the most basic interpretation of interpreting whether or not they misinterpreted information or lies says that this falls along Partisan lines and it seems the Right will never be swayed no matter the evidence and the left won't cut the admin. any slack. Ill bet its the same no matter who is in office. Lets look back, Clinton - check, Bush I - check, Reagan - check....yup, Bush did a great job of uniting us. Not his fault though.....but that's for another thread someday.

SO until Bush writes his memoirs, which Im so sure he'll say, "yup, I lied." the right will never question their leadership or motives. Some allow for possiblities, like Glen, but some will fight to the death that our government would never do the things that we accuse other governments of doing. However sufficed to say sometimes we do and sometimes its necessary BUT when it's not necessary we (people like me get upset) when they start hiding stuff (like blacking out portions of the report that implicated people in Saudi Arabia's government, like outing the CIA agent, like buying journalists to sell their agenda, etc.)

It could be worse, those jobs could have been outsorced.

LOL LOL

Talking about not trusting what comes out of peoples mouths, well, the Democrats and the anti-Bush crowd are suggesting American Soldiers are in charge of death camps like the Russian Gullags of WWII. Misplaced and not something to be trusted as rhetoric filled with much integrity.

But regardless, the President lying to get our nation to go to war is serious business. If there is any doubt, I suggest you tell the Democrats to impeach the President.

President Clinton lied and was impeached. The same standard is held for Bush.

But don't blame me and say I am blind--that solves nothing. Blame your leadership for continuing to throw around hateful and angst filled rhetoric and failing to take action. That has been the definition of the Democratic party since the 2000 election. It's pathetic and much more untrustworthy than anything our President has ever done.

uh, that was Amnesty International, not quite the same thing. Thats like saying all Republicans think whites and blacks shouldn't date because Bob Jones was a republican.

yeah, i never said that. While I do think that US citizens being held deserve to be charged and be appointed a lawyer, I would never want them to just let go the prisoner's in Gitmo, but Rummy shouldn't have said Geneva didnt apply. Anyways, that was a strawman, Im glad I finally got to say that!! Amnesty doesnt represent me. while they do great works around the world I think someone over there got a bit overzealous....BUT that doesnt mean he isn't entitled to his opinion...and they are equal opportunity in their assessments around the world. I, for one, am glad that they dont think that we're above the fold and untouchable in theirassessments.


EDIT to ask: Dutch, that was a blatant attempt to attribute some verbage to those who didnt say it....kind of along the lines of what we're arguing about here? funny.

I think that is most definately the case. I fully believed that the Admin culled through Intel to pick the most damning pieces to share with the public, but I think that is a far cry from lying. To say that someone lied about something I believe that either that person has to say something absolutely definitively, and then you need to have pretty concrete evidence that they were wrong, and knew they were wrong. Sort of like "I didn't have sex with that woman" in light of a stain on a blue dress. I'm not bringing up Clinton to bash him or the Democrats who claim that Bush lied. I'm simply saying that I don't believe there is any damning evidence that proves he did lie, especially not evidence as bulletproof as that represented by the blue dress.

In other words...I'll buy it if there is proof. I just don't think it is out there, well at least not yet.

I agree that there isn't concrete evidence yet and it basically falls like this:

Left - willing to connect the dots and draw conclusions

Right - not willing to connect dots and thinks the right are looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Will only be willing to accep the proof if the proof is concrete.

--------However I wonder what that threshold is for those on the right in which they'll actually believe said evidence if it comes out.

Is it a lie if you believe it's true?

...right, we're saying if the evidence comes out that he (they) ignored or shunned the evidence that things were'nt true OR the evidence comes out that they knew it wasn't true and then sold the war.

I think the better question is what will people accept as evidence?

Me, personally? I don't care. Perhaps I'm being metacynical, but I don't expect clarity and openness when it comes to intelligence gathering and government ocmmunications. I want us ultimately to do the right thing. In this case, the right thing has been done, and, despite some attempted revisions here, for the right reasons.

Now, about the budget...

They didn't have to have sex, he could have just been popping off rounds. Heck, you'd have to be pretty f'in sloppy to get it all over a dress.

You get can into some fine points of semantics here, but when they're sitting on a pile of classified intelligence and only let out the bits that help their cause while concealing the rest, it's unethical at best... It's one thing if everything is public and they're just emphasizing what they think is important, but it's different when they're holding back potentially important caveats and qualifications that the public cannot otherwise access. That's pure manipulation. Better to not disclose anything and just say "trust us." At the public knows what the score is then, rather than being misled to believe something that is not true.

First of all, the term 'gulag' (as has already been mentioned) was coined by Amnesty International as a means of getting press (mission accomplished), and the term 'death camp' was actually coined by the right-wing Washington Times and falsely attributed to Senator Durbin (Frist on the Senate floor subsequently also falsely attributed it to Durbin). Second of all, the point is not that we are like the Nazis or the Soviets, the point is that we are not different enough.

a little more just trickled out:

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

LONDON - When Prime Minister
Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with
Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss
Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in
Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting
Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.

Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.

On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq,
Iran and
North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.

On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.

Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.

Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.

It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state.

"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.

Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

you know not what you speak of regarding this terminology.

Durbin said that Gitmo reminded him of Nazi Death Camps, Russian Gulags, and PopPot Genocide.

I mean, if we want to argue that it's not fair to compare the Middle East growing crisis of revolutionary islam extremism with the budding Nazi party, you can't then turn around and say that ZERO deaths in Gitmo is the same as 10 million dead.

That is unethical.

Maybe we should get rid of classified information all together. That would feed your thirst for knowledge. Probably wouldn't help us out much against the real bad guys, but as long as Bush is enemy #1 who cares about our real adversaries?

Bush isn't an enemy...I just want him to do what is right and be transparent about things that don't need to be classified and stop with ungodly amount of spin (ie. paying journalists to sell his agenda, not equipping the armor out there as it hould be AND then suddenly, when its exposed, they find a way to get the factories to 100% capacity.). This is easy, in my book...just do what's right and be honest.

Please get some info from primary source material instead of reading everything from wingnut blogs or listening to the rightwing slime machine. Here is Durbin's exact quote:

Once again, you will see that the term 'death camp' is nowhere in there. He is saying that those are the type of torture techniques that you would think of as Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc, doing, not America. There is no equivalency there, all he is saying is that it is wrong. If you want to defend the use of torture, fine, I'll disagree with you but at least you will be arguing the issue, instead of attacking the rhetoric. Besides, 'America: We're Not as Bad as Stalin' does not fly with me as an appropriate bumber sticker ideal.

I think it is sick that some people are more outraged that people mention Nazi's than they are that people are being tortured under our flag. What a bunch of cowardly hypocrites.

I have no doubt that there are horrible things going on, and they are wrong and comparing any two things is fine (us vs. nazi-ism) but the conclusion that is drawn from the comparison is assinine, IMO.

