|
2
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by File this under "you gotta be kiddin' me."
Out on the red carpet, Paul Haggis (the director whose "Crash" won Best Picture in 2006) said he didn't know what accounts for all these deeply dark, brooding, troubled films. But isn't it obvious, he asked, flashing an orange ribbon on his lapel. Orange, why orange? "It's Guantanamo," his Max Azria-clad wife, Deborah, said, showing off her orange bracelet, which read: "Silence + torture = complicity." Suddenly, we noticed -- orange ribbons and bracelets everywhere.
Yes folks, three meals a day, Korans, prayer rugs, arrows pointing to Mecca, and ice cream for terrorists are "torture." And these idiots probably wonder why Americans stayed away not only from the Oscars in droves, but most of these films.
Add a Comment (44)
Email This
Message Author
I am interested in finding out how wearing an orange bracelet/ribbon = wanting the terrorists to win.
LordDilly, what does "winning" even mean in this war?
Besides, I think the equation silence + torture = complicity is a great reminder for those who "don't mind" the moral gray area in which Guantanamo exists. What good are the confessions being milled out of the prisoners IF (little word, big consequences) the prisoners are being tortured.
And on that point, I am not going to make the judgment one way or the other. I can not. I have not seen, nor do I have credible evidence of torture at Guantanamo. BUT the Justice Department, the destroyed CIA tapes and the CIA's contradictions about extraordinary rendition are all clouds casting a dark shadow of doubt on the supposed benevolence with which the Guantanamo detainees are being treated. Right?
I mean, Dilly, come on. How knee-jerk is it to believe anyone wants our soldiers to be killed? Or wants the terrorists to "win"? Do you really think there will be any winners in this war?
And I don't think anyone really hates Bush. At least I don't. I think most people (and I may only speak for myself) are frustrated that the policies his administration supports consistently favor big business over finding long-term, sustainable solutions to security, environmental and economic problems.
I add security to that list because this administration's solution for dealing with terrorism is far from fitting any definition for sustainable or long-term.
Ever wonder why our country is headed to the dumps, why we are becoming despised by the world community, and why we live in an age of paranioa? Because of the assumption that the "terroists" in guantanamo and many other similar prisons (yes, that's only the tip of the iceberg) are clearly alright becasue of ice-cream, no matter the amount of beating, intimidation, sensory deprivation and inprisonment without trial. In the words of Gil Scot-Heron "how long must america be blind?"
why we are becoming despised by the world community
We already were and have been for decades. The only reason most Americans realize it now is that our media covers more information now and the Internet makes it possible to see it. But for those of us that have lived abroad before ... the world perception of Americans is exactly the same as its always been.
We already were and have been for decades.
I think that is rather pessimistic. Sure, our commie enemies have probably felt that way, but our allies from the World Wars probably felt that there was something special about Americans in their innocent, if naive, passion for freedom and justice.
The American way of life and values had been made transparent to the world through all those corny old Hollywood movies, not to mention our Constitution and justice system, and no doubt this bought us some credit on the international stage.
So there has been a sad loss of reputation recently. The media was not the cause - only the medium. The cause was unjust policies by the current administration.
So there has been a sad loss of reputation recently. The media was not the cause - only the medium. The cause was unjust policies by the current administration.
In a word: bullshit. And more bullshit. And more. Here's an opinion piece also calling bullshit. And just to put a finer point on it, some folks were dancing in the streets on 9/11 (before eeevviiilll Bush started his vague, hard to define unjust policies-- maybe that whole giving more aid to Africa than any other president unjust policy thing) or glorifying the hell out of the attacks with state run propaganda outlets.
In a word: bullshit. And more bullshit. And more.
Indeed you are full of it today! Your usual eloquent good mannered style Dilly.
I am not sure which part of my post you actually disagree with. Essentially, I was reacting to a previous poster who had said that the reputation of the USA had always been very low with all other countries. I said that I thought that it had not been so bad with many of them until recently.
You have told me previously that you - how did you put it? "don't give a rat's ass" I think - about how any foreigners think of the USA.
From your quotes above I suspect that you agree that our reputation is low but you think we don't deserve it. I could agree with that if we had not elected him twice.
