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: 11-19-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 5:38pm

>>> China are our allies, really?? Link please!

Good try at twisting, but I actually, I said…” it will likely be an ally in the not too distant future.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/77071

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070729/6china.fear.htm

< 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

>>> When have you ever provided a link??

See above. LOL!

< 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.

>>> "Probably" a postive thing, really. You deal in a lot of probably and maybes.

I try not to live in the stunted, black and white world of the left. My perspectives tend to have a lot of gray shades.

>>> You would lend your enemy money when they are so far in debt to you that going to war would cripple them.

Um…what? If China wanted to “cripple us” then it would seem far smarter to NOT give us money and to do things that would tend to COST us money. LOL! But considering the TRILLION dollars the Congress just threw at the banks, the BILLIONS they’re going to throw at the car companies and the TRILLION that Barry wants to spend on his stimulus package, it really doesn’t appear as though footing the bill for the Iraq war would “cripple” us.

>>> We are ,after all, borrow money from China to fight the war in Iraq. Are we going to borrow money from China to got to war with China??

Are you planning a war with China that you didn’t tell us about?

< No, I learned that in a course on "Liberal debating" down at the Learning Annex. LOL!

>>> Attacking the debating skill of others while managing to NOT ANSWER the question, yet again, is kind of hypocritical.

LOL! Coming from a master…” You didn't answer the question, nice way to duck a weave, did you learn that from Bush??”

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 5:56pm

See above. LOL!


First time for everything, thank you.


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 6:06pm




Place of employment having unacceptable working conditions. Sweatshops are commonly characterized by low pay, poor working conditions, safety violations, and generally inhumane treatment of employees.

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 7:09pm

>>> The USSR bit off more than they could chew by their empire building of communism by trying to make all their empire communist, even if many of these countries they incorporated into the the USSR didn't want it. Yeah, cost 'em more than they had and it folded. We ought to remember that in our quest to "make" countries into democracies that we then have to pay for in all kinds of ways.

Communism requires tight control...democracy does not. And while it may take some effort to install, once running, it usually becomes self-sufficient in pretty short order which can pay dividends to the US.

>>> Stalemate??? We did not achieve our aims in Korea nor in Vietnam. That is not a stalemate; that's a loss.

It's only a loss if the other guy won...and they didn't.

>>> Somehow I don't think our goal was to come away with a stalemate, which Korea probably ends up being just that, but for sure no stalemate in Vietnam. The commies won that one.

The commies won that one because they kept playing after we left the field.

>>> Sure hope the plan is not just achieving a stalemate in Iraq - otherwise, why attempt it at all. That's just plain dumb.

I agree...all of the left's attempts to secure defeat in Iraq are cowardly and "just plain dumb."

< We jumped in after that…it’s the hesitation before we joined the war that you seemed to be questioning…and it’s somewhat understandable considering the costs of WWI. And even though it was a “just war” simply because of Hitler’s aggression, the atrocities of the holocaust weren’t known until near the end of the war. Still, it’s difficult to understand why you would be so hawkish about WWII and attack the US so vigorously because we were pulled into Vietnam and Korea and Iraq. It seems to me, somewhat hypocritical and historically convenient.

>>> It apparently wasn't "simply" because of "Hitler's aggression" that we finally got into WWII. It was because we were ATTACKED by Hitler's allies, the Japanese. Hitler had been "aggressive" for quite some time and was pounding the British, our ally, with impunity, which didn't worry us quite so much until the Japanese visited Pearl Harbor. Attacked is the key word here by a foreign power.

But according to you, we should have entered the war BEFORE we were attacked. What's your basis for pushing the US into a war thousands of miles away? Sounds a bit hawkish, to me...and hypocritical, considering the condemnation you've heaped on the President for invading Iraq.

>>> As far as being "pulled in" to Korea and Vietnam, lol. Please educate us on how we were "pulled in" other than some ideologue's plan to "rid the world of communism."

