More torture in Iraq

[Mycroft]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/NEWS06/506190499


Iraqis found in torture house tell of insurgents' brutality
Marines discover devices of torment and a jihad manual when they break into facility.

KARABILA, Iraq -- Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday night broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual -- and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

The U.S. military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents -- like Fallujah, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who lived to tell the tale.

They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/NEWS06/506190499




They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though.
Not even the insurgents are cruel enough to play Christina Aguilera music non-stop.

[demon]

I didn`t think it would be very long before the marines found something like this in the wake of the AI report...couldn`t have the US hogging the limelight with torture now could we? Must remind the people that we aren`t as bad as them!

Maybe it`s time for another big terrorist alert or "terrorist plan thwarted" headline too considering Bush`s popularity isn`t what it was.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
I didn`t think it would be very long before the marines found something like this in the wake of the AI report...couldn`t have the US hogging the limelight with torture now could we? Must remind the people that we aren`t as bad as them!

Maybe it`s time for another big terrorist alert or "terrorist plan thwarted" headline too considering Bush`s popularity isn`t what it was.

Does your brain get noticeably warmer when you write stuff like this? It's astonishing a person can survive for as long as you have with that kind of fever.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by demon
I didn`t think it would be very long before the marines found something like this in the wake of the AI report...couldn`t have the US hogging the limelight with torture now could we? Must remind the people that we aren`t as bad as them!

Maybe it`s time for another big terrorist alert or "terrorist plan thwarted" headline too considering Bush`s popularity isn`t what it was.
Yes, it's all a massive conspiracy involving thousands of US military personnel and the "reporters" (I'm sure you know they're really gov't agents involved in the conspiracy) who cover the war. The "Iraqi prisoners" rescued are really actors recruited in Hollywood. Many of the leaders in this conspiracy were also involved in faking the moon landings as well.

[Ed]

Originally posted by demon
I didn`t think it would be very long before the marines found something like this in the wake of the AI report...couldn`t have the US hogging the limelight with torture now could we? Must remind the people that we aren`t as bad as them!

Maybe it`s time for another big terrorist alert or "terrorist plan thwarted" headline too considering Bush`s popularity isn`t what it was.

Did you ever think to question the reports of american abuses? That is bias and serves to marginalize your opinions on Iraq.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though.

Well if they do it too it must be all right then.

I'm glad to see that the moral problems with torturing people have been resolved to easily.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Well if they do it too it must be all right then.

I'm glad to see that the moral problems with torturing people have been resolved to easily.

A little selective outrage goes a long way.

[peptoabysmal]

Ugh. The report I heard on this indicated that the torture was done just for torture's sake. They weren't trying to get information or anything.

Anyone got a confirm or deny on that?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Well if they do it too it must be all right then.

I'm glad to see that the moral problems with torturing people have been resolved to easily.
Please elaborate on "do it too". Too much/not enough air conditioning? Mishandling the Bible? Were they also playing Christina Aguilera music non-stop? Oh, the torture!

[bigred]

I just hope they didn't - gasp - make them stand around naked or have dogs bark at them.

THE HORROR......

[Manny]

Originally posted by bigred
I just hope they didn't - gasp - make them stand around naked or have dogs bark at them.

THE HORROR...... Nothing so civilized as that. No, they had hot chicks in crisp uniforms talk seductively to them. Oh, the humanity!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Ugh. The report I heard on this indicated that the torture was done just for torture's sake. They weren't trying to get information or anything.

Anyone got a confirm or deny on that? How would it make a difference?

[kalen]

Originally posted by Bjorn
How would it make a difference?

Because it's legal to torture someone if you have a reason. Yep, all nice and legal.

Maybe those people were tortured for a reason - then in the view of the US, there shouldn't be a problem at all, right? How are we supposed to know they weren't tortured for a specific purpose?? Who are we to suggest there was any wrongdoing?

[Otther]

Maybe those people were tortured for a reason - then in the view of the US, there shouldn't be a problem at all, right? It would certainly make it less sickening. I might still think the justification is wrong, but at least if there's a half-way rational motivation it's not purely incomprehensible cruelty.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Otther
It would certainly make it less sickening. I might still think the justification is wrong, but at least if there's a half-way rational motivation it's not purely incomprehensible cruelty.

Yes! As long as one can rationalize violence and human rights abuses, it's OK. It's the American way! See, even the insurgents are embracing American values.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Mycroft
They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though. Ah, the old 'they did it too' excuse. Again.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by fishbob
Ah, the old 'they did it too' excuse. Again.

I don't remember saying anything like that, perhaps you can show me where I did.

I am somewhat amused by the suggestion that we shouldn't pay attention to this torture. Why do you think that is?

[fishbob]

right here at 03:26 pm, 06-16-2005 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58376)

==================================

Originally posted by rhoadp
I don't understand this objection. We should hold ourselves to the highest standard possible, regardless of what Joe Dictator does in his country. Besides, tu quoque arguments are meaningless when determining right and wrong, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mycroft's reply

When I said that, I wasn't assuming we would compare ourselves to the worst places in the world. From the picture, can you say honestly that scene is worse than things that might have happened in any prison in the United States or Europe?

However, if you want to interpret it another way, I would say yes, if you want to claim our human rights record is bad, it is worth asking, by what standard? don't you agree?
=====================================

I need some amusement too. Where did you find the suggestion that we shouldn't pay attention to this torture?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't remember saying anything like that, perhaps you can show me where I did.

I am somewhat amused by the suggestion that we shouldn't pay attention to this torture. Why do you think that is?

It's acceptible behavior from them.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I am somewhat amused by the suggestion that we shouldn't pay attention to this torture. Did anyone say that without being ironic?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by fishbob
Ah, the old 'they did it too' excuse. Again.

Originally posted by Kevin Lowe
Well if they do it too it must be all right then.

I'm glad to see that the moral problems with torturing people have been resolved to easily.

To fishbob and Kevin (again) I ask: Please elaborate on "they did it too". What, exactly, did they do that we did? Please be specific, because you seem to be implying that there's similarities there. Stop beating around the bush, and come out with it!

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by WildCat
Please elaborate on "do it too". Too much/not enough air conditioning? Mishandling the Bible? Were they also playing Christina Aguilera music non-stop? Oh, the torture!
As an American, I don't believe that the methods of torture of terrorists should be the point of demarcation for my country where everything less severe is no longer regarded as morally irresponsible. As a citizen of a country which prides itself on its record on human rights, I would expect my government to do much better than just slightly above a par set by violent and merciless insurgents.

[demon]

Wildcat:
"Yes, it's all a massive conspiracy involving thousands of US military personnel and the "reporters" (I'm sure you know they're really gov't agents involved in the conspiracy) who cover the war. The "Iraqi prisoners" rescued are really actors recruited in Hollywood. Many of the leaders in this conspiracy were also involved in faking the moon landings as well."


It`s always amusing to be accused of supporting conspiracy theories by people who fell for the biggest one of the lot, hook line and sinker...WMD!
If I remember correctly, you were one of the crowd who couldn`t help repeating the myth that everyone thought he had them too. That was and still is flatly false by the way.

And Jessica Lynch? And Pat Tillman? (I recall you fell for that one too, didn`t you start a thread on it?). Judith Miller? Chalabi? "Curveball"? Remember the reports and press releases? Unadulterated BS, the lot of it, invented for naive and eager propaganda sponges just like yourself.
Massive conspiracy? Hardly takes that, just a toadying media, a ********ting military command and a lying Administration and of course, a willing audience.

Being "un-sensible" and believing in non-sense was a prerequisite for supporting the war based on the "evidence" you lapped up. Those who did should be making embarrassed apologies. Instead they're still trying to paint their gross mistakes as reasoned opinions while criticising others for doubting the same bunch of jokers who brought you the BS to begin with.

Maybe you should stop dabbling in politics and take up banjo lessons instead.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
As an American, I don't believe that the methods of torture of terrorists should be the point of demarcation for my country where everything less severe is no longer regarded as morally irresponsible. As a citizen of a country which prides itself on its record on human rights, I would expect my government to do much better than just slightly above a par set by violent and merciless insurgents.
You're not answering the question at all. And I know why - because despite your claim that you "don't believe that the methods of torture of terrorists should be the point of demarcation for my country where everything less severe is no longer regarded as morally irresponsible" you know that the interrogations used by the US aren't close to that line of demarcation by any stretch of the imagination. Do you really think that dripping water on someones forehead is one step away from electric shocks? Or that mishandling a Koran is just shy of sawing someones head off w/ a dull machete? That daily beatings and bone-breaking is one step away from leaving the lights on all night?

Frankly, I find the comparisons despicable at worst, and dishonest at best.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by demon
It`s always amusing to be accused of supporting conspiracy theories by people who fell for the biggest one of the lot, hook line and sinker...WMD!
If I remember correctly, you were one of the crowd who couldn`t help repeating the myth that everyone thought he had them too. That was and still is flatly false by the way.
That's misrepresenting my position in a slight but important way. It was never up to the US or the weapons inspectors to prove Saddam had WMD's, it was up to Saddam to prove that they had, in fact, destroyed them. Per the treaty ending the fighting in GWI. Saddam didn't do that, did he?

And Jessica Lynch? And Pat Tillman? (I recall you fell for that one too, didn`t you start a thread on it?). Judith Miller? Chalabi? "Curveball"? Remember the reports and press releases? Unadulterated BS, the lot of it, invented for naive and eager propaganda sponges just like yourself.
Massive conspiracy? Hardly takes that, just a toadying media, a ********ting military command and a lying Administration and of course, a willing audience.