Once again Dilly has the facts and everyone else is wrong.
I am not sure which part of my post you actually disagree with. Essentially, I was reacting to a previous poster who had said that the reputation of the USA had always been very low with all other countries. I said that I thought that it had not been so bad with many of them until recently.
Yeah, that would be the part where you are wrong, and Vnutz is right. People like you try to use Bush as an excuse for the rest of the world's behavior, but the plain fact is people round the world have been bad-mouthing America for decades now.
You have told me previously that you - how did you put it? "don't give a rat's ass" I think - about how any foreigners think of the USA.
Yup. 'Cause when an earthquake or Tsunami devastates their cities we will send the most money and the most people and the most recourses for the rescue efforts. And when they have ignored or even encouraged the rise of totalitarianism in their own backyard and wake up to find a bootheel on their necks, it'll be us to the rescue again.
From your quotes above I suspect that you agree that our reputation is low but you think we don't deserve it.
Your reading comprehension is amazing. Truly a wonder to behold.
Once again Dilly has the facts and everyone else is wrong.
Nah, just you.
people round the world have been bad-mouthing America for decades now.
Sure, but that is no indication of how the majority feel.
Yup. 'Cause when an earthquake or Tsunami devastates their cities we will send the most money and the most people and the most recourses (viz.) for the rescue efforts.
Not always the most by any means. The Australians, for example, do much more, especially taking account of their small population. They have troops and police in many countries maintaining law and order and their contributions to the Indonesian Tsunami was more than ours. In fact the USA was criticised for an inadequate response to that disaster. Australians don't seem to attract universal hatred for their efforts - quite the opposite.
Your reading comprehension is amazing. Truly a wonder to behold.
Indeed. The way your response was written I could have concluded that you disagreed with he fact that America was held in low regard.
You seem to think that it must always be like this because the world is perverse and hates us for no valid reason. It is not. Believe it or not, there are a lot of reasonable and intelligent people out there. Respect is there to be earned if we conduct ourselves properly on the international stage. That means more than simply sending troops or being generous during natural disasters. It is about respecting them, and being seen to have high moral values and acting accordingly in all situations. And we did have that respect until the Vietnam War. With good leadership we could win it back.
If I recollect correctly, summer of 2002 20+ Taliban were killed by being left in a cargo container for several Afghani August days. We (congress) decided that was unacceptable and provided funds for transportation (extraordinary rendition) and housing (illegal detention.)
I've no doubt various abuses happen but I've heard much worse American prison stories and it sounds like prison guards comitting illegal acts. A crime but something less than a crime against humanity.
What is to be done with prisoners from a battlefield? We're not allowed to return them (those countries are likely to torture or kill.) We can't hold them. The stories I hear from the battlefield indicate a reticence to take prisoners because of the hassle. This I find disturbing but it's the only allowed option by the arguments I read.
Really. What are the allowable options?
Believe it or not bleeding heart Occams is not opposed to detention of prisoners of war until the end of hostilities, or until an exchange of prisoners can be arranged. That is normal military law and is in accord with the Geneva conventions. </
Face it. Our government is guilty. by Occams :: NR6 :: on 26 February 2008
You are in denial Dilly. Those things were done in our name so we are entitled to protest.
Gitmo was used because it was hoped that what happened there would be out of sight. Are you really so innocent as to be fooled by token gestures like ice creams and prayer mats.
Shame is an appropriate reaction for the official American actions being referred to.
So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 27 February 2008
So be it. What should have been done with the particular inmates? It's easy for people to say - oh you shouldn't have done this, that or the other thing. I never quite hear the same crowd outwardly verbalize the converse - "Prisoner ABC should have been given a suite in the Marriot with an ankle bracelet" or that "Prisoner XYZ should just be sent home."
So - how exactly should they have been detained and under what exact conditions?
RE: So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 27 February 2008
All prisoners should have been given the same treatment as our law requires to be given to an American citizen.
Justice is blind.
I don't mean ice cream and prayer mats but due process through the courts and natural justice.
RE: So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
All prisoners should have been given the same treatment as our law requires to be given to an American citizen.
