Innocents in Gitmo

[PLC1]

Not all of the "terrorists" locked up at Gitmo are the "worst of the worst", nor are they all terrorists by any means.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries has found that dozens and perhaps hundreds of men whom the U.S. has imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere were held on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

Thanks to the Supreme Court and the fourth estate, the truth just might come out finally.

Read the rest here. (http://www.fresnobee.com/gitmo/)

[Federal Farmer]

Not all of the "terrorists" locked up at Gitmo are the "worst of the worst", nor are they all terrorists by any means.

Thanks to the Supreme Court and the fourth estate, the truth just might come out finally.

Read the rest here. (http://www.fresnobee.com/gitmo/)

Yeah, right, and neither were any of the ones that have been released, and returned to terrorism.

Dead Taleban Leader Was Guantanamo Detainee (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/07/sec-070725-voa01.htm)
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
25 July 2007

The Taleban leader who killed himself to avoid capture by Pakistani security forces Tuesday was released from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay three years ago. Pentagon officials say they do their best not to release detainees who will return to terrorism, but this Taleban operative was not the only one to do so. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

The Pentagon says Abdullah Mehsud is one of about 30 former detainees who have returned to terrorism after being released from Guantanamo. In all, 420 detainees have been released over the years, and 80 more have been approved for release, once arrangements can be made with host countries. There are currently about 360 detainees at the facility.

Mehsud was a Taleban fighter in the 1990s, and he lost a leg in a land mine explosion shortly before the Taleban took Kabul in 1996. In 2001, during fighting against the Northern Alliance, he was taken prisoner. He was transferred to U.S. custody after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, and he was sent to the Guantanamo detention center shortly after it was established.

During 25 months there, he managed to conceal his identity and convinced his interrogators he was an innocent man caught up in the fighting. He was released in March of 2004. Just a few months later, Mehsud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan's tribal areas. One of them was killed during a rescue attempt. Since then, he is reported to have become a leader of Taleban cells in the rugged mountains of western Pakistan.

On Tuesday, according to Pakistani officials, when a team of their intelligence agents surrounded the house where Mehsud was hiding in Baluchistan Province, the prominent Taleban fighter killed himself with a hand grenade.

Thanks to SCOTUS and the "fourth estate" our troops in the field may very well once again be facing the "worst of the worst" who have managed to conceal their identities as Mehsud did.

[PLC1]

Yeah, right, and neither were any of the ones that have been released, and returned to terrorism.

Dead Taleban Leader Was Guantanamo Detainee (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/07/sec-070725-voa01.htm)


Thanks to SCOTUS and the "fourth estate" our troops in the field may very well once again be facing the "worst of the worst" who have managed to conceal their identities as Mehsud did.

I see. Are you against the idea of putting them on trial to see which are really terrorists and which are goat herders who were turned in for the reward money?

[BigRob]

Just a background on the law and legal precedence behind the Bush administrations actions in regards to GTMO.

The decision to deny Al Quada and Taliban detainees POW protections was the proper interpretation of the treaty. The US position on this regard has been in place since the 1980's.

The battle started under the Reagan administration when the issue of the Protocol I amendments to the Geneva Convention came up.

The POW protections in the Geneva Conventions were designed to give soldiers an incentive to fight in ways that minimized suffering among combatants and civilians alike. If a soldier wears a uniform and complies with the basic laws of war, he would be treated well if caught. But if (as terrorists do) he wears ordinary clothes and hides among civilians, he endangers the innocent and acts treacherously toward rival soldiers, and thus receives no rights under the Geneva Convention.

In the 1970's, so-called national liberation movements, such as the PLO, tried to alter the understanding of the laws in Protocol I by extending POW and other "combatant" protections to all fighters (such as members of the PLO) who hid among civilians.

This effort dovetailed with the agenda of the nascent human rights movement and groups such as the Red Cross. They saw this as an opportunity to to import more demanding human rights standards into the laws of war by rejecting Geneva's traditional reciprocity requirements by ensuring that there were "no gaps" in the basic protections provided to even the most vicious and law defying combatants. The United States refused to ratify Protocol I and therefore it never became part of United States law.

When the Bush administration acted in 2002 to deny these "combatants" legal protections under the Geneva Conventions he was acting in step with this long held US position that these type fighters should be denied these legal protections. As Will Taft said, "The lawyers all agree that Al Quada and Taliban fighters are presumptively not POW's."

The problem came about because in 2001 almost all of the United States European allies had ratified Protocol I and viewed the US rejection of it as a rejection of International Law (incorrectly), and through the same lens of the "de-signing" of the ICC treaty, as well as the failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (which was a good move by the US), and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty with Russia as a "cowboy" like attitude that the US had taken which would go against their international law norms.

Legally, their views were incorrect, as the United States had never adhered to this Protocol of the Geneva Conventions and therefore was not bound in any manner by it. Their disagreements came mostly in the form of customary law arguments which are ruled void if a US law is in place.

This also followed the legal precedent set by the Clinton White House when he held over 40,000 Cuban "boat people" on the island so that they would not be able to request the political asylum as they would be able to if they were on US soil. Clinton also created the rendition programs and first got the legal order that the US was in an "armed conflict" with Al Quada in 1998 to avoid the ban on murders and assassinations should they find Bin Laden.

Bush's decision to hold prisoners in this facility had clear legal precedent and was no by means against the law or even controversial within all branches of the administration. Only now through the eyes of European international law (that the US never ratified or ascribed to) we are being forced to grant these people legal rights, which is most certainly ridiculous.

[Libsmasher]

This "innocents" is a howler - a hallucination in the parallel universe inhabited by appeasers. Just cuz the guy was caught on the battlefield holding a hot AK-47, there's no reason to assume he's the enemy! :) Did they check him for dog tags? :D

[BigRob]

I see. Are you against the idea of putting them on trial to see which are really terrorists and which are goat herders who were turned in for the reward money?

No, but these trials should come in the forms on military commissions. Trials were started last week for some of these members, and they went about quickly making it a mockery. Imagine the spectacle that a civilian trial would entail to try these people. I think if they are innocent it can come out in a military commission, where they are not able to turn the proceedings into a mockery.

[PLC1]

No, but these trials should come in the forms on military commissions. Trials were started last week for some of these members, and they went about quickly making it a mockery. Imagine the spectacle that a civilian trial would entail to try these people. I think if they are innocent it can come out in a military commission, where they are not able to turn the proceedings into a mockery.

And yet, many innocents have been incarcerated for years, while real terrorists have been released.

[BigRob]

And yet, many innocents have been incarcerated for years, while real terrorists have been released.

We are supposed to compromise the entire operation because a report said that a few dozen people may be innocent? The people who are in GTMO were not just randomly selected and sent there, they are picked up on the battle field or implicated in terrorist activity.

One released detainee, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, committed a successful suicide attack in Mosul, on March 25 2008. Al-Ajmi had been repatriated from Guantanamo in 2005, and transferred to Kuwaiti custody. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

Here is a so-called "innocent" who gets acquitted and promptly shows why the US must be cautious in this situation.

[PLC1]

We are supposed to compromise the entire operation because a report said that a few dozen people may be innocent? The people who are in GTMO were not just randomly selected and sent there, they are picked up on the battle field or implicated in terrorist activity.

One released detainee, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, committed a successful suicide attack in Mosul, on March 25 2008. Al-Ajmi had been repatriated from Guantanamo in 2005, and transferred to Kuwaiti custody. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

Here is a so-called "innocent" who gets acquitted and promptly shows why the US must be cautious in this situation.

Read the report. It does not say that "a few dozen may be innocent."

Many were, in fact, randomly selected, and were not picked up on the battlefield.

And yes, some who were released should not have been.

So, the conclusion to all of that is that we should just continue to incarcerate innocents and release the guilty rather than have trials to determine who is who? If we continue to do what we have always done, we will get what we always got.

[BigRob]

Read the report. It does not say that "a few dozen may be innocent."

Many were, in fact, randomly selected, and were not picked up on the battlefield.

And yes, some who were released should not have been.

So, the conclusion to all of that is that we should just continue to incarcerate innocents and release the guilty rather than have trials to determine who is who? If we continue to do what we have always done, we will get what we always got.

No, but they are starting to come to trial now under military tribunals as they should. As you know Bush gave the order right away for this to happen, but it took years to form and implement the actual courts and procedures that would be used for this. But again, the trials have started, after the few years that it took to build a court system basically from the ground up.

And I am tired of being told to "read the report", I read every stupid report that gets posted here, so stop telling me to read them again like I didn't.

It says, "McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees along with a number of local officials, primarily in Afghanistan, and reviewed available U.S. military tribunal documents and other records. Most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals, the McClatchy investigation found."

He also says, "has found that dozens and perhaps hundreds of men" This is quite the wide range he throws in here without much evidence, and he does this after admitting that many of those released were indeed part of the Taliban.

