You can't be for closing Guantanamo unless you have a decent answer to the question of what you would do with the lovely people who bow toward Mecca from there. Return them to countries that won't have them? Give them trials in the U.S., where their attorneys would exploit our freedoms for the benefit of those who have professed their intentions to kill us by the millions?
Why be complicated, Laer? Just use my solution.
"few who deserve it" - who says they deserve it? Who says they are terrorists? Should we now believe FBI and CIA? Isn't it the same as believing KGB in Stalin times? We expect that 100% of people working in agencies are honest and decent? 100%? I always thought democracy assumed 100% does not exist. This is a ridiculous defense.
curious who you think "deserves" to be waterboarded? terror suspects?
and why don't take a clue from john mccain...you know, a guy who was actually tortured? he's does not support waterboarding for various reasons, not the least of which is torture produces false info.
Who's to say they deserve it? You? Where's your evidence? Or is it simply, as you imply, that they bow to Mecca is evidence enough? Yes, their lawyers will exploit out judicial system until it's proven those we hold are guilty. That's the American way. That's what Americans do. If not, then all those who died on 9/11 and thereafter died so we can become like those who don't care for American justice and torture people we've already decided are guilty? You sound like a jihadist. You certainly are no patriot. It's Americans like you that keep terrorists in jobs.
Congratulations, you're on the same page as Stalin, Pol Pot, Torquemada and the Salem Witch Burners.
Golf clap.
Mr Laer,
People like you continue to amaze me. Let's kill the jihadists by acting like them. Forget about what this country is built on. Forget about what the constitution our form of democracy is built. Let's act like tirants in order to stop tirant jihadists. You got it all figured out. Do you check under your pillow for "jihadist/terrorists" every night before you go to bed.
I suggest you see a psychiatrist, living in fear every day is no way to live.
Anyone can be a suspect for anything, even the writer of this piece, although I assume his blind trust of the government's wonderful intentions and incredible ability to only harshly interrogate those suspects who are actually guilty and deserve it exclude him from ever having to worry about this happening to himself of anyone he knows, so who really cares right? Although I have a sneaking feeling that if someone shoved a rag down his throat and filled his lungs with water, he'd have a different opinion....
So it's Huckabee's ethics that turn you off him?
Nothing new going on over there in the conservative camps then.
I have much more trust in my government than I have in the ACLU or Human Rights Watch, whose financing and directorship makes their intentions clear enough. The number of people in Guantanamo is small, for good reason. This is not exploitative or particularly concerning; it shows discretion and values.
"Let's kill the jihadists by acting like them." What an idiot. Last time I checked, we hadn't beheaded children in front of their parents, we hadn't flown jet liners full of innocents into buildings full of innocents, we hadn't placed bombs in trucks in crowded marketplaces, we hadn't blown up the holy places of those with different beliefs from us.
These are the tactics planned and carried out by the people imprisoned in Guantanamo. They are the scum of the earth. The deserve not to be treated as they would treat us, and we are living up to that standard quite well.
I agree with you 100% Laer! In fact, I just can't wait until President Hillary takes office, and we get to focus our humane and completely safe enhanced interrogation techniques on our domestic terrorists. Yessirebob! The very first time that someone even threatens to bomb an abortion clinic, I'm sure you will fully support President Hillary when she has the entire leadership of Operation Rescue arrested and shipped off to Gitmo to be waterboarded until they confess to being enemy combatants. Then, we won't even need to try them before lining them up to be shot for their unAmerican activities. Won't that be swell?!?
Sick nailed it; the neocon bent for unchecked executive power is going to come home to roost someday.
Limitations on government power is not for those joyous times when the people in charge agree with you about everything...
"Last time I checked, we hadn't beheaded children in front of their parents, we hadn't flown jet liners full of innocents into buildings full of innocents, we hadn't placed bombs in trucks in crowded marketplaces, we hadn't blown up the holy places of those with different beliefs from us."