What conclusion? :confused:

Of course, turning the AC up or down and playing rap music is a akin to mass genocide in a gas chamber, cutting off limbs, removing fingers, slicing people with razor blades and not feeding for months on end. Yeah, you tell me the AC is too low and the first thing I think of are Nazis, Soviet gulags and Pol Pot :rolleyes:

Durbin needs to talk with John McCain about real torture before making completely asinine and clueless statements like this. His mentality is exactly what's wrong with many of the critics of things like Guantanemo. Are there civil liberty issues that may need further investigation? Probably, and I can buy that argument. But to act like these prisoners are being treated in a manner in the same universe as the what Nazis or Soviets did is devoid of all reason. It's hyperbole to the nth degree and so outragious that it's almost impossible to respond to in a reasonable manner.

Arles, are those techniques that you would recommend for anyone that is arrested and goes to a police station in the United States? Keep in mind that these people have not been charged with a crime, have no lawyers, and are looking to be held 'in perpetuity'. Do you think it is the right of the United States to hold anyone they want for as long as they want, and torture them in the manner described there? If you were picked up out of your house by an Arab and taken to Iraq, would you feel that they would be forgiven for conducting such techniques on you?

'America: We're not as bad as what the Viet Cong did to John McCain'. God bless us.

Last I checked these detainees were not American citizens and did not represent a country or national army. They are what is known as enemy combatants. The military's authority to detain enemy combatants is ''long established,'' as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized. It goes back to a case involving a U.S. citizen named Gaetano Territo during World War II.

Military detention should not be confused with the criminal justice system, which exists for different reasons and requires different procedures. In fact, in World War II, some enemy combatants were executed by the US on site with the full support of FDR. Bush has simply held them in a climate controlled area with a special diet to adhere to their religion, provide religious material, and allow them to practice their religion 5 times a day.

The mistake many keep making is the one you just did above - creating a parallel between the detaining of enemy combatants with those in our legal system. All that said, based on what I have seen and heard about Gitmo, it seems to be a comparable place to a US jail in terms of food, climate and overall treatment.

Read up on cases by the 9th Circuit in 1942 and recently by the 4th Circuit and you will see why the US holding of these prisoners is not against our laws.

First, turning up and down the AC or playing rap music is not "torture" in my view. A US soldier fighting in Iraq next to an armored tank deals with a worse climate environment and loader noise than any of the detainees. But, if someone is captured on the battlefield or fighting against the US without being part of an army or recognized fighting force then the US has the right to hold them indefinately to gather intelligence from them.

Given I would probably get my head cut off instead of fed three nice meals in an air-conditioned cell with freedom to practice christianity, I certainly wouldn't have a great deal of time to bitch about my captives. Of course, if I was in a country run by a tyrant and a group of soldiers came in to give me the right to vote, I'd doubt I would be taking up arms against them to begin with.

I notice that you completely side-stepped the issue of whether Durbin's comments were appropriate or not. Do you think it was right for Durbin to link "lower AC" and "rap music" to real torture that US senators like McCain had to go through? Or, do you see it as a perfectly acceptable statement?

i think my problem resides in the admins. flip flop in whether Geneva applies or not or if theyre POW's. I'd say no they are POW's and should be ahnadled according to GENEVA BUT...if the war lasts forever then the enemy made their choice to fight in the war and we can hold them until it's "over"...

I'm not at all saying that I believe they were holding back "caveats". I honestly don't believe there was any exculpatory evidence to reveal. I believe that Bush and Company honestly expected that we'd be knee deep in Biological and Chemical Weapon bunkers and or manufacturing facilities within a month of crossing the border. I don't think they would have staked their future on something they knew to be false.

Based on your response, it sounds like you think it would be brutal for those techniques to be used in American police stations. Why, then, do American citizens deserve basic human rights while those from other countries do not? Why is it that having the good fortune to be born in this country makes you deserving of those rights?

That doesn't deserve to be dignified with an answer.

Sadly, that is not the case. Many of the people that we have detained are innocent bystanders.

You completely doged the question, and went off into a: 'America: At least we don't cut your heads off like the terrorists' misguided moral equivalency rant. I'll ask again, because it is really a simple yes or no question: if you were picked up out of your house by an Arab and taken to Iraq, would you feel that they would be forgiven for conducting such techniques on you?

The irony of you saying that I am side-stepping an issue aside, are you f'ing kidding me? I wrote two posts explaining how I thought his comments were appropriate. And moreover, you have to be completely willfully ignorant to see a list of:

- low AC
- unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him.
- listening to rap music
- chained hand and foot in the fetal position for days

And pick out the two that you did and ridicule the notion that it is bad. If I said it was bad the Bush administration was for Halloween giving out poisened apples, razorblades in chocolate, and puppies, you'd talk about how delusional I was because puppies are so cute and cuddly.

A very important point for those saying 'liar liar' to keep in mind.

The treatment of the prisoners in Cuba is preposterous and scandalous, but not, imo, because innocents are being wronged. Keep in mind that the prisoners in Gitmo are basically the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It is a legal dilemma, not a moral one- morally I would not be discomfited if they were all tried, convicted, and executed by military tribunal tomorrow. Obviously, we don't have the legal firepower to do that, so we have this ludicrous and embarrasing situation.

Don't worry, the incompetence of the administration is always on our minds. But either way it goes, whether they lied or whether they were grossly incompetent, it still says to me that they shouldn't be running the country.

It appears Dutch is in just as much denial as Arles.

The enemy combatants things is a red herring. Simply put, many at Gitmo are innocent and are "human beings" NOT "enemy combatants." But because the administration keeps saying they are all "enemy combatant," as usual you take their word at face value. However, because the human beings at Gitmo don't have any realistic chance to prove they are not "enemy combatants," they continue to live there, their freedom gone, and the mistreatment continues. [and as for citing court precedent, you must have missed the recent Sup. Ct decision on this which rejected the Administration's position that even a court tribunal was unnecessary -- that would mean at least that part of the government's conduct was determined to be ILLEGAL by our own courts -- however, I am sure you were on the losing end of that argument]

I always wondered that if the administration was so sure all of these human beings were evil and enemy combatants, just why do they fight so hard to prevent them from having their day in court and proving they are not. If its so obvious, what's the problem? -- they wouldn't be able to prove their innocence. Of course, we know the reason why.

America's (at least those in power) thirst to trumpet freedom on behalf of Americans and trample on it for others is sad, hypocritical, and the reason so many hate America. For that, we can live on our own little island, build up our walls, and lob hand grenades over top. Sad, indeed.

I mean, "rendering" captives to other countries for torture, and denying due process (for 2 years now) to others is about as "unAmerican" as it gets. However, because of this, others will now see this as "American" rather than "unAmerican" activity. I figure we have lost at least 30 years of built up good will (which is needed for future issues and conflicts where we really will need others help) over this and for what? For what exactly? To stop a guy from killing some of his own people? Did we have to dispense with freedom, due process, and humanity in the process to do that?

I agree a bit, however keep in mind Many/most of those at Gitmo were picked up in the batlefields of Iraq and afghanistan. Yes, they deserve to be able to prove if they were simply a street vendor but for th emost part Im glad they're behind bars.