Being "un-sensible" and believing in non-sense was a prerequisite for supporting the war based on the "evidence" you lapped up. Those who did should be making embarrassed apologies. Instead they're still trying to paint their gross mistakes as reasoned opinions while criticising others for doubting the same bunch of jokers who brought you the BS to begin with.
The circumstances of Pat Tillman's death in no way demean the sacrafice he made for his country. The press created the whole Jessica Lynch affair, not the Pentagon. Naive and eager describes you far better than me, you seem to fall for every half-baked rumor floating around on the "arab street". BTW, where's that evidence that the US used chemical weapons in Iraq? Naive and eager, indeed!

Maybe you should stop dabbling in politics and take up banjo lessons instead.
I happen to think that the definition of "perfect pitch" is the sound a banjo makes as it is tossed in a dumpster and lands on an accordian.

[Skeptic]

The interesting thing about the "torture" allegations by Gitmo detainees is that in many cases it is only "torture" and "abuse" in the sense of not catering to their oh-so-precious "religious beliefs".

For example, personnel are supposed to handle the Koran with gloves. Why? Because the gitmo prisoners consider infidels unclean, and as such them touching their holy book causes intolerable psychic damage.

Or the numerous complaints about women interrogators/guard: why is this "abuse"? Well, because those held there consider it a utter desecration of their precious religion to have women in any position higher than household slave.

You know something, @$$holes? Tough!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The interesting thing about the "torture" allegations by Gitmo detainees is that in many cases it is only "torture" and "abuse" in the sense of not catering to their oh-so-precious "religious beliefs".

For example, personnel are supposed to handle the Koran with gloves. Why? Because the gitmo prisoners consider infidels unclean, and as such them touching their holy book causes intolerable psychic damage.

Or the numerous complaints about women interrogators/guard: why is this "abuse"? Well, because those held there consider it a utter desecration of their precious religion to have women in any position higher than household slave.

You know something, @$$holes? Tough!

Good point. :)

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by WildCat
You're not answering the question at all. And I know why - because despite your claim that you "don't believe that the methods of torture of terrorists should be the point of demarcation for my country where everything less severe is no longer regarded as morally irresponsible" you know that the interrogations used by the US aren't close to that line of demarcation by any stretch of the imagination. Do you really think that dripping water on someones forehead is one step away from electric shocks? Or that mishandling a Koran is just shy of sawing someones head off w/ a dull machete? That daily beatings and bone-breaking is one step away from leaving the lights on all night?

Frankly, I find the comparisons despicable at worst, and dishonest at best.
Comparative to the leaps and bounds ahead of the insurgents we should be in our integrity, what we are doing is not much better than what they are. The United States doesn't stand for the compromising of human dignity. It doesn't stand for the complete denial of the Geneva Conventions to anyone. It doesn't stand for the presumption of unlawfulness without first the judgment of a fair tribunal. In all of these places where we fall short of our own ethical standards, we shouldn't be looking at those we despise in attempts to forget what we deem atrocious behavior. We ought to see the things from the perspective of what we meant ourselves to be.

Do you honestly feel comfortable with this being done in your name? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html)

Do you honestly feel comfortable with this being done in your name? (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/)

[fishbob]

Originally posted by WildCat
You're not answering the question at all. And I know why - because despite your claim that you "don't believe that the methods of torture of terrorists should be the point of demarcation for my country where everything less severe is no longer regarded as morally irresponsible" you know that the interrogations used by the US aren't close to that line of demarcation by any stretch of the imagination. Do you really think that dripping water on someones forehead is one step away from electric shocks? Or that mishandling a Koran is just shy of sawing someones head off w/ a dull machete? That daily beatings and bone-breaking is one step away from leaving the lights on all night?

Frankly, I find the comparisons despicable at worst, and dishonest at best. The relative severity of the mistreatment and abuse by our side or the other side does not matter. We are not supposed to abuse prisoners. Period, end of story. Frankly, I find this constant looking to excuse our bad behavior to be despicable at best, and one step short of criminal at worst.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by fishbob
The relative severity of the mistreatment and abuse by our side or the other side does not matter. We are not supposed to abuse prisoners. Period, end of story. Frankly, I find this constant looking to excuse our bad behavior to be despicable at best, and one step short of criminal at worst.
I see, the US is not only expected to be better than everyone else (and we are), we're supposed to be perfect. Nothing like setting an impossible standard, so that there's always something to complain about...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by WildCat
I see, the US is not only expected to be better than everyone else (and we are), we're supposed to be perfect. Nothing like setting an impossible standard, so that there's always something to complain about...

There's a bit of a gap between "perfection" and "not attaching electrodes to people's genitals". I think we can settle somewhere comfortably in that gap and still be considered pretty decent as a nation.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
There's a bit of a gap between "perfection" and "not attaching electrodes to people's genitals". I think we can settle somewhere comfortably in that gap and still be considered pretty decent as a nation.

i'm surprised he didn't resort to the "don't forget, these people go around chopping off heads." defense. never seems to fail in these threads that someone will bring that one out.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by WildCat
I see, the US is not only expected to be better than everyone else (and we are), we're supposed to be perfect. Nothing like setting an impossible standard, so that there's always something to complain about...

Apparently, you don't see squat. Hell yes, the US is expected to be better than everyone else, and work toward staying better than everyone else. Lame claims that we are better than everyone else while excusing mistreatment and abuse of prisoners is posturing and hypocrisy. Thanks for giving me something to complain about.

[bigred]

Originally posted by WildCat
Do you really think that dripping water on someones forehead is one step away from electric shocks? Or that mishandling a Koran is just shy of sawing someones head off w/ a dull machete? That daily beatings and bone-breaking is one step away from leaving the lights on all night?
Welcome to the land of liberal logic. It is a flowery, pretty place, but tends to have a real distaste for reality, at least regarding the realities of war. Here, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan the horrors of a soggy Koran (interestingly, if it were a soggy Bible, I have a hunch the outcry would be less). So what if the treatment that prisoners at Gitmo get is far better than any standard of living most if not all of them have ever known? So what if these thugs who have and/or greatly desire to butcher every single American man, woman and child they can are given food, clothing, and medical care - at OUR expense? Mere details to be ignored. Let's instead make a big issue out of the the fact that - gasp - someone threw the Koran in the crapper! Court martial offense, I say!

:rolleyes:


Also FYI, the Geneva Convention was a great idea in theory, but reality has shown it to be a joke, as by and large we are the only ones that follow it. PS, I don't mean to excuse the recent exceptions in Iraq/etc either, ie any true abuses or tortures which have happened....but pls keep in mind Rule #1 of War:

There are no rules.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by bigred
Welcome to the land of liberal logic. It is a flowery, pretty place, but tends to have a real distaste for reality, at least regarding the realities of war. Here, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan the horrors of a soggy Koran (interestingly, if it were a soggy Bible, I have a hunch the outcry would be less). So what if the treatment that prisoners at Gitmo get is far better than any standard of living most if not all of them have ever known? So what if these thugs who have and/or greatly desire to butcher every single American man, woman and child they can are given food, clothing, and medical care - at OUR expense? Mere details to be ignored. Let's instead make a big issue out of the the fact that - gasp - someone threw the Koran in the crapper! Court martial offense, I say!

Also FYI, the Geneva Convention was a great idea in theory, but reality has shown it to be a joke, as by and large we are the only ones that follow it. PS, I don't mean to excuse the recent exceptions in Iraq/etc either, ie any true abuses or tortures which have happened....but pls keep in mind Rule #1 of War:

There are no rules.

Logic, liberal or conservative, is not apparent above.
2 points:

1 - Thugs who have and/or greatly desire to butcher every single American man, woman and child should be detained. Your comment above is a distraction from the point that they should be detained in a way that their supporters can see that they are not abused.

2 - If they are thugs who have and/or greatly desire to butcher every single American man, woman and child. Without some kind of due process, the detentions look just like a witch hunt.

3 - Nobody except the media and the crackpots really gives a rats ass about the Koran in the toilet (my unsupported opinion - feel free to provide evidence to the contrary).

4 - We signed up to the Geneva conventions. We are supposed to abide by it.

5 - The war is out on the roads in Iraq and in the mountains in Afganistan. The war is not inside a detention center in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.

[Skeptic]

The United States doesn't stand for the compromising of human dignity. It doesn't stand for the complete denial of the Geneva Conventions to anyone.

You bet it does.

The whole point of the Geneva convention is to give a strong imperative to combatants to respect civilians by applying its provisions ONLY to uniform-wearing combatans who do not attack civilians.

Those combatants who do not wear uniforms or target civilians are not under the protection of the Geneva convention; they are spies and saboteurs, if not plain murderers, and are liable to be shot if captured--as the US did, without any moral problems, in the past.

In WWII for example, Germans spies in the US or German soldiers caught wearing American uniforms during the battle of the Bulge were shot for the very act of spying in civilians clothes or "wrong" uniform--acts that did not begin to be as savage and barbaric in their violations of the laws of war as the "insurgents". They were tried by a military tribunal and most of them were executed.

They, at least, cofined their sabotage and spying to American soldiers and military targets such as ports, armamaent factories, etc.--which was not nearly enough (and quite rightly so) to save them from the firing squad after a trial by military tribunals; the Al Quaeda operatives in America are instead looking to kill as many civilians as possible.

This, of course, did not stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it was revealed that, heaven forbids, these spies might be tried by military tribunals instead of being given the same constitutional protection as American citizens. That's JUST LIKE A POLICE STATE!--sure, if you consider WWII America, or any other democratic country that ever existed, a police state, since (of course) they all dealt with spies and saboteurs in a similar way.

I mean, spies being tried by the military! Who ever heard of such a thing? Why don't they get the same rights of the civilians of the country they spied on?? Well, becasue they AREN'T civilians of that country, are they?!

