Dick Durbin

[scaeagles]

I am surprised that no one has posted about this, so I will. I will provide links to specifics of his statements, but he compared the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to what Nazis or Pol Pot would do.

I find this disgusting and reprehensible.

Apparently his words stem from an FBI report of a detainee chained to the floor. Sometimes temperatures in interrogation rooms were cooled to 60 degrees. Or heated over 100. They might be yelled at. They might not get water for a while. Would I want to be treated that way? No. But it is not comparable in any way to starvation or mass executions or death marches or or whatever.

None of these things are against the Geneva convention. I hate to say that, because as ununiformed enemy combatants, the Geneva convention does not apply to them.

They are fed religiously and culturally acceptable food. They are provided religious texts and prayer matts and quiet times for prayer.

Trent Lott was stripped of his leadership position for praising Strom Thurmond. Should not Durbin receive some sort of penalty or censure for his comments? Should not John McCain come forward and explain to him what torture is in a prison camp that deserves comparison to the worst in history?

Dick Durbin is a disgusting individual.

[Tref]

It is funny what disgusts some people. I have read that many prisoners have not even been charged with a crime, yet. And is it true they live in cages? That is what the newspapers report.

What about those that have been beaten to death? Or, violated anally with chemical light sticks? Congress was shown photos of prisoners that had been mutilated. Many, many, more have died during interrogations. That must be some interrogation! What type of camp do you believe those guys would say they were in? If you answered, death camp, then you are correct!

You mention that the prisoners are being fed. Well, I suppose that is very nice of us, indeed. Imagine that. We are feeding our prisoners.

I think you may be mis-channeling your disgust. I dig where you are coming from, my brother, but you need to stay focused. Durbins words will pass -- that's hyperbole. The brutal torture of prisoners by Americans -- that's reality.

[mousepod]

Yeah yeah yeah.

There was a great bit on The Daily Show last night that used the Dick Durbin clip as a take-off point to show how Conservatives get crazy when Liberals use the Hitler reference and then how the Conservatives use the Hitler comparison too. As far as I'm concerned Durbin's an idiot. But so is Santorum.

You can watch the clip right here (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemID=15751)

[Scrooge McSam]

I am surprised that no one has posted about this, so I will.

Surprised? Why, exactly? I notice the silence on these boards about the Downing Street Memo is deafening.

I will provide links to specifics of his statements, but he compared the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to what Nazis or Pol Pot would do.

This is not true. Many would call it an outright lie, but as I strive to maintain respect for those with whom I disagree, I will not.

I find this disgusting and reprehensible.

Parrotting right wing distortions is what I call disgusting and reprehensible.

Would I want to be treated that way? No. But it is not comparable in any way to starvation or mass executions or death marches or or whatever.

This, folks, is how the twisting of the truth begins. Mr. Durbin did NOT say that what the US is accused of is in any way equivalent to the crimes of the Nazis, Pol Pot, etc. What he did say is that if the average citizen were to see a catalog of the crimes reported to have taken place in these prisons, they would find it hard to believe that the America they know could be responsible. He said they would be more likely to believe it was the actions of one of the criminal regimes mentioned previously.

They are fed religiously and culturally acceptable food. They are provided religious texts and prayer matts and quiet times for prayer.

Yep, and flashlights for anal raping, snarling guard dogs for intimidation, kicks to the torso and groin for their further edification, all the while locked up with no legal representation or hope of trial. Furthermore, if they are eventually found not guilty, they can still be sent back to prison until our president decides they can be let out.

America the beautiful, huh?

Should not John McCain come forward and explain to him what torture is in a prison camp that deserves comparison to the worst in history?

If a person can't read and understand the printed page, no amount of explanation will satisfy them.

Dick Durbin is a disgusting individual.

If that isn't misplaced anger, I don't know what is.

:cheers:

[scaeagles]

To the contrary -

He said that what we were doing to prisoners at Guantanamo sounded like what one would expect from the Nazis or Pol Pot. There is simply no comparison. I believe his intention was clear.

There have certainly been much discussed violations of what is acceptable, such as violations at Abu Ghraib. We choose to prosecute those who do such things. They are the exception rather than the rule. In the previously mentioned regimes, torture was the rule.

He compares things in the statement from the guy in the FBI, which are not in violation the Geneva convention, to the attrocities committed throughout history. This is what I find reprehensible. Saying that the statement conjures up thoughts of what happened then. There is nothing even close to equivalence.

Tref, I am not amazed at our feeding the prisoners, and you know that. It goes beyond bread and water - they are fed better than our own troops. I am not complaining that they are fed. I am merely showing to what extent our government has gone to be culturally and religiously sensitive. But Durbin would liken it to Nazi torture.

These are ununiformed enemy combatants. In wars, such captives are typically shot. I do not excuse beatings, but intimidation by dogs barking is certainly against nothing in the Geneva convention. Nor is sleep deprivation, yelling, screaming, temperature extremes, nor the like.

