he new Army field manual, published the next day, said that interrogators were forbidden to employ a long list of techniques that had been used against suspected terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001 -- including stripping, hooding, inflicting pain and forcing the performance of sex acts.
One hopes that William Rehnquist is only the first occupant of a particularly onerous section of Hell that, in due time, will include Sandra O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Uncle Thomas, the monkey George W. Bush and his organ-grinder Dick Cheney.
Yoo said for the first time in an interview that he verbally warned lawyers for the president, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that it would be dangerous as a matter of policy to permit military interrogators to use the harshest techniques, because the armed services, vastly larger than the CIA, could overuse the tools or exceed the limits. "I always thought that only the CIA should do this, but people at the White House and at DOD felt differently," Yoo said. The migration of those techniques from the CIA to the military, and from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, aroused worldwide condemnation when abuse by U.S. troops was exposed.
Cheney's lawyer ridiculed the vagueness of the Geneva ban on "outrages upon personal dignity," saying it would leave U.S. troops timid in the face of unpredictable legal risk.
According to participants in the debate, the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.
Every anti-Bush action and every anti-war activity gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It makes al Quaida more hopeful. Lincoln suspended civil rights during the war. Why should we allow such overt treason today?
Cheney has zero authority to foil the president, other than voting the "wrong" way on Senate ties -- not a fearsome power.
There was joke in Washington after Mr Cheney's heart condition became known that "George Bush is just a heartbeat away from the presidency."
Hicks was subjected to . . . sodomy with a foreign object
That we're actually raping detainees is far and away the most disturbing revelation of this series--and it's not like the rest of the articles have been all hearts and flowers.
. . .
[and another post stated prisoners were forced to fellate each other]
Cheney controls the flow of information because, and only because, Bush lets him.
The fact that the president is unaware that he is being manipulated does not mean that Cheney is not manipulating him.
Once a terrorist is your prisoner, basic decency *and* prudence militate in favor of treating him with enough respect not to humiliate or degrade him, much less torture him.
Professional interrogators are agreed that abuse and torture are the methods of amateurs.
Had KSM et al. been in military custody from the get-go, we might never have had the resort to waterboarding, etc.
This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community….
[S]uch a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
Anyway, what's your latest point? That conservatives are superior because their hate-filled remarks are (allegedly) more likely to be on-topic? Is staying on-topic a higher value than avoiding hatefulness? Is hatefullness inoffensive as long as it's on-topic? All this is quite novel.
On 31 January 2004, the Commander, CFLCC, appointed MG Antonio M. Taguba, Deputy Commanding General Support, CFLCC, to conduct this investigation.
On 29 February we finalized our executive summary and out-briefing slides. On 9 March we submitted the AR 15-6 written report with findings and recommendations to the CFLCC Deputy SJA, LTC Mark Johnson, for a legal sufficiency review.
So Muslims might be worried about your intended methods, despite what you've just written.
You're repeatedly ducking a simple question: how do you kill a religion without killing a bunch of religionists?
The Army never sanctioned these methods, then or now, and General Taguba's IG report made this very clear... that the Army policy was to operate by Geneva... by the book
Abusive interrogation policies directed by senior officials was not previously part of "our history, law and tradition." But now it is, thanks to the GOP. And yes, about half the country "went along" with that. Live and learn.
We're in a mess because the GOP took us there.