But I digress. The important point is that extending the Geneva convention to nonuniformed terrorists who target civilians is not humane and moral: it is merely PERMISSIVE. It means one thing: that the enemy will have everyting to gain, and nothing to lose, by killing women and children and beheading civilians instead of fighting in the field.

Thus the "concern" for their "human rights" and the "violations of the Geneva convention" is, in reality, spitting in the face of the real human rights--those of their civilian, innocent victims. It doesn't mean you care about human rights; it means you think spit on the rights of women and children who live in a war zone, their lives not being worth any more protection than that of soldiers.

However, being "concerned" about the Geneva convention to terrorists, or "demanding" that they have the same rights as American citizens when on trial, has two big advantages: it a). FEELS GOOD, superficially, as long as one doesn't think too hard about what it means; and b). it DOES NOT REQUIRE THINKING about the situation, but merely following one's "moral outrage", a very easy thing to do.

Which is the real reason, of course, so many liberals have these views.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Comparative to the leaps and bounds ahead of the insurgents we should be in our integrity, what we are doing is not much better than what they are. The United States doesn't stand for the compromising of human dignity. It doesn't stand for the complete denial of the Geneva Conventions to anyone. It doesn't stand for the presumption of unlawfulness without first the judgment of a fair tribunal. In all of these places where we fall short of our own ethical standards, we shouldn't be looking at those we despise in attempts to forget what we deem atrocious behavior. We ought to see the things from the perspective of what we meant ourselves to be.

Do you honestly feel comfortable with this being done in your name? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html)

Do you honestly feel comfortable with this being done in your name? (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/)

First the reports would have to be confirmed. It would have to be shown to be an order from high command and not the actions of one soldier.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Skeptic
However, being "concerned" about the Geneva convention to terrorists, or "demanding" that they have the same rights as American citizens when on trial, has two big advantages: it a). FEELS GOOD, superficially, as long as one doesn't think too hard about what it means; and b). it DOES NOT REQUIRE THINKING about the situation, but merely following one's "moral outrage", a very easy thing to do.

Which is the real reason, of course, so many liberals have these views. Well, that and having those views allows one to be in opposition to a Republican president.

It honestly perplexes me. Imagine a meeting of far-left progressives in, say, 1999. The main speaker gets up in front of the audience and says the following.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the United States has been coddling dictators for far too long. We supported the shah until the bitter end. We continue to tolerate Saddam Hussein, even as we enforce sanctions which impoverish and kill his people. Our inexcusable abandonment of Afghanistan after our Reagan/CIA-led covert intervention has led to one of the most repressive regimes in history. We have to do better! Our next president, instead of coddling these dictators, will oppose them. He will use our armed forces to undo our mistakes and free 40 million people from the yoke of tyranny! The women of Afghanistan will throw off their burkas and head to the ballot box! He will encourage democracy around the world! By the time he's done, Libya will have abandoned its weapons program! Saudi Arabia will have started municipal elections! Egypt will be moving towards elections! Pakistan will be moving towards elections! Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to the next president of the United States..."

Before the person walked out on the stage, does one imagine the progressives booing that introduction or cheering it?

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B] This, of course, did not stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it was revealed that, heaven forbids, these spies might be tried by military tribunals instead of being given the same constitutional protection as American citizens. That's JUST LIKE A POLICE STATE!--sure, if you consider WWII America, or any other democratic country that ever existed, a police state, since (of course) they all dealt with spies and saboteurs in a similar way.

I mean, spies being tried by the military! Who ever heard of such a thing? Why don't they get the same rights of the civilians of the country they spied on?? Well, becasue they AREN'T civilians of that country, are they?!

But I digress. The important point is that extending the Geneva convention to nonuniformed terrorists who target civilians is not humane and moral: it is merely PERMISSIVE. It means one thing: that the enemy will have everyting to gain, and nothing to lose, by killing women and children and beheading civilians instead of fighting in the field.

Thus the "concern" for their "human rights" and the "violations of the Geneva convention" is, in reality, spitting in the face of the real human rights--those of their civilian, innocent victims. It doesn't mean you care about human rights; it means you think spit on the rights of women and children who live in a war zone, their lives not being worth any more protection than that of soldiers.

However, being "concerned" about the Geneva convention to terrorists, or "demanding" that they have the same rights as American citizens when on trial, has two big advantages: it a). FEELS GOOD, superficially, as long as one doesn't think too hard about what it means; and b). it DOES NOT REQUIRE THINKING about the situation, but merely following one's "moral outrage", a very easy thing to do.

Which is the real reason, of course, so many liberals have these views. Nice spin job. First, they were enemy combatants, then detainees, now spies - so it should be OK to just shoot them.

Nice spin job. Most of your opposition in this discussion argues against abusing the prisoners, while you have created this fantasy world where your oppostion in this discussion are all a bunch of feel-good liberals. Back on planet Earth, there are only 3 choices for dealing with the detainees:

1 - treat them as POWs
2 - treat them as criminals
3 - shoot them

But, you have to justify your choice, and take responsibility for the consequences of it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by bigred
Welcome to the land of liberal logic. It is a flowery, pretty place, but tends to have a real distaste for reality, at least regarding the realities of war. Here, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan the horrors of a soggy KoranA week ago you described it as "being forced to stand for 30 minutes", now "the horror" is a soggy Koran. Reality, which I have a distaste for according to you, might look something like this:

including the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. (To be clear, this is not a problem about a handful of actors from Abu Ghraib. Only 1 of the criminal homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib, and none at Guantanamo. The rest occurred at others of the two-dozen some detention facilities the United States maintains.)(Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C.)


PS, I don't mean to excuse the recent exceptions in Iraq/etc either, ie any true abuses or tortures which have happened....I don't care if there were 10 or 30 tortured to death, but by describing the issue as "being forced to stand for 30 minutes" or "the horror of a soggy Koran" you are ridiculing the problems of "true abuses or tortures which have happened".

[Manny]

Originally posted by Bjorn Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C.)
Only 1 of the criminal homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib, and none at Guantanamo. None? Not even one? At the "gulag of our times?" I don't believe it. Surely there must be at least one homicide at the "gulag of our times." No one on the whole planet is enough of an idiot or pro-terror propagandist that he'd describe a place with not a single murdered person as the "gulag of our times." So clearly there must have been at least one, right?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by manny
None? Not even one? At the "gulag of our times?" I don't believe it. Surely there must be at least one homicide at the "gulag of our times." No one on the whole planet is enough of an idiot or pro-terror propagandist that he'd describe a place with not a single murdered person as the "gulag of our times." So clearly there must have been at least one, right? I read through the thread to see who said something like that, but couldn't find it. Maybe you're in the wrong thread?

[Manny]

I understand that many people don't read the first post, because it doesn't set the subject of the thread or anything, so I'll repeat it: Iraqis found in torture house tell of insurgents' brutality
Marines discover devices of torment and a jihad manual when they break into facility.

KARABILA, Iraq -- Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday night broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual -- and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

The U.S. military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents -- like Fallujah, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who lived to tell the tale.



They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though.

[Skeptic]

1 - treat them as POWs

They are not. They are not wearing uniform or fill any other conditions of the Geneva convention.

2 - treat them as criminals

If by "criminal" you mean "like an American citizen who is accused of a crime", then, again, no.

3 - shoot them

No, treat them as spies and saboteurs, which they are. That's what you have military tribunals for--to determine if they are or not.

Frankly, if found guilty, I wouldn't have the slightest problem shooting those Al Quaeda detainees who could be proven to be planning sabotage and attacks on the USA, the same way I don't have any moral problem with those non-uniformed Germans who were caught planning the same during WWII.

But the real question is: would YOU be willing to bear the moral guilt of treating them as POWs, thus making clear that those who plan to kill noncombatants without wearing uniform have nothing to lose by this behavior? Would you explain to their victims why their killers are treated the same way soldiers would be?

I am quite willing to bear the awful moral guilt of being responsible for the death of hundreds of Al Quaeda members (that and undertipping the waiter yesterday might give me a few five minutes moral discomfort. Ain't I just horrid?), if you take the moral guilt of encouraging their killing of civilians and innocents.

That is far more important--yet it isn't fashionable or nice, so you won't do it.

[Bjorn]

They sound like terrible places. Not as bad as Gulags, though.Well, if Mycroft thinks so ....

But did he really say that "there must be at least one homicide at the "gulag of our times"?

[Manny]

I'll type slowly. This thread is about how ridiculous it was to refer to Guantanamo as a gulag. Mycroft made his point by opining that even many Iraqi insurgent torture chambers, where torture is actually occuring and hostages are actually being killed, are not as bad as gulags. To then learn that a place which some idiot referred to as "the gulag of our times" has not seen even one single homicide would make that person even more of a liar than he already is, and I am wondering if it's true because I find it hard to believe that even the most overblown, deluded liar would make the claim if that's the case.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by manny
I'll type slowly. This thread is about how ridiculous it was to refer to Guantanamo as a gulag. Mycroft made his point by opining that even many Iraqi insurgent torture chambers, where torture is actually occuring and hostages are actually being killed, are not as bad as gulags. To then learn that a place which some idiot referred to as "the gulag of our times" has not seen even one single homicide would make that person even more of a liar than he already is, and I am wondering if it's true because I find it hard to believe that even the most overblown, deluded liar would make the claim if that's the case. I haven't seen the quote where "some idiot" (you must be referring to someone from AI) said "Gulag" because of homicides in Gitmo - which makes it a bit difficult to understand why he is "more of a liar".

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
1 - treat them as POWs

They are not. They are not wearing uniform or fill any other conditions of the Geneva convention.

2 - treat them as criminals

If by "criminal" you mean "like an American citizen who is accused of a crime", then, again, no.

3 - shoot them

No, treat them as spies and saboteurs, which they are. That's what you have military tribunals for--to determine if they are or not.