Oh, since you put it that way, why don't we go ahead and rip their fingernails out! Like you said, we're already showing discretion by only keeping a few hundred of them at GTMO (pay no attention to the renditions and prison camps behind the curtain), and they're cutting the heads off kids.
"These are the tactics planned and carried out by the people imprisoned in Guantanamo. They are the scum of the earth. The deserve not to be treated as they would treat us, and we are living up to that standard quite well."
you said it! scum of the earth! fuck habeas corpus! right on, you true patriot, you. standing golf clap.
"What would do with the lovely people who bow toward Mecca from there? "
Uhm... if they're lovely people... they get to go home. If they are proven to be criminals in a court of law they are to be punished by a civil government.
"Give them trials in the U.S., where their attorneys would exploit our freedoms for the benefit of those who have professed their intentions to kill us by the millions?"
Uhm... can you be more specific about who you are talking about? Do you think a GITMO detainee who professed intentions to kill us by the millions, would be able to somehow be finessed into a free pass by an American Jury, no matter who his lawyer is? What little faith in America!
"And I don't care how uncomfortable or terrifying waterboarding may be to the few who deserve it. It's non-lethal, doesn't bruise the skin, break the bones, starve the tummy, or stretch the skeleton -- yet it can open sealed lips."
Oh jeez - I just realized from the above paragraph you are totally incap able of recognizing the myth of the "other." Who decides who deserves waterboarding? How about international courts, treaties and laws dating back 400 years? No... you get to decide, because this "other" is more evil that any we've ever faced before right?
So do you wet your bed at night thinking about how these super villains are going to to subvert every standard of justice and humanity that we've built over the last 200+ years?
Get a grip, think like an American, - "Justice for All"
Sorry, mamased, the type of justice you want for the Guantanamo detainees has never before been extended to hostiles captured on the field of war. They are not entitled to jury trials for very good reason.
Laer - your rationale is wrong. While we've typically not extended trial by jury to POWs, POWs are subject to detention only during war. If this is an endless war, you are saying that any "hostile" can be held indefinitely with neither legal representation or the ability to make the case they are not hostile. If POWs were thought to be guilty of war crimes and hence subject to long imprisonment or death, they most certainly were provided legal representation and a trial.
Bush et al has even attempted to extend the principle of detention without charges to American citizens. The fear promulgated by the imperial (unitary) executive has done more to imperil this country than any over reach by past presidents. UBL won when Bush/Cheny started terrorizing Americans with the never ending threats of those in GitMo and Iraq and, of course, Iran.
The only people who think that torture is OK are people who would like to torture.
If you are comfortable being a sadist fine. IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!
If i'm waterboarded, i'll be sure to let the authorities know how you were the mastermind behind the coming "event" you planned for Washington D.C. the 3rd Monday in January.
And they'll know it's the truth, since no one would ever just lie about anything to stop the torture.
BTW, nice country you had.
I rest my case Laer. You are so frightened of the other and so lacking in trust of the American justice system that you dare not give these super villains a fair trial.
Patriots have faith in Americans and their justice system.
Glad that we have the freedoms that allow you to publish your views, even though they prove you to be narrow minded and cowering in fear.
Wow... stunning ignorance Laer. stunning.
Are you aware that we executed Japanese generals for ordering waterboarding on our soldiers?
Why was something a war crime 50 years ago, but not today? You have demonstrated some serious "moral relativism" here.
Furthermore, if our intent in Iraq was to stop "global jihad", then why did we invade one of the few SECULAR regimes in the middle east? Kind of a lame way to fight extremism, don't you think?
"the type of justice you want for the Guantanamo detainees has never before been extended to hostiles captured on the field of war."
You are aware that many people in Guantanamo were not "captured on the field of war", but turned in for cash by various factions, aren't you?
You are also aware that hundreds have been cleared for release because even the US didn't believe they were being held for a decent reason?
Frankly, I'm amazed that you think this argument is about run-of-the-mil POWs. It's not. It's about people who have been abducted by the US government who WEREN'T on a battlefield fighting american soldiers, and are being held without charge, without trial.
