# Our very own Gulag...



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

In a report issued May 25, Amnesty International described the U.S. as having established a, "new gulag," around the world, with detainees locked up in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Additional, the organization noted that our country had done considerable damage to the very notion of human rights, with our President and his Administration repeatedly and vocally arguing against the very concept that certain of our detainees had any rights at all--including rights to be safe from torture.

Here's the "Chicago Sun_Times," article:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/amnesty25.html

Asked about this during an AM press conference, the President of the United States said that the report was, "absurd," and avoided further comment.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

Yep, there's an impartial organization, Amnesty International.

I hear we tear up Korans, too.


----------



## Ender (May 31, 2005)

Where's the report on how al-Qaeda treats their prisoners?


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

http://www.thelawjournal.co.uk/Amnesty International Anti-US Bias.htm

From a UK source even....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

1. Please give your evidence for the claim that Amnesty International is in some fashion biased. 

2. If you will look at their website, you will find reports on EVERYBODY. I particulalry recommend the section titled, "Extrajudicial Executions," which can be found at:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-384/index

3. Please explain any grounds for claiming that their report--and their evaluation--is incorrect.

Will we be dealing with the question any time soon?


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib/2003/1306interview.htm

These guys think they're biased...but not as you might think. Which side is which...up is down, right is wrong, day is night.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

The Global Policy website makes it rather clear that in their minds, AI is far too conservative and pro-West, particulalry too easy on the US.

Will we be dealing with the question--why the hell is my country anywhere near a list like this?--any time soon?


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

> The U.S. Department of Defense said abuse allegations are investigated and it was continuing to evaluate whether detainees should be sent home.
> 
> Review tribunals also "provided an appropriate venue for detainees to meaningfully challenge their enemy combatant designation," the department said in a statement.
> 
> ...


A true gulag nation would have repressed the story, made no comment and probably shot the reporter.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

You're not going to actually look at the report, then.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

http://hnn.us/articles/5106.html



> The abuse of POWs in Baghdad and the legal no mans land constructed for the Guantanamo enemy combatants is nothing new, then, in the annals of American warfare. It is rare though that we get to see such explicit pictures of abused prisoners so soon after their maltreatment. It is also unique among the American public to have such a widespread suspicion that something is very fishy with the Guantanamo enemy combatants being denied any legal protections for over two years now  now under review by the Supreme Court. German DEFs during World War II were only left in such legal limbo for a few chaotic postwar weeks, before the vast majority of them were released and sent home.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

But to be open to the counter argument. Even the US military has some question as to the Presidents policy regarding the POW/Detainee enigma. They however have to operate within the parameters (and orders) given them...This is a paper from the Air Force Academy. 

http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Kaurin03.html


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

No, you're absolutely right, Mr. Robertson.  We must stop the abuse of the Koran _now_.  I'm particularly upset about the reports about that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Yes, thank you for quoting the History News Network site, which I hadn't heretofore seen. Good site--and one that, oddly enough, repeatedly prints articles and essays attacking Dubya's bizarre takes on American and world history! Of what I saw, here's my fave in this context:

"Tony Blankley appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" the other night, looking a bit ashen. As a panel member discussing the president's grave and gathering problems, the former Newt Gingrich evangelist and current Reverend Moon spokesman volunteered that even Republican support for George W is beginning to slip. This is bad, in his view. I'd like to relate Mr. Blankley's complete personal take on W's falling numbers, but, it being "Hardball," Chris Mouthews was there to interrupt and talk over the guest. So I can't relate much with certainty. 

Yet I have little doubt that Blankley and fellow conservatives would be in private agreement in identifying specific causes of W's decline and the relative harm each is doing. There's Iraq, of course, probably this nation's greatest foreign policy blunder ever. When you factor in the blunder's increasingly apparent intentionality, mere blundering then transmogrifies into the criminal."

Not much there of comfort to Bush supporters, I'd say. 

Will be be discussing the topic any time soon?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

How about the persistent reports that Republicans kick puppies and take candy from children?  I think we should all be very upset about that.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

What issue? That situations like this crop up during every conflict? As the supreme court is now getting involved I would say that our system is doing what its supposed to do. Look at a new situation and see how our law should apply. It obviously isnt happening fast enough for some folks....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Yes, thank you for quoting the paper concerning the Bush Admin's denial of basic rights to detainees, printed on the Adademy's website. Here is its conclusion:

"This paper had attempted to address a lacuna in the discussion of whether prisoner of war (POW) status and treatment will be accorded to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay: precedent.   I have argued that three cases, the American Revolutionary War, the US Civil War and the Vietnam conflict, all provide analogous points that we should look in thinking about the present case.  While the Vietnam case has the closest analogy (and several policy suggestions were made on the basis of the precedent from that conflict), all of the examples demonstrate that the United States has, even in cases where it was not required by the customs of war or international statute to do so, accorded prisoner of war status and treatment to enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities.  In formulating present and future policies regarding these detainees, the Bush Administration needs to take account, not just of what the letter of the international conventions and statutes say, but also what precedent indicates.  If they determine that past precedent is not applicable and/or a new precedent is indicated, (like judges) they must give a clear and compelling argument and rationale for the change in precedent  as opposed to just asserting that it does not apply."

Must I really go look up the Nuremberg trials, and the sections in treaties to which the United States is signatory, in which it is explicitly stated that members of the armed services, even in times of war, have an absolute moral and legal responsibility to refuse an illegal order--which, incidentally, is precisely what the UCMJ also says?

And, uh, Phil? The AI report actually covers the U.S.'s illegal detentions, beatings and physical abuses, aiding and abetting torture, and in a few cases murders, of prisoners around the world. But thanks for the attempt to trivialize a moral and legal issue.

Will we be discussing the topic soon?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

All of that pales in comparison to the puppy kicking in which we all _know_ Republicans engage -- when they're not twirling the ends of their waxed mustaches and laughing nefariously over the bound forms of young women lying perpendicular to railroad tracks.


----------



## michaeledward (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A true gulag nation would have repressed the story, made no comment and probably shot the reporter.


And you think that repression was not attempted? Amnesty International is not an American Organization (see the International part of its name). Seems to me, the powers are attempting to keep as much information private as they can. 

10 years ago, the government of this country created approximately 3 million items that were labeled 'Secret'. By last year, that number had changed to 15 million 'Secrets'. 

What are all those secrets about anyhow?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

Ahem.  The _puppies_, obviously.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

I just spent yesterday wrestling a power sewer auger through my sewer system because my kids clogged it with non-flushible baby wipes (I wouldnt wish that even on you Robert  )...cant imagine the mess a Koran or 2 would make.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Yes, "Sharp Phil," cartoons and toilet jokes are really a good way to deal with your country's possibly carrying out illegal detention and torture on a world-wide scale.

From tgrace's chosen website:

"While the Vietnam case has the closest analogy (and several policy suggestions were made on the basis of the precedent from that conflict), all of the examples demonstrate that the United States has, even in cases where it was not required by the customs of war or international statute to do so, accorded prisoner of war status and treatment to enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities. In formulating present and future policies regarding these detainees, the Bush Administration needs to take account, not just of what the letter of the international conventions and statutes say, but also what precedent indicates."


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

Dont believe I ever stated I was entirely comfortable with the whole "detainee" thing. As a matter of fact I believe I pointed out the issue regarding POW's and release at the end of hostilities once before...when do we reach that point? This "war on terror" is more like counter terrorism on a huge scale. Before, snatching a terrorist here and there and getting intell out of him was a small scale proposition and easier to "deal with". This is a whole new animal....New laws and acceptable techniques are going to have to be figured out.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Huh. Here I thought we already had all sorts of laws and guidelines to cover precisely such situations. We did during the first Gulf War, anyway.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

This isnt "conventional warfare". It's the same trouble we had with Vietnam (insurgents/intelligence/assasinations/POW's etc.) and never really dealt with. Now its coming home to roost.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

...and would it be, coming home to roost," because of our history of supporting dictators like Hussein and Somoza, training maniacs like bin Laden, and distributing weapons around the globe for the last fifty years?

And, oh yes I forgot, because of ignoring little things like our laws, our treaties and our democratic principles whenever we find it convenient?


----------



## ginshun (May 31, 2005)

According to that article 10 out of 540 prisoners have allegedly been abused, and it doesn't even say how.  Doesn't exactly sound like the Spanish Inquesition.

 Where were all the story's about the big AI report when the Taliban was cutting off American civilian's heads?  Funny, but I don't remember hearing about that report all over the newspapers, radio's and TV.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

> ...and would it be, coming home to roost," because of our history of supporting dictators like Hussein and Somoza, training maniacs like bin Laden, and distributing weapons around the globe for the last fifty years?
> 
> And, oh yes I forgot, because of ignoring little things like our laws, our treaties and our democratic principles whenever we find it convenient?



Do you want to discuss or argue? Always seems to be more vitrol to add....that always leads to discussion and open mindedness eh? Actually have some common ground on this one but you seem to want to goad....


----------



## Ray (May 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What are all those secrets about anyhow?


If we knew, they wouldn't be secrets would they?


----------



## ginshun (May 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "While the Vietnam case has the closest analogy (and several policy suggestions were made on the basis of the precedent from that conflict), all of the examples demonstrate that the United States has, even in cases where it was not required by the customs of war or international statute to do so, accorded prisoner of war status and treatment to enemy combatants captured in the course of hostilities. In formulating present and future policies regarding these detainees, the Bush Administration needs to take account, not just of what the letter of the international conventions and statutes say, but also what precedent indicates."


 So in other words the US has always been held to and lived up to a higher standard than the rest of the world, and now the rest of the world is getting mad because it is possible that we are no longer trying to hold ourselves to that higher standard?

 Oh the horror, imagine...the US having to only be as good as the rest of the world.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Uh....you might want to read the relevant posts. This quote--which is from a paper published by that hotbed of anti-Americanism the United States Air Force Academy, has to do with the difference between what our government is currently doing, and our extended history of respecting rights, even in wartime. 

And you also might want to go look at the AI website. They are extensive, and explicit, about abuses committed by Islamic countries and organizations--as I already noted.

As for two other things--a) the claim that I'm refusing to discuss or argue--could you, tgrace, please show me the previous places you'd discussed the issues and I'd ignored or belittled it? I seem to recall a few of these: "I just spent yesterday wrestling a power sewer auger through my sewer system because my kids clogged it with non-flushible baby wipes (I wouldnt wish that even on you Robert  )...cant imagine the mess a Koran or 2 would make." and b) oh--so the idea is that having served as what Lincoln called, "the last best hope of mankind," we should now just give all that up because, well, George Bush says that's stuff's all just inconvenient?

I kinda like the idea that my country is held to higher moral standards than others, because we have a history of behaving better. But then, I'm pretty traditional and unbending about moral values....guess I'll need to get with the new program of expediency.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

Why _should_ the United States be arbitrarily held to a "higher standard" when we're talking about _human rights?_  Either a nation respects human rights or it does not;  either it violates human rights or it does not.  To say, "Well, gosh, the Third World nation of Kerblogerstan is a despotic regime in which political dissenters are beheaded and in which those committed of spitting on the sidewalk have their hands chopped off, but they just don't _know_ any better;  I'm much more concerned that the US doesn't provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to terrorist suspects found on foreign battlefields," is both racist and _biased against the United States by definition_.

If the _standard_ is to have any meaning, it cannot be a subjective sliding scale on which our expectations for human rights differ from country to country.


----------



## michaeledward (May 31, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> If we knew, they wouldn't be secrets would they?


Okay Ray ... 

Why has the need to classify something as 'secret' increased by a factor of 5?

Could it be something embarrassing about the President's "Daddy" .... the term he used to describe the assassination attempt by the former leader of Iraq against the former President ... 

well, actually, we do know that by Executive Order, this current President has prevented the release of documents from the Reagan adminstration (The Presidents father was vice-President during that time). 

Gee ... maybe there is a dead fish on the coffee table.


----------



## Ray (May 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Okay Ray ...
> 
> Why has the need to classify something as 'secret' increased by a factor of 5?
> 
> Could it be something embarrassing about the President's "Daddy" ....


Well, I was only joking.  Besides, I'm all for Bush.  And I'm hoping that C. Rice and H. Clinton are the candidates during the next go around.


----------



## michaeledward (May 31, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Why _should_ the United States be arbitrarily held to a "higher standard" when we're talking about _human rights?_ Either a nation respects human rights or it does not; either it violates human rights or it does not. To say, "Well, gosh, the Third World nation of Kerblogerstan is a despotic regime in which political dissenters are beheaded and in which those committed of spitting on the sidewalk have their hands chopped off, but they just don't _know_ any better; I'm much more concerned that the US doesn't provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to terrorist suspects found on foreign battlefields," is both racist and _biased against the United States by definition_.
> 
> If the _standard_ is to have any meaning, it cannot be a subjective sliding scale on which our expectations for human rights differ from country to country.


Wow .. Sharp Phil asks a serious question. Who'lda Thunk.

Sharp Phil ... if Kerblogistan choose to execute its citizens randomly, what business is it of ours? 

There is a point where such executions become 'genocide', at which point, said executions become our business, but until that point, I think most conservatives would tell us it is *none *of our business. 

If, however, a nation is attempting to be a 'Beacon of Liberty'; spreading 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' across the globe, it really should demonstrate that those ephemeral ideas actually mean something different than the leadership that is 'despotic' or 'tyrannical'. After all, one would expect Abu Ghraib to be a nasty place under a Hussein government. But even the worst prison under the Stars and Stripes is expected to be a bit more humane. 

