Obama's Gitmo Policy Coming Home To Roost

[fagin]

Toontown, you seem a bit overly stressed by this. Put simply, if the only evidence against somebody is a confession obtained under torture, duress, call it what you like, then that evidence is not admissable in court.
If a person is a POW, there are certain conventions, which as civilised nations, we accept. POW's cannot be tried.
If they are war criminals, there are again conventions, and they are entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
If they are terrorists, they are criminals, and entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
What is too hard for you too understand.

 

[Toontown]

Great, another one of these guys on the forum.

Daredelvis

Great. Another word cop.

I find it difficult to believe that the term "rad muzzies" is more than your fragile little psyche can bear.

 

[fagin]

"Hitler-spawn ill-begotten rats big bad assassins for Allah narcissistic Taliban pretty-boys stinking dead bodies unsanitary schoolgirl-murdering slobs monkey-face in a very big crowd of very ignorant monkeys father-raping mother-stabbers schoolgirl-murdering father-raping mother-stabbers bastard."

Toontown - I believe your description is slightly incorrect - technically if they have fathers (even if they rape them) they can't be bastards.

 

[Praktik]

See though Toontown and BAC - consider this:

Maybe Obama is on your side. What if the judge had admitted the testimony of the witness found through torture?

The precedent would have basically put a legal shield around the use of torture on terrorist suspects - in a civilian court!

Maybe Obama was going for the Big Win and looking to legitimize torture with a legal precedent! His legal team, after all, was attempting to do just that. They were arguing for admissibility - they didn't concede that ground.

Can you blame a guy for trying??

 

[Toontown]

Toontown, you seem a bit overly stressed by this. Put simply, if the only evidence against somebody is a confession obtained under torture, duress, call it what you like, then that evidence is not admissable in court.
If a person is a POW, there are certain conventions, which as civilised nations, we accept. POW's cannot be tried.
If they are war criminals, there are again conventions, and they are entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
If they are terrorists, they are criminals, and entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
What is too hard for you too understand.

What is hard for me to understand is why Holder insisted on trying this guy in a civil court, knowing full well the judge would throw the confession out. He can't blame Bush for that.

Looks like a political grandstand play to me. Make a big political show about how the war criminal can't be convicted because the mean old war criminal Bush poured water up his nose.

If that's what Holder is up to, it's far worse than a harsh interrogation. The harsh interrogation was in the interest of national security. If Holder is doing what I think he's doing, he's just using the legal system for a political tool, in a clumsy play for political gain.

It wouldn't be anything new. The Democrats have been running against Bush, Cheney, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin for the past two years. I'm thoroughly tired of it. And so, apparently, are a lot of other people.

 

[Praktik]

They can be treated like any other soldier in any other war.

Oh cool, so I guess the Bush approach to gitmo detainees is fine for foreign countries to use against American soldiers.

Consistent my friend. That's admirable.

 

[DC]

Looks like a political grandstand play to me. Make a big political show about how the war criminal can't be convicted because the mean old war criminal Bush poured water up his nose.

When the only evidence against someone stems from the words of that person under the impression of facing imminent death. I would assume it is very likely he might have lied to escape, that from him expected imminent death.

 

[Beerina]

What I don't understand is that Obama is essentially on BAC's side here: it was the government that was arguing that a witness found through torture should be admitted to the court - the judge just didn't agree and appealed to some wishy-washy pablum about the "constitution":

The Court has not reached this conclusion lightly. It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live. But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.​

What liberal claptrap! I dunno why BAC picked on Obama - who has basically followed the Bush approach of arguing for inclusion of testimony coerced through torture and the blanket invocation of the "state secrets" priviledge to quash cases - when there was this liberal, activist judge appealing to the constution (of all things!) there for his ready admonition.

Technically, it's conservative claptrap -- he's conserving the Constitution as written and followed for centuries, by disallowing torture testimony. It's the government, by trying to get torture testimony admitted, that is "liberal" here, i.e. breaking with the past by bypassing long, deliberative process and amendment.

 

[Beerina]

And nor, apparently, does reason or logic have much to do with it. Reason and logic would dictate that enemies who fight for an organization which has declared war on us, should be treated as enemies on the battlefield and as POW's when captured. Uniform or no uniform. The simple expedient of not wearing a uniform or observing any of the rules of war while carrying out their brutish treacheries should not make priveledged characters of them.

It's interesting that the reason we didn't do this was so we could skip the Geneva conventions, which would disallow waterboarding-as-interrogation-but-not-quite-"real"-torture.

 

[Unabogie]

Technically, it's conservative claptrap -- he's conserving the Constitution as written and followed for centuries, by disallowing torture testimony. It's the government, by trying to get torture testimony admitted, that is "liberal" here, i.e. breaking with the past by bypassing long, deliberative process and amendment.

So you're siding with the accused, and against the government on this? Torture was wrong, this evidence is forever tainted, and this man should go free? Just making sure where you stand on the broader question.

 

[ingoa]

What I don't understand is that Obama is essentially on BAC's side here: it was the government that was arguing that a witness found through torture should be admitted to the court - the judge just didn't agree and appealed to some wishy-washy pablum about the "constitution":

BAC is a notorious Obama lover.

