Obama's Gitmo Policy Coming Home To Roost

[Toontown]

Germany.

I find that glib response questionable. And even if true, it would be the lone exception to the norm.

 

[Toontown]

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

Well, now I'm curious. Do you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens? I can't imagine what you think he's done to earn that, whether he's actually murdered Americans or not.

Again, how do I know he was in fact tortured? A group of internet political junkies saying it for Bush-hating reasons certainly doesn't make it so. The term "harsh interrogation" does not necessarily imply torture.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, now I'm curious. Do you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens? I can't imagine what you think he's done to earn that, whether he's actually murdered Americans or not.

Are you saying foreigners aren't protected by the US constitution? So if I'm wrongfully detained by the police on a visit to the US, they can torture me as much as they want, because I'm not a citizen?

No, that's not how it works. If you're in the custody of any representative of the US government, be it a soldier, police officer or the local dog catcher, there are laws saying what they can or can't do to you. Torture is one of those things, as confirmed by your own supreme court.

Again, how do I know he was in fact tortured? A group of internet political junkies saying it for Bush-hating reasons certainly doesn't make it so. The term "harsh interrogation" does not necessarily imply torture.

How about the words the judge used, extremely harsh interrogation? Do you think that if it was just pouring water down his trousers that he'd dismiss the evidence?

 

[Toontown]

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.

In what capacity were you there half a dozen times?

I'm hoping you're not a leftist ambulance chaser, just in it to dig up dirt on the Bush administration.

Tell me that's not what you are. But only if it's true.

 

[Praktik]

Irrelevant.

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

Go ahead. Name one.

What is irrelevant?

Sorry I'm confused. Are you saying that you do agree that if detainees should be "treated like any other soldier in any other war" and since Americans currently fighting fall under "any other solider in any other war", then it would be fine for any foreign entity to treat American soldiers captured as America does detainees at Gitmo?

But that your feeling that gitmo-treatment is fine for Americans captured on the battlefield is irrelevant?

Followup question: if this is your belief, are you under the impression that gitmo treatment abides by the Geneva conventions? If so, how do you support this belief?

 

[Unabogie]

In what capacity were you there half a dozen times?

I'm hoping you're not a leftist ambulance chaser, just in it to dig up dirt on the Bush administration.

Tell me that's not what you are. But only if it's true.

Poe?

 

[sarge]

In what capacity were you there half a dozen times?

I'm hoping you're not a leftist ambulance chaser, just in it to dig up dirt on the Bush administration.

Tell me that's not what you are. But only if it's true.

I'll answer your questions, but first you'll need to know this:

I don't tolerate nonsense well. I've shown that your perception about GITMO, it's detainee's, and their entitlement to certain protections from prosecution is flawed. At some point you must address whether or not you are willing to change your flawed opinions, or simply admit that you hold an under-informed opinion.


I am a retired Soldier. I was a senior NCO with significant experience establishing training bases (infrasturcture, support personnel, and trainers). I was also a paratrooper and infantryman. Because of my experience, I was responsible for much of the prep work for training a cadre of Free Iraqi Forces. My specific job was to travel with a team of DoD civilians hopping around Europe seeking a country dumb enough to allow us to train ex-pat Iraqis in advance of the invasion of Iraq. My specific role was to make sure that any site chosen would accomodate the training needs. While the civilians were schlepping between Embasies, I spent my time hitting different overseas non-traditional US facilities, looking for good ideas. Gitmo was one of them, and I visited it several times.

Of course, I had other trips to Gitmo - most notably for about 2 months for hurricane relief efforts when I was a 1SG of an infantry company (stationed in Alaska of all places). These trips were before Gitmo was used as a detention center, and aren't relevent to this discussion. As a practical matter, none of my argument actually depends on having ever stepped foot on Gitmo. The US Constitution and the various treaties governing our treatment of detained persons are readily available, and an understanding of the written word is all that is required to read them.

