Dick Durbin

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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!

[Scrooge McSam]

Enjoy, Leo.

Soldier sues over Guantanamo beating

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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