Given the nature of this war and who we fight, that kind of thinking is naive and dangerous, but you really don't care, do you? Do you really think a jihadist picked up in Iraq trying to detonate a car bomb in a crowded market by US forces should be able to "face their accusers?" Be judged by a :jury of their peers?" No prisoner of war at any time during the 800 years of Enlish/American jurisprudence has ever been given the "same treatment" as a citizen. Ever. No habeas Corpus. Ever. But oddly, nobody ever cared until we started fighting these scum... oh, that's right it's Bush's War!! That's what you people really care about more than anything, more than the safety of our citizens or winning this war, that Bush is president. I guarantee if a Clinton or Gore or Obama were president and doing the exact same things people like you wouldn't make a peep about Gitmo.
RE: So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by Occams :: NR6 :: on 16 March 2008
It seems that we had two choices:
1. treat them like prisoners of war - therefore: Geneva convention; no trial; indefinite detention until the war is resolved; or,
2. Treat them as criminals, therefore: a trial and a sentence according to our norms of justice.
An unfair trial rigged to get a conviction, which was precisely the policy and not even really denied by the white house crowd, was never an option that should be accepted by the American people.
Options 1 and 2 seem to have merged in the minds of the media, and hence the public, leading to confusing statements about the Geneva convention being abandoned in the application of justice, or the illegality of indefinite detention.
RE: So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 28 February 2008
... but due process through the courts and natural justice.
One thing you probably don't realize is that most (okay - yes that means some weren't) are in Gitmo following judicial procedures. I know for fact that one of those detainees made it there:
Bottom line - the people that are in Gitmo made it there following judicious review of evidence. It's not just "some call" by some military folk that we're going to stick a guy in there. It's a well defined procedure that is far more rigorous and subject to more eyes than putting an American rapist into jail.
And you also forget that a lot of the suspects from abroad that are incarcerated didn't just come from the CIA (insert three letter organization here) nabbing them from the streets. They came from operations involving the same cooperation with foreign states if not actions by those same foreign states.
The dudes in there are bad. Real bad.
RE: So Pony Up The RIGHT Answer by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 01 March 2008
All prisoners should have been given the same treatment as our law requires to be given to an American citizen.
Fair enough, and a noble sentiment. However, in practical implementation it has some flaws. Organized crime trials might be a good model because these guys have a tendency to have their accomplices make witnesses "disappear" before trial and get off.
Remember the World Trade Center bombing of 1993? A lot of people forget that one, but these guys had al Qaeda affiliation (sort of a precursor group). The trial gave al Qaeda a bonanza of information on what we knew about them, how we collect our information on them, and a plethora of other concepts to allow them to evade detection and pull off the 9/11 attacks. We need to find ways to give these people fair trials without giving the other bad guys out there a playbook to do it better next time.
Also, for the record, I am totally against torture for a number of reasons, just to clear that up. For one thing, it doesn't really work, and secondly this is a war of ideas. The center of gravity here is convincing people inside and "outside" our system that it works and is worthy of their participation (democracy, rule of law, etc.). If we don't follow our own rules, why should they believe our system is better than, say, Sharia law, which many currently advocate?
RE: Face it. Our government is guilty. by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 27 February 2008
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you what, exactly, happens at Gitmo, 'cause as far as I can tell you people only seem to have a problem with the fact that we actually hold hard-core terrorists prisoner instead of giving them some cash and dropping them off at the mall.
RE: Face it. Our government is guilty. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 27 February 2008
They weren't all hard core terrorists and we treated them disgracefully
RE: Face it. Our government is guilty. by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
Hey, look-- a bunch of partisan hacks who loathe Bush more than they love their country (in the case of the quotes from American sources anyway) who didn't like the fact that Hicks pleaded guilty and used the occasion to bash the war in terror. That's some awesome argument there.
What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 27 February 2008
CNN toured Gitmo in July of 2005 and felt the need to put unsubstantiated claims of abuse in their report to to make up for the decidedly non-gulag stuff they actually saw. But screw CNN. How about this for a gulag: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been regularly visiting the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002 for the purpose of monitoring that persons held there are treated in accordance with applicable international laws and standards. Maybe you'd like some first hand accounts of the many regular visits (In addition to the ICRC, more than 1,000 journalists have visited Gitmo, plus eleven senators, 77 congressmen, 99 congressional staffers, and, of course, lawyers for the detainees.) there? (Oh, I see, they do the torturing during off peak visiting hours.)
Congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said on FOX:
Re. Hunter asks a good question:
If you'd like, you can read an exclusive interview with an Army nurse who was stationed at Gitmo for a time. Some highlights:
So, there you go. The horrors of Guantanamo Bay. Of course, you're the guy who insists FOX news is secretly run by the Bush Administration and that the Iraq War was launched to make Halliburton money, so I've probably just wasted bandwidth. As for Hollywood, don't make the mistake of thinking they are anti-war-- they're just rooting for the other side.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 27 February 2008
Try this
or {{http://mediamatters.org/items/200606190004 this]]
or this
I know, you will dismiss these sources as uninformed or biased but I feel the same about yours. My anecdotal stuff certainly rebuts yours.
But my real point is that if the USA has standards for justice then it should apply them to foreigners too - especially those from friendly countries.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
I know, you will dismiss these sources as uninformed or biased but I feel the same about yours. My anecdotal stuff certainly rebuts yours.
The ICRC is "uniformed or biased?" Look, what this comes down to is that I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the Red Cross, a Navy Nurse, our Military, and the thousand some-odd people who have tramped through Gitmo looking for the egregious abuse that folks like you are lip-quivery about and found none. You, and Hollywood, and Amnesty International, and the left, choose to give the benefit of the doubt to terrorists. It really is as simple as that.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 28 February 2008
No. It's you who is as simple as that.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 28 February 2008
No, it's you! You're the one ... with a ... candy shell on it ...
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 28 February 2008
He is proud of his ignorance and flaunting it as truth.
I gave dilly a link with another female credible witness statement to match his nurse. A sworn statement by a marine sergeant. In case he didn't read it I will paste it here:
''A sworn statement by a Marine sergeant reveals that guards at Guantanamo Bay abuse prisoners regularly. The information was obtained by a female sergeant who conversed with a group of men at a bar on the base, each bragging about beating detainees. “One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee’s head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others,” but that he was never punished, the statement said.
Other abuses included hitting prisoners, denying them water, and “removing privileges for no reason”. The statement goes on to say that “About 5 others in the group admitted hitting detainees,” and that “From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice.” The sergeant then described how “everyone in the group laughed at the others stories of beating detainees.” Such abuse is a clear violation of United States and international law. So far, the Pentagon spokesman has declined to comment.''
He says that the ICRC is happy now, and I guess it was by the time they were permitted to see it, but the UN Human Rights commissioners weren't too happy
The real issue here is United States Law
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 28 February 2008
I was just taking the opportunity to get in a good Chris Farley joke.
While you have me here, though, it sounds like those at Guantanamo are getting the same treatment as prisoners in just about any facility anywhere.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 28 February 2008
Yes Brandon, I guess it was just Dilly's portrayal of the place as a holiday camp and the protesters as civil libertarian rat bags that got up my nose.
I believe that the WWII Germans living near the concentration camps said much the same things.
I am still hopeful that intelligent internationals will be drawn to this site, but we will have to keep the mutual masturbation of the radical conservatives to a minimum if that is ever to happen..
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
I believe that the WWII Germans living near the concentration camps said much the same things.
GODWIN'S LAW!! Just when I think you've shot your credibility in the foot, you still find another toe.
I am still hopeful that intelligent internationals will be drawn to this site, but we will have to keep the mutual masturbation of the radical conservatives to a minimum if that is ever to happen..
As usual you are unable to refute anything I've said (beyond lame attempts such as backing up your opinions with other opinions that match yours in the absence of hard facts) so you move on to the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "neener neener!" Also, I believe there already is an online community of like-minded folks who hate Bush but are more than ready to give terrorists a free pass over at the Daily Kos. Sorry this isn't an echo chamber where you can spout idiocies unchallenged. BTW: "radical conservatives?" isn't that an oxymoron?
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 28 February 2008
Yes it is an oxymoron - used deliberately as an emphatic rhetorical device because it is particularly appropriate for folks like you who cannot countenance contrary opinion. Perhaps fanatical conservatives would be more appropriate, although a greater oxymoron.
