Downing Street Memo

[Flasch186]

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.)

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

(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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

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

LOL LOL

[Dutch]

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.

[Easy Mac]

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the most basic interpretation of interpreting whether or not they misinterpreted information or lies says that this falls along Partisan lines...

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.

[Flasch186]

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.

[st.cronin]

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

[st.cronin]

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...

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

you know not what you speak of regarding this terminology.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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...

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?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Here is Durbin's exact quote:

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

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Oh, yeah, 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 and not feeding or providing water to people for weeks (even months in some case). Yeah, you tell me the AC is too low and the first thing I think of are Nazis, Soviet gulags and Pol Pot

Durbin needs to talk with John McCain about real torture before making completely asinine and clueless statements like this.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, are those techniques that you would recommend for anyone that is arrested and goes to a police station in the United States?

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.

Keep in mind that these people have not been charged with a crime, have no lawyers, and are looking to be held 'in perpetuity'.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

[Flasch186]

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"...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Last I checked these detainees were not American citizens and did not represent a country or national army.

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?

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Arles

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?

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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

[st.cronin]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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.

[Dutch]

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, are those techniques that you would recommend for anyone that is arrested and goes to a police station in the United States?

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Based on your response, it sounds like you think it would be brutal for those techniques to be used in American police stations.

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).

Why, then, do American citizens deserve basic human rights while those from other countries do not?

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.

Why is it that having the good fortune to be born in this country makes you deserving of those rights?

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).

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

I wrote two posts explaining how I thought his comments were appropriate.

That's very disappointing.

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.

I will gladly revise to include all listed issues:

Originally Posted by Arles

Of course, turning the AC up or down, chaining a prisoner in the fetal position for a fixed time, allowing the prisoner to pull his own hair out 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 or someone is chained for a while and the first thing I think of are Nazis, Soviet gulags and Pol Pot

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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)...
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.

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:

Originally Posted by NYT

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days...

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

[Flasch186]

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

Understood.

[st.cronin]

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

If they were planning terrorist attacks, I agree, throw them in jail.

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"?

But I do not know if all or any of them have, and neither do you.

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

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.

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.

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

Ah, taking the intellectual way out I see.

Here is what you are an apologist for:

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:

Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case...

With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete.

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...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

For the umteenth time, American soldiers were not "enemy combatants".

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What disgusts me most about you, Arles, is that you don't have the balls to just say, 'these people should be tortured.'

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.

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.

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.

Instead of saying you are for torture, you just say you are against it and change the definition of torture.

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.

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

You are completely out of it on this one. I do not feel people should be tortured (esp to death) while in US custody.

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Arles

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[Arles]

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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?

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont agree with the assumption that those in Gitmo mostly are good people.

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.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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.