And with that, the rest of your post doesn't get read. Bite me. :)

Did they just rape or kill somebody? Then I could care less if they have air or not!

Not as a whole. As a whole, I would say that they are treated as well as expected given they were caught attacking the US. If the rules of Gitmo are followed, I have no quams about their treatment. Now, if someone is shown that have gone past the rules, they will get punished (and should be).

I do not think that the treatment of the detainees in Gitmo involving the denying of "basic human rights". They are not routinely abused, maimed, tortured or mistreated. They are interrogated with slightly more vigor than a normal street rat pulled off on a criminal investigation because they are enemy combantants and not US citizens accused of a crime. If you didn't notice, we are at war and wartimes involve slightly more aggressive interrogation techniques than criminal investigations.

This isn't Sam was born in Iraq and Suze was born in New York. Both steal a cookie and one gets human treatment while the other doesn't. These people took up arms or helped aid attacks against this country. That is not the same as some docile citizen hanging out at the downtown cafe. It is a war (hoping this starts to sink in).

What policy regarding food, climate and overall treatment is unacceptable in your view then?

By who's accord? It's not like these guys were grabbed out of Dairy Queens. These were people found on the battlefield or implicated strongly by others to be helping the enemy. I'm sure there are a few out of the 500 that may not have been actively fighting the US. But, by and large, these people are there for a reason.

It's a silly question but I will still answer. If I got taken out of my home and shipped off into Iraq in some arab holding facility and the treatment I got was:

1) Three square meals a day that adhere to my culture
2) The ability to read the Bible and other similar materials
3) Air conditioning and overall climate control
4) The worst "torture" methods I faced would be loud Arab music, being chained down for a fixed amount of time, a cold room or 100-degree heat (akin to what I just left in my own garage).

Then I would consider myself EXTREMELY fortunate and thankfull I still have a head on my shoulders.

That's very disappointing.

I will gladly revise to include all listed issues:

How's that? I still see no difference in the absurd nature of the claim or level of hypberole.

1. It's a red herring, because you have no proof that everyone at Gitmo just raped or killed anyone or if they were guilty of any crime at all.

2. I'm glad that I now know you think that way, so I can dismiss your opinion as that of a crazy totalitarian with a disdain for due process and not bother arguing with you.

You do realize that these people were not caught storming the beaches of Texas, right? You realize that these people are not prisoners of the battle of New York, right? 'Caught attacking the US'? We invaded their country. In a war, people take up arms against each other, it's not an outlandish thing. If they were planning terrorist attacks, I agree, throw them in jail. But I do not know if all or any of them have, and neither do you. I'm not aware of anything in the Geneva convention which says that we can hold detainees forever. By your rationale the Japanese and Germans could still be holding American prisoners from WWII and torturing them for information.

What? "Slightly more vigor than a normal street rat"!? You are such an f'ing apologist, it boggles the mind. When have you ever heard of anything close to that being done in a police station, and not having them sued for every cent they are worth? You are completely full of B.S.

Denial denial denial. Frankly, you disgust me as a human being, and I can not bear talking to you any longer.

Here is what you are an apologist for:

I just want to say that I am NOT on the same page as Mr. Bigglesworth here. I think he is equally as cantankerous on the lefty side as I view BW on the right and agree with neither.

That's me, the crazy totalitarian. You know, like Hitler, Stalin, Polpot. :)

:) Understood.

I just want to point out that Nazis were executed both with and without trials; I don't think the Taliban deserves any less. But keeping them locked up in Gitmo is ludicrous and embarrasing.

It doesn't matter. If someone takes up arms against US troops or helps others take us arms, they are attacking the US. It's not a difficult concept.

And how you do you suppose we determine that without detaining them? Ask them nicely while on the battlefield then let them go if they say "No"?

So, you are just going to assume all of them know nothing and let them go about their way without any type of detention?

For the umteenth time, American soldiers were not "enemy combatants". They represented a country and had uniformed battle gear. But, yes, if FDR hadn't ordered executions for most of the Nazi sympathizing enemy combatants the US found in the 1940s, we could still detain them as per both the 4th and 9th circuit court.

Ah, taking the intellectual way out I see.

First of all, this occured at Bagram, not Gitmo. Second, these actions were clearly against US policy and investigations/charges are on-going for these issues right now. Here's what you neglected to post from the Times article:

So, it seems that this abuses are being investigated because they are not acceptable to the US military. In fact, the times found out about them from a "2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case". It's not like everyone is saying "yeah, that's the policy we want".

All the US military can do is set policies for soldiers to follow and investigate/charge those that fail to follow these policies. That certainly appears to be the case here.

This is yet another reason why the statement by Durbin is so out of line. I wonder how many investigations and charges were put up by Hitler, Pol Pot and the Soviets for interrogation actions...

What is so "cantankerous lefty" about it? I have the same views at many thoughtful conservatives (andrewsullivan.com, cunningrealist.blogspot.com, etc). What don't you agree with?

Where is this strawman coming from? Where did I say we should let them all go? Are the only two options in your mind torture or letting them free? Strawmen seem to be your specialty.
You can call them Sally if you want, they are still human beings. And how do you know they were all caught fighting anyway? You don't. We have a number of stories of people that were killed or set free that turned out to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

What disgusts me most about you, Arles, is that you don't have the balls to just say, 'these people should be tortured.' Instead you equivocate, talk about how you believe anything that breaks the rules should be disallowed, then don't bat and eye as the rules are pushed so far that they don't resemble anything like what they were before. Instead of saying you are for torture, you just say you are against it and change the definition of torture. The discussion of the apologists of torture has gone something like this: "It's not true. It's not true. It may be true but it's not torture. Okay, it's torture, but isn't official policy. It may be true and official policy, but we changed the policy and we uncovered the abuses ourselves. It may be true, it may have been widespread, but we've punished the culprits. It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but all these reports are old news. It may still be happening, some of these reports may not be old news, but our real problem is our own news media."

I think torture is bad. I think every human has certain inalienable rights, among them life and liberty. That would have been the standard opinion 5 years ago, and for the 225 years before that in this country. Now it's the 'cantankerous lefty' opinion. So be it.

You are completely out of it on this one. I do not feel people should be tortured (esp to death) while in US custody. The difference between myself and you (it appears) is that I think that these instances are by far out of the norm and are dealt with when they occur by the US military.

You seem to think they are commonplace, everyone just looks the other way and numerous prisoners are tortured to death without any military oversight. You seem to feel that no one should be detained indefinately because there's a chance they could be tortured. IMO, there is a decent argument to be made (and others like Flasch and John Gault have done so) that holding enemy combatants indefinitely may violate those people's "civil rights". But the idea that holding these detainees violates civil rights is one that can be argued independently of treatment - and I can see that side (even if I don't believe it).

As best I can tell, your argument is the US shouldn't detain combatants because our soldiers can't be trusted to treat prisoners in the proper manner. And, IMO, that is complete hogwash.

What makes you think I don't "bat an eye"? The investigations are still going on regarding Dilawar and numerous charges have been made (including manslaughter). This is exactly how the military should handle it and I will be eager to see the results of the investigation - one that I suspect will end up with punishment for those involved with Dilmar's death.