Continue to presecute those who have violated our standards. And rightly so. But our standards, some described in the FBI statement read by Durbin, are nothing remotely close to the regimes he specifically cited.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Continue to presecute those who have violated our standards.The problem is, the deeper they've delved into this, the higher up the order, or the blind eye (equally as bad), for those violations appears.

[SacTown Chronic]

These are ununiformed enemy combatants.

Says who? Where's the evidence? Where are the charges? Sorry, but I need something more than a wink and a nod from the White House before I can support our wholly un-American actions at Guantanamo Bay.

[Tref]

Tref, I am not amazed at our feeding the prisoners, and you know that. It goes beyond bread and water - they are fed better than our own troops. I am not complaining that they are fed. I am merely showing to what extent our government has gone to be culturally and religiously sensitive. But Durbin would liken it to Nazi torture.

I see your point.

[SacTown Chronic]

I notice the silence on these boards about the Downing Street Memo is deafening.
Sounds vaugely familiar. Is this memo something I would have heard about from America's liberal media? Or perhaps from some Bush bashing freedom haters in England?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Leo, I think it's safe to say that we agree on very little in this realm. Unless, like, you enjoy drinking lemonade or you think that kittens are generally cuter than cats or that the Beatles played some good music.

But on things of substance, I guess we'll just about always come down on opposite sides of the issue. Or at least that's how it seems.

I don't care who the prisoner is. I don't care if he is ununiformed or guilty or in the wrong place at the wrong time or Bin Laden himself. Ill treatment of prisoners is disgusting, whether it's legal under Geneva or not.

[scaeagles]

all the while locked up with no legal representation or hope of trial. Furthermore, if they are eventually found not guilty, they can still be sent back to prison until our president decides they can be let out.

While I take issue with some things in your post (such as the clever way you called me a liar but said you wouldn't do so out of respect :p ), I will address just this.

They have no right to legal representation or hope of a trial. They are not being held as criminals, but as enemy combatants. This explains it far better than I could

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/02-GuantanDetainees.pdf

[SacTown Chronic]

Nevermind.

[Scrooge McSam]

<snip> the clever way you called me a liar but said you wouldn't do so out of respect :p

I thought you'd enjoy that.

But seriously, our corporate media has been trumpeting that exact same take all day long. "Durbin sez our leaders and military are like nazis". It's bull****. I explained why above.

They have no right to legal representation or hope of a trial. They are not being held as criminals, but as enemy combatants. This explains it far better than I could

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/02-GuantanDetainees.pdf

My, that's a pretty document. No typos. Straight margins. A lot of work obviously went into it's production. Perhaps we should put as much work into getting this administration to actually abide by it. Or did I miss the part where it say it's A-OK to torture enemy combatants?

And as an aside, may I just say how offensive it is to me and many more like me to see the memory of 9/11 whored as it is in this document to support our illegal actions in Iraq.

[Name]

I know my views are applauded and accepted by some, and considered majorly wrong by others, but I don't care anymore(I have my fire suit on). So, here is my view, if we keep this elitest attitdue that anyone that does anything against us from another country is an enemy combatant and a terrorist, then we will dig ourselves into a massively deep hole we will have a hard time getting out of. The bill of rights that have been so brilliant feel to me when I read them as basic rights of all humans. And when we don't allow such basic human rights to other humans based solely on country of citizenship, well to me that is a very elitest attitude. I know that if there were an american being held by a foreign govt in the same way we are holding these poor souls, there would be a major outcry, and probably military action, why would we expect any different action from other countries, or their citizens.

I am pissed that the leadership of the country has led us down this low road.

[wendybeth]

We have zero credibility in the world anymore. We do unto others as we would not have done unto ourselves, we preach a vague ideal of Democracy, and yet we do not practice it, and we do not set any sort of positive example in our treatment and behavior towards other countries and cultures. We do not have to stand idly by and let those that wish us harm do so, but neither do we have to stoop to their levels of inhuman behavior. We used to be better than that. Low road, indeed.

As far as the Brit document, the deafening silence is largely because we all knew we were being manipulated and lied to. It's hard to be all righteously indignant when we knew this was so all along.

[sleepyjeff]

This is usually where I jump in and say something to the effect that Clinton is to blame for all of this because he is the one who created the loopholes in the law which are being used against those prisoners...................but I don't do that any more')

[scaeagles]

And as an aside, may I just say how offensive it is to me and many more like me to see the memory of 9/11 whored as it is in this document to support our illegal actions in Iraq.

Now, some might say calling our our actions in Iraq illegal is a lie, but I won't out of respect for those with whom I disagree. ;)

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

On one other note, I'm with you on the torture. The Abu Ghraib stuff - prosecute those responsible. But what Durbin described is certainly not torture, and certainly nothing even close to comparable of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.


Stated over and over again doesn't change the fact that your position is highly debateable. For one thing, violation of the cease-fire was not our stated reason for going there.

We were told that he posed a threat. In reality, there are many other nations who happen to pose far more of threat. The weapons weren't there and many people have come to the conclusion that Saddam was in fact complying. He was letting the weapons inspectors in and all indications were that there were no WMD's. I know you disagree but the facts aren't there to support your belief.