The President likes to say "Freedom is on the march." 

Think about this simile, if you will. Freedom - the ability to do, or not do, according to an individual whim. March - all in order, under command and direction. Odd, I think. Although, certainly it is not his worst assault on the English language.

And ... the point is, we are not living to our 'standard'. There are many tools we have to use on a circle of influence in the international community. In our circle of control, we have our own behavior. We can respect human life, human rights, and human belief systems ... even for those different than us. Or we can use those items as a weapon, abandoning our standard of behavior. 

And that seems to be what has gone on here.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Gee, Sharp Phil, maybe it's because of this:

"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America...assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together. 

May God bless you all."

Geo. W. Bush, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23, 2003


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

> Sharp Phil ... if Kerblogistan choose to execute its citizens randomly, what business is it of ours?



The same business it would be of anyone else running an international organization presuming to rank the worlds' nations' records of human rights, one supposes.

For a standard to have any meaning it must be a _standard_.  Normally I don't bother with serious questions in threads like these because they're self-parody.  Most of you who spend every free waking moment hating your own nation are caricatures -- so exaggerated as to be unaware of how ridiculous you have become.  

Once in a _great_ while, however, the spirit moves me to interject a little needed reality to the proceedings.  But please, don't let that get in the way.  Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks _first_ among human rights offenders -- and who believes an organization who would claim this is _objective_ in its evaluation -- is beyond rational thought anyway.  I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.


----------



## michaeledward (May 31, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> The same business it would be of anyone else running an international organization presuming to rank the worlds' nations' records of human rights, one supposes.
> 
> For a standard to have any meaning it must be a _standard_. Normally I don't bother with serious questions in threads like these because they're self-parody. Most of you *(1)* *who spend every free waking moment hating your own nation* are caricatures -- so exaggerated as to be unaware of how ridiculous you have become.
> 
> Once in a _great_ while, however, the spirit moves me to interject a little needed reality to the proceedings. But please, don't let that get in the way. *(2) Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks first among human rights offenders* -- and who believes an organization who would claim this is _objective_ in its evaluation -- *is beyond rational thought* anyway. I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.


I do my best not to converse with you ... probably because we are too much alike.

1 - Statements like this are preposterous. Please demonstrate where anyone who has posted on this board has at any time expressed hatred for their own country. 

You are a writer, are you not? Can you reign in the hyperbole, Mr. Limbaugh?

2 - Has anyone made the claim that the United States ranks 'first' among human rights offenders? If so, please document the claim, so that all can review the material. 

Concerning this thread, Amnesty International does point out legitimate concerns about human rights abuses by the United States. Please explain why recognition of these abuses negates rational thought?


By the way ... did you all catch this quote.



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> "It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of, and the allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth".


Suppose we should tell the President that 'disassemble' means to take part, and that the actual word he was looking for was 'dissemble'. I do hope the First Lady gives him a dope slap with Webster's tonight.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And, uh, Phil? The AI report actually covers the U.S.'s illegal detentions, beatings and physical abuses, aiding and abetting torture, and in a few cases murders, of prisoners around the world. But thanks for the attempt to trivialize a moral and legal issue.



And Like you have not yourself on other threads. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Will we be discussing the topic soon?



Hmmm, And when you get off topic and drag in your agendas, and others want to stay on topic you seem to not care. Why is it so important to you for this one thread of all the threads remains on topic that you are involved in?


Sorry Everyone, I just found those posts a little confusing to myself, from previous posting history of Mr. Robertson.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 31, 2005)

> Has anyone made the claim that the United States ranks 'first' among human rights offenders?



Amnesty International.  They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report that came out a few days ago when this topic was _news_.


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2005)

I'll just say that I'm not very happy about some of the things that have been done in my name.

Yet, I am forgiving of some actions done in the heat of war.


----------



## michaeledward (May 31, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Amnesty International. They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report that came out a few days ago when this topic was _news_.


first = a top offender

That looks like a falacy to me .... while the first is a top offender, not all top offenders are first. 

But, that little logic trap aside, have you read the report?

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/index-eng

The report does report abuses against human rights by the United States. Are you denying that these abuses took place? or Are you denying that what took place was an 'abuse'?

I have not read the entire report. But in the sections I have reviewed, I did not notice any 'ranking' ....that the U.S. was either a 'top offender' or 'first', as posited in your posts _(news reports aside)._ Here, however is a section of the report that I think comes to bear on your question as to why the United States should be held to a 'standard' - (any standard, whether higher than that of other countries or not).



			
				Amnesty International Report 2005 said:
			
		

> The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and counter-terrorism.


By not living up to the standard we have set for ourselves, in law, treaty, and word, we make the world a more dangerous place.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

1. That's odd, "Sharp Phil." I'm still working to teach students that  invective and italics are poor substitutes for rational thought, clear expression and evidence. For example, it might be useful to consider that if one considers, "the media," hopelessly biased, one had best avoid trusting, "every news account," when the original remains so easily available.

2. Mr. Parsons, I'd appreciate it if you'd cite actual examples. For that matter, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd discuss the questions I've raised rather than indulging yourself in personal attacks. And two other points: a) I prefer "Robert," but if you must be formal, it's, "Dr. Robertson;" b) I'm afraid that in general, I don't raise irrelevant issues. I simply see things differently than you. For example, several months ago I mentioned Freud's "bucket joke;" ("I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back already, and anyway it had a hole in it when you lent it to me in the first place") far from being irrelevant, it remains an excellent illustration of the defensive structures ("We didn't do this, we fixed the problem already, and anyway everybody else behaves even worse") visible on this thread.

3. I see that we're not dealing with what I conceive to be the issues: the AI report (which as was pointed out, no one has so far been able to contradict with evidence of any sort), and President Bush's explicit statements to the UN about our moral responsibilities as a country:

"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America...assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together. 

May God bless you all."

Those are great words, the sort of words that I was brought up on, the sorts of words that taught me to believe in this country as something special--a belief I still hold, for all the fantasies about hating America. 

I am sorry to see that some Amerians have so little faith in their country, and such willingness to buy into the lies told by cheap hustlers and greedheads over the last forty years.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 31, 2005)

MOD NOTE.

 Please keep this conversation polite and respectful.

 -Technopunk
 -Martial Talk Moderator


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 1, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Where's the report on how al-Qaeda treats their prisoners?


I didn't know Al-Queda took prisoners.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> first = a top offender
> 
> That looks like a falacy to me .... while the first is a top offender, not all top offenders are first.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 1, 2005)

So, let's see if I can follow this.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Anyone who actually believes the United States ranks _first_ among human rights offenders


rebuttal comment ... blah blah blah



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Amnesty International. They rank the US "a top offender," according to every news account about the report


rebuttal comment ... blah blah blah



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course they won't assert that the US is the top offender, they'll merely insinuate that.


Look how these accusations go from concrete, to something less solid; mere insinuations.

Okay, let's look at Amnesty International's accusations

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

1 - The United States continues to work to undermine the International Criminal Court.
2 - Greater than 500 detainees are held in Guantanamo Bay Detention (Some under 18). The United States Supreme Court has ruled these detainees do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System. No detainee has had the lawfullness of his detention reviewed under the Federal Court System.
3 - Throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, over 50,000 persons have been detained and were routinely denied access to lawyers and families. The International Committee of the Red Cross has not had access to all of these detainees.
4 - The United States held some detainees at undisclosed locations. There are allegations of 'rendition', transferring prisoners to other countries where they are subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.
5 - The United States is detaining 'enemy combatants' without access to the legal system. 
6 - The United States currently is detaining two 'Prisoners-of-Conscience'.
7 - Abuse of immigration detainees in Passaic County Jail, under the Department of Homeland Security.
8 - Use of excessive force by Law Enforcement. More than 40 people died after being struck by Law Enforcement 'Tasers'.
9 - 59 People were executed, including some who were under the age of 18 when the capital crime was committed, and including some with histories of serious mental illness.

These nine items are detailed by the Amnesty International Report. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll deny that many of the allegations are accurate portrayals of what occurred.


Which of these items do you believe is inaccurately portrayed? 

I am a pretty far-left-kind-of-guy (not, however a stooge). Here is the list of accusations. I am listing these accusations as proof that they are included in the Amnesty International report. I will patiently wait for evidence that these events are somehow inaccurate in their content, or inaccurate in their inclusion in the report.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Okay, let's look at Amnesty International's accusations
> 
> http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng
> 
> ...


 None of them I suppose, however:

*That* is the list of things that everyone is up in arms over?  

 1- What exactly does that mean?  Not letting our soldiers be charged with crimes by some European court?  Let the undermining continue I say.

 2- 10 of whom have actually claimed to have been mistreated.

 3- Basically the same claim as #2 except in the middle of a war zone.  Sorry for not shuffling off a team of lawyers to defend the POWs.  Maybe if we just beheaded them no body would notice?

 4- So maybe the US has secret prisoners, and maybe they are being moved around.  Quite a damning claim there.

 5- Again, same basic claim as 2 and 3.

 6 - Who are they and what exactly did they do?  If it is true that they are being held for nothing then let them go.  That one I can't make a judgement on without specifics.

 7 - Seems to be that the guards say one thing, the prisoners say something else.  AI takes the word of the prisoners over the guards.  Believe who you want I suppose.

 8 - Hmmm people killed with Tasers?  I have read other things about this.  Doesn't really seem to fit into the catagory of humane rights violations to me.  More that there needs to be better training for officers on when and how to use tazers.  Also, how many people would have been killed if we didn't use tazers?  How many people would have to be stopped with gunfire instead?  Tazers are less leathal, not non-leathal.  This is probably the weakest claim on the list.

 9 - So what?  Why should it matter if the guy is 17 when he raped and murdered a bunch of people?  And didn't the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom just remove like 30 or 40 people from death row because of this very thing?  Cases should be judged on individual merit IMO.  The age of the accused shouldn't matter, wheather or not he knew what he / she was doing is all that should matter.



 Honestly, if this is the most damning list of things that AI can come up with to try and claim that the USA is one of the worlds top human rights violators, than I can feel pretty secure in not giving a damn what AI has to say.

 To each his own.


----------



## Gemini (Jun 1, 2005)

Donald Rumsfeld is addressing this right now on all the news channels.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

People believe whatever supports their view of the world...or their country. Take the Taser issue. Thats been gone over many times in this forum, there are many sides and issues regarding it. If however you want to believe that the police are abusive jackboots who enjoy killing people with electricity...well I guess you take the one facet that supports your bias.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 1, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Honestly, if this is the most damning list of things that AI can come up with to try and claim that the USA is one of the worlds top human rights violators, than I can feel pretty secure in not giving a damn what AI has to say.
> 
> To each his own.


Again, someone claiming that Amnesty International is stating that the U.S. is a 'top human rights violator'. 

Can you show me where the Amnsety International Report states that? 

The report documents more than 140 countries. I did not see *any* rankings. But it seems that some people keep wanting to ascribe to Amnesty International rankings, and use these non-existant rankings to discount the accusations.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

A lot of what's been written in response is simple nonsense--for example, the claim that AI ranked our country as a, "top offender," followed up by the truly absurd, "well, no, they didn't but then they wouldn't they just insinuated it but no, I don't care to provide any proof of that claim either"--or a refusal to actually deal with the report.

What the report says--and again, I see that there's a refusal to note that AI includes almost every country on earth, not just this one--with regard to the United States boils down to this:

1. The US is the only superpower on the planet, and is currently engaged in at least two wars as part of a war against terrorism.

2. Despite its extended history of acting reasonably well with regard to human rights, at present the country seems to be violating those principles in several basic and serious ways.

3. The country currently has several thousand, "detainees," kept incommunicado in camps around the world, and denies that these people have any of the basic rights (including rights not to be tortured) outlined in a range of treaties and accords to which we are signatory.

4. As a result, people clearly have been beaten, tortured, and in a few cases killed while in U.S custody. The country does not seem interested in a serious investigation, let alone changing its policies.

5. At home, the US continues the death penalty, which AI opposes. We also have currently on Death Row a number of insane or mentally retarded inmates, as well as many who received laughably-bad trials.

That's pretty much it. Now I realize that some have spent the last three pages rolling around in Freud's bucket joke ("We never did any of these things, we corrected the problems, and anyway everybody else is worse") or in completely unsubstantiated claims that AI is somehow biased, but maybe somebody would like to try producing rebutting evidence or at least reasoned comment?

Until that happens, looks to me like denial--at best. At worst, looks to me like an ideologically-driven refusal to consider moral responsibilities.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Mr. Parsons, I'd appreciate it if you'd cite actual examples. For that matter, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd discuss the questions I've raised rather than indulging yourself in personal attacks. And two other points: a) I prefer "Robert," but if you must be formal, it's, "Dr. Robertson;" b) I'm afraid that in general, I don't raise irrelevant issues. I simply see things differently than you. For example, several months ago I mentioned Freud's "bucket joke;" ("I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back already, and anyway it had a hole in it when you lent it to me in the first place") far from being irrelevant, it remains an excellent illustration of the defensive structures ("We didn't do this, we fixed the problem already, and anyway everybody else behaves even worse") visible on this thread.



Mr. Robertson,

You first issue of citing points, I will take the time later to do so.

Issue a) May I quote you from an e-mail you sent me about, How I must Address you and address you with respect?

Issue b) This arguement if applied to you in this case could be applied to others with you in other cases, but you do not accept such arguements. Why should I accept them from you know?

