2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:34 pm
Cyclo - Since you insist on beating this issue up again, I find this a curious counter to some of your balnket statements regarding our treatment as torture.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050713/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_dc_5

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Guantanamo Bay interrogators degraded and abused a key prisoner but did not torture him when they told him he was gay, forced him to dance with another man and made him wear a bra and perform dog tricks, military investigators said on Wednesday.The general who heads Southern Command, responsible for the jail for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also said he rejected his investigators' recommendation to punish a former commander of the prison.

A military report presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated a Saudi man, described as the "20th hijacker" slated to have participated in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, was forced by interrogators in late 2002 to wear a bra and had women's thong underwear placed on his head"

""As the bottom line, though, we found no torture. Detention and interrogation operations were safe, secure and humane," Schmidt said.

The Pentagon identified the man as Mohamed al-Qahtani and said he ultimately provided "extremely valuable intelligence."

Schmidt said, "He admitted to being the 20th hijacker, and he expected to fly on United Airlines Flight 93," which crashed in Pennsylvania.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), himself abused by the North Vietnamese as a Vietnam War POW, noted, "Humane treatment might be in the eye of the beholder."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 04:34 pm
What, exactly, is a curious counter to my previous statements?

I've never stated that the US tortures or abuses people in every case. I'm sure that many if not most prisoners are treated with the utmost of care. Just that it DOES go on and it ISN'T just spontaneous every single time; it is the result of a culture in the command who doesn't care about the rules, not really...

Not if it gets results.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 04:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What a thing to joke about.

You have moved down the scale from merely repugnant to completely morally bankrupt, Brandon.

Perhaps you should sign up for the armed forces; I hear they are looking for a few good men these days who feel the way you do about things.

Cycloptichorn

Nice try. TTF acted as though I myself were torturing people. I made fun of his absurd accusation, not the thing itself. You people are all about pinning blame on people for things they haven't done.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 04:56 pm
I actually was not joking about torture, only about TTF's implication that I was the one guilty of it. But just to show your immense consistency:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ah ha! Now that's what I'm talking about, Drewdad!

Quote:
As an aside, I will note that many people find release in humor from things that they find painful or frightening. In fact, most of humor is based on this.


In fact, I would go so far to say that all humor is based upon this; either pain or embarassment for some party.

Ask yourself, can you think of a single joke where there isn't pain or embarassment for one of the parties involved? I can't. The closest you can come is a pun, which doesn't really make us laugh out loud, though we can see the humor in it.

Now, to address my original point: you can make jokes about all sort of situations in life, because life hurts and laughter is how we deal with it!

It's wrong to be crass and insult someone to their face; imagine yourself present at the scene of some of the jokes you know and ask yourself if you would laugh out loud, or would you be embarassed? This doesn't keep them from being funny from a distance! Laughter is like, well, warding off bad spirits. I don't think there's such a thing as an inappropriate joke, really, as there really is no situation that can't stand to be made light of a little bit.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:00 pm
Until bones are broken body parts sliced off and electrodes are attacked to private parts, I will support the techniques used to get information. If all it takes is a little bit of embarrassment for these killers to talk then so be it. Stress positions are fine as well. If they are forced to stand for hrs at time then that is ok.

A little bit of pain never killed any one. Embarrassment never killed any one. If your pride is hurt then oh well.

Everything that has happened at Gitmo and AG can been seen freely on the streets of San Francisco. What is the problem here?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 07:50 pm
You're right, I was wrong to give you a hard time about the joke.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:20 pm
Miller was recommended by the FBI to be reprimanded, but he wasn't. Instead he was sent to Iraq. Within weeks similar tactics were being used which was used in Gitmo. The lower ranking personnel and interrogators were charged and sentenced for crimes that some here think to be little more than college pranks. (Of course that was after pictures were actually shown.)

In Iraq we are under the Geneva Convention where we got to follow clear cut laid out standards. So it really does not matter if you all think it is ok for some Muslims to be mistreated or abused or not. It really is not your call to make on whether something is just embarrassing or abusive or even torture. There are guidelines in place in the Geneva Convention to make those judgments.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:32 pm
revel wrote:
Miller was recommended by the FBI to be reprimanded, but he wasn't. Instead he was sent to Iraq. Within weeks similar tactics were being used which was used in Gitmo. The lower ranking personnel and interrogators were charged and sentenced for crimes that some here think to be little more than college pranks. (Of course that was after pictures were actually shown.)

