|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
June 17, 2008 - 5:38am.
Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation. Before they were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, such harsh techniques had drawn warnings from military lawyers that they could be illegal, an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee has found. Officials familiar with the findings discussed them on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released. The psychologists who helped interrogate terror suspects for the CIA were set to testify Tuesday before the Senate committee, which was expected to release details of the investigation. The hearing is the committee's first look at the origins of the harsher methods used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq and how policy decisions on interrogations were vetted across the Defense Department. Its review fits into a broader picture of the government's handling of detainees, which includes FBI and CIA interrogations in secret prisons. Democrats contend that the Senate investigation will refute the Bush administration's argument that abusive conditions in some military prisons were only the result of a handful of personnel. Instead, they say, the conditions were the consequence of senior defense civilians eager to extract intelligence in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pentagon's top civilian lawyer at the time, chief counsel William "Jim" Haynes, was expected to testify Tuesday. Also scheduled to be present were Richard Shiffrin, Haynes' former deputy on intelligence matters, as well as legal advisers at the time to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Guantanamo Bay prison. According to the Senate committee's findings, Haynes became interested in using harsher interrogation methods as early as July 2002 when he sent a memo inquiring about a military program that trained Army soldiers how to survive enemy interrogations and deny foes valuable intelligence. Jerald Ogrisseg, a former top military psychologist, was expected to testify Tuesday that the program was never intended to be a means of finding tougher ways to interrogate U.S. prisoners. Shortly after requesting more information about harsh techniques, Haynes traveled in September 2002 to Guantanamo Bay with other administration lawyers, including then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington. A month later, the military commander in charge of Guantanamo Bay, Gen. Michael Dunlavey, asked his superiors at U.S. Southern Command for approval to employ harsher interrogations. According to officials familiar with the Senate investigation, the military services' lawyers told the Joint Staff that the techniques warranted further study, and the Air Force and Army specifically warned that the methods could be illegal. Their objections were ignored. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
These revelations are very
Submitted by woody188 on June 17, 2008 - 6:55am.These revelations are very damning to Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Addington, all who pushed for invading Iraq, torture, and even now they want to nuke Iran. All are war criminals as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
I have to think that some
Submitted by Sandra Price on June 17, 2008 - 7:13am.I have to think that some group behind Hitler was also annoyed by his actions. They kept their mouths shut too. The core of ethics and values is no longer a part of our Federal government and even the best leaders fell under the Bush bus.
Some of my best friends from the days of early GOP development are backing no-holds-barred torture. Many of these people are good Christians who can turn away from the horrors of torture. I thought it was an American value, and it is no longer, at this time. This is another reason I gave up believing in any God as most people are animals when it comes to war. It sort of shoots the whole Christian thing, doesn't it? I'm beginning to think it is the Atheists who hold the moral cards on this stuff. We have our own moral codes and we stand by them. Under Bush, our groups have grown as we can see the duplicity of this God stuff when the believers obtain a little power.
I will never understand how Christians can look the other way when they see torture, dishonesty and corruption all around them. My grandparents (firm Christians)would have revolted under the circumstances in the Bush Administration. Some here who are believers have revolted but the GOP has favored the Christians with promises of a police state and many good Americans have simply backed away. It is an abuse of the people who believe in God.
Sandra, I couldn't agree
Submitted by Ladywolf55 on June 17, 2008 - 7:49am.Sandra, I couldn't agree with you more. So-called "Good Christians" are the most blood-thirsty when given a bit of power. We've seen eight long years of it. It's time for a change!
Teresa
They are wolves disguised as
Submitted by adamrussell on June 17, 2008 - 10:29am.They are wolves disguised as christians. IMO there are very few followers of Christ left.
So-called "Good Christians"
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on June 17, 2008 - 10:38am.Then it's obvious that they are not good christians.
But, that's just this old curmudgeon's opinion...
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
These "Christians" are the
Submitted by Pablo on June 17, 2008 - 10:38am.These "Christians" are the exact same group that hung Christ. Oh, how history repeats itself! Hallelujah!
"We the people" have no
Submitted by JudyB on June 17, 2008 - 11:23am."We the people" have no voice! Otherwise, with the millions of outcries that have poured into everyone at the whitehouse environs, they would have been impeached and in prison long ago. Bush has had "his" congress in the palms of his hands by allowing them to grease their palms in a variety of ways with our tax dollars, insuring that he would never have to fear the repercussions he and his thugs should have to face. I have done all in my power to prevent and halt the evil ways of Bush/Cheney...
however, is has been a complete and total waste of my time and energy...thus far. To say I am disgusted is putting it mildly. This two-headed dictatorship that we have been existing under, has caused severe damage to our country and if something isn't done and done soon, we may never pull out from under the ruins.