As to my Bucket, I do not remember you borrowing any bucket, and my issue with you acting like a moderator about staying on topic, but do not care about other threads, as long as your agenda is heard, even if it from a differnt point of view then mine as you state. 

More later after work, as I do have a job I must attend too.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

Was there anything you wanted to say about the topic?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Hmmm which is worse, "personal attacks" (read:criticism I dont appreciate) or whimpy passive aggressive tactics like saying "some people are"..."I notice some posters", "one wants to know why some people" in association with comparisons to Hitler, Fascists, etc. etc. ?

At least "some people" get right to the point.


----------



## Gemini (Jun 1, 2005)

Robert,

Just want to address a couple of points.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Despite its extended history of acting reasonably well with regard to human rights, at present the country *seems* to be violating those principles in several basic and serious ways..


This may or may not be a true statement. Do you really believe that during the cold war, there wasn't the occasional "interrogation"? I don't believe that we've ever walked on water. We're just able to access information faster than we used to. It's a very real world with very real threats and we, as any other country will do what we have to do to protect ourselves. I don't believe (though no, I can't prove it) that it's ever been any other way.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. The country currently has several thousand, "detainees," kept incommunicado in camps around the world, and denies that these people have any of the basic rights (including rights not to be tortured) outlined in a range of treaties and accords to which we are signatory.


While no one is arguing that there are detainees, the following strikes me as a "sloppy" representation of facts.

_While at least 10 more detainees were transferred to the base from Afghanistan during the year, more than 100 others were transferred to their home countries for continued detention or release_. 

Detained for an undisclosed period of time and released. If they were transferred home for continued detention, there was probably a good reason for it.

_about 50,000 people *had* been detained during US military and security operations._

Past tense. To what degree were they being detained? hours? weeks? years? Probably a varying degree of lengths, but again, a very general and misleading statement. What were they being detained for? Potential connections to terrorism. Probably not going to get a lot of support given what may have happened if they weren't detained. 

_A number of detainees, *reported to be* those considered by the US authorities to have high intelligence value, *were alleged* to remain in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases, their situation amounted to disappearance. Some individuals *were believed* to have been held in secret locations for as long as three years. The refusal or failure of the US authorities to clarify the whereabouts or status of the detainees, leaving them outside the protection of the law for a prolonged period, clearly violated the standards of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance._

_*Allegations* that the US authorities were involved in the secret transfer of detainees between countries, exposing detainees to the risk of torture and ill-treatment, continued._

No proof, just allegations. These aren't "leading" statements? Statements written in this fashion don't "lean" in any direction?

You, more than anyone I've read posts from here require solid statements. How then do you justify this type of reporting? I find it shaky at best. How about they stop reporting allegations as fact and stick to issues like Abu Ghraib, that have been substantiated. Even then, maybe acknowledge that we don't condone that behavior and are dealing with it, which of cousre, was a small detail left out. I've read this three times now and am alarmed by the lack of real facts contained. 

Regards,


----------



## Michael Billings (Jun 1, 2005)

Please keep this thread on topic and do not make personal attacks.

 Thanks,
 -Michael Billings
 -Super Moderator--


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

Just to clarify, I honestly don't catagorically deny any of the claims made by AI. I do however find all the claims to be either based on allegations, very shakey evidence (if any) or I just plain think that what they are alleging isn't all that bad.

 And as far as AI not claiming that the US is a top human rights violator, what would you say is implied by comparing GITMO to the Gulag, a system pretty well accepted as one of the top human rights violation areas in history? I love how it is so easy to draw conclutions one way, but absolute stated black and white evidence is required the other way. 

  You guys can decide for yourselves as to how much you value this report.  I know I have.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

1. "Gemini," has a point or two--with which I disagree, but so what?

2. I'd say that AI was being very careful to distinguish between what they can document, what they've had reports of and can substantiate, and what they have had reports of but cannot altogether verify. 

3. Is anything in the AI report inconsistent with a) the Bush government's explicit theories of, "preventative detention," and, "illegal non-combatants," b) what we have good documentation of having occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba; c) statements by posters on this very thread that they don't care what happens to accused terrorists because you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?

4. Our Constitution, our laws, and our international agreements say explicitly that some official's, "having a good reason," to want people grabbed is not nearly enough. At the very least, officials must speedily justify their actions, allow accused access to counsel, begin a legal proceeding of some sort--and our government has explicitly and repeatedly refused to explain their actions (or even exactly who they grabbed), denied the right to counsel of any sort whatsoever, and refused to allow any legal proceedings. 

5. Have you read about Maher Arar? a few months after 9/11. he was grabbed changing planes in NYC--he's a Canadian citizen originally from Syria--who'd been placed on a watch list for reasons that have never been explained, was kept incommunicado (an unnamed official quoted in the NYT remarked, "We wanted more information...the only way we wouldn't get it is if we let him go"), subsequently shipped to Syria, not Canada (Rep. Markey of Massachusetts is quoted as saying, "The reason the US government sent Mr. Arar to Syria and not Canada is that Syria tortures people and Canada doesn't"), kept in a cell for ten months and beaten, "with a steel cable," and has never been charged, let alone convicted, of a damned thing. Syrian officals are quoted as saying, "There was nothing there." Apparently at his mosque, he'd met the brother of a wanted Al Quaida suspect once; and once, while trying to get cheap ink-jet cartridges for his businesses, he'd talked to somebody who'd later been suspected, got grabbed, was shipped to Syria, and got tortured.

OK, watch the man if necessary. Hell, tap his phone after you get a warrant. Maybe he needs to be on a watch list for plane flight--he wasn't, apparently; he took a flight with a few stops to use frequent-flyer miles, landed in Tunisia, and that's why he got grabbed. Question him if there's a reason; why not? Arrest his butt if you've got--sorry to mention technical details and the law--something resembling probable cause. 

We yanked him off an airplane, locked him up for two weeks, shipped him to Syria where we knew he'd be tortured, and eventually dumped him back on the street. Because some unnamed government official thought it might be a good idea. No crime, no warrant, no evidence, no nothing. And--minor detail--no apparent intelligence gathered at all. 

OK, show of hands--why is this OK?

One other minor point: philosophically (and historically) speaking, the reason we protect EVERYBODY'S rights is that this is the only way to protect  YOUR rights. That way, YOU don't have to worry about the government grabbing YOU some dark and stormy night because, say, some "unnamed official," who was embarassed about his department's recent screwups got a report that you'd been seen at a gun club talking to some guy in the next booth whose cousin was suspected of being an Al Quaida member.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

Nobody is going to tell you its OK, because its not. That was a valid case of wrong doing. To somehow imply, if that is what you are doing, that this type of thing is the norm rather than the exception would require some evidence, like you are so fond of asking for. I don't think that there is evidence of this.

 Am I sorry it happened? Sure. What exactly are we supposed to do though, let all the people being detained go free, because of it? I dont think so.

 I also think that you misrepresented Democratic Representative Markey's quote. I believe that his statement was an accusation toward the administation rather than a statement of a fact that he actually had evidence of. 

 Really, what this whole argument comes down to is that some people tend to trust the government and some people tend not to. Thats fine, the country is better off having both kinds of people. While nobody is 100% either way in their thinking (at least nobody with a brain), people definitly tend to favor one or the other. No problem, that is what makes things interesting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

Uh...the point of the AI report is that this was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. Additionally, this sort of thing has been all over the news for three years now. And--as I mentioned--the Bush administration has been very clear that this is exactly what they're doing. 

Since you mention trusting your government or not, let me ask this: since we have all sorts of well-established, open, public, clear and legal procedures for handling this stuff, why don't you trust them to work? Why do we need secret, illegal, un-Constitutional actions?

Or to put it another way: why don't YOU have any faith in the establishment of rights and the system of laws essential to a democratic society?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 1, 2005)

I tend to trust my government more when there is daylight shining on its activities. When things are done in secret, without checks and balances, my level of distrust increases.

What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?

What nationalities are they?

What crimes have they been accused of?

What legal course of action do they have to defend themselves of these crimes?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

Just got off the website, after joining AI--and about time, too. 

I thought you might be interested to read their October, 2004, report on our abuses in the current pseudo-war, given that there has been a repeated clim that a) we ain't done nothin' wrong, b) well, we did but it wasn;t systematic, c) everybody else is worse anyway, so what's all the fuss?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511452004


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?
> 
> What nationalities are they?
> 
> ...


 I believe the answers are "Classified, Classified, Classified, None."


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

"You want the truth!?

 You can't handle the truth!!"

 Sorry, I couldn't help it.  This whole conversation reminds me of Jack Nicholson's diatribe while on the stand in A Few Good Men.  I sort of think that it rings true.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

Uh...so we've got a carefully-researched report, a fair working knowledge of the current administration's actions and statements, and a basic understanding of U.S. law and history, and against that....

...movie dialogue?

But I agree about the, "Can't handle the truth," part.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...so we've got a carefully-researched report, a fair working knowledge of the current administration's actions and statements, and a basic understanding of U.S. law and history, and against that....
> 
> ...movie dialogue?
> 
> But I agree about the, "Can't handle the truth," part.


 Oh lighten up Dr., I said I was sorry.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

I didn't think that's what that, "sorry," actually meant, but fair enough. My apologies.

So what do you think about the AI reports, at this stage?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In a report issued May 25, Amnesty International described the U.S. as having established a, "new gulag," around the world, with detainees locked up in Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Additional, the organization noted that our country had done considerable damage to the very notion of human rights, with our President and his Administration repeatedly and vocally arguing against the very concept that certain of our detainees had any rights at all--including rights to be safe from torture.
> 
> Here's the "Chicago Sun_Times," article:
> 
> ...




The Evil U.S.A. 

Yes our country is not as clean as some think it is or as clean as others want it to be.

Yet there is always two sides to every arguement. Statistics depends upon sample sizes and populations and where those populations came from. This sways data. Yet, this is about how can the USA, be so evil becuase we do not support the issues the AI wishes.

So, I digress back to a previous thread where people stated that we lost more jobs over sees in the last few years, and when I brought up and quoted a magizine, the responses were still, even one job is too many, versus the stagering numbers lost to increased productivity based upon technology.

I also bring up this issue: From NewsWeek March 21, 2005; The Last Word - Anna Quindlen: 

She discussed the evils of the USA and not ratifying the CEDAW aka The United Nations Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. The countries that have not ratified are Sudan, Brunei, Somalia, and Oman. So the USa is listed with these countries in this issue. The convention asks for mandated percentage representation in the legislation and governmental processes. The auther finishes with, " . . . Even Iraq, under our tutelage, has written into its Constitution a guarentee that 25 percent of its legislators will be women. By my count, that menas someone owes me 11 Senators."

My reply and I quote the 19th Admendment:


> Article [XIX].
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
> 
> ...



Both men and women have the right to vote and the right to vote who they want too. Why mandate something that the citizens can handle themselves with the already existing process. 

I have heard some women even argue that the ERA propsed admentment was not needed, for if women felt strong enough about an issue they could vote people into office to address the issue. Also see the recent election of a Latino to the office of Mayor in L.A. 

So my take, it all depends upon what data you look at, what point of view you are coming from, and what is your agenda. And I agree that the U.S.A. is not innocent nor clean.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> The Evil U.S.A.
> 
> Yes our country is not as clean as some think it is or as clean as others want it to be.


I agree. And no nation ever has been eh Rich? 

Odd how people want to argue the good old days of America in one post then hack away at things like Civil War politics, Slavery, Indian oppression, Japanese internment camps in the next. 

This is no different than many other points in our nations history. However I do have faith in the core "goodness" of our Nation and its people that we will find our way through these troubling times and learn, at least a little, from our mistakes along the way....


----------



## Gemini (Jun 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Odd how people want to argue the good old days of America in one post then hack away at things like Civil War politics, Slavery, Indian oppression, Japanese internment camps in the next. .


It's kind of eerie that these are the exact instances I was thinking of when I posted before.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> This is no different than many other points in our nations history. However I do have faith in the core "goodness" of our Nation and its people that we will find our way through these troubling times and learn, at least a little, from our mistakes along the way....


I agree. I doubt there is any one of us personally that doesn't cringe thinking back on something we did at some point in our lives. We, as a nation, also have those moments in our history, and we'll have to live with things that we're not particularly proud of. At the same time, we can look back on things we should be very proud of.

Regards,


----------



## ginshun (Jun 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So what do you think about the AI reports, at this stage?


 
 Has the US done some wrong?  Ya probably.

 Are the US wrongs really as bad as the AI report, or maybe more acurately, as the media's coverage of the AI report seems to make them out to be?  Doubtful.

 That is pretty much my take on it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2005)

Unlike the "Gulags" or the Japanese Internment camps during WWII, Camp X-Ray is NOT full of random Muslims or people who held a political belief we found dangerous, they are people who, by direct action or direct association, took up arms against the United States of America. Further, most of them took up arms against the US in violation of the same Geneva Conventions that some claim WE are violation in that they took up arms secretly, they did not carry arms openly and they sought to hide themselves in civilian populations. There is moral equivalency here with "Gulags". Any attempt to make one is an extremly cynical brand of political opportunism and nothing more.

As for the following questions:

"What were the names of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, again?"
Some are simply unknown. What is known is that they are members of Al Queda or the Taliban respectively.