In Iraq we are under the Geneva Convention where we got to follow clear cut laid out standards. So it really does not matter if you all think it is ok for some Muslims to be mistreated or abused or not. It really is not your call to make on whether something is just embarrassing or abusive or even torture. There are guidelines in place in the Geneva Convention to make those judgments.


If those we fight against don't use the Convention then neither should we. If they want respect when caught then they should apply those same standards to those they capture and not cut off their heads.

Besides most of the people that we are catching in Iraq are not covered by the Conventions because they are not part of a military fighting force. I consider those people to be fair game.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 08:52 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What a thing to joke about.

You have moved down the scale from merely repugnant to completely morally bankrupt, Brandon.

Perhaps you should sign up for the armed forces; I hear they are looking for a few good men these days who feel the way you do about things.

Cycloptichorn

Nice try. TTF acted as though I myself were torturing people. I made fun of his absurd accusation, not the thing itself. You people are all about pinning blame on people for things they haven't done.


I saw the joke. I thought it was funny.

I only brought that up because your entire defense on our actions in Gitmo and Abu Garib seem to be 'yeah - but he did it first!'. It is not a defense. It is an admission of wrong doing and then an attempt to mitigate blame - plain and simple.

This thread has degraded into - but what about our soldier? I hear you brother, what about them? To act as if the spooks that run gitmo and set up Abu Garib are honerable, and that what other soldiers are being asked to do by people that will not and could not take the heat these men and women are now taking dishonors our soldier.

I could care less if every one of the people in Gitmo or Abu Garib are guilty as slime balls - there is a system of justice and honor that we, in America, claim to be sevants of an examples of. We are selling our freedom, liberty, and our ethics to this war. It is not worth the cost. To sell out our long term principles for a temporary increase in safety is not worth it. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why you blindly defend everything that comes out of our government as sacrsanct and then attempt to brand every person who questions policy as traitors.

You remind me more of Parsons everyday.

TTF
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're right, I was wrong to give you a hard time about the joke.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks, then.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:14 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What a thing to joke about.

You have moved down the scale from merely repugnant to completely morally bankrupt, Brandon.

Perhaps you should sign up for the armed forces; I hear they are looking for a few good men these days who feel the way you do about things.

Cycloptichorn

Nice try. TTF acted as though I myself were torturing people. I made fun of his absurd accusation, not the thing itself. You people are all about pinning blame on people for things they haven't done.


I saw the joke. I thought it was funny.

I only brought that up because your entire defense on our actions in Gitmo and Abu Garib seem to be 'yeah - but he did it first!'. It is not a defense. It is an admission of wrong doing and then an attempt to mitigate blame - plain and simple.

This thread has degraded into - but what about our soldier? I hear you brother, what about them? To act as if the spooks that run gitmo and set up Abu Garib are honerable, and that what other soldiers are being asked to do by people that will not and could not take the heat these men and women are now taking dishonors our soldier.

I could care less if every one of the people in Gitmo or Abu Garib are guilty as slime balls - there is a system of justice and honor that we, in America, claim to be sevants of an examples of. We are selling our freedom, liberty, and our ethics to this war. It is not worth the cost. To sell out our long term principles for a temporary increase in safety is not worth it. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why you blindly defend everything that comes out of our government as sacrsanct and then attempt to brand every person who questions policy as traitors.

You remind me more of Parsons everyday.

TTF

Yet another near magical level of misunderstanding by you. I have consistently stated all over this Web site that the people responsible for Gitmo should be punished severely. My only point is that there needs to be some perspective. It is absurd to concentrate only on this sin of ours and yet seem to be uninterested in the fact that our opponents are deliberately murdering children.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:21 pm
Quote:
It is absurd to concentrate only on this sin of ours and yet seem to be uninterested in the fact that our opponents are deliberately murdering children.


Given that the thread was specifically about a particular subject it would seem to be to be perfectly reasonable to stay on topic. You attempted to divert the discussion by bringing in an unrelated event.

The suicide bombing of the children and the soldiers in Iraq can be a separate thread. Start one if you wish. I will come along and agree with everyone else that such behaviour is not only despicable on so many levels but that it must surely be working against the jihadist cause.

