Obama's Gitmo Policy Coming Home To Roost

[BeAChooser]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/..._by_trial.html

Quote:

The disastrous folly of trying Al Qaeda enemy combatants in civilian court stands proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of the first Guantanamo detainee brought to New York to face justice.

There is abundantly conclusive proof that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani participated in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. At least 5,000 were wounded.

... snip ... In 2004, the CIA caught up with Ghailani in Pakistan. By then, he had gone on to train with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, serve as Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard and meet some of the 9/11 hijackers.

These facts come courtesy of Ghailani's own mouth. He revealed them under interrogation while in clandestine CIA custody before transfer to Guantanamo. Therein lies the legal absurdity.

The CIA grilled Ghailani in the interest of national security - to prevent further terrorist attacks - and not as a run-of-the-mill criminal suspect with full U.S. constitutional rights.

Thus, Ghailani had no lawyer. Thus, in the words of Manhattan Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, Ghailani was subjected to a "combination of social influence approaches and extremely harsh interrogation methods to obtain evidence" - techniques that were used "to obtain intelligence from a handful of detainees believed to possess particularly high-value information."

So, years later, come time for opening statements in Kaplan's courtroom, prosecutors chose not even to try entering a word of Ghailani's testimony into evidence. Instead, they hung their case largely on one Hussein Abebe, a Tanzanian who was prepared to testify that he had sold five crates of explosives to Ghailani.

Bad move. Kaplan yesterday barred Abebe from taking the stand because the FBI tracked him down based solely on information provided by Ghailani under "coerced" questioning.

Guess what the outcome of this so-called trial will probably be?

[maxpower1227]

Would you say his Gitmo policy is Stuck On Stupid ?

[ANTPogo]

I like how this is all Obama's fault for trying them in a court under the US rule of law, and not Bush's fault for, y'know, torturing him via extrajudicial means.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I like how this is all Obama's fault for trying them in a court under the US rule of law, and not Bush's fault for, y'know, torturing him via extrajudicial means.

Is BAC really saying that the only evidence against this man was gleaned through torture? Because that's not exactly something that should be acceptable on a skeptic's forum.

Nah, he must be saying something else.

[Taarkin]

Quote:

He revealed them under interrogation while in clandestine CIA custody before transfer to Guantanamo. Therein lies the legal absurdity.

I agree, but not in the way the author intended.

[Praktik]

What I don't understand is that Obama is essentially on BAC's side here: it was the government that was arguing that a witness found through torture should be admitted to the court - the judge just didn't agree and appealed to some wishy-washy pablum about the "constitution":

The Court has not reached this conclusion lightly. It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live. But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.

What liberal claptrap! I dunno why BAC picked on Obama - who has basically followed the Bush approach of arguing for inclusion of testimony coerced through torture and the blanket invocation of the "state secrets" priviledge to quash cases - when there was this liberal, activist judge appealing to the constution (of all things!) there for his ready admonition.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/..._by_trial.html



Guess what the outcome of this so-called trial will probably be?

He'll walk, the way God ordained it in the Bible. You got a problem with that?

We have no reliable proof that he ever did anything, because some wet-brained moron let the worst Sec Def in history talk him into adopting torture, a measure that was recognized CENTURIES ago as useless and corrosive to the truth, to be used on certain individuals just because they could get away with it.

I am not ready to damn my own soul to hell to put this man to death on that sort of BS. Shame on you for thinking that it is okay to slather that sin on our nation's hands.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Taarkin

I agree, but not in the way the author intended.

I concur, and I think that I am reaching the same conclusion as you.

The legal absurdity is the fiction that valid evidence exists against the defendant.

We have no acceptable proof that he is guilty. The Shrub, Rummy and the nosferatu VP may have manufactured all of the evidence to make themselves look less stupid than some of us suspect them to be.

[Travis]

How terrible these civilian courts actually have standards. I can see why so many are against it since this would really impede their "lock up all Muslims until we figure out how to exterminate them" plan.

[leftysergeant]

That's close to what they are doing, Travis.

Originally Posted by Travis

How terrible these civilian courts actually have standards. I can see why so many are against it since this would really impede their "lock up all Muslims until we figure out how to exterminate them" so that we look like we're doing something plan.