Nice spin job. We invade a couple of countries, round up bunches of people, imprison them, and you decide how they should be treated should be based on what they were wearing. They must be spies and saboteurs because they were in their jammies when they were rounded up.

Nice logic. You know they are spies and saboteurs until some military tribunal determines if they are or not. Oopsie, a couple of them died back when they were still spies, before the military tribunal had a chance to determine if they were spies or not.

Smart too. In the meantime, world perception that these prisoners are abused is a prime recruitment tool for new spies and saboteurs. Pretty much guarantees a real pleasant stay for any of our guys that happen to get themselves captured.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by manny
I'll type slowly. This thread is about how ridiculous it was to refer to Guantanamo as a gulag. Mycroft made his point by opining that even many Iraqi insurgent torture chambers, where torture is actually occuring and hostages are actually being killed, are not as bad as gulags. To then learn that a place which some idiot referred to as "the gulag of our times" has not seen even one single homicide would make that person even more of a liar than he already is, and I am wondering if it's true because I find it hard to believe that even the most overblown, deluded liar would make the claim if that's the case.

You seem too quick on the uptake to have only been here for 166 posts. :)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by fishbob
Nice spin job. We invade a couple of countries, round up bunches of people, imprison them, and you decide how they should be treated should be based on what they were wearing. They must be spies and saboteurs because they were in their jammies when they were rounded up.
If the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions are "spin" to you, you'll never understand.

Nice logic. You know they are spies and saboteurs until some military tribunal determines if they are or not. Oopsie, a couple of them died back when they were still spies, before the military tribunal had a chance to determine if they were spies or not.
Yes, and US military personnel are being tried for murder in sauch cases. Do you think this is official policy, or could it be that a few 18-25 year old soldiers out of hundreds of thousands get out of hand in such situations?

Smart too. In the meantime, world perception that these prisoners are abused is a prime recruitment tool for new spies and saboteurs. Pretty much guarantees a real pleasant stay for any of our guys that happen to get themselves captured.
If they get as good as we gave, it would be a pleasant surprise compared to the treatment our POW's have been given in every single war within the last 100 years. And it would be even more shocking if they actually punished those responsible for abusing our POW's.

Once again, you're demanding perfection instead of our level best. By your logic, every policeman in America is to be feared and loathed because a few abuse their power. Is this the case, or do your standards only apply to US soldiers, marines, and seamen?

[fishbob]

Originally posted by WildCat
If they get as good as we gave, it would be a pleasant surprise compared to the treatment our POW's have been given in every single war within the last 100 years. And it would be even more shocking if they actually punished those responsible for abusing our POW's.

Once again, you're demanding perfection instead of our level best. By your logic, every policeman in America is to be feared and loathed because a few abuse their power. Is this the case, or do your standards only apply to US soldiers, marines, and seamen?

Once again, you are twisting around the point. It is not OK to excuse abuse by our guys just because the other guys are worse. I am not demanding any kind of perfection - I am pointing out that excusing abuse violates our ideals, makes us look like hypocrits, and causes us long-term harm.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by fishbob
Once again, you are twisting around the point. It is not OK to excuse abuse by our guys just because the other guys are worse. I am not demanding any kind of perfection - I am pointing out that excusing abuse violates our ideals, makes us look like hypocrits, and causes us long-term harm.

But it is okay to keep a sense of perspective. If our human rights violation is accidently allowing a drop of piss to fly through a vent and land on a Qu'ran, I don't feel a bit like a hypocrite in condemning the torture chamber where people were tortured with electricity.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If our human rights violation is accidently allowing a drop of piss to fly through a vent and land on a Qu'ranIs that what it's all about? The "blatantly cruel and sadistic" acts are all about that? The 30 homicides?

[Manny]

Oy. I'll try one more time.

Originally posted by Bjorn
Is that what it's all about? The "blatantly cruel and sadistic" acts are all about that? The 30 homicides? This thread is about Guantanamo. There were no homicides at Guantanamo.

Those homicides occurred elsewhere. And the United States has an appropriate and proper response to them -- it prosecutes and jails the offenders. Kind of like it prosecutes and jails homicides when they are committed by police officers or by civilians. One might reasonably argue that the United States should do a better job of managing its detention facilities. One might even reasonably have some empirical standard by which to measure how well a country should do and compare the United States to that standard. And, in the appropriate thread, one might reasonably proffer one's standard as an argument.

But this thread is about how ridiculous it was for the AI idiot to refer to Guantanamo as a "gulag." One key reason that it was so ridiculous for him to have done so is that there were no homicides at Guantanamo. There were droplets of pee accidently ventilated into pages of the Koran. There was pop music. There was too much a/c and there was too little. There was nothing, frankly, that doesn't happen each and every night in the New York City Detention Center downtown.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Is that what it's all about? The "blatantly cruel and sadistic" acts are all about that? The 30 homicides?

What 30 homicides?

[Skeptic]

Nice spin job. We invade a couple of countries, round up bunches of people, imprison them,

...and all of that, just because a few of their friends rammed jet planes into three lousy buildings. We really shouldn't overreact like that.

and you decide how they should be treated should be based on what they were wearing.

Well, yes. If you are not wearing uniform, but civilian clothers, you are not entitled to Geneva convention protection. Sorry.

Nice logic. You know they are spies and saboteurs until some military tribunal determines if they are or not.

Yup. Exactly. That's what the tribunal is for.

Oopsie, a couple of them died back when they were still spies, before the military tribunal had a chance to determine if they were spies or not.

Which is why those deaths are being investigated.

In the meantime, world perception that these prisoners are abused is a prime recruitment tool for new spies and saboteurs.

Which is why the USA was loved so dearly by them before the invasion. Except, that is, for those of them who wiped out the towers and hit the Pentagon and bombed the USS Cole and...

...it's always amusing to see people claim that the hysterics about "prisoner abuse" is what motivates Jihadis. That makes about as much sense as claiming that it was the occassional mistreatment of a German spy or prisoner in the US that really motivated SS tank crews to fire on American troops at Normandy, or to mistreat American POWs.

Truth is, you're all bent out of shape about this--but totally unconcerned about the civilian deaths treating the Jihadis as if they were soldiers would cause--because these abuses were in the news, while those civilians killed by terrorists remain anonymous.

Your real concern is not to protect the rights of innocents, but merely to look as if you care about the human rights of famous prisoners, whether innocent or guilty or crimes against innocents themselves.

It's the typical liberal "moral" concern of style over substance.

As per my announcement I am indicating that this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What 30 homicides? I was referring to the quote above:

including the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. (To be clear, this is not a problem about a handful of actors from Abu Ghraib. Only 1 of the criminal homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib, and none at Guantanamo. The rest occurred at others of the two-dozen some detention facilities the United States maintains.)(Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C.)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by manny
But this thread is about how ridiculous it was for the AI idiot to refer to Guantanamo as a "gulag." One key reason that it was so ridiculous for him to have done so is that there were no homicides at Guantanamo. AI or the person who made that comment never claimed it was.

I suggest you read what they actually said and their reasoning behind it before your strawman dies.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by bigred
Welcome to the land of liberal logic. It is a flowery, pretty place, but tends to have a real distaste for reality, at least regarding the realities of war. Here, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan the horrors of a soggy Koran... Welcome to to the land of illiberal illogic. It is an ugly, brutal, place, and its inhabitants tend to have a neurotic hatred of reality, including, but by no means confined to, the realities of human rights abuses perpetrated by US personnel. In particular, they are so terrified of admitting the truth that they have to summarise a whole series of sordid and barbaric incidents as "a soggy Koran".

I guess the moral here is that people who are armed only with toy swords must perforce direct their beligerence only against straw men.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Allow me to sum up the argument so far.

Initial Claim: People who claim that the USA tortures prisoners are idiots, because in fact the USA does not torture prisoners.

Evidence: The USA has by its own admission tortured a number of people to death.

Revised Claim: If people opposed to US torture are idiots, US torture is okay.

People who claim that the USA tortures prisoners to death at Guantanamo are idiots, because in fact the USA does not torture prisoners to death at Guantanamo.

It is implied by the statement that Guantanamo is "the gulag of our time" that the USA tortures prisoners to death at Guantanamo.

Opposition to the US policy of torture implies support for the statement that Guantanamo is "the gulag of our time".

Therefore those who oppose the US policy of torture are still idiots, because by implication they support the statement that Guantanamo is "the gulag of our time", thus by implication they are claiming that the USA tortures prisoners to death at Guantanamo.

Therefore US torture is okay.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...and all of that, just because a few of their friends rammed jet planes into three lousy buildings. We really shouldn't overreact like that. Wow, I didn't know that. The 9/11 bombers must have been the most popular people on the planet. Actually, I'm a little bit skeptical, though, so before we get into the vexed legal issue of whether being "friends" with a criminal is itself a criminal offense, could I first ask when it was proved that all the detainees were friends of the 9/11 bombers, or indeed had anything to do with the attack on the WTC. Otherwise, I think that this might be something you just made up.Well, yes. If you are not wearing uniform, but civilian clothers, you are not entitled to Geneva convention protection. Sorry. And here's me in my dressing-gown. Now I'm worried. Surely before your government detains me at Gitmo, they should have to prove that I'm doing something a little worse than not wearing khaki?"Nice logic. You know they are spies and saboteurs until some military tribunal determines if they are or not."

Yup. Exactly. So right now, for example, you "know" that I am a spy and a saboteur. When do I get my military tribunal?Truth is, you're all bent out of shape about this--but totally unconcerned about the civilian deaths treating the Jihadis as if they were soldiers would cause--because these abuses were in the news, while those civilians killed by terrorists remain anonymous. This is plainly nonsense. The actions of "Jihadis" do in fact make the news now and then, as you will have noticed if you ever bothered to look at the news. If you must resort to the ad hominem argument, and apparently you must, having nothing better, then you should at least have avoided basing your disgusting personal attack on fishbob on such an obvious lie.

