The Tortured Party
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 12-12-2008 - 11:15pm |
Now that he's got nothing to lose by dropping the pandering, McCain issued a joint report just that found that Rumsfeld was right in the middle of authorizing the torture:
"Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Approves Aggressive Techniques (U)
(U) With respect to GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request to use aggressive interrogation
techniques, Mr. Haynes said that “there was a sense by the DoD Leadership that this decision
was taking too long” and that Secretary Rumsfeld told his senior advisors “I need a
recommendation.” On November 27, 2002, the Secretary got one. Notwithstanding the serious
legal concerns raised by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the
Secretary, recommending that he approve all but three of the eighteen techniques in the GTMO
request. Techniques such as stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of
dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli were all recommended for approval.
(U) Mr. Haynes’s memo indicated that he had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and General
Myers and that he believed they concurred in his recommendation. When asked what he relied
on to make his recommendation that the aggressive techniques be approved, the only written
legal opinion Mr. Haynes cited was Lieutenant Colonel Beaver’s legal analysis, which senior
military lawyers had considered “legally insufficient” and “woefully inadequate,” and which
LTC Beaver herself had expected would be supplemented with a review by persons with greater
experience than her own.
(U) On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld signed Mr. Haynes’s recommendation,
adding a handwritten note that referred to limits proposed in the memo on the use of stress
positions: “I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?”
(U) SERE school techniques are designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our
enemies. There are fundamental differences between a SERE school exercise and a real world
interrogation. At SERE school, students are subject to an extensive medical and psychological
pre-screening prior to being subjected to physical and psychological pressures. The schools
impose strict limits on the frequency, duration, and/or intensity of certain techniques.
Psychologists are present throughout SERE training to intervene should the need arise and to
help students cope with associated stress. And SERE school is voluntary; students are even
given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop the techniques from being used against
them.
(U) Neither those differences, nor the serious legal concerns that had been registered,
stopped the Secretary of Defense from approving the use of the aggressive techniques against
detainees. Moreover, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the techniques without apparently
providing any written guidance as to how they should be administered. "
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf
What a surprise! There will be a lot more on this. If we don't hold those who broke the law accountable, the rampant rate of lawbreaking in the Republican Party will not slow down in the slightest. It will also be a good message to Democrats not to make the same mistakes.

Pages
Here's the whole article:
Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study
By Lisa M. Krieger
Mercury News
Article Launched: 12/20/2008 08:00:00 PM PST
Replicating one of the most controversial behavioral experiments in history, a Santa Clara University psychologist has found that people will follow orders from an authority figure to administer what they believe are painful electric shocks.
More than two-thirds of volunteers in the research study had to be stopped from administering 150 volt shocks of electricity, despite hearing a person's cries of pain, professor Jerry M. Burger concluded in a study published in the January issue of the journal American Psychologist.
"In a dramatic way, it illustrates that under certain circumstances people will act in very surprising and disturbing ways,'' said Burger.
The study, using paid volunteers from the South Bay, is similar to the famous 1974 "obedience study'' by the late Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. In the wake of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann's trial, Milgram was troubled by the willingness of people to obey authorities — even if it conflicted with their own conscience.
Burger's findings are published in a special section of the journal reflecting on Milgram's work 24 years after his death on Dec. 20, 1984. The haunting images of average people administering shocks have kept memories of Milgram's research alive for decades, even as recently as the Abu Ghraib scandal.
The subjects — recruited in ads in the Mercury News, Craigslist and fliers distributed in libraries and communities centers in Santa
Advertisement
Clara, Cupertino and Sunnyvale — thought they were testing the effect of punishment on learning.
"They were average citizens, a typical cross-section of people that you'd see around every day,'' said Burger.
In the study, conducted two years ago, volunteers administered what they believed were increasingly powerful electric shocks to another person in a separate room. An "authority figure'' prodded the volunteer to shock another person, who was playing the role of "learner." Each time the learner gave an incorrect answer, the volunteer was urged to press a switch, seemingly increasing the electricity over time. They were told that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.
Burger designed his study to avoid several of the most controversial elements of Milgram's experiment. For instance, the "shocks'' were lower voltage. And participants were told at least three times that they could withdraw from the study at any time and still receive the $50 payment. In addition, a clinical psychologist interviewed volunteers to eliminate anyone who might be upset by the study procedure.
Like Milgram's study, Burger's shock generator machine was a fake. The cries of pain weren't real, either. Both the authority figure and the learner were actors — faculty members Brian Oliveira and Kenneth Courtney. (When Courtney failed to scream convincingly, a professional actor had to be hired; his voice was recorded.)
Burger found that 70 percent of the participants had to be stopped from escalating shocks over 150 volts, despite hearing cries of protest and pain. Decades earlier, Milgram found that 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks. Of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts. Burger's experiment did not go that far.
"The conclusion is not: 'Gosh isn't this a horrible commentary on human nature,' or 'these people were so sadistic,'' said Burger.
"It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize,'' he said.
The experiment shows that people are more likely to comply with instructions if the task starts small, then escalates, according to Burger.
"For instance, the suicides at Jonestown were just the last step of many,'' he said. "Jim Jones started small, asking people to donate time and money, then looked for more and more commitment.''
