Torture Team Rumsfelds Betrayal American
Find Similar Products Like Torture Team Rumsfelds Betrayal American @ Amazon.com
Fred Stopsky has expended the past 50 years as a secondary teacher and college educator who has taught over 12,000 teachers. He is the co-author of “The American Experience: The History of the United States and Social Studies in a Global Society,” as well as the author of almost a dozen other books including, “Freedom and Control: Censorship in America,” “George Bush on the Planet of Xul,” “Nuremberg Principles and International Law,” “Catholicism and Slavery,” and “Bartolome de las Casas: Champion of Indian Rights.” Fred also invented the Veterans Accelerated Urban Learning for Teachers (VAULT) program to aid Vietnam War veterans further their education.
Tyler: Thank you for joining me today, Fred. I have to say you have rather a title for your new book. To begin, would you tell our readers a little bit with regards to how you would classify the book?
Fred: Thank you Tyler for having me. “Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney In Hell” is a political satire that mixes sardonic wit with severe exploration of key issues confronting America and the world. We live in interesting times, so political satire will have to possess offbeat qualities. It’s a book regarding political and social issues, but it is comic mood enables readers to smile and engage them in severe thinking.
Tyler: What is the plot of the story?
Fred: Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney awake to discover they are in an anteroom in Hell with Ken Lay of Enron fame, who has been told by the Devil to coordinate the procedure by which a host of witnesses will offer testimony to determine if the two men belong down there or way up in Heaven. People from each place on the political spectrum, along with frequent citizens, offer evidence. The book depicts how each person, disregarding whether widely known and esteemed or not, is impacted by the jokes of these two men and has something to offer in the way of testimony. The material is fundamentally staged in a dialog manner making for easy reading. Each chapter enables a queer group of persons to offer testimony. In all cases, assorted views are presented. The Devil remains off to the side until the end when he begins injecting cutting remarks.
Tyler: I understand the Devil calls on assorted witnesses to make his decision. Most of these witnesses are widely known and esteemed celebrities, but not inevitably politicians. How did you determine which celebrities to include?
Fred: Great question. I wanted to present the views of conservatives like Ann Coulter or Tom de Lay because their words are sufficient in themselves to indict Rumsfeld and Cheney. I merely had to concede Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Jay Leno, and Howard Stern to carry out their shows because in modern times we recompense severe attention to comedians and consider politicians to be comics. In particular, I felt compelled to concede that terrifi young man, Pat Tillman, to speak for himself as well as family members of those who have died. I love Kinky Friedman and am an admirer of Willie Nelson so I just had to work them in. Mixed in with the widely known and esteemed are prisoners from Abu Ghraib and galore regular working class people. Of course, I even drew upon a Law and Order team to uncover the TRUE story of the widely known and esteemed Weapons of Mass Destruction. I believe most readers will be amazed to discover the real meaning of “Weapons of Mass Destruction;” this data is alone worth the price of the book.
Tyler: All the celebrities are from our time it seems, except the Marx Brothers. Why did you determine to include them?
Fred: The Marx Brothers represent the height of American zany, madcap humor and who else could match the zany madcap ideas of Rumsfeld and Cheney? I had fun permitting the Marx Brothers to run wild in the chapter with the contemporary Robin Williams because these people are capable in their satirical offbeat remarks to make more sense than any fellow member of the Bush administration. Please also remember, Groucho Marx was president of Freedonia, so he is as much an expert on politics as Rumsfeld and Cheney. As Groucho once put it, “fish and politicians smell after three days.” Whew, after four years, the smell…
Tyler: Fred, tell me a little bit with regards to the non-famous characters–especially, did you include soldiers who fought or even passed away in the war, or family members such as the mother who camped out at Bush’s ranch in Texas for weeks after her son was killed, only to have the president refuse to speak to her?