If you don't understand what's wrong with that, you don't understand the "freedom" you claim to want to bring to the rest of the world.
-- yet it can open sealed lips
Where'd you get that crap from? Come to think of it, have you invested the slightest amount of time looking into who is in Guantanamo and why?
This sort of ignorance would stun me if it wasn't so common on a certain end of our domestic political spectrum.
"Let's kill the jihadists by acting like them."
My response would be, "let us kill all the jihadists by actually killing all the GitMo jihadists".
Sick nailed it; the neocon bent for unchecked executive power is going to come home to roost someday.
This is simply a justification for grabbing more power, as Chavez and the Ayatollah did. Explain abuses of power as being in reaction to what someone else did.
This has always been a Leftist tactic in destabilizing free and secure nations.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Shan of Iran and Bush did not use enough of their powers and did not kill enough of their enemies.
Get a grip, think like an American, - "Justice for All"
mamased | 12.05.07 - 4:27 pm | #
I didn't know you were an Imperialist.
If you are comfortable being a sadist fine. IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!
Anne | 12.05.07 - 5:27 pm | #
Sadists would be the first one to tell you that torture works. What hasn't worked is socialism and the utopia of the common man.
And they'll know it's the truth, since no one would ever just lie about anything to stop the torture.
If someone will lie to stop the torture, would it then not follow that they would also tell the truth to stop the torture? So why would they lie when they know we will know that they have lied? Or did you not learn how to detect lies when you learned about proper interrogation techniques?
Btw, Laer, this is what happens when Bush practices his compassionate conservatism routine. The enemy propaganda just churns this stuff out on a regular basis.
It is also why you don't just stand around while the enemy attacks, you kill him so that attacks stop. This applies to propaganda just as it applies to insurgencies.
Do you think a GITMO detainee who professed intentions to kill us by the millions, would be able to somehow be finessed into a free pass by an American Jury, no matter who his lawyer is? What little faith in America! - Mamased
No, Mamsed, you fool. The point is that attorneys sympathetic to the jihad will try to use discovery to obtain information that will put our troops and our nation in danger. You have to consider what the consequences of your silly emotional responses are.
your rationale is wrong. While we've typically not extended trial by jury to POWs, POWs are subject to detention only during war. If this is an endless war, you are saying that any "hostile" can be held indefinitely with neither legal representation or the ability to make the case they are not hostile. If POWs were thought to be guilty of war crimes and hence subject to long imprisonment or death, they most certainly were provided legal representation and a trial. - Sami
It appears it may not be an endless war given how great it's going -- much to your chagrin, probably -- but you're wrong if you think they were provided with a trial, as in a trial in an American courtroom in front of a judge and jury. They were given tribunals, as are occurring now in Guantanamo. You guys won; you got your tribunals.
The trouble is, you can't recognize victory when you see it.
OH CHRIMMENY!
Please don't trot out the old "we can't grant a fair trial because it will make the country and the military vulnerable" bull.
So you say throw away justice because there is a possibility that someone might somehow find something that might possibly reveal something that could effect a military strategy some day. Then call me a fool. What absolute cowardice.
What would the founding fathers say if you spat that in their faces? Tell that to Jefferson. Anyone with an ounce of principal would laugh in your face. Then I suppose you'd characterize "All men are created equal" a silly emotional response to tyranny.
What a pathetic defense of your unprincipaled logic.
America has always held to a higher standard than you care to recall.
When did we forget that we're the good guys?
When did we forget that the good guys don't:
torture
disappear people
listen in on their fellow citizens
etc.
My son is ten and if I asked him "do good guys torture people", he would look at me like I was crazy. When did our leadership start appearing crazy to ten-year-olds?
Mamased, you have to learn how to read. I never said don't give them justice and I certainly don't advocate destroying our judicial system -- as Dems are wont to do with their attacks on the judicial nomination system.
I said give them a military tribunal. That's what our justice system and the world's justice system allows for enemies during war.
