On Torture

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='359176' date='Oct 5 2006, 02:56 PM']Take it , you did not read the links?[/quote]

Did you think that those docs would be persuasive? Are you serious? Sadly, I think you are.

In addition, you are either incredibly naive or just flat out a lackey for this evil, evil, crowd.

I'll keep saying it. Torture is bad. Just as important, to rationalize or justify it in the context of our Constitutional law and juridical practice is even more evil to the extent that such behavior is institutionalized.

If you are on that team, then you and I are irreconcilable enemies. In no way, shape or form, would I consider your service to this nation as honorable, under those circumstances. In fact, I'd be concerned, because I know that the members of the "enabling" class who would enforce the harsh and anti-r-epublican thrust of such institutionalized evil would be the class of folks who would populate an American version of the Gestapo and/or SS.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='359175' date='Oct 5 2006, 02:54 PM'][i]Claudia Rosett is journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.[/i][/quote]

Oh. Well. These folks. See my post above.

[TheBZ]

No one has tried to pass a law allowing police/correctional officers to beat criminals in their cells.

Americans don't accept/legalize the practice of having investigators torture suspected murderers and rapists to try to gather evidence or possibly stop another crime.

Why would a government allow that to be 'ok' if the suspected person was foreign?

The only answer (for me) appears to be thinly-veiled racial hatred and the sadistic abuse of power.

Torture cannot be justified in a civilized society.

BZ

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='358714' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:03 PM']You write paragraphs when you could just come out and say "despite your logical reasoning and your supposed military clearance, I don't believe you, because the government you serve is evil".[/quote]

That's a bit to flattering to convey what I am saying. Thanks for the help, but it's not effective in this case.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='358734' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:15 PM']Man, you sure are a bleak-outlook having motherfucker. As if any of these politics defy what has been done so often before and will continue to be. We as a people haven't been totally sold out yet, although nuclear weapons have only been in play for less than a century.[/quote]


My outlook is only as bleak as the situation at hand. First of all, there's no "We as a people". You belong to a class that has wittingly or unwittingly embraced interests diametrically opposed to a great many of us, who have no interest in a plutocratic agenda hiding behind surpemacist pseudo-nationalism. And denial won't change the fact that we in our various and disparate publics have been very much sold down the river.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='359180' date='Oct 5 2006, 03:01 PM']I have read the Manchester Document .
[url="http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf#search=%22Manchester%20documents%22"]http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf#...%20documents%22[/url][/quote]


You and I both know what the document is worth, but let's assume that it's legit. There's nothing surprising or shocking in it, and there's nothing that would compell me to say, "Oh my! You're right! We're in danger from those crazy people! Let's tear up the world and the entire social contract of mankind and exterminate those vermin!" That's because you and I look at the world through two different prisms - would be ubermensch vs quite contented untermensch. I don't share your rosy view of yourself and your culture. I assign the same mixture of venal, shitty and every once in a while noble motives to your culture that I do to everyone else. As a consequence, I interpret your actions, not according to the self-laudatory and self-excusing exceptionalist paradigm that you use to measure them, but by the same laws of behavior that I would apply to everyone else. Conversely, I do not assume that people outside of your culture are inherently more unreasonable and more villanous than you.

So, when I read something like that, I see a number of things on a number of levels. But the thing that I continually see that you seem to refuse to see is that you and your culture brought a lot of this on yourself, and while you're trying to take the easy way out and convince yourselves and everybody else that you're taking the high road, you're merely digging a hole. It doesn't matter that there's a certain amount of manipulation and craziness on the other side. You claim to know better, and yet you clearly are no better, and in fact are somewhat worse than the crazies that you hate, because they haven't done half as much to you as you've done to them, and they are the ones responding defensively - no matter how poor and tainted their defense, not you.

Rationalize if you will, kill if you will, but you will learn a different approach or, even if you come crashing down on top of the rest of us, your plunge into the dust bins of history will be quite dramatic. Take it from the member of a people that has already taken that plunge into ignominy.

[Lawman]

[quote]Did you think that those docs would be persuasive? Are you serious? Sadly, I think you are.[/quote]


[quote]BZ,
No one has tried to pass a law allowing police/correctional officers to beat criminals in their cells.

Americans don't accept/legalize the practice of having investigators torture suspected murderers and rapists to try to gather evidence or possibly stop another crime.

Why would a government allow that to be 'ok' if the suspected person was foreign?

The only answer (for me) appears to be thinly-veiled racial hatred and the sadistic abuse of power.

Torture cannot be justified in a civilized society.[/quote]

You are right, people are too lazy to researh information for themselves and come to their own conclusions as to understand what the fuss is all about.

