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
<
1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
In 2004 the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to make aliens who, whilst abroad, have committed torture, extra-judicial killings, or particularly severe violations of religious freedom, inadmissible to the United States, and therefore deportable.
Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The United States is a party to the following conventions (international treaties) which prohibit torture: the American Convention on Human Rights (signed 1977) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992). It has neither signed nor ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. Ratification by the Senate took place on October 27, 1990. The Senate put forward a number of reservations including:
* Restricting the definition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" to the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
* Restricting acts of torture to the following list: "(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."
International law defines torture during an armed conflict as a war crime. It also mandates that any person involved in ordering, allowing and even insuffuciently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.
In October 2006, the United States enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorizing the executive to conduct military tribunals of so-called enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely without judicial review under the terms of habeas corpus. Testimony coerced through humiliating or degrading treatment would be admissible in the tribunals. Amnesty International and numerous commentators have criticized the Act for approving a system that uses torture, destroying the mechanisms for judicial review created by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and creating a parallel legal system below international standards. Part of the act was an amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act effectively making policy makers, i.e. politicians and military leaders, and those applying policy, i.e. CIA interogators and soldiers, no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what before the amendment was defined as a war crime, such as torture. Because of that critics describe the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror.>>
So, you see, we had to 'rewrite' the rules on torture because we, as in the United States, were violating our own laws on torture.
For educational purposes, here is the definition of the word "savage" for you.
sav·age (sāv'ĭj) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a people living in a savage state.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.
n.
1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
(((the Indians were called savages too. Seems a common name given to those who disagree with a certain group.)))
It looks like the animals who would murder innocent men, women, and children, and who would viciously cut off people's heads could certainly be considered savages, don't you think? It has nothing to do with a difference of opinion - it has everything to do with how they act upon that difference of opinion. In the case of terrorists, they behave like savages - therefore they ARE SAVAGES.
(((how can you be Pro-Lie and Pro-death?))))
I am assuming that you mean "pro-life" instead of "pro-lie" I am not pro life - I am pro INNOCENT life. There is a difference. Kill the savages, and do whatever it takes to make them talk so that we can kill more of them. They are not innocent, they must be put down like the rabid dogs that they are.
(((So it's OK for them to chop our heads off because they see us as a legitimate threat?)))
I am sorry that you think it is OK for them to chop off heads because they consider us a threat to their religion. I've noticed that many liberals agree with you. Sad.
(((What about all the innocent people who were tortured or killed.)))
We have not tortured any innocent people. It is terrible that some innocent people get killed in times of war, but it is true with any war. We are only defending ourselves - not the aggressors. The blood of EVERY innocent person is on the hands of the terrorists.
They are an illegitimate enemy
(((How do you know their mom's weren't married when they were conceived?)))
For the purpose of education here is the definition of the word "illegitimate":
1. born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.
2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
3. unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action.
4. irregular; not in good usage.
5. Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.
While the first explanation is valid, there are more than one explanation of the word "illegitimate". Hope this is helpful for you.
In many instances they were caught in the act. They are sure who the terrorists are.
Our due process laws in the U.S. are screwed up - even though we have the best system in the world. We let the guilty walk free because judges can outlaw evidence that proves their guilt - and innocent people are sent to death row to further the careers of prosecutors. But we are not discussing our judicial system in this thread - these savages do not deserve any due process. They are not U.S. citizens and do not deserve the rights available to U.S. citizens.
Hmm...
"Prospective"? That word is not in the dictionary. What are you trying to say?
Edited 12/27/2008 11:27 am ET by outofthefryingpan
Pages