You started this thread with boorish remarks about people who were honestly exercising their precious American right to express their opinion on the civil rights impact of the war on terror.
I backed up my opinions by matching a female marine sergeant guard with your nurse and by the UN Human Rights people against your ICRC. The difference seems to be that unlike you, I do not give extra weight of authenticity to news spin coming from the current US Administration. Your "facts" are their manufactured facts.
I will admit my bias. The White House crew have lost my confidence so much that I can hardly give credit to anything they say on the subject of terrorism. My gut reaction is disbelief and they have thoroughly earned that lack of credibility through consistently telling lies to the American people, and indeed the world. Now I would not believe W if he told me what the time was in Bagdad.
That said, I don't hate Bush. I hate what he has been able to do to this country with the help of stupid people like you.
It is not about giving terrorists a free pass. It is about retaining for Americans, and those who find themselves under American law, the legal protections that many fought hard to win in the past.
Guilty terrorists deserve the full force of the law, but discovering their guilt or innocence also deserves the full force of the law. We had very good laws. We did not have to set up fake Stalinist courts, remote prisons, and use torture to extract confessions to establish the guilt of these people. It is just that our current masters thought it would be easier that way.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
I backed up my opinions by matching a female marine sergeant guard with your nurse
...which is idiotic in the extreme, as I point out here because "my" nurse was actually at Gitmo while "your" Marine allegedly HEARD STUFF AT A BAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE!!
and by the UN Human Rights people against your ICRC
Would that be the same UN Human Rights council staffed by representatives of the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba, to name a few? But that trumps the Red Cross, humanitarian organization that has been active since 1864.
It is not about giving terrorists a free pass. It is about retaining for Americans, and those who find themselves under American law, the legal protections that many fought hard to win in the past.
STRAWMAN ALERT!! Never have I said that US citizens should get anything but what they are due by the Constitution and US jurisprudence. And as another poster pointed out, the detainees are in Gitmo following judicial procedures.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 28 February 2008
Rubbish,
Guards who have drunk too much talking in a bar is exactly how you would expect this kind of thing to leak out. I thought you were a soldier? Would you seriously expect marines to talk to inspectors or journalists about how they are mistreating prisoners. A sworn statement by a marine sergeant witness to this seems rather good evidence to me.
The red cross is a great organisation, but its first priority is to protect its access to places like this, and it has a wise policy of not speaking about what it sees so that it will be permitted to return. Anyway, shows for the red cross were routine in the German stalags. Of course we would do that too - ruse de guerre.
"Never have I said that US citizens should get anything but what they are due by the Constitution and US jurisprudence. And as another poster pointed out, the detainees are in Gitmo following judicial procedures."
My point was that non US Citizens being handled under US law should also be able to expect that our understanding of the principles of justice and its application in our law will also apply to their trial process . The Judicial procedures for the Gitmo military tribunals were a farce. Why did we feel the need to cheat to get a conviction if their guilt was so clear. Our Supreme Court ruled them. as lacking even the basic procedural requirements for justice.
I am pleased to see that anonymous post you referred to indicating that at least one case was given due process. I can believe that some were, but it is the others that are the issue.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 February 2008
Yes, once again, someone finds ONE out of literally THOUSANDS of cases where ONE person says "yeah this is WHAT I HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE" In a court of law this: "The information was obtained by a female sergeant who conversed with a group of men at a bar on the base, each bragging about beating detainees" is called HEARSAY. Yet I am ignorant. You have a "source" whose name is conveniently not given. You have the word of a person who wasn't even there but that trumps the account given by the Army Nurse who WAS. My favorite part of the AP story (the source for the blog you linked too-- too lazy to even get the primary source?) is: "Military investigators said in July 2005 they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment of a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay that included forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog." The HORRORS!! Your story is also out of date. But nice try.
There has been a baleful media eye on Gitmo for years now, but only in your fevered imagination would a military unit and the Pentagon and the Administration COMPLETELY IGNORE the intense scrutiny over detainee ops at Gitmo and allow systemic abuse. Geez, even if the first year of Camp X-ray was nothing but an orgy of prisoner beatings, you kinda think maybe they'd be on their best behavior after years of bleeding hearts like yourself crying crocodile tears because the poor widdle terrorists aren't allowed to murder civilians with impunity?