FIFY

[Toontown]

This absurd situation is the result of a series of absurd decisions.

1. The (alleged) absurd decision of the sin-hating biblical god to make born sinners in mass quantities.

2. The absurd decision to close Gitmo.

3. The absurd decision to try enemy combatants in civilian courts.

4. The judge's ruling on the inadmissability of the "defendant's" confession is absurd, but probably required by law, now that the enemy has been absurdly dumped in his lap. Absurd because, at the time of the "defendant's" interrogation, there was no expectation that he would ever be tried in a civil court. At that time, his status was identical to that of a prisoner of war. As such, He could be interrogated. He was not entitled to a lawyer. He could be held without trial for the duration of hostilities. But now all the rules have changed. Now, all of a sudden, foreign enemy combatant terrorists are afforded the full range of constitutional rights of the country whose citizens they seek to slaughter in mass quantities. Rights they did nothing to earn and clearly do not deserve.

Life is a bitch. Then you die.

If you choose to be a combatant, you might get killed or captured. If captured, you might not get a lawyer or a trial by jury. If you choose to be a combatant, you must accept those risks. Well, that's the way it used to be. But now the rules are all different, if you fight the US. Now, if you're captured, you get a lawyer, you can't be harshly interrogated, you can't be held indefinitely, and you get tried in a civil court. Then, chances are, you walk, because your guilt will not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Can't beat a deal like that, unless the fools actually start paying you to blow them up...

Offhand, I can't think of a better way to make the rad muzzies think Allah is in control and on their side, short of letting them have nukes and letting them blow us up...and it looks like we're working on that too.

And now, thanks to a series of very poor decisions made by people who should have known better, this "defendant" will walk. He will return to business as usual. He will live an utterly senseless, miserable "life". Then he will die, and probably take a lot of people with him, one way or another. And all his terrorist friends will take his victory over the US as proof of the rightness of their cause.

But that might not be as far as the absurdity goes. If leftysergeant's belief system is true, our intrepid terrorist will then be frog-marched off to hell to be tortured for all of eternity. And many of his victims will join him there, having been unjustly killed before they figured ot which god was the real one and repented of their sins.

A greater mishmash of injustice and hypocrisy is difficult to imagine. It is wrong to use a confession obtained from an enemy combatant by "harsh interrogation methods". But it is "just" to let the guy walk, let him conclude that his murderous ways are actually the will of Allah, and then torture the guy eternally in hell after the wrongly-released unrepentant bastard dies.

That's biblical justice, all right.

[Travis]

How is anyone "deserving" of a trial? Having one is just a basic human right to me. Not one you "earn."

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Travis

How is anyone "deserving" of a trial? Having one is just a basic human right to me. Not one you "earn."

You're right.

It's more like blind, staggering luck. He killed some people in a "war" declared by al Qaeda. The dead people's countrymen captured him. He was just lucky enough to be captured by people who would elect a president who would grant an enemy who wants to kill all of them a civil trial. Because he wasn't wearing a uniform and did not observe any of the rules of war. If he had been wearing a uniform, he would have been kept in a POW camp for the duration of hostilities. Without a lawyer. Without a trial. The only reason he is being tried now is because the administration wants to get rid of all the Gitmo prisoners so they can carry out the symbolic act of closing Gitmo.

Blind, staggering luck. Because the writers of the Geneva conventions failed to foresee and make sensible rules pertaining to stateless warmongers and their uniformless pawns.

"'Deserve's' got nuthin to do with it." - William Munny

And nor, apparently, does reason or logic have much to do with it. Reason and logic would dictate that enemies who fight for an organization which has declared war on us, should be treated as enemies on the battlefield and as POW's when captured. Uniform or no uniform. The simple expedient of not wearing a uniform or observing any of the rules of war while carrying out their brutish treacheries should not make priveledged characters of them.

[leftysergeant]

I noticed some errors in your post, Toontown, and have corrected them below.

Originally Posted by Toontown

This absurd situation is the result of a series of absurd decisions.

1. The (alleged) absurd decision of the sin-hating biblical god to make born sinners in mass quantities.

2. The absurd decision to close Gitmo.

3. The absurd decision to try enemy combatants in civilian courts.

The stupidity of several million voters and the possible crimes of certain elections official which resulted in an unfit moron being placed in command of a modern military force and a justice system.