"What nationalities are they?"
Very likely Afghani, Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian, or any of a multitude of nations who have citizens represented in Al Queda or the Taliban (as they can be described as seperate entities)

"What crimes have they been accused of?" Depends on the particular accused. At the very least they are accused of participation in a terrorist organization who's goal is the destruction of the United States. That's good enough for me.

"What legal course of action do they have to defend themselves of these crimes?" Certainly not the legal recourse of an American citizen. I guess it remains to be seen what recourse they deserve as foreign terrorists engaged in world wide terrorist activities. That recourse, I hope, does not include a US style jury circus trial, but I guess we'll see.  I do remember the trials of certain Nazi saboteurs who enter the US via a U Boat during WWII.  Lets hope that the trial of these terrorists is something similar.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 3, 2005)

The term 'gulag' is not used in the Amnesty International report. The person who uttered the phrase certainly is not helping anything.

Concerning the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

We know very little about them. Any suppositions you are putting forth, sgtmac_46, are simple wild *** guesses. We don't know, because the government isn't saying. Also, the government is restricting the International Committee of the Red Cross's access to the detainees. 

The Pentagon did release a report telling us that, apparently, a United States soldier urinated on a detainee's Quran. Nice!

Lastly, the United States Supreme Court has said that these detainees, being held by the United States do fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Court System. 

You may not like it, but I was always led to believe that we have laws in this country to protect all of us. If they can do it to Hasim today, they can do it to Hector tomorrow, and Harold the next.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The term 'gulag' is not used in the Amnesty International report. The person who uttered the phrase certainly is not helping anything.
> 
> Concerning the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> ...


We know that the majority of them were captured during operations in Afghanistan against Taliban and Al Queda. It's a safe assumption that the majority ARE Taliban and Al Queda. 

As for Urinating on Qurans, it certainly sounds distasteful when it's played up to the hilt by AI and the Media, but it's hardly a blow torch and pair of pliars or daily beatings. If the worst abuse we have is a soggy Quran, there isn't much to complain about. Again, we didn't have to give them the books to begin with so I could care less who urinates on one, the whole concept is completely blown out of proportion for the sake of sensationalization for the sake of cynical political gain. 

The media for the last several years has been trying to PROVE abuse as Gitmo, yet the best they have is "Soggy Quran's". Last time I checked, our enemies were decaptitating THEIR prisoners. Apparently the soggy Quran story is the BEST that they have and it's nothing, if they had proof of WORSE abuse, they would have used it, but they haven't. That PROVES that is all they have.

As for the tired old "They came for the jews and I did nothing" argument, it's a bit stretched on this topic and is merely designed to spread fear for the sake of political discourse. I'll draw a firm line at dealing with American Citizens in this manner, so you don't have to worry about the slippery slope argument. We'll reserve it strictly for foreign terrorists actively engaged in violence against the US. Period. If they decide to come after you for dissenting against the government, i'll promise my rifle at your defense.

And lastly, some people might not like it but the the key is WE have laws to protect US citizens, "WE THE PEOPLE" does not include every member of this planet, merely those who fall under the protective sphere of the US. Our Constitution is a document that is a clear statement of the rights of US citizens, which none of these folks are. 

I know that might offend the "We want to be citizens of the world" crowd, but tough. I expect my government to protect ME FROM these people, not to protect these people from my government. Further, arguing that protecting our foreign prisoners protects US soldiers from abuse is silly in the extreme. It does nothing to stop our prisoners from being beheaded and it never has. US POW's have ALWAYS suffered far worse at the hands of our enemies than captured POW's in our possession, and how we treat our POW's has never had a direct effect on how US POW's are treated, so it's a ficitious argument.

If they bought the animosity of my nation through their actions, they should reap the whirlwind. In fact, as an example for those who wonder where the real political power comes from, I will hold accountable at the polls any administration that decides to deal with kid gloves against the enemies of my nation. As we've seen, those with my view have held sway in US politics recently, much to the consternation of many on the far left. I don't always agree with the social domestic agendas of this administration, but on the issue of the terrorists held in Cuba, I whole heartedly agree with the way things are being handled.

I also have to wonder why more attention has been placed on treatment of Prisoners at Gitmo over the last 4 years (especially given the fact that worst violation they have is "soggy Qurans), than has been given to the rest of Cuba for the last 30 years, especially given the Cuba has been one of the worst REAL abusers of human rights in recent years. Castro has REAL Gulags. Could it be that Cuba gets a free pass because Castro is a darling of the radical left? I wonder.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 3, 2005)

How very sad, sgtmac_46.


Oh, and one more thing.

The Constitution provides guarantees for citizens. It also provides guarantees for non-citizens. Why do you think they are detaining these 'Taliban' and 'Al-Qaeda' on foreign soil?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How very sad, sgtmac_46.
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing.
> ...


 Exactly my point, they are not on US soil, they are not subject to protection by our Constitution.

I've read the The Constitution and it provides no comment on the issue of non-citizens.  See as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's very clear from the preamble what the Constitution was created for.  "To secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and our posterity" and "Insure DOMESTIC tranquility".  The Constitution makes not comment on how to treat foreign nationals on foreign soil by our military.  Because the Military is an instrument of national defense, it allowed far more latitude than domestic, civilian authority.  For that same reason, we have Posse Commitatus, which prevents the US military from operating on US soil as any kind of enforcement arm.  I whole heartedly support this concept that allows the US military to operate ONLY on foreign soil in the capacity it does.  

Again, find something in this http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html that confers rights to Non-US citizens on foreign soil by the US constitution and i'll concede the point. 

As far as the behavior of individual soldiers at Gitmo, if that behavior served no relavent interrogation purpose, meaning that it wasn't used to gain useful information to aid the US, it was horseplay by the soldiers that can't be tolerated from a discipline standpoint.  Soldiers who engage in it should be discipline.  That, however, is FAR from saying that this is some sort of GREAT crisis of abuse, as it is not.  Those who are using the this to embarass the administration are doing nothing but engaging in a cynical form of political opportunism.  I stand by that statement.  A few wet Quran's is not in the same LEAGUE as the abuses perpetuated around the world by other nations, especially our enemies.

Further, save the comments about how "sad" I or my comments are, they serve no place in a rational discussion. I would hope you were above such petty ad hominem attacks, and i'll just assume that it was a slight, and uncharacteristic, slip and mention nothing further about it.  Remember, it is possible to disagree and not be disagreeable.  I have strong opinions, but I don't take disagreement personally.


----------



## Matt Stone (Jun 4, 2005)

I usually try to stay away from "conversations" like this, because I'm not a political animal the likes of some others.  I rarely watch the news (since it is all biased toward one side or another - there is no such thing as a truly objective reporter), and my politics were decided when Bush won the presidency (as a soldier, though I am still a citizen, I am bound by my enlistment oath, regardless of what functional retard is in power).

But I get really tired of all the liberal whiners citing Abu Grahib as the be all/end all to US "oppression."  That was a solitary incident, and the individuals responsible are being dealt with.  Period.  Blaming the entire military, or the entire Government, is ridiculous.  Certainly, Bush is "ultimately" responsible, but do any of his critics fully grasp the fact that he simply can't be aware of 100% of everything that goes on in every foxhole over there?  Puh-lease...

Lastly, sure we do some things on occasion that aren't on the up and up.  Every country and every government does that.  We're human and not quite as fully civilized as we'd like others to believe.  Humans are violent and passionate, and when we are injured we retaliate.  However, I'll say that we probably do a much better job of retaliating and concerning ourselves to some degree about what happens to the bad guy than most other countries.  We don't have thousands of people abducted by Government agents, never to be seen again.  We don't execute people in the street for lifting a veil from their face.  We don't cane vandals repeatedly for their first violation (though I suspect there'd be a lot less graffitti if we did).  We do a pretty good job, all things considered.

Some folks lack perspective, and though they haven't "said" they hate their country, the sentiment is easy enough to see when you read what they write.  Critical is one thing, but I have yet to see some of these folks ever mention all the good we've done in Iraq (like bringing running water, electricity, and other modern concepts to rural areas that have been living in the 16th century thanks to Saddam and his philanthropic regime)...

I'm done here.  Enjoy.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 5, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> We don't have thousands of people abducted by Government agents, never to be seen again.


How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?



			
				Matt Stone said:
			
		

> We don't execute people in the street for lifting a veil from their face..


One of those who died in an Iraqi detention facility, while under U.S. supervision, and at the hand of U.S. soldiers, was a taxi driver. He was detained without charge.


Who needs rules, when we can have exceptions?


----------



## ginshun (Jun 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?


 How much of this do you know for a fact is going on?  None, because just buy the very nature of that statement and the clandestine themes it implies, nobdy can possibly know how much (or even if ) this type of thing is actually happening.  Its easy to make the accusation, but impossible to prove one way or the other.

 Whether or not you assume it is happening and publisize it as such depends on your political motives and opinions on our government, nothing more.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?


"Abduct" must be a strange euphemism for taking enemy terrorists prisoner and detaining them so they can't "BLOW UP MORE AIRLINERS!" 

A better set question for you, michael, is 

A) How many enemy terrorists should we allow to run free to appease your bizarre set of imaginary rules? I guess you'd prefer we just opened the gate and allowed all those Al Queda operatives and former Taliban to just leave? 

B) Who is going to be responsible for them? Are you going personally vouche for them? 

C) If we DO allow those people to run free, at what point will WE be responsible when they kill more US citizens? 

I'd like the answer to these questions before I answer yours.
Without clear answers to these questions, i'd prefer they just stay where they're at, thank you.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> One of those who died in an Iraqi detention facility, while under U.S. supervision, and at the hand of U.S. soldiers, was a taxi driver. He was detained without charge.


Really? So you're suggesting that he was "only a cab driver" because a real terrorist would have surely listed his job title as "terrorist" and not "taxi driver"? If only they were that honest. Actually, taxi driver is about as good a cover for a terrorist as there is, it affords plenty of freedom of movement, gives you a reason to drive a car around with lots of different people in it, and gives you "deniability" (at least that's what i'm sure he thought). 




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Who needs rules, when we can have exceptions?


 I gave you a list of the rules, and you haven't shown me where we are violating them. You keep referring to vague "rules" but you've yet to list those rules. Sounds like these rules may only exist in the heads of those claiming we are "violating" them.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 6, 2005)

I am a liberal, or atleast I consider myself one, but not going to sit here and support a leftist organization for the sake of them being leftist. I would never consider Amnesty International a reliable source of anything. Amnesty International has its own agenda. I am sorry, I just dont see Amnesty International as involved in leftist run countries where human rights violations are just as severe as in right wing countries. Human Rights violations must supersede ideologies, I simply feel that Amnesty closes its eyes when the nation is run by a leftist government. Do I favor leftist governments? Of course I do, but human rights should be a universal concept that should transcend ideologies, and I do not feel that Amnesty does a good job at this.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 6, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> I am a liberal, or atleast I consider myself one, but not going to sit here and support a leftist organization for the sake of them being leftist. I would never consider Amnesty International a reliable source of anything. Amnesty International has its own agenda. I am sorry, I just dont see Amnesty International as involved in leftist run countries were human rights violations are just as severe as in right wing countries. Human Rights violations must supersede ideologies, I simply feel that Amnesty closes its eyes when the nation is run by a leftist government. Do I favor leftist governments? Of course I do, but human rights should be a universal concept that should transcend ideologies, and I do not feel that Amnesty does a good job at this.


On that we can agree. That's the problem i've had recently with AI. They'll on the one hand ignore human rights abuses by Castro, but attack US law enforcement with slanted claims and bogus evidence for reasonable arrest practices. A political agenda is very clear.

Or, perhaps it isn't quite so sinister, perhaps it's just laziness.  Criticizing the excesses of a free society are FAR EASIER than penetrating a closed one.  Perhaps they just picked the path of least resistance.  Not too much danger in criticizing a free society.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 6, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> How much of this do you know for a fact is going on? None, because just buy the very nature of that statement and the clandestine themes it implies, nobdy can possibly know how much (or even if ) this type of thing is actually happening. Its easy to make the accusation, but impossible to prove one way or the other.
> 
> Whether or not you assume it is happening and publisize it as such depends on your political motives and opinions on our government, nothing more.


There are currently, approximately, 540 people being detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Is there a list of the names, nationalities, and charges? Have their families been notified of their whereabouts? Have their countries been given access to the information regarding their detention? I'm pretty certain, we have extradition treaties with many of those countries (we've muscled the countries into those agreements against the International Criminal Court). 

Of course, we can completely disregard the united states supreme courts' ruling that these detainees must have access to the federal court system. Damn Activist Judges (how many were appointed by Republicans?).

Anyhow ... here is an example of our government. Do you support this?



> *Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in Syria*
> 
> *Canadian's Case Called Typical of CIA*
> 
> ...


Let's continue.... Questions from sgtmac_46 ... whom I should not respond to after our last exchange, but as he asks serious questions ... 





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A) How many enemy terrorists should we allow to run free to appease your bizarre set of imaginary rules? I guess you'd prefer we just opened the gate and allowed all those Al Queda operatives and former Taliban to just leave?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A - Any enemy (or friendly) terrorist should absolutely be allowed to run free. Right up to the point where they break a law. As soon as the conspiracy is put in place, then law enforcement should have appropriate tools to bring charges before a grand jury, leading to warrants for arrest, trial, and if convicted, enprisonment. 



B - As with any 'Free' society, they (friendly terrorists - as well as enemy terrorists) are responsible for themselves. Our 'Free' society is said to be a 'Nation of Laws'. If someone choose to break a law, by planning or committing an act of terrorism, our system of jurisprudence demands penalties be paid by the offender. We do not visit the sins of the father on the son, in our enlightenment. 