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 28 February 2008
I don't think that example is "hearsay" She witnessed numerous confessions directly from the perpetrators of the crimes and was prepared to make a sworn statement risking her career on that. That is what we would expect of an honorable Marine sergeant and, the best kind of evidence admissible in any court. No doubt she expected charges to result. I wonder what happened to them? If the marines were talking about hearing someone else saying that they committed the crimes that I think would be inadmissible hearsay.
At best this is a story of poorly trained, undisciplined, and badly led troops behaving like low life scum without the knowledge of their officers. We did not accept that Japanese officers were innocent when they gave this excuse.
Anyway you confirmed her story. Thanks. I can believe the account that the abuse included many things including but not limited to those sexual fantasies.
The media outrage about what was going on has obviously caused some ass covering panic to clean things up, so the witness accounts are no doubt highly time sensitive.
Please excuse the lack of research. I am at work in a remote place but I am not cheating on my employer's time because I own the business.
Your last sentence is childish babble. I was echoing the statements of the Supreme Court of the United States - many of whom owe their appointments to Bush - are they bleeding heart crocodile tears too in your child mind.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 01 March 2008
The information was obtained by a female sergeant who conversed with a group of men at a bar on the base, each bragging about beating detainees.
Occams, are you a lawyer? I'm not, but what you are describing here is called "hearsay evidence". It is not admissible in court, because I can go in and say I heard anything in a bar from some guy. Moreover, you should well know guys say a LOT of things in bars to impress people, and that goes quadruple for marines, some of whom have an uber-macho persona and pretty bad testosterone poisoning because they really believe that becoming a marine makes them bulletproof.
I don't doubt at all that there are some cases of abuse there because it inevitably happens at any kind of prison, including US prisons. However, I am extremely skeptical that it is a systematic and sanctioned activity condoned by the leadership, and I also happen to know that a number of people have been disciplined for their treatment of prisoners. In one case, a female interrogator smeared red dye on a prisoner claiming it was menstrual fluid after he spat on her. In other cases it was after prisoners attacked or injured guards. Prisoners there, as in other prisons, have tendencies to do vile things themselves, such as throw feces. This is not a one sided story of the captive victims and the sadistic guard. Moreover, we've found tons of al Qaeda training literature instructing people how to make realistic false claims of abuse and torture.
Again, this is a war of ideas, and al Qaeda wants to generate a public perception of abuse and torture and get media exposure more than anything. It is their ONLY effective weapon. That's why I am against torture, but I am also exasperated by the perpetuation of this myth by the public and media.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 March 2008
Reasonable comment.
No, I am not a lawyer, although as a Naval officer I often had to defend the men of my division in hearings before the Captain. Hearsay cannot be used to implicate a third person. Overhearing an unintended confession (even one inspired by bravado or alcohol) is entirely different from hearing someone say that someone else did something bad.
Anyhow I was drawn into that as an example to counter one of Dilly's. My main point is the creation of a third rate justice system in order to get convictions when there is insufficient evidence to do so through our first rate justice system.
As citizens we have a duty to question that.
I agree completely with your final point and that is why I think it is vital that we demonstrate that we know about the importance of having good laws that apply to all. If we don't do it ourselves, how can we expect them to.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 01 March 2008
A sworn statement by a Marine sergeant reveals that guards at Guantanamo Bay abuse prisoners regularly. The information was obtained by a female sergeant who conversed with a group of men at a bar on the base, each bragging about beating detainees.
I hate to point out the obvious, but this is really hearsay eveidence. She (the Marine Sargeant) is repeating what some other Marines told her in a bar? If i were a betting man, I'd bet these were a bunch of testosterone fueled guys trying to impress a woman marine, and were lying through their teeth. As Lord Dilly pointed out--the Red Cross is down there routinely, and they've observed that "the prisoners there were treated humanely and justly, living in conditions that meet — indeed, far exceed — Geneva Convention standards for prisoner treatment."
