As I wrote in May of this year, the U.S.A. has concentration camps. But in a really unusual move, President Bush admitted to this yesterday.
Because Bush has been sidestepping the issue for a very long time, it is surprising that he's finally decided to come out and admit to it. Why did he?
There could be two reasons. One: (Partly in thanks to the internet) the American public was beginning to catch on. Two: Bush is angling for even new legislation which could potentially bring more dangerous encroachments upon our liberties.
This admission coincides with the upcoming 9/11 Anniversary and may be an attempt to diffuse protests against another Patriot Act, in the hopes that we'll say "Ahhh, OK! We have more to fear from the terrorists than from our own government!" But we don't.
Someday the government could be the terrorist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
The government is a terrorist, Rumsfeld accused the majority of American people of being fascists, which is as daft as it is offensive.
Bush's confessionals are getting more despairing, like the one about no connection between iraq and 9/11, or the Niger nuclear stuff.
This level of political disfunction breeds apathy in the people when in reality we need them to be at their most empowered.
Their is no line between us and them, we sink to the level of animals to compete, we torture...
Oh Jesus.
'Alternative' interrogation is not the same as torture... : )
The whole thing makes me sick. Not because I feel bad for the terrorists (many of these prisoners are likely bad guys) but because I feel bad for America. This isnt how we do things anymore, this isnt our style. It makes us look bad, and hurts us. These people have the right to some form of due process. Either charge them with a crime, give them a trial, or you must let them go. You cannot just hold them for years (decades might it even be?) without doing anything. That is bull and well all know it. Now these other guys in CIA prisons, clearly they had been tortured, that is obvious. And keeping a guy awake for 3 days with loud music or water is torture. It isnt exactly William Wallace "freedooommmmm!!!!" torture, but it is still inhumane and similarly un-American.
no one ever promised that a free society would be completely safe. I worry that we are being asked to destroy our social contract in order to preserve it.
HELLO! Our Constitution and the Civil Liberties defined in ARE our social contract. How does violating it, save it?
Preach it, Sista!
Bush said he does all this to protect us from terrorist but the latest poll shows that 60% feel that we are in more danger now because of all the things he has done.
I think this is just the start of what it going to be a very nasty election cycle. I for one am not looking forward to it.
9/11 was Bush's Reichstag event, a blank check to completely ruin our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And make no mistake, those camps you mention are being built to eventually incarcerate anyone who dissents. If any of your readers doubt that criminal elements within our own government would have deliberately planned the events of 9/11, then I recommend they view a documentary film entitled "Terrorstorm", by Alex Jones. In it, he proves that our government has a history of "False Flag" terror attacks, a history backed up by declassified CIA documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
I marvel at conservative Christians, my brethren, and how stupid they are with regard to what is happening. But I do believe that, because of the Internet and Patriots like you, myself, and many others, some of them are waking up.
What is now happening does fit in with Bible Prophecy though. I have done a lot of research over the years with regard to the esoteric societies and what part they are playing in this "End Game", as they call it. I now believe that these societies are actually mentioned in the Bible as "Mystery Religions".
Here's a film laden with history you and some of your readers may find interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7211107180672876856
It will help explain why Bush is doing what he is doing and where all of this is heading.
It is not a time for us to be fearful, but a time to demonstrate faith and courage, as you have done by posting this story.
“…Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spent several days in Europe, refusing to answer any questions about the prisons, pleading that ‘we have an obligation to defend our people, and we will use every lawful means to do so.’
I strongly feel that we have the right to protect ourselves against terrorism. After all, these terrorists do not value their own lives. Suicide bombings show that they have no regard for human life at all. They’re dangerous and the government, in my opinion, is doing the best they can to prevent these evil people from attacking us again. There are so many more terrorists out there that can do so much right now. The worst problem of all is, when New York Times displays ‘secrets’ of what the government is doing to prevent these attacks, or when the media displays how particular targets are not being protected and guarded by us.
Bryan makes a good point. I do believe that we are living in the revelations. Corrupt governments and leaders make for a huge potential catastrophe. It’s ‘in the plan’, biblically speaking of course. I was watching a political documentary where they were speaking of World War III; how we’re nearing towards that each day. They feel that the next war will be the third world war. That’s scary. But, it’s realistic to say that our ‘so called allies’ may just be the devil in disguise.
How can we ever trust the government? Like Bryan said, it’s all about faith and courage.
