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: 10-09-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 8:17pm
Kind of feeds the fire though.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-19-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 8:21pm
Yes, unfortunately......
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 8:37pm

<"Prospective"? That word is not in the dictionary. What are you trying to say?>


Note:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Prospective&db=*


Sopal

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 8:44pm
ROTFLMBO!!!
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-24-2008
Sat, 12-27-2008 - 11:46pm

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


Nothing odd about it. Neither have I. You see, the phrase "for fun" is yours, and yours alone. You'll need to provide the links for your phrase, as I never used it, nor would I. The adding of words to change the meaning of what I said, really is a desperate act.


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 understand, accepting the truth is hard, but it doesn't make it any less true. Yes, I do tell the truth, and until and unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you not imply I'm deliberately lying. Obviously, you didn't bother reading the links I provided which proved, beyond a doubt, I am stating facts!


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.


Noooo, that's not what I said. Stop putting words in my mouth! I never said a word about jail. No one reported them. The morale was so bad, they just wanted the war to end, and to get out of there. I also DID NOT SAY that was the reason for the men shooting their Captains, YOU said that. I DID NOT SAY the massacres became prevalent, YOU said that! I also DID NOT SAY anything about committing more massacres, YOU DID! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND TWISTING WHAT I DO SAY. TRY, TRY, STICKING WITH THE FACTS.


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


There you go again! I DID post links to the torture carried out by us during the VietNam war. Since you asked for links, try reading them!!!


Obviously, you don't read the links when provided, so I shall bid you adieu, and leave you to play with someone else.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 12-28-2008 - 3:16am

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

>>> Nothing odd about it. Neither have I. You see, the phrase "for fun" is yours, and yours alone. You'll need to provide the links for your phrase, as I never used it, nor would I. The adding of words to change the meaning of what I said, really is a desperate act.

Oooh, so sorry...when you didn't put "killing innocent women and children" into context, I naturally presumed that you were referring to someone PURPOSEFULLY killing "innocent women and children" for pleasure or personal gain. Now if you had bothered to mention that you were referring to unpreventable civilian casualties in a war, and that those casualties were the result of the enemy using the public as shields, and that the US had done everything possible to minimize collateral damage, we might have avoided this confusion.

< 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 understand, accepting the truth is hard, but it doesn't make it any less true. Yes, I do tell the truth, and until and unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you not imply I'm deliberately lying. Obviously, you didn't bother reading the links I provided which proved, beyond a doubt, I am stating facts!

There are no links in your posts in this discussion…in fact, you specifically said that you had no links.

< 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.

>>> Noooo, that's not what I said. Stop putting words in my mouth! I never said a word about jail. No one reported them. The morale was so bad, they just wanted the war to end, and to get out of there.

Sorry, I presumed that a soldier murdering his commanding officer would be risking incarceration. But you’re telling me that when one guy killed his commanding officer to avoid going back into combat, the rest of his platoon remained silent accomplices? That’s amazing…if everyone remained silent, then how do you know about it? What happened when the military sent a new commanding officer? I mean, wouldn’t the military start getting wise when all of their commanding officers were getting blown up? And do you honestly think that a soldier killing a commanding officer would end the war? Or prevent that platoon from re-entering combat? I’m pretty sure that neither would occur.

>>> I also DID NOT SAY that was the reason for the men shooting their Captains, YOU said that. I DID NOT SAY the massacres became prevalent, YOU said that! I also DID NOT SAY anything about committing more massacres, YOU DID! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND TWISTING WHAT I DO SAY. TRY, TRY, STICKING WITH THE FACTS.

You accused our soldiers of massacring Vietnamese…which presumably happened while “in combat”…and also that the war was unpopular so our soldiers killed their captains rather than go back “into combat”…where the alleged massacres were taking place.

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

>>> There you go again! I DID post links to the torture carried out by us during the VietNam war. Since you asked for links, try reading them!!!

There were no links in your posts. You simply said…” No, there isn't a link for that. You'll need to talk to some VietNam vets to hear that, as well as other stories.”…and…” just read your history books, or talk to someone who was there.”

>>> Obviously, you don't read the links when provided, so I shall bid you adieu, and leave you to play with someone else.

Come back when you’ve got more than accusations and smears against the country and our soldiers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 12-28-2008 - 3:20am

>>> You make a point that is refuted by data I provide and then turn around and ask me for proof to back up what you say? Your post, IMO, makes no sense.

Regardless of a general's opinion, I provided you with actual facts concerning the number of military personnel. The general might be asking for something very specific, but to present his assessment, or wish list, as if we didn't have enough military personnel to carry out missions is simply ridiculous. Maybe the general should take steps to get the multitudes of active servicemen already enlisted into what he would consider "battle ready" status.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 12-28-2008 - 3:21am
When did I speak for all of the troops?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 12-28-2008 - 3:23am

>>> Is that so? Is China no longer Communist? Why are we fraternizing with the enemy? When did the foe become the friend?

Is China a friend? I also don't think that China is trying to "spread communism"...but if they are perceived as a threat, I'm sure our posture will change.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 12-28-2008 - 3:28am

>>> Yes, and when we started the American Revolution we weren't 'real' soldiers either - to England we may have been categorized as terrorists had the term be in use at the time.

Terrorist would not have been an appropriate term for the continentals as they did not commit acts of terror...revolutionaries is the proper term.

>>> Funny how these things are often defined by which side you are on. But it is really beside the point - illegal is still illegal.

It helps if you don't twist words out of all recognition to fit your agenda.

Pages