 

[Ryokan]

Rights they did nothing to earn and clearly do not deserve.

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

 

[Unabogie]

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

Isn't this the crux of the matter? If the only evidence against these guys is that they were tortured, and during that torture they admitted to crimes, then how do people on a SKEPTICS forum accept that as valid evidence?

And how do you say that "since a suspect is obviously guilty", he does not "deserve" the chance to prove that he is not, in fact, guilty of anything at all?

 

[Toontown]

Oh cool, so I guess the Bush approach to gitmo detainees is fine for foreign countries to use against American soldiers.

Consistent my friend. That's admirable.

Irrelevant.

Name the foreign enemy which has treated American soldiers as well as Bush treated the Gitmo detainees.

Go ahead. Name one.

 

[leftysergeant]

Irrelevant.

Name the foreign enemy which has treated American soldiers as well as Bush treated the Gitmo detainees.

Go ahead. Name one.

Germany.

 

[Unabogie]

Irrelevant.

Name the foreign enemy which has treated American soldiers as well as Bush treated the Gitmo detainees.

Go ahead. Name one.

So, your contention is that the US should only strive to be as good as the next worst country when dealing with human rights?

Can we please apply that standard to our health care system, broadband service, transportation, and education systems?

And keep our human rights goals more lofty?

Pretty please?

 

[sarge]

Irrelevant.

Name the foreign enemy which has treated American soldiers as well as Bush treated the Gitmo detainees.

Go ahead. Name one.

On average, the Germans treated American POWs better than the Bush administration treated Gitmo "detainees". Of course, the question itself is mis-direction. Having waded through hundreds of pages of arguments about the status of the detainees in Gitmo (and having actually been there half a dozen times myself), it all comes down to a few simple facts, and those facts easily guide one to a logically inescapable conclusion. First, the facts:

1. There is no monolithic block of detainees. They are not universally combatant detainees from either Iraq or Afghanistan. A significant minority of them were traded to US authority for a bounty, with no more "evidence" against them than that the person seeking the bounty said they were combatants.

2. The detainees are either Enemy Prisoners of War, or they are criminal suspects. There are no other categories for these detainees - no matter how hard the Bush administration attempted to create one. The courst have ruled on this, and it is established law.

3. If the detainees are criminal suspects, then they are entitled to the full protections of the US Constitution, and it matters not at all where they were captured or by whom. If they are suspects, then no evidence obtained so far would be admisable, and the goverment has certainly forfeited the right to present a case at speedy trial.

4. If the detainees are Enemy Prisoners, then any coerced interogation is a violation of several treaties binding on US officials. In other words, the interogations themselves are war crimes. Additionally, those same treaties require the US to afford the EPWs the same rights as US Service Personnel should they be accused of crimes.

The conclusion:

The US has no constitutional authority to try these detainees if they are EPWs, and no evidence with which to try them if they are suspects. If they are suspects, their rights have been so violated as to make trial impossible. If they are EPWs then the US is guilty of war crimes.

 

[Toontown]

"Rights they did nothing to earn and clearly do not deserve."

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

How do I know he's done nothing to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

It's a guess. But it's a very, very high probability guess. It's like when you hop in your car and take off. You're just guessing the brakes will work when you need them. Likewise, I'm just guessing that this foreigner, who is very probably a terrorist and a murderer of US citizens, has done nothing to earn or deserve any rights under the US Constitution, which he very probably seeks to destroy.

BTW, How do you know "he admitted to it under torture"? Why do you assume "harsh interrogation" means torture? "Harsh interrogation" could simply mean they yelled at him, talked dirty to him, and kept him awake past his beddy-bye time, which would be no worse than Marine basic training.

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

 

[Unabogie]

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

It seems to me that you somehow missed the fact that the vast majority of these people were found to have been sent there by mistake.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/terror/main4877395.shtml

And you also seem to have missed the stories about what they did to these people. Just what high school did you go to where they waterboarded you, put you in a box with insects, kept you in a cold cell with no clothes for days, and made you crap your pants?

Because that's a really bad school.

 

[Ryokan]

How do I know he's done nothing to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

It's a guess. But it's a very, very high probability guess. It's like when you hop in your car and take off. You're just guessing the brakes will work when you need them. Likewise, I'm just guessing that this foreigner, who is very probably a terrorist and a murderer of US citizens, has done nothing to earn or deserve any rights under the US Constitution, which he very probably seeks to destroy.

If it's so obvious, why did they torture him? Just for the heck of it?

BTW, How do you know "he admitted to it under torture"? Why do you assume "harsh interrogation" means torture? "Harsh interrogation" could simply mean they yelled at him, talked dirty to him, and kept him awake past his beddy-bye time, which would be no worse than Marine basic training.

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

If they have any other evidence that wasn't revealed during torture, don't you think they would've presented it?

They used high school pranks to get people to talk? That sounds silly.

As for fat and sassy, that would describe self-proclaimed right-winger, Bush-supporter and cheerleader of the Iraqi war Christopher Hitchens.

Let's see what he had to say about the matter after being water boarded:



Sure, he doesn't look 'worse for wear', either. That's because water boarding is a very mental form of torture.