So basically, yes there were low level detainees who had ties to the Taliban. They were already released. I do not see the problem here now. your report further states, "The McClatchy investigation concluded, however, that many of the detainees there posed no danger to the United States or its allies and were imprisoned because U.S. officials were fearful of mistakenly letting a militant go free."

Maybe they were referring this type of militant. One released detainee, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, committed a successful suicide attack in Mosul, on March 25 2008. Al-Ajmi had been repatriated from Guantanamo in 2005, and transferred to Kuwaiti custody. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

[PLC1]

No, but they are starting to come to trial now under military tribunals as they should. As you know Bush gave the order right away for this to happen, but it took years to form and implement the actual courts and procedures that would be used for this. But again, the trials have started, after the few years that it took to build a court system basically from the ground up.

Nearly six years into a war that was to have lasted less than six months, and they're starting to come to trial. Well, we wouldn't want to rush anything, would we?

[BigRob]

Nearly six years into a war that was to have lasted less than six months, and they're starting to come to trial. Well, we wouldn't want to rush anything, would we?

Clearly you have never worked in the government. Nor do you understand the legal nightmare that the creation of these tribunals really is. (and no I do not mean that is a question to their legality) It is nowhere near as simple as it was for FDR.

[PLC1]

Clearly you have never worked in the government. Nor do you understand the legal nightmare that the creation of these tribunals really is. (and no I do not mean that is a question to their legality) It is nowhere near as simple as it was for FDR.

Clearly, I never have worked for the government, nor do I have an appreciation for the bureaucratic nightmare that doing so must entail. I further do not suborn the idea of keeping people locked up for years without charges or trials, even if someone did say that they were "enemy combatants" or "terrorists."

[BigRob]

Clearly, I never have worked for the government, nor do I have an appreciation for the bureaucratic nightmare that doing so must entail. I further do not suborn the idea of keeping people locked up for years without charges or trials, even if someone did say that they were "enemy combatants" or "terrorists."

The legal precedence was clear on that matter. This new ruling is interesting, but I do not see much really coming of it as it only allows them to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Given that civilian courts are packed full of Reagan appointees (and that Reagan rightly rejected Protocol I as I discussed earlier) I do not see many, if any, having their detentions overturned.

Further, if Bush can pass a new law before his term ends, it will render the ruling meaningless.

[GenSeneca]

SCOTUS wants all these civilian trials overseen by ONE judge to ensure consistency among the trials and verdicts... The judge appointed to the post will make all the difference. If that judge is chosen by the same majority that brought us this ruling, well... I can only imagine the resulting public circus.

[PLC1]

SCOTUS wants all these civilian trials overseen by ONE judge to ensure consistency among the trials and verdicts... The judge appointed to the post will make all the difference. If that judge is chosen by the same majority that brought us this ruling, well... I can only imagine the resulting public circus.

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

[BigRob]

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

Since you must have missed my post on the legal precedence affirming the Bush position, I will repost.


The decision to deny Al Quada and Taliban detainees POW protections was the proper interpretation of the treaty. The US position on this regard has been in place since the 1980's.

The battle started under the Reagan administration when the issue of the Protocol I amendments to the Geneva Convention came up.

The POW protections in the Geneva Conventions were designed to give soldiers an incentive to fight in ways that minimized suffering among combatants and civilians alike. If a soldier wears a uniform and complies with the basic laws of war, he would be treated well if caught. But if (as terrorists do) he wears ordinary clothes and hides among civilians, he endangers the innocent and acts treacherously toward rival soldiers, and thus receives no rights under the Geneva Convention.

In the 1970's, so-called national liberation movements, such as the PLO, tried to alter the understanding of the laws in Protocol I by extending POW and other "combatant" protections to all fighters (such as members of the PLO) who hid among civilians.

This effort dovetailed with the agenda of the nascent human rights movement and groups such as the Red Cross. They saw this as an opportunity to to import more demanding human rights standards into the laws of war by rejecting Geneva's traditional reciprocity requirements by ensuring that there were "no gaps" in the basic protections provided to even the most vicious and law defying combatants. The United States refused to ratify Protocol I and therefore it never became part of United States law.

When the Bush administration acted in 2002 to deny these "combatants" legal protections under the Geneva Conventions he was acting in step with this long held US position that these type fighters should be denied these legal protections. As Will Taft said, "The lawyers all agree that Al Quada and Taliban fighters are presumptively not POW's."

The problem came about because in 2001 almost all of the United States European allies had ratified Protocol I and viewed the US rejection of it as a rejection of International Law (incorrectly), and through the same lens of the "de-signing" of the ICC treaty, as well as the failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (which was a good move by the US), and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty with Russia as a "cowboy" like attitude that the US had taken which would go against their international law norms.

Legally, their views were incorrect, as the United States had never adhered to this Protocol of the Geneva Conventions and therefore was not bound in any manner by it. Their disagreements came mostly in the form of customary law arguments which are ruled void if a US law is in place.

This also followed the legal precedent set by the Clinton White House when he held over 40,000 Cuban "boat people" on the island so that they would not be able to request the political asylum as they would be able to if they were on US soil. Clinton also created the rendition programs and first got the legal order that the US was in an "armed conflict" with Al Quada in 1998 to avoid the ban on murders and assassinations should they find Bin Laden.

Bush's decision to hold prisoners in this facility had clear legal precedent and was no by means against the law or even controversial within all branches of the administration. Only now through the eyes of European international law (that the US never ratified or ascribed to) we are being forced to grant these people legal rights, which is most certainly ridiculous.

[Federal Farmer]

I see. Are you against the idea of putting them on trial to see which are really terrorists and which are goat herders who were turned in for the reward money?

The problem is that we're not dealing with "Prisoners of War" as defined by GCIII, we're dealing with terrorists, and given that the military, with over 2 years of time to find out for certain has missed some, what possible reason is there to believe that some slick lawyers and a Judge with absolutely no experience in the military is going to be able to ascertain the difference. If they are to be "tried", then they should be tried by military courts (which, if you've ever served in the military, you know the rules under the MCM are MUCH tougher for the Prosecution than in sillyvillian courts). No, the best thing to do with them is the same thing we did with German, Italian, (Vichy) French and Japanese prisoners during WWII, hold on to them until hostilities are over, and then return them to their country of origin.

Also, what's the big deal about "trials"? How many POW's did we "try" during WWII? This isn't a "criminal" case, it's a military case, and should be treated accordingly.

[PLC1]

The problem is that we're not dealing with "Prisoners of War" as defined by GCIII, we're dealing with terrorists, and given that the military, with over 2 years of time to find out for certain has missed some, what possible reason is there to believe that some slick lawyers and a Judge with absolutely no experience in the military is going to be able to ascertain the difference. If they are to be "tried", then they should be tried by military courts (which, if you've ever served in the military, you know the rules under the MCM are MUCH tougher for the Prosecution than in sillyvillian courts). No, the best thing to do with them is the same thing we did with German, Italian, (Vichy) French and Japanese prisoners during WWII, hold on to them until hostilities are over, and then return them to their country of origin.

Also, what's the big deal about "trials"? How many POW's did we "try" during WWII? This isn't a "criminal" case, it's a military case, and should be treated accordingly.

The POWs of WWII were just that, prisoners of war. The Gitmo detainees are not, in the classic sense, as they don't belong to any organized army run by a government. Some of them are, no doubt, terrorists, but most of them are not.

They seem to be in that limbo in which they are neither citizens protected by the Constitution, nor POWs protected by the Geneva Convention. As such, they have been subject to mistreatment and indefinite detention without charges. Many of them are innocent, and some of them were actually on our side before being sold to the military.

Keeping people locked up without charges or communication, mistreating prisoners, using "enhanced interrogation techniques" i. e. torture, is not what my country is all about. This government is out of control.

[GenSeneca]

Heaven forbid we should actually have a judge that believes in habeus corpus, or in abiding by the Geneva Convention.

If they are "enemy combatants", as Bush Inc. claims, then they deserve to be treated according to the geneva conventions. If they are accused criminals, then they deserve habeus corpus. To say that they are simply "terrorists" because someone said so, and there fore have no rights at all, is simply un American.

I want you to think about the logistical implications of such a decision.... In our courts, we have the right to face our accusers as well as the need for witness testimony.

Our soldiers are fighting a war. They are the accusers and the witnesses for these cases. The information necessary to properly bring cases against suspects is likely classified and will become part of public record.

So if the American thing to do is haul our soldiers back and forth from the frontlines to the courtrooms, while divulging American intelligence information in the process, and spending millions more of taxpayer dollars in the process - I don't want any part of it.

When we start summarily executing "suspects" as "spies" under the GC protocols, for fighting out of uniform, to avoid this courtroom debacle, I don't want to hear any complaining from people who though this SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

[PLC1]

I want you to think about the logistical implications of such a decision.... In our courts, we have the right to face our accusers as well as the need for witness testimony.

