The Tortured Party

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
The Tortured Party
472
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 4:31am
Didn't you know that just "being nice," neutering our military and giving all of our money to foreign nations is what will appease the terrorists and keep us safe and loved? It's a happy, happy, joy, joy world.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 5:27am
That is irrelevant in the context (they may have, but "high-level" would probably be somewhat subjective anyway). The issue is whether the population has been kept safe from being blown up. The answer is "yes," in spite of several cells having hatched plots and taken steps to carrying them out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 5:57am

<

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 6:05am

Good thing none of our Presidents have done that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 9:50am


I think I've been kept physically safe since 1953 via a combination of general good will amongst my fellow citizens, good police/fire/ambulance response, and the good overall protection from invasion (I don't consider illegal workers from Latin America to be invading) from our military.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 10:01am

I disagree, it is relevant. If they had no one in custody to interrogate, they did not have the opportunity to "interview" any high level terrorist to gain information. The ONLY tool they had/have is regular old police work.

****

"The hardest arithmetic to master is that which enables us to count our blessings." --Eric Hoffer
*****

"The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." -- W.E.B. DuBois (1922)

**** **** **** **** **** **** "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald R. Ford
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 10:45am

No. Actually it's a question from a military mother whose son served in Iraq about the rank hypocrisy and cowardice of those who are for a war--as long as someone else goes to to do the fighting and dying. Those who extol war but don't sacrifice in some form or other, most signally by actually serving, are utterly contemptible.

Redefine patriotism if you like--but don't expect everyone else to subscribe to your personal definition.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 11:58am
Thank you for such a wonderful, articulate post!
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 12:48pm

LOL, once they arrest someone, which they have done several times, or pull someone in for questioning, which they do regularly, then they have someone to interrogate, now don't they?

But you are right, in most places that are not 3rd world dictatorships people are not pulled in, interrogated and tortured. Especially people you have no charges against. So, the Danes do not have a population of suspected terrorists sitting in a dungeon somewhere whom they can mistreat and interrogate.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-19-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 1:52pm
Bravo!!!

Pages