As per my announcement I am indicating that the last paragraph in this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Mycroft
But it is okay to keep a sense of perspective. If our human rights violation is accidently allowing a drop of piss to fly through a vent and land on a Qu'ran, I don't feel a bit like a hypocrite in condemning the torture chamber where people were tortured with electricity. Yep, gotta agree with that. Like I said previously, I do not particularly care about what dribbles onto a Koran. I am concerned about those of our people who feel that damaging prisoners is somehow justified.

What I really want to know is why was somebody whizzing into a vent?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
Well, that and having those views allows one to be in opposition to a Republican president.

It honestly perplexes me. Imagine a meeting of far-left progressives in, say, 1999. The main speaker gets up in front of the audience and says the following.

...

Before the person walked out on the stage, does one imagine the progressives booing that introduction or cheering it? And suppose that instead of making that pretty little speech, he'd said: "I pledge that within a few years America's name will be synonymous throughout the world with the abuse of human rights" --- then he'd have been talking about the actual subject of this thread.

The funny thing is that this is, amongst other things, what Bush has achieved for America, and the --- what shall we call them? --- "unprogressives" are still cheering this rather than booing it. Or if they don't actually cheer, they try, like manny, to change the subject and discuss something else.

You're "honestly perplexed", you say? I think I can resolve your perplexity... listen carefully... We aren't talking about whether it is a good idea to have municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. No-one is opposed to this. The "progressives" are objecting to having the name of the USA dragged through the mud, and not to liberalization in the domestic policies of the Saudi Arabian government. You will find "progressives" a lot less "perplexing" if you try listening to what they actually say. Less perplexing, and also much, much harder to argue with.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Truth is, you're all bent out of shape about this--but totally unconcerned about the civilian deaths treating the Jihadis as if they were soldiers would cause--because these abuses were in the news, while those civilians killed by terrorists remain anonymous.

Your real concern is not to protect the rights of innocents, but merely to look as if you care about the human rights of famous prisoners, whether innocent or guilty or crimes against innocents themselves.

It's the typical liberal "moral" concern of style over substance. Truth is, you don't know squat about me. You don't know squat about those individuals that were detained. You don't know squat about whether the civilian deaths are in any way related to the individuals who are detained.

After you finish telling me what I think, you might consider this: Liberal vs conservative has nothing to do with anything. Allowing liars and #4^# weasels to make hypocrit synonymous with the US is what bends me out of shape.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
As per my announcement I am indicating that the last paragraph in this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue. To be precise, I was pointing out that Skeptic was focussing on a Member, namely fishbob (or, to be pedantic, on the imaginary person he wishes fishbob was) and not on the actual issue. As it appears that you and I are of one mind on the undesirability of this, and as your powers of moderation are stronger than my powers of invective, I'll leave it up to you.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I haven't seen the quote where "some idiot" (you must be referring to someone from AI) said "Gulag" because of homicides in Gitmo - which makes it a bit difficult to understand why he is "more of a liar". http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/25/amnesty.report.reut/

:rolleyes:


I'd suggest taking a cue from this guy, but not exactly holding my breath.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo.durbin/index.html

[Skeptic]

Folks, let's summarize my claim and the "reply":

Me: "The Geneva convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants."

Replies: "Oh how cruel you are to people who happened to be caught in their jammies!".

I don't really think this reply deserves a more serious answer than simply repeating it, as it is self-ridiculing and self-refuting.

But I think we can safely ignore, from now on, the claim that the real concern of those who replied in this fashion is the moral behavior of the troops. Obviously, their real concern is merely appearing human and concerned by shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Folks, let's summarize my claim and the "reply":

Me: "The Geneva convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants."

Replies: "Oh how cruel you are to people who happened to be caught in their jammies!".



I would summarise the replies more along the lines of "Whether the Geneva convention strictly applies or not I believe my country should adopt and judge itself by better standards then the ones held by the people opposed to my country."

Originally posted by Skeptic

I don't really think this reply deserves a more serious answer than simply repeating it, as it is self-ridiculing and self-refuting.


I think, given my summary of the responses, it requires an argument to be presented that explains why my country should adopt the bad standards of my enemies rather then continue to use my country’s better standards.

Originally posted by Skeptic

But I think we can safely ignore, from now on, the claim that the real concern of those who replied in this fashion is the moral behavior of the troops. Obviously, their real concern is merely appearing human and concerned by shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages.

I am unsure who the "we" is that you are referring to? Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that "their real concern is merely appearing human and concerned by shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages"?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
I am unsure who the "we" is that you are referring to? Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that "their real concern is merely appearing human and concerned by shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages"?

I would say the proof is in their statement. The people at "gitmo" are not there just because they weren't wearing military uniforms. Shouldn't they have to provide the proof otherwise?

Those people were most likely caught fighting US troups using guerilla tactics. Simply put, these people were not rounded up at random in their jammies. In fact they were commiting acts against the geneva accords.

Their only complaint is things of comfort. To my knowledge I have not seen a report of a human rights violations at gitmo.

The US has for the most part stayed on that higher standard unless it can be shown that the abuse is wide spread and not the actions of a few soldiers. No one here has presented such evidence.

[Darat]

Originally posted by merphie
I would say the proof is in their statement. The people at "gitmo" are not there just because they weren't wearing military uniforms. Shouldn't they have to provide the proof otherwise?


Whose statements?

Originally posted by merphie

Those people were most likely caught fighting US troups using guerilla tactics. Simply put, these people were not rounded up at random in their jammies. In fact they were commiting acts against the geneva accords.


I am more then willing to give the USA authorities the "benefit of the doubt" regarding the fact that the they had good sound reasons for capturing and imprisoning the vast majority of the people they did during the invasion. (I am also sure there will be cases of imprisonment that weren’t at all justified, however that doesn't negate the good work done by most of the troops, I certainly don’t expect or demand perfection.)

But note I was replying to Skeptic's summary of the responses in this thread, that is what I have a different interpretation of and I was commenting on my very different interpretation.

My view is that the arguments put forward in this thread can be summarised very simplistically as:

"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our country."

versus

"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our enemy."

Originally posted by merphie

Their only complaint is things of comfort. To my knowledge I have not seen a report of a human rights violations at gitmo.

The US has for the most part stayed on that higher standard unless it can be shown that the abuse is wide spread and not the actions of a few soldiers. No one here has presented such evidence.

I agree with you that the USA has for the most part applied much higher standards to their treatment of prisoners then the people opposed to the USA. Indeed the “opposition’s� treatment of hostages and prisoners and their so-called own people would have been considered barbaric a thousand years ago never mind today.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
Whose statements?


I believe Fishbob was one of them. I would have to scroll back through the thread. They have all been going in circles.

I am more then willing to give the USA authorities the "benefit of the doubt" regarding the fact that the they had good sound reasons for capturing and imprisoning the vast majority of the people they did during the invasion. (I am also sure there will be cases of imprisonment that weren’t at all justified, however that doesn't negate the good work done by most of the troops, I certainly don’t expect or demand perfection.)

But note I was replying to Skeptic's summary of the responses in this thread, that is what I have a different interpretation of and I was commenting on my very different interpretation.

Yes I know. It just seems like some of the others are asking skeptic to prove a negative.

My view is that the arguments put forward in this thread can be summarised very simplistically as:


"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our country."

versus

"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our enemy."


Agreed.

I agree with you that the USA has for the most part applied much higher standards to their treatment of prisoners then the people opposed to the USA. Indeed the “opposition’s� treatment of hostages and prisoners and their so-called own people would have been considered barbaric a thousand years ago never mind today.

I have heard stories of abuses in other wars. For the most part I have not read anything that I would really consider an abuse. Especially since we don't know what the circumestances were.

The guilty will be punished on the few instances where something unreasonable did happen. Didn't they just convict several soldiers for it?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our country."

versus

"We should judge ourselves by the standards of our enemy."
I agree that that's what they're saying, but look at what they're not saying. They're not saying what those standards (those of our own country) are or even what they ought to be. Some people seem to be claiming, without explicitly saying so, that the standard ought to be that of the United States' civilian criminal justice system. If indeed that's what they're saying they can be safely ignored. Otherwise, perhaps there's a legitimate debate.

But in this thread, about Guantanamo, we've seen cites for alleged atrocities at other detention centers. Hijack (heh) aside, even those are presented without any context or analysis. OK, 30 homicides and 100 prisoner deaths. Is that a 1% death rate, or .1%, or .001%, or what? How does it compare to the rates of other admirable countries, or even of other US conflicts, in prior instances of wartime prisoner-taking? Are the results better or worse than, say, those of prisoners taken during Vietnam or Korea or the first Gulf War or even smaller wars like Panama? The French must have taken some prisoners during the Ivory Coast conficts since 2002 -- how are they doing? I suspect the answer is mixed -- it's clear, for example, that the US suffered a horrible failure of supervision at Abu Ghraib and that at least some acts which any reasonable person would call torture occurred there as a result. On the other hand, it's also becoming increasingly clear that the accusations of US misconduct at Guantanamo are largely false and that implications of high-level involvement in any abuses is also false.

They say they want to judge the US by US standards rather than those of terrorists, but the facts demonstrate that they really want to judge the US against an arbitrary standard of "perfect" and use any shortcomings against that to feed their hatred of the Bush administration and of the liberation of Iraq.

[merphie]

Originally posted by manny
I agree that that's what they're saying, but look at what they're not saying. They're not saying what those standards (those of our own country) are or even what they ought to be. Some people seem to be claiming, without explicitly saying so, that the standard ought to be that of the United States' civilian criminal justice system. If indeed that's what they're saying they can be safely ignored. Otherwise, perhaps there's a legitimate debate.