If one of them commits a crime on our shore, you will have more legit arguments and that will be an interesting case indeed. But it's not the cases we're talking about.
Hastingspete: If that's your concern, then stop redefining torture. Teach your son the need for interrogation and the terror of torture. Tell him how Saddam's regime cut of peoples hands, shocked prisoners' genitals, broke their bones, killed their families. Tell him how a noble and just America liberated the Iraqis from this horror. Tell them how al Qaeda planned horrible attacks on innocent children and old people who had done them no harm, and how our defenders used discretion and care to obtain information with the least amount of pain or fear possible, and never stooped to the depths of our enemies.
Nice try but unfortunately you have to learn how to stand by your words... or is it learn to remember... or is it learn to read?
Please read these, your words [do we] "...Give them trials in the U.S., where their attorneys would exploit our freedoms for the benefit of those who have professed their intentions to kill us by the millions?"
To which I suggested yes, give them trials in the US, I think we could demonstrate to the world that American justice is alive and well... Your reply? "The point is that attorneys sympathetic to the jihad will try to use discovery to obtain information that will put our troops and our nation in danger."
So obviously that's what we're were talking about - US trials for criminals.
Although it is nice to see that you wriggle when your caught... Kinda cute.
Shake it some more for me. Your kinda sexy when you squirm
No, Mamased, I said we don't want to give them trials in the US BECAUSE their attorneys will exploit our system so the jihadists can gain intelligence.
What's your problem with tribunals?
I know what you want Laer. Military tribunals. That's obvious.
We were talking about what to do in the hypothetical that the bases were closed (That's your hypothetical)
I say, fine bases are closed... what do we do... US Justice system could handle it.
You say it can't. That simple. I think it's insulting to the Justice system, the fairness and intelligence of the American people and just about every principal that the founding fathers stood for.
Now you wanna go back and scream "I SAID MILITARY TRIBUNALS" go 'head, I know what you want.
Your problem seems to be that you don't have the moral courage to look at this from more than one angle... your own.
That's why you seem to have all the imagination and guts of a four square member of the flat earth society.
Actually, we're under no obligation to try them whatsoever. They're being held as enemy combatants, not as common criminals -- which is one of the gulfs between right-think and left-think in the execution of the war on terror.
Some may be charged with war crimes, in which case either we could try them or the UN could set up a war crimes trial (now that's a group I don't trust.)
If they aren't charged, they could be returned to their home country. I'd love to see that happen to some of the prisoners ... say Pakistanis.
Now that I understand you want me to address a hypothetical -- do I trust our legal system to handle such a trial if it were to be held -- the answer is yes, with limits I trust our legal system.
You have admitted that attorneys for the defendants will exploit our system. That leaves the matter of trust, then, first to the capability of the judge, and we know that there are judges in this country so incapable of doing their jobs that OJ Simpson can go free. Then, we're in the hands of the appeals courts. Would the case be in the 9th Circuit? Then OMG, batten down the hatches.
The Supremes? I trust them now that Bush has had his two appointments, but will damage already have been done by the time the case reaches them?
Better, I say, to keep them in Gitmo where they are treated much more humanely than they would treat us, were the shoe on the other foot.
Laer -
I agree with you on one point: we do indeed behave better than the worst of the enemies facing us. That is indeed true. But it is cold comfort when you share any space on that spectrum of bad behaviours with regimes or enemies less foul, but foul enough.
I don't want to waterboard. There's no possible justification short of the tired ticking time bomb scenario. And that just never happens. Dress it up, but waterboarding is torture of the most vile sort that causes grown men to foul themselves in thirty seconds and leaves the men carrying it out in shock. Deny it as you please. I won't and it's disgusting and wrong and we shouldn't do it.
We're the good guys. Even a ten-year old could tell you good guys don't almost drown people repeatedly to get them to "talk". We didn't do it to nazis or Soviets, who were true existential threats. We shouldn't be doing it to these clowns.
h'pete: I certainly don't like waterboarding either. I'd rather we didn't have to do it. It is not the method of choice; it is, as I understand and believe, our method of last resort.