Our soldiers are fighting a war. They are the accusers and the witnesses for these cases. The information necessary to properly bring cases against suspects is likely classified and will become part of public record.

So if the American thing to do is haul our soldiers back and forth from the frontlines to the courtrooms, while divulging American intelligence information in the process, and spending millions more of taxpayer dollars in the process - I don't want any part of it.

When we start summarily executing "suspects" as "spies" under the GC protocols, for fighting out of uniform, to avoid this courtroom debacle, I don't want to hear any complaining from people who though this SCOTUS decision was a good idea.

That would be the next logical step, wouldn't it? Hey, that guy looks Mid Eastern, and that other dude, the one from the tribe that has been feuding with his tribe for the past few centuries, says he's a terrorist. Shoot him. No, no, let's hang him from the ceiling for a few days first to see if he gives us any useful information.

[BigRob]

That would be the next logical step, wouldn't it? Hey, that guy looks Mid Eastern, and that other dude, the one from the tribe that has been feuding with his tribe for the past few centuries, says he's a terrorist. Shoot him. No, no, let's hang him from the ceiling for a few days first to see if he gives us any useful information.

Did you know that the foiled London airline plot was only prevented because the information was tortured out a man in Pakistan?

I know you will now ask for proof, but I will not discuss this matter further.

[PLC1]

Did you know that the foiled London airline plot was only prevented because the information was tortured out a man in Pakistan?

I know you will now ask for proof, but I will not discuss this matter further.

I've heard that. That case is a great talking point, and is being used as a justification for torture. What is the justification for keeping people in prison without charges?

[Libsmasher]

And yet, many innocents have been incarcerated for years, while real terrorists have been released.

This is ass-backwards - IFs released that even the army thought were innocent resumed their terrorist careers.

[BigRob]

I've heard that. That case is a great talking point, and is being used as a justification for torture. What is the justification for keeping people in prison without charges?

The fact that 30 years of legal precedence in the United States said you could. And the fact that OLC confirmed this idea, as did State Department and Department of Defense lawyers. The suspension of habeus corpus dates back to Lincoln during the Civil War.

The justification was in the legal precedence, which apparently is faltering because of international law that the US never signed on to but the Europeans have adopted as customary international law.

[Libsmasher]

Just a quick little interjection here to remind folks that habeas corpus has >>>NEVER<<< (before the USSC blunder the other day) been applicable to captured combatants in wartime. OK - carry on! :)

[PLC1]

Just a quick little interjection here to remind folks that habeas corpus has >>>NEVER<<< (before the USSC blunder the other day) been applicable to captured combatants in wartime. OK - carry on! :)

Captured combatants? How do we know they are combatants? If they are, in fact, POW, then they are subject to the Geneva Conventions. If not, then why are we holding them?

Here is another "enemy combatant"

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5111/innocentpa9.jpg

This is Nazar Chaman Gul. His story is found here: (http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/53)

KABUL, Afghanistan — At the bottom of Nazar Chaman Gul's case, beneath hundreds of pages of documents filed by his lawyers and the American government, are a toothache and some bad luck.

His story is repeated many times over here. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html)

KABUL, Afghanistan — American soldiers herded the detainees into holding pens of razor-sharp concertina wire, the kind that's used to corral livestock.

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

Guards said they routinely beat their prisoners to retaliate for al Qaida's 9-11 attacks, unaware that the vast majority of the detainees had little or no connection to al Qaida.

Not just the prisoners, not just Al Qaeda repeating what they've been trained to say, but the guards.

OK, carry on.

[Federal Farmer]

You're so busy whining about a few innocents picked up in a war zone, where is your indignation at the THOUSANDS of people who have been released from prisons here in the US over the past few years when it was finally proven that they too were completely innocent, many of whom had spent DECADES, and not just a couple of years, in prison?

Oh, and BTW, and this is just for you, so don't tell anyone else, the International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705) has determined that under International Humanitarian Law;(emphasis mine)
"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)
The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status."

Now, you were saying...what?

[PLC1]

You're so busy whining about a few innocents picked up in a war zone, where is your indignation at the THOUSANDS of people who have been released from prisons here in the US over the past few years when it was finally proven that they too were completely innocent, many of whom had spent DECADES, and not just a couple of years, in prison?


Thousands? I think that's an exaggeration, but nevertheless, I've ranted about that one also. Look up the "Innocence Project", and you'll see that they have freed more than 200 men accused of rape, for example. I'm pretty indignant about that unrelated issue also. What is your point?


Oh, and BTW, and this is just for you, so don't tell anyone else, the International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705) has determined that under International Humanitarian Law;(emphasis mine)



They go on to say: (again, emphasis mine)

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.


That's what we're doing isn't it, prosecuting them under our domestic law? Why we didn't do so years ago is a mystery, but we are at last doing what should have been done.


Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status.

OK, so don't say that they are POW. They are not. What rights do they have, then?

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law.

I'm guessing that doesn't include regular beatings, hanging from the ceiling, or being incarcerated indefinitely without charges. That's just a wild guess, you understand.


Now, you were saying...what?

That the US, or anyone else, has no business mistreating prisoners, even if they are accused of "terrorism." Your point?

[BigRob]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.

[PLC1]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.

And, as I pointed out on the other thread, does that make it OK to beat and torture prisoners and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges?

Your argument seems to be that we can do whatever the hell we want to with the Iraqis and Afgans, since they aren't Americans and aren't POW.

That kind of arrogant thinking will lose the war on terror, and make more people around the world hate the US.

[BigRob]

And, as I pointed out on the other thread, does that make it OK to beat and torture prisoners and keep them incarcerated indefinitely without charges?

Your argument seems to be that we can do whatever the hell we want to with the Iraqis and Afgans, since they aren't Americans and aren't POW.

That kind of arrogant thinking will lose the war on terror, and make more people around the world hate the US.

Answered in other thread, wont do it again here for the sake of preventing two threads of the same issue.

[Federal Farmer]

As pointed out in another thread you two are arguing about Protocol I to the conventions which the United States refused to ratify and is not a party to, and therefore has no legal bearing in this regard.

I'm aware of that BigRob, but like many other Treaties and International Agreements that we're not legal signatories of, we do at least give "lip service" to it. Also, I'm attempting to show the abjectly ignorant handwringer that even if we had signed it, that we'd still be well within our rights to do anything we wanted to in regard to 'unlawful enemy combatants', and the very fact that we do not is testimony to our resolve in regards to the human rights question.

[Libsmasher]

Captured combatants? How do we know they are combatants?

Garsh - maybe cuz they were caught on battlefields holding guns? :rolleyes:

If they are, in fact, POW, then they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.

According to the Geneva Conventions, they could have been shot on the battlefield for being out of uniform. :D

Here is another "enemy combatant"

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5111/innocentpa9.jpg

This is Nazar Chaman Gul. His story is found here: (http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/53)



His story is repeated many times over[URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html"] here.[/URL





Not just the prisoners, not just Al Qaeda repeating what they've been trained to say, but the guards.

OK, carry on.

Undocumented claims for which there is no credible evidence - basically fairy tales. :D

[Federal Farmer]

Just a random thought here, but it might actually be a good thing that SCOTUS decided to extend Habeas Corpus to the detainees at Gitmo. I just remembered that the Feds use the Death Penalty FAR more than the military does, especially when dealing with prisoner, even "unlawful enemy combatants", so I say, give 'em their day in court, find them guilty, and then haul their sorry butts outside and SHOOT THEM!

[Libsmasher]

Just a random thought here, but it might actually be a good thing that SCOTUS decided to extend Habeas Corpus to the detainees at Gitmo. I just remembered that the Feds use the Death Penalty FAR more than the military does,

Where do you get that? Last fed execution 2003. Before that, two in 2001, including Timothy McVeigh. Before McVeigh, you have to go back almsot 40 years, to 1963. Before that, 1957. Etc. Federal executions are extremely rare.

[GenSeneca]

Lets talk Numbers:

Population of Iraq in 2007 -------- 27,499,638

Number of Prisoners at Gitmo ------------800

Number of Prisoners in Iraq -----------14,000

Number of Prisoners in Abu Ghraib -----21,000

Total # of Prisoners held by the US ---35,800

Some of you have probably read something like the following:

Areport (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf) conducted last year based on an analysis of defense department data found that 55 percent of Guantanamo detainees were not found to have participated in hostilities against the US and only 8 percent were found to be al Qaeda members.

So this logically suggests the US is holding roughly 16,000 innocent civilians. Knowing that prisoners are held indefinitely without trial, I can see why one would be angry about this and thankful for the SCOTUS decision to bring these cases to public trial.

I would like to point something out:

"not found to have participated in hostilities"

That means 45% were caught with a smoking gun? How many of the remaining 55% (16,000) are in prison for: bomb making? Operating black market ties with Iran to fund the insurgency and keep it armed? Inciting others to fire on American troops? (Countless other GOOD reasons to keep someone locked up)

Still 16,000 innocent? Why not..., after all - they never get a trial right? Or do they...