Fred: Every day I read blogs written by members of the military and armed forces publications such as the “Stars & Stripes” and “Army Times” to keep abreast how they feel. I came throughout assorted things written by mothers of soldiers who passed from physical life and included their views in chapter 14. I remained true to their feelings; one of them was very pro-Bush. I also was tremendously impacted by the story of Pat Tillman. In doing exploration on this fine young man I came across he was an intellectual who read enormously and was very patriotic. I tried to convey his sensations and those of his family members who are furious regarding how Pat’s death was used for political purposes. I am rather proud the account in the book coincides in an outstanding manner with what is now being revealed to the American media — that George Bush was told the real story by General McChrystal of Pat’s death and ignored the truth to stir up anger and hatred. I could never in good sense of right and wrong ever lie when it comes to the sensations of family members or those who died.
Tyler: Fred, how did you come up with the idea for this book?
Fred: This may come all over as a bit of corn, but the deaths of our sweet young men and women has given me outstanding pain. I served in the military, and have worked to aid veterans, so they stay close to my heart. I was walking one day thinking when it comes to the day’s casualties when in my mind I heard the words, “the Devil himself couldn’t formulate more chaos and death than what is going on today in Iraq.” Within a moment, I had the idea for the book.
Tyler: Fred, tell me a little bit in regards to your own military service? Has the military changed for the better or worse since you served?
Fred: I turned down a draft deferment in 1951 and joined the US Army for the duration of the Korean War. I went through four months of basic training and then my unit got orders for Korea– to Heartbreak Ridge. By some crazy mix-up, my orders were misplaced and I wound up going to Europe. Several of my dear friends were killed on those hills in Korea. In fact, my decision to become a teacher stemmed from their deaths, I wanted to do something in life to aid prevent war. In those days everyone served, rich and poor, college educated and those who never finished grade school. Unlike WWII, the Korean War was as nonpopular as the war in Iraq. Just like today, in the early stages of the war, reservists and National Guards troops were called up. But men who were drafted quickly substituted them. Everyone who was on the front line put in 18 months and then went home with no return responsibility to Korea. After General Eisenhower was elected president, he without delay pursued negotiations and arranged for a truce so our fighting men could come home. We were fortunate to have Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower as presidents, two men who highly valued the Constitution and were more than willing to negotiate to end fighting. Of course, both men had served in the military and understood the meaning of death, something unknown to George Bush. I many times wish we had a Dwight Eisenhower as president–he was a Republican, but a man who loved and cherished the Constitution.
Tyler: Fred, why did you choose the devil rather than God to have a trial for Rumsfeld and Cheney?
Fred: The Devil has always for me represented chaos, disorder, pain and torture. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are the best exemplifiers of these humane qualities. If there is a Hell down there, then it is the fitting place for those violating our basic humane values. Anyway, I didn’t want to bother God who spends time caring for those who have love and joy in their hearts.
Tyler: You also include various deceased presidents as share of the trial. Will you tell us which ones and why you chose them? What kind of legitimacy do the presidents add to the trial?
Fred: I have read broad into the life of Abraham Lincoln. I ofttimes become sick to my stomach at President Bush’s refusal to honor those who died. Lincoln continually visited sick soldiers and was at numerous funerals. He also invited family members of those who passed from physical life to see him at the White House. George Bush is no Lincoln. Bill Clinton has been in an outstanding manner quiet regarding responding to charges that he someways is responsible for al-Qaeda or 9/11. I wanted to offer him an chance to refute those lies and directly confront Don and Dick regarding their tragic mistakes. Harry Truman is one of my favored presidents. He always told it like it was and never minced words. He was a self-taught man who loved and revered his beloved Constitution, and I know he is turning over in his grave at what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have done to that document.
Tyler: What are the crimes or injustices for which Rumsfeld and Cheney are accused in the book?
Fred: They measuredly lied regarding causes for war–the widely known and esteemed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Please read my chapter where a Law and Order unit in the long run uncovers it is mystery. These men have violated constitutional warrantees regarding reasonable trials, they have discarded the Geneva Convention which each fellow member of the military knows will have to be obeyed, they have supported spying on the intermediate American citizen, and they will have to take a good deal of obligation for the deaths of over 3600 Americans.
Tyler: : Do you feel the American system has failed that these two politicians have not been punished for their actions?
Fred: I believe the American Constitution is the biggest political document in humane history. I believe in the American political system. Sometimes, we Americans move slowly, but our scheme in the end always works. I am an eternal optimist when it comes to the American people.