But I would prefer to read and contribute to a thread that wasn't contnually diverted by irrelevant issues.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:31 pm
goodfielder wrote:
Quote:
It is absurd to concentrate only on this sin of ours and yet seem to be uninterested in the fact that our opponents are deliberately murdering children.


Given that the thread was specifically about a particular subject it would seem to be to be perfectly reasonable to stay on topic. You attempted to divert the discussion by bringing in an unrelated event.

The suicide bombing of the children and the soldiers in Iraq can be a separate thread. Start one if you wish. I will come along and agree with everyone else that such behaviour is not only despicable on so many levels but that it must surely be working against the jihadist cause.

But I would prefer to read and contribute to a thread that wasn't contnually diverted by irrelevant issues.

It's not irrelevant. My point was that discussing this kind of thing but not that kind of thing is perverse. I refuse to comply with your idea that discussing the discussion is off topic.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:14 am
Here's one that I know you'll love, Brandon.

Quote:
General contradicted his sworn testimony on Pentagon, Abu Ghraib

BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES

Chicago Tribune


WASHINGTON - (KRT) - An Army general who has been criticized for his role in the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has contradicted his sworn congressional testimony about contacts with senior Pentagon officials.

Gen. Geoffrey Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip.

But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

"Following our return in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone," Miller said in the Aug. 21, 2004, statement to lawyers for guards accused of prisoner abuse, a transcript of which was obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

"I went over the report that we had developed and gave them a briefing on the intelligence activities, recommendations, and some recommendations on detention operations," Miller added.

Specific interrogation techniques, he said, were not discussed.

Miller's statement about the meeting, if true, suggests that officials at the very top of the Pentagon may have been more involved in monitoring activities at the prison than previously disclosed. Abu Ghraib was later at the center of a scandal surrounding prisoner abuse, which has led to punishments for soldiers.

Miller, Cambone and Wolfowitz, who is now acting director of the World Bank, each declined to respond to written questions about Miller's contradictory statements. Rumsfeld, Cambone, Wolfowitz and Miller have denied knowledge of prisoner abuse.

In the Aug. 21 statement, Miller says that he never spoke directly to Rumsfeld about his Abu Ghraib visit or his subsequent recommendations for new, tougher interrogation tactics there.

Miller's name came up again this week, when he was named in a military investigation made public Wednesday on FBI claims that detainees held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were being mistreated. The report recommended that Miller be reprimanded for not monitoring the interrogation tactics used on one detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, who allegedly intended to be the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot.

Miller's superior officer, Gen. Bantz Craddock, overruled the reprimand, arguing that there was no evidence that laws had been broken.

Cambone has asserted that he was not briefed by Miller after the general returned from Abu Ghraib. During his own appearance on May 11, 2004, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cambone said he and Miller did not speak about Abu Ghraib after Miller's return from the September 2003 fact-finding mission.

"I was not briefed by Gen. Miller," Cambone testified. Instead, Cambone said, a military aide, Gen. William Boykin, briefed Cambone on Miller's trip.

Wolfowitz, who also testified before Congress in May 2004 about prisoner abuses, was not asked during the hearings if he was briefed by Miller.

Miller's role at Abu Ghraib has come under scrutiny since news reports first revealed that U.S. personnel within the prison abused inmates. The mistreatment occurred from the fall of 2003 until January 2004, when a soldier reported the abuses.

Miller was sent to visit the prison in late summer 2003 at the suggestion of Cambone, who had dealt previously with Miller on issues related to the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo. At the time, the insurgency in Iraq was growing more violent, and U.S. commanders were keen to get intelligence from the growing number of Iraqi men detained by U.S. troops.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib began to occur after Miller's visit, according to Pentagon inquiries, and after the arrival of so-called Tiger Team interrogation units from Guantanamo that Miller said in the August 2004 statement that he helped select.

"We tried to pick the best 10 people that we could send," Miller said.

The abuses also took place after new military police and intelligence units arrived at Abu Ghraib, and after the then-U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, approved a set of interrogation practices recommended by Miller. Those tactics were later scaled back at the recommendation of the U.S. Central Command.

Pentagon officials and several investigative reports conducted by the Army and a civilian panel chosen by Rumsfeld have concluded that the abuses were the actions of lower-ranking soldiers, and were not ordered by senior officers.

