?
Actually they probably would have preferred to not say anything about their successes at all, publicly. The intelligence business is like that. Once you start doing victory dances where people can see, you start having fewer wins to do the dances over. The other side figures out what you did, and how you did it, and takes countermeasures. If nobody sees the dance, then nobody knows you did anything. If they don't know you did anything, then all they have are mysterious failures that they can attribute to their own stupidity instead of your intelligence program. The British government kept the secret that they had broken the German Enigma encryption system for 30 years after the war. Nazi Germany was done at the end of the war.
Isn't that what they tell us? "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide"?
Did the NSA say this? I don't recall that they did. There might have been something about ordinary citizens not having anything to worry about. That is a different question entirely.
And then they decide that they should probably hide this massive surveillance program?
The might have tested notifying KGB spies that they were being listened to back in the 1950s. I don't think it would have worked out well for surveillance purposes.
One of the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty is that you have to comply with the treaty to maintain its protections.
You don't have unlawful combatant correct. If you examine article 13 you can see that civilian irregular forces can participate as combatants and maintain the protections of the treaty, but they must abide by certain rules.
Your statement about Guantanamo is nonsense. POWs can be detained without trial. If you want to maintain otherwise, could you find me the records of the millions of trials that must have been conducted in WW2 for the POWs in that conflict? You can't, because there is no such requirement. The military tribunals are not secret. There were only three people waterboarded by the US, and I don't recall that it was at Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a prison camp. Little if anything would change if they were held elsewhere. The al Qaida members would still be behind bars and the complaining would be about wherever the new prison was.
The claim is that the US waterboarded three people. Libya is not the US.
...but I imagine you've already chosen who you prefer to believe.
I imagine that works both ways. I would be curious to know your thoughts on the fact that al Qaida training materials have been found in which they teach their members to lie about the conditions of their captivity, to fabricate claims of torture and abuse. Does that ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever view their claims with skepticism, or only those of Western nations?
It is also good to not forget that the Islamist extremists that resort to terrorism have an ideological base in the Islamist movement, and that the Islamist movement has allies in the West.
They haven't summarily disappeared to "room 101." They are being held in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. They can be held there as ordinary POWs. That isn't a problem any more than holding German POWs for up to 8 years was in WW2. There would have been many more trials conducted by now if various lawyers and progressive groups involved with representing the prisoners had not fought tooth and nail, by hook or by crook, to stop, alter, or invalidate the proceedings.
Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?
No, one of the primary reasons is because they deliberately target civilians as a primary focus for their attacks. That isn't mistakenly, accidently, or "we meant to shoot somebody else," but rather in a deliberate, calculated manner. They send truck bombs into village market places to kill villagers buying food, for instance. That is unlawful. That sort of thing is part of what caused the SS to be condemned as a whole at Nuremberg. They regularly behead prisoners. That is unlawful. They hang 7 year old kids as spies, and attack school children for the high crime of going to school. They mine the trails that pass for roads in many poor countries, regularly killing civilians unlucky enough to pass by. They also regularly violate article 13 of Geneva I. That is just off the top of my head. There are probably others as well. So no, it isn't about paperwork or forms.
It doesn't matter how strong you are, or how weak you are, what they do habitually is forbidden by treaty, and they don't care. They fight by their own rules as Jihadis. Look, they even want to bring back slavery, including making westerners sex slaves. Do you think you can get behind opposing that? Or would that be an excursion into the banal?
Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.
Not as applied, no. The reason it seems like it is that you over look the banality of ignorance, with the occasional sortie into nonsense.
The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003.
The United Kingdom is the only country to which the United States sells nuclear weapons.
If push came to shove in the Falklands, the US government was ready to provide an aircraft carrier to the British government if need be.
American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006 [wikipedia.org], by the way.
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. ..
Also, look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth, especially at the time?
"I am horrified our naval flotilla now comprises only 19 frigates and destroyers," said Lord West. "In the Falklands, in the first month of fighting, we had four sunk and 14 damaged. That makes you think. We seem to have forgotten that when you fight you lose things.
"Here we are with 19 frigates and destroyers. Are they bonkers? Are they mad? How have they allowed this to happen?"
--------
So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.
I have little doubt the Her Majesty's GCHQ intelligence service remains completely and unreservedly British, and that British interests, though often in common, are separate from American interests.
I would think that data sharing between NSA and GCHQ, to the extent that it exists, is on a strictly controlled, only what is agreed to basis, not a wide open file sharing agreement. I don't think the intelligence community tends to roll that way, especially for programs that would involve what is alleged here: spying on diplomatic activity by a national intelligence service. I would expect that to be among the most tightly controlled information.