IF the soon to be held mid term elections do not get rid of the one party lock in Congress - then it is all over. The final 2 years of Bush will set this nation on a path that leads to total authoritarianism and/or fascism. The signs are all over the place. And not just the "secret camps" that those pesky liberals in the media forced the President to make public, hurting his ability to keep us all safe from terrorist.
There is everything else too. The way we can ONLY be with him or against him. As opposed to being on his general side of the fence, but not agree with his methods.
The name given to "the patriot act". So anyone who speaks against it is not patriotic and therefore on the side of the terrorists.
One party rule for 6 years, and nothing to show for it except two wars, and world isolationism - and a domestic agenda that favors the untra wealthy while working people get "tax cuts" that do not amount to diddly squat. They get the cake, we get the crumbs.
I could go on and on and on - but there is no point. The idiots brain washed into thinking God wants them to vote Republican will never change their minds. By the time they do, it may well be too late.
It's a holy war.
Sorry Saur, but holding 14 bad guys in isolation from other prisoners (No matter where they were kept)is not the building or maintaining of concetrations camps by any definition you could find. The closest definition would be to build a camp to incarcerate enemy aliens (read civilians) in time of war or to incarcerate political enemies. I expect DHG to go over the top with limited information, it is his trademark but I am disappointed in you. Of course once one accepts a paradigm, anything that supports that paradigm seems to have validity.
Love anyway, 3score.
3score: WOAH THERE SLICK! Over the top? The US adminstration approves of using torture and infringements upon human rights in its war on a noun. This is fact! Please see Abu Ghraib and Gitmo as ref and Uzbekistan for even more proof.
Jeez, these torture appeasers don't like the facts...
So much our agreeing on things DHG. 3score is a LONG way from a "torture appeaser". I've seen the stuff on Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and more. NO concentration camps. Detaining people in "secret" prisons is a long way from running from the nightmare conspiracies I am seeing here. These guys were held and places like the the "Salt Pit" in Afghanistan. (you can find a picture of it on my blog) Camps with detention facilities. some are being kept at facilities in other countries.
You folks are losing it......
So that makes it all ok does it?
That disgusts me, when it comes to decent people justifying tactics of torture and Geneva Convention breaking battleground ethics that's when I know the US has the regime its people deserves.
That was me by the way, if you hadn't of guessed...
Seriously, how can any of you (3score, exmi, Kathleen) justify the behaviour of the US government in relation to the war on a noun and the treatment of prisoners?
Justify it now or lose the arguement!
Well, my feelings about Rumsfeld/Bush are well known. I believe that this tag team is made up of opportunitists. An admission must have something in it for this President, otherwise, I cannot see him admitting mistake so easily. I have been preaching for a Rumsfeld resignation for more than a year now.
Saur,
The people in those camps are worthless and deserve to be tortured. The people in these camps wouldn't think twice about killing you. Why don't you volunteer to go to one of the camps and help these poor souls?
I agree with Kathleen, who agrees with exmi, who agrees with 3 score, and of course Senor Caiman.
Seems we keep learning more and more these days!
I hate to argue with one person on another person's blog, but no DHG what you state as fact isn't. The torture you speak of has never been clearly proven (unless the stupid behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib could be identified as torture. That would have been laughed at by the previous supervisors at Abu Ghraib who were clearly shown as knowing how to torture. As far as Gitmo and Uzbekistan, nothing happened there that could be compared to prison detention of Americans in any of the past four wars in which we have participated. Yes, Over the top. I would NOT agree with anyone who advocates the universal death of everyone at Gitmo, though I a sure there are some there who have earned it.
"I strongly feel that we have the right to protect ourselves against terrorism. After all, these terrorists do not value their own lives. Suicide bombings show that they have no regard for human life at all. They’re dangerous and the government, in my opinion, is doing the best they can to prevent these evil people from attacking us again. There are so many more terrorists out there that can do so much right now. The worst problem of all is, when New York Times displays ‘secrets’ of what the government is doing to prevent these attacks, or when the media displays how particular targets are not being protected and guarded by us."
You want to know what's worse than anything that a terrorist could do to us? Hysteria.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that Dubya might like to become a dictator (witness his "as long as I was the dictator" comment), but it'd take more than just wanting it. He'd have to subvert the military, and let us not forget that this country contains an awful lot of guns. (Plus, an entire generation of kids electronically trained in urban warfare). But he doesnt really need to "take over", he just needs to keep people so irrational with fear that they'll grab whatever stupid policies he suggests like some kind of snuggle-blanket.