No they won't do this, it is easier and makes them feel better if they only listen to the mouth-pieces that speak on behalf of their own personal agenda's.

Of course the Bill was signed off by both sides of the aisle and Coy will tell us this is irrelevant, they (dumbasss and Democrat's) are all the same.

[quote]Homer
I'll keep saying it. Torture is bad[/quote]

... and I will keep agreeing with you.

[quote]Homer,
Just as important, to rationalize or justify it in the context of our Constitutional law and juridical practice is even more evil to the extent that such behavior is institutionalized.[/quote]

Confirmed, you did not read them.

[quote]If you are on that team, then you and I are irreconcilable enemies. In no way, shape or form, would I consider your service to this nation as honorable, under those circumstances. In fact, I'd be concerned, because I know that the members of the "enabling" class who would enforce the harsh and anti-r-epublican thrust of such institutionalized evil would be the class of folks who would populate an American version of the Gestapo and/or SS[/quote].

Bernstein or Luxemburg

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='359401' date='Oct 5 2006, 09:47 PM']Oh. Well. These folks. See my post above. [/quote]

Her post was a mirror image to one posted a few days earlier by Mark Styne of the Washington Times.

They have been to GITMO, unlike other hacks who have not, but yet they write as if they know what's going on there. Sadly, their words resonate the loudest.

[Lawman]

[quote]You and I both know what the document is worth, but let's assume that it's legit. There's nothing surprising or shocking in it, and there's nothing that would compell me to say, "Oh my! You're right! We're in danger from those crazy people! Let's tear up the world and the entire social contract of mankind and exterminate those vermin!"[/quote]

Manchester Document:

[Emblem]: A drawing of the globe emphasizing the Middle East and [u]Africa with a sword through the globe[/u] [On the emblem:] Military Studies in the Jihad [Holy War] Against the Tyrants.

These young men realized that an [u]Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle.[/u] [b]Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it.[/b]
The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, [b]does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy.[/b] But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
The young came to prepare themselves for Jihad [holy war],commanded by the majestic Allah's order in the holy Koran.
[Koranic verse:] "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike[b] terror [/b] into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

We cannot resist this state of ignorance unless we unite our ranks, and adhere to our religion. Without that, the establishment of religion would be a dream or illusion that is impassible to achieve or even imagine its achievement. Sheik Ibn Taimia -may Allah have mercy on him -said, "The interests of all Adam's children would not be realized in the present life, nor in the next, except through assembly, cooperation, and mutual assistance. Cooperation is for achieving their interests and mutual assistance is for overcoming their adversities. That is why it has been said, 'man is civilized by nature.' Therefore, if they unite there will be favorable matters that they do, and corrupting matters to avoid. They will be obedient to the commandment of those goals and avoidant of those immoralities. It is necessary that all Adam's children obey."
He [Sheik Inb Taimia] then says, "It should be understood [b]that governing the people's affairs is one of the greatest religious obligations[/b]. In fact, without it, religion and world [affairs]could not be established.

Importance of Military Organization:

Removal of those personalities that block the call's path. [A different handwriting:] All types of military and civilian intellectuals and thinkers for the state.
2. Proper utilization of the individuals' unused capabilities.
3. Precision in performing tasks, and using collective views on completing a job from all aspects, not just one.
4. Controlling the work and not fragmenting it or deviating from it.
5. Achieving long-term goals [b]such as the establishment of an Islamic state [/b] and short-term goals such as operations against enemy individuals and sectors.
6. Establishing the conditions for possible confrontation with the regressive regimes and their persistence.
7. Achieving discipline in secrecy and through tasks.

[quote]That's because you and I look at the world through two different prisms - would be ubermensch vs quite contented untermensch. I don't share your rosy view of yourself and your culture. I assign the same mixture of venal, shitty and every once in a while noble motives to your culture that I do to everyone else. As a consequence, I interpret your actions, not according to the self-laudatory and self-excusing exceptionalist paradigm that you use to measure them, but by the same laws of behavior that I would apply to everyone else. Conversely, I do not assume that people outside of your culture are inherently more unreasonable and more villanous than you.[/quote]

Your hatred and paronoia has been duly noted.