It isn't that I would necessarily rule out HM intelligence service from doing it, but rather Snowden gaining access to it. That is, highly classified documents from another nation's most secret intelligence agency.
It seems unlikely that someone who started out guarding the parking lot at the CIA and only being an employee of a NSA contractor for three months would be able to get all this so quickly. It seems both unlikely and suspicious. Yet most people here are swallowing his tales hook, line, and sinker.
The great German scientist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
If it is difficult to change minds in science, where the evidence is supposed to be explicitly laid out, and matters viewed objectively, how much more so in other endeavors? It is common for things that I post to be both literally true and marked down as trolls, flamebait, or some other. The information often runs contrary to popular opinion, political beliefs, common misbelief, or some other aspect. Sometimes what I post is just inconvenient for a particularly popular rant. No matter.
What I wrote in that post is true. For example, most people have heard of the Berlin Wall, but knowledge of the similar sort of border controls between East and West Germany, and similar ones with Czechoslovakia, is fading, and many are ignorant. The communist block nations had to build fences and use patrols to keep people from leaving the country. The US hasn't had that problem.
As to my doppelganger - he started off literally jumping into conversation in my place, replying in a manner similar to me, and then abusing people. I don't want people to be overly confused.
I don't mind being disagreed with, but I prefer it to be based on the facts I present, not due to an agitator.
No, you misunderstand, probably again. They were genuine US military, but they did not follow basic standards of conduct and for the treatment of prisoners. They disobeyed orders. They breached military law. They went to jail.
If so, please continue to enlighten us on the Abu-Ghraib matter: the last I know, it was US military that used a quite large variety of torture, rape [wikipedia.org] included.
I've already posted on that in this discussion here. As far as continuing to "enlighten you," that might be a full time job whereas I'm only one person and have other priorities. Feel free to widen your reading material, and read more carefully. It might do you some good.
I will point out that the European Court of Human Rights, as far as I see in the actual reference (and maybe I missed it), doesn't refer to his receiving an enema as torture or rape.
Religious websites would be a decent start. What's wrong...? Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?
I doubt there would be much support for it in the UK.
Allow me to improve your understanding of the issue:
As revealed in the Taguba Report (2004), an initial criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway, in which soldiers of the 320th Military Police Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.
The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts-martial, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. . ..
Those were soldiers run amok over a short period of time. A number of them went to jail. They were criminals, and were treated as such.
Going to the source document, we see what is referred to as rape consisted of:
Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema...
Wikipedia is often best treated as a starting point, not an end point, when looking for information.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
The Congress knows. They are the ones responsible for oversight, not random people posting on the internet. If you know exactly what they are doing, so do people that shouldn't.
You should probably look into the legal doctrine of in loco parentis.
If two parents are divorced and share custody of the children, does that mean that neither of them does parenting? After all, neither of them does it full time.
Al Qaida and company have picked up more than one idea for weapons, attacks, or operations from discussions about them in the media.
The details for some things matter. There may be countermeasures that can be taken to work around a particular technique, for at least a short critical time when it matters.
I'd believe "only 300 numbers" a lot more readily if the various Internet services that have come forth all seem to report requests numbering in the thousands.
Was it FBI or NSA? Or maybe state or local police? They could potentially all make requests.
It wasn't just unqualified /. posters pointing out the extreme difficulties, it was also people who are actually well qualified.
The "well qualified" person that many were pointing to was that chemistry student. His web post hosted on another site was nonsense. His base assumptions were stupid.
While it's no doubt convenient to pigeon hole all your would-be detractors as irrational,
I didn't actually write that, and don't believe that is true. It is true that many people on Slashdot aren't well informed on subjects like this and post nonsense.
with your 'only three waterboarded' post you've indicated quite clearly that you're prepared to cherry pick information/articles to fit your narrative
There aren't a lot of correct numbers to "cherry pick" from. If you have data to show differently I would love to see it.
which is that of the US intelligence services and government being reasonable and honourable when it comes to these matters. (torture etc.)
I think that the US intelligence services will generally operate in accordance with the law. In practice that can mean something rather different than other people know or suppose. One of the biggest sources if misbelief about that is confusing the standards of criminal law with those of the Law of War and aspects of national security law. They are different bodies of law, and have different standards. Beyond that, many people ignore the very existence of the Law of War.