In the five years since that September day, 75 times as many people as died on 9-11 have died in auto accidents.
Do you still drive?
Listen to this: "Compared to the damage that might have been inflicted by the Soviet Union in the event that the Cold War had turned hot, [the attacks of 9-11] were indeed trivial. Simply because WWIII did not happen should not lead us to draw the wrong conclussion that al Qa'eda is more dangerous to the United States than was Soviet communism. ...[T]he military capabilities of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev exceeded those of bin Laden by numerous orders of magnitude. An attack by the Soviet Union would have left thousands, if not millions, of Americans dead and would have obliterated not two towers but multiple cities. The problem with al Qa'eda is not that it is a big threat; it is that such a small and organizationally diffuse threat is exceedingly difficult to locate, whether to annihilate or to negotiate with."
from Niall Ferguson's book Colossus
We are giving up our rights, our ideals, and our morallity because we're afraid that a few hundred thugs may run an obsticle course of barriers (physical and proceedural) and kill one tenth as many of us as the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of our invasion. Why did we even bother with the Cold War, which never saw the erosion of rights or the levels of secrecy that we see in our "New War" (which aint new at all), if we were just going to piss it away because some fanatical religious whackos sucker-punched us.
Jesus! Get some balls! Freedom requires, as the man said, "eternal vigilance", and that means YOU, not some poor soldier at the bottom of a chain commanded by Big Daddy Bush. Grow up, take responsibility for your own freedom, quit sounding like spoiled rich kids faced with having to use a public restroom in a crappy convience store. That's what the NYTimes is doing, and you should applaud it, not complain that it's giving away "secrets" (guess what, if a reporter knows about it, so do the spies that every country has here).
As for prophecy, as I recall the USSR was gonna take us into Armageddon, "according" to the Bible. Guess what, didnt happen. There's no prophecy like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that's precisely what you have when you start doing things because "the Bible says it's going to happen". Unless you got a copy of the Bible that specifically mentions bin Laden, Bush, and the whole lot of them, specifically, then all you got is a bunch apocalyptophiles and their wishful thinking.
Oh, and quit arguing about what kind of torture it is. Are certain kinds of rape okay? If some one came up to you on the street and beat you with their fists, would that be okay because he didnt use a bat? Would it be okay for someone to slip you a dose of the latest flu virus because it wasnt deadly anthrax?
Torture is wrong. It doesnt work, unless you care more about getting statements that agree with what you want than you are about truth. If you advocate an evil policy in the fight against evil, what makes you any different? When Bush says we never have or will use torture, HE LIES, because there would be no reason to send Cheney in to lobby in favor of torture if his statement were true.
Advocates and apologists for torture make me think of those who abuse children or spouses: "Why do you keep making me beat you like this?", we wail, all the while justifying our abuses with our fear.
This is DHG has having log in issues.
Senor Caiman: HELLO APPEASER! Innocent people have been interned in these camps without due process and then eventually released as it turns out they just happened to be TERRORIST LOOKING! Your statement is incorrect, the fact that people agree with you is even more terrifying.
3score: oh the classic "they did it to us so we can do it to them" and they hate us for our freedoms? Or the fact we behave just like "them"? Brilliant logic, the logic of justifying torture in the name of "right". I don't want to be on the "right side" then. The torture has been proven, I've seen the pictures, they stand as read. Denial is never pretty...
Dave: as always, spot on, keep 'em coming man!
FACTS: You'll be glad to know that under the US regime, Iraqi government death squads are back in action, its like Saddam never went away! 34 killed this month alone by death squads!
YAY!
If they keep us from being attacked or glean info that results in the arrest or the thwarting of other attacks then I'm for it.
Listen people the only way to be sure that any goverment stays in check is the people being armed, well armed, and able to defend themselves. Even if you are a far far left person I hope everyone can see that being armed and prepared to protect and defend themselves is essential to a free society.
jsull
The fact that Bush's chief legal counsel, John Woo, advocates crushing a child's testicles in front of its parents in order to extract information from the parents is even more disturbing. What kind of sick bastards do we have in the White House?
Daveawayfromhome: you're right. Torture doesn't work and the only reason people use it is because they enjoy using it, period.
These kinds of things are indicative of a dictatorship, and the very fact that it is even being discussed openly by a White House Official proves to me that we are already headed in that direction.