But in this thread, about Guantanamo, we've seen cites for alleged atrocities at other detention centers. Hijack (heh) aside, even those are presented without any context or analysis. OK, 30 homicides and 100 prisoner deaths. Is that a 1% death rate, or .1%, or .001%, or what? How does it compare to the rates of other admirable countries, or even of other US conflicts, in prior instances of wartime prisoner-taking? Are the results better or worse than, say, those of prisoners taken during Vietnam or Korea or the first Gulf War or even smaller wars like Panama? The French must have taken some prisoners during the Ivory Coast conficts since 2002 -- how are they doing? I suspect the answer is mixed -- it's clear, for example, that the US suffered a horrible failure of supervision at Abu Ghraib and that at least some acts which any reasonable person would call torture occurred there as a result. On the other hand, it's also becoming increasingly clear that the accusations of US misconduct at Guantanamo are largely false and that implications of high-level involvement in any abuses is also false.

They say they want to judge the US by US standards rather than those of terrorists, but the facts demonstrate that they really want to judge the US against an arbitrary standard of "perfect" and use any shortcomings against that to feed their hatred of the Bush administration and of the liberation of Iraq.

Well said. Bravo!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by manny
They say they want to judge the US by US standards rather than those of terrorists, but the facts demonstrate that they really want to judge the US against an arbitrary standard of "perfect" and use any shortcomings against that to feed their hatred of the Bush administration and of the liberation of Iraq.

Very well said.

It's a time of war, hundreds of thousands of troops are mobilized to conflicts in different parts of the world. Taking some prisoners is a necessity, but in the chaos of war perfect compliance will be impossible. The only reasonable standards to judge us by is how we try to maintain these standards and how we react when we don't.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by merphie
I have heard stories of abuses in other wars. For the most part I have not read anything that I would really consider an abuse. Especially since we don't know what the circumestances were.

Originally posted by manny
OK, 30 homicides and 100 prisoner deaths. Is that a 1% death rate, or .1%, or .001%, or what? How does it compare to the rates of other admirable countries, or even of other US conflicts, in prior instances of wartime prisoner-taking? Are the results better or worse than, say, those of prisoners taken during Vietnam or Korea or the first Gulf War or even smaller wars like Panama? The French must have taken some prisoners during the Ivory Coast conficts since 2002 -- how are they doing?

Darat's point sailed right past you guys: "We should judge ourselves by the standards of our country." Attempts to justify our failures with the 'mommy, they did it too' excuse is a distraction from the real issues - political duck and cover for those responsible for these failures.

Originally posted by Mycroft
The only reasonable standards to judge us by is how we try to maintain these standards and how we react when we don't. I agree with Mycroft here (except for the 'very well said' part). Reactions that include excuses and distractions really fry my bacon.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by merphie
Their only complaint is things of comfort. To my knowledge I have not seen a report of a human rights violations at gitmo.


Oh dear.

Pop quiz, Merphie. What am I quoting?


Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


It's almost too easy.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Folks, let's summarize my claim and the "reply":

Me: "The Geneva convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants."

Replies: "Oh how cruel you are to people who happened to be caught in their jammies!".

I don't really think this reply deserves a more serious answer than simply repeating it, as it is self-ridiculing and self-refuting. Unfortunately for your argument you are not "repeating" that "reply" --- you just made it up. Would you like to reply to something that someone has actually said?But I think we can safely ignore, from now on, the claim that the real concern of those who replied in this fashion is the moral behavior of the troops. Obviously, their real concern is merely appearing human and concerned by shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages. Yes, yes. Their posts may be exactly the posts one would make if one was concerned about the moral behaviour of the troops, but you can see through all that. Apparently instead their motive is to "appear human" --- a pretence which it seems you can also see through. And as their motivations (which you just made up) are as you've imagined, you can safely duck and ignore all their actual arguments. Again, we see the substitution of an ad hominem argument --- moreover, a fictitious one --- for any attempt to deal with the issues raised.
_______________________________

At what point did you demonstrate that the "outrages" over which people are shedding "crocodile tears" ('cos no-one could really be worried about US personnel commiting torture) were "imaginary"?... including the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death.

--- (Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C.)If these outrages are "imaginary", then the person to blame would be that egregious fantasist Ms Pearlstein and the people who appointed her. If these outrages are, as they seem to be, genuine, can you really not understand how some people --- those pesky "liberals", for example, or anyone who cares at all about the good name of the USA --- might actually find this a cause for concern?

No, now I think about it, none of them can possibly have any real objections. They're all just trying to "appear human". That's more likely, isn't it? Yeah.

[Bjorn]

Bjorn posted
I haven't seen the quote where "some idiot" (you must be referring to someone from AI) said "Gulag" because of homicides in Gitmo - which makes it a bit difficult to understand why he is "more of a liar".Originally posted by bigred
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/25/amnesty.report.reut/

:rolleyes:I challenge you to show where in the article anyone from AI is referring to homicides in Guantanamo as a reason for using the word Gulag.

Come one, it's your link, you should be able to do that?

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Darat's point sailed right past you guys: "We should judge ourselves by the standards of our country." Attempts to justify our failures with the 'mommy, they did it too' excuse is a distraction from the real issues - political duck and cover for those responsible for these failures.

I never used the "they did it too" defense.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Oh dear.

Pop quiz, Merphie. What am I quoting?



It's almost too easy.

I don't know. You made it up? You didn't give any links or references.

What is your point?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The only reasonable standards to judge us by is how we try to maintain these standards and how we react when we don't. Agreed. The standard you must be judged by is this: when you fail, as sometimes you will --- will you compare this failure with the ideals on which your nation was founded, and condemn it, or will you compare it with the atrocities of terrorists, and justify it? I'm pleased to see that on this issue the Bush administration has shown a little more sense than certain US citizens I could name.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
They say they want to judge the US by US standards rather than those of terrorists but the facts demonstrate that they really want to judge the US against an arbitrary standard of "perfect" I see that you too have some method of finding out what people "really want" other than actually reading what "they say" they want. Please apply to Randi for your $1,000,000.and use any shortcomings against that to feed their hatred of the Bush administration and of the liberation of Iraq. Let's see these "facts", you spoke of could we? I must have missed the post where anyone said they "hated the liberation of Iraq". Was that the same post where they decried the municipal elections in Saudi Arabia? Where do you find all that straw?

Could you respond to something which someone has actually said, instead of just fantasising about their opinions? Would you at least like to try?

As per my announcement I am indicating that this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I see that you too have some method of finding out what people "really want" other than actually reading what "they say" they want. Please apply to Randi for your $1,000,000.Randi won't even pay for polygraphs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58575). I doubt he'd cough up the money for "having a lick of common sense."

Let's see these "facts", you spoke of could we? Ever hear of the dog that didn't bark? Where's the standards? Where's the analysis? Where is there an objective look at the results we're acheiving with prisoners in this war and comparing them to prior wars. I'm all about improving things. But people who yell "torture" about pop music and pee vapor do not add to any effort to improve things. Indeed, they subtract from it.

Where do you find all that straw?It's just lying around. Fell out the heads of scarecrows, I guess.

Could you respond to something which someone has actually said, instead of just fantasising about their opinions? Would you at least like to try? I'd love to. First someone has to actually say something.

[Skeptic]

It is not OK to excuse abuse by our guys just because the other guys are worse.

True. But pointing out the gulf between Al Quaeda's treatment of prisoners and the US's is a perfectly legitimate reply to those who claim that such abuse shows the US is morally as bad as the Taliban.

I am not demanding any kind of perfection - I am pointing out that excusing abuse violates our ideals

I'm confused. What kind of behavior except perfect behavior does not violate our ideals? Isn't a moral ideal the perfect way to behave? Doesn't "ideal" mean "perfect" in this context--as in, "ideal behavior"?

To say "I don't want perfect behavior, just behavior that doesn't violate our ideals" means "I don't want perfect behavior, just behavior that is morally perfect".

Yes, I suppose one can split hairs about whether "behavior that does not violate our ideals" means exactly the same as "perfect behavior", but the practical demand on the troops' behavior is the same in both cases.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But pointing out the gulf between Al Quaeda's treatment of prisoners and the US's is a perfectly legitimate reply to those who claim that such abuse shows the US is morally as bad as the Taliban.

Who would that be? Another one of those straw men?

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm confused. What kind of behavior except perfect behavior does not violate our ideals? . . . To say "I don't want perfect behavior, just behavior that doesn't violate our ideals" means "I don't want perfect behavior, just behavior that is morally perfect".

Confused? I agree.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
Randi won't even pay for polygraphs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58575). I doubt he'd cough up the money for "having a lick of common sense." Ah, I see. It's common sense that tells you that people want something different from what they ask for. It's funny how common sense tells me the opposite.Ever hear of the dog that didn't bark? Where's the standards? Where's the analysis?In the posts. You should really try reading them instead of inventing their content. Then you would spend less of your time being "genuinely perplexed". Where is there an objective look at the results we're acheiving with prisoners in this war and comparing them to prior wars. And where would be the relevance of this? I'm all about improving things. But people who yell "torture" about pop music and pee vapor do not add to any effort to improve things. Indeed, they subtract from it. I must have missed the bit on this thread where anyone described "pop music and pee vapor" as torture. Perhaps that's tucked away in the same post that decries the liberation of Iraq and municipal elections in Saudi Arabia.