Of course, the real reason we went in was regime change, and according to international law, that is illegal.

[Scrooge McSam]

Now, some might say calling our our actions in Iraq illegal is a lie, but I won't out of respect for those with whom I disagree. ;)

Yes, you're right. Some might say that. I would advise them to remember that lying to Congress is illegal. Mr. Bush went into this war by reporting to Congress, as required, that Iraq and Al Queda were in league (false) and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened its neighbors and could threaten the United States (also false). And the mobile weapons labs and the drones and all that other stuff, but we don't have to go through all those lies again unless you just want to. More and more evidence is gathering that Mr. Bush knew it was all false... hell, may have even "fixed the intelligence" to force regime change if British reports turn out to be true.

Of course, it could be something else. Maybe it's this crazy across the pond language thing. Fixing the intelligence may mean something totally different over there.

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

Hmmm What you say doesn't square with the reports of the British government scrambling to put a legal facade on this whole mess. They knew this crap was illegal.

On one other note, I'm with you on the torture. The Abu Ghraib stuff - prosecute those responsible.

I'm very glad to hear you say that. Can I assume you mean no matter how high it goes?

But what Durbin described is certainly not torture, and certainly nothing even close to comparable of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot.

Call it what you want. We all saw the pictures. America didn't like what it saw. It is immaterial to me at this point what you call it. Your attack on Mr. Durbin was unfair. Having stated that, I'm satisfied on this point.

Hey, did y'all see we're getting a new prison in Cuba. KBR's (Kellogg Brown and Root Services) gonna build it for us. I hear they're owned by Halliburton. I read we're gonna spend $30 million for it. It sounds like it's gonna be nice. For that price, I hope we get stainless steel restraint loops built in the floor. Those old steel ones start to degrade with long term exposure to air, blood, urine and feces.

:cheers:

[scaeagles]

MBC or Scrooge - why was it illegal? I can clearly cite why it was. There was a cease fire. it was repeatedly broken, thereby ending the cease fire. Saddam was not just to allow inspecters in, MBC, but full and unfettered access to anywhere without notice. This was clearly not happening. He also was violating no fly zones and shooting at our patrol aircraft, violations as well. He offered assylum to Osama.

No WMD. I am not familiar with the Downing Street memo, but I find it interesting that it came out days before the British election, just like the forged docs regarding President Bush came out. I cannot say it was forged, but the timing is similar. But to say that the British intelligence and American intelligence were lying is to say Egyptian and Russian intelligence was lying as well, just to name two others. I still wonder what Saddam did with the rest of what he used on his own people - no proof of destruction of what he had. What did he do with it?

Scrooge, the pictures you speak of were not what Durbin was referring to. He was referring specifically to Guantanamo, not the pics from Abu Ghraib. I stand by my criticism of Durbin 100%.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well, according to Bush today:


"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," he said.


Weren't we attacked by Saudi Arabians? I don't recall Iraq attacking us. I also don't remember them posing any direct threat to us. Interesting alternative universe he is living in. And I wonder how come he didn't say "We went to war with Iraq because they violated a cease-fire agreement." Any theories, scaeagles, as to why he wouldn't just say that, if it is as rock-solid a reason as you say it is?

[wendybeth]

Pssst, MBC- he probably didn't bring it up since it is a UN action, and they weren't gonna back us. Don't tell Scaeagles, though- he'll start going on about the UN and then we'll never get any peace.;)

[SacTown Chronic]

It's all so sad. Instead of an open and honest introspective discussion about ourselves and the American way, we are arguing semantics.


I sorely miss my America.

[Scrooge McSam]

MBC or Scrooge - why was it illegal?

Lying to congress to get us into a war is illegal. I can't get any plainer than that. Congress charged this President to report why it was necessary for the security of the United States to invade another country, and what they got was a pack of lies. Further, regime change is not recognized by the international legal community as a justification to invade another country. Now I full well realize we're in bizarro world and international opinion matters not to this administration, but that first problem is not going away.

I am not familiar with the Downing Street memo

Color me surprised.

Scrooge, the pictures you speak of were not what Durbin was referring to. He was referring specifically to Guantanamo, not the pics from Abu Ghraib. I stand by my criticism of Durbin 100%.

Good. Great. Get your big megaphone out and make sure everybody knows that. Keep on making the point that American soldiers abusing enemy combatants is really not so bad... it's just talking about it that's the crime. See where that gets you.

I'll be over here watching Mr. Bush's ratings sink like a stone.

:cheers:

[scaeagles]

Good. Great. Get your big megaphone out and make sure everybody knows that. Keep on making the point that American soldiers abusing enemy combatants is really not so bad

And when exactly did I state that abusing the enemy isn't really so bad? I didn't. Exactly the opposite, in fact, urging prosecution of those responsible.

What I did, in this thread, was express disgust at Durbin for comparing Guantanamo to Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and Soviet Gulags. Period.

There is no proof that lies were told to congress. None. In fact, the international intelligence community agreed with our assessments of Saddam's capabilities, though they disagreed on the solution.