No, I made a stark comparison to the "torture" described by Durbin and the torture by the Nazis, Russians and others that he cited in his statement to show how idiodic it was. I think that the military's current rules and regulations regarding prisoner treatment is acceptable. But, I also feel that soldiers should be prosecuted/charged when it is deemed they violated those rules.

If you do not think the US military's rules for prisoner treatment in Gitmo are acceptable, please cite the rules you would like changed.

Someone was mentioning strawmen before and this may take the case. Somehow, you have equated agreeing with the military guidelines for Gitmo with approving torture. And, I would be very interested in seeing which current rules at guidelines that our soldiers follow equate torture.

Because your definition of torture lines up with the rewritten definition of the Bush administration, which is anything that does not lead to organ failure or death.

The NYT reported in that same Bagram article that "the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity. Prisoners considered important or troublesome were also handcuffed and chained to the ceilings and doors of their cells, sometimes for long periods, an action Army prosecutors recently classified as criminal assault." The Washington Post reported on Dec 22, 2004, "The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody [in Abu Ghraib] was more widespread, varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained."

You brought that argument into it when you made the assumption that every single prisoner was caught 'attacking the US'. The fact is that we don't know who among them were attacking the US even, or if they are terrorists or that they are guilty of anything. I happen to think that torture should be illegal on both the innocent and the guilty, but surely torturing an innocent man is worse than torturing a guilty one, which is where it comes into play in our discussion. Nobody at Gitmo for sure and probably most or the majority at the other bases has been found guilty.

That was never my main argument, but I'm sure you are aware though of the Zimbardo prison study, which makes a pretty strong case that our soldiers, or any soldiers for that matter, can not be trusted to undertake that type of mission. In any case, my argument is that the people who created and crafted the policy should be held accountable, most notably those in the state and justice departments (Gonsales for one) who aided and abetted the legalization of torture.

First you say how civil rights have no bearing on our discussion, then you tell me to list the civil rights that I think they should have? Which is it here, Arles? 1. Give US courts oversight into Gitmo and give the prisoners access to a court system. 2. Treat the prisoners according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. It's that simple.


Maybe 'takes the case' is an expression I am unaware of, but I don't follow you here. Anyone can see how the definition of torture has shifted over the past 5 years, how things that were illegal in 2000 are legal now.

To clarify as it appears Mr. Bigglesworth missed the main point of my reply. My question was which of the rules regarding prisoner treatment that the military soldiers and guards work under are unacceptable?

Since you have stated you do not feel that soldiers have a problem with sticking to the rules, then there must be some rules of conduct for prisoner treatment that are the source of your outrage. I am simply wondering which ones they are so I can better understand your level of outrage at the conditions these prisoners are living under.

I dont agree with the assumption that those in Gitmo mostly are good people. For the most part they are bad and deserve to be locked up and treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. I dont agree with torture as defined in geneva AND I believe that the Red Cross and outside groups should have unfettered access to them.....

but I do not jump on board the train of yours when you insinuate that Gitmo is on par with Nazi Death Camps or Gulags EVEN IF Amnesty international does. Just because they say it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. ON THAT NOTE, though, I DO think that those being held there should be identified, their families shouldbe informed of where they are and they deserve the opportunity to prove that they may not have been involved in taking arms up against us as a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Make no bones about it, Im as disappointed with this administration as anyone and I DO think that things are going on at Gitmo and other places that should not be and people deserve to be held accountable. HOWEVER, just like when I bast the right when they assume everything we say is horse pooey that we dont also assume that everything that they say is horse pooey and this is applicable to anything. IE, when Amnesty said that, I defend their right to there expert opinion BUT that doesnt mean I agree with it (and the Right should not wholey disagree with it simply because they dont want to.). I disagree with it because I believe tat that was an attention grabber and that they really dont believe that Gitmo is even close to being on par with Auschwitz, the wrong that goes on there is wrong and deserves investigation and not to be ignored (like some on the right would like the press to do) BUT it also needs to not be overblown because then we lose all credibility.

I don't believe that either. I think there are a lot of bad people there, a lot of terrorists in training, etc. But I'm not going to fault those that were just fighting for their country though, as all of us would be expected to do the same thing if we were invaded. And I think the law of averages says that there are some completely innocent people in there. But to be honest, I don't know how many fit into each catagory, and probably neither do you, because there have been no trials.

I've repeatedly stated that they are not on par with each other, but there definitely are similarities, and I'm sure I don't have to point them out to you. I think it was even in this thread where I stated that the problem is not that we are like the Nazi, it's that we aren't different enough.

C'mon, I numbered them for you, how could you miss them? Those are the Gitmo rules that I would like to have changed.

Like I said, which rules of conduct that the military allows soldiers to use in treatment break the geneva convention and are equal to torture. Since you stated you felt the prisoners are not being treated in accord to Geneva, which rules of conduct given to our soldiers in Guantanemo break the Geneva accords? I'm not aware of any currently in action in regards to prisoner treatment. But I also am not 100% sure (which is why I keep asking this question).

This is what I am most concerned about:
That is for the people whose only crime is defending their country. For those guilty of greater crimes, they can be treated according to international/US law.

The taliban have been so closely linked with Al Qaeda that it is NOT simply defending you country. If that we're the case perhaps I would see where you're coming from but instead I dont. The taliban and Al Qaeda were one in the same in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda is a worldwide terror organization with no home outside of a hijacked land. Being that that is the case until the war on terror is over and Al Qaeda no longer exists Im glad that those that are guilty of being a part of Al Qaeda are surrounded by fencing. I do think that some oversight board should look at who is there and determine whether or not someone was caught up in the dragnet and perhaps let go (and watched) BUT considering the situation were in, Im glad that they're there.




The similarities aren't even close and the second statment you make is loaded and desrves to be spit upon. We are 180 degrees the opposite of what was going on in deathcamps worldwide and if you dont know where the differences are then we have no reason to debate this anymore. In Auschwitz families were trained in on cattle cars. If they survived the heat and the feces long enough to make it to a camp, they were then split up. All of this done with the possibility of being shot at any time. From that point forward I dont think I want to describe but needless to say ti was utterly and completely different than that which is going on at gitmo.

Should some things be changed? yes, I listed those things before. Should some people be held accountable for abuses? Yes, it goes very far up the chain of cammand for negligence in the atmosphere they allowed to prevade by writing anti-geneva memos, memos allowing for torture, moving prisoners to avoid detection by the Red cross, etc. and they should have to answer for this BUT dont kid yourself into thinking that this is anything like a nazi death camp....and to answer your question directly. YES, it is different enough.

Consider if Canada came in invading the US because of Bush's war crimes, or because he was harboring WMD's (I'm not trying to say we should be invaded, it's just a thought experiment, so calm down anyone was about to jump on this). I do not like the Bush administration one bit, but I would fight to defend the country from the invaders. If they caught me, would they then be justified into throwing me in with Bush and just calling me a terrorist? No, I was just defending my country, I have no part in what the rest of the country did. I don't know who fits that description at Gitmo, and I don't think you do either. That's why we need trials, because there are some genuine POWs there, it's not all terrorists.

