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
>>> Fear, fear, fear....The terrorists win when they make us fearful
Their objective isn't "fear" for it's own sake...they're trying to make the populous fearful to put pressure on our government to acquiesce to their demands. This was successful in Spain, and could likely be successful in the US after January 20th.
>>> and when we sacrifice our morals and our rights (like the right to privacy) due to our fear.
Not fear...practicality. You can't defeat an enemy by hobbling those who are doing the fighting.
>>> EXCUSE ME! Just what makes you think the left doesn't believe in Jesus?
The frequency with which they invoke his name without having the slightest bit of knowledge of who he was, what he said, or what he stood for is the biggest clue.
>>> I believe in Jesus, I believe in God,
Me too. Welcome aboard.
>>> I don't believe in Republicans!
I don't mean to frighten you, but...they're all around you. ; )
Yup...if you live in fear, those who you fear win a "victory" of sorts.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Don't forget the cold war...or the War of Independence...both of which turned out pretty well for us. I suspect there is a fair amount of ideology in the decision to go into any war...which is good.
The cold war was "won" because communism practiced by the USSR could not sustain itself.
"![]()
There are no links in your posts in this discussion…in fact, you specifically said that you had no links.
LOL, there you go again, misquoting me, and taking my comment out of context!! I specifically said I would find links for you, and I did. You not bothering to read them is on your shoulders, not on mine!!
>>> It's not his opinion, it's a fact, we need more troops. He said we didn't have enough personnel to carry out an effective mission.
And yet the fact remains that we have around 10-15% of our troops serving in the Middle East...and I'm pretty sure if Iran acts up we'll be able to respond to that too.
>>> Maybe you should let the general do his job, that he does far better then you, and you stick to whatever your day job is. I'll trust that the generals in charge know far more then you or I.
Sorry, I didn't know expressing my opinion was preventing a US general from doing his job. LOL! I'll be more careful in the future.
>>> I support him when he does his job, he is paid for it, but I do not support Bush's actions in Iraq. My husband is doing his job when doing what he is ordered to do by his senior officers.
How do tell him "I support you...but I do not support what you're doing"? And how does he feel knowing that you don't support what he's doing and what he's sacrificing for?
>>> It's really not for you to question what type of support I give my husband.
You interjected yourself and your personal situation into the discussion...I'm just trying to get your personal perspective. If you don't care to share, then sign off.
>>> If he was in disagreement with my thoughts, actions, or support we probably wouldn't be married still.
Not necessarily...but I would like to hear how he feels, knowing his wife doesn't support something he invests so much in.
Pages