Do learn a little more about rules of engagement and the justice system and the Geneva Conventions. You will make fewer such absurd statements later.

And please do not get confused readinbg what rationale the Shrub, the nosferatu, Rummy, John "Can't beat a deadman" Aschcroft or that shyster Gonzo said about the status of the detainees. They're evil and stupid and just pulled something out of their butts and threw it at the wall and called it leadership. Any real intelligence expert or authority in military justice knows that that sorry crew should be frog marched to the Hague for the stunt they pulled.

Quote:

A greater mishmash of injustice and hypocrisy is difficult to imagine. It is wrong to use a confession obtained from an enemy combatant by "harsh interrogation methods". But it is "just" to let the guy walk, let him conclude that his murderous ways are actually the will of Allah, and then torture the guy eternally in hell after the wrongly-released unrepentant bastard dies.

That's biblical justice, all right.

Yup, according to the Bible, it is better to let a killer walk than to hang a wrongly-convicted suspect.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I noticed some errors in your post, Toontown, and have corrected them below.

Oh yeah? Well, I noticed some errors in your post, and have deleted them.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Toontown

You're right.

It's more like blind, staggering luck. He killed some people in a "war" declared by al Qaeda.

We can never be sure of that because some war criminals diddled the evidence and we can't do the same to them to make them confess that they did. Evidence obtained under torture is worthless. That is the least of the reasons why we do not, under the leadership of people less insane than the Shrub, ever admit it into evidence. It is also evil./ Only evil and stupid people base a criminal conviction or even an arrest warrant on evidenmce obtained by torture.

Only evil people condone it as a matter of policy.

The nosferatu from Wyoming is still running around saying that it was a good idea. The sorry excuse for a Sec Def who gave the order laughed it off. May they rot in hell.

Quote:

The only reason he is being tried now is because the administration wants to get rid of all the Gitmo prisoners so they can carry out the symbolic act of closing Gitmo.

No. He wants to restore America and cleanse our government of some of the dreck that has adhered to our shoes and stained the carpet over the last ten years.

Quote:

Blind, staggering luck. Because the writers of the Geneva conventions failed to foresee and make sensible rules pertaining to stateless warmongers and their uniformless pawns.

No. The rules are fine. They were written to keep sub-humans from doing to captured fighters what certain sub-humans did to the detainees in our names.

Quote:

And nor, apparently, does reason or logic have much to do with it. Reason and logic would dictate that enemies who fight for an organization which has declared war on us, should be treated as enemies on the battlefield and as POW's when captured. Uniform or no uniform. The simple expedient of not wearing a uniform or observing any of the rules of war while carrying out their brutish treacheries should not make priveledged characters of them.

Fine. Give them the same rights that a POW gets, for the duration of the war, and then send them home with a lovely gift package the way we did the Germans about sixty years ago.

Or try them as war criminals with full due process.

Sorry, you can't just let idiots invent alternatives to fit their evil designs. It is just as corrosive of our rights, in the end.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Oh yeah? Well, I noticed some errors in your post, and have deleted them.

Excuse me, were you under the impression that the Shrub and Rummy and Gonzo had a clue between them, or were morally up to the task of conducting a war?

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Yup, according to the Bible, it is better to let a killer walk than to hang a wrongly-convicted suspect.

That's an argument from authority, mathematically invalid, and utterly hypocritical to boot. Do you really believe all those little children your god drowned in the flood were guilty? As soon as Jehovah justifies that, maybe I'll start letting his invisible, non-talking, non-writing, mass-murdering, eternal-torturing ass tell me what to think.

Also irrelevant. There shouldn't be any trial, and wouldn't be any trials if these terrorists were not being granted priveledged character status on the false basis that they don't wear uniforms or observe any rules of war or fight for a country.

The Hitler-spawn shouldn't be getting any special treatment. They should be treated as POW's. They should not be put on trial. They should simply be held until the end of hostilities, and then released to their countries of origin. If their countries of origin are too irresponsible to take the ill-begotten rats, that's just too bad. They stay in Gitmo. If the hostilities do not end during their lifetimes, well, that's unfortunate for them. They should have thought about the downside before deciding they wanted to be big bad assassins for Allah.