Army Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone: “Today we are releasing, on average, about 50 detainees each day, compared to an average daily intake of only 30 detainees,” he said, adding that “miniscule re-internment” rates show the right people are being released.

“Since our engagement programs began in earnest last September, we have … released [nearly] 10,000 detainees, but just 33 have returned to our custody.” -DefenseLink (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50081)-June 2, 2008

With 16,000 innocents being released at the rate of 50 a day - it will take just 320 days to release all the innocent prisoners. Less than one year!

HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE THEM TO GO THROUGH OUR CIVILIAN COURT?

SCOTUS wants ONE judge doing all the cases - To finish in ONE YEAR that judge would have to have 98 hearings a day - 365 days a year.

And some of you think this ruling was a victory. It was a loss for our soldiers and a loss for the prisoners. I hope my words are not lost on you.

[Federal Farmer]

Where do you get that? Last fed execution 2003. Before that, two in 2001, including Timothy McVeigh. Before McVeigh, you have to go back almsot 40 years, to 1963. Before that, 1957. Etc. Federal executions are extremely rare.

And the last execution by the US military was in 1961!

[Libsmasher]

And the last execution by the US military was in 1961!

Both are extremely rare.

[Federal Farmer]

Both are extremely rare.

True, but at least they DO them. Another thing about the Federal system is that if any of our "guests" are found guilty of acts of terrorism, they'll be our "guests" for the rest of their lives, and unless I miss my guess, if they ever reach "the population" instead of being in perpetual solitary, that won't be a very long life.

[Libsmasher]

True, but at least they DO them. Another thing about the Federal system is that if any of our "guests" are found guilty of acts of terrorism, they'll be our "guests" for the rest of their lives, and unless I miss my guess, if they ever reach "the population" instead of being in perpetual solitary, that won't be a very long life.

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

[BigRob]

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

Do realize that the ruling only allows for them to ask that they can have a hearing on their captivity.

[Libsmasher]

Do realize that the ruling only allows for them to ask that they can have a hearing on their captivity.

Yes - and it will play out exactly as I said.

[BigRob]

Yes - and it will play out exactly as I said.

I dont see it going anywhere with a federal judiciary packed full of Reagan appointees. Odds are this is a symbolic ruling and any real action will get bogged down in bureaucratic battles.

[Libsmasher]

I dont see it going anywhere with a federal judiciary packed full of Reagan appointees. Odds are this is a symbolic ruling and any real action will get bogged down in bureaucratic battles.

The federal judicary isn't packed with Reagan appointees, and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, just voted on the USSC for habeas corpus for the islamofascists.

[BigRob]

The federal judicary isn't packed with Reagan appointees, and one Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, just voted on the USSC for habeas corpus for the islamofascists.

There are a lot of Reagan judges still in the judiciary. I am more talking about the lower courts.

[Libsmasher]

There are a lot of Reagan judges still in the judiciary. I am more talking about the lower courts.

Sorry, you don't know how it's done - libs simply go judge-shopping for a leftwing judge.

[BigRob]

Sorry, you don't know how it's done - libs simply go judge-shopping for a leftwing judge.

There is a bit more to it than that, but then it gets appealed to new judges etc etc... 1 judge is not going to decide anything.

[Libsmasher]

There is a bit more to it than that, but then it gets appealed to new judges etc etc... 1 judge is not going to decide anything.

So it can go all the way to the USSC - and we just saw how they'll rule - didn't we?

[PLC1]

While it is amusing to read about the mental gymnastics involved in supporting the torture and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody, there is more to the story, so let's continue.

It seems the prison in Gitmo has become a school for jihad. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html)

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — Mohammed Naim Farouq was a thug in the lawless Zormat district of eastern Afghanistan. He ran a kidnapping and extortion racket, and he controlled his turf with a band of gunmen who rode around in trucks with AK-47 rifles.
U.S. troops detained him in 2002, although he had no clear ties to the Taliban or al Qaida. By the time Farouq was released from Guantanamo the next year, however — after more than 12 months of what he described as abuse and humiliation at the hands of American soldiers — he'd made connections to high-level militants.

In fact, he'd become a Taliban leader.

So, wile reading about the "terrorists" receiving harsh treatment at the hands of the US troops might somehow appeal to the emotions in a macho sort of way, the fact is that torture has been counter productive in the war on terror. Of course, if we compare the war on terror to the two other wars currently being waged by the government, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, it is painfully obvious that waging a "war" is the best way to promote something undesirable.

[Cookie Parker]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/

Last month, the Inspector General of the Justice Department released a report detailing the instances of abuse witnessed by FBI personnel at Guantanamo. According to this report, FBI officers personally observed deprivations of food, water, clothing, light and sensory input; prolonged shackling in painful positions, use of extreme temperatures and loud music, use of military dogs on or near prisoners; threats of injury to prisoners or their families, and even a materialization of such threats through extraordinary rendition (overseas transfer for the purpose of interrogation under torture). Things got to the point that FBI officers began to compile a “war crimes file” with their observations.

And forms of religious abuse, both coarse and refined, have been reported as well.

A military interpreter has reported that a female interrogator smeared a detainee with fake menstrual blood in order to render him unclean for prayer, thus preventing him from seeking strength and solace from his religion. And both Department of Defense investigations and FBI officers have reported offensive treatment of the Koran.

None of these practices are licensed by law, be it military, civilian, national, international, human or divine. In fact, the very point of Guantanamo was to create a prison law could not reach — a prison, that is, where law could be breached. It was somewhat ironic that Guantanamo was the place where trials by military commission were scheduled to take place this year.

The predecessors to the trials by military commission were the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Forced on the Department of Defense by the Supreme Court, these were tribunals in which the prosecution gets to write the rules, appoint the judge, appoint the defense, place both under its military command, and remove either at its pleasure. A similar process has been taking place in the military commissions. The goal of these tribunals is to determine whether a prisoner was properly classified as an enemy combatant. But enemy combatancy is such a recent crime that it was not recognized as such until after it was committed — a case of retroactive application of the law. The evidence presented by the prosecution can be hearsay. It can be coerced. It can be secret. Even from the judge. The prisoner does not have the right of self-defense and may only call witnesses that the judge considers reasonably available. Only fellow prisoners have been considered as such — and then not all of them. The staff for the defense gets appointed by the prosecution. The defense can only appeal decisions on procedural grounds — when, for example, the prosecution failed to follow the rules it imposed on itself. The prosecution, on the other hand, may appeal the verdict, and may even order a new trial. With a different judge.

This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

[PLC1]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/



This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

It was and is not legal, nor moral, nor even productive. It is abundantly clear just who the lawbreakers are: (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38886.html)

WASHINGTON — The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn't the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.

It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.

It was and is not just a few low level soldiers who ignored the law. It is a policy created in secret at the highest levels of our government.

[Cookie Parker]

It was and is not legal, nor moral, nor even productive. It is abundantly clear just who the lawbreakers are: (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38886.html)



It was and is not just a few low level soldiers who ignored the law. It is a policy created in secret at the highest levels of our government.


FOLLOWING the edicts from Bush and cheney....

[Federal Farmer]

You need to read the whole thread. If they have HB hearings, the government will be asked to produce evidence. When it refuses because that would be revealing secrets, actually it would be against the law, then the IFs will be let go, and go back to the middle east to blow up women and children and kill american soldiers - just as previously released Gitmo IFs did.

Fear not! Any classified information against the detainees, that the government cannot reveal in open court, can be vetted through other sources, not available for release, or to the detainees, or their attorneys, and is this process is routinely accepted by the Courts, as it was in the Robert Hanssen case.

Judge orders secrets protected in spy case (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/06/spy.protective.order/)
March 6, 2001
Web posted at: 3:39 p.m. EST (2039 GMT)

From CNN Producer Terry Frieden at the Justice Department

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge issued Tuesday an order sharply limiting access to evidence and government documents in order to protect government secrets during the prosecution of accused FBI spy Robert Hanssen.

U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton in Alexandria, Virginia, issued the 17-page protective order requested by the government "to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or dissemination of classified national security information and documents which will be reviewed by or made available to, or are otherwise in the possession of" Hanssen and his lawyers.

[BigRob]

Nothing about Gitmo was legal...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9687/



This is the biggest war crimes in our world's history....

Has to be illegal for it to be declared any kind of war crime, and I am sorry, but GTMO and the imprisonment of the people there is not illegal.

[Libsmasher]

While it is amusing to read about the mental gymnastics involved in supporting the torture and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody, there is more to the story, so let's continue.

It seems the prison in Gitmo has become a school for jihad. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html)



So, wile reading about the "terrorists" receiving harsh treatment at the hands of the US troops might somehow appeal to the emotions in a macho sort of way, the fact is that torture has been counter productive in the war on terror. Of course, if we compare the war on terror to the two other wars currently being waged by the government, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, it is painfully obvious that waging a "war" is the best way to promote something undesirable.