C - Because we, in our enlightenment, do *not* visit the sins of the father on the son, *WE* will never be responsible for what they do. 

If, however, we bomb the stone-aged Afghanistan back to the paleolithic age, because 15 Saudi citizens committed the crime of hi-jacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, we *are *responsible for what happens in Afghanistan.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that he was "only a cab driver" because a real terrorist would have surely listed his job title as "terrorist" and not "taxi driver"? If only they were that honest. Actually, taxi driver is about as good a cover for a terrorist as there is, it affords plenty of freedom of movement, gives you a reason to drive a car around with lots of different people in it, and gives you "deniability" (at least that's what i'm sure he thought)


So, let's see if I can follow this logic. The military picks up a person in Iraq. They state they are a 'taxi driver'. They were driving a 'taxi' when we picked them up. But, *because he was picked up in Iraq*, he must be lying. This type of thinking certainly encourages dropping a few dozen thermonuclear devices on the country - kill all people - because they are all just terrorists, with day jobs. 







			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I gave you a list of the rules, and you haven't shown me where we are violating them. You keep referring to vague "rules" but you've yet to list those rules. Sounds like these rules may only exist in the heads of those claiming we are "violating" them.


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are currently, approximately, 540 people being detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Is there a list of the names, nationalities, and charges? Have their families been notified of their whereabouts? Have their countries been given access to the information regarding their detention? I'm pretty certain, we have extradition treaties with many of those countries (we've muscled the countries into those agreements against the International Criminal Court).
> 
> Of course, we can completely disregard the united states supreme courts' ruling that these detainees must have access to the federal court system. Damn Activist Judges (how many were appointed by Republicans?).
> 
> ...


Thank you for making your motives clear. Only a true idealogue would place the freedom of foreign terrorists above our national security and the safety of American citizens. Moreover, it shows just how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation. These were active members of Al Queda and the Taliban, and they will be held (with no real protest from the American people) until they can be properly dealt with. The fortunate thing for us as a society is that only a few idealogues even really care, and they are frustrated by their absolute inability to make the average American give a damn. The tide is against you, my friend. If it makes you feel less guilty, though, keep on keeping on.

"So, let's see if I can follow this logic. The military picks up a person in Iraq. They state they are a 'taxi driver'. They were driving a 'taxi' when we picked them up. But, *because he was picked up in Iraq*, he must be lying. This type of thinking certainly encourages dropping a few dozen thermonuclear devices on the country - kill all people - because they are all just terrorists, with day jobs. "

Wow, that's quite a leap.  Don't think you might be trying to build a little strawman to fight there, do ya'?  "Thermonuclear devices" indeed.  Try again.  Fact is, he was accused of engaging in terrorist activity.  Further, he 'claimed' to be a cab driver, and the truth is, neither of us know, so your assertion that he WAS "only" a cabdriver has no more validity that the fact that you got it off of a website that you happen to like.  I'll give the benefit of the doubt to US forces, as A) Terrorists DO have an interest in committing terrorist activities AND a cab driver is good cover and B) The US military has NO interest in picking up people who have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING but driving a cab, the idea is asinine and is a waste of resources.  If he was picked up, I place more credibility on the military than him.  Sadly, you place more credibility on the word of terrorists, but, Whatever.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 7, 2005)

Michael, just the fact that you believe in the concept of a "friendly terrorist" doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your post.  


 Not in my eyes at least.


 WTF is a "friendly terrorist"?


----------



## Ray (Jun 7, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> How about the persistent reports that Republicans kick puppies and take candy from children? I think we should all be very upset about that.


As a Republican I can easily deny that allegation...even if you have a fabricated video tape from Michael Moore as evidence.  We kick full grown dogs, not puppies...

It's the Democrats that take the candy from the affluent children and give it to the children who cannot afford candy.  I say, if a person can afford to buy his children candy {because of his hard work and persistence} then those children should be able to keep it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 7, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> WTF is a "friendly terrorist"?


Lyndie England? 

How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?

How 'bout the Jordanians, who did the dirty work for us?

How 'bout the prison guards in Paramus, NJ, who, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, used attack dogs on immigration prisoners?

How 'bout Alberto Gonzalez, who, convienently, re-defined what 'torture' is, so that it could more easily be perpetrated, and then deny that it was torture at all. And for this piece of legal legerdomain, he gets promoted to Attorney General. Not Bad.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Only a true idealogue would place the freedom of foreign terrorists above our national security and the safety of American citizens.


Well, I would place *your* freedom above our 'National Security' too. Don't know if that's any consolation or not. 

By the way, I would not place a terrorists' freedom above anything, if there is evidence he is a terrorist ... by why be bothered with rules of evidence (oops, there's them rules again). 

So, I think somewhere back there, you said you would address my question, when I answered yours ... 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?


_ 
... waiting ? ? ? 
_


----------



## ginshun (Jun 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Lyndie England?
> 
> How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?
> 
> ...


 None of those people, while obviously not the poster children for their respective careers, are terrorists.  I suppose your deffinition of a terrorist is just a bit more liberal than the average person's.  Whatever.


----------



## drdoolittle (Jun 7, 2005)

Just because you label someone a terrorist, doesn't make them one, no matter how many times you announce their pre-determined guilt.  If we subvert our own justice system for expediency's sake, then we have already lost the war, and are in the process of becoming what the terrorists accuse us of.

Maybe survival at all costs is ok with some people...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Lyndie England?


Lyndie is going to prison, by the way. Are you in favor of freeing her like the terrorists you like so much? I'm not. Why are leftists always trying to bring up Lyndie (Who's going to prison) or Timothy McVeigh (Who we already executed) as some sort of false point? We deal with our own criminals and terrorists, too.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?


 It was Syria, by the way. 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How 'bout the Jordanians, who did the dirty work for us?


 Again, how about that. We didn't do it, they did, and Syria certainly doesn't do anything "For US" 





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How 'bout the prison guards in Paramus, NJ, who, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, used attack dogs on immigration prisoners?


 Really, used them to do what?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How 'bout Alberto Gonzalez, who, convienently, re-defined what 'torture' is, so that it could more easily be perpetrated, and then deny that it was torture at all. And for this piece of legal legerdomain, he gets promoted to Attorney General. Not Bad.


 I'm only concerned if it works or not, not how pallatable it is. If we get good intel that saves American lives, then so be it. I took an oath to defend ONE document, the Constitution of the United States of America. That document guarantees rights to US citizens. You have not shown me one line of that document that has been violated. Sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities, but we do what we have to do, and if that saves American lives, so be it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, I would place *your* freedom above our 'National Security' too. Don't know if that's any consolation or not.
> 
> By the way, I would not place a terrorists' freedom above anything, if there is evidence he is a terrorist ... by why be bothered with rules of evidence (oops, there's them rules again).
> 
> ...


The safety of society above my own safety all the time, how about you? My wife and my children have to live here, and if that means that I have to be in danger for them to be safe, then so be it. If it also means that a bunch of terrorists have to live in cages in Cuba to make them (and you) safe, so be it. Aggressive responses to terrorists protects my freedom. The method you suggest would actually curtail my freedom. If it's a choice of my freedom, or theirs, sorry for them. You're welcome. 

As for rules of evidence, these folks do not have the right to a jury trial under the US constitution, i'm still waiting for you to show me where, in the US Constitution they are. I've already addressed your questions, you're making nothing but continued, unsupported, suppositions, and you have ZERO facts to back them.

Finally, and most importantly, America still doesn't give a damn. If all you're going for is a warm, fuzzy feeling about how morally superior you are on this topic, then enjoy the warmness, because in the end it accounts for nothing. That's the reality of the situation you're in on this topic. We know those folks are Al Queda and Taliban because the vast majority of them were picked up in armed struggle with US troops. There is no doubt in any rational persons mind that if they were free, they would continue terrorists campaigns against the US. It is only the idealogues who live in a little box called "academia" who actually believe that their idealogical spin on the world is the end all and be all of reality, who think letting these folks loose is any sort of GOOD thing.



			
				drdoolittle said:
			
		

> Just because you label someone a terrorist, doesn't make them one, no matter how many times you announce their pre-determined guilt. If we subvert our own justice system for expediency's sake, then we have already lost the war, and are in the process of becoming what the terrorists accuse us of.
> 
> Maybe survival at all costs is ok with some people...


We have not subverted our own legal system.  The idea that that is the case, is merely smoke and mirrors legal fear mongering.  Not one single US citizen is being held under these conditions, and I am still waiting for someone to show me in the single, overriding legal document, the US Consitution, where this is the case.  I've read it, and I can't find any protections for foreign nationals engaged in terrorists attacks on the US, OUTSIDE of the borders of the US, being protected by the US Constitution.  At the point at which ANY US citizen loses his rights, even if they're obviously guilty, i'll join Amnesty International and the ACLU and join your cause against the administration.  But I don't think they're wrong so far. 

Until then, foreign terrorists will just have to live in Cuba.  But hey, all my leftists friends say Cuba is a workers paradise, so it shouldn't be that bad.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2005)

so many errors, so little time ...... here's one.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for rules of evidence, these folks do not have the right to a jury trial under the US constitution, i'm still waiting for you to show me where, in the US Constitution they are.


http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm



> *Law Watch - Detainees*
> *Supreme Court Guantanamo Decision*
> 
> _Steven C. Welsh, Esq._
> ...


I will leave interpretting the Constitution to the experts ... like the Supreme Court. (Maybe *they* live in a place called 'academia')


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2005)

Oh, and ... sgtmac_46



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, I think somewhere back there, you said you would address my question, when I answered yours ...
> 
> ... waiting ? ? ?


Let me review the question for you, because you still don't seem to be answering it.....



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many *people* can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?


I've placed in bold font the noun 'people', because you seem to be confusing this word with 'terrorist'. Currently, we have over 500 people in Guantanamo. You keep claiming they are terrorists because they were taken into custody in some foreign country, yet no terrorist charges have been filed (see Supreme Court ruling above) ... 

And then there is Mr. Arar - who was not taken into custody on 'foreign soil', participating in actions against the united states, while you corrected me, you say nothing about the actions of your country, and go so far as to posit the torturers your country rendered Mr. Arar too are somehow, not 'friendly' to the CIA.

Was Mr. Arar a 'terrorist'? or was he a 'people'? How many more Mr. Arar's may be out there, about which we have no information? 

Again ... 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many *people* can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?


You said you would answer my question, if I addressed your three questions. I have. I'm waiting.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> so many errors, so little time ...... here's one.
> 
> http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
> 
> I will leave interpretting the Constitution to the experts ... like the Supreme Court. (Maybe *they* live in a place called 'academia')


Still waiting for you to cite the section of the US Consitution governing these rights.  Oh, and I already answered your question...As many as is necessary.  You haven't pointed out any "errors", as you haven't shown me the relavent section of the US Constitution.  I'll be waiting.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Still waiting for you to cite the section of the US Consitution governing these rights. Oh, and I already answered your question...As many as is necessary. You haven't pointed out any "errors", as you haven't shown me the relavent section of the US Constitution. I'll be waiting.


The Constitution uses the word 'citizen' and it also uses the word 'person'. If those two words were synonymous, there would be no reason to use two words. 

Obviously, we are differening in the opinion of the function of the Constitution; is it a living breathing document that evolves with the nation, or is it set in stone for once and all time, meaning only what it says and nothing more. 

It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has granted, under the Constitution, rights to persons within the boundaries of our country (which is why the detainees are being held, without charge, outside the geographic boundaries of the united states). It appears to be your opinion that the Supreme Court is making laws up. As it is the role of the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution actually means, I guess I see them as the 'highest authority' on the subject.

Seems that you casually disregard the opinions of the united states supreme court. Damn activist life long appointed judges. 

Who needs checks and balances anyhow.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Constitution uses the word 'citizen' and it also uses the word 'person'. If those two words were synonymous, there would be no reason to use two words.
> 
> Obviously, we are differening in the opinion of the function of the Constitution; is it a living breathing document that evolves with the nation, or is it set in stone for once and all time, meaning only what it says and nothing more.
> 
> ...


If you keep spinning like that, you'll get dizzy and fall down.  Section please.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 12, 2005)

The only thing held in that case was that the United States District Courts do not lack jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus challenge as to the status and charges of the detainee.  How this is going to work is beyond me, considering they are being held in Guantanamo, Cuba it seems this will open up the doors for forum shopping in this issue, the court did not go far enough with this opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2005)

This just in ... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_suffocation_case


*Soldier Said to Witness Prison Beatings* 


A National Guardsman testifying at a hearing for U.S. soldiers accused of killing an Iraq general said he saw classified U.S. personnel beat prisoners with a sledgehammer handle and mock the general's death, according to a transcript.

The transcript, obtained by The Denver Post, includes an exchange during the hearing that suggests the CIA was involved.

Sgt. 1st Class Gerold Pratt of the Utah National Guard said he saw unidentified U.S. personnel use the 15-inch wooden handle to hit prisoners.

"They'd ask you a question, and if they didn't like it, they'd hit you," he said, according to the transcript obtained this week by the Post under a court order. Pratt testified at the hearing in March.

The hearing will determine whether three soldiers from Fort Carson will stand trial for the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation in 2003.

The soldiers have denied wrongdoing and say commanders sanctioned their actions.

Most identifying information in the transcript was redacted, but one exchange suggests CIA involvement. "To your knowledge, SFC Sommer did not accompany any of these CIA folks?" defense attorney Capt. Michael Melito asked Pratt.