The first General assigned to Camp X-Ray eventually resigned in disgust over what was going on there. Hurray for him.
And no, I don't necessarily believe the detainees there are guilty of anything other than having been born Arabs in a Muslim country. If fact, from what I've heard most of them are just boys who were forced into fighting against the Northern Alliance at gun point. This administration needs boogie men in order to justify their plundering of the nations of the middle east.
What most Americans don't seem to realize is that this administration is now grouping anyone who opposes Bush's war as being insurgents themselves.
Losing what? Not ethics. Torture a lot, torture a little. No difference, always immoral.
In war you don’t torture people for the fun of it. You torture people to get information. Information that will save the lives of many innocent people.
If there are any good people being killed, they will actually welcome death because they know they are going to a far better place.
Another thing, if people wouldn’t lie we wouldn’t have to torture the truth out of them. Honesty is the best policy.
Also if you’re an innocent person, it’s not smart to hang out with terrorist. Guilt by association.
I would like to say Asa Lama lakem to all my black Muslim friends.
I actually agree with much of what daveawayfromhome says in his first post up there.
Bryan -"The fact that Bush's chief legal counsel, John Woo, advocates crushing a child's testicles in front of its parents in order to extract information from the parents is even more disturbing." Where the **** did you get this info? I hope you have a source for something like that or are you extrapolating?
Speaking as a person whose name is on the paperwork reccomending several people go to Guantanamo, most of them are alot more than "boys who were forced into fighting". I will grant you there are some who are relatively "innocent" there. I know of a few who went over my reccomendation that they not.
I keep hearing people ranting about the Geneva conventions as relates to these people. Have you actually read the GC? It is very specific about who is entitled to protection under it's articles. No memeber of Al Queda even remotely fits. In fact, according to the GC, Al Queda folks are subject to trial by a military tribunal and can then be executed if found guilty.
As for torture, it is not terribly effective as I have said many times in the past. But MOST of what went on at Abu Ghraib wasn't torture. Being stripped naked and put in front of a barking dog isn't torture. Neither is being lead around on a leash.
To anonymous and Bryan, the mention of prison camps in the past was not a"they did it to us so we can do it to them" comment.(None of the "theys" fit anyway). It was just an attempt to take the discussion from an hysterical context to a more hisorical one. As far as the terrible tortue in Abu Ghraib, to those of us who were young in the forties and fifties, that would not have been called torture, it would have been called a college fraternity or High School Sports Letterman Club initiation. (I knew of a High SChool Pep Band initiation the encompassed most of that). The ranting here is just a typical example of the hyperbole created by a passionate paradigm. Get some FACTUAL resourcable information from someone who was there, or go out and get a life.
This is beginning to remind me why I quit talking politics on my own blog. Sorry Saur, I will try to hold my self in check.
exmi: Here is the piece about John Woo. http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=504353
three score: What I'm trying to get across here, more than anything, is that our current administration seems to be saying that anyone who disagrees with the president about the war on terror, or the 9/11 commission's report, is also regarded to be in the same category as a Muslim terrorist. I don't have the time or energy right now to produce all I've read on the subject. But it's out there.
Reading between the lines, this suggests to me that any American Citizen with a vocal difference of opinion with the president might, in the very near future, wind up in one of these concentration camps. With the Patriot Act already in place, and more anti-terror legislation on the way, this is not at all out of the realm of possibility.
And yes, I do believe it will happen in America, eventually. Despots are the same everywhere.
Senior Caiman - nobody ever said taking the moral high road is easy. It is often much harder than not.
Are we better than "them"? If we are better, from a moral standpoint, then we ought NOT use the methods they would use. If we are NOT better, then it does not matter and we can operate at their level.
I could easily find fault with the GC for making war seem "civilized" when it is actually nothing of the sort. But I think the most important function of the GC is not to reign in the excesses of the minor military players, but of the major ones. When you possess the military might to crush the opposition absolutely, it's good to have (let's be honest) self-restraints in place. That is, really, what the Geneva Convention is all about. The only way to enforce such an accord is to fight brutality with more brutality, or to conduct War Crimes Trials once the fighting is over (a lop-sided enforcement, to be sure, a fact I'm sure that BushCo is counting on). In the mean time, you must hope that everyone acts with restraint and "civility" (in a martial slaughter sense, that is). Whether it is a Boschian, medieval-style, torture chamber of horrors, or an over-the-top frathouse initiation, if you dont want your soldiers subjected to it, then you dont subject the enemy combatants you imprison to it either.