But enough rehashing that which has been discussed ad nauseum. I still stand by my assessment of Durbin, and in fact, I read a small blurb that he regrets having said what he said. It was in my local Saturday paper, and I have no link, but I could go and look if anyone is really interested.

[Scrooge McSam]

What I did, in this thread, was express disgust at Durbin for comparing Guantanamo to Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and Soviet Gulags. Period.

What you did was malign Mr. Durbin unjustly.

There is no proof that lies were told to congress.

Riiiiiiight!

But enough rehashing that which has been discussed ad nauseum. I still stand by my assessment of Durbin, and in fact, I read a small blurb that he regrets having said what he said.

Oh, I don't doubt that. Once the chickenhawks, attack poodles in the media and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists crank up their machinery, it can be pretty scary.

[scaeagles]

What you did was malign Mr. Durbin unjustly.

If calling him "a disgusting individual" for comparing our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and Soviet gulags is unjust, then so be it.

Rather, I would regard him as unjust in his comparison, when we provide them with religious texts, quiet times for prayers, a diet that meets their requirements both religiously and culturally, prayers mats, etc. Don't think you'd find much of that in those other places.

[mousepod]

"What the Democrats are doing is "the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), May 19, 2005

Comparing the pro-filibuster Democrats to Hitler? Rick Santorum is truly a disgusting individual.

[scaeagles]

I agree. In fact, I joined the criticism of his statements, though not to the extent I have criticized Durbin. Anyone who participates in such rhetoric is ignorant of history and what the Nazis and Soviets and Khmer Rouge and whomever had done throughout history.

I will say, though, that I find Durbin's comments to be much worse, because we are at a time of war, and his statements have surely been cause for comfort to our enemies. In fact, his comments were broadcast all over Al Jazeera and used as anti US propaganda when his comments have no basis in fact (not to say Santorum's did).

Since you find Santorum's comments so outgrageous, will you then join in the criticism of Durbin? Or since his political philosophy is more alligned with yours, will you just ignore the comments and give him a pass?

[mousepod]

Scaeagles,

I agree that politicians and politicals commentators who use inflammatory rhetoric are absolutely inappropriate and need to recognize the hurtful nature of their comments.

However, I've got to admit that I'm really surprised by this thread. I felt the original post was a little "bait-y" because of the instigative nature of your language - not usually your style. But I'm equally surprised by all of the responses which try to show how wrong the war is and how Durbin is right.

For the record, here's where I stand on your original post: Durbin was wrong wrong wrong to compare Gitmo to Cambodia and Nazi Germany. That's what I was trying to gently say when I provided a link to the Daily Show.

Unfortunately, the sound-bite nature of our current news media has forced politicians and political commentators to resort to incendiary comparisons to make sure that their point makes it to the evening news - and that applies to Libs and Cons.

I agree with most of the posters here who say that Bush is a liar and that the current war is wrong (illegal? perhaps, but I'm not going to tackle that here). But to compare deadly actions to political rhetoric is really an apples and oranges argument, isn't it?

If you want to start a "disgusting individual" thread for politicos who go overboard with their comments, I'd be delighted to contribute to it. Here's a 'funny' one from Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform (who is also the "reputed architect of President Bush's tax cuts") who uses the Holocaust to make a point about the estate tax:
Grover Norquist: Yeah, the good news about the move to abolish the death tax, the tax where they come and look at how much money you've got when you die, how much gold is in your teeth and they want half of it, is that -- you're right, there's an exemption for -- I don't know -- maybe a million dollars now, and it's scheduled to go up a little bit. However, 70 percent of the American people want to abolish that tax. Congress, the House and Senate, have three times voted to abolish it. The president supports abolishing it, so that tax is going to be abolished. I think it speaks very much to the health of the nation that 70-plus percent of Americans want to abolish the death tax, because they see it as fundamentally unjust. The argument that some who played at the politics of hate and envy and class division will say, 'Yes, well, that's only 2 percent,' or as people get richer 5 percent in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax.

I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. 'I mean, it's not you, it's somebody else.'

And this country, people who may not make earning a lot of money the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just. If you've paid taxes on your income once, the government should leave you alone. Shouldn't come back and try and tax you again.

Terry Gross: Excuse me. Excuse me one second. Did you just ...

Grover Norquist: Yeah?

Terry Gross: … compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?

Grover Norquist: No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage. What are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them. And arguing that it's OK to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us, it should treat us all equally. …"

Terry Gross: So you see taxes as being the way they are now terrible discrimination against the wealthy comparable to the kind of discrimination of, say, the Holocaust?

Grover Norquist: Well, what you pick -- you can use different rhetoric or different points for different purposes, and I would argue that those who say, 'Don't let this bother you; I'm only doing it' -- I, the government. The government is only doing it to a small percentage of the population. That is very wrong. And it's immoral. They should treat everybody the same. They shouldn't be shooting anyone, and they shouldn't be taking half of anybody's income or wealth when they die."

What a disgusting individual.