 

[sarge]

I'm hoping you're not a leftist ambulance chaser, just in it to dig up dirt on the Bush administration.

In the past 8 hours, I've been accused of bing both a "Republican Conservative elitist" and a leftist ambulance chaser. It is encouraging to know that ideologues of both strips refuse to claim me.

 

[sarge]

Well, now I'm curious. Do you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

Protection under the US Constitution is a birth right. So long as a person is under the jurisdiction of any representative of the US anyplace and at any time, and so long as the person is not otherwise covered by treaty, then that person has "rights" to protections under the Constitution. it is settled law, and isn't subject to the whims of opinion.

 

[Toontown]

Are you saying foreigners aren't protected by the US constitution? So if I'm wrongfully detained by the police on a visit to the US, they can torture me as much as they want, because I'm not a citizen?

What I said is right there in black and white. All you need do is read what I actually typed without reading anything into it for perjorative purposes.

I said, terrorists have done nothing to earn or deserve rights under the US constitution. That is an accurate statement. They have, in fact, done nothing whatsoever to deserve US constitutional rights. And no, I do not consider dropping out of their mothers' wombs to be an act deserving of US constitutional rights. To the extent that they have said rights, those rights are granted to them.

If you're worried about being tortured by US police, I suggest the following:

1. Do not engage in actions hostile to Americans.

2. If you are clean of the taint of hostility, but still don't feel safe from the torture-prone Americans, don't come here. No one is forcing you to come here, or even asking. For much the same reason I would never even consider going to Iran or North Korea. With the exception that I have valid concerns about the trustworthiness of those countries.

How about the words the judge used, extremely harsh interrogation? Do you think that if it was just pouring water down his trousers that he'd dismiss the evidence?

Here's the problem I have with the whole waterboarding bone of contention: first, the US attorney general decided that waterboarding was not torture. Key members of congress were informed of the decision. They said and did nothing. Then, after some high-ranking al Quaeda detainees were waterboarded, it was suddenly but belatedly decided, mostly by political enemies of the Bush administration, that waterboarding is torture after all, and Bush was, after all, retroactively a war criminal.

How convenient.

To belatedly declare an approved and reported interrogation technique as "torture", obviously for purposes of crass political witch-huntery, is to plumb the depths of political debauchery.

The entire sordid issue stinks like a half-rotted skunk floating in a puddle of buzzard puke. It has political vendetta written all over it.

 

[headscratcher4]

Question: is testimony obtained through torture admissable in a miliatry court? (I really don't know -- but if it is, that should be changed).

I don't think it should make a difference where torture is involved.

 

[Ryokan]

I said, terrorists have done nothing to earn or deserve rights under the US constitution. That is an accurate statement. They have, in fact, done nothing whatsoever to deserve US constitutional rights. And no, I do not consider dropping out of their mothers' wombs to be an act deserving of US constitutional rights. To the extent that they have said rights, those rights are granted to them.

I'm not sure you have to do anything to deserve that the government follows their own laws.

Maybe they have done nothing to deserve it, but that doesn't matter. The law is the law.

But more importantly, how do you know he's a terrorist? And if he is, why is the only evidence for that something that came up when he was tort, sorry, extremely harshly interrogated? You do know that several people have been released from Guantanamo Bay after being declared innocent, right?

I'm also curious whether you would also claim that domestic terrorists should have their rights taken away, or if your statements only apply to foreigners.

If you're worried about being tortured by US police, I suggest the following:

1. Do not engage in actions hostile to Americans.

2. If you are clean of the taint of hostility, but still don't feel safe from the torture-prone Americans, don't come here. No one is forcing you to come here, or even asking. For much the same reason I would never even consider going to Iran or North Korea. With the exception that I have valid concerns about the trustworthiness of those countries.

Point 1 seems to include 'don't be wrongfully suspected of engaging in actions hostile to Americans', if all that is needed for the authorities to torture you is being labeled a terrorist with no other evidence than what you yourself provide under torture.