First of all, nobody except the the right wing Washington newspaper said anything about death camps, they were talking about POW camps. Secondly, the two statements you make here are mutually exclusive to the point I am trying to make: you can't think things that we do that are like what happened under Soviet and Nazi rule need to be changed AND think that they are different enough at the same time. It's either one or the other. If you don't think they are different enough, you want changes, if you think they are different enough you won't want changes.

When the Taliban chose to align itself with Al Qaeda they then became beyond their own borders. IOW, they were simply using Afghanistan soil to train a worlwide army. Therefore if a fighter was picked up in Afghanistan than they deserve to sit in jail, as a POW, until the war on terror is over, if it ever is.



They are not mtually exclusive as it is not one or the other. There is a spectrum and within that spectrum are rights and wrongs. If one person commits a wrong and it is due to the atmosphere created by the superior than the superior deserves to be in trouble for this (ive battled the right on this before) BUT to then try to dismiss the importance of the good that is going on there too, is naive and dangerous. IF in a gulag the temperature was very low and we keep the temperature very low that does not mean we are running a gulag....you have to think better than that and be open minded....its the only way to show the right that they are wron gwhen they are wrong, and right when they are right (it does happen rarely).

Matthew Yglesias in Tapped:

If critics of the Bush administration want the "torture" looked on as an independent manner, perhaps they should stop comparing Gitmo and others to Gulags, Nazi camps and the killing fields in their statements. Instead, focus on the individual instances that make it unacceptable, the specific policies that allowed the instances to occur and what can be changed to prevent them in the future.

It seems to me that would be much more effective than stating Gitmo treatment is like Nazi camps then getting all uptight when the argument shifts from the treatment to the asinine comparison.

This I'll whole heartedly agree with. I don't exactly have a warm fuzzy about the way the people in Gitmo are being held, anymore than I do about the way we rounded up people for indefinite detention without charging them in the wake of 9/11. I side with the Supreme court in their rulings on the Guantanamo prinsoners.

I do however think that the prisoners are being treated appropriately. I don't know how much the Gitmo Detainees have been subjected to harmful interrogation methods, but I do believe those practices have pretty well stopped. As a result I think it is ridiculous to compare Gitmo, where rights to a holy book are so respected, to Soviet Gulags where thousands of people were literally worked to death with no consideration for their rights.

Unhappy with Gitmo/US Detention policies immediately following 9/11/01: Yes.
Think the Gitmo=Gulag rhetoric spouted by Amnesty International harmed their credibility more than it helped their cause.: Yes

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE):



I have my doubts. When MPs at Guantanamo savagely beat another MP during a training exercise, one has to wonder how prisoners are treated:


Here's a question: when do these incidents stop being isolated problems and become, instead, an institutional problem that is either condoned, or at least not checked, by senior members of the Bush Administration?

After all, this is the same Administration whose Attorney General called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "outdated".

I am certainly open to legit discussion on the treatment of detainees like Flere has setup above. My advice to the critics is to again look at the policies in place at Gitmo. Ever since the odd memo by Rumsfeld about geneva (which it seems the administration has turned an about-face on without admitting so), it seems that the guidelines the military are forced to follow do not allow violating the geneva convention or any types of torture.

So, if that is the case, then anyone that does commit torture or violate the Geneva standards will be subject to an investigation and potential charges. That seems to be the case now and I think that is the way it should be. Does anyone know of remaining actions allowed by the military in terms of prisoner treatment that would violate Geneva? I don't think there are any.

Rendition is prohibited by Geneva.

Like rhetoric even matters. I bet you love it when Bush talks his BS rhetoric about 'spreading democracy'. What's with the rhetoric fixation? People are saying we do a lot of things like the people that ran the Gulags did. You know why? Because we are doing a lot of things like the people that ran the Gulags did.

This statement is exactly why your credibility on this issue is rapidly declining. Many are willing to discuss the policies of the US and analyze what may be over the line and what is OK. But no one has died at Gitmo, there have not been any kind of mass torturing chambers and nearly every incident of torture that has been mentioned has involved charges and full-scale investigations.

Now, some may be skeptical on the results of some of the investigations (although most are still pending), but to act like this situation is anything even in the same stratosphere as Soviet Gulags is hyperbole behind normal comprehension.

I don't know of too many rendition cases involving Gitmo people, nor does that explain poor prisoner treatment in Gitmo. Again, I keep asking for specific policies that guide our soliders and MPs over at Gitmo and allow all this "torture" that is currently being accused. Yet, the only responses I get involve what some feel to be are immoral detaining methods or movement of prisoners to other locations. The appeals court and even the Supreme court have ruled on both of these actions and so far the Bush administration's policy is not at odds with US law. Still, I don't have a problem having that discussion on the detaining policies of this US - but that's not what I am talking about right now.

Is there anything that anyone can come up with regarding actual prisoner treatment in Gitmo or conduct by guards that violates the Geneva convention? Because if there isn't, there seems to be a great deal of unfounded outrage about the policy of the Bush administration for treating prisoners in Gitmo.

With the legal groundwork laid, Bush began to act. First, he signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the president's directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness. Washington then negotiated novel "status of forces agreements" with foreign governments for the secret sites. These agreements gave immunity not merely to U.S. government personnel but also to private contractors. (Asked about the directive last week, a senior administration official said, "We cannot comment on purported intelligence activities.")

The administration also began "rendering"—or delivering terror suspects to foreign governments for interrogation. Why? At a classified briefing for senators not long after 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether Washington was going to get governments known for their brutality to turn over Qaeda suspects to the United States. Congressional sources told NEWSWEEK that Tenet suggested it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive interrogation methods. By 2004, the United States was running a covert charter airline moving CIA prisoners from one secret facility to another, sources say. The reason? It was judged impolitic (and too traceable) to use the U.S. Air Force.

At first—in the autumn of 2001—the Pentagon was less inclined than the CIA to jump into the business of handling terror suspects. Rumsfeld himself was initially opposed to having detainees sent into DOD custody at Guantanamo, according to a DOD source intimately involved in the Gitmo issue. "I don't want to be jailer to the goddammed world," said Rumsfeld. But he was finally persuaded. Those sent to Gitmo would be hard-core Qaeda or other terrorists who might be liable for war-crimes prosecutions, and who would likely, if freed, "go back and hit us again," as the source put it.

In mid-January 2002 the first plane-load of prisoners landed at Gitmo's Camp X-Ray. Still, not everyone was getting the message that this was a new kind of war. The first commander of the MPs at Gitmo was a one-star from the Rhode Island National Guard, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who, a Defense source recalled, mainly "wanted to keep the prisoners happy." Baccus began giving copies of the Qur'an to detainees, and he organized a special meal schedule for Ramadan. "He was even handing out printed 'rights cards'," the Defense source recalled. The upshot was that the prisoners were soon telling the interrogators, "Go f—- yourself, I know my rights." Baccus was relieved in October 2002, and Rumsfeld gave military intelligence control of all aspects of the Gitmo camp, including the MPs.