[Scrooge McSam]

Well said, Mousepod.

My original entree into this thread was to oppose the "disgusting individual" moniker employed by the OP. I, for one, detest this climate in which certain names and regimes must not be mentioned ever again in polite and informed conversation.

Comparison of tactics and actions does not imply equivalence.

Mr. Durbin's whole point that Americans will not accept the treatment that's been documented in these facilities is lost because some yahoo gets his feeling hurt because some historically documented criminal regimes have used SOME of the same tactics.

Equivalence is not implied. Nobody said we were no different than the Nazis. The point is we're not different ENOUGH!

[Scrooge McSam]

Sometimes the news just falls in your lap like a big ole Christmas (Non-sectarian winter holiday season, for the ultra libs) present.

This morning, in a Meet the Press discussion on the Guantanamo facility, John McCain said...

... I think, on balance, the argument has got to be--the weight of evidence has got to be that we've got to adjudicate these people's cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them. Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.

Where have I heard that name?

Does Mr McCain realize he's saying that America as a country does not afford the same legal protection to it's Muslim detainees as it did to the Nazis? Does Mr McCain not realize we're at war? Does Mr. McCain not realize that his statements provide comfort and encouragement to the very terrorists that seek to kill our brave soldiers?

What a quandry. Do I now take a giant leap away away from my good senses as well as my understanding of the english language and declare John McCain a disgusting individual? Or do I understand that Mr. McCain is pressing the point that Americans collectively have a standard of treatment for human beings and the recent events brought to light indicate that we are not living up to that standard?

It IS a puzzler ;)

[sleepyjeff]

What If the US did what so many so called human rights orgs want US to do? What if they released all the prisoners (remember, these are people who have sworn they want to destroy America and are highly suspected of doing things to actively achieve that end).

What if some of those released come back at US 5 or 10 years from now.

What if they become responsible for the killing of 10,000 Americans or 100,000? What if they hooked up with someone who has the bomb and manged to kill close to a 1,000,000 Americans?

We already know they want to................

What will those Americans who are screaming to have these prisoners released say then:

1. "Oh, well....can't be afraid all the time...can't live in a bubble" :rolleyes:

2. "My God!......who is responsible for this-------can't be me and my calls for their freedom". "Dam Bush, he did this on purpose to give us a reason to attack (fill in country here)".

3. "It is better to uphold ideals and lose a few million lives then to bend those ideals and lose who we are....when we do that the enemy really wins...blah blah blah"--------yeah right....I am sure the enemy is cheering in the streets when we "bend" our ideals and come at them with everything we got vs when they kill each and every last one of us :p

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

THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL..........doesn't anybody understand that?

[wendybeth]

I think people understand completely what they want to do to us, Jeff, but I really don't think holding a bunch of people indefinitely- with no trial or due process of any sort- is making us any safer. What about the borders? Air safety? Port security? There are so many terrorists and potential terrorists out there that we can't possibly catch and incarcerate them all, and it just seems to me that the logical thing to do is make it more difficult for them to enter our country. In the meantime, do we really have to compromise our priciples and standards so very much? If we do, then they have already won. We have fought many wars with people who wanted nothing more than to eliminate us from the face of the earth, and we will never be safe from outside threats. I agree that there are many organizations that have blinders on, namely the UN, Amnesty International, the ACLU, etc, and they do a lot of things that really piss me off, but at the same time they have done a lot of good for this world.

I really am saddened by the willingness to give up so much of what makes our country great, all in the guise of short term safety. It is an illusion- we are no safer now than we were Sept. 10th, 2001. We have done some good thngs since then, such as (apparently) getting rid of the Taliban , but we have also done so many ugly, vicious things, and too many innocents are getting hurt.

[Scrooge McSam]

What If the US did what so many so called human rights orgs want US to do? What if they released all the prisoners (remember, these are people who have sworn they want to destroy America and are highly suspected of doing things to actively achieve that end).

We really don't have to go any further than this first paragraph.

You contend, if I don't misunderstand you, that the ultimate goal of the people speaking out about prison abuse is to just have these people released. That is not true. I haven't heard anyone suggest opening the doors and just turning them out. The bringing of evidence and some hearings on that evidence sure would be nice though.

You contend, if I don't misunderstand you, that all the people held in these prison are people who have sworn they want to destroy American. That is also not true. There are reports of people being held for nothing more than immigration violations. It would seem to me that we could get more than 39 convictions out of a pool of 500 prisoners if the place was crawling with sworn terrorists.

[sleepyjeff]

You contend, if I don't misunderstand you, that the ultimate goal of the people speaking out about prison abuse is to just have these people released. That is not true. I haven't heard anyone suggest opening the doors and just turning them out. The bringing of evidence and some hearings on that evidence sure would be nice though.



Good points all......but....

... if the bringing of evidence with hearings would pose a danger to the US then what?

Ultimately it is their release that many of these people must really want....which would be fine by me if they really were innocents.....but I can't really fathom what would be the gain to anybody high up in the US government to keep innocents in a Cuban Prison???? Somebody explain that one to me please.