Somehow, in a lot of way, the American humans in the long run figure out phonies and charlatans and quacks. Our system has not failed because books like mine and others are alerting our nation to the madness of those running our government.
Tyler: What kind of response has the book received so far?
Fred: As I said, I am the eternal optimist. I have been receiving a great deal of praise and compliments, as well as stellar reviews so far. Even altho knowingness has been slow and low-key after being available for just over one month, I believe in the end the book will take pleasure in a outstanding sale.
Tyler: Have you had any negative responses? When Michael Moore’s movie, “Fahrenheit 911″ came out numerous theatres refused to show it, claiming it would be unpatriotic when our troops were fighting, yet it seems disgust for the war has grown mainly in the three years since then. How would you respond to persons accusing you of being unpatriotic, or hasn’t that been a problem?
Fred: Some people view me as unpatriotic for attacking the president for the duration of wartime. They argue we ought to stay merged when soldiers are dying. We had elections for the duration of WWII and the Korean War, Republicans said horrid things with regards to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but our nation survived. I find it ironic that Republicans were vicious in their attacks upon Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, but now assert we ought to keep away from attacking the president–of course today, he is a Republican. The essence of patriotism is fighting for one’s beliefs. In entering the US Army I took a solemn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and it was made clear that if a president violated that document, our introductory obligation was to the Constitution, not to the president. If I fail to attack and criticize a president who violates the Constitution, then I am derelict in my responsibilities as a citizen.
Saddam Hussein never attacked this nation. Our president lied to the American people regarding reasons for going to war. I wholly supported our attacks in Afghanistan versus those who initiated the 9/11 attacks. I agree with the view of the new prime minister of England, Gordon Brown, who is now arguing terrorism is best handled by police forces. You can’t have a war versus an abstraction –terrorism. In terms of America, our law enforcement personnel will best handle terrorism.
I will have to confess to a heap of sensations of disgust when those who have never fought for their nation attack the patriotism of those who served–what Republicans did to John Kerry was unpardonable. I do not question the patriotism or commitment of any American; such words are not part of the American way of life.
Tyler: Fred, I brought up earlier that you likewise have written “George Bush on the Planet of Xul.” Would you tell us a little bit with regards to that book? I’m assuming it is also a satire of the Bush administration, so why did you feel the need to write this second book, “Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in Hell”?
Fred: I am a science fiction addict so writing science fiction is portion of my dream. One day while reading a sci-fi novel the idea just entered my mind, “What would take place if aliens got in contact with George Bush?–They would go crazy attempting to grasp his mind.” The book is with regards to aliens from the planet of Xul who take Bush to their planet and then fetch a host of persons from Earth who may aid decipher the manner in which his mind functions. Oh, the humans run range from businessmen, writers, politicians, actors, comedians, and so on. I had fun with Whoopie Goldberg giving the Xulians her version of Bush’s mind or how soldiers fighting in Iraq view him and Cindy Sheehan in the end gets a shot at Bush and there is even a Seinfeld episode in which Kramer explains to the Xulians how the war in Iraq may be ended. At the conclusion of the book, Bush takes on the universe. In all honesty, I am often confused how his mind functions. The other day he indicated opposition to a new bill that would give medical care to children on grounds it was the introductory step on the road to socialism. Or, opposing the Congressional proposal for a 3.5% compensate raise for soldiers on grounds it was “excessive.” He sees things in his own inimitable way and I thought possibly aliens could figure it out. I can’t.
Tyler: Do you have plans for future satires on American politics? Next year, if the Democrats are elected to office, do you think you will satirize them, disregarding of party lines?
Fred: As a satirist, there is no question I would love Giuliani or Ron Paul to get elected. In fact, right now I’m playing around with a title, “The Seven Faces of Rudy G.” Hillary would be fun to poke fun at because she so oftentimes acts severe and a bit pompous, but Barack Obama is tough because he has this fresh young face. I may never get straight whether it is Ron Paul or Paul Ron. I would struggle with John McCain because the man has suffered so much and been through a outstanding deal of pain, it would be cruel to go after him. Rudy reminds me of the wicked stepmother in Snow White who is always asking the mirror, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is fairest of them all.” Anyway, if one believes in satire then no one is exempt.
Tyler: Fred, thank you for joining me today. Before we go, please let our readers know where they may find out more data when it comes to “Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in Hell.”
Fred: Currently there are three methods. You may go to Amazon.com, order it through your local Border’s Bookstore, or you may buy a copy directly from my political blog, http://www.TheImpudentObserver.com, where I will compensate shipping and personally autograph each single copy sent out.
Tyler: Thank you, Fred. I’m sure the book will become very standard with readers. I hope you have a bestseller on your hands.
Review
“Rigorous, honest, devastating; I couldn’t put it down.” — Vanessa Redgrave
“Gripping, furious and very severe indeed”. — John le Carré
“Sands has written a page-turning investigation into one of the darkest mysteries in American history: how a country that has led the world on humane rights came to hug a policy of barbaric abuse. One by one, he corners the suspects and sifts the clues, shedding new light at each step along the way.” – Jane Mayer, staff writer, The New Yorker MagazineOn December 2, 2002 the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed his name at the bottom of a document that listed eighteen proficiencies of interrogation–techniques that defied global definitions of torture. The Rumsfeld Memo authorized the arguable interrogation practices that later migrated to Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, as share of the policy of extraordinary rendition. From a behind-the-scenes vantage point, Phillipe Sands investigates how the Rumsfeld Memo set the stage for a divergence from the Geneva Convention and the Torture Convention and holds the individual gatekeepers in the Bush administration accountable for their failure to safeguard international law.
The Torture Team delves deep into the Bush administration to reveal:Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #1115503 in Books
- Published on: 2008-05-13
- Released on: 2008-05-13
- Format: Bargain Price
- Number of items: 1
- Binding: Hardcover
- 272 pages
Reviews
84 of 85 people found the following review helpful.
Connecting the Dots, Examining the Apple Tree
By paul ferris
Phillipe Sands book brings together a lot that was already known with some new information provided by interviews. This book was valuable in that it places the information in a coherent narrative. Sands lets his Interviewees speak for themselves and succeeds in not judging them personally, nor questioning their motives, but only points out where the International and US law may be used to judge them and their possible guilt. He interviews Jim Haynes, General Hill, Doug Feith, Diane Beaver, General Myers and others, devoting a chapter to each interview. The overall effect of these interviews is at times startling.
Sands focuses his main argument on the fact that lawyers were not guided by law in their memos and advice to the President, VP, Secretary of Defense, and others, but were subservient to the policy choices of our leaders. To use a phrase of Vice President Cheney, the Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers tried to write the law from the “dark side.” We the readers are the jury who will decide if they stayed within the bounds of the rule of law.
I think Sands does show, in disagreement with Alberto Gonzalez, General Myers, and Jim Haynes that the mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo was not in response to a request for guidance from below but was the premeditated, concerted effort of the lead Principals and Lawyers in the Bush Administration to bypass Army FM 34-52. The timeframe of the discussions, memos and interrogation policies of Guantanamo all support that conclusion. There can be no question of coincidental connections.
Phillipe Sands convincingly connects the dots in my opinion. President Bush and his advisors made two momentous decisions. First, they set aside the Geneva Conventions and second, they augmented FM 34-52 with 18 interrogation techniques used separately and in concert. These interrogations left Al-Qahanti, the first target of this new policy, in the words of one Army interrogator, with “eyes, black as coals.”
In his interview with Dr Abigail Seltzer, psychiatrist, and medical expert who has had extensive experience with torture survivors, we learn that deciding whether techniques are torture, a lot can be gleaned from the reaction of the victim. The interview, based on the actual interrogation logs of Mohammed Al-Qahtani, Detainee 063, is chilling, to say the least.
Critics may find that Sands spends too much time on Mohammed al-Qahtani Detainee 063 and exaggerates the importance of the treatment of one detainee, but I believe he shows how the part reveals the whole. Philippe Sands is very thorough in his analysis of detainee 063′s case. He speaks with lawyers and medical experts to determine whether the treatment of 063 crossed the line into torture. His concentration, primarily on one case, did not detract from his book but strengthened it in my opinion. Sands also makes the point that illegal activity in regards to violations of Geneva Art. 3 can be imputed to a defendant based on only one case.