Today’s Terrorist Enemy

The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still dangerous al-Qaida network. Yet the enemy we face today in the War on Terror is not the same enemy we faced on September 11. Our effective counterterrorist efforts, in part, have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business. Our understanding of the enemy has evolved as well. Today, the principal terrorist enemy confronting the United States is a transnational movement of extremist organizations, networks, and individuals – and their state and non-state supporters – which have in common that [b]they exploit Islam[/b] and use terrorism for ideological ends. This transnational movement is not monolithic. Although al-Qaida functions as the movement’s vanguard and remains, along with its affiliate groups and those inspired by them, the most dangerous present manifestation of the enemy, the movement is not controlled by any single
individual, group, or state. What unites the movement is a common vision, a common set of ideas about the nature and destiny of the world, and a common goal of ushering in totalitarian rule. What unites the movement is the ideology of oppression, violence, and hate. Our terrorist enemies exploit Islam to serve a violent political vision.

[b]Fueled by a radical ideology and a false belief that the United States is the cause of most problems affecting Muslims today[/b], our enemies seek to expel Western power and influence from the Muslim world and establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of Islam. As illustrated by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, [b]such regimes would deny all political and religious freedoms and serve as sanctuaries for extremists to launch additional attacks against not only the United States, its allies and partners, but the Muslim world itself.[/b] Some among the enemy, particularly al-Qaida, harbor even greater
territorial and geopolitical ambitions and aim to establish a single, pan-Islamic, totalitarian regime that stretches from Spain to Southeast Asia.

This enemy movement seeks to create and exploit a division between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and within the Muslim world itself. The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers, including all those who disagree with them. Most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries – and most of the victims have been Muslims. In addition to this principal enemy, a host of other groups and individuals also use terror and violence against innocent civilians to pursue their political objectives. Though their motives and goals may be different, and often include secular and more narrow territorial aims, they threaten our interests and those of our partners as they attempt to overthrow civil order and replace freedom with conflict and intolerance. Their terrorist tactics ensure that they are enemies of humanity regardless of their goals and no matter where they operate.

For our terrorist enemies, violence is not only justified, it is necessary and even glorified – judged the only means to achieve a world vision darkened by hate, fear, and oppression. They use suicide bombings, beheadings, and other atrocities against innocent people as a means to promote their creed. Our enemy’s demonstrated indifference to human life and desire to inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and its friends and allies around the world have fueled their desire for weapons of mass destruction. We cannot permit the world’s most dangerous terrorists and their regime sponsors to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. For the enemy, there is no peaceful coexistence with those who do not subscribe to their distorted and violent view of the world. [b]They accept no dissent and tolerate no alternative points of view.[/b] Ultimately,[b] the terrorist enemy we face threatens global peace, international security and prosperity,the rising tide of democracy, and the right of all people to live without fear of indiscriminate
violence.[/b]

[quote]Rationalize if you will, kill if you will, but you will learn a different approach or, even if you come crashing down on top of the rest of us, your plunge into the dust bins of history will be quite dramatic. Take it from the member of a people that has already taken that plunge into ignominy.[/quote]

I will continue to fight protecting your ass, like it or not

[Guest bengalrick]

torture is bad.... if anyone says anything different than "torture is bad" then you agree w/ hanging people from their dicks, and pouring salt water all over them... just wanted to make that clear...

and by torture, that includes: rubbing girls titties in your face, listening to agonizing music like brittany spears over and over again, asking questions in a loud voice, asking questions in an above average noise, letting a jew ask any questions, and taking prisoners in general... if you take a prisoner, you automatically are considered that you are torturing them in secret prisons, while rumseld and cheney take turns fucking the prisoners in the ass...

torture is bad... who cares what the definition of torure is, huh?

[Lawman]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='359653' date='Oct 6 2006, 11:52 AM']torture is bad.... if anyone says anything different than "torture is bad" then you agree w/ hanging people from their dicks, and pouring salt water all over them... just wanted to make that clear...

and by torture, that includes: rubbing girls titties in your face, listening to agonizing music like brittany spears over and over again, asking questions in a loud voice, asking questions in an above average noise, letting a jew ask any questions, and taking prisoners in general... if you take a prisoner, you automatically are considered that you are torturing them in secret prisons, while rumseld and cheney take turns fucking the prisoners in the ass...

torture is bad... who cares what the definition of torure is, huh? [/quote]

br great timing, I was just review this piece in the WSJ, Dec 13th 2005.

[url="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007673"]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110007673[/url]

Tortuous Progress
A little honesty in the interrogation debate.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

It's coming late in the game, but a little honesty has finally crept into the debate over interrogation in the war on terror. To wit, the critics are at last having to explain what they really object to, as opposed to their typically vague and inaccurate accusations of "torture."

Credit here goes to Vice President Dick Cheney and a few media dissenters, who have insisted that the critics confront the practical and moral realities of fighting terrorism. Specifically, they (and we) have opposed Senator John McCain's Amendment that would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for Defense