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: 03-25-2007
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 2:48am


Well espoused?

Sopal

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-24-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 2:51am

Here are some links for you:


http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html


http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm


http://www.workers.org/2008/world/us_war_crimes_0124/


http://www.counterpunch.org/hassan12012004.html


Now for VietNam:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,6350517.story


http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html


Back to Iraq:


200 Children Die Every Day
Iraq's Health Care Under the Occupation

By GHALI HASSAN


Since the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq, Iraq's health care system has deteriorated as a result of deliberate destruction by the US administration. The most vulnerable victims of this destruction are the Iraqi children, particularly children under the age of five.


A detailed new study by the British-based charity organisation (Medact) that examines the impact of war on health, revealed cases of vaccine-preventable diseases were rising and relief and reconstruction work had been mismanaged. Gill Reeve, the deputy director of Medact who released the report said, "he health of the Iraqi people has deteriorated since the 2003 invasion ... The 2003 war not only created the conditions for further health decline, but also damaged the ability of Iraqi society to reverse it".


A second report, to be released soon, revealed that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children between the ages of six months and 5 years has increased from 4% before the invasion to 7.7% since the US invasion of Iraq. In other words, despite the 13-years sanctions, Iraqi children were living much better (by 3.7%) under the regime of Saddam Hussein than under the Occupation.


The report, which was conducted by the Norway-based Institute of Applied International Studies, or Fafo, in cooperation with the Iraq's Central Office for Statistics and Information Technology, Iraq's Health Ministry, and the UN Development Program (UNDP), shows that about 400,000 Iraqi children are suffering from 'wasting' and 'emaciation'

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 4:14am

>>> There is no evidence of anyone on the left hating America, except in whatever universe you are living in.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that the left considers attacks and smears to be signs of love and respect. LOL!

>>> Stating the truth, does not equate hate. Saying so, is only laughable, and certainly doesn't make it so. Far from it.

Well, you'd have to be stating the truth first, which you usually aren't...and then explain why the left's "truth" comes in the form of attacks, accusations and smears.

>>> I pity the person who can't accept truth, in spite of evidence to the contrary. There isn't one word of hate in any of my posts. Perhaps you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word hate. Besides, it isn't your place to tell me how or what I feel, as you obviously don't have a clue.

I can only read you posts to garner your intent...and I must have missed the "love of country" amidst the accusations of murdering and killing innocent men women and children.

>>> Who's we? I think most posters here are well aware of the thousands of women and children we have killed in Iraq.

Odd, I haven’t heard about the US military gunning down innocent children for fun. Links?

>>> Have you forgotten about the soldiers who killed a whole family because one of the men wanted the daughter? They stormed her house, killing her family, gang raped and murdered her. It was all over the news, so I can't imagine you could have missed it. That's just one example, I'm sure you'll find a way to dispute it, or nit pick on some other detail. I will look for links later. No time now.

If it was “all over the news” it should be easy to find some credible links…we’ll wait.

>>> Did you know about the massacres that took place in VietNam? Did you know towards the end of the war, it had become so unpopular enlisted men were killing their captain's, rather than go back into combat.

Hmmm…so you’re saying that illegal massacres became so prevalent in Vietnam, that enlisted men killed their commanders so they could go to jail rather than go back into combat to commit more massacres? Interesting.

>>> No, there isn't a link for that.

No links to the Vietnam war? Odd. It’s been one of the most documented and examined wars in history.

< No war can be fought without collateral damage, especially when the enemy hides and fights among the populous, but the US goes to incredible lengths to minimize those casualties...and to sweepingly accuse our soldiers of atrocities and being "the worst of people" is disgusting...and every bit as "patriotic" as we've come to expect from the left.