I also find it odd that on Slashdot many in effect take statements by al Qaida and company at face value when they make allegations but do not extend any credibility to their own democratic governments. Totalitarian extremist terrorists have more credible than democratically elected governments with oversight on its operations? Someone is ready for a new overlord. I doubt they would care for it in practice. Few Muslims do when they get a taste of the al Qaida imposed lifestyle.
... given all the stuff they've been shown to have already lied about. That, and the fact that deception is basically their whole 'thing'.
NSA would prefer to not say anything. And it is worth remembering that the US is at war with al Qaida and company.
Discussions are more interesting when they are two sided and have at least occasional references to facts.
The documentation Snowden has provided so far are pretty much PowerPoint slides. There is no faking that I guess.
If more than 3 people were waterboarded, you might think that would have come out in the last 10 years. It seems like little else hasn't.
Just looking up the phone number will not provide the useful sorts of things that NSA can do with additional analysis.
Binary explosives certainly exist, and are available commercially. The posting on Slashdot about that plot and the explosives was execrable. Everyone kept pointing to a posting by a chemistry student who admitted to having no background in explosive that concocted a ridiculous scenario for preparing the explosives as a final product. It was so bad you almost have to wonder if it was active disinformation.
As to the Enigma business, many people posting here don't think that the US keeping a similar secret would be OK. They demand to know what is being done and how, even if it make the program useless, and would open the possibly of many people being killed.
You know, I'll bet that al Qaida is wondering the same kinds of things, along with the security services of Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba, Russia, and other adversaries of the US. They want to know so that they can beat the surveillance. What do you bet that if people keep howling at the NSA that it will release that information? Just to satisfy random curiosity?
Congress has oversight responsibility.
Actually they probably would have preferred to not say anything about their successes at all, publicly. The intelligence business is like that. Once you start doing victory dances where people can see, you start having fewer wins to do the dances over. The other side figures out what you did, and how you did it, and takes countermeasures. If nobody sees the dance, then nobody knows you did anything. If they don't know you did anything, then all they have are mysterious failures that they can attribute to their own stupidity instead of your intelligence program. The British government kept the secret that they had broken the German Enigma encryption system for 30 years after the war. Nazi Germany was done at the end of the war.
Isn't that what they tell us? "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide"?
Did the NSA say this? I don't recall that they did. There might have been something about ordinary citizens not having anything to worry about. That is a different question entirely.
And then they decide that they should probably hide this massive surveillance program?
The might have tested notifying KGB spies that they were being listened to back in the 1950s. I don't think it would have worked out well for surveillance purposes.
One of the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty is that you have to comply with the treaty to maintain its protections.
You don't have unlawful combatant correct. If you examine article 13 you can see that civilian irregular forces can participate as combatants and maintain the protections of the treaty, but they must abide by certain rules.
Your statement about Guantanamo is nonsense. POWs can be detained without trial. If you want to maintain otherwise, could you find me the records of the millions of trials that must have been conducted in WW2 for the POWs in that conflict? You can't, because there is no such requirement. The military tribunals are not secret. There were only three people waterboarded by the US, and I don't recall that it was at Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a prison camp. Little if anything would change if they were held elsewhere. The al Qaida members would still be behind bars and the complaining would be about wherever the new prison was.
The claim is that the US waterboarded three people. Libya is not the US.
...but I imagine you've already chosen who you prefer to believe.
I imagine that works both ways. I would be curious to know your thoughts on the fact that al Qaida training materials have been found in which they teach their members to lie about the conditions of their captivity, to fabricate claims of torture and abuse. Does that ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever view their claims with skepticism, or only those of Western nations?
It is also good to not forget that the Islamist extremists that resort to terrorism have an ideological base in the Islamist movement, and that the Islamist movement has allies in the West.
The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures
Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West
Facts remain unpalatable as ever.
They haven't summarily disappeared to "room 101." They are being held in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. They can be held there as ordinary POWs. That isn't a problem any more than holding German POWs for up to 8 years was in WW2. There would have been many more trials conducted by now if various lawyers and progressive groups involved with representing the prisoners had not fought tooth and nail, by hook or by crook, to stop, alter, or invalidate the proceedings.
Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?
No, one of the primary reasons is because they deliberately target civilians as a primary focus for their attacks. That isn't mistakenly, accidently, or "we meant to shoot somebody else," but rather in a deliberate, calculated manner. They send truck bombs into village market places to kill villagers buying food, for instance. That is unlawful. That sort of thing is part of what caused the SS to be condemned as a whole at Nuremberg. They regularly behead prisoners. That is unlawful. They hang 7 year old kids as spies, and attack school children for the high crime of going to school. They mine the trails that pass for roads in many poor countries, regularly killing civilians unlucky enough to pass by. They also regularly violate article 13 of Geneva I. That is just off the top of my head. There are probably others as well. So no, it isn't about paperwork or forms.
