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
How do you justify supporting illegal torture while stating on another thread
"![]()
What laws are you talking about, exactly?
Do you think in the NSA and other deeper agencies we don't know about
~What laws are you talking about, exactly?~
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Kate
<>
See?
Again, this is an instance where someone is opposing a general party's platform, when I said outright that I am NOT a Republican, and you know, just for the record, although again, I am NOT a Republican (Thank GOD), not all Republicans are "right-to-lifers."
Excuse me, but when did it become unacceptable to oppose
No, you are wrong about that. There is a law, a federal law, which prohibits any US citizen from using torture on anyone else. The law has already been posted in this thread.
Are you actually suggesting that the there is a parallel and secret body of laws that puts certain people above the Constitution?
Read the federal law. The federal law, in fact, closes this perceived loop hole. Point c all the way at the end also precludes US personnel from getting the Egyptians or Syrians to torture people for them.
Federal law Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, Section 2340
"(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and
(3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49."
2340A
"(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy."
Do you really think I would post without being familiar with this?
Read it again.
It actually does not say that a US official cannot perform certain "torture" tactics upon someone outside of US jurisdiction.
How do you figure that? This seems pretty unequivocal:
"(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States;"
Since it is also prohibited to conspire to use torture, it won't do either to get non-US nationals to do it for us.
Every branch of the armed services considered the memos prepared in defense of using torture inadequate. They objected because of concern that their personnel would be exposed legally. However, if you have a convincing legal argument as to how the federal law can be made not to apply, I am all ears.
It's in the way it is written...Don't you see the wiggle-room built in for "interpretation"?
I don't have any evidence of anything to counter this! And if I did, I wouldn't be able to share it, legally.
Pages