The path leads all the way back to Donald Rumsfeld.
From the NYTimes:
A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee said top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers.Here's the report, by the way. The first conclusion (p. 16) says:
On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.Waterboarding, my friends, is torture.
Conclusion 19 (p. 19) says:
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.Torture approved by Rumsfeld.
Tell me again how the Bush Administration made everything better?
22 comments:
John K: Quick run the pictures of Rove in handcuffs. (Forget the actual pictures of Blagojevich in cuffs) If you can link this to Rumsfield et al, then I can use the same logic to link Blagojevich to Hussein Obama. LOL LOL LMAO Same logic.
it's just sick and slimy and beneath us as americans and as members of the human race. AND it was all for nothing except i fear to give some jollies to some old freaking draft evading pervs. let alone the facts that even our own c.i.a. and military knew and said that it wouldn't be of any strategic value and would put our own troops in more danger, recruit more terrorists and damage those that were commanded to carry out the torture.
that's what really makes me think the worst about this. that they were TOLD it wouldn't work and insisted on using it anyway. that's why i think perv.
John K: To which I might add, you conveniently left out the statement last week, before Blagojevich, that Hussein Obama also endorses aggressive interrogation techniques. And he also said Gitmo stays. Try again or just retreat into liberal heaven and lie to yourselves.
Another non-sourced claim by the best troll evah.
Again, John. Unless and until you furnish a source for that claim, we all know you're full of hot air.
But then again, we've known that for a while.
Hey, John
Didn't you say that Blagojevich WASN'T led off in handcuffs? And isn't that COMPLETELY WRONG??
LMAO at how wrong you were!
I WIN!
Everyone in the DOD, including the armed services, and any contractors hired by the DOD, is/are in the Sec. Defense's chain of command. There's not much "logic" needed to "link this to Rumsfled." Everyone involved was in his chain of command.
There has never been a moment, not one instant, that President-elect Obama was in disgraced Gov. Blagojevich's chain of command, or vice-versa.
It takes the "moral clarity" of a winger to conflate graft, corruption, pay-to-play schemes with TORTURE.
You're a real piece of work, John. Don't you still defend Tom Delay??? What really upsets you is that Dems are doing what Repubs could never do to one of their own - we're getting rid of the bum.
And if you don't like it going back to Rummy, fine - because the trail goes all the way back to the Oval Office and President George W. Bush.
And Obama has NEVER supported "advanced interrogation" or keeping GITMO open.
Come up with some better lies.
John K: Ol' Froth wants to do what, fight? Well if it with your brain I don't engage in that type of activity with the mentally challenged. If it is physical, then can I sell tickets and keep half the gross? LMAO
John K: Do you left wing kooks even listen to what your man Hussein Obama says. He clearly said he intends to keep Gitmo because it works. He has no other choices. He also said he endorses aggressive interrogation techniques. And the 16 months withdrawal plan is shelved. But then again, what Obama said during the campaign has nothing to do with today.
John K: No Dayvoe, what I keep saying is you post fake pictures of Rove in cuffs and no real pictures of Blagojevich in cuffs. You seem to enjoy the fantasy rather than the reality. You claim to not endorse Blagojevich, which is a lie, but refuse to degrade him. You live in a fake fantasy world that is so easy for me to bust open. Your idea of winning is also based on fantasy. For once, do something in real life that corresponds to your actual beliefs. Or get psycho help.
John K - WHERE AND WHEN did he endorse "aggressive interrogation techniques"? Until you provide a link to a source, we all assume you're making it up.
And you're still WRONG about Blagojevich. You said he wasn't led off in handcuffs and HE WAS.
I was RIGHT. You were WRONG.
LMAO that you can't face that simple reality.
I WIN! AGAIN!
John K: Just because you missed it Dayvoe, doesn't mean he did not say it. You need to pay more attention to Krauthammer on FOX news and stop only watching Olbermouth. Your credibility is slipping Dayvoe.
John K: Speaking of credibility and Dayvoe, I thought you did not endorse violence, see ol' Froth. Or is it that violence is endorsed against conservatives? Credibility issues here Homer.
John K:
I'll say this again. It's YOUR responsibility to furnish a link - not mine.
And anyway are you now saying that Charles Krauthammer said that Obama endorses aggressive interrogation techniques? And you talk about credibility?
Here's THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE on Charles Krauthammer:
According to Krauthammer, the WMD threat was so imminent that, as he argued on Fox News on Nov. 8, 2002, waiting a matter of months could mean that Saddam obtained nuclear capability: “Under this Resolution, if Blix does not have to report back to the Security Council for 105 days, do the math. That’s the 21st of February. That is a very long time away. And it could be at the end of our window to attack.” In his Nov. 15, Post column, Krauthammer rang the alarm yet again: “We’ve been given time, but so has Hussein. Time to hide his weapons. Time even to distribute them through Iraqi agents—aka diplomats using diplomatic pouches—into the heart of the enemy. (We still don’t know where last year’s anthrax came from.) Time to give the stuff to terrorists who, as Osama bin Laden’s tape suggests, are now prepared to make common cause with Hussein.”
Now, as the war he demanded lies in ruins, Krauthammer uses his Post column to revise his record: “Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.” His hysterical obsession with WMD has been whitewashed from his pundit history, and in its place is a goal that Krauthammer barely mentioned prior to the war.
Do you really want to go with Krauthammer's credibility?
And see THAT'S how you source a quotation.
If you do some homework, John, maybe - just maybe - you'll be taken seriously by the big kids.
You know, Kennedy built a thousand Minuteman missiles, got us further into Vietnam and brought us to the brink over missiles in Cuba. Carter sent the military to try to get the hostages in Iran Clinton lobed missiles at a Sudan chemical factory and at Osama Bin Laden's camp to try to assassinate him. Liberals (or at least Democrats) are fully capable of ordering violent actions in perceived defense of the nation. Still, just because Rush Limbaugh or Quinn says something, particularly if they draw some conclusion by twisting words, that doesn't make the thing true.The rest of us have not heard Obama say such a thing, that he endorses aggressive interrogation techniques. The fact that you don't provide a source for the assertion only makes it worse. Sure, Obama might say such a thing, but the rest of us would like to at least know the context. But you are just interested in insulting liberals, much like Limbaugh and Quinn do.
mccain said on tv( with george stephanopolos) this morning that BOTH he AND obama want gitmo closed and do not endorse or want torture used AND dumped the torture issue on rummy's doorstep.
John K: LMAO LOL LOL Now Sherry likes McCain. LOL LMAO
John K: So Dayvoe, you old hypocrite you, when will you demand Ol Froth furnish proof that I am a traitor. LOL LMAO And how about that threat to commit violence upon me. Dayvoe, you hypocrite. Hussein Obama said clearly that he endorses "aggressive interrogation techniques". You need to listen to what the man says.
Should be easy enough to furnish a link if Obama said it clearly. Are you sure, John K., that Rush didn't imagine Obama said it while Rush was stoned?
We used to have only one rule in comments: Don't swear directly at someone.
I never thought that we'd need to spell out:
Don't threaten anyone here with physical violence.
David and I are both sorry that we didn't catch that earlier and two comments have now been removed.
Don't make us start banning people.
Post a Comment