What's that you say, the enemy will torture even if you treat your prisoners with respect?
True, true. But we're talking about an enemy right now with a fundamentalist's love of the primitive eye-for-an-eye system of punishment, garnished, no doubt, with a bit of take-that-you-dog-of-an-infidel. When you consider the blood-lust shown by this Administration and it's supporters, what do you think the response of the enemy will be? Mercy?
But all this is really irrelevant. The Founding Fathers built this country on the premise that human beings, all human beings, had rights. However badly they may have followed this in actual practice, that was their ideal, their goal. One of those rights was freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment". Does waterboarding, the use of dogs, or humiliation tactics not sound cruel to you? It does to me. And to use such tactics is to destroy America from within even as you claim to fight its enemies on the outside. It is wrong, and it is un-American.
Forget the slippery-slope to concentration camps for dissident Americans. That's something that a keen eye, careful footwork, and an opposition with some balls can work around. These are prisoners of war, whether they belong to a formal army or not (Dubya has called it a war, and they are enemy prisoners - what more do you want?) and to torture prisoners of war is an act in opposition to the hopes of our Founders, who envisioned a land free from the arbitrary use of cruelty, which is a primary tool for tyranny.
Saur,
I will say that I would like to see the government terminate all the trash we have in our own country before we start getting rid of the trash in other countries.
That's all I'm sayin.
This is DHG, again...
Js: your logic, words and beliefs appall me. YES, TORTURE IF IT SAVES ME BUT IF MY GOVERNMENT TRY AND TORTURE ME, I'LL SHOOT 'EM!
I'm laughing so hard my heart is breaking.
Bryan: right on man!
Senor Caimen: please see what I said to JS.
Exmi: your statement regarding the Geneva Convention is totally untrue, I've read it, it does include 'terrorists' but the trouble is the last amendment the US refused to ratify, to enable torture to be carried out in its name.
3score: your attempts to pass off Abu Ghariab as akin to frat boy antics is FUCKING REPELLENT. I'll leave your words to hang yourself.
Sorry DHG, you are mistaken. I was going to go dig out my copy and post the relevant sections but instead I'll just post the link to my blog where I did it earlier.
http://exmi.blogspot.com/2006/05/law-of-land-warfare.html
As for some portion that was not ratified, well, a treaty that has not been ratified has no legal bearing.
Kathleen: sorry if the word FUCK offends you but when someone passes torture off as frat boy antics I smell an appeaser who is dismissing the genuine suffering of someone and that makes me mad. Luckily, I know that if someone like you is getting upset by me, I'm doing something right.
Exmi: that's the whole point concerning ratification, the US refuses to ratify something that everyone else has (which is common foreign policy it seems by the US admin) so it justify its war crimes.
Do I have to spell it out?
Exmi: read your post, you're wrong, my post here illuminates it beautifully but I'll put the best bit here:
"The third convention however, deals with the treatment of prisoners of war and came into force in 1950. Key regulations include:
* Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity
* No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind
* Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area
* The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances
* The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay
* Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive...books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities
* In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war
Makes for interesting and inspiring reading doesn't it?
In order to get around the legislation so it could treat suspected terrorists in a subhuman way, the US, under Bush, invented something called the 'unlawful combatant', this is an unfortunate person who is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have. I wouldn't want to be one of these would you?
Brilliantly, the Geneva Convention pre-empted this sneeky tactic and said that if there was any doubt about a persons status, it would have to be investigated by a competent tribunal and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war. If it decided this individual was an 'unlawful combatant' they still retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
Clearly, the US and UK are in breach of this, now you may remember me mentioning that the US refused to ratify Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, along with Iraq and Afghanistan (I just love the company America keeps), this protocol concerns giving 'unlawful combatants' lawful status by deeming it unnesscary for a soldier to clearly mark herself/himself as such.
So not only do the US want the terrorists to fight fair they want them to clearly mark themselves out as such."
I rest my case.
Yes all of that is true concerning PRISONERS OF WAR.
Unfortunetly for your arguement the Geneva conventions also include of definition of who is considered a PRISONER OF WAR.