Life is a bitch. Then you die. You wanna be a big bad terrorist? Then you rolls the dice and you takes yer chances. Just like everybody else who has ever fought in a war. Just like I did.

None of this priveledged character ********. If they want be soldiers for bin Laden, they can accept the realities of war just like every other soldier always has. They can be treated like any other soldier in any other war.

And while I'm on the subject, I'll just add that those narcissistic Taliban pretty-boys need to start picking up their stinking dead bodies like real soldiers instead of letting them rot on the battlefield like a bunch of unsanitary schoolgirl-murdering slobs, expecting the Americans to pick them up and bury them. Then they whine and cry like little babies when the Americans pour gasoline on the dead bodies and burn them for sanitary reasons.

Bottom line: if these slobs need to be properly disposed of in order to get to their mansion full of virgins, then they are ill-adapted for warfare. In war, there can be no guarantee that your putrid remains will be properly disposed of.

Bottom-bottom line: i'm just getting real tired of these terrorists' oh-so-special-me attitudes. Like the Master of the Universe is going to go to all the trouble of procuring a mansion full of divine sluts for them. Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. Learn to live with it, Hitler-spawn: you're just another monkey-face in a very big crowd of very ignorant monkeys. You will live your miserable, pointless, destructive lives, and then you will die. And then your remains will rot. There won't be any mansion full of virgins. Eventually, entropy will erase all trace of your former existence. It will be as if you had never existed at all.

See, father-raping mother-stabbers, the universe does not give a rat's ass about you. Which is a good thing, actually. If the universe did give a rat's ass about you, it probably wouldn't be giving a rat's ass about you in a "good" way. It would more likely be giving a rat's ass about you in the sense of what to do about your sorry asses. Because you see, if the universe was giving a rat's ass about you, that would mean the universe is sentient. And you really, really don't want that. You really don't want a sentient universe looking at your sorry asses and thinking about what it should do with you. Because it might get some really 'creative' ideas about what to with some schoolgirl-murdering father-raping mother-stabbers.

But I digress. Rant, even. Screw it. Let the bastard go back where he came from. In the long run, he'll suffer more there.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Offhand, I can't think of a better way to make the rad muzzies think Allah is in control and on their side, short of letting them have nukes and letting them blow us up...and it looks like we're working on that too.

Great, another one of these guys on the forum.

Daredelvis

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Fine. Give them the same rights that a POW gets, for the duration of the war, and then send them home with a lovely gift package the way we did the Germans about sixty years ago.

Suits me. It's their misfortune that the war will probably not end during their lifetimes.

[fagin]

Toontown, you seem a bit overly stressed by this. Put simply, if the only evidence against somebody is a confession obtained under torture, duress, call it what you like, then that evidence is not admissable in court.
If a person is a POW, there are certain conventions, which as civilised nations, we accept. POW's cannot be tried.
If they are war criminals, there are again conventions, and they are entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
If they are terrorists, they are criminals, and entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
What is too hard for you too understand.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Great, another one of these guys on the forum.

Daredelvis

Great. Another word cop.

I find it difficult to believe that the term "rad muzzies" is more than your fragile little psyche can bear.

[fagin]

"Hitler-spawn ill-begotten rats big bad assassins for Allah narcissistic Taliban pretty-boys stinking dead bodies unsanitary schoolgirl-murdering slobs monkey-face in a very big crowd of very ignorant monkeys father-raping mother-stabbers schoolgirl-murdering father-raping mother-stabbers bastard."

Toontown - I believe your description is slightly incorrect - technically if they have fathers (even if they rape them) they can't be bastards.

[Praktik]

See though Toontown and BAC - consider this:

Maybe Obama is on your side. What if the judge had admitted the testimony of the witness found through torture?

The precedent would have basically put a legal shield around the use of torture on terrorist suspects - in a civilian court!

Maybe Obama was going for the Big Win and looking to legitimize torture with a legal precedent! His legal team, after all, was attempting to do just that. They were arguing for admissibility - they didn't concede that ground.

Can you blame a guy for trying??

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by fagin

Toontown, you seem a bit overly stressed by this. Put simply, if the only evidence against somebody is a confession obtained under torture, duress, call it what you like, then that evidence is not admissable in court.
If a person is a POW, there are certain conventions, which as civilised nations, we accept. POW's cannot be tried.
If they are war criminals, there are again conventions, and they are entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
If they are terrorists, they are criminals, and entitled to a fair trial. Evidence is required.
What is too hard for you too understand.