In the meantime, when one of our soldiers is captured in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle east, they get this treatment. Never mind soldiers, others are beheaded too.
But we're barbarians..
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 March 2008
No that is not hearsay because she heard it directly from the perpetrators. She was a witness to a confession. OK so they were probably drunk and bragging to a woman in a bar. I agree that does devalue its credibility and those Marines should have been grilled to find the truth. So I accept some of your bet, but my bet is that they were given a roasting about indiscreet talk in a bar from a security point of view, and were convinced to shut up about it forever. A cover-up.
Back to the main point about Gitmo. The rules for those military tribunals were such that it would be impossible to get a fair trial. Why did we feel that it was essential to avoid due process in a judicial hearing. Was it a lack of evidence? I suspect so. Why could we do that to an Australian but not an American.
I am not bleeding about the treatment of terrorist suspects but about the total breakdown of the American justice system. Who will these new rules be applied to next.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 07 March 2008
I am not bleeding about the treatment of terrorist suspects but about the total breakdown of the American justice system. Who will these new rules be applied to next
The first thing you (and others who think like you) must realize is that the terror suspects in Guantanamo are not suspects in a criminal case. Acts of terror are acts of war, and those suspects are not (rightfully so) governed by the laws of American Jurisprudence. They are subject to a Military Trial; and ( at least 20+ years ago when I was in the Navy ) their jurisprudence system is not the same as one would find in a civilian court.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the prisoners in Guantanamo; by all *legitimate* reports; they are not being treated any different (or any worse) than a prisoner in our civilian prisons--prisons which I believe are far too permissive and leniant.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 March 2008
That is the standard argument, but this lot were not offered the usual standard military law. They were offered instead a very poor standard that was labelled by the High Court as a travesty providing no hope of justice: viz.
Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by water-boarding; Indefinite detention. here
There is a big difference here compared to what you seem to be assuming about the system of jurisprudence imposed.
Using torture to obtain a confession (for political purposes) is much worse than misguided military zeal using it to try to obtain intelligence.
Sympathy for the prisoners is not required. Defence of American justice is required.
Come on mate! I know from previous dialogues that you are an intelligent, well educated, spiritual and fair minded American. If people like you cannot see through the anti terrorism hype to what is really at stake here then there is no hope for this country.
----
I do not know whether our prisons are permissive or lenient, but from some of the hyperbolic cable shows like "America's Worst Prisons", they appear to be particularly bad by the standards of the civilised world. Such shows are probably a beat-up but it appears that wardens do not have to protect their charges from abuse or even murder. But that is another subject.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 07 March 2008
They were offered instead a very poor standard that was labelled by the High Court as a travesty providing no hope of justice: viz.
You speak of Justice...Where is the justice for the 3,000+ civilians who died September 11, 2001?
Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by water-boarding; Indefinite detention.
I read the article; and frankly to me, it sounds like a case of sour grapes on the part of Colonel Davis. He's a prosecutor; his job is to get the conviction; an acquittal is a bad thing, and to even suggest they might occur means he's not able to do his job to the best of his ability. Besides, your source is suspect anyway, considering that it has been described even by NPR as a "left-liberal news and opinion site".
Sympathy for the prisoners is not required. Defence of American justice is required.
You still fail to realize that Military and Civilian courts have a vastly different method of jurisprudence. Similar in theme, but differing in execution.
Using torture to obtain a confession (for political purposes) is much worse than misguided military zeal using it to try to obtain intelligence.
You'll get no argument from me, I disagree with torture from moral, ethical and non-functional grounds.
I do not know whether our prisons are permissive or lenient, but from some of the hyperbolic cable shows like "America's Worst Prisons", they appear to be particularly bad by the standards of the civilised world. Such shows are probably a beat-up but it appears that wardens do not have to protect their charges from abuse or even murder. But that is another subject.
It depends on the prison, but overall, they're pretty comfy. You're not *forced* to work in most states; you get free education, even at the collegiate level. You get free medical care that's better than the working poor in this country receive. They treat you for everything from hangnails to cancer. Many prisons even have cable TV into the cells. Prisoners eat better than most poor and homeless in this country. While there are some prisons that are bad; the majority are better than average.