A CIA spokeswoman who declined to give the Post her name would not comment.

Pratt  who had run logistics at the detention facility near Qaim, a city in Iraq's western desert  said he recalled an official mocking the prisoners he was beating.

"Well, particularly after the general was killed. I don't remember the exact words, but he was mocking the fact that the general died," Pratt testified.

The Army said Mowhoush died of asphyxiation from chest compression. Documents in the case said he was killed with an electrical cord, and a Pentagon investigation reportedly says a soldier sat on Mowhoush as he was restrained headfirst inside a sleeping bag.

Previous testimony indicated the Iraqi general's body was badly bruised and he may have been severely beaten two days before he was suffocated.

Charged with murder are Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, Spec. Jerry Loper and Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who was not part of the hearing. Final charges are pending against the fourth accused soldier, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer.

The hearing officer has forwarded the case report, and Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Mixon, will make the final decision on whether the soldiers will be court-martialed.

The soldiers could get life in prison without parole if they are convicted of murder.

Williams' attorney, William Cassara, said he was sure other officials were involved in prisoner abuse.

"I have no doubts that other government agencies used methods of interrogation that were much worse," Cassara said.
​


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Most Gulags dont charge or convict their guards.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2005)

Help me, oh, great one, with the legal implications of this sentence ....



> The hearing will determine whether three soldiers from Fort Carson will stand trial for the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush


Doesn't that mean that no one has been charged yet? or convicted?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

> Charged with murder are Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, Spec. Jerry Loper and Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who was not part of the hearing. Final charges are pending against the fourth accused soldier, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer.


:idunno:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

You posted it..not me "Oh great one".


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Most Gulags dont even hold hearings on prisoner deaths do they???


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2005)

First ....

The hearing officer has forwarded the case report, and Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Mixon, *will make the final decision on whether the soldiers will be court-martialed.
*​Second ....

I wish everyone could get over the reference 'Gulag'. Some nincompoop used the phrase in an interview, I understand it was not part of the official report. 


Third ....

Please, keep defending beating a prisoner with the handle of a sledge hammer. That's find quality police work, ain't it.  

Don't you do it that way in New York?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050531-121655-7932r.htm



> An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/085051.php


> I do not believe for a moment that the majority of the abuse stories at Camp X-Ray are true, especially in light of the recent revelation that al Qaeda trains its operatives to make abuse allegations. However, it is probable that some of the stories are true, even if the majority of those stories turn out to be the kind of routine behavior accepted at most US detention facilities. *Abuse happens in prisons, and such abuse should be rooted out.* But if you cannot accept any level of abuse at a prison then you cannot accept any penal system.
> 
> So then how do the abuses at Camp X-Ray compare to the Soviet gulags? Are such comparisons fair?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2725531



> Lesser charges urged in death of Iraqi
> A May report obtained by The Post recommends that one GI be given immunity to testify against two others in the case.
> By Arthur Kane
> Denver Post Staff Writer
> ...


BTW keep up on making it personal, I enjoy it. Point out anything that "defends" these guys.

Again, from the article you posted...
*



Charged with murder

Click to expand...

*


> are Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, Spec. Jerry Loper and Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who was not part of the hearing. Final charges are pending against the fourth accused soldier, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer.


 
What are we arguing about?
:idunno:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

BTW. These hearings are similar to grand jury hearings. These guys have been charged, the hearing (grand jury) has been started and now we see if it goes to trial. I predict it will go to trial (court martial) but the possibility is that the charges may be changed/plead. Just like the civilian side. The judgementalism is telling.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Hello?

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2005)

Tgace ... it's Mike, not Beuller, thanks.

I'm not arguing. I am adding evidence to a thread with the premise that unreasonable abuse has taken place at American Military prisons. 

Maybe you heard, the White House squashed an Amendment to a bill this week that would demand the U.S. Military prisons actually treat prisoners according to the guidelines spelled out in the current military manuals. Apparently, Vice President Cheney thinks we need to keep sledge hammer handles in the 'interrogation toolbox'.

Over the past several months, additional evidence has been put forth that the abuses in Iraqi prisons was authorized further up the chain of command than has been reviewed or persued.

I'm sure there are some people who read these forums, and don't post. Our mutual dislike for each other need not be part of that information sharing. Sometimes I think you look for my posts just to bust my balls.

Have a great day, sunshine.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2005)

Why do I hate America so much?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Maybe you heard, the White House squashed an Amendment to a bill this week that would demand the U.S. Military prisons actually treat prisoners according to the guidelines spelled out in the current military manuals. Apparently, Vice President Cheney thinks we need to keep sledge hammer handles in the 'interrogation toolbox'.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201727_pf.html



			
				washingtonpost said:
			
		

> *White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees*
> 
> The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why do I hate America so much?
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201727_pf.html


You hate America because we treat terrorists badly?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

What does that have to do with the fact that the government will in fact press charges for murder when a soldier kills a prisoner...."sunshine"? (whats with the pet names? you miss rmcrobertson that much?) 

Kinda slipping past the point you were trying to make a few posts ago huh?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You hate America because we treat terrorists badly?


At least hes finally admitting it. Maybe if I removed the flag from my uniform we'd get along better.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Where again was I "defending" those soldiers???


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2005)

The problem in part here, is using procedures that violate the concepts this nation once stood for.  Part of the argument is that there are in fact rules and guidelines and laws even, that are being violated and broken, and encouraged to be broken, all supposedly in the defence of America.

I'm sorry, but you cannot have a system of torture, prisoncamps, inhumane treatment, and sadists be the front line in the defense of a nation who once was the shining beacon of human rights, freedom and fair play. 

Hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables is just not right, I don't care who they are. It's not the American way....at least, not the way of the America my family fought for through 2 world wars, Korea and Vietnam. 

But, this is a different America. One where people bang chest and scream that to disagree is "UnAmerican", that shields it's leaders from the views of the people, that has moved beyond that silly idea that "We The People" are actually in charge allowing for our elected Emperor and his cabel of Princes to tell us what we can and cannot do. 

This America, likes the idea of putting people away just because. It thinks it's ok to lock people up, without charge, without trial, without representation.  Just incase.
We actually have to argue wiether or not it's acceptable to violate an individuals beliefs, to not only violate, but ridicule then, humiliate then, and torture them, with some of us claiming it's all ok, just so we don't get attacked again. 

America once stood as an alternate to the Repression of the Soviet System, a beacon of hope for those in nations that lived under the iron hand of fear.  Now, it sometimes seems like there are those who would gladly allow it to become that which for so very long we rallied against.

We live in a nation where we gladly give up that which our fathers fought and died for, where laws and powers are passed giving more and more away, and we do it gladly. 

Some will say I'm a fool...or worse.  That I am encouraging softness, supporting "terrorists".  Neither is true.  We cannot save and protect America by defying that which it stands for.  Allowing this treatment, encouraging it, regardless of the "filth" level of the recipient is not right. It's not American.

You cannot save America, by ignoring what it stands for, and violating it's own laws in the process.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Yet these soldiers were still charged with murder. There ARE lines. Where they are may be open to debate, but there are "rules". Are they being broken? Im sure they are at times, will the rule breakers be immune? I dont think so. There may be perhaps a "do it, but if anybody finds out you are the one to take it for the team" thing going on as well for all I know. However in this current political climate I dont think anybody is going to get a free pass when the whistle gets blown. Currently Rove is the meat of choice. Note how few in DC seem to currently care about POW's or gitmo?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2005)

But it shouldn't be a "do it, but if anybody finds out you are the one to take it for the team" policy, but a "Dont do it or else." one.

The "Its only wrong if you get caught" rule is not the right one, y'know?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Ive posted my opinions at length in this thread and others but in a nutshell. Physical abuse=Bad, Environmental Controls (time dep., physician monitored sleep/feeding dep., lighting, uncomfortable positioning)=I have no problem with. And BTW for good or bad this isue isnt new or unusual. Every war has dealt with it.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> But it shouldn't be a "do it, but if anybody finds out you are the one to take it for the team" policy, but a "Dont do it or else." one.
> 
> The "Its only wrong if you get caught" rule is not the right one, y'know?



I agree, but do you think this is new or really party dependant? I wonder how many Russian spys were "liquidated" during the cold war under Dem. Presidents? How Vietnamese soldiers were treated? Civil War soldiers. Japanese Americans under FDR? Yes, we should strive to do the right thing. Equating Bush to Darth Sidious is kinda silly though IMO. Could easily be any leader in this situation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2005)

Party dependant? No.  But I would hope we would have learned from past mistakes.  The "Internment" camps from the 40's are a good example.  I've seen people strongly suggest rounding up all "moslem looking people" and put them in camps like we did the Japanese in the 40's.  In all honesty, other than really screwing up some peoples lives, did it do any real good? Would it now?  I think all it would do is encourage the acts we wish to prevent. America is not supposed to be a nation that imprisons others. Criminals yes, but not disidents (sp), and certainly not groups just because.

Anyway, Bush is more Alphred E Newman. I have the pictures.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 30, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The problem in part here, is using procedures that violate the concepts this nation once stood for. Part of the argument is that there are in fact rules and guidelines and laws even, that are being violated and broken, and encouraged to be broken, all supposedly in the defence of America.


 Just exactly what are those principles and when did we stand for them? I remember some nazi saboteurs who were secretly tried and hanged. I can imagine that we used some pretty similar methods in all of our wars to retrieve information from particular enemy spies and saboteurs. Some i'm hard pressed to find this idyllic America (nor any other country for that matter). We've done what we've had to do.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but you cannot have a system of torture, prisoncamps, inhumane treatment, and sadists be the front line in the defense of a nation who once was the shining beacon of human rights, freedom and fair play.


 Again, i'm not sure what ideal you are referring to that we once possessed. The only difference now is the amount of light that is being cast on the whole endevor. If anything, we are far more humane now than in the past. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables is just not right, I don't care who they are. It's not the American way....at least, not the way of the America my family fought for through 2 world wars, Korea and Vietnam.


 Actually, it is the way of the America that fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The insinuation that this is new, or is unique to this president, is non-sense. As I recall, it was that great american presidence Franklin Roosevelt who signed the order to place thousands of innocent japanese americans in concentration camps. By that standard, I find the incarceration of several hundred terrorists reasonable and prudent. 

As far as hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables, if a foreign terrorist has knowledge that will save the lives of americans, I can only say this....Red is positive/Black is negative.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> But, this is a different America. One where people bang chest and scream that to disagree is "UnAmerican", that shields it's leaders from the views of the people, that has moved beyond that silly idea that "We The People" are actually in charge allowing for our elected Emperor and his cabel of Princes to tell us what we can and cannot do.


 Could you be any more vitriolic or hystrionic? Again, compared to the excesses of America's past, placing known terrorists in to camps where they can't blow people up is the height of reasonable. This is America is different alright....it's far more humane than at any time in the past. It's also held to a standard far higher than is reasonable in dealing with inhuman monsters willing to kill large numbers of innocent people for religious and political reasons.




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> This America, likes the idea of putting people away just because. It thinks it's ok to lock people up, without charge, without trial, without representation. Just incase.
> We actually have to argue wiether or not it's acceptable to violate an individuals beliefs, to not only violate, but ridicule then, humiliate then, and torture them, with some of us claiming it's all ok, just so we don't get attacked again.


 Putting people away just because.....they're terrorists who were actively engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to attack and kill Americans. Oh, the humanity. Where is our tolerance. Poor, poor terrorists. Being held in club Gitmo, the conditions of which are far better than most of them were discovered in.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> America once stood as an alternate to the Repression of the Soviet System, a beacon of hope for those in nations that lived under the iron hand of fear. Now, it sometimes seems like there are those who would gladly allow it to become that which for so very long we rallied against.


 Imagine, a country where it's not safe to be a terrorist, and plot the deaths of innocent people. What kind of monsters are we? What happened to freedom. It's the right of every red blooded terrorist to engage in terrorist activity without interference. That's the principles this country was founded on, right? lol.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> We live in a nation where we gladly give up that which our fathers fought and died for, where laws and powers are passed giving more and more away, and we do it gladly.


 Funny thing is, most of those "fathers" who fought and died, would have gladly shot these goons themselves. It's not our fore-fathers that fought who are offended, it's the fifth-column who have sought for years to undermine what they fought for that are offended. 




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Some will say I'm a fool...or worse. That I am encouraging softness, supporting "terrorists". Neither is true. We cannot save and protect America by defying that which it stands for. Allowing this treatment, encouraging it, regardless of the "filth" level of the recipient is not right. It's not American.


 America stands for tolerance towards terrorists? Aren't we the same America who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in response to an act of war?



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> You cannot save America, by ignoring what it stands for, and violating it's own laws in the process.


 Nor can you save it through histrionics and false statements about what America stands for. America has never been a nation of tolerance toward terrorists and criminals, and we shouldn't start now.  The America you've described sounds more like the legalistic leftwing paradise of socialists dreams, than the real America I know and love.  Lets keep it that way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Just exactly what are those principles and when did we stand for them? I remember some nazi saboteurs who were secretly tried and hanged. I can imagine that we used some pretty similar methods in all of our wars to retrieve information from particular enemy spies and saboteurs. Some i'm hard pressed to find this idyllic America (nor any other country for that matter). We've done what we've had to do.


 Ever read the writings of the founders of this nation?  



> Again, i'm not sure what ideal you are referring to that we once possessed. The only difference now is the amount of light that is being cast on the whole endevor. If anything, we are far more humane now than in the past.


 Yes, today we clean the rubber hose before and after beatings, and place the chains in an autoclave to minimize infection.



> Actually, it is the way of the America that fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The insinuation that this is new, or is unique to this president, is non-sense. As I recall, it was that great american presidence Franklin Roosevelt who signed the order to place thousands of innocent japanese americans in concentration camps. By that standard, I find the incarceration of several hundred terrorists reasonable and prudent.


 And, these are all terrorists?  No innocents have been locked up?  Seems I read otherwise.



> As far as hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables, if a foreign terrorist has knowledge that will save the lives of americans, I can only say this....Red is positive/Black is negative.


 And, what if the person is in fact innocent, knows nothing?
 What if it was you who was falsely accused, kidnapped, hauled off and your johnthomas turned into a glow stick?



> Could you be any more vitriolic or hystrionic? Again, compared to the excesses of America's past, placing known terrorists in to camps where they can't blow people up is the height of reasonable. This is America is different alright....it's far more humane than at any time in the past. It's also held to a standard far higher than is reasonable in dealing with inhuman monsters willing to kill large numbers of innocent people for religious and political reasons.


 I can see you like the idea of a police state.



> Putting people away just because.....they're terrorists who were actively engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to attack and kill Americans. Oh, the humanity. Where is our tolerance. Poor, poor terrorists. Being held in club Gitmo, the conditions of which are far better than most of them were discovered in.


 Yup, all know terrorists.  Not a single innocent in the mix.



> Imagine, a country where it's not safe to be a terrorist, and plot the deaths of innocent people. What kind of monsters are we? What happened to freedom. It's the right of every red blooded terrorist to engage in terrorist activity without interference. That's the principles this country was founded on, right? lol.


 Imagine a country where everyone must present their papers, where failure to do so results in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Imagine a nation where speaking out about such things will result in constant harassment, or deportation. Imagine a country where the police have the right to execute on the spot. All because someone is a "known terrorist" (or looks like one anyway)



> Funny thing is, most of those "fathers" who fought and died, would have gladly shot these goons themselves. It's not our fore-fathers that fought who are offended, it's the fifth-column who have sought for years to undermine what they fought for that are offended.


 5th column? Arguing for the concepts that were once the foundation of our laws now qualifies one to be labeled "5th column".  Cool.



> America stands for tolerance towards terrorists? Aren't we the same America who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in response to an act of war?


 2 bombs that didn't need to be dropped BTW, but thats another debate. I also wasn't aware that that action was in responce to terrorism.



> Nor can you save it through histrionics and false statements about what America stands for. America has never been a nation of tolerance toward terrorists and criminals, and we shouldn't start now. The America you've described sounds more like the legalistic leftwing paradise of socialists dreams, than the real America I know and love. Lets keep it that way.


 I never said it should tolerate it. I said it shouldn't violate it's own founding principles and laws to fight it. If hooking up jumper cables to force a confession is illegal here, we shouldn't "farm it out" to some other nation where it is. It's not the fight I object to, it's how the fight is being waged that I do. 

 I disagree with torture, both on principle, and on the fact that it has been proven to be an inefficient means of extracting information.

 If your vision of Amerika becomes reality, then it is my deepest hope that the words and desires of Thomas Jefferson become a reality, that the despotic government will be once again pulled down, and a democratic nation put in it's place.

_"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
 --Thomas Jefferson: *Declaration of Independence*, 1776._


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Oh, and what principles?

This is one:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(4th amendment, U.S. Constitution)

Seems that the definition of "reasonable" has been changed as of late, and gods help you if you happen to look like "them". But, then again, several of our elected officials have repeatedly and publically lamented the Constitution getting in their way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ever read the writings of the founders of this nation?


 You are aware our founders hanged spies and saboteurs (terrorists) in very short order. We provide them with 3 hot meals a day, a Koran, and dry, comfortable bed. My, how things HAVE changed. Don't invoke the names of the founders without knowing how they carried out day to day operations.




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Yes, today we clean the rubber hose before and after beatings, and place the chains in an autoclave to minimize infection.


 At least we're keeping it sanitary.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And, these are all terrorists? No innocents have been locked up? Seems I read otherwise.


 No innocent Americans. I wouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. A proclaimation from a persons attorney, family or interest group that they are "innocent" really doesn't hold much weight. Lots of people proclaim innocence in the face of obvious guilt. It's the oldest ruse in the book.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And, what if the person is in fact innocent, knows nothing?
> What if it was you who was falsely accused, kidnapped, hauled off and your johnthomas turned into a glow stick?


 If they're innocent, they likely would not have been rounded up hiding out in a house packed with plastic explosives, maps of targets, weapons, and detailed plans for carrying out terrorists attacks. "What if?" is the oldest attorney trick in the book. It's designed simply to create reasonable doubt where none really exists. I'll give reasonable doubt to US citizens, I will not give reasonable doubt to foreign terrorists.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I can see you like the idea of a police state.


 I can see you like to make tough arguments personal. I don't endorse a police state. I support the rights of American citizens, and I will not support holding US citizens without due process, as guaranteed to them by the Constitution. I do NOT believe Constitutional Rights apply to non-US citizens held on foreign soil. Sorry, that's a point of contention we simply disagree on.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Yup, all know terrorists. Not a single innocent in the mix.


 Apparently that is the case, they are all terrorists. The vague "possibility" that someone is innocent is not enough to sway my opinion on this matter. Sorry.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Imagine a country where everyone must present their papers, where failure to do so results in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Imagine a nation where speaking out about such things will result in constant harassment, or deportation. Imagine a country where the police have the right to execute on the spot. All because someone is a "known terrorist" (or looks like one anyway)


 A false argument. You are trying to use fear to win this argument, by linking things that have nothing to do with one another. Keeping foreign terrorists incarcerated has absolutely NOTHING to do with domestic freedoms. So your hyperbolic and histrionic analogy has no basis in reality.

We can BOTH defend domestic freedom AND aggressively pursue foreign terrorists. That's why we have Posse Comitatus in place, to seperate the mission of protecting the US from foreign enemies, with the job of civilian policing. It's the job of the police to enforce laws while respecting the constitutional rights of individual Americans. The job of the military is to protect us from foreign powers. This distinction needs to be kept in mind, and not allowed to be blurred. I give the military far more latitude to pursue it's goal of protecting the US from foreign powers, than I give law enforcement to fight crime.

By aggressively persuing and destroying terrorists, we actually reduce the possibility of losing our freedoms. If we prevent terrorist attacks before they happen, we don't have to punish law abiding citizens by creating a society where everyone is suspect. Ironically, the torture of a few terrorists prevents the loss of freedoms of the rest of us. I call that a small price to pay. 




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> 5th column? Arguing for the concepts that were once the foundation of our laws now qualifies one to be labeled "5th column". Cool.


 The founding fathers were more in line with my thinking. As I pointed out earlier, they hung spies and sabotures. Your ideology is less rooted in their thinking, and more rooted in a bit of modern day political philosophy.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> 2 bombs that didn't need to be dropped BTW, but thats another debate. I also wasn't aware that that action was in responce to terrorism.


 Then you weren't aware of Japanese aggression. Not just Pearl Harbor (which could have been argued as a valid military operation) but the Rape of Nanking, Japanese behavior in Manchuria, Japanese use of biological warfare against the Chinese, Japanese medical experiments conducted on thousands of enemy prisoners of war, etc. 

In addition, when arguing that TWO bombs weren't necessary, you might want to keep in mind that the Japanese made no effort to surrender even after the FIRST bomb went off. It's more illustrative of the Japanese resolve.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I never said it should tolerate it. I said it shouldn't violate it's own founding principles and laws to fight it. If hooking up jumper cables to force a confession is illegal here, we shouldn't "farm it out" to some other nation where it is. It's not the fight I object to, it's how the fight is being waged that I do.


 Why not? If it's being done to foreign terrorists, it really doesn't make me lose any sleep. Fighting terrorism isn't a job for choir boys. If you want to fight monsters, you might want to hire a few. The idea that you can be polyannic while pursuing people who murder innocent people on a regular basis is not founded in reality. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I disagree with torture, both on principle, and on the fact that it has been proven to be an inefficient means of extracting information.


 It's actually not true that it is ineffiecient as a means of extracting information. That statement is founded as a means of trying to end torture. If torture was not useful in getting information, it would not have enjoyed such widespread use since the dawn of man. 

As a general rule I believe torture is wrong, but i'm willing to make exceptions when it comes to stopping people who blow up buildings and purposely murder innocent people. I'm not persuaded by the slippery slope argument, as i'm very clear about where the line IS and where it should stay.





			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If your vision of Amerika becomes reality, then it is my deepest hope that the words and desires of Thomas Jefferson become a reality, that the despotic government will be once again pulled down, and a democratic nation put in it's place.


 Again, with the histrionics. Running around declaring the sky is falling is not an argument. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> _"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
> --Thomas Jefferson: *Declaration of Independence*, 1776. _


_The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."_
-- *Thomas Jefferson* 

"Necessity is above all law." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"The law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation in others." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"[The] law of necessity and self-preservation... [render] the _salus populi_ supreme over the written law. The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. But those controlling powers, and his fellow citizens generally, are bound to judge according to the circumstances under which he acted. They are not to transfer the information of this place or moment to the time and place of his action; but to put themselves into his situation." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"He is a bad citizen who can entertain a doubt whether the law will justify him in saving his country, or who will scruple to risk himself in support of the spirit of a law where unavoidable accidents have prevented a literal compliance with it." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"We judge of the merit of our agents... by the magnitude of the danger as it appeared to them, not as it was known to us. On great occasions, every good officer must be ready to risk himself in going beyond the strict line of law, when the public preservation requires it; his motives will be a justification as far as there is any discretion in his ultra-legal proceedings, and no indulgence of private feelings." --*Thomas Jefferson* 

"Should we have ever gained our Revolution if we had bound our hands by manacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universal resource is a dictator or martial law." --*Thomas Jefferson*

Seems Jefferson and me are on the same page.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

The "torture gives you false results" argument is based in ignorance of intelligence work. Many times you dont interrogate someone hoping that something you dont know just pops out. You start with a baseline of knowledge gained through other intel sources and are then able to determine if what this person is telling you fits with what you already know. Dates, times, persons he met and where, verified from other sources. I think people have seen to many movies where the guy being zapped and asked "WHAT DO YOU KNOW!" just blurts out everything and the interrogators believe him.

That all being said Im still against torture. There are plenty of other psychological techniques that allow us to keep our humanity.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "torture gives you false results" argument is based in ignorance of intelligence work. Many times you dont interrogate someone hoping that something you dont know just pops out. You start with a baseline of knowledge gained through other intel sources and are then able to determine if what this person is telling you fits with what you already know. Dates, times, persons he met and where, verified from other sources. I think people have seen to many movies where the guy being zapped and asked "WHAT DO YOU KNOW!" just blurts out everything and the interrogators believe him.
> 
> That all being said Im still against torture. There are plenty of other psychological techniques that allow us to keep our humanity.


All interrogation is about cost/benefit for the person being interrogated. Physical pressure actually speeds up the process, and increases the amount of useful information. That "Torture isn't reliable" is a truism that isn't true. It might be accurate to claim it isn't moral, it isn't palatable, or it isn't ethical, but say what you want, it is effective.  Saying that torture isn't effective begs the question "Less effective than what"?  WHat method is more effective than torture in extracting information from unwilling terrorists?  Asking politely?  

No, we avoid physical torture in general as we humans find it distasteful, not because it is ineffective.

The question becomes at what point does physical cohersion becomes torture? Is all cohersion torture? Even psychological cohersion? If all cohersion is torture, and all torture is wrong, how do we get information? We just ask politely? That's the problem with polyannic opinions, they are made by people who have no personal role in trying to stop terrorists. It's all arm chair quaterbacking at it's finest.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Oh yeah. Theres plenty of "tricks" short of jumper cables, Ax handles and rubber hoses that are quite effective. However I do believe that the Libs just want us to hand them a plate of cookies and ask questions in a "non-threatening manner".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Well, as long as we're only torturing non-Americans it's all ok then.

I'm certain that every effort is taken to be certain that no Americans are treated suchly.

Maybe the same care the we take at the border that confused American Indians with Middle Easterners? The same care that still allows weapons to find their way onto our airplanes?

I'm sorry, I forgot.  Once we arrest someone and ship them to one of our concentration camps, they are deemed "enemy combatants", stripped of their citizenship and are therefore by default no longer Americans or deserving of protection under the laws of this nation.

There have been over 500 individuals who have gone through the system. You are 100% certain that there have been no abuses, nothing done inproperly, no mistakes? Especially when you and I have no permission to see those records? You trust those in charge too much I think.

Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Kent State showed that this nations governement will not hesitate to turn it's guns on it's own citizens. The reports of abuse in our concentration camps may be valid as well.  Denying the Red Cross access (which has been done) is in fact a violation of international law. If we are breaking one law, we are probably breaking more. What about the Canadian citizen, arrested, deported to Syria, tortured and imprisoned for a year on US orders? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) Oh, I forget, he's a Canadian, not an American, and therefore not worthy of the same high level of respect we give our own.

I'm sorry, but regardless of what may be gained, I cannot support a system that uses such methods nor holds life in such contempt. 