You don't know if torture has been counterproductive in the war on terror, you're just flapping your gums. Like all appeasers, you just brush past the issue as to what constitutes torture.

[PLC1]

You don't know if torture has been counterproductive in the war on terror, you're just flapping your gums. Like all appeasers, you just brush past the issue as to what constitutes torture.

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.


Why should I keep repeating myself?

Here is more, for those who are paying attention:

Taliban ambassador wielded power within Guantanamo
KABUL, Afghanistan — When U.S. guards frog-marched Abdul Salam Zaeef through the cellblocks of Guantanamo, detainees would roar his name, "Mullah Zaeef! Mullah Zaeef!"

Zaeef, in shackles, looked at the guards and smiled.

"The soldiers told me, 'You are the king of this prison,' " he later recalled.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html

Having a Taliban ambassador running the prison from within is a great way to produce even more extremists, don't you think?

[GenSeneca]

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.


Why should I keep repeating myself?


Instead of pointing out all the failures, how about you share with us the solution to our problem. Surely you have some idea of how we should be treating people we pick up on the battlefeild, where they go, what they should eat, who they should be allowed to see.... Please share with us what someone much wiser and more compassionate would do, just keep it realistic.

I'd like to compare your envisioned system to the Bipartisan rules our Government agreed to before and after going to war.

[PLC1]

Instead of pointing out all the failures, how about you share with us the solution to our problem. Surely you have some idea of how we should be treating people we pick up on the battlefeild, where they go, what they should eat, who they should be allowed to see.... Please share with us what someone much wiser and more compassionate would do, just keep it realistic.

I'd like to compare your envisioned system to the Bipartisan rules our Government agreed to before and after going to war.

I believe all of that was covered in the Geneva Convention, but, of course, the federal government bypassed that by not using the term POW.

And, of course, it is also covered in the Bill of Rights, but, then, the Bushistas say that doesn't cover foreign nationals, even the ones in our custody.

So, take your pick. Either they are POW, and are subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are not, and are subject to our laws when we take them into custody.

The solutions hammered out by wiser heads than us over many years may not be perfect, but they are certainly better than beating innocent people, then throwing them into prison with real militants, where the natural hatred they feel over the treatment they have received can be exploited to create yet more militants. Such a solution must be better than the spectacle of the United States torturing prisoners for the entire world to see.

The so called war on terror has become like the war on poverty, creating yet more of what it is supposed to be combating.

[GenSeneca]

I believe all of that was covered in the Geneva Convention, but, of course, the federal government bypassed that by not using the term POW.

And, of course, it is also covered in the Bill of Rights, but, then, the Bushistas say that doesn't cover foreign nationals, even the ones in our custody.



Please point out where Fighters out of Uniform - and not fighting for any particular flag or country - are listed in the Geneva convention.

[PLC1]

Please point out where Fighters out of Uniform - and not fighting for any particular flag or country - are listed in the Geneva convention.

Either they are POW or they are not. If they are POW, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention. If they are not, then they are subject to our laws while in our custody. In no case should they be subject to torture. All of that has already been covered in my posts.

[Libsmasher]

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.

No you didn't - you've just plagued everyone with your uninformed opinion. You DON'T KNOW what intelligence they might have gotten out of them and already used.

Why should I keep repeating myself?

No reason that I can see.

Here is more, for those who are paying attention:




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html

Having a Taliban ambassador running the prison from within is a great way to produce even more extremists, don't you think?

Oh, he "ran the prison". :D If he ran the prison, why didn't he stop the "torture"?

[GenSeneca]

In no case should they be subject to torture.
I agree. Theres just one problem... Pretend you are in charge:

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.

2. What methods are acceptable for extracting information?

3. What methods are not acceptable for extracting information?

Here is a good place for us to start:
According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. --ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866)

[Libsmasher]

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.


Exactly. Why charge "torture" when it hasn't been defined? And of course, the Bushophobes' definition will be the politically expedient one that helps them seize political power.

[PLC1]

I agree. Theres just one problem... Pretend you are in charge:

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.

2. What methods are acceptable for extracting information?

3. What methods are not acceptable for extracting information?

Here is a good place for us to start:

I'd call this torture, wouldn't you? (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html)

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

That is, of course, only one example cited in the McClatchy series on treatment of prisoners, which is only one of many such reports.

[GenSeneca]

I'd call this torture, wouldn't you? (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html)



That is, of course, only one example cited in the McClatchy series on treatment of prisoners, which is only one of many such reports.

Clever Cop-Out.

Now I ask again, please define exactly what torture is and is not.

A failure to do so will result in what you have already pointed to, Abuse:

"The government failed to present any evidence of what are 'approved tactics, techniques and procedures in detainee operations.' "

So, BE CLEAR, what is and is NOT acceptable treatment for prisoners and detainees. Answers like the one you already gave, only lead to more abuse. You have to DEFINE torture or else its left to the individual to judge for themself what constitutes torture.

[PLC1]

Clever Cop-Out.

Now I ask again, please define exactly what torture is and is not.

A failure to do so will result in what you have already pointed to, Abuse:

"The government failed to present any evidence of what are 'approved tactics, techniques and procedures in detainee operations.' "

So, BE CLEAR, what is and is NOT acceptable treatment for prisoners and detainees. Answers like the one you already gave, only lead to more abuse. You have to DEFINE torture or else its left to the individual to judge for themself what constitutes torture.

Clever, certainly. A cop out? No, that post was exactly the kind of thing I've been referring to as "torture" all along.

Here is a definition:



Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining


Definition 2 is the one that seems to apply here.

[GenSeneca]

No, that post was exactly the kind of thing I've been referring to as "torture" all along.
I know, you can point to a specific action and cry torture. What you cannot do is the reverse - use the definition of torture to specify actions.

2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

You chose 2. I will use that definition and apply it to the list:

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

By your application of the definition - Waterboarding is not Torture, The Cold Cell is not Torture, and the Long Time Standing is not Torture. I will let the troops know they can begin waterboarding once again.

[PLC1]

I know, you can point to a specific action and cry torture. What you cannot do is the reverse - use the definition of torture to specify actions.



You chose 2. I will use that definition and apply it to the list:

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

By your application of the definition - Waterboarding is not Torture, The Cold Cell is not Torture, and the Long Time Standing is not Torture. I will let the troops know they can begin waterboarding once again.

That, of course, depends on how you interpret the phrase "the infliction of intense pain", but, OK, have it your way. Don't call waterboarding or bringing subjects to the brink of hypothermia "torture", even if the rest of the world does.

How do you feel about the other actions I've already described and documented? Can you also justify that? How do you think the friends and families of people who have been killed while in US custody feel about the USA? We're supposed to be about the business of eradicating cockroaches, not creating more cockroaches.

This so called "war on terror" is creating more terrorists, just as the so called "war on poverty" is creating more poverty, and the so called "war on drugs" is creating more drug problems. All three ideas are insane, unworkable, and ineffective.

How about inflicting what the subject perceives as torture, then throwing said subject, who may be a petty thief, a street thug, or simply a refugee from all of the violence, into a cell with a real Islamic fanatic? We've already seen the results of that, now haven't we?

[GenSeneca]

OK, have it your way. Don't call waterboarding or bringing subjects to the brink of hypothermia "torture", even if the rest of the world does.
I was using your definition, now you want to move the goal post, change the rules and call new things torture...
Do you not see my point yet? I think you do... why not just admit to it already?
The definition of Torture is subject to interpretation since there is no clear definition of what constitutes torture. Wars are fought by following rules, you gave a definition of torture for your soldiers to follow and they did - then you changed your mind upon seeing some of the tactics that escaped your definition. So you change the rules to fit your sensitivities but still failed to specifically outline what is and is not acceptable methodology for interrogation.
All three ideas are insane, unworkable, and ineffective.
I agree. There is a better way to go about all 3....
The War On Drugs has clear definitions and rules for our Law Officers to follow and those rules and definitions rarely change. We don't give a crap about a drug dealers civil rights and the drug dealer is an American Citizen. On Cops you can see police overpowering suspects, using pain to coerce subjects into submission - As long as it happens in America to Americans, we don't call it torture. Put the same Americans overseas overpowering a suspect in Iraq, using pain to coerce him into submission - suddenly we're engaging in torture.

How about inflicting what the subject perceives as torture
So you would leave it to the prisoner as to what constitutes torture?
I can tell you right now, anything short of sending them home would be claimed to be painful coercion and deemed torture... So now what do you do?

[PLC1]

I was using your definition, now you want to move the goal post, change the rules and call new things torture...
Do you not see my point yet? I think you do... why not just admit to it already?
The definition of Torture is subject to interpretation since there is no clear definition of what constitutes torture. Wars are fought by following rules, you gave a definition of torture for your soldiers to follow and they did - then you changed your mind upon seeing some of the tactics that escaped your definition. So you change the rules to fit your sensitivities but still failed to specifically outline what is and is not acceptable methodology for interrogation.