I certainly don't advocate a return to the harsh ways of pre-1970's prisons, but there has to be some middle ground. I'm not adverse to education, or even a trade---if there is a chance you will be released. To pay for education for a convicted felon serving a sentence long enough to keep him incarcerated until the end of their natural life seems somehow unfair. I think that if a prisoner is able to work, they should. I think a majority of the pay they receive (no where near minimum wage ,but still pay) should go to pay back their victim(s), or if they had none, then into a general fund to help victims receive medical care, counseling or anything else they need. And stop calling them 'offenders'; they are prisoners--no more, no less.
RE: What ACTUALLY Happens At Gitmo (For The Woefully Uninformed) by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 March 2008
Thanks LDS.
'Where is the justice for the 3,000+ civilians who died September 11, 2001?
Sadly, there is no justice for those victims of terror, and we cant get any for them by denying justice to those we suspect might have been involved in some way. But you know that, you are just being emotive..
You still fail to realize that Military and Civilian courts have a vastly different method of jurisprudence.
I thought that my references showed quite well that we are not talking about normal US military justice for these suspected terrorists. For example, the UCMJ was abandoned as one of those things that might let them possibly demonstrate innocence - and we can't allow that in a trial!
that it has been described even by NPR as a "left-liberal news and opinion site.
Unless we are prepared occasionally to look at "a left liberal news and opinion site" we will never get a balance on many news items, especially on the war on terror. The term "Liberal" is praiseworthy and not a dirty word. The term "Left" has no real meaning today.
If our prisons are as you say they they are, then I agree with your comments. I would also observe that the punishment awarded by the court is usually a loss of liberty and not a term of sexual or physical abuse or slave labour. Chief wardens who allow such abuse should be fired. I suspect that most people in our prisons are poorly educated or plain stupid, in which case exposing them to some of the finer things a free life has to offer is probably a good idea.
I think your comments best illustrate what a bad deal the poor get in this country.
RE: Face it. Our government is NOT guilty. by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 01 March 2008
Occams, have you ever been to Gitmo, or do you just blindly believe the hype and myth? I'll bet you have never seen a picture of the facility, as the media keeps replaying the old 2001 pics of the old, temporary Camp Bucca. Plenty of media have been there since, yet you never see the actual facility--only old stock footage of the temporary one from seven years ago. The whole Koran flushing thing turned out to be a hoax. Don't you think it's possible that a large amount of this "protest" could be at best misguided, and at worst politically motivated?
Oh, and before you try to say I condone torture, go back and read some of my previous articles on the subject. I am wholly against it, but the crux of the problem is that people define the subject much differently, and al Qaeda has exploited that magnificently. By some people's definition of torture, I am tortured every single day at work.
RE: Face it. Our government is NOT guilty. by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 March 2008
I did not try to visit Gitmo back then because I assumed that I would not be given permission. Do you think I am wrong about that?
I am perfectly willing to believe that the place has been cleaned up for the media and that now I would find nothing to object to. So there would be no point in visiting the place now anyway.
Returning to the main point in this thread. The right of the USA to subject citizens of other countries to a corrupt justice system that is rigged to convict them.
Our Government is guilty of doing those things. You seem to agree with that, but feel that the end justifies the means. I don't. I think that if Americans have intrinsic feelings about justice and due process of law that they have enshrined in their laws, then they must treat all humans according to those same governing principles. US citizens could not have been treated like that. What hypocrisy!
I assume that you are a decent human being, opposed to torture and typical of most Americans. Our personal views are irrelevant but our collective views are important as they should steer our Government. We are talking about the integrity of the Government of the United States of America.
It would be interesting to discover whether that treatment achieved anything worthwhile as there is a view in other more civilised countries that any information obtained in that way is worthless. Much worse than that is the fact that our officials were also actually using torture to obtain confessions!! How medieval.
OK most Americans don't care how roughly a bunch of nasty Islamic rag heads are treated, but decent intelligent folks like most Omninerds should be able to see that there has been a serious violation of our ethics here and we should be screaming that we do not want our Government to behave in this way. The President (and future presidents) should learn form us that their oath of office does not require them to behave in an inhuman way to protect us.