If it takes a brief period of terror to get the information we need from a terrorist, and if the process is carefully monitored, it can be a necessity. I trust America to be careful with it.
I suppose I shouldn't be amazed at your attempt to wriggle out of your own hypothesis &call it mine then.
And I suppose it's also beating a dead horse, but I'll give it a final whack then let you go on with the big lie.
In your original post you said that those wanting to close Gitmo would have to say what should be done with the prisoners.
My response to your hypothetical was that they could be tried in a civil court. Your response was that they couldn't; A. Because it's never been done before and B. Because it would damage national security
Now you tell me you trust the legal system. So you agree! Thanks, can you come out and say that if Gitmo were closed you'd be willing to see good old fashioned American justice applied to these prisoners? I doubt it.
No doubt you'll double yourself up into another illogical contortion thereby creating more yawns than cheers. Your hypothetical has been asked and answered.
This some tired material you're pedaling. America has the moral courage to set an example that exceeds - "Well it's better than the worst" standard that seems to be your feeble concept of fairness.
Please if you want to respond deal with this quote in light of your last post:
"You can't be for closing Guantanamo unless you have a decent answer to the question of what you would do with the lovely people who bow toward Mecca from there. Return them to countries that won't have them? Give them trials in the U.S., where their attorneys would exploit our freedoms for the benefit of those who have professed their intentions to kill us by the millions?"
Now that you trust the system...
Talk about wriggling! I conditioned my statement about the judicial system quite thoroughly and carefully, but you take it as a broad, "Whatever."
I do not want the Gitmo detainees tried in our courts as if they were citizens or mere illegal aliens. It is dangerous today and a dangerous precedent for tomorrow to grant these people those sorts of rights and give their attorneys the advantages our system, which is carefully crafted to protect the rights of perpetrators of routine crimes, to protect the perpetrators of war crimes.
h'pete: I certainly don't like waterboarding either. I'd rather we didn't have to do it. It is not the method of choice; it is, as I understand and believe, our method of last resort.
last resort? so you're saying that America doesn't have the ingenuity or the resources to protect ourselves by moral and legal means?
If it takes a brief period of terror to get the information we need from a terrorist, and if the process is carefully monitored, it can be a necessity. I trust America to be careful with it.
now you're saying that America is moral enough to behave immorally? that the use of "terror" (your word, not mine) by America is OK?
you, my friend, truly terrify me. at first i thought this was merely absurd rantings. your ravings are tantamount to issuing a Fatwah. no better than the people you profess to hate.
You're defining immorality, Vic, and I don't accept your definition. A moment of terror is definitely OK. Creating a sense of terror is not torture; you libs are trying so desperately to redefine torture so all options are off the table.
And you ridicule our morality. Shame on you.
of course you don't accept my definition of immorality, because it includes torture and brutality against other human beings.
you need to rationalize the acceptability of such barbaric practices, so you must lower the bar of morality for yourself and the entire country.
fortunately, people who think as you do are being slowly revealed for what they are.
Sorry, Vic. Waterboarding isn't barbaric. Let's stay focused here. Barbaric is ripping off fingers and hooking genitals up to the wall outlet and murdering children in front of parents. You're redefining torture to fit your political ends, which apparently are to assure successful jihadist attacks on America.
now you're redefining both morality AND torture. back in 1947, U.S. courts convicted a Japanese officer on war crimes charges for waterboarding an American POW.
back then, our nation had the moral standing to oppose waterboarding AND OTHER torture.
now, not so much. what's even more tragic is that you're not the only one who's drunk the Kool-Aid.
laer
i appreciate your spirited defense here. people who have been waterboarded consider it torture. the army does. tortue doesnt have to leave marks to be torture, and we as a great and free country shouldnt do it. i pray that you will comen to a point in your life where you will view your position and what our country has done with shame. it is deeply shameful.
Commenting by HaloScan