The fact of the matter is that there would be no need to define "torture" if we were to either (1) classify the prisoners as POW, and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or (2) non POW prisoners in our custody and subject to our laws. The Bush administration has chosen to classify them as none of the above, and to decide what may or may not constitute torture.

The other fact of the matter is that mistreatment of prisoners, whether or not you want to parse words and debate the meaning of "is", has been counterproductive in the so called "war on terror."

I agree. There is a better way to go about all 3....
The War On Drugs has clear definitions and rules for our Law Officers to follow and those rules and definitions rarely change. We don't give a crap about a drug dealers civil rights and the drug dealer is an American Citizen. On Cops you can see police overpowering suspects, using pain to coerce subjects into submission - As long as it happens in America to Americans, we don't call it torture. Put the same Americans overseas overpowering a suspect in Iraq, using pain to coerce him into submission - suddenly we're engaging in torture.

Now you're really reaching. When have you ever seen cops hang perps from the ceiling, or beat them senseless? I'll bet you haven't even seen them engage in the milder forms of mistreatment we've been discussing, like waterboarding or subjecting them to hypothermia. If they did, their cases would be thrown out of court.

You might wish for a system in which such actions are considered acceptable. If you do, you might try immigrating to somewhere else, say North Korea, for example.


So you would leave it to the prisoner as to what constitutes torture?
I can tell you right now, anything short of sending them home would be claimed to be painful coercion and deemed torture... So now what do you do?

Go back and read the rest of my post, rather than taking a piece out of contetext, and maybe we can have a rational discussion.:rolleyes:

[GenSeneca]

(1) classify the prisoners as POW, and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention
What happened when Bush asked for the Geneva Convention to be updated to deal with these people?
That wasn't SUPPORT he was getting from the Left.

(2) non POW prisoners in our custody and subject to our laws.
When not on our soil? Would they not be subject to the laws of the nation we were holding them??

The other fact of the matter is that mistreatment of prisoners...has been counterproductive in the so called "war on terror."
I have not said otherwise. I have been steadily trying to point out that if you fail to outline specific rules - there will be abuse.

Now you're really reaching. When have you ever seen cops hang perps from the ceiling, or beat them senseless? I'll bet you haven't even seen them engage in the milder forms of mistreatment we've been discussing, like waterboarding or subjecting them to hypothermia. If they did, their cases would be thrown out of court.
Don't change the subject. You said leave the definition of torture to the person enduring the pain - that would be every criminal, prisoner and terrorist in our custody as the sole arbiters of what constitutes torture.
Your angry and frustrated that you CANNOT define torture to a point that covers all your sensitivities.

You might wish for a system in which such actions are considered acceptable. If you do, you might try immigrating to somewhere else, say North Korea, for example.
You're simply lashing out with statements like this.

I don't want the US to "torture" anyone. BUT-However-In consequence of that - We must have a CONCRETE definition of torture - complete with an outline of acceptable and unacceptable activities - and these must remain CONSTANT so that we don't cross the line.

Thus far, no such concrete definitions or outlines are in place, and thats not from a lack of trying. Its from a lack of cooperation from people like yourself.

You, who would call someone names for wanting definitions. You, who would claim someone to be sadistic for insisting on an outline for acceptable activity. You, who likes to end by claiming moral superiority when its your side that has failed to protect the innocent by simply providing definitions, outlines and support to the effort.

Go back and read the rest of my post, rather than taking a piece out of contetext, and maybe we can have a rational discussion.:rolleyes:

I feel the same way but you insist on playing the moral relativism game, trying desperately to paint me as a horrible person that wants people tortured.
Pointing out abuses that have already happened and saying "This sort of thing shouldn't happen" is not productive in that it does nothing to stop the abuse.
Only definitions, outlines and rules can do that - When you're ready to talk about those things, we can have a rational discussion - one thats focused on realistic applications and not just intangible ideology.

[PLC1]

I have not said otherwise. I have been steadily trying to point out that if you fail to outline specific rules - there will be abuse.

Yes, there will, and putting prisoners into a classification in which they have no rights at all, as was done in this case, invites abuse.


I don't want the US to "torture" anyone. BUT-However-In consequence of that - We must have a CONCRETE definition of torture - complete with an outline of acceptable and unacceptable activities - and these must remain CONSTANT so that we don't cross the line.

We do have a concrete definition. Bush inc. didn't like it, so he circumvented the law, plain and simple.



You, who would call someone names for wanting definitions. You, who would claim someone to be sadistic for insisting on an outline for acceptable activity. You, who likes to end by claiming moral superiority when its your side that has failed to protect the innocent by simply providing definitions, outlines and support to the effort.

I do not engage in name calling. That is childish and proves that the name caller has no valid argumnts.

I feel the same way but you insist on playing the moral relativism game, trying desperately to paint me as a horrible person that wants people tortured.
Pointing out abuses that have already happened and saying "This sort of thing shouldn't happen" is not productive in that it does nothing to stop the abuse.
Only definitions, outlines and rules can do that - When you're ready to talk about those things, we can have a rational discussion - one thats focused on realistic applications and not just intangible ideology.

Definitions, outlines, and rhles can't do it when those things can be circumvented by clever manipulation.

[GenSeneca]

We do have a concrete definition. Bush inc. didn't like it, so he circumvented the law, plain and simple.
Please provide the definition and cite the legislative or executive actions taken by the Administration that circumvented the definition.

Definitions, outlines, and rhles can't do it when those things can be circumvented by clever manipulation.
Its one thing if they are made and circumvented, its another thing altogether if we don't bother with them because they can be circumvented by clever manipulation anyway.

I wanted the Left to work with Bush all the times he asked for help, instead they took every opportunity to beat him up with viscous propaganda... which some people still believe is true - "Bush wants permission to Torture!" - and they certainly don't remember what Bush was actually asking for each time - Clarification.

Additionally, look through your list of torture victims. How many of those victims were tortured at the hands of the people we legally entrust with using "Harsh Interrogation" techniques? Are there any?

I think the detainees do deserve some basic rights and I TRUST our military to do the right thing. When there are abuses, I expect the Military to take care of it because they know full well such negative PR is devastating to our presence in Iraq.

I am kind of insulted that any AMERICAN would suggest our Military actively seeks to inflict senseless pain and misery on the civilian population of Iraq as a matter of established military doctrine. Thats the kinda crap I expect to hear coming from Iran, not my next door neighbor... Its very disturbing.

[PLC1]

Please provide the definition and cite the legislative or executive actions taken by the Administration that circumvented the definition.

Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself? Everything I've said is still in this thread.

Its one thing if they are made and circumvented, its another thing altogether if we don't bother with them because they can be circumvented by clever manipulation anyway.

Any law can be circumvented. Does that mean we shouldn't bother with any laws at all?

Or, just that the government can be a law unto itself?

I wanted the Left to work with Bush all the times he asked for help, instead they took every opportunity to beat him up with viscous propaganda... which some people still believe is true - "Bush wants permission to Torture!" - and they certainly don't remember what Bush was actually asking for each time - Clarification.

Bush himself is a part of the left, if you look at his actions while in office, and he didn't ask for anyone's permission to torture prisoners.

Additionally, look through your list of torture victims. How many of those victims were tortured at the hands of the people we legally entrust with using "Harsh Interrogation" techniques? Are there any?

We don't "legally" entrust anyone to use torture, whether it is called by some other name or not. All of the victims in the stories I've cited were abused at the hands of our own personnel, and at the command of those who really hold the power.

I think the detainees do deserve some basic rights and I TRUST our military to do the right thing. When there are abuses, I expect the Military to take care of it because they know full well such negative PR is devastating to our presence in Iraq.

I am kind of insulted that any AMERICAN would suggest our Military actively seeks to inflict senseless pain and misery on the civilian population of Iraq as a matter of established military doctrine. Thats the kinda crap I expect to hear coming from Iran, not my next door neighbor... Its very disturbing.


And I am insulted by the fact that our military has, in fact, mistreated prisoners in their custody. Yes, I agree that the detainees do deserve some basic rights, and we should be able to trust the military, under the direction of the commanders, to do the right thing. That is why it is so totally uancceptable that so many abuses have, in fact ocurred, and even more apalling that our commander in chief has not had the courage to condemn such actions. What has happened is the kind of thing we can expect from the cockroaches we are supposed to be fighting, not from our own people for heaven's sake. How any AMERICAN, or anyone else, can justify the kinds of abuses turned up by the people from McClatchy is beyond comprehension.

And, to say that it is "negative PR" is a huge understatement.

[GenSeneca]

That is why it is so totally uancceptable that so many abuses have, in fact ocurred, and even more apalling that our commander in chief has not had the courage to condemn such actions.

Totally appalling... Bush was silent about the whole thing.