Pentagon officials now insist that they flatly ruled out using some of the harsher interrogation techniques authorized for the CIA. That included one practice—reported last week by The New York Times—whereby a suspect is pushed underwater and made to think he will be drowned. While the CIA could do pretty much what it liked in its own secret centers, the Pentagon was bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Military officers were routinely trained to observe the Geneva Conventions. According to one source, both military and civilian officials at the Pentagon ultimately determined that such CIA techniques were "not something we believed the military should be involved in."

But in practical terms those distinctions began to matter less. The Pentagon's resistance to rougher techniques eroded month by month. In part this was because CIA interrogators were increasingly in the same room as their military-intelligence counterparts. But there was also a deliberate effort by top Pentagon officials to loosen the rules binding the military.

Toward the end of 2002, orders came down the political chain at DOD that the Geneva Conventions were to be reinterpreted to allow tougher methods of interrogation. "There was almost a revolt" by the service judge advocates general, or JAGs, the top military lawyers who had originally allied with Powell against the new rules, says a knowledgeable source. The JAGs, including the lawyers in the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, fought their civilian bosses for months—but finally lost. In April 2003, new and tougher interrogation techniques were approved. Covertly, though, the JAGs made a final effort. They went to see Scott Horton, a specialist in international human-rights law and a major player in the New York City Bar Association's human-rights work. The JAGs told Horton they could only talk obliquely about practices that were classified. But they said the U.S. military's 50-year history of observing the demands of the Geneva Conventions was now being overturned. "There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" about how the conventions should be interpreted and applied, they told Horton. And the prime movers in this effort, they told him, were DOD Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith and DOD general counsel William Haynes. There was, they warned, "a real risk of a disaster" for U.S. interests.

The approach at Gitmo soon reflected these changes. Under the leadership of an aggressive, self-assured major general named Geoffrey Miller, a new set of interrogation rules became doctrine. Ultimately what was developed at Gitmo was a "72-point matrix for stress and duress," which laid out types of coercion and the escalating levels at which they could be applied. These included the use of harsh heat or cold; —withholding food; hooding for days at a time; naked isolation in cold, dark cells for more than 30 days, and threatening (but not biting) by dogs. It also permitted limited use of "stress positions" designed to subject detainees to rising levels of pain.

While the interrogators at Gitmo were refining their techniques, by the summer of 2003 the "postwar" insurgency in Iraq was raging. And Rumsfeld was getting impatient about the poor quality of the intelligence coming out of there. He wanted to know: Where was Saddam? Where were the WMD? Most immediately: Why weren't U.S. troops catching or forestalling the gangs planting improvised explosive devices by the roads? Rumsfeld pointed out that Gitmo was producing good intel. So he directed Steve Cambone, his under secretary for intelligence, to send Gitmo commandant Miller to Iraq to improve what they were doing out there. Cambone in turn dispatched his deputy, Lt. Gen. William (Jerry) Boykin—later to gain notoriety for his harsh comments about Islam—down to Gitmo to talk with Miller and organize the trip. In Baghdad in September 2003, Miller delivered a blunt message to Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was then in charge of the 800th Military Police Brigade running Iraqi detentions. According to Karpinski, Miller told her that the prison would thenceforth be dedicated to gathering intel. (Miller says he simply recommended that detention and intelligence commands be integrated.) On Nov. 19, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units.

By the time Gitmo's techniques were exported to Abu Ghraib, the CIA was already fully involved. On a daily basis at Abu Ghraib, says Paul Wayne Bergrin, a lawyer for MP defendant Sgt. Javal Davis, the CIA and other intel officials "would interrogate, interview prisoners exhaustively, use the approved measures of food and sleep deprivation, solitary confinement with no light coming into cell 24 hours a day. Consequently, they set a poor example for young soldiers but it went even further than that."

Today there is no telling where the scandal will bottom out. But it is growing harder for top Pentagon officials, including Rumsfeld himself, to absolve themselves of all responsibility. Evidence is growing that the Pentagon has not been forthright on exactly when it was first warned of the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib. U.S. officials continued to say they didn't know until mid-January. But Red Cross officials had alerted the U.S. military command in Baghdad at the start of November. The Red Cross warned explicitly of MPs' conducting "acts of humiliation such as [detainees'] being made to stand naked... with women's underwear over the head, while being laughed at by guards, including female guards, and sometimes photographed in this position." Karpinski recounts that the military-intel officials there regarded this criticism as funny. She says: "The MI officers said, 'We warned the [commanding officer] about giving those detainees the Victoria's Secret catalog, but he wouldn't listen'." The Coalition commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and his Iraq command didn't begin an investigation until two months later, when it was clear the pictures were about to leak.

Now more charges are coming. Intelligence officials have confirmed that the CIA inspector general is conducting an investigation into the death of at least one person at Abu Ghraib who had been subject to questioning by CIA interrogators. The Justice Department is likely to open full-scale criminal investigations into this CIA-related death and two other CIA interrogation-related fatalities.

As his other reasons for war have fallen away, President Bush has justified his ouster of Saddam Hussein by saying he's a "torturer and murderer." Now the American forces arrayed against the terrorists are being tarred with the same epithet. That's unfair: what Saddam did at Abu Ghraib during his regime was more horrible, and on a much vaster scale, than anything seen in those images on Capitol Hill. But if America is going to live up to its promise to bring justice and democracy to Iraq, it needs to get to the bottom of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I thought there were charges and convictions for what happened at Abu Ghraib? And, again, I still haven't seen any current policies for treatment of prisoners in Gitmo that violate the Geneva Convention.

I will keep reading and lurking on this, but I don't see the need to continue the discussion until I can find some answer for these treatment questions.

in all honesty Arles, stuff has already come out in Gitmo that violates the Geneva Conventions, even in the minimal sense of simply showing the prisoners on TV being bound and shackled. So if you really want to split hairs we can.

I simply posted that as a simple and efficient way of showing that this began quite some time ago with the first memo's regarding NOT sticking to the Geneva conventions...and how that trickled down.

So are you asking for each indivisual event that occurred? Because Im sure you'll admit at least one has occurred thus squashing that discussion.

No, not at all. I don't doubt for a minute that some violations have occured since 2002. My point is that the regulations and rules for guards have also been tightened in that timeframe. So, given the situation as it stands right now, which rules left for prisoner treatment in Gitmo violate Geneva. If there are some, I will be right with you guys to have the administration change them. But, if the policies the guards and MPs are currently forced to follow do not violate Geneva, then I think that the emphasis needs to shift from the "policy on treatment at Gitmo" to enforcing the current policy and punishing the few that violate it.

