Sanchez was commander of coalition forces during a period when abuse of prisoners occurred at Abu Ghraib and at other locations. In a memo signed by General Sanchez and later acquired by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request, techniques were authorized to interrogate prisoners, included “environmental manipulation” such as making a room hot or cold or using an “unpleasant smell”, isolating a prisoner, disrupting normal sleep patterns and “convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.”[2]
On May 5, 2006 Sanchez denied ever authorizing interrogators to “go to the outer limits”. Sanchez said he had told interrogators: “…we should be conducting our interrogations to the limits of our authority.” Sanchez called the ACLU: “…a bunch of sensationalist liars, I mean lawyers, that will distort any and all information that they get to draw attention to their positions.”[3]
I think you (or more accurately the ACLU) are confusing interrogation with torture. Confusing someone is not torture. Temperature manipulation can be torture at the fringes (and has been used as such) but it doesn’t sound like that’s what was being talked about.
There was plenty of actual no-shit torture going on at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, but by this logic no detainees should ever have been questioned at all if they refused to talk.
(It doesn’t matter, the only way a Democrat would get elected here would be if the Republican candidate came out as a gay Obama supporter.)
What Lum said. It depends on whether Sanchez was really responsible (or aware) of the illegal stuff that what was happening, though you can argue that he should have been.
I don’t know how officially he’s on the hook for Abu Ghraib, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Look at what he did sign off on in the two memos linked. As written you can theoretically say they’re all just barely Geneva compliant, but we know what those phrases all ended up being used for. He was in charge, tells lots of outlandish self-serving things about his time there, and Democrats should be embarrassed to talk to him.
“After the military, I decided that socially, I’m a progressive, a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter, obviously, of national defense.”
No oxford comma but whatevs.
I’m not sure how this works. I guess you can support defense while responsibly reducing spending for it? Or is the defense budget not really a giant sinkhole of cash like I was led to believe?
A positive note is that someone who fits the base criteria for a libertarian is thinking of running as a Democrat and not as conservative.
Usually the argument is that you can “eliminate waste” and “unnecessary” government programs and still maintain defense spending at higher levels. Often those “unnecessary” government programs end up being social welfare stuff in real world terms. That said, in the FY 2010 US Federal Budget the Department of Defense was less then 19% of total spending, which was the second largest in this breakdown. But the other four were social welfare related, so any plan for reducing spending has to look at more then just defense, obviously.
That’s where, hopefully, the socially progressive part comes in. If someone was, IMO, truly socially progressive they would see the many inequities in America as needing some kind of addressing. The addressing that usually comes in the form of social programs. But you’re probably right. At least I can dream of uplifting social programs and apply them to my kingdom in Minecraft.
Not to derail, but how can someone be a fiscal conservative and libertarian? Don’t libertarians believe, to put it in inelegant terms, that equal power relations is a requisite for equal liberties?
My quick and dirty definition of libertarians are that they are socially progressive, or at least lax, and believe in small government. Small gov’t means less money, less or no social programs, etc. Many of the current libertarians, especially the powerful ones (the Koch bros) don’t really fit into that definition but it’s by no means a definitive way of looking at it. Who knows, I could be completely wrong.
There need not be much of a difference between classic liberals and US libertarians (though this is all gross oversimplification), but you’re right about the economic systems. Current understandings of capitalism are different than they were when Adam Smith was writing, aren’t they?
Right then. Thanks both of you for clearing that up. But now I really have to ask… Why would you want someone like that anywhere near legislative power? I mean, that kind of ideology is pretty much a menace to… Well over half your population, at least.
Oh, I certainly don’t want them to have any power. But the things I believe the government should do are way too outlandish for most people to agree with. I just thinks its good that conservatives may not have a monopoly on libertarians. That’s all.
Well yes, but is the price worth it? I mean, you’re not just getting greater civil liberties and less bureaucracy. You’re also getting less subsidies for the lower and middle classes, and more privatisation of infrastructure.
I’m not suggesting that limits the social mobility and economic freedom of you personally, but it most definitely will for most of the affected people. Some to such a great extent that they’ll probably crawl off in a hole and die.
As a whole, I cannot see the benefit to the affected people. At least not in practical, non-theoretical terms.
Bearing in mind that it is not always possible in a practical sense; relations between individuals ought to be governed as much as possible by mutual agreement (i.e. contract) as opposed to authority or force. Money equaling neither authority nor force. Government equaling both authority and at least the threat of force.