Chapter 3, Section II paragraph 61 defines who is a Prisoner of War, they are “members of the armed forces”, members of “militias or volunteer corps … provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following requirements:
1. a. that of being commanded a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3. c. that of carrying arms openly;
4. d. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
Obviously Alqueda (and incedently most of the insurgents in Iraq) DON'T fit the bill. Hence they are not entitled to Geneva Protection.
I have alwasy pointed out though that the Taliban prisoners taken during the Afghan invasion do fit the Bill and the US government is WRONG in not according them thier priveledges.
We are talking at cross purposes here, the challenge you make re: the illegality of 'terrorists' i quite simply do not agree with and you think its fine that people are tortured and I don't.
Simple as.
I know what side I prefer to be on.
Nope. I think it is not only wrong but generally stupid to torture people. I am merely pointing out that the Geneva Convention do not cover these people.
I also have a very different line than you do about what is and is not torture. Stripping someone naked is not torture. Putting him in front of barking dogs is not torture. (letting the dogs bite him is)leading a naked man around on a leash or putting them in human pyramid is not torture. Yelling at him, playing loud music and disrupting his sleep patterns are not torture. Not letting him sleep at all for many days is, waterboarding is. the infamous Abu Ghraib pictures do not depict torture. They depict stupid people doing stupid things.
But enough on this. IF you really care waht my views on turture and such are you can find them at my site.
@ exmi: This is all well and good. I'm willing to let your definitions of torture stand if you're willing to allow that same treatment be done to our soldiers (personally, I'm wouldnt be; but you're a soldier and I'm not, so I'll defer to you).
But it seems to me that Dubya, having declared this to be a WAR, and having given a sort of legitimacy of state to what is otherwise a group of criminal thugs, is now obligated to treat them as soldiers. Otherwise, it was a criminal matter, to be investigated by police/FBI (backed, since it is an intenational matter, by the CIA and military). And, as criminals, they still have certain rights, not because they deserve them, but because as Americans we are morally obligated by the Ideals of our Nation to observe those rights, especially if we're trying to convice others of the superiority of our ways.
Frankly, as a soldier, and as an MI soldier especially, I expected to be treated like that and worse if I were ever captured. Especially by the likes of the Taliban or Al Queda who who torture me and then behead me in all likelyhood.
as is typical, we were held to a standard that NO ONE expects our opposition to keep or, even worse, many feel our opposition has legitimate reasons for doing it to us.
How we treat prisoners in wartime isnt about how they treat us, or shouldnt be. It should be about who we are, and we are supposed to be better than the other side. Part of that definition, at least until the Bush Administration, was that our side was more humane than the other, always.
We shouldnt treat the enemy well because of public opinion (or treat them badly, either), we should treat them because if we are, as we claim, the acme of civilization, then barbaric behavior such as torture, "alternative" techniques, and even frat-boy initiations should be below us.
Kindness and cruelty are both taught by example.
ho ho
Kathleen is as funny as cancer.
I thought it was pretty good.
the appraoch being used in this is the exact approach used by police to get confessions out of suspects who don't have a lawyer poresent. Just continue on the same line insisting that they agree with you and after enough time it is amazing how ofen people do. This is often used against juveniles. Last year in Georiga a 12 yo boy confessed to murder after something like 8 hours of "interrogation" without his parents present.
Oh an Dave, I wan't the one who brought up the whole if they do it we can too. You did in your 9/11 post. I have never said that and never will.
"the appraoch being used in this is the exact approach used by police to get confessions out of suspects who don't have a lawyer poresent. Just continue on the same line insisting that they agree with you and after enough time it is amazing how ofen people do. This is often used against juveniles. Last year in Georiga a 12 yo boy confessed to murder after something like 8 hours of "interrogation" without his parents present."
Thank God our boys are dying in Iraq to preserve freedom somewhere. Since when is questioning someone without a lawyer present something that is done in America. Apparently, having lost the Soviets as an enemy, we are forced to be our own Soviets.
"I wan't the one who brought up the whole if they do it we can too. You did in your 9/11 post."
Nope, I've re-read both of them, and I cant see it anywhere. Make a link, please.
"exmi: This is all well and good. I'm willing to let your definitions of torture stand if you're willing to allow that same treatment be done to our soldiers (personally, I'm wouldnt be; but you're a soldier and I'm not, so I'll defer to you)."
Here you go. Police have alwasy questioned suspects without lawyers. when evere they can get away with it. Remember, the reading of rights is a realtively new thing. And even after they have been read people tend to talk alot more than they should.
Post a Comment