What Arles is doing is setting up something that he knows can't be challenged. The only thing he will accept is a refutation of something in the Gitmo policy manual, knowing full well that nobody here has any access whatsoever to any Gitmo policy manual, let alone the classified memos that have been floating around authorizing this and that. All we have are the confirmed tales of misdeeds to tell us what the policies were. And also notice how for some reason he steers everything away from talk about Bagram or Abu Ghraib, the worst places, and narrowmindedly makes everything about Gitmo because that is the place where the least amount of bad stuff happened. There must be a school somewhere where they teach you how to obfuscate like this.

I'm starting to think you are purposefully being obtuse, because you seem to not even care about what I actually say and instead keep making it into a 'You are saying we are running Soviet gulags!' strawman. I merely said that we are doing a lot of things that we used to detest the Soviet gulags for doing. Things like: kidnapping people in the middle of the night, torturing them, sending them other places to get tortured, holding them indefinitely without trial, etc. Now, the way to attack that argument is not to make it into an easily knocked down strawman, but rather to attack the premises. You must express how either we aren't doing those things, or that the Soviets didn't do those things, or that we didn't get pissed at the Soviets for doing those things. Since you haven't challenged a single one of those premises, your counter-argument is worthless.

Here -- The City of Detroit is like a Soviet Gulag. Because some asshole citizen of Detroit placed a Muslim's Quran on the ground in Detroit city to piss the Muslim off. That's fair to blame the entire city of Detroit? Did Detroit city condone the "torture"? Was it mandated "torture" by the mayor of Detroit? I don't think so.

From the FBI Report quoted by Sen. Durbin:


Also, did you know:


But I'm sure these are all "isolated incidents". And I'm sure that in each and every case (and these are just the deaths of course), a proper military manual was followed.

That's one of the worst analogies I've heard in a while. Is this the level of discourse to which you Bush Apologists have fallen?

You can't be serious (and I know you are not). Over 30 separate charges have been filed with convictions already happening in relation to these incidents and most investigations are still ongoing. So, either the military simply decided to charge numerous people after "a proper military manual was followed" or they had found that proper military procedures were NOT followed. I would also like to add that none of these deaths have occurred at Gimto.

I say keep filing charges, investigating and trying for convictions with people that violate our code of conduct. But you cannot simply say that because 25-30 people died in "questionable curcumstances" that the Bush administration and Military are fostering some kind of torture environment. The only way you can do that is if you either ignore or fail to mention the ongoing investigations, charges and adjustments to procedure the administration has made over the past 2 years in response to these incidents.

what I have been debating is NOT so much the written manual but the atmosphere that was underlying, perhaps unintentionally created, by the rhetoric that was batted about. Genva or no? Was Abu one person (as initially said/then a small group/then more) or no? We're they POW's or no? A clear direction from the start on these simple matters would've put the clapmps on any individuals who were tempted to fall into the trap of breaking one of the written guidelines.

After reading this thead, I still can't figure out Arles' position...is it

1. That we're not violating the Geneva Conventions
2. That we don't know we are
or
3. That it's ok that we are since we're not at the level of Auschwitz or the Gulags?

I will summarize it for you. I think there have been incidents where we have violated the Geneva convention. But, in each of these incidents, investigations have occurred (or are on-going) and charges have often been filed. This leads me to believe that violations of the Geneva conventions are against US treatment policy in Gitmo and that the offenders are not acting in accordance with the Bush administration or US policy when they committed these acts.

This certainly throws a wrench into the whole "Downing Street Memo" authenticity. It appears that when pressed to provide the originals to other media organizations, the reporter that broke the story admitted that he did not have the originals and the ones in the story were hand-written by himself (not the source). Can I get a big Oops!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/...vBHNlYwN3bA%97

Anonymous sources validating the appearance of authenticity in copies of hand-typed versions of recollections of someone who attended a meeting, had their recollections leaked to someone else who destroyed them. How could anyone doubt their authenticity? :rolleyes:

Give it up Arles. The memos are real.

From Washingtonmonthly.com

Now, unlike the Killian memos that were at the center of Rathergate, there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake.

In fact, just the opposite. Here's Tony Blair himself on May 1, the day the first memo was published:

In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm.

Here's Knight Ridder on May 5:

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

Here's the Washington Post on June 12:

Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

JPhillips, you actually missed the best proof of authenticity:

"Q. Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action."

So, Arles, how about that "big Oops?"

I don't doubt that there probably were "downing street memos" to begin with. But I am certainly leary of their actual content given the odd behavior by this reporter. He violated two key "journalism 101" activities:

1. Never destroy the original - even if you don't plan on distributing it. At the very minimum keep them as an ace in the hole for potential lawsuits.

2. Never hand-copy 3rd party evidence and redistribute it. If you want to black out the name - fine. Place a piece of paper over the names and photo-copy it. So, atleast the content is exactly the same as the original (minus the blocked spots).

By "handwriting from memory" this reporter opens these memos up to a great deal of scrutiny. Did he adjust the claims slightly in wording to "sex it up" or did he remove a "caveat" in his copying of the memo. We really don't know and the completely non-professional manner with which this reporter has handled the creation of the memo certainly presents a cloud over how authentic the actual words on the memo are.

No one has commented on the memo publically to validate it either. My guess is there was a memo but the fact remains that no one has validated the content created by this journalist and stated it matched exactly what was in the original memo.

Let's put it in a different light. If some right-leaning reporter came out with a "memo" from the CIA citing they had found first-hand accounts that Saddam had WMD before the war then shipped them to Syria. Now, no CIA agents had publically discounted the memo, but the reporter had destroyed the original memo and recreated it from memory without direct contact with the writer. I am sure the left would gladly accept this as 100% accurate without any questions.

Arles, you are really making stuff up again.

1) That's just not a rule and there are very good reasons to destroy the original. The primary one is protection of your source (which seems to be the issue in this case). Destroying the original is a way to duck a subpoena because you don't have a non-protected document to turn over.

2) Simply not true. Numerous indicators on a document can indicate who turned it over. Sources for very secret (whistleblowing or classifed) information regularly do not want to turn over documents that could expose them.

And did you read the quote from Blair? He said, "And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations."

As to your hypothetical, I have no problem with it subject to the fact that there was corroboration. In this case, THEY ASKED BLAIR AND BUSH ABOUT IT. And Tony basically admitted it was real.

All Blair did is acknowledge the fact that a "downing street memo" existed - he did nothing to validate the content. Again, I am not discounting the memo - I am simply questioning the authenticity of the version distributed by this reporter. For all we know the claims in the memo were worded with similar caveats as the Prime Minister did above but this journalists decided it wasn't sexy enough so he made a few "minor alterations" to make the memo a better read. When a journalists acts in the manner he did, it is more than fair to question the authenticity of "his rendition" as it appears that's exactly what this memo represents. Also the fact that none of the original owners of the memo have come to his defense on the actual wording add to the questions.

Again, the memo was created by Smith from the Times to say:

Imagine if the actual wording were:

Now, I doubt anyone that received the memo three years ago would be able to remember a stark difference between the two statements, but the implications are certainly much different. Also, the manner with which this "copying" was done seems very odd:


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backst...reet_0614.html

What is this, the 1920s? Using an old-fashioned typewriter? Did he copy them also by candle-light. Why in the heck would someone make photocopies then hand-retype them on an old-fashioned typewriter before destroying the photocopies?! Oh, wait, by using a typewriter there's also no soft copy that can be verified.