Stealing someone away in the middle of the night and hooking up his willie to a car battery will not stop another attack.  Maybe if the government agencies charged and trusted with protecting our border had been doing just that, the SOBs wouldn't have gotten in. Maybe if those charged with screening passengers at the airports had done their job armed hijackers wouldn't have gotten -4- planes. Maybe we'd be less hated around the world if we'd stop supporting terrorist nations ourselves, and stop being a global bully.  Maybe rather than giving social security to illegal immigrants we should fortify the borders they cross and stop them from entering in the first place?

But it is far easier to give up freedoms, to let those in power go through the motions, and continue to let our borders be a swiss cheese defence while playing global cop, fighting illegal wars, and distracting our people from our own domestic problems, rather than actually doing right for the country and fixing it at home. No, let us lock up our discenters in to "Free Speech Zones", racially profile people, and do open ended lockups of suspected evil.  The nation is turning into a police state. In ways, it already is. And I don't care for it.

As to Jefferson, please show me where he supported torture, unlawful imprisonment, and involvement in foriegn nations affairs.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Oh yeah. Theres plenty of "tricks" short of jumper cables, Ax handles and rubber hoses that are quite effective. However I do believe that the Libs just want us to hand them a plate of cookies and ask questions in a "non-threatening manner".


 One does not have to beat someone to get information from them. Nor do you have to starve them, parade them around like a dog or force them to watch you destroy something that millions see as holy. There are other, legal ways, that are allowed by law and treaty to encourage information release. 

My problem is with the fanatics who scream the "America for Americans, love it or leave it" crap who fail to understand that such narrow views tend to overlook our own diverse ethnic origins.  After all, none of us here speak Apache now do we?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 31, 2005)

Are we fighting to protect our lives, or our way of life? If we want to be no better than them, we could just surrender right now and be perfectly safe and sound.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Im still confused on how we have turned flushing a book into "torture". I recall an artist placing a Cross in urine and we expected the government to fund it. The same with leaving the lights on in a cell and giving dinner at a different time everyday to change the peception of time. Or placing them in rooms with no furniture or hooding them, making them stand etc. None of those do any harm to anybody. Heck some of them sound like basic training.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Would you say the say if the book was the Christian Bible?  Or if it was watching the US Flag being used as a diaper, crapped on, shreaded and flushed? Because if those are wrong, then it is also wrong to treat their "sacred" items the same way.

I'll leave the art thing alone...I'm still in shock over "Green Lightning".  Seriously, I don't consider Tom's example as "Art", but I do respect others rights to be, well, weird.

The rest, I don't consider torture as given.
Nothing wrong with hooding...unless the one being hooded is also naked, and being humiliated at the same time. There is a difference, a line, in my opinion, that seperates "US" from what thugs like Sadam would do, that shouldn't be crossed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Are we fighting to protect our lives, or our way of life? If we want to be no better than them, we could just surrender right now and be perfectly safe and sound.


 Both I think. 
My "life" is outlined by the rights and privilages granted to me by our laws and Constitution. I fully expect that if I am detained by a duly appointed officer of the law that I will have that "right to remain silent", my "right to an attorney" and that said officer will not play "hide the nightstick" with my hind end, or "crush the piggies" with my fingers or other bits. This applies to me as a US citizen. 

I am offended by the fact that our government has decided that it can scoop someone up, label then "enemy combatant", whisk them out of the country, strip me of my citizenship, and then beat, shock, brainwash and humiliate me, all without due process, all without being charged, all without a single shread of evidence or proof.  Just a "maybe".

It's true, the US Constitution does not apply to citizens of other nations.  But there -ARE- laws and rules that do apply to the treatment of foriegn citizens, POW's, etc. Violating those laws in the search to protect those same laws is not right. Period.
The enforcers of the law, and protectors of the freedom cannot be above or outside. They must work within otherwise they negate what it is they seek to protect. You can not have a free society without freedoms. 

As to those imprisoned, they need to be treated within the laws. Otherwise, we are no better than them, in fact we are worse. We are hypocrites. (sp)


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

If you want to compare us to Sadam heres a short list of some of his favorities.

Torture Methods in Iraq:
Medical experimentation 
Beatings 
Crucifixion 
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands 
Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife 
Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes 
Branding with a hot iron 
Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch 
Pouring boiling water into a rectum 
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board 
Extracting teeth with pliers 
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents 

Do you really think any American would be "tortured" by watching a Bible get flushed or a flag get burned? It may make them angry, but is making someone angry torture now?



> Gwynne Roberts, a reporter for the London-based Independent, describes her experience in a torture center in northern Iraq:
> 
> 
> In one cell pieces of human flesh &#8212; ear lobes &#8212; were nailed to the wall, and blood spattered the ceiling. A large metal fan hung from the ceiling, and my guide told me prisoners were attached to the fan and beaten with clubs as they twirled. There were hooks in the ceiling used to suspend victims. A torture victim told me that prisoners were also crucified, nails driven through their hands into the wall. A favorite technique was to hang men from the hooks and attach a heavy weight to their testicles.
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

And, if there wasn't laws and limits, would our "interegators" not use such methods? I believe some would say "Hey, they are terrorists, whatever it takes baby, whatever it takes.". 



> Do you really think any American would be "tortured" by watching a Bible get flushed or a flag get burned? It may make them angry, but is making someone angry torture now?



Well, to me, it's a book and a piece of cloth, so it wouldn't bother me.  I do know others however who would be quite offended. Is it torture? That really depends on how and who. The definition of Torture varies.



> Definitions of torture on the Web:
> 
> * anguish: extreme mental distress
> * unbearable physical pain
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Gents, I think I'm bowing out here.  Something Sarge there said a bit back made me think...and I owe him an apology. I got a little personal I think, and shouldn't have. My apologies sir.  We differ on several of our views, but I think we can agree we both do love this country, even if we see it differently. Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why we do live in a great nation, that right to disagree. Good posting sir. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/05/EDG3ID2LTH1.DTL


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Gents, I think I'm bowing out here. Something Sarge there said a bit back made me think...and I owe him an apology. I got a little personal I think, and shouldn't have. My apologies sir. We differ on several of our views, but I think we can agree we both do love this country, even if we see it differently. Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why we do live in a great nation, that right to disagree. Good posting sir. :asian:


 No offense taken.  It's obvious that we both love America.  We can agree to disagree.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, here's a surprise. Imagine my shock at reading this report. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01gitmo.html?ex=1280548800&en=a6168b0bcac7dd09&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


August 1, 2005

*Two Prosecutors Faulted Trials for Detainees*

By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, July 31 - As the Pentagon was making its final preparations to begin war crimes trials against four detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, two senior prosecutors complained in confidential messages last year that the trial system had been secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence.

The electronic messages, obtained by The New York Times, reveal a bitter dispute within the military legal community over the fairness of the system at a time when the Bush administration and the Pentagon were eager to have the military commissions, the first for the United States since the aftermath of World War II, be seen as just at home and abroad.

During the same time period, military defense lawyers were publicly criticizing the system, but senior officials dismissed their complaints and said they were contrived as part of the efforts to help their clients.

The defense lawyers' complaints and those of outside groups like the American Bar Association were, it is now clear, simultaneously being echoed in confidential messages by the two high-ranking prosecutors whose cases would, if anything, benefit from any slanting of the process.

In a separate e-mail message, the chief prosecutor flatly rejected the accusations by his subordinates. And a military review supported him.

Among the striking statements in the prosecutors' messages was an assertion by one that the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the members of the military commission that would try the first four defendants would be "handpicked" to ensure that all would be convicted.

The same officer, Capt. John Carr of the Air Force, also said in his message that he had been told that any exculpatory evidence - information that could help the detainees mount a defense in their cases - would probably exist only in the 10 percent of documents being withheld by the Central Intelligence Agency for security reasons.

Captain Carr's e-mail message also said that some evidence that at least one of the four defendants had been brutalized had been lost and that other evidence on the same issue had been withheld. The March 15, 2004, message was addressed to Col. Frederick L. Borch, the chief prosecutor who was the object of much of Captain Carr's criticism.

The second officer, Maj. Robert Preston, also of the Air Force, said in a March 11, 2004, message to another senior officer in the prosecutor's office that he could not in good conscience write a legal motion saying the proceedings would be "full and fair" when he knew they would not.

Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway of the Air Force, a senior adviser to the office running the war crimes trials who provided a response from the Defense Department, said that the e-mail messages had prompted a formal investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general that found no evidence to support the two officers' accusations of legal or ethical problems.

Colonel Borch, who has since retired from the military, sent his own e-mail message to Captain Carr and Major Preston on March 15, 2004, with copies to several other members of the prosecution team the same day, outlining his response.

In his message, Colonel Borch said he had great respect and admiration for Captain Carr and Major Preston. But their accusations, he said, were "monstrous lies." He did not, however, address any specifics, like stacking the panel.

"I am convinced to the depth of my soul that all of us on the prosecution team are truly dedicated to the mission of the office of military commissions," he wrote, "and that no one on the team has anything but the highest ethical principles."

Colonel Borch did not respond to telephone messages left at his home. Captain Carr, who has since been promoted to major, declined to comment when reached by telephone, as did Major Preston. Both Captain Carr and Major Preston left the prosecution team within weeks of their e-mail messages and remain on active duty.

General Hemingway said the assertions in the e-mail messages had been "taken very seriously and an investigation was conducted because of the allegations about potential violations of ethics and the law."

He said in an interview that the Defense Department's inspector general spent about two months investigating the accusations and reviewing the operations of the prosecutor's office. "It disclosed no evidence of any criminal misconduct, no evidence of any ethical violations, and no disciplinary action was taken against anybody," the general said. He also said that no evidence had been "tampered with, falsified or hidden."

General Hemingway declined to discuss any specifics of the two prosecutors' accusations, but he said he now believed that the problems underlying the complaints were "miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts." The inspector general's report has not been made public but was sent to the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer, he said.

Copies of the e-mail messages were provided to The Times by members of the armed forces who are critics of the military commission process. The documents' authenticity was independently confirmed by other military officials.

The Bush administration and the Pentagon have faced criticism about the legitimacy of the military commission procedures almost since the regulations describing them were announced in 2002.

The rules, which in essence constitute a new body of law distinct from military and civilian law, allow, for example, witnesses to testify anonymously for the prosecution. Also, any information may be admitted into evidence if the presiding officer judges it to be "probative to a reasonable person," a new standard far more favorable to the prosecution than anything in civilian law or military law. It is unclear whether information that may have been obtained under coercion or torture can be admissible.

The trials of the first four defendants began last August in a secure courtroom in a converted dental clinic at the naval base at Guantánamo. Before they could start in earnest, the trials were abruptly halted in November when a federal judge ruled they violated both military law and the United States' obligations to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

But a three-judge appeals court panel that included Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, unanimously reversed that ruling on July 15.

Defense Department officials have said they plan to resume the trials in the next several weeks. They said they also planned soon to charge an additional eight detainees with war crimes.

The two trials expected to resume shortly are those of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was a driver in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden; and David Hicks, an Australian who was captured in Afghanistan, where, prosecutors say, he had gone to fight for the Taliban government.

In his March 2004 message, Captain Carr told Colonel Borch that "you have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel" and academicians who would pore over the record in years to come.

Captain Carr said in the message that the problems could not be dismissed as personality differences, as some had tried to depict them, but "may constitute dereliction of duty, false official statements or other criminal conduct."

He added that "the evidence does not indicate that our military and civilian leaders have been accurately informed of the state of our preparation, the true culpability of the accused or the sustainability of our efforts." The office, he said, was poised to "prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

He said that Colonel Borch also said that he was close to Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., the retired officer who is in overall charge of the war crimes commissions, and that this would favor the prosecution.

General Altenburg selected the commission members, including the presiding officer, Col. Peter S. Brownback III, a longtime close friend of his. Defense lawyers objected to the presence of Colonel Brownback and some other officers, saying they had serious conflicts of interest. General Altenburg removed some of the other officers but allowed Colonel Brownback to remain.

In his electronic message, Captain Carr said the prosecution team had falsely stated to superiors that it had no evidence of torture of Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul of Yemen. In addition, Captain Carr said the prosecution team had lost an F.B.I. document detailing an interview in which the detainee claimed he had been tortured and abused.

Major Preston, in his e-mail message of March 11, 2004, said that pressing ahead with the trials would be "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people."


​


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 1, 2005)

Our system works great for dealing with the odd theft, or even the crime of passion murder. It is the protections granted American citizens by the Constitution, and it's the best system we can apply to both protect society and the rights of individual citizens.

Having intimate experience with the US civilian legal system (which is great if you're a criminal), I have NO desire to see it applied to foreign terrorists. The very idea that we should afford them the say protections is asinine and self-defeating. What does it benefit us? It keeps up some unclear abstract principle? Most of them would be back out, planting bombs and blowing up buildings in 6 months. 

I haven't seen anything in that article that remotely bothers me.  If it wasn't for intelligence value, I really wouldn't have cared if these terrorists had been subject to summary executions. If anyone expects me to get upset about these accusations, even if they are true, keep in mind that if I was in charge, it would probably be the same way.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 25, 2005)

Vice President *Dick *wants this language added to Senator McCain's bill. A bill that the United States Senate vote 90 - 9 in favor of.

Torture
"shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." ​Codify language that 'Torture techniques *are consistent with the Constitution*'? ? ? ? 

Please, tell me where the United States Constitution is consistent with Torture? 

You would think that the Vice President of the United States could parse a friggin' compound sentence and realize what it is saying. 

Mr. Fitzgerald can not get these indictments out quick enough to save us from ourselves.


----------