So far, seven soldiers have been convicted on charges related to the abuses. Two senior officers, an Army colonel and an Army Reserve brigadier general, have been reprimanded.

When he appeared before the Armed Services Committee on May 19, 2004, to explain his role at Abu Ghraib, Miller said that he had no contact with Cambone or others in Rumsfeld's office after he returned from Iraq in September 2003.

"I submitted the report up to SOUTHCOM (U.S. Southern Command, where Miller was attached in 2003)," Miller told the committee. "I had no direct discussions with Secretary Cambone."

Miller made the same claim in a signed, sworn statement he gave to Army investigators on June 19, 2004.

In his Aug. 21, 2004, statement to defense attorneys, though, Miller said he and Cambone discussed "how we could improve the flow of intelligence from Iraq through and in interrogations."

Also present, he told the attorneys, were two top Army officers, Gens. Ron Burgess, the head of intelligence for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, and William Caldwell, the military aide to Wolfowitz.

Miller said there was one other participant in the briefing, but he could not recall who it was.

A spokeswoman for Caldwell, who is now commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said, "All the meetings and briefs that our commanding general took part in during a previous assignment he considers private and confidential."

Burgess also declined to respond to written questions about Miller's statements.

---

© 2005, Chicago Tribune.


Interesting

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12135066.htm

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's one that I know you'll love, Brandon.

Quote:
General contradicted his sworn testimony on Pentagon, Abu Ghraib

BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES

Chicago Tribune


WASHINGTON - (KRT) - An Army general who has been criticized for his role in the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq ...Burgess also declined to respond to written questions about Miller's statements.

---

© 2005, Chicago Tribune.


Interesting

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12135066.htm

Cycloptichorn

Everyone who is guilty of complicity in illegal activities is a criminal and should be prosecuted, but you have to be able to prove it. Is someone's complicity can be proven, he should be prosecuted. If it cannot, then there isn't much point in gossiping about it. I note from your post, your overwhelming concern for the child murdering and neck sawing that our opponents are guilty of.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 07:44 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Everyone who is guilty of complicity in illegal activities is a criminal and should be prosecuted, but you have to be able to prove it. Is someone's complicity can be proven, he should be prosecuted. If it cannot, then there isn't much point in gossiping about it.


A dogma you are obviously not willing to apply to those detained at Gitmo or Bagram, of course.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 10:44 am
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Everyone who is guilty of complicity in illegal activities is a criminal and should be prosecuted, but you have to be able to prove it. Is someone's complicity can be proven, he should be prosecuted. If it cannot, then there isn't much point in gossiping about it.


A dogma you are obviously not willing to apply to those detained at Gitmo or Bagram, of course.

They are not there for matters related to civil crimes. Why on Earth should I apply a standard appropriate for those suspected of civil crimes to persons captured on the battlefield? This has been pointed out again, and again, and again to you people, and yet you are not at the point of grasping it yet.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 10:57 am
Editorial New York Times July 15, 2005

The Women of Gitmo

There are countless reasons to be outraged about the abuses of detainees at American military prisons. But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush: the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the United States military. This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.

Surely no one can approve turning an American soldier into a pseudo-lap-dancer or having another smear fake menstrual blood on an Arab man. These practices are as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners. They violate American moral values - and they seem pointless.