In one interview with an International Judge and Prosecutor, Sands quotes them as saying the Administration Principals and lawyers’ attempt in the Military Commissions Act to immunize themselves from prosecution in the treatment of detainees before the passage of the Act was stupid and may come back to haunt them. In rejecting U.S. courts oversight of their cases they open themselves up to judgment by International Commissions and Courts. It could lead to a tap on the shoulder if the Principles visit other countries, much in the same way that Pinochet was arrested in Britain for crimes committed while he was the leader in Argentina.
Underlining the seriousness of this book and its charges, Sands quotes Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote that acts against Geneva Art 3 are war crimes. The Supreme Court, in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, overturned the President’s decision and OLC and Pentagon lawyers’ position that Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda.
Critics are not going to like his drawing on the Nuremburg trials with inference that the US leaders and lawyers can be compared to Nazis. Sands is very careful to note that it is not his intention to make such a comparison, but only to use the legal principles derived from that era that are still applicable today. Mr. Sands does all this without swamping the average readers with a lot of legalese and jargon. Anyone with a patience and openness can follow his common sense approach.
Sadly this story is not over and much more is to come about meetings and involvement of top officials in the US government with torture. The Torture Team will provide an excellent bridge to future revelations and responses.
Postcript: On May 19th, Phillipe Sands revealed in the Manchester Guardian that the Pentagon has dropped all charges against Mohammed Al-Qahtani Detainee 063.
Postscrpt 2 Jan 14, 2009 “We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.
Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
38 of 39 people found the following review helpful.On Law and Order
By Roger L. Sayer
This is not a wild diatribe about the misguided Bush administration or an ‘anti’ anything. It’s a well written and well documented account by an eminent British QC (Queens Council) of how Rumsfeld bent US and International law to allow interorgators to use torture in the prison camps in violation of the Geneva convention. It exposes part of the shame that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld has brought on the great USA by invading Iraq.
Should be read by all loyal US citizens to make them aware of how important it is to use the voting booth in an enlightned way to ensure that an honorable and wise government is empowered.
29 of 30 people found the following review helpful.Useful study of how the US state reintroduced torture
By William Podmore
Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at University College London, wrote the acclaimed Lawless World. In this new book he investigates how the US state introduced aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
He interviewed key figures in the US Department of Defense, including Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Major General Michael Dunlavey, Commanding Officer of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo until 8 November 2002, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General James Hill, Commander of US Southern Command.
Sands shows that the highest US authorities authorised criminal acts. As Abraham Lincoln said in 1863, “military necessity does not admit of cruelty … nor of torture to extract confessions.” Aggressive interrogation techniques, as well as being immoral, are unnecessary because they are unreliable, and they are also counter-productive because they discredit the user, undermine the user side’s war effort and increase the risks to the user side’s POWs. A National Defense Intelligence College study of 2006 concluded that there was almost no scientific evidence to support their use.
Yet in February 2002, President George W. Bush ruled that none of the Guantanamo detainees could rely on any of the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions. This ruling was intended to remove all constraints on interrogation, as Douglas Feith confirmed to Sands. On 2 December 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed an `Action Memo’ one of whose four attachments authorised the use of eighteen interrogation techniques. These all contravened US Army Field Manual 34-52, the rule book for military interrogation, and broke Common Article 3 of the Conventions, which prohibits cruel or inhumane treatment and `outrages upon personal dignity’, without exceptions for `necessity’ or national security.
Further, as former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concluded in his report, “the augmented techniques for Guantanamo migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq where they were neither limited nor safeguarded.” US pressure also led British forces in Iraq to adopt more aggressive interrogation techniques, as Brigadier Ewan Duncan, responsible for British HUMINT operations, acknowledged to Sands.
In June 2006 the US Supreme Court ruled that Bush’s decision was unlawful and that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantanamo detainees. As Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “violations of Common Article 3 are considered `war crimes’.” All acts of torture and all acts of complicity or participation in torture are criminal offences.
See all 27 customer reviews…