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 - 6:27pm

>>> 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.

I think we've heard all this before, from armchair zealots who believe that they can "serve" by proxy...and who attack those who support our military and our country while sitting on their big, fat hypocrisy pushing for action in Afghanistan. They're as good at sending others to fight their battles as they are taking other people's money to be charitable. They are, as you said, utterly contemptible.

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

Clearly not...as it's been demonstrated time and again that liberals define "patriotism" as attacking the country, it's military and it's mission.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 6:30pm
True...until Jan 20, that is.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Wed, 12-24-2008 - 8:34pm

>>> That is irrelevant in the context (they may have, but "high-level" would probably be somewhat subjective anyway).

LOL! It's entirely relevant...there would be no need to interrogate a terrorist you've never captured after an attack that never happened.

>>> 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.

The answer is "yes" with the help of American intelligence...and any high-value terrorists that may be discovered would undoubtedly become the "property" of the CIA.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 12:42am
Because innocent people were being tortured! If your husband didn't do anything wrong would it be ok if a group of people kidnapped, and beat
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 12:45am
I am sure you'd be fine with being tortured just because you were falsely accused. After all, the ends justify the means.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 12:46am
Because you area too prideful and stubborn to admit your wrong?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 12:52am
Last I check your husband's job doesn't put him in line to torture others. My husband has been an Army officer for 19 years now and
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 12:59am

CIA is responsible for most of the torture that takes place. If your husband has taken

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-24-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 2:58am
The problem with the logic mentioned by a couple of people, is it's falseness. Putting the other reasons against torture aside, there's the erroneous assumption we only tortured the men who were out to kill our families. Conveniently forgetting, the many innocent men we tortured. Not all of the tortured were actually from the middle east. We didn't torture just a few "expedient" men, we tortured lots of innocent men, kept them captive in subhuman conditions, then just released them without so much as an "our mistake". We used to be better than that! I suppose those who think the torture was justified, would be understanding if it was your child, husband, brother or sister who was captured in Iraq and tortured? After all, what's fair for one... Besides, we invaded and bombed them. We've murdered innocent men, women and children over in their homeland. They hadn't done anything to us, so they would surely feel justified in torturing and detaining our troops.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-24-2008
Thu, 12-25-2008 - 3:02am
You are partially correct. Initially, McCain did say water boarding was torture, and gave himself as an example. However, shortly after winning his party's nomination, he did a 180, saying it wasn't torture. I guess he had to stand behind the Bush administration in order to garner their support.

Pages