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
Neoconservative is a descriptive political term, and is not "name calling" no matter what you or the powers that be on this board believe.
Here are some definitions:
ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism
"![]()
<>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2uYVdC6S4
<We'll see how you like it when you are afraid to go the any public gathering without fear of being bombed. It won't be long now. >
That is sort of a strange way to put things.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
>>> I wouldn't say such a thing, but, to be honest, and playing into your rhetoric, that is exactly what I would think. That's the very reason I, and I can only speak for myself, want our soldiers home from Iraq and wanted our soldiers home from Viet Nam.
And we all want them to come home...and they want to come home themselves...when they've won, not in defeat as the left has pushed for.
>>> And I remember that your thought is the major reason we left VN was because of the lefties demonstrating, which is only a peripheral, maybe, reason. Could we have "won" in VN? I guess we could have bombed them into oblivion, but to what end? What good would killing all its people and destroying the entire area have done? Well, I guess they wouldn't be communists if they were dead. So, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans and who knows how many were physically and mentally disabled forever, and VN is communist - just another ideologue's war, democrat as well as republican.
Of course it was an ideologue's war. What better reason to fight than to protect your ideals and way of life? Communism threatened that...and so we fought to stop it's spread. A noble cause, but the people didn't have the heart to see it through...or to fight to win.
>>> That is what Iraq is today. I don't know why we're there. To spread democracy? You can't make people embrace democracy.
We went to secure the WMDs and to oust Hussein. Following that, we could have left the country to chaos and let the terrorists turn it into a haven, but that wouldn't have been good for out national security either...so we decided to stay and rebuild an allied government...and we believed a democratic government was the best choice.
As for making people embrace democracy...I've seen many posts here by libs lamenting the plight of Iraqi women...why? If it's fine that people "don't embrace democracy" then why the tears for the women? Who cares, right?
>>> If after the Gulf War the people of Iraq had staged some kind of viable internal push to overthrow SH and form a democracy, then I can see aiding them in their effort. That, of course, was not the reason we were given for invading Iraq, nor was the internal push of any magnitude there for forming a democracy.
Forming a rebellion is a pretty tall order with a psychopath oppressing the people and spying on them. Still, the Kurds tried and were slaughtered because the US didn't give them more support.
>>> Anyway, we're there. And my opinion, valid as anyone else's, is that when we eventually leave, the "cleansing" will escalate within the Iraqi factions, and there will be a theocracy with a puppet secular government just like in Iran.
Not if we've done our job...a job that the left seems intent on confounding. We can pay now and reap the rewards of a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East...or pay later when our sacrifices are squandered by liberals with no heart and your vision of Iraq becomes a reality.
>>> In other words, through no fault of their own, and doing their duty as ordered, and in many cases believed by the soldiers to be a worthy cause, their sacrifices will have been in vain unless a true democracy is what Iraq becomes.
Not if the left has it's way. Their cowardice will neuter our country, embolden our enemies and cause the sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan to have been in vain. Hopefully, they will not achieve their ends.
>>> No, I would never say that to the families and loved ones that I know of about our soldiers - but they have said it to me.
As I said...tell a soldier "I support you, but I don't support the job you're doing or believe in your sacrifice"...I'm sure they'll feel the love...even worse if it came from family.
"He also served regularly as an usher at evening mass at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Montrose, the Los Angeles Times newspaper reported."
Many Catholics are Democrats. http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/
I couldn't find a catholicrepublicans.org, .com, .edu, .co.uk, etc.... ;)
edited to add: i did find a message board where someone was stating that he was catholic and republican and finding himself so alone in that aspect.
Edited 12/27/2008 7:22 pm ET by lighteningcrashes
Pages