It doesn't matter how strong you are, or how weak you are, what they do habitually is forbidden by treaty, and they don't care. They fight by their own rules as Jihadis. Look, they even want to bring back slavery, including making westerners sex slaves. Do you think you can get behind opposing that? Or would that be an excursion into the banal?
Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.
Not as applied, no. The reason it seems like it is that you over look the banality of ignorance, with the occasional sortie into nonsense.
Since the 1960s maybe. But looters have had 1,200 years to find the place, and it looks like they haven't.
The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003.
The United Kingdom is the only country to which the United States sells nuclear weapons.
If push came to shove in the Falklands, the US government was ready to provide an aircraft carrier to the British government if need be.
American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006 [wikipedia.org], by the way.
What's a little debt between friends?
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . .
Also, look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth, especially at the time?
Interesting contrast to today:
Lord West 'horrified' at size of navy - 19 March 2012
"I am horrified our naval flotilla now comprises only 19 frigates and destroyers," said Lord West. "In the Falklands, in the first month of fighting, we had four sunk and 14 damaged. That makes you think. We seem to have forgotten that when you fight you lose things.
"Here we are with 19 frigates and destroyers. Are they bonkers? Are they mad? How have they allowed this to happen?"
--------
So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.
I have little doubt the Her Majesty's GCHQ intelligence service remains completely and unreservedly British, and that British interests, though often in common, are separate from American interests.
I would think that data sharing between NSA and GCHQ, to the extent that it exists, is on a strictly controlled, only what is agreed to basis, not a wide open file sharing agreement. I don't think the intelligence community tends to roll that way, especially for programs that would involve what is alleged here: spying on diplomatic activity by a national intelligence service. I would expect that to be among the most tightly controlled information.
It isn't that I would necessarily rule out HM intelligence service from doing it, but rather Snowden gaining access to it. That is, highly classified documents from another nation's most secret intelligence agency.
It seems unlikely that someone who started out guarding the parking lot at the CIA and only being an employee of a NSA contractor for three months would be able to get all this so quickly. It seems both unlikely and suspicious. Yet most people here are swallowing his tales hook, line, and sinker.
Maybe.
The great German scientist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
If it is difficult to change minds in science, where the evidence is supposed to be explicitly laid out, and matters viewed objectively, how much more so in other endeavors? It is common for things that I post to be both literally true and marked down as trolls, flamebait, or some other. The information often runs contrary to popular opinion, political beliefs, common misbelief, or some other aspect. Sometimes what I post is just inconvenient for a particularly popular rant. No matter.
What I wrote in that post is true. For example, most people have heard of the Berlin Wall, but knowledge of the similar sort of border controls between East and West Germany, and similar ones with Czechoslovakia, is fading, and many are ignorant. The communist block nations had to build fences and use patrols to keep people from leaving the country. The US hasn't had that problem.
As to my doppelganger - he started off literally jumping into conversation in my place, replying in a manner similar to me, and then abusing people. I don't want people to be overly confused.
I don't mind being disagreed with, but I prefer it to be based on the facts I present, not due to an agitator.
No, you misunderstand, probably again. They were genuine US military, but they did not follow basic standards of conduct and for the treatment of prisoners. They disobeyed orders. They breached military law. They went to jail.
Hopefully you now understand.
If so, please continue to enlighten us on the Abu-Ghraib matter: the last I know, it was US military that used a quite large variety of torture, rape [wikipedia.org] included.
I've already posted on that in this discussion here. As far as continuing to "enlighten you," that might be a full time job whereas I'm only one person and have other priorities. Feel free to widen your reading material, and read more carefully. It might do you some good.
I will point out that the European Court of Human Rights, as far as I see in the actual reference (and maybe I missed it), doesn't refer to his receiving an enema as torture or rape.
Religious websites would be a decent start. What's wrong...? Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?
I doubt there would be much support for it in the UK.
Allow me to improve your understanding of the issue:
As revealed in the Taguba Report (2004), an initial criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway, in which soldiers of the 320th Military Police Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.
The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts-martial, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. . . .
Those were soldiers run amok over a short period of time. A number of them went to jail. They were criminals, and were treated as such.
Going to the source document, we see what is referred to as rape consisted of:
Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema...
Wikipedia is often best treated as a starting point, not an end point, when looking for information.