What's more surprising is that you missed the quotation, posted a mere four or five times, about prisoners of the US being "tortured to death". I think you'll find that this is actually what people are "yelling "torture"" about --- but perhaps your common sense tells you something different. After all, that's merely what we're saying. Do feel free to use your magic powers of "common sense" to tell us what we must really think. I could use another laugh.It's just lying around. Fell out the heads of scarecrows, I guess. Quite so. It's the remains of other people's straw men --- recycled. So the stuff about "pop music" comes from Wildcat, the stuff about "sodden Korans" from bigred --- whereas those pesky "progressives" keep on talking about people being tortured to death, and you keep ducking the issue. I'd love to. First someone has to actually say something. Yeah, sure, all these posts and no-one's said anything.

As per my announcement I am indicating that this post is borderline as the tone is rather heated and therefore moves the focus to the personal rather then the issue being discussed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't know. You made it up? You didn't give any links or references.

What is your point?

Clearly. No. It wouldn't be a pop quiz if I did that.

My point? Well, I was quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I thought it an apt response to your remark that you were not aware of any human rights violations at Guantanamo. I suspected that could only be the case if you hadn't the foggiest idea what human rights meant, and it turns out that my suspicion was correct since you couldn't recognise the Declaration when it was right in front of you, even though it referred to itself as a Declaration repeatedly which (I thought) was a complete giveaway.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Clearly. No. It wouldn't be a pop quiz if I did that.

My point? Well, I was quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I thought it an apt response to your remark that you were not aware of any human rights violations at Guantanamo. I suspected that could only be the case if you hadn't the foggiest idea what human rights meant, and it turns out that my suspicion was correct since you couldn't recognise the Declaration when it was right in front of you, even though it referred to itself as a Declaration repeatedly which (I thought) was a complete giveaway.

Which of them are being violated at Guantanamo?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Which of them are being violated at Guantanamo?

It seems to me that Guantanamo is in the process of being rehabilitated as the poster child for International Fascism Lite, so I think it's more appropriate to discuss the USA's international, extrajudicial prison system as a whole.

That system breaches every article I listed earlier.

Guantanamo? I think you could weasel about almost every article I mentioned, although it would involve torturing the definitions of words like "cruel", "equal", "arbitrary" and so on, and there is no way you can get around article 28.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Guantanamo? I think you could weasel about almost every article I mentioned, although it would involve torturing the definitions of words like "cruel", "equal", "arbitrary" and so on, and there is no way you can get around article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

What's so tough about that?

No document says nobody can be captured and imprisoned, that would be silly. Enemy soldiers, prisoners of war, illegal combatents, even common criminals, they're all subject to capture and inprisonment. The only question is who, how and why.

[rocketdodger]

I think alot of you are missing the issue here.

You all assume that because we find the so called "human rights abuses" that occured at gitmo to be trivial compared to what happens in the rest of the world that others will share that view. This is a very dangerous assumtion to make.

The truth is, everyone has different ideas about what would really suck to have done to them. And since we are concerned with trying to make these other peoples (notably in the middle east right now) realize that we are their BUDDIES and not their ENEMIES, we can't afford to simply tell them "we don't think it was that bad, so you shouldn't either." A citizen of a good western country might think that having his thumbs cut off is alot worse than any of the things that go on in gitmo, but what does a citizen of Iraq think? And that is the more pertinent question.

If a muslim thinks that having the koran desicrated in front of him is the worst imaginable torture, then so be it. They might be delusional, but right now it isn't our job to change their mind. It is our job to convince their allies that we are good guys, and this means NOT doing to prisoners what THEY consider unbearable torture. Maybe to islamic followers, being beat up is no big deal, compared to loss of personal dignity, which might be worse than death. Because we are trying to make allies and not enemies, it is our responsibility to avoid doing things that THEY don't like.

Otherwise, why are we even trying to be friends? If you think that they are wrong and we are right, well we might as well just kill them all or make them all slaves. If we are supposed to live together with them, then we need to respect THEIR ideas just like we expect them to respect ours.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

What's so tough about that?


The lack of constitutional rights, independant judicial review, appeals, access by human rights groups to prisoners and so forth make the Guantanamo detention camp something very different to a "social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."


No document says nobody can be captured and imprisoned, that would be silly. Enemy soldiers, prisoners of war, illegal combatents, even common criminals, they're all subject to capture and inprisonment. The only question is who, how and why.

Where does this string of trivial truths get you? The how is the sticking point, and if the how is not compatible with a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized then it is a violation of article 28. It is an infringement of human rights to construct a system where human rights may be curtailed and/or abused with impunity.

[Skeptic]

You all assume that because we find the so called "human rights abuses" that occured at gitmo to be trivial compared to what happens in the rest of the world that others will share that view. This is a very dangerous assumtion to make.

I dunno about that.

The Muslim world, including those places controlled by Al-Quaeda types, is choke-full of torture chambers (which, incidentally, none of our human-rights paladins in this forum seem to give a flying fig about).

Yet all of them seem to be of the thraditional electrodes-to-sensitive-parts-of-the-body type; none seem to include Koran-flushing mechanisms, loud-pop-music chambers, or that Room 101 of Islamic torture, the woman-speaks-to-you-as-if-she-is-your-equal chamber of horrors.

Strange, is't it, if indeed the Islamists' idea of horrible torture is so different than our own? Has the USA mysteriously discovered incredible means to psychically torture the believers they themselves could not?

What you're saying is merely a rephrasing of the "what the US did is just as bad as what the Taliban do". Wrong, and ludicrously wrong at that.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
The lack of constitutional rights, independant judicial review, appeals, access by human rights groups to prisoners and so forth make the Guantanamo detention camp something very different to a "social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized." There is not a prisoner taken during wartime in the history of the world, whether POW or illegal combatant, who gets constitutional rights or appeals unless they are charged with a war crime. They may, depending on circumstances, be charged with a war crime. But most are not. The prisoners are properly and legally held until the earlier of a) the end of hostilities or b) the detaining country unilaterally and at its own sole judgement decides to let them go. Period. That applies to prisoners taken in Afghanistan during the war there, prisoners taken in Europe during World War II, prisoners taken during Vietnam, prisoners taken in Iraq during either war there, prisoners taken anywhere. And of course ICRC does in fact have access to the Guantanamo prisoners. And there were over 14,000 pieces of mail delivered in and out of the facility in just the six months through February 2005.

You are making stuff up.

[Dr Adequate]

.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The Muslim world, including those places controlled by Al-Quaeda types, is choke-full of torture chambers (which, incidentally, none of our human-rights paladins in this forum seem to give a flying fig about). A unpleasant and inaccurate personal attack is not a substitute for argument.Yet all of them seem to be of the thraditional electrodes-to-sensitive-parts-of-the-body type; none seem to include Koran-flushing mechanisms, loud-pop-music chambers, or that Room 101 of Islamic torture, the woman-speaks-to-you-as-if-she-is-your-equal chamber of horrors.

Strange, is't it, if indeed the Islamists' idea of horrible torture is so different than our own? Has the USA mysteriously discovered incredible means to psychically torture the believers they themselves could not? ... including the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death.

--- (Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C.) She does not write "literally made to listen to pop music", "literally saw a Koran being flushed", or "literally spoken to by a woman as an equal". She writes "literally tortured to death", and I really can't see how any of the methods you list could possibly be fatal.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by manny
There is not a prisoner taken during wartime in the history of the world, whether POW or illegal combatant, who gets constitutional rights or appeals unless they are charged with a war crime. They may, depending on circumstances, be charged with a war crime. But most are not. The prisoners are properly and legally held until the earlier of a) the end of hostilities


There has been no declaration of war and there is no defined enemy to defeat, so it's up to US government whim whether that will ever be said to have happened.


And of course ICRC does in fact have access to the Guantanamo prisoners. And there were over 14,000 pieces of mail delivered in and out of the facility in just the six months through February 2005.


They also apparently served glazed chicken once or something. Apparently to some people these observations rule out all possibility of human rights abuses taking place, there or elsewhere, although I have never seen the logic involved made explicit.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that under pressure from the judicial arm of government the US executive is polishing up Guantanamo just enough to deflect the most serious criticisms, and endeavouring to make Guantanamo the topic of debate rather than their system of international detention camps as a whole. As has been stated here repeatedly, the most horrifying facts have not come from Guantanamo and concentrating on Guantanamo is a distraction from the genuinely evil practises that have been and/or are used elsewhere.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
There has been no declaration of war and there is no defined enemy to defeat, so it's up to US government whim whether that will ever be said to have happened.Correct. Nonetheless, there is not a single person on the planet who is not personally a terrorist who questions the United States' legal right to overthrow the taliban and there is not a single person on the planet who is sane who denies that elements of the taliban continue to engage US forces in hostilities. So there will come a day when one might reasonably argue that the war is over and that the US is therefore bound to release those detainees who are not scheduled for war crimes trials. But that day is indisputably not today.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that under pressure from the judicial arm of government the US executive is polishing up Guantanamo just enough to deflect the most serious criticisms, and endeavouring to make Guantanamo the topic of debate rather than their system of international detention camps as a whole. As has been stated here repeatedly, the most horrifying facts have not come from Guantanamo and concentrating on Guantanamo is a distraction from the genuinely evil practises that have been and/or are used elsewhere. You did say that. And then just a few posts later you posited once again that Guantanamo, and you specifically referenced Guantanamo, was somehow in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I'd say that it is you who are "endeavouring to make Guantanamo the topic of debate."

I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm disappointed in the military's apparent management of its detention scheme. I believe that the available evidence indicates that it can and should be improved. But until people like you and AI and Senator Durbin stop handing propaganda victories to the terrorists with things that are not true, I don't care to engage in a discussion about things which may turn out to be true. Your side just don't have sufficient credibility to bother with the conversation.

[Skeptic]

and I really can't see how any of the methods you list could possibly be fatal.

I was replying to rocketdodger's claim that it is a mistake to consider the "human rights abuses that occured in Guatanamo trivial" compared to what the Taliban or Saddam did because the rest of the world "does not see it this way".