[wendybeth]

I suppose because they can, Jeff. It's the same mindset that had the FBI keeping files on such people as John Lennon, etc, and it's been going on for years. It's just that now they seem to think they have a mandate from the public- "Please protect us and we'll gladly give up any and all rights and liberties we posess , and screw the rest of the world- they're not Americans anyway!" I've no doubt that some nasty types are in Gitmo. I also have no doubt that there are quite a few poor, illiterate sheepherders in there as well, who just happened to get caught up in this mess. Either way, we do not give them any sort of due process whatsoever, and that is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it only reinforces what the bad guys are saying about us.

[Scrooge McSam]

... if the bringing of evidence with hearings would pose a danger to the US then what?

Since when did the pursuit of truth become injurious to the United States of America?

I'm not trying to be catty, but you've lost me here.

[scaeagles]

Comparison of tactics and actions does not imply equivalence.

What if I said "Bill Clinton reminds me of Hitler when he speaks."? Would that be inflamatory? They both spoke were generally considered great speech makers. Do you think that would be OK? I'm not meaning to say he is like Hitler in every way. The thing is, in polite society, references to certain things have a certain conotation. I believe Durbin knew exactly that and was trying to draw that image up in relationship to Gitmo, though they are no where near equal. I could draw up any sort of comparison I want under your rules and say that of course I didn't mean what. Of course Clinton isn't like Hitler - he just reminds me of him when he speaks. Of course that would be crap. And if I didn't know how my words would be construed, then I am pretty damn stupid.

[scaeagles]

Does Mr McCain realize he's saying that America as a country does not afford the same legal protection to it's Muslim detainees as it did to the Nazis?

When did Eichman get the trial? Oh! That would be after WWII was over. As in after Germany surrendered. I don't think we're quite at that point.

[scaeagles]

we do not give them any sort of due process whatsoever, and that is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it only reinforces what the bad guys are saying about us.

No, Wendy, it isn't. They are not criminals subject to the laws of our country. They have no constitutionally gauranteed rights. They have no right to a trial (at this point, and perhaps never - just release at the end of hostilities unless they are tried for war crimes). They have no right to due process. They are not American citizens. They are not foreign nationals who committed a crime on our soil.

What they are are prisoners of war. They are not to be released until the end of hostilities.

I personally don't care about what the bad guys are saying about us, but it sure raises my ire a bit when a Senator such as Durbin says things that clearly give them aid and comfort - which is precisely why they are playing what he said on Al Jazeera.

[sleepyjeff]

I I also have no doubt that there are quite a few poor, illiterate sheepherders in there as well, who just happened to get caught up in this mess.



No doubt? You are 100% sure that innocents are being held in Cuba? I find this hard to believe because for every person we are holding in Cuba there are several hundred we questioned and released back in Afghanistan---many of which were pointing and shooting guns at our troops. If we are going to let them go why would we go around and grab innocent regular folk and then ship them to Cuba? Again, it doesn't add up. Sorry, but "just because they can" doesn't satisfy me. They wouldn't do all that just for the heck of it

[Scrooge McSam]

When did Eichman get the trial? Oh! That would be after WWII was over. As in after Germany surrendered. I don't think we're quite at that point.

Then please make that point to John McCain so he can stop slandering our troops and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. ;)

[mousepod]

"We certainly have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany's abuses of science. As a society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow or should allow."
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), October 11, 2004
Speaking in opposition to stem cell research

[wendybeth]

No, Wendy, it isn't. They are not criminals subject to the laws of our country. They have no constitutionally gauranteed rights. They have no right to a trial (at this point, and perhaps never - just release at the end of hostilities unless they are tried for war crimes). They have no right to due process. They are not American citizens. They are not foreign nationals who committed a crime on our soil.



What they are are prisoners of war. They are not to be released until the end of hostilities.

I personally don't care about what the bad guys are saying about us, but it sure raises my ire a bit when a Senator such as Durbin says things that clearly give them aid and comfort - which is precisely why they are playing what he said on Al Jazeera.

Exactly my point. They are not American citizens, therefore they are not deserving of any sort of judicial hearing or proceeding- they are being held as 'enemy combatants'. I suppose now that we've set the precedent, any other country can just grab an American citzen and make the same claim. Never mind that they are civilian engineers, or relief workers, or anything but soldiers. The people that have been seized up until now have been referred to as hostages, but by your logic they are really enemy combatants to the other side. There are at least two sides to any war, correct? I don't see them as such, and that is why I don't necessarily see all the Gitmo detainees as POW's. It's just not that black and white, and things are never as clear as a politician would lead you to believe.
Btw- since when do only Americans deserve basic civil rights? That's so frikken elitest, I don't even know how to respond. We had the good sense to draft a constitution just in case a situation like this arose, so that means only we get the special treatment?

[scaeagles]

Btw- since when do only Americans deserve basic civil rights? That's so frikken elitest, I don't even know how to respond. We had the good sense to draft a constitution just in case a situation like this arose, so that means only we get the special treatment?