"People in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhorrent," Bush said in an interview with Alhurra (search), an Arab-language network funded by the U.S. government.

"They also must understand that what took place in that prison does not represent the America I know. The America I know is a compassionate country that believes in freedom. The America I know cares about every individual."

"We're an open society, we're a society that is going to investigate, fully investigate in this place, what took place in that prison," Bush said.

People have to understand, the president continued, that "in a democracy, everything is not perfect, that mistakes are made but in a democracy as well, those mistakes will be investigated and people will be brought to justice."

"The people of the Middle East must understand that this is horrible, but we're dealing with it in a way that will bring confidence not only to our citizens … but confidence to people in the world that this situation will be rectified and justice will be done," Bush continued in the Al Arabiya interview.

"These actions of a few people do not reflect the nature of the men and women who serve our country." FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119033,00.html)

He could of at least had the courage to cross his arms, stamp his feet and throw a full on temper tantrum as proof that he condemned such actions.

[PLC1]

Totally appalling... Bush was silent about the whole thing.



He could of at least had the courage to cross his arms, stamp his feet and throw a full on temper tantrum as proof that he condemned such actions.

Or he could have matched actions with deeds. Instead, this is what he did. (http://voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-08-voa10.cfm?CFID=5102217&CFTOKEN=18599872)

[GenSeneca]

Or he could have matched actions with deeds. Instead, this is what he did. (http://voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-08-voa10.cfm?CFID=5102217&CFTOKEN=18599872)

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

[PLC1]

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

I don't think there are any terrorist fetuses, so your analogy simply doesn't hold water. In addition, it is based on the false notion that anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake is part of "the left", and therefore, pro abortion.

You say I'm reaching, then come up with a statement like that.:rolleyes:

The bottom line is that it is not up to me to define torture. Mistreatment of prisoners is already defined, has been for a long time, and is considered uncivilized behavior. That the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior, whether or not you, I or anyone else wants to call it torture, is simply appalling and unacceptable, not to mention counter productive in the so called "war on terror."

McClatchy has conducted an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners in our custody, and has published its findings. Our choices are:

(1) understand that there have been abuses, and do what we can to correct the situation, or
(2) decide that the messenger is unreliable, and discount the findings, or,
(3) justify what has been done, using whatever mental gymnastics it takes to do so.

Is there a fourth choice I've missed?

[Federal Farmer]

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

It's even worse is that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, they don't mind tearing a living, FEELING, human being to shreds while it's still inside the mother, or even waiting until it's halfway out to punch a hole in it's head and ripping it's brains apart, but when it comes to radical, islamofascist TERRORISTS, who wants to do the same to THEM and their entire families, they don't even want you to use "coarse language" to them, much less smack 'em upside the head!

I believe Michael Savage said it best, "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

[GenSeneca]

I don't think there are any terrorist fetuses, so your analogy simply doesn't hold water.

Terrorist fetuses? Red herring... Torture has a Definition. Fetus has a definition. Thats the analogy - THEY BOTH HAVE DEFINITIONS.

In addition, it is based on the false notion that anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake is part of "the left", and therefore, pro abortion.

Nowhere did I suggest that.... Stop being silly. People on the RIGHT who appose the war have representatives on the RIGHT that have pushed for the clarification of legal definitions. The LEFT has done a great job of blocking those attempts.

The bottom line is that it is not up to me to define torture.

Cop out.

You CANT define it to cover everything you want... but you know it when you see it and complain accordingly.

Mistreatment of prisoners is already defined, has been for a long time, and is considered uncivilized behavior.

Ok, you just jumped from Torture to "Mistreatment" as if they are one in the same and share the same definition.

That the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior, whether or not you, I or anyone else wants to call it torture, is simply appalling and unacceptable, not to mention counter productive in the so called "war on terror."

Words mean things. Suborn has a definition:

to bribe or induce (someone) unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed or to commit a crime.


Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees... I want to read the White House memo, signed by Bush, authorizing the use of "appalling and unacceptable" behavior. Until I see such evidence, this is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory.

(1) understand that there have been abuses, and do what we can to correct the situation

I have understood the abuses and called for stronger.... Definitions, outlines and rules of law.

And.. There is a 4th option. Put Democrats in control of the Executive and Legislative branches. While that will not stop any abuse, the Democrats will have the cover of the Liberal Media - once abuse stories stop flowing over the wires of the AP, Americans will stop caring. Out of sight, out of mind.

Then Americans can feel good about themselves again - despite having changed nothing.

Any Democrat will tell you - Perception is Reality. They don't change reality, they change perceptions.

[PLC1]

Terrorist fetuses? Red herring... Torture has a Definition. Fetus has a definition. Thats the analogy - THEY BOTH HAVE DEFINITIONS.

The dictionary is full of words with definitions. What point are you trying to make by bringing up a totally unrelated issue?

Nowhere did I suggest that.... Stop being silly. People on the RIGHT who appose the war have representatives on the RIGHT that have pushed for the clarification of legal definitions. The LEFT has done a great job of blocking those attempts.

Oh. There's the connection in your mind. The RIGHT is pro war, and anti abortion. The LEFT is anti war and pro abortion. We Libertarians are anti war, but anti government involvement in any decision that needs to be left to a doctor and patient.

Cop out.

You CANT define it to cover everything you want... but you know it when you see it and complain accordingly.

It is not up to me to define it at all. It has already been defined.

Ok, you just jumped from Torture to "Mistreatment" as if they are one in the same and share the same definition.

If you don't have a definition, what difference does it make?

Words mean things. Suborn has a definition:

Yet another word in the dictionary. Yes, it does, and I used it correctly.

Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees... I want to read the White House memo, signed by Bush, authorizing the use of "appalling and unacceptable" behavior. Until I see such evidence, this is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory.

I didn't say that he did.

I have understood the abuses and called for stronger.... Definitions, outlines and rules of law.

And.. There is a 4th option. Put Democrats in control of the Executive and Legislative branches. While that will not stop any abuse, the Democrats will have the cover of the Liberal Media - once abuse stories stop flowing over the wires of the AP, Americans will stop caring. Out of sight, out of mind.

Then Americans can feel good about themselves again - despite having changed nothing.

Ah, yes, let's invoke the myth of the "Liberal Media." Did you think Rupert Murdock is a liberal?

Most words have definitions, as you said. The term "liberal" has many, so many in fact as to render it meaningless.

And yes, the word "render" has several definitions as well.

Any Democrat will tell you - Perception is Reality. They don't change reality, they change perceptions.


Really? Well, if you say so. I suppose you must be an expert in Democrats.

[GenSeneca]

I suppose you must be an expert in Democrats.

I am. :)

I didn't say that he did.

"the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior"

You must have meant some other president....

We Libertarians

CaLiCo: Capitalist, LIBERTARIAN, Conservative.

I didn't want us to go into IRAQ, but we did and its now our responsibility - Not saying I like it, thats just how it is....

the myth of the "Liberal Media."

So your suggesting there is NO bias or that it goes to the Right?? :confused:

[top gun]

Anyone detained or arrested should have his or her day in court with competent legal representation. Serial Killers do... Baby Rapists do...

The fact that there is such a fear of having a fair trial only highlights the fact that these are obviously not all documented cases... meaning they are holding people in prison forever on a "hunch"?

Have fair trails and then punish those found guilty to the MAX! It seems so obvious... but then this is the administration that set up one repeated lie after another to get the country to go along with an invasion into Iraq. Doesn't really surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

[PLC1]

I am. :)

Good for you.

"the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior"

You must have meant some other president....

Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees

No, I meant that there was nothing secret about his having vetoed legislation to stop it.

CaLiCo: Capitalist, LIBERTARIAN, Conservative.

I didn't want us to go into IRAQ, but we did and its now our responsibility - Not saying I like it, thats just how it is....

PLC: Pragmatic Libertarian Conservative. I agree with that statement on Iraq. I wish the Congress hadn't approved it, wish Bush had shown more restraint, but now we're stuck with it. Of course, if we had conducted the war differently, we wouldn't be creating more terrorists, and might even be done with it by now.

So your suggesting there is NO bias or that it goes to the Right?? :confused:

There is some bias, sometimes "right", sometimes "left", sometimes something else. There is no general liberal bias. That is a myth perpetrated by those on the so called "right", meaning authoritarian end of the spectrum.

The one dimensional, left to right political model is yet another myth.

[GenSeneca]

No, I meant that there was nothing secret about his having vetoed legislation to stop it.

President Bush vetoed Saturday legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, saying it "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror." -Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030800304.html)

Waterboarding, and the other "harsh interrogation tactics", did not meet the definition of torture. Democrats SUPPORTED waterboarding until it became public, then they did a 180 by broadening the term:

Many Democrats and human-rights groups say coercive tactics are often counterproductive and that, regardless, constitute illegal torture under U.S. and international law.