FYI...I am a Christian and do NOT condone the many evils & damages "Bush the Christian" has perpetrated while calling himself a Christian...he has sullied the name!
I disagree. We the people
Submitted by Ted Remington on June 17, 2008 - 4:35pm.I disagree. We the people have voices; what we don't have is people who raise those voices where they count.
I suspect that many here are Democrats or are sympathetic to the Democratic Party. How many of you have attended party meetings, raised your voices and your hands, asked questions of people who want to represent you at various levels, and told those candidates point blank what you as voters expect?
If you haven't done any of these things you just might be part of the problem and not part of the solution. The trick is to get to the candidates before they are candidates and let them know what we as taxpayers and voters want.
If all of us had told the party leaders that we would not nominate or vote for someone who was opposed to impeachment proceedings, they there would have been impeachment proceedings. Whether they would have been successful or not is another story. It's way too late now. We are less than five months from the quadrennial election and nothing is going to happen at this juncture unless a real smoking gun turns up.
And whether we would really want it to happen is another story. Never in our history has there been a change of party in power in conjunction with ascension of a new President upon the death of the prior. Many of those in the Congress otherwise in favor of impeachment would probably vote against it if the action were to remove both Bush and Cheney from power and replace them with Pelosi and a player to be named later. The world would almost certainly view it as a coup, further worsening our position in the world. And would you want to remove Bush from office and let Cheney slide in on his trail of slime? Removing Cheney would be less problematical in that regard, but there just isn't the time. And that's our fault as much as Pelosi's.
Ted
Unless my brain is playing
Submitted by knockknock on June 17, 2008 - 3:48pm.Unless my brain is playing tricks, the prisoner is smiling and that dog is hardly "menacing," or "snarling."
What am I missing here?
Did the gov't release their least damaging photo?
Sandra, I couldn't agree
Submitted by DejaVuAllOver on June 17, 2008 - 7:04pm.Sandra, I couldn't agree more. Every day brings more news about some morally depraved act by judeo-christian fanatics who think nothing of attacking anything or anyone who gets in their way.
Personally, I bailed on "The Church" thirty years ago and it was the smartest thing I've ever done. I decided to continue my search elsewhere and found that this cat named Buddha preached a doctrine nearly identical to Christ's, and 500 years sooner. The difference is, Buddha's followers actually follow his pacifist teachings, for the most part, instead of wallowing in arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy like our country of judeo-christian warmongering fools.
Whatever happened to the
Submitted by Dr.D on June 17, 2008 - 8:14pm.Whatever happened to the "Golden Rule" ???
Why do people have to equate morality with religion anyway? I personally have come to believe that organized religion(regardless of denomination or sect)is inherently evil.In my youth,I thought that my twisted views on religion were due to my Roman Catholic upbringing,with all of it's guilt inducing dogma.But as time went by I realized that ALL organized religions are designed to subjugate their adherants by some sort of psychological subterfuge or other for the sole purpose of gaining the material wealth that they say is jeopardizing your ascent to the "promised land",and they are all too happy to relieve you of your burden.
I say it's time to revert to the "Balkan Method"(Pitchforks and torches).After all,we outnumber the usurpers by about 1,000,000 to 1.
I agree, Dr. D. Ironically,
Submitted by DejaVuAllOver on June 17, 2008 - 8:41pm.I agree, Dr. D. Ironically, Buddha abhorred the concept of organized religion and realized that spirituality is indeed a personal thing; that truth comes through karmic purity (kind actions and thoughts), not through doctrine or some organized fraternity of self-worshiping sycophants .
I know this is off-topic. Sorry, I'm done now.
Thanks for the insight Deja
Submitted by Dr.D on June 17, 2008 - 8:52pm.Thanks for the insight Deja Vu,and your thoughts are not really off-topic,considering that we are trying to reconcile the rationale of our obviously misguided "leaders",ya know?