Does anyone in the military believe that a coldblooded terrorist who has withstood months of physical and psychological abuse will crack because a woman runs her fingers through his hair suggestively or watches him disrobe? If devout Muslims become terrorists because they believe Western civilization is depraved, does it make sense to try to unnerve them by having Western women behave like trollops?
Yet those appear to be the operative theories at Guantánamo Bay, where military jailers developed the "aggressive" interrogations that were later exported to the Abu Ghraib prison. A Pentagon report released Wednesday contained page after page of appalling descriptions of the use of women soldiers as sexual foils in interrogations. One officer ordered a soldier to buy some perfume at the PX and rub it on the arm of a detainee "to distract" him. The report said that in response, the prisoner tried to bite her, "fell out of his chair and chipped his tooth." It doesn't say that he was moved to divulge any secrets.
There were several instances when female soldiers rubbed up against prisoners and touched them inappropriately. In April 2003, a soldier did that in a T-shirt after removing her uniform blouse. Following up on an F.B.I. officer's allegation that a female soldier had done a "lap dance" on a prisoner, the report described this scene from the interrogation of the so-called 20th hijacker from the 9/11 attacks: A female soldier straddled his lap, massaged his neck and shoulders, "began to enter the personal space of the subject," touched him and whispered in his ear.
To us, that sounds a lot like what Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tried to ban from Times Square. But the Pentagon seemed utterly unconcerned with the fact that women in uniform had been turned into sex workers at Guantánamo. The report's only conclusion was that whatever the female soldier might have done, it wasn't really a lap dance. Another instance, in which a female interrogator touched a prisoner with red ink and told him it was her menstrual blood, was judged out of order - but only because the interrogator had cooked up the scheme to get back at the prisoner for spitting at her. The report said "retaliatory techniques" had to be approved in advance.
The report talks about how guards forced a captive to wear a bra, put thong underwear over his head, made him stand naked in front of women guards, put a dog leash around his neck and forced him to do stupid pet tricks. If that sounds familiar, it should. We all saw photographs of this exact behavior at Abu Ghraib.
Indeed, the abusive interrogations at Guantánamo Bay were developed under Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who later reorganized Abu Ghraib. To their credit, the authors of the report suggested that General Miller should be "admonished" over the interrogation of the 20th hijacker. But they were overruled by his commanding officer, Gen. Bantz Craddock, whose previous job was as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's military aide.
Religious conservatives have made their presence felt in so many other parts of the Bush administration, but they have been strangely quiet about these practices. And where are the members of Congress who wring their hands over the issue of women in combat? It's obvious that the Bush administration will never offer a real reckoning on the prisoner abuse, or that the Republican Party will demand one. But surely the dehumanizing of America's military women is a nonpartisan issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15fri1.html
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 11:10 am
Well, not exactly on the battlefield, as the Commander in Chief has pointed out. Otherwise they would be prisoners of war, and the Geneva Convention would apply, right? But, of course, the US have not declared war on Iraq or on Afghanistan, so there can't be any POWs, I have to admit - just 'enemy combatants'....

It is ironic that in the directive were Bush outlined this (ie that the Geneva Convention wouldn't be applied), this paragraph is to be found:

Quote:
The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.


Brandon, you are always pointing out the 'sawing off your head' as something utterly cruel (which it is). At the same time you virtually ignore that hanging somebody from the ceiling of a cell, breaking his legs and leaving him there to die is at least as cruel.

I don't fail to notice and accuse the first. But don't expect me to fail to notice the latter, too.

And let me add this: characterizing oneself as a shining city upon the hill while issuing memos that allow 'Category III techniques' (which would cover most of what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib, for example) is perceived as hypocrisy at best.

This is the image today's US of A have in the world, and flowery speeches about how the responsible persons will be put to trial won't help much, when it is in fact the Secretary of Defense or the President who call for suchlike action in the first place.

(addendum: in the meantime, Rumsfeld's directive to use 'Category III techniques' has been revoked, which leaves just Category I and Category II for interrogations. Technically.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:59 pm
old europe wrote:
Well, not exactly on the battlefield, as the Commander in Chief has pointed out. Otherwise they would be prisoners of war, and the Geneva Convention would apply, right? But, of course, the US have not declared war on Iraq or on Afghanistan, so there can't be any POWs, I have to admit - just 'enemy combatants'....

It is ironic that in the directive were Bush outlined this (ie that the Geneva Convention wouldn't be applied), this paragraph is to be found:

Quote:
The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.


Brandon, you are always pointing out the 'sawing off your head' as something utterly cruel (which it is). At the same time you virtually ignore that hanging somebody from the ceiling of a cell, breaking his legs and leaving him there to die is at least as cruel.

I don't fail to notice and accuse the first. But don't expect me to fail to notice the latter, too.

And let me add this: characterizing oneself as a shining city upon the hill while issuing memos that allow 'Category III techniques' (which would cover most of what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib, for example) is perceived as hypocrisy at best.

This is the image today's US of A have in the world, and flowery speeches about how the responsible persons will be put to trial won't help much, when it is in fact the Secretary of Defense or the President who call for suchlike action in the first place.

(addendum: in the meantime, Rumsfeld's directive to use 'Category III techniques' has been revoked, which leaves just Category I and Category II for interrogations. Technically.)

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 06:39:38