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
If you didn't want my opinion, why did you ask me?
Saddam Hussein was an evil murderous dictator. He deserved worse than he got. Comparing him to President Bush is completely ludicrous. Our hands are clean. We do not torture innocents, and it has not been proven that we have.
Edited 12/27/2008 12:55 pm ET by outofthefryingpan
If one does
"![]()
I DIDN'T ask for your opinion. From my earlier post: "Who determines whether a person is an "animal" or not; and based on what?" Those are specific questions, about specific individuals (not a whole group whose guilt/innocence has been summarily determined without regard for niceties like "innocent until proved guilty"); and I was asking for specific answers.
Your contention, as I understand it, seems to be two-fold (and contradictory): We don't torture innocents; but if we did the blame would all be on the 9/11 hijackers, their confreres, and any subsequent recruits to the cause of any groups you judge to be "savage" or "animal", based on "violent" "murderous" behavior. Very vague, very loose, NOT any sort of legal definition, whatsoever. We are supposed to be a nation of laws founded on the Constitution, without exception. That's why the oath taken by members of our armed forces is to support and defend the Constitution, THE RULE OF LAW--not an individual or a position, or even the nation:
<<"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)>>
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
Bush has been responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even over a million, deaths. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/27/iraq.peterbeaumont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4751,opinion,saddam-era-the-death-toll for an estimate of the deaths for which Saddam was held responsible. I added up the numbers. It comes to 116,148, not including the deaths of Iraqis in the war with Iran. Estimates for fatalities in that conflict range between 500,000 and 1,700,000 depending on source of stats. However, the U.S. was complicit in those deaths since it served our interests to see Iran at war with Iraq. Bear in mind too, that Saddam was in power from 1978 until his flight in 2003. That's fifteen years, as opposed to Bush's eight years. When one considers that, Bush looks worse than Saddam. Ludicrous? Not when FACTS are considered. Most BushCo deaths were Iraqis but over 4,000 were U.S. troops. FOR WHAT?! I really really want to know what specifically our goal in Iraq was; and what it is now. NOBODY has given a specific answer to that question either! The only way one can defend Bush is by suspending facts, logic, and morals.
We have killed and tortured innocents--civilians caught up in indiscriminate dragnets or turned in on false testimony/for money. Judas informants. Sopall1953 provided specific links to you about two weeks ago: http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18538.75
edited to change a word from singular to plural
Edited 12/27/2008 2:27 pm ET by altered08ego
Sorry, I left my crystal ball at home, so wasn't able to read your mind. It appeared you were asking me since the post was directed to me. I am a lot of things, but psychic, no.
And you don't understand my contention at all. I said that we don't torture innocents and that it has not been proven that we do. I never said anything like what you have described me to say. Maybe you should re-read, only slower this time?
And your propaganda in favor of the terrorists do not prove in the least that they were innocent. Sorry.
If it's not name-calling, then what is it? Do you think the term "neoconservative" is a flattering term? Do you know any conservatives who refer to themselves that way? If you use an unflattering term to describe someone, that is name calling, and weakens your argument.
I suppose you will have a clear conscience when more and more Americans are murdered on our soil because we were kind to the terrorists? Personally I would have a hard time living with myself if I advocated something like this.
My posts have been clear in both wording and purpose. Direct questions do NOT require a crystal ball or psychic abilities. Moreover, reading comprehension is one of my strengths and I don't respond without carefully perusing posts first.
Sopal's links gave clear proof that we tortured people without proof of their involvement in terrorist activities.
I presented facts and links to make a case. Labeling facts, links, and case as "propaganda" does not obliterate truthfulness, does not transmogrify facts into "propaganda", and does not dismiss the various questions I raised. Res ipsa loquitur.
Edited to change a preposition for the sake of clarity.Edited 12/27/2008 3:39 pm ET by altered08ego
Pages