G'night,G'bless all. May the
Submitted by Dr.D on June 17, 2008 - 9:51pm.G'night,G'bless all. May the morrow be as fair as t'day. Ed
Christ's message
Submitted by Pablo on June 17, 2008 - 10:49pm.Christ's message
was very much like Buddhas, two highly enlightened men, not Gods, but men. But soon after Christ died, those in power decided that all that Buddha-like stuff that came from Christ was heresy and those that believed Christ's true message were forced into hiding with their Christ-inspired writings. They could control people much easier by hiding the truth and deceiving the masses into believing that Christ was actually God and needed to be worshiped, that the power of God wasn't within as Christ actually taught. Also, they told people they had to follow their infallible leader (the pope) and go to their churches (and don't forget to tithe) for salvation, lest their kind and loving god torture them into eternity.
It's all about control and power and wealth as already mentioned above. It is no surprise that "Christians" on a whole are such a violent and judgemental bunch of sheep. They believe a bunch of big lies, and have little hope. I'd be bitter and judgemental too if I followed lies.
Oh, and one might deny that most "Christian" are violent, as most "Christians" aren't attacking or directly killing. I believe it is mostly self-proclaimed church-going "Christians" who have been supporting these wars. Just because one supports another who does the slaughtering and didn't actually do it themselves does not mean they are not very guilty.
I believe it was Christ that said "Seek and you will find". Not many have sought and look at what they are for blindly believing lies!
I've long called these folks
Submitted by staunchdem on June 18, 2008 - 3:59am.I've long called these folks "Convenient Christians".
Whether the issue is torture or murder in Gitmo or Iraq they can certainly bleat like sheep listening to Rush during the week then go to church on Sunday and be good Christians.
Most of the ones I've been able to have a conversation with think that being a "Conservative" means conservative christian family values.
If they listen long enough to realize they've been pandered to by crooks and liars they can often be awakened to what is really happening.
Alas, some are lost causes and I tend to move on.
This expose beggars the
Submitted by Direct Democracy on June 18, 2008 - 4:13am.This expose beggars the question: Who told Rum Dum to go ahead and ignore the warnings?
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
We all see what has
Submitted by Sandra Price on June 18, 2008 - 6:06am.We all see what has conveniently destroyed the freedoms of a Republic. America was built and designed for the people who chose to live here and only the fear of the afterlife could and did destroy it. We are not the first to fall into the terrorism of demons and angels and we will not be the last. Our tribal leaders did a good job of controlling us through the old follow the leader culture and there is no doubt that when we elected Bush 43 as our family values leader he would accept the responsibility of complete control.
Of course Bush and the neoconservatives told Rum Dum to ignore the laws in the Constitution. Torture has been a human experience and cannot get it's claws into any nation without dumbing down the people under a brutal dictator.
We see so much violence in our lives and we are allowing our next generations to play brutally violent video games and watch the same horrors on television and in the movie theaters that we cannot ask them to stop what they have witnessed. The latest game is to shoot down people in commercial malls and schools.
The answer is not to ban the guns but the parents to introduce a new culture in their homes. One cannot take trained-to-kill pitbull and make him into a house pet.
America is still searching for a leader who will ask nothing of the population except for complete support. Why do we keep giving our freedoms away?
This article is the eye-opener that we Americans have failed to demand more from our leaders. We must self-educate immediately. If we cannot figure out what is true and what is spin, remember we have a well-informed leader here at CHB. Doug has exposed the hypocrisy for years without taking sides.
Sandra, I agree 100%
Submitted by Pablo on June 18, 2008 - 9:15am.Sandra, I agree
100% that the solution is in the home. I also believe our educational system can help in this matter, by involving parents more and working toward common goals of teaching critical thinking skills and the importance of things like democracy and the environment. But the problem is such a high % of the population is either unconcerned or clueless. The challenge is changing these two things. They need a leader who will lead and to whom they will listen. I think the last time we had a leader who was willing to tell them what they didn't want to hear, that leader, Jimmy Carter's, popularity plummetted. I'm referring to when he told them they needed to change their consumption habits. They simply don't want to hear that just being a proud american isn't enough. And they won't vote for somebody they believe is like that. So this whole thing is a vicious cycle.
How to break that cycle I don't know, and that is frustrating.
Our public schools wouldn't
Submitted by Ladywolf55 on June 18, 2008 - 11:10am.Our public schools wouldn't even BEGIN to know how to teach critical thinking. They are perfectly designed for what they were meant to do: Dumb down the people and make them into apathetic, mindless sheep. Mission accomplished!
So schools can't do it, and
Submitted by Pablo on June 18, 2008 - 11:42am.So schools can't do it, and parents won't do it because they are products of our screwed up educational system and television. So you believe we are screwed? Have we no hope? Do you believe if there was a will perhaps we could reform our educational system and improve society?
If not, then we might as well just give up!