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: 04-30-2008
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 9:13am
Now gosh darn it!
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 11:20am
Well stated - amazingly those who would silence dissenting views seem to forget that one of the things our soldier's fight to protect are our rights under the Constitution including the freedom of free speech, the freedom to articulate dissenting views. So, in a sense, when they are attempting to use 'patriotism' to silence those they don't agree with they are in fact disrespecting the soldiers they claim to be supporting. Ironic don't you think?
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 11:22am
. AIAE
.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 1:23pm

It's much worse than ironic. IMHO, those who "support" a war, AS LONG AS SOMEONE ELSE DOES THE FIGHTING AND DYING, are cowardly, immoral, and so hypocritical as to be nauseating. Demanding that all agree with them? Criminal. Speaking of which, Dumbya told Jim Lehrer that the American people sacrificed when they watched TV footage of the war. Imagine. The man is a pea-brained idiot and his statement spoke volumes about how HE perceives patriotism and sacrifice. Small wonder to see his minion bobble-heads spout similar awful offal.

Some other thoughts on the topic. Personnel of the armed forces don't have a choice about whether to obey orders or not. They implement the directives of civilians who ought to be far more mindful of the cost of conflict; but all too often are ideologically driven and motivated by less-than-laudable ambitions. The idea that democracy can be delivered at the point of a gun? Witless. But it was the fallback position of BushCo when WMD couldn't be found; and nobody really wanted to acknowledge the real goal of Operation Iraqi Liberation. So if those civilian leaders have no feedback from the military, and if the civilian populace is muzzled from expressing reservations or dissent, there is no check on the "leadership".

And this regime has made a mockery of the Constitution, both in terms of civil rights and in terms of balance of power. There OUGHT to be far more outrage from the populace than has so far been the case. Some are pre-occupied by their own picayune concerns (the economy, for instance), others are complicit, and still others are quite willing to give away freedom for the sake of security, thank you very much!

I devoutly hope that Obama does NOT emulate the traitors-to-the-Constitution who currently lead the nation. The rule of law, for them, is something to be ignored or re-worded to suit their own power-hungry ends. They ought to be tried for crimes against the nation and humanity--but that won't happen.

edited to change a verb.




Edited 12/29/2008 1:26 pm ET by altered08ego
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 1:39pm

<<I didn't say "all" liberals, I said "only" liberals. There is a difference.>>


There may be a difference.... but not the fact that it's a blatent generalization (which is what the thread you responded to was talking about).


<>


Sorry....Exactly HOW, in your view

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 1:43pm

<>


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 1:48pm

My Irony Meter® is going off big time.


<<Why oh why can't liberals stop name-calling...>>


<<...It seems like liberals would rather see them kill us any way they choose while we do nothing to stop it.>>

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 2:00pm

<>


This is not how I interpret what people

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 2:14pm

I believe there are a number of people who proudly consider themselves

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 12-29-2008 - 2:18pm

<<If liberals are not advocating that we be kind to terrorists, what is it then that they are advocating? >>


I don't know about you....but I've always found that there's a

Pages