Coercive tactics constitute illegal torture... Coercive has a much broader definition than torture, so Democrats broadened the definition of torture, they DIDN'T narrow the definition making it easier to ban - Which is what I have been complaining about but you refuse to acknowledge.

Can you not see how ANYTHING short of letting people go free can now be considered torture? "He coerced me to stay in a jail cell when I didn't want to."

if we had conducted the war differently, we wouldn't be creating more terrorists, and might even be done with it by now.

Everything we do creates more terrorists but I don't expect you to agree we are in a catch 22 on that point. It could be over by now, if the LEFT fought Islamic Terrorists as ferociously as they fight the Christian Right.

There is some bias, sometimes "right", sometimes "left", sometimes something else. There is no general liberal bias. That is a myth perpetrated by those on the so called "right", meaning authoritarian end of the spectrum.

Sometimes right? I would love an example...

No general bias? The media is in the tank for Obama!

And... its not very nice to suggest that people who disagree with you are part of the "authoritarian right" when it comes to media bias.

[PLC1]

Waterboarding, and the other "harsh interrogation tactics", did not meet the definition of torture. Democrats SUPPORTED waterboarding until it became public, then they did a 180 by broadening the term:



Coercive tactics constitute illegal torture... Coercive has a much broader definition than torture, so Democrats broadened the definition of torture, they DIDN'T narrow the definition making it easier to ban - Which is what I have been complaining about but you refuse to acknowledge.

Can you not see how ANYTHING short of letting people go free can now be considered torture? "He coerced me to stay in a jail cell when I didn't want to."



Everything we do creates more terrorists but I don't expect you to agree we are in a catch 22 on that point. It could be over by now, if the LEFT fought Islamic Terrorists as ferociously as they fight the Christian Right.



Sometimes right? I would love an example...

No general bias? The media is in the tank for Obama!

And... its not very nice to suggest that people who disagree with you are part of the "authoritarian right" when it comes to media bias.

Did I use the phrase "authoritarian right?" If so, then that was a slip of the fingers.

The authoritarian position is opposite the libertarian one, while the right, or conservative, is opposite the liberal one. The authoritarian position would use the power of government to impose their own values on the rest of society. The libertarian position is to live and let live.

The liberal, or left wing position is that big government is the answer to problems, while the conservative, or right wing position is that government power is likely to make matters worse, and we're better off with a limited government.

The two continuums, liberal to conservative and authoritarian to libertarian are two of the three dimensions of political philosophy. One can be on the authoritarian side, and yet be a liberal, or on the libertarian side, and be a conservative. The two positions are independent.

There is also a third dimension to political philosophy, that of ideological to pragmatic. Those on the pragmatic side will favor whatever works, while those on the ideological side want to see their ideology prevail, regardless of practicality.

There is a lot more to a well developed political philosophy than the one dimensional "conservative" to "liberal" model can comprehend. Many of the ideals that tend to be labled as "conservative" are, in reality, authoritarian in nature and not conservative at all. Authoritarian ideals, in fact, require more government power than do libertarian ones.

That's why I tend to poke fun at the simplistic and mindless practice of labeling anyone who disagrees as "libs", "lefties", or some other meaningless term. If I did the same by labeling someone who disagreed as "authoritarian right," then that was wrong and I apoligize.

[GenSeneca]

Many of the ideals that tend to be labled as "conservative" are, in reality, authoritarian in nature and not conservative at all.
I don't disagree with that but you left off the Left....

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ones do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?

I tend to poke fun at the simplistic and mindless practice of labeling anyone who disagrees as "libs", "lefties", or some other meaningless term.

In Congress, the continuum is that simplistic.... There are only 2 parties, each towing their own party line - Left to Right.

When I complain about Democrats, Liberals, Progressives etc., I am specifically referring to Congressmen and other politicians - Not the rank and file voters unless otherwise specified.

So when I say the LEFT has done ZIP to help prosecute the war on terror and everything to lose it, I'm talking about the Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's that run our Congress. I would love an example of how they have HELPED but such an example doesn't exist.

-------------------------

Since you shared your theory about the political spectrum, I would like to share mine.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c30a6a8d96.jpg

Very similar to yours I believe.

[PLC1]

I don't disagree with that but you left off the Left....

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ones do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?



In Congress, the continuum is that simplistic.... There are only 2 parties, each towing their own party line - Left to Right.

When I complain about Democrats, Liberals, Progressives etc., I am especifically referring to Congressmen and other politicians - Not the rank and file voters unless otherwise specified.

So when I say the LEFT has done ZIP to help prosecute the war on terror and everything to lose it, I'm talking about the Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's that run our Congress. I would love an example of how they have HELPED but such an example doesn't exist.

-------------------------

Since you shared your theory about the political spectrum, I would like to share mine.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c30a6a8d96.jpg

Very similar to yours I believe.

That is a far better model than the simple "left" to "right" line.

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ons do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?

The liberal, ie statist big government ideals do require someone to give up something (money) in order to feed the beast (the big government that they see as the solution to problems). In that sense, liberalism is authoritarianism also.,

The "social conservative" also wants to give some of the individual's choice to the government, so that, too, is an authoritarian stance.

That's one reason why the simplistic model simply doesn't work. Both ends of the supposed left to right spectrum are really on the authoritarian plane.

I think there are at least two more continua: The pragmatic to ideological one, and, in the field of foreign affairs, the neoconservative to isolationist spectrum.

There are probably more. Physicists tell us that the universe has more than the four dimensions we know in the space-time continuum, so the political model most likely does too.

[GenSeneca]

I agree there is Authoritarian tendancies on both sides but it has always been that way, since the nation began, and since neither side has won - I think we are doing pretty well maintaining balance.

neoconservative to isolationist

I would use "Expansionist to Isolationist".

To broaden our continuum in Congress would require more parties... Thats not going to happen. Our ideologies are bottlenecked by similarities in order to form groups and pass legislation.

For instance, we could have 100 people write the same law and we would end up with 100 different versions. We would then have to comb through them all, pick out the reoccurring precepts, and then re-write a condensed version that all 100 can sign onto. Nobody will get everything they want but the majority opinions will have the most weight and the minority opinions will likewise be represented.
---------------------------
Please comment on something from an earlier post of mine that seemed to go unnoticed:

With 16,000 innocents being released at the rate of 50 a day - it will take just 320 days to release all the innocent prisoners. Less than one year!

SCOTUS wants ONE judge doing all the cases - To finish in ONE YEAR that judge would have to have 98 hearings a day - 365 days a year.


It may sound un-American to say a trial is a bad thing but in this case, I feel the innocent detainees would be better served by the military proceedings rather than the slow, inefficiencies of our Court system.

Lets say some innocent farmer is picked up for any old reason under the sun and sent to a detention center - The Military checks up on these things and releases people found to have been wrongly incarcerated. That takes some time to do but far less than shipping that detainee to America, holding a series of court hearings (you know court takes multiple sessions), then years and millions of dollars later (the whole time away from their families) the farmer is finally found innocent, flown back home and released to his family that has now had to go without him for years longer than they otherwise would have had to.

While you consider yourself a pragmatist, your support of this decision looks more like an idealogical stance. Once you look at this realistically with all the logistical complications, this decision looks like a nightmare to people who are actually innocent and wrongfully detained.

I'm sure you have your own analogy or example that might explain why this decision is pragmatic, so I look forward to hearing it.

[Cookie Parker]

Anyone detained or arrested should have his or her day in court with competent legal representation. Serial Killers do... Baby Rapists do...

The fact that there is such a fear of having a fair trial only highlights the fact that these are obviously not all documented cases... meaning they are holding people in prison forever on a "hunch"?

Have fair trails and then punish those found guilty to the MAX! It seems so obvious... but then this is the administration that set up one repeated lie after another to get the country to go along with an invasion into Iraq. Doesn't really surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

Not only on a hunch, but on a $5,000 bounty they gave Pakistani people to turn in others for torture....not even involved in the whole thingy.

[Libsmasher]

Anyone detained or arrested should have his or her day in court with competent legal representation. Serial Killers do... Baby Rapists do...

The fact that there is such a fear of having a fair trial only highlights the fact that these are obviously not all documented cases... meaning they are holding people in prison forever on a "hunch"?

Have fair trails and then punish those found guilty to the MAX! It seems so obvious... but then this is the administration that set up one repeated lie after another to get the country to go along with an invasion into Iraq. Doesn't really surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

Garsh, the US held 100,000 axis POWS in the US in WWII, and none of them had "their day in court" - for shame. :D

[PLC1]

I agree there is Authoritarian tendancies on both sides but it has always been that way, since the nation began, and since neither side has won - I think we are doing pretty well maintaining balance.

Except that the government seems to be getting more and more authoritarian, regardless of which party is in power.

neoconservative to isolationist

I would use "Expansionist to Isolationist".

OK, that works better. The term "neoconservative" has been kicked around so much that it has begun to lose some meaning. Expansionist is something we can all understand.

To broaden our continuum in Congress woul