I'm afraid if you can't appreciate the threat posed by communism then there's little I can do to educate you here with a few lines.

>>> And I will "attack" the leaders of my country when I believe they have made life-destroying mistakes any time I'm in the mood to do so, vigorously or otherwise. This is my country too. That's what democracy is all about. I'm allowed to make my dissent known by my rights as a citizen. I mean, isn't that what all the push for making other countries into democracies all about? Wasn't that the reason our nation was founded to begin with?

Oh, I fully understand the liberal version of "patriotism."

>>> The sheep mentality of those who just "follow along" is what worries me. You let too many of those get the upper hand and pretty soon what democracy is really all about is just a memory.

That and the most liberal neophyte community organizer will be elected to the Presidency.

>>> And what follows is suspension of parts of the Constitution, preemptive wars and torture, heartily agreed with and even encouraged by the Bush sheep followers. Egads, it has already happened. But it is going to stop, and the sheep can go back to mindlessly grazing until some other ideologue comes along and tricks them again.

No trick...unlike Obama's supporters, who appear to be ignorant on a host of issues, most conservatives understand why we went to war with Iraq, why it wasn't a violation of the Constitution for the President to gather enemy intelligence during wartime and why saying "pretty please" isn't a very effective interrogation technique.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 7:19pm
I've heard your generic reply...but the issue was how a soldier feels when friends and family say "we support you, but we don't support what you're doing"...and thus far, you've declined to allow you DH's (the soldier) feelings to be expressed.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 7:21pm
Yes you did...by validating the comparison and saying that they might be right.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 7:22pm
i totally agree. and weather we protest it or not.....torture will still continue to happen.
<p>www.Shop-Luscious.com---contact me for savings up to 80% off of EVERYTHING!
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 7:51pm

< I guess that explains the rush of liberals to fight in Afghanistan. LOL!

>>> But some Republicans want us to be at war everywhere.

Nice dodge…LOL! No...Republicans simply acknowledge that appeasement isn't the way to enhance our national security. But that still doesn't explain the gross hypocrisy of the left who call for war in Afghanistan but sit comfortably at home in front of their keyboards attacking the country.

< 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.

>>> People are a loud to be upset. If churches are using their money to go against a proposition then guess what..... they are breaking the law. Why don't you provide links were people lost their jobs from people protesting prop. 8.

Oh, and another quick dance step around the point…which was NOT that people are “a loud” to be upset, but that, from the liberal point of view, it’s “criminal” when one group of people demands that “all agree with them”…a “criminal” attitude you clearly endorse when it comes to issues you support. Oh, the hypocrisy.

< 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.

>>> Your basically repeating what you said in your first sentence. Do you feel like if you say it enough do you feel like it will make it true??

Actually, I wasn’t. The first sentence was referring to the hypocrisy of liberals not fighting in the wars they support…and this comment was addressing the hypocrisy of liberals who whine about not being forced to “sacrifice” while hypocritically ignoring the fact that they could have voluntarily sacrificed but chose not to. See the difference?

< 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!

>>> The same can be said about Republicans.

Except for the fact that Republicans are generally better informed and don’t intentionally ignore facts just because they conflict with their ideology and political agenda…as the left does so often.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 8:06pm

But according to you, we should have entered the war BEFORE we were attacked. What's your basis for pushing the US into a war thousands of miles away? Sounds a bit hawkish, to me...and hypocritical, considering the condemnation you've heaped on the President for invading Iraq.


>>> As far as being "pulled in" to Korea and Vietnam, lol. Please educate us on how we were "pulled in" other than some ideologue's plan to "rid the world of communism."


I'm afraid if you can't appreciate the threat posed by communism then there's little I can do to educate you here with a few lines.


Yes, that is correct.

"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Tue, 12-30-2008 - 8:24pm
Oh no - you didn't go and muck it up with facts! LOL!
.
.

Pages