My reply is that the rest of the world, as seen by its actions, DOES consider such abuses trivial--as seen by the fact that it never bothers to abuse its own citizens in such a manner when, in the local dictator's judgement, they deserve a whipping.

If, as rocketdodger claims, the rest of the world considers such abuses to be horridly awful, why don't any of the torturers in the rest of the world ever use those same methods? The reason is that it has nothing to do with the abuses. This alleged "outrage" over Guatanamo is, in my view, the same sort of reaction as an abusive husband's "outrage" at the fact that his wife did not have dinner ready in time.

Naive people tend to assume that if someone explodes in violent, insensate rage against some offense, then that offense surely deeply hurt him. But more often than not, as every battered wife will tell you, it's simply a tool of control: the idea is to make the object of rage timid and obedient to the violent rager's oh-so-sensitive self-esteem and ego. The point of the husband's rage is not to make his wife have dinner ready on time--it's to control her behavior by making her fear his rage, whether justified or not.

This is the point about the "rage" against the Koran abuses, etc., in Guatanamo. It is to attempt emotional blackmail. What they want is not correction of the abuse--which the US does as a matter of course once it's brought to its attention--but a groveling apology, an admission from the US of their own moral superiority, and an assurance that every US interrogation or detention policy will be crafted with deep and respectful attention to the beliefs and feeling of those who cheered the twin towers' destruction.

It's not an attempt at moral correction; it's just an attempt at controlling US policy through simulated shock.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by WildCat
Not even the insurgents are cruel enough to play Christina Aguilera music non-stop. ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by WildCat
Please elaborate on "do it too". Too much/not enough air conditioning? Mishandling the Bible? Were they also playing Christina Aguilera music non-stop? Oh, the torture! ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by bigred
I just hope they didn't - gasp - make them stand around naked or have dogs bark at them.

THE HORROR...... ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by manny
Nothing so civilized as that. No, they had hot chicks in crisp uniforms talk seductively to them. Oh, the humanity! ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by WildCat
... dripping water on someones forehead ... mishandling a Koran ... leaving the lights on all night?

Frankly, I find the comparisons despicable at worst, and dishonest at best. ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by Skeptic
In many cases it is only "torture" and "abuse" in the sense of not catering to their oh-so-precious "religious beliefs" ... touching their holy book causes intolerable psychic damage.

Or the numerous complaints about women interrogators/guard: why is this "abuse"? ... ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by bigred
Welcome to the land of liberal logic... Here, it is perfectly reasonable to bemoan the horrors of a soggy Koran... Let's instead make a big issue out of the the fact that - gasp - someone threw the Koran in the crapper! Court martial offense, I say! ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by Mycroft
But it is okay to keep a sense of perspective. If our human rights violation is accidently allowing a drop of piss to fly through a vent and land on a Qu'ran, I don't feel a bit like a hypocrite... ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by manny
There were droplets of pee accidently ventilated into pages of the Koran. There was pop music. There was too much a/c and there was too little.... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by Skeptic
Obviously, their real concern is ... shedding crocodile tears over imaginary outrages. ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by manny
But people who yell "torture" about pop music and pee vapor do not add to any effort to improve things. ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death. Originally posted by Skeptic
Koran-flushing mechanisms, loud-pop-music chambers, or that Room 101 of Islamic torture, the woman-speaks-to-you-as-if-she-is-your-equal chamber of horrors.

Strange, is't it, if indeed the Islamists' idea of horrible torture is so different than our own? ... the most disturbing Pentagon figures that more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases so far deemed homicides, at least half of those describing people who were literally tortured to death.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Clearly. No. It wouldn't be a pop quiz if I did that.

My point? Well, I was quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I thought it an apt response to your remark that you were not aware of any human rights violations at Guantanamo. I suspected that could only be the case if you hadn't the foggiest idea what human rights meant, and it turns out that my suspicion was correct since you couldn't recognise the Declaration when it was right in front of you, even though it referred to itself as a Declaration repeatedly which (I thought) was a complete giveaway.

Nice ad-hominem test. You devise some odd test and if I don't pass it you can call me some sort of nazi.

I'm sorry I didn't pick up on it right away. I've only memorized the bill of rights and constitution word for word. Next week is the universal declaration. Call back next week.

[fishbob]

Dr. A: It seems that you are trying to tell us something. . . Are you saying that distraction and diversion by focus on piddly side issues has occurred?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by manny
Correct. Nonetheless, there is not a single person on the planet who is not personally a terrorist who questions the United States' legal right to overthrow the taliban


Oh dear. Which world are you from again? Lots of people have questioned the USA's legal right to invade Afghanistan, especially given that the basis given for war was that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden until the USA ponied up some evidence that he had something to do with 9/11.

If I was accused of mass murder by a foreign power, you can bet I'd want my government to hold off on handing me over until they saw some evidence too.

I think you have let the general consensus that the Iraq war was far more legally and morally questionable carry you away.


and there is not a single person on the planet who is sane who denies that elements of the taliban continue to engage US forces in hostilities.


They still think it's their country or something, I guess. Do not get me wrong - the Taliban are horrible people. Arguably significantly better than the lot that have replaced them in much of Afghanistan, but still very horrible people.


So there will come a day when one might reasonably argue that the war is over and that the US is therefore bound to release those detainees who are not scheduled for war crimes trials. But that day is indisputably not today.


How is that different from any banana republic saying "We'll release our political prisoners when we feel like it. Maybe after the counter-revolutionary forces have been suppressed. There will come a day when it might be reasonable to release them, but it is indisputably not today."?

A keystone of the rule of law is that nobody should have the power to do that to people without strict oversight, which currently does not exist and is only slowly being imposed in some places by the US courts, in the face of executive obstruction.


You did say that. And then just a few posts later you posited once again that Guantanamo, and you specifically referenced Guantanamo, was somehow in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I'd say that it is you who are "endeavouring to make Guantanamo the topic of debate."


As long as it we bear constantly in mind that Guantanamo as it exists today is (probably) the site of the least of the USA's offences against human rights, and so probably the single least worthy of discussion, it's all good.


I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm disappointed in the military's apparent management of its detention scheme. I believe that the available evidence indicates that it can and should be improved. But until people like you and AI and Senator Durbin stop handing propaganda victories to the terrorists with things that are not true, I don't care to engage in a discussion about things which may turn out to be true. Your side just don't have sufficient credibility to bother with the conversation.

That's a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. First, lump everyone who disagrees with you together. Second, label them as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Hey presto, you now have a license to excuse yourself from thinking about or debating the issues.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by merphie
Nice ad-hominem test. You devise some odd test and if I don't pass it you can call me some sort of nazi.


Oops, Godwin.


I'm sorry I didn't pick up on it right away. I've only memorized the bill of rights and constitution word for word. Next week is the universal declaration. Call back next week.

Perhaps it was mean of me, with hindsight. I guess the lessons here are that I should lower my expectations for cultural competency with regard to international political issues in this forum, and you shouldn't use terms like "human rights", the meaning of which you are not aware of.

Allow me to submit a better version of my original comment. Current practises at Guantanamo Bay might, maybe, be seen to just squeak past as "probably not quite human rights violations" assuming that we are not being kept in the dark about anything going on in any section of the base. The US detention system worldwide, including extrajudicial domestic detention of US citizens domestically, and the practise of handing over captives to other nations for torture at arms length without any process of law, is a grievous and totally unambiguous offence against human rights.

Sorry if repeating these well documented, easily found facts in this forum encourages terrorists. I urge the moderators to ban any terrorists who get too encouraged, to stop them getting encouraged any further.

[rocketdodger]

Look please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we should be all nice and mushy with mean people. I was just saying that you have to take into consideration that people can really freak out even if you do very little to them, as long as you hit the right spots. And judging by the muslim world's reactions to the little things done at gitmo (whether they are true or not, as protrayed), that is a sore spot to rub.

I just want to get the point across that if you want to live side by side with people who see things differently than you, you have to respect their qwirks. That doesn't mean I want to live side by side. If I had my way, the USA would take over the entire world and make former countries states in the union. And if you have a problem with letting other people live in peace and don't like it, you get sent to mars or something:D

You are probably right about the reason there was such supposed outrage over these things at gitmo though. I am a n honest person and I always make the mistake of assuming that if a person is pissed, they have a legit reason for it, but I am constantly getting proved to be naive. You would think that after 26 years I would have learned, but I guess thats what being naive is all about..:(

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Oops, Godwin.

It ended with the ad-hominem.

Perhaps it was mean of me, with hindsight. I guess the lessons here are that I should lower my expectations for cultural competency with regard to international political issues in this forum, and you shouldn't use terms like "human rights", the meaning of which you are not aware of.

Allow me to submit a better version of my original comment. Current practises at Guantanamo Bay might, maybe, be seen to just squeak past as "probably not quite human rights violations" assuming that we are not being kept in the dark about anything going on in any section of the base. The US detention system worldwide, including extrajudicial domestic detention of US citizens domestically, and the practise of handing over captives to other nations for torture at arms length without any process of law, is a grievous and totally unambiguous offence against human rights.

Sorry if repeating these well documented, easily found facts in this forum encourages terrorists. I urge the moderators to ban any terrorists who get too encouraged, to stop them getting encouraged any further.

I refuse to respond to anything while you continue your personal attacks. First you attack me personally and then you attack my culture. I'm not playing this game anymore. Take it some where else.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by merphie
I refuse to respond to anything while you continue your personal attacks.

Okay, I've stopped now. You can respond if you want.

[Skeptic]

Perhaps it was mean of me, with hindsight. I guess the lessons here are that I should lower my expectations for cultural competency with regard to international political issues in this forum,

Yes, if somebody disagrees with you, there are only two possibilities: they're either fascists or idiots.