Episode 2: S Is For Skittles
Monthly Archive for April, 2009
Looks like those text-to-movies chumpwagons tricked us all into a giant pile of nothing.
Working on some imaginary cobaggery. Anon.
There was indeed a Mandos/plover summit yesterday. It went well, except that he kept glancing nervously at a satsuma perched watchfully on the counter.
Update: There’s now a transcript below the fold since since the voices are so hard to understand.
I’m reading the Senate Armed Services Committee “Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody” executive summary now (link goes to TPM, their link gives you a gigantic PDF).
Allow me to bring William J. Haynes II “Jim” within the path of a giant space laser, or at least your wishful thinking. He’s the DoD Counsel, and he emerges a key linchpin for the war crimes cabal.
Quoting from page xviii to xix of the document. Any errors in transcription due to miscoding of PDF affecting copy/paste. As many have said, prepare yourself for the banality of evil. Interesting sidenote on Haynes’ inability to pull a Bybee and get on a Fed Court for life. It appears that Lindsey Graham could manifest the tiniest of consciences.
Prepare to mentally vomit.
Military Lawyers Raise Red Flags and Joint Staff Review Quashed (U)
(U) In early November 2002, in a series of memos responding to the Joint Staff’s call for comments on GTMO’s request, the military services identified serious legal concerns about the techniques and called for additional analysis.
(U) The Air Force cited “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques” and stated that “techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in the military order to treat detainees humanely…” The Air Force also called for an in depth legal review of the request.
(U) CITF’s Chief Legal Advisor wrote that certain techniques in GTMO’s October 11,
2002 request “may subject service members to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],” called “the utility and legality of applying certain techniques” in the request “questionable,” and stated that he could not “advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business.”
(U) The Chief of the Army’s International and Operational Law Division wrote that techniques like stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and use of phobias to induce stress “crosses the line of ‘humane’ treatment,” would “likely be considered maltreatment” under the UCMJ, and “may violate the torture statute.” The Army labeled GTMO’s request “legally insufficient” and called for additional review.
(U) The Navy recommended a “more detailed interagency legal and policy review” of the request. And the Marine Corps expressed strong reservations, stating that several techniques in the request “arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution.” The Marine Corps also said the request was not “legally sufficient,” and like the other services, called for “a more thorough legal and policy review.”
(U) Then-Captain (now Rear Admiral) Jane Dalton, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that her staff discussed the military services’ concerns with the DoD General Counsel’s Office at the time and that the DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes was aware ofthe services’ concerns. Mr. Haynes, on the other hand, testified that he did not know that the memos from the military services existed (a statement he later qualified by stating that he was not sure he knew they existed). Eliana Davidson, the DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for International Affairs, said that she told the General Counsel that the GTMO request needed further assessment. Mr. Haynes did not recall Ms. Davidson telling him that.
(U) Captain Dalton, who was the Chairman’s Legal Counsel, said that she had her own concerns with the GTMO request and directed her staff to initiate a thorough legal and policy review of the techniques. That review, however, was cut short. Captain Dalton said that General Myers returned from a meeting and advised her that Mr. Haynes wanted her to stop her review, in part because of concerns that people were going to see the GTMO request and the military services’ analysis of it. Neither General Myers nor Mr. Haynes recalled cutting short the Dalton review, though neither has challenged Captain Dalton’s recollection. Captain Dalton testified that this occasion marked the only time she had ever been told to stop analyzing a request that came to her for review.
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 ofthe eighteen techniques in the GTMO request. Techniques such as stress positions, removal of clothing, use ofphobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation oflight 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.
I don’t know why upper class entitled bullying is more abrasive than the run-of-the-mill kind. Perhaps it is the creatively baroque nature it always takes, especially from people that shouldn’t have a care in the world and are clearly doing it out of the pathological boredom that their lives of shallow (un)ease must certainly entail.
For example. Shorter previous:
This future turdblossom:
Apparent sociopathic goonwagon harasses teacher, fuels early adopter Facebook cobaggery/shitstorm wherein purposeless, aimless high school choads perform the digital version of the Exlax brownie for teacher, or more aptly, the acid tab in the morning coffee, for shits/giggles. Or not- distaff view from the supergenius Ross Douthat (come to your own conclusions, but comments are priceless).
Anyhow, since I am heading for permanent grampa pants, I have to say, I don’t approve of getting one’s kicks by doing anything to anyone’s food, nor do I approve of harassing the hell out of someone on the internet and being a total cobag.
That being said, Gawker has taken Coburger above and given him his own category. Inappropriately I feel a bit of joy about this. Similarly, when Wonkette goes after Late Nite Shots, sometimes I let myself down with tiny smiles, laced with a touch of “you ****ing pricks.”
So if Charles “Chazmo” Stam “The Staminator” wants to Google himself and therefore appear on our page, I invite him to use this public platform to defend his actions and advocate for his good-guy nature. We’ll then set the hug timer and invite the space unicorns into the hot tub. It’s a Columbia thing. I think AG would even pass on this Ivy, Jewish tater tot.
In the marches of TUSTOSAN yesterday, there was a meeting.
At that meeting was a person who, though maybe not wearing red trackies in actuality, apparently was in spirit.
He had a book in his pocket which appeared to have the title To Serve Shorebirds.
This person proceeded to lead a shorebird, a zombie, the winner of “Who wants to marry a zombie?”, and a cornerless nerd to a vast quantity of Thai food which, by all reports, did not survive the experience.
An expedition was launched by this same party to the magical land of Bob which returned to this mundane plane bearing donuts.
But then the actual agenda was revealed.
If only someone had realized sooner the true purpose of the person in the hypothetical red track suit.
Had realized the real nature of that book.
That its full title was: To Serve Shorebirds Chocolate Skittles.
Rick Warren and Chuckie Buckets goatees have never been seen together, because they are the same. Unfortunately, the goatee chupacabra is only a figment newton.