What is hard for me to understand is why Holder insisted on trying this guy in a civil court, knowing full well the judge would throw the confession out. He can't blame Bush for that.

Looks like a political grandstand play to me. Make a big political show about how the war criminal can't be convicted because the mean old war criminal Bush poured water up his nose.

If that's what Holder is up to, it's far worse than a harsh interrogation. The harsh interrogation was in the interest of national security. If Holder is doing what I think he's doing, he's just using the legal system for a political tool, in a clumsy play for political gain.

It wouldn't be anything new. The Democrats have been running against Bush, Cheney, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin for the past two years. I'm thoroughly tired of it. And so, apparently, are a lot of other people.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Toontown

They can be treated like any other soldier in any other war.

Oh cool, so I guess the Bush approach to gitmo detainees is fine for foreign countries to use against American soldiers.

Consistent my friend. That's admirable.

[DC]

Quote:

Looks like a political grandstand play to me. Make a big political show about how the war criminal can't be convicted because the mean old war criminal Bush poured water up his nose.

When the only evidence against someone stems from the words of that person under the impression of facing imminent death. I would assume it is very likely he might have lied to escape, that from him expected imminent death.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Praktik

What I don't understand is that Obama is essentially on BAC's side here: it was the government that was arguing that a witness found through torture should be admitted to the court - the judge just didn't agree and appealed to some wishy-washy pablum about the "constitution":

The Court has not reached this conclusion lightly. It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live. But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.

What liberal claptrap! I dunno why BAC picked on Obama - who has basically followed the Bush approach of arguing for inclusion of testimony coerced through torture and the blanket invocation of the "state secrets" priviledge to quash cases - when there was this liberal, activist judge appealing to the constution (of all things!) there for his ready admonition.

Technically, it's conservative claptrap -- he's conserving the Constitution as written and followed for centuries, by disallowing torture testimony. It's the government, by trying to get torture testimony admitted, that is "liberal" here, i.e. breaking with the past by bypassing long, deliberative process and amendment.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Toontown

And nor, apparently, does reason or logic have much to do with it. Reason and logic would dictate that enemies who fight for an organization which has declared war on us, should be treated as enemies on the battlefield and as POW's when captured. Uniform or no uniform. The simple expedient of not wearing a uniform or observing any of the rules of war while carrying out their brutish treacheries should not make priveledged characters of them.

It's interesting that the reason we didn't do this was so we could skip the Geneva conventions, which would disallow waterboarding-as-interrogation-but-not-quite-"real"-torture.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Technically, it's conservative claptrap -- he's conserving the Constitution as written and followed for centuries, by disallowing torture testimony. It's the government, by trying to get torture testimony admitted, that is "liberal" here, i.e. breaking with the past by bypassing long, deliberative process and amendment.

So you're siding with the accused, and against the government on this? Torture was wrong, this evidence is forever tainted, and this man should go free? Just making sure where you stand on the broader question.

[ingoa]

Originally Posted by Praktik

What I don't understand is that Obama is essentially on BAC's side here: it was the government that was arguing that a witness found through torture should be admitted to the court - the judge just didn't agree and appealed to some wishy-washy pablum about the "constitution":

BAC is a notorious Obama lover.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Rights they did nothing to earn and clearly do not deserve.

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

Isn't this the crux of the matter? If the only evidence against these guys is that they were tortured, and during that torture they admitted to crimes, then how do people on a SKEPTICS forum accept that as valid evidence?

And how do you say that "since a suspect is obviously guilty", he does not "deserve" the chance to prove that he is not, in fact, guilty of anything at all?

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Oh cool, so I guess the Bush approach to gitmo detainees is fine for foreign countries to use against American soldiers.

Consistent my friend. That's admirable.

Irrelevant.

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

Go ahead. Name one.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Irrelevant.

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

Go ahead. Name one.

Germany.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Irrelevant.

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

Go ahead. Name one.

So, your contention is that the US should only strive to be as good as the next worst country when dealing with human rights?

Can we please apply that standard to our health care system, broadband service, transportation, and education systems?