With regards to point 2, your government has now declared torture to be illegal, so I would have no problems setting foot in the US. I'm actually going there later this year, to visit my brother who attends college in NY. And since I know most Americans aren't like you, I'm actually looking forward to it..

Here's the problem I have with the whole waterboarding bone of contention: first, the US attorney general decided that waterboarding was not torture. Key members of congress were informed of the decision. They said and did nothing. Then, after some high-ranking al Quaeda detainees were waterboarded, it was suddenly but belatedly decided, mostly by political enemies of the Bush administration, that waterboarding is torture after all, and Bush was, after all, retroactively a war criminal.

How convenient.

To belatedly declare an approved interrogation technique as "torture", obviously for purposes of crass political witch-huntery, is to plumb the depths of political debauchery.

The entire sordid issue stinks like a half-rotted skunk floating in a puddle of buzzard puke. It has political vendetta written all over it.

My problem with water boarding is that it's torture, and torture is wrong.

 

[Toontown]

Protection under the US Constitution is a birth right. So long as a person is under the jurisdiction of any representative of the US anyplace and at any time, and so long as the person is not otherwise covered by treaty, then that person has "rights" to protections under the Constitution. it is settled law, and isn't subject to the whims of opinion.

And again, your response is not even close to answering the question I actually asked. I did not ask whether the defendant is granted constitutional rights. I asked if you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve said rights. I did so in response to you asking me if I really believe some other off the wall nonsense you made up.

As soon as you people decide to read and respond to what I actually say, without twisting it around and asking if I'm saying something I did not say, then maybe we can talk. But as long as you keep playing these little word-twisting games, this is all that's going to happen.

 

[DC]

1. Do not engage in actions hostile to Americans.

you mean, do not get suspected of hostilities against the US.

 

[DC]

Innocent until proven guilty, death since 2001......

 

[Ryokan]

And again, your response is not even close to answering the question I actually asked. I did not ask whether the defendant is granted constitutional rights. I asked if you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve said rights. I did so in response to you asking me if I really believe some other off the wall nonsense you made up.

What has deserving got to do with it?

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, now I'm curious. Do you really believe the defendant has done anything to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

You don't have to "earn" rights that are granted to anyone in our custody.

Again, how do I know he was in fact tortured? A group of internet political junkies saying it for Bush-hating reasons certainly doesn't make it so. The term "harsh interrogation" does not necessarily imply torture.

The merry morons have admitted doing things that are, quite simply, torture.

 

[leftysergeant]

As soon as you people decide to read and respond to what I actually say, without twisting it around and asking if I'm saying something I did not say, then maybe we can talk. But as long as you keep playing these little word-twisting games, this is all that's going to happen.

As soon as you stop substituting your hysteria for logic, it might dawn on you that it is not we who are twisting words.

 

[Toontown]

Point 1 seems to include 'don't be wrongfully suspected of engaging in actions hostile to Americans', if all that is needed for the authorities to torture you is being labeled a terrorist with no other evidence than what you yourself provide under torture.

Why do you assume his detention was "wrongful"? Why do you assume there was no other evidence (other than ingrained predjudice)? The fact that they detained the suspect before interrogating him would suggest that they had evidence before obtaining the confession. How likely is it that they just randomly grabbed someone off the street and tortured a confession out of him?

With regards to point 2, your government has now declared torture to be illegal, so I would have no problems setting foot in the US. I'm actually going there later this year, to visit my brother who attends college in NY. And since I know most Americans aren't like you, I'm actually looking forward to it.. .

And conversely, I don't look forward to visiting Europe, since I know most Europeans are like you.

 

[Unabogie]

Why do you assume his detention was "wrongful"? Why do you assume there was no other evidence (other than ingrained predjudice)? The fact that they detained the suspect before interrogating him would suggest that they had evidence before obtaining the confession. How likely is it that they just randomly grabbed someone off the street and tortured a confession out of him?

Totally, completely unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar