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
I would like to say something.
I make it clear in many posts that I am not a Republican (In my opinion, anyone with half a brain knows that both major parties are way too internally corrupt and flawed to trust either of them).
But, for the liberals:
>>> I've never said the things you are attributing t me. You, thankfully, are not the one who gets to decide who is patriotic and who isn't.
So you didn't say..."I think a lot of people would compare Bush to Saddam, and some just may be right."?
I'm not sure why you think liberalism is about collectivism when it's also about individual liberty, but at any rate I don't think it's okay to torture.
I'm sure others will have much better/more informative posts, but I'll offer what was on my mind as I read your post.
Kate
>>> 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.
I guess that explains the rush of liberals to fight in Afghanistan. LOL!
>>> Demanding that all agree with them? Criminal.
Like the attacks on those who opposed proposition 8? Disrupting businesses, costing people jobs protesting churches? Liberals are soooooo open and accepting of those who disagree with them.
>>> 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.
And yet, with the left free to sacrifice…to do their “part”…none have. They stand by, bathed in their hypocrisy, waiting for someone else to contribute what they will not. The left are, however, extremely “patriotic” in their attacks on the President and the country they love…to hate.
>>> 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".
The sheer ignorance of the left is almost as staggering as their utter refusal to acknowledge facts that don’t support their twisted version of reality or their sour political agenda. Something as simple as a review of Bush’s speeches BEFORE the war would prove how wrong your allegations are…and yet you refuse…or perhaps you know it’s a lie and really don’t care as long as the lie suits the liberal agenda…which is almost as absurd as the ridiculous notion that the “civilian populace is muzzled from expressing reservations or dissent.” LOL!
>>> And this regime has made a mockery of the Constitution, both in terms of civil rights and in terms of balance of power.
Really? Bush made a mockery of the Constitution, both in terms of civil rights and in terms of balance of power…and the Democrats let him? Now why would they do that? Hmmm…
>>> There OUGHT to be far more outrage from the populace than has so far been the case.
I’m sure they would be…if any of their civil rights had been violated…but so far…not so much.
>>> 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!
Yeah, who cares about losing their jobs when you can be upset by imaginary violations of your civil rights!
>>> 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.
Oh, wait…didn’t Obama vote to allow Bush to “illegally wiretap innocent American’s without a warrant? Hmmm…
>>> What concerns me is your inability to see faults within your own party. No party is perfect and it's almost delusional to think other wise.
LOL!
< That sounds like a good question for Obama. LOL! But as I mentioned, trade is a great peacemaker...and it's easier to get concessions when both parties have an investment.
>>> If trade is such a "great" peace maker then why do so many countries dislike us??
Which trading partners are we currently at war with?...or consider themselves our enemies?
>>> Links to back up your claim would be good. Example of a link is as follows:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrei-markovits/why-europe-dislikes-ameri_b_44840.html
Thanks, the Huffington post is always my go-to source when I want to know how much the world hates us...when I care, that is...which is almost never.
< But it will likely be an ally in the not too distant future
>>> We owe them so much money it really doesn't benefit them to be our allies. They pretty much own us and the USA "likely" being ally with an evil nation is none to appealing to me.
You don't tend to loan money to your enemies, so the fact that they're willing to give us credit is probably a positive thing. And no...they don't "own us"...but their investment gives them some pretty significant incentive to make sure the US is strong and healthy.
< According to many on the left, workers down the street at WalMart aren't treated right. LOL! You can't wait until a country fits every one of the items on your "do what I say" checklist before making forays.
>>> You didn't answer the question, nice way to duck a weave, did you learn that from Bush??
No, I learned that in a course on "Liberal debating" down at the Learning Annex. LOL!
It's amazing, what one can learn from reading a newspaper! Wal Mart just had to pay out several millions dollars, after losing yet another law suit. They were found liable for, once again, locking their employees in the store and not paying them overtime.They were not allowed to leave. It has nothing to do with being from the left! I have major concerns about anyone so callous, as to think it's ok to lock workers in. It is illegal to not pay overtime. It's the law. It is not a left-right issue.
BTW: In regards to your post accusing me of not providing links, you and I both know that isn't true. I presume you posted that in hopes some people would have missed the links I posted TO you. LOL, all they or you has to do is, go back to the emails where I posted the links...plural = more than one, even!! I posted them once, I'll not post them again. You didn't read them the first time!! Guess you would have to find something else to rant about, as only you can do. :-)
Pages