And keep our human rights goals more lofty?

Pretty please?

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Irrelevant.

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

Go ahead. Name one.

On average, the Germans treated American POWs better than the Bush administration treated Gitmo "detainees". Of course, the question itself is mis-direction. Having waded through hundreds of pages of arguments about the status of the detainees in Gitmo (and having actually been there half a dozen times myself), it all comes down to a few simple facts, and those facts easily guide one to a logically inescapable conclusion. First, the facts:

1. There is no monolithic block of detainees. They are not universally combatant detainees from either Iraq or Afghanistan. A significant minority of them were traded to US authority for a bounty, with no more "evidence" against them than that the person seeking the bounty said they were combatants.

2. The detainees are either Enemy Prisoners of War, or they are criminal suspects. There are no other categories for these detainees - no matter how hard the Bush administration attempted to create one. The courst have ruled on this, and it is established law.

3. If the detainees are criminal suspects, then they are entitled to the full protections of the US Constitution, and it matters not at all where they were captured or by whom. If they are suspects, then no evidence obtained so far would be admisable, and the goverment has certainly forfeited the right to present a case at speedy trial.

4. If the detainees are Enemy Prisoners, then any coerced interogation is a violation of several treaties binding on US officials. In other words, the interogations themselves are war crimes. Additionally, those same treaties require the US to afford the EPWs the same rights as US Service Personnel should they be accused of crimes.

The conclusion:

The US has no constitutional authority to try these detainees if they are EPWs, and no evidence with which to try them if they are suspects. If they are suspects, their rights have been so violated as to make trial impossible. If they are EPWs then the US is guilty of war crimes.

[Toontown]

"Rights they did nothing to earn and clearly do not deserve."

Originally Posted by Ryokan

How do you know? Because he admitted to it under torture?

How do I know he's done nothing to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

It's a guess. But it's a very, very high probability guess. It's like when you hop in your car and take off. You're just guessing the brakes will work when you need them. Likewise, I'm just guessing that this foreigner, who is very probably a terrorist and a murderer of US citizens, has done nothing to earn or deserve any rights under the US Constitution, which he very probably seeks to destroy.

BTW, How do you know "he admitted to it under torture"? Why do you assume "harsh interrogation" means torture? "Harsh interrogation" could simply mean they yelled at him, talked dirty to him, and kept him awake past his beddy-bye time, which would be no worse than Marine basic training.

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Toontown

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

It seems to me that you somehow missed the fact that the vast majority of these people were found to have been sent there by mistake.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4877395.shtml

And you also seem to have missed the stories about what they did to these people. Just what high school did you go to where they waterboarded you, put you in a box with insects, kept you in a cold cell with no clothes for days, and made you crap your pants?

Because that's a really bad school.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Toontown

How do I know he's done nothing to earn or deserve the constitutional rights of US citizens?

It's a guess. But it's a very, very high probability guess. It's like when you hop in your car and take off. You're just guessing the brakes will work when you need them. Likewise, I'm just guessing that this foreigner, who is very probably a terrorist and a murderer of US citizens, has done nothing to earn or deserve any rights under the US Constitution, which he very probably seeks to destroy.

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

Originally Posted by Toontown

BTW, How do you know "he admitted to it under torture"? Why do you assume "harsh interrogation" means torture? "Harsh interrogation" could simply mean they yelled at him, talked dirty to him, and kept him awake past his beddy-bye time, which would be no worse than Marine basic training.

What is conveniently being called "torture" these days is no worse than my high school lettermen's club initiation, and not nearly as bad as the average two-a-day football practice session - which would probably kill the soft, wimpy little terrorist alpha-rats I've seen pics of. That being the case, I have ZERO confidence in any claims that detainees have been "tortured". In fact, the ones I've seen pics of look none the worse for wear. OTC, they look pretty fat and sassy.

If they have any other evidence that wasn't revealed during torture, don't you think they would've presented it?

They used high school pranks to get people to talk? That sounds silly.

As for fat and sassy, that would describe self-proclaimed right-winger, Bush-supporter and cheerleader of the Iraqi war Christopher Hitchens.

Let's see what he had to say about the matter after being water boarded:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sure, he doesn't look 'worse for wear', either. That's because water boarding is a very mental form of torture.