Additionally, the volunteers confronted a novel situation — having never before been in such a setting, they had no idea of how they were supposed to act, he said.
Finally, they had been told that they should not feel responsible for inflicting pain; rather, the "instructor" was accountable. "Lack of feeling responsible can lead people to act in ways that they might otherwise not,'' said Burger.
"When we see people acting out of character, the first thing we should ask is: 'What's going on in this situation?'''
My additional comment on the study--the military is a exceedingly authoritarian setting. Troops aren't encouraged to question orders or attitudes of those higher up in the command chain. So, when the SecDef endorses "enhanced interrogation techniques", HE AND THE CINC SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSES OF GUANTANAMO AND ABU GHRAIB. No fobbing off or discipling just the low people on the totem pole--at least not in a just and equitable world!
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
There are several reasons why we won't prosecute those who promulgated "enhanced interrogation techniques". There were far too many people, in high places of power, from both sides, who accepted the practices (right up until the moment when the the lid was lifted off the septic tank--at which point the roaches began running for cover).
Then there are the staunch defenders of "anything a Republican president and his cabinet members do is right". And in like vein, there are people who feel so threatened that they will condone ANY practice, however vile or immoral, which they BELIEVE keeps them safe. These are the kinds of people who formed the base of the Third Reich--but that's "different".
And most of us are revolted by torture but aren't really of sufficient stature in terms of power or motivation to really speak out against the abuse of "foreigners".
It's a nasty picture all the way around. We are ALL tainted now and will be, as you note, for many years to come.
Interestingly enough, as I see it, the members of the armed forces, are probably the least culpable of all. They're trained to follow orders and are most likely to be penalized by the system for speaking out. NOT true of us civilians! A handful illustrated medal-worthy bravery and integrity by refusing to succumb either to psychology or training. THEY should be the ones leading the country!
COL Jessup apparently forgot that he served to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Part of that Constitution covers the right to free speech--lump it, colonel.
And the military is led, for better or for breathtakingly worse, by a civilian who probably, at least in the current case, wouldn't know how to stand guard if his life depended on it.
>>> COL Jessup apparently forgot that he served to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Part of that Constitution covers the right to free speech--lump it, colonel.
Col. Jessup didn't violate anyone's freedom of speech...he just told them that he didn't wasn't interested in hearing the cowards attack him for the means by which he protected their Constitutional rights. Sounds pretty reasonable.
>>> And the military is led, for better or for breathtakingly worse, by a civilian who probably, at least in the current case, wouldn't know how to stand guard if his life depended on it.
I can only presume that you're referring to Obama and Biden...neither of whom has ever donned a uniform...and you're right, having either of them assume the position of Commander-in-Chief will likely make things breathtakingly worse.
"![]()
Isn't it just hilarious that Col. Jessup would be the sterling example here? OMG!!! Guess it says a lot about the deflection and justification that has become a staple of the right wing. Wonder if they even see the hypocrisy?
<<
Colonel Nathan R. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) eats breakfast three hundred yards from four thousand Cubans who a trained to kill him, so don't think for a second that anyone can intimidate such a decorated, determined, and patriotic American like him. No, the only way you can intimidate a man like him is to catch him off guard, to discover his weakness and expose it, to leverage the justice system for the chance to find the skeletons hanging in this guy's closet. In other words, the only way you can intimidate Col. Nathan R. Jessup is to catch him in a lie, and demand a reason for it.
Jessup was the commanding officer of the ground forces stationed in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. His Marines worked as a machine with lots of help from his right-hand men, Lt. Col. Markinson (J.T. Walsh) and Lt. Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland). When one of the men made a mistake, it was the job of the other men to never let that one Marine forget it. Using a hazing technique known as a "Code Red," a couple of Marines were ordered to let one of their own know he made a mistake one night. The mistake, it turns out, was theirs, as the young Marine wound up dead.
Faced with incredible embarassment, Jessup did everything he could to cover up the details of the order given to the two young Marines now on trial for murder. They were left out to dry, facts were covered up, and official documents were falsified. The simple fact was that if word got out an order was given to rough up the deceased kid, Jessup's ass and the rest of officers would be on the block. Leave it to one young upstart attorney, Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise), a guy hired to plea bargain for the two Marines and unwittingly sweep the case under a rug, to actually investigate and uncover a conspiracy.
Dramatically called to the stand, Col. Jessup would voice his lack of respect for the people like Caffee who did things to tear people down instead of understanding what he was trying to do. Jessup made his moves to protect his Marines and his country, and it's just too damn bad that one subpar Marine fell and got dragged under the wheels of his rise to political power. His devotion to the Marine way of life is admirable, but Jessup takes offense to being questioned about the manner in which he protects his country. In the end, he shows his true colors and admits to giving the order that cost at least two Marines their lives and two innocent Marines their careers. He can't understand why he's being punished for his actions; after everything, it is in fact Col. Jessup who can't handle the truth.>>>
You might want to ask Lynndie England how patriotic and honorable she feels after serving 1.5 years in jail and being dishonorably discharged for her behind-the-camera work and mistreatment of
You'd think there'd be some better example than that guy.
Pages