>>> I see your knack for twisting words and meanings to suit your hate of the left, hasn't changed. However, that's what you did. I did not sweepingly accuse our soldiers of anything. I made a point of saying not all soldiers commit atrocities. I don't need you to tell me about our soldiers! I am well aware the majority are very brave and dedicated. That doesn't change the facts though. I certainly never even came close to saying what you erroneously put in quotation marks. If you are going to quote me, then don't take it out of context, conveniently leaving out a word so as to change the meaning. That is truly disgusting.

Ok…here are a few of your quotes…and from only two posts…

“we tortured lots of innocent men, kept them captive in subhuman conditions, then just released them without so much as an "our mistake".”

“If you don't think we've torture and/or murdered innocent women and children, then you don't know your American history.”

“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.”

“Do you know anyone who served in VietNam? You might want to have an honest discussion with them, as to what many of our troops did.”

“I am old enough to have learned of terrible things our soldiers committed in every war we have been involved in.”

“We”…”many of our troops”…”our soldiers”…sure sound like pretty sweeping accusations to me. And I missed the part in those posts where you called them “brave and dedicated.”

>>> The left knows what it means to be patriotic, much more so than some unpatriotic people from the right. Anyone who continues to be divisive, based solely because someone belongs on the left or right, gives new meaning to the word "patriotic".

We know…as long as “patriotic” means attack and smear your country and your servicemen. I can’t remember the last time the left praised our country or praised the work our military is doing on their behalf.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 4:21am

I'm sure that they believe exactly that.

The same could be said for us. We "believe" what we are doing is for the "greater good" but that doesn't make it true.

< Our "incoming?" What's that?

>>> Meant to say economy.

Aah...yes...but my point was they can hate us...until they need us...it's that kind of hypocrisy that leaves me unmoved when I hear what foreigners "think" of the US.

< I hate to break it to you...skip that, I'm actually quite glad to break it to you...we have an estimated 1.4 million active military personnel and an additional 840K in reserve. We pretty much have the technology and the resources to do whatever we need to do whenever we need to do it. Take heart.

>>> I am sure that's how things are in your parallel Universe, but that's just not how it is here. Unless, of course, the General's in-charge know less then you!?!?

Call up your generals and ask them to explain the discrepancy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 4:35am

>>> LOL, yeah, that would work! (eye roll).

LOL! Did you mistake that comment for a "solution" to something? Sorry, no...it was a rhetorical proposition to highlight the fact that "they love us" when they need us.

>>> One of the many problems, is everything is manufactured outside of the US, thanks to outsourcing,

Odd...then why do you believe that these countries who are getting all our jobs don't like us? And why would American companies relocate to foreign countries that don't like them?

>>> We're the ones who would be hurting, and realizing how much we all need each other.

But I thought liberals wanted all American business to be done by Americans? Why do we need them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 6:00am

>>> Well espoused? Seriously...you produced a quote which I don't believe I have heard before, then you say it is a "well espoused" position.

Right...dress it up how you like..."illegal war"..."we should never have gone in"..."we should pull out immediately"..."mistake"..."murder of innocent men, women and children"...blah, blah, blahy...it all amounts to the same message to our servicemen..."sorry, dear...can't support what you're sacrificing for."

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 8:42am
No point in waiting - there won't be any links forthcoming. But you already knew that didn't you? LOL!!!
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 9:46am
"True...and just imagine the love you'd feel if you and your buddies were risking your life trying to accomplish something and some folks said, "we support you...um...ah...but we don't support what you're doing and think you're sacrifices are worthless."

"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 9:52am
I don't mind intelligent debate but it truly is not worth the time when my statements are deliberately misunderstood, misconstrued or warped into something altogether different. That's not debate, it's intentional board disruption. Also inappropriate, on a board of iVillage members, to see comments which appear intended to exclude another member, eh?!

Edited to add adjectives.


Edited 12/27/2008 9:57 am ET by altered08ego
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 10:05am
A very insightful post - seems that this type of behavior has become the norm over the holiday. I wonder why? Really, you would think people would be a little more cooperative over a holiday not less.
.
.

Pages