Not elitist in the least. Citizenship has always had benefits for the citizens of any given country. Only American citizens are privileged t ohave the rights gauranteed by our Constitution. This is the way it has always been.

Interestingly, though, when we dare to suggest that other countries grant similar liberties to their own citizens, we are accused of trying to impose our own form of democracy and society on these other cultures. Isn't that something else that is frequently regarded as elitist?

How dare us not grant our own civil liberties to those who would attack us for trying to bring democracy and similar civil liberties to their region of the planet! :rolleyes:

[Scrooge McSam]

Enjoy, Leo.

Soldier sues over Guantanamo beating (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo18jun18,1,1411045.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.

Spc. Sean D. Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.

You mean they didn't just chain him naked to the floor without access to toilet facilities, food or water for days at a time? Because I've got a friend that tells me that's OK.

Baker, a Gulf War veteran who reenlisted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Lexington, Ky., Baker asked the Army to reinstate him in a position that would accommodate his medical condition. He said the Army put him on medical retirement against his wishes.

"Somebody has to step up to serve, and I still want to serve," Baker said Friday in a telephone interview from his home in Georgetown, Ky. "There's some task somewhere I can do in the Army."

A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment, saying she had not seen the lawsuit and could not discuss pending litigation.

The Pentagon initially said that Baker's hospitalization following the training incident was not related to the beating.

Well, if the Pentagon said it, it must be true... no, wait

Later, officials conceded that he was treated for injuries suffered when a five-man MP "internal reaction force" choked him, slammed his head several times against a concrete floor and sprayed him with pepper gas.

The drill took place in a prison isolation wing reserved for suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were disruptive or had attacked MPs.

Baker said he put on the jumpsuit and squeezed under a prison bunk after being told by a lieutenant that he would be portraying an unruly detainee. He said he was assured that MPs conducting the "extraction drill" knew it was a training exercise and that Baker was an American soldier.

More Pentagon honesty?

As he was being choked and beaten, Baker said, he screamed a code word, "red," and shouted: "I'm a U.S. soldier! I'm a U.S. soldier!" He said the beating continued until the jumpsuit was yanked down during the struggle, revealing his military uniform.

The lawsuit says of the extraction team: "Armed with the highly inflammatory, false, incendiary and misleading information that had been loaded into their psyches by their platoon leader, these perceptions and fears … became their operative reality, and they acted upon these fears, all to the detriment of Sean Baker."

No one has been disciplined or punished for the assault, said Baker's lawyer, T. Bruce Simpson Jr.

EXCUSE ME!!!!! Now let's remember here people, the ONLY reason you're hearing about this is because these THUGS (Yes... THESE SOLDIERS = THUGS! Kiss my rusty butt if you don't like it!) had the misfortune of abusing a United States citizen. Now see if you can convince yourself we'd hear about this if it happened to a non-citizen.

"While it is unfortunate that Spc. Baker was injured, the standards of professionalism we expect of our soldiers mandate that our training be as realistic as possible," the spokesman said.

Unfortunate? UNFORTUNATE?? FVCKING CRIMINAL IS WHAT IT IS!!!

AND WHAT EXACTLY DOES "STANDARD OF PROFESSIONALISM" HAVE TO DO WITH THIS SORDID MESS?

And our Pentagon officials do nothing?

Step us and defend our actions here and I'll show you who the truly disgusting individual is.

We will do this to our own in a training missing, but we won't do it to detainees? Riiiiight!

Wake up, people!

[scaeagles]

Scrooge - why do you think I would defend that? What have I said to make you think I would defned beating anyone close to death? Have I not said the perps from Abu Ghraib should be prosectued? Of course those responsible for the beating should be prosecuted, and prosecuted under the UCMJ, which I believe has much more strict penalties than the US justice system.

However, I would not believe in any way that this would be indicative of daily happenings. Here's my reasoning - if this was something that was happening regularly to detainees, would the higher ups who ordered this training exercise have done so with a US MP? That would be the equivalent of taking a bomb squad member and training them with live explosives in the field. If it was a pattern, the commanders would not risk what happened for obvious reasons. Can I say that it hasn't happened to a detainee? No. Can I say prisoners in the US justice system are never beaten by guards? No. Can I say that policemen never abuse those they arrest? No. Is is all wrong? Yes. Do I believe that anyone of those are commonplace or the norm? No.

Also, I would offer that what Durbin quoted did not include anything of being chained to the floor without food or water for days. There was no time period for that long - at least not observed by the person who wrote what Durbin quoted. I will offer that I have no way of knowing how long they are chained that way, but also that the FBI agent who wrote that does not either.

[scaeagles]

And while I would love to continue discussing this, I am leaving for DL with my family tomorrow and don't know how much I'll be on today. Certainly nothing after today for the next week. Just didn't want anyone to think that my silence was acquiescence.

[wendybeth]

And while I would love to continue discussing this, I am leaving for DL with my family tomorrow and don't know how much I'll be on today. Certainly nothing after today for the next week. Just didn't want anyone to think that my silence was acquiescence.