This story also states that the Butler Committee "has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw." While this is true with the other 6 memos, this is not true in refence to the Downing Street memo. It is not mentioned in the Butler report once.

I think that the British government and/or the writer of this memo need to release the actual memo as it was before all this craziness happened to it for this memo's content to have any credibility. As it stands now, it is getting more and more incredulous to believe all the actions by the reporter. The way most reporters would have behaved would have been to photocopy the exact memo with any identifying marks and/or names blocked out and released that. Instead, we have the original being photocopied, the original then being returned, the photocopy then being re-written on an old-style typewriter and the photocopy then being destroyed. Let's just say this process doesn't quite smell right.

But the reporter said the original was not destroyed - the photocopy was. The original was handed back.

Then block out each indicator and release the remaining piece. Or atleast retype it on a computer (as was done with the other 6 memos) not some old-time typewriter that just happens to not leave an original softcopy.

Where did I dispute the memo was created? I was simply disputing the wording and content.

He admitted the memo was real - he did not address the content by subject or the wording of the memo. My guess is that he knew that one did exist but
is not able to provide the actual copy because it is classified and can therefore not comment on its content.

Here's a very interesting blog on the subject outlying the start differences in creation between the Downing Street Memo and the others that have been corroborated by the Butler Commision:

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/...impeachab.html

Please. If the memo wasn't accurate, don't you think he would have said so? The memo was used as a weapon against him in the British elections. Don't you think someone in his camp would have pointed it out it was FAKE? You sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to identify everything someone didn't say to raise existential doubt. Try using common sense instead.


As I explained, this PROCESS IS TOTALLY NORMAL for whistleblowers of classified information. You assert that this reporter violated "journalism 101" when you have no clue about what "journalism 101" entails. The way you get whistleblowers to come forward is to remove any doubt that their identity will be leaked. Destroying the original and using a typewriter (so there is no computer record) are part of the process of keeping a source identity secret.

Really, Arles, your partisan-hackery has reached new levels. Even Powerline isn't questioning the authenticity of the document and they define right-wing partisan hacks.

Who is your source Arles? I think the fact that you didn't include one means your credibility is forever zero. Even if you know reveal a source, how do we know it wasn't you who made it up all along? If you really wanted us to believe your source, you would have revealed it in the beginning. Instead, you take actions which only show your complicity in hiding the truth of the issue. You violated the rules of FOFC 101: Always provide a link (with hxxp of course) and pics pls thx. Even if your blog-writer authenticates the post you made, we will ignore that and continue to act as though it weren't said. How do you know he wasn't just authenticating something like the post you made and he didn't notice subtle changes you made?

Arles: If you were only half as skeptical about the Admin's bullshit as you are about this memo...

LOL. True, true. It is quite amazing how any possible measure of doubt to a memo (that has pretty much been authenticated) raises red flags with him, but it would take a direct commandment from God to make him doubt the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

Because its contents were classified and he repeatedly admitted he could not comment on them. All he could comment on was the timing of the memo's creation.

And how would they do that without providing the original or commenting on classified information?

You have no understanding of jounalism to make that statement. No one destroys photocopies of originals and then re-types them on old-style typewriters (instead of the numerous computers in the newsroom). That is, unless they have something to hide.

Not only was a member of the AP for 5 years, but many of my articles still reside on many university wires and Lexis-Nexis. I can say with a quite a bit of certainly that I have a very good understanding of "journalism 101" and my history (and awards) back that up.

How does typing a copy of a memo with no identifying marks on a computer hurt a source's identity? The only reason to use a typewriter is:

1. You don't want any date to be stored of when you originally created the document (something that goes with the above blogger's conclusion)

or

2. Every PC in your newsroom is broken.

There is absolutely no risk of having a source identified by typeing an exact copy of what you plan on releasing in a computer instead of a typewriter. The page is going to be released regardless and its not like the memo will look any different if it is written on a computer or typewriter. Again, the only conceivable reason to use a typewriter is to eliminate any trace of a creation date on the document. Think about it.

I suggest you read the above blog and look at odd circuimstances surrounding the timing and creation of this memo by Smith a little closer. I'll make it easier for you. Imagine this document referenced a CIA agent claiming Saddam moved WMD into Syria before the war. That should get you motivated to get a fresh look at the numerous questions involving its creation.

JPhillips: If you were only hald as skeptical about this memo as you are about the Bush Administration.

This is what you are resorting to? Very disappointed. I certainly apologize for the oversight on my part of forgetting to provide the link. Here it is (and has been added to the original post):
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/...impeachab.html

...and now on the other end of the spectrum you lose credibility too. The memo's are obviously real YET you go down the path, that I have chastised you on before, of only accepting as evidence proof from the horse's mouth. Need I remind you that, from the other thread, YOU WILL NEVER GET EVIDENCE FROM BUSH OR CHENEY OR RUMS. speaking about what they said...so if that's all you will accept as evidence then you might as well close your window and keep getting your Christian Science Monitor and turn on Fox News channel since you will not accept anything but. NOw if you would like to come back to reality and stop defending the admin based solely on knowcking everyone down, or challenging their credibility that'd be nice too. Perhaps you'd like the attorney Generla to pursue with a little more fire (HA) the person who leaked the CIA agent's name....considering that that is an act of treason....but I doubt you will.

*My post going completely over Arles's head*

Arles, seriously. You have no understanding of the law in this area. There are numerous incentives to destroy originals (especially in Europe). And Blair could have denied its authenticity. That is easy to do. Really, stop and think about this for a while.

In more than one thread you've attacked Blog's for their ability to spread rumor and innuendo yet now you cite one. Get real? You fell so far from the top of this thread, only Mr. Big gave you some credence and then you took that "Mandat" HA and threw it out the window with your hypcoritical statements and requirement(s) that Bush or Blair state in a press conference that EACH AND EVERY SENTENCE in the memo's is true. What if they say some of it's true? Then Im sure you'll take license to show which one's they must've been talking about and which one's are not proven true.....what a joke.

You don't find the creation of this memo by Smith and odd cirumstances (an old-style typrewriter!) even the bit questionable? Again, like I said to John, imagine this memo referenced a CIA agent stating Saddam had moved WMD to Syria before the war. That should be get you motivated to look at the odd behavior surrounding its creation and raised questions about the legitimacy of the actual wording of the document.

im laughing so hard that Arles has started cting blogs when he has refuted using blogs in the past as partisan hackery. LOL so funny.....apparently you must feel trapped or something to drop so low.

But he never destroyed the originals. He destroyed photocopies and you still haven't answered why anyone would type it up on a typewriter instead of a CPU.

But I am not questioning whether the memo exists - I am questioning the version we have all received from Mr Smith. But, in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Even if you buy the memo's wording as being completely authentic, we are once again back to this being one person's account with no corroborating information from any other the other 6 memos (that have been validated). So, we're back to the "he said-she said" with no other form of support for this person's conclusions.