Guantanamo suicides confirmed

I watched quite a bit of Bush. He looked grey tired and desperate to me. He said its important to get electricity back to Iraq !

Oh and get the oil flowing into world markets. Not thats got anything to do with the reason for invading Iraq in the first place, oh no.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not assure those countries will become successful democracies. But she said the chance for success is worth the price.

That reminds me of Madeline Albright saying sanctions against Iraq were a "price worth paying". The price being that of 1/2 million dead Iraqi children.

msolga, Orally is part of a group of political sociopaths. There is no right or wrong.

If he has to deny information, he'll do it.

If he has to call somebody a kook because that person is creditable, he'll do it.

You can provide him with overwhelming amount of proof that he is wrong. To him it is only a matter by wich means to deny it.

He wants to discredit Professor McCoy because he doesn't like what he is saying even though it is the truth.

By "dealing with them in our courts" does he mean in US courts, as opposed to military tribunals?

US President George W Bush said he wanted to close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba but first needed a plan to deal with the prisoners held there.

I told you. He's like a robot.

Don't forget he put "professor" in quotations to insinuate he is not really a professor.

msolga wrote:

By "dealing with them in our courts" does he mean in US courts, as opposed to military tribunals?

I suspect not. Since when are soldiers tried in civilian courts?

A gratuitous and unhelpful insult. While I disagree with oralloy more often than not, he is someone you can exchange rational arguments with. And just because his notion of right and wrong is different from yours, that doesn't mean he has no such notion. May I suggest that you try disagreeing without being disagreeable for a change?

As to his factual assertions, oralloy is not denying that the CIA tortures people outside of Guantanamo Bay. In fact, he has cited news reports demonstrating that they do. I haven't seen him deny that people other than the CIA -- the US Marine Corps I suppose -- are torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. All he is saying is that if a publication introduces someone as an expert, and he cannot distinguish between torture that's the CIA's responsibility and torture that is not, it is prudent not to trust this expert too much. He is either not an expert, or he's lying. Oralloy has a point here, even though he overstated it.

One valid counterargument against oralloy would be: If the US government mistreats people at Guantanamo Bay, does it matter which agency it delegates the mistreating to?

Just this once (and it doesn't happen all that often), I'm in complete agreement with Thomas re: Oralloy. Oralloy's political stance may be quite contrary to my own, but his arguments are always reasoned, his facts researched and largely unbiased, and his tone, most of the time, quite civil. Calling one's sacred cow a "kook and a liar" may be a bit extreme and is certainly bound to raise the hackles on people who rely on a particular authority. But, other than that, I see nothing in Oralloy's posts to warrant a personal attack on the poster. I disagree with his (apparent) conclusions, mind you, but there again Thomas is quite right: it makes not a scintialla of difference whether atrocities at Guantanamo are committed by the CIA, the USMC, or the Boy Scouts of America. Whichever the case, they are sanctioned by the Bush Administration and, therefore, the current U.S. government. A sad state of affairs, indeed, in my opinion.

Freethinking is discouraged. Truth is dissmissed as forgin and strange, a "conspiracy theory" a "kook" a "liar" and to consider that these things may be true in public makes you "one of them".

because the funnel of information coming through the networks and news papers stay within the guide lines of an established status quo.