Lol!!! We would never think that, Leo.;)
Hey, have a great time at the park!

[Scrooge McSam]

However, I would not believe in any way that this would be indicative of daily happenings.

What exactly does the term "training drill" mean to you?

Am I to believe they let this "training drill" continue because they wanted to demonstrate what NOT to do?

Whenever I've participated in training, I've always believed it's because they want to impart to me techniques and procedures they WANT me to use.

Your mental gymnastics here just amaze me.

[scaeagles]

Actually, I believe it is your mental gymnastics that are amazing.

Do you believe they were instructed to beat the undercover MP? This is why they used an undercover MP, because they knew he would be beaten? That is absurd. Rather, I would suspect that they were quite surprised when it happened. Otherwise, they aren't going to use one of their own in the drill!

[Scrooge McSam]

Actually, I believe it is your mental gymnastics that are amazing.

It shouldn't surprise you that I am becoming less and less enamored with what you believe.

Do you believe they were instructed to beat the undercover MP?

This particular man? No, though I can't be sure. Any other detainee? I don't know. I would like to be able to say that American soldiers are not trained to act this way, but I can't. They're beating what they think is a detainee with MP training officers watching them. You tell me. No, don't... I don't have the stomach to listen to whatever excuse you're going to come up with next.

What I believe is the MP's running the drill did NOT inform their trainees that this was a drill... gross incompetence there. They nearly got one of our own killed due to their gross negligence.

So these MPs hit that room believing they were dealing with a real situation. Their actions provide us an example or how MPs treat military detainees, contrary to your continued assertions that American soldiers just don't act like that. Yet, here we are. American soldiers beating a "detainee" all the way to brain damage.

(As an aside, do you think they beat detainees like that when they're torturing them for information? And I'm just talking about the few documented cases of torture that have been brought to light. After all, we all know that torture is not systemic in US prison camps, don't we? It would seem to me to be unproductive to beat somebody all the way to brain damage if you're trying to get information out of them.)

And now let's move to the reaction from the base commanders. There was none. No action has been taken against the "brave soldiers" who pepper sprayed and beat an innocent man they "thought" was an unruly detainee.

Yes, I am SO sure other detainees are being treated properly though.

And from the Pentagon? They denied it. We were never supposed to know about this. They only acknowledged it after a lawsuit was introduced. A Pentagon that actually strives to treat detainees properly, as they claim to do, would not have swept this under the rug.

We have a systemic problem in our prison camps. We have lost our way.

This is why they used an undercover MP, because they knew he would be beaten? That is absurd.

That idea is yours, not mine, though I am happy to agree with you that it is absurd.

[scaeagles]

Senator Wyden, D of Oregon and certainly no friend of the Bush administration, after a trip this past weekend, seems to think Gitmo is no gulag:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160859,00.html

Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (search) of Oregon and Ben Nelson (search) of Nebraska said that while they believe some kind of standard should be set for the status and treatment of the prisoners there, they did not observe anything in interrogation practices or conditions that would prompt them to agree with a call to shut the facility down.

"It is my opinion that closing the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay (search) would result in less accountability in the treatment of prisoners, not more," Wyden said. "The question we have to ask is who do we trust more to treat these prisoners humanely — Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt or the United States?"

.......

Wyden said that past practices he had heard about at Guantanamo, a.k.a. Gitmo, have been changed, and procedures and conditions at Camp Delta, where the prisoners are housed, offer the best commitment to human rights.

[Scrooge McSam]

Ah, Faux news... bastion of unbiased reporting.

I wonder why Fox fails to mention that these lawmakers weren't allowed to view any detainees?

[scaeagles]

Attack the source of the quote? Did they misquote Wyden or take him out of context? Is Wyden so pro-Bush that he would say something like that even if it weren't true? :rolleyes:

[Scrooge McSam]

Yep, I'm attacking the source of the quote. Fox sure seems to go out of its way to leave out the fact that Wyden, or any or the rest of the lawmakers who went on this tour, did not see any detainees.

AP reported it.

So did Reuters.

And MSNBC.

And CNN.

Yet, Fox seemed to miss that little point... or leave it out intentionally. I really have no way of knowing, and don't care one way or the other. I stopped looking to Fox for news long ago.

And please don't think I reserve all my contempt for Fox and none for Wyden. Wyden was irresponsible to make that pronouncement. They went on their little "fact finding" tour of the prisons to verify how our prisoners are being treated and yet somehow failed to even lay eyes on a single detainee.

Curious how that works, isn't it?

[scaeagles]

Perhaps all of the prisoners at that time were in prayer and didn't wish to be disturbed.

[Scrooge McSam]

Of all the possible responses flooding my brain right now, I guess I'll stick with this one...

I'm glad someone can find something to laugh about here. Please excuse me if I don't join in.

[scaeagles]

Humor has to have a certain element of truth to it to be funny. It's funny because it's so ridiculous to compare Gitmo to gulags when, as a matter of fact, they are given specific quiet times for prayer (among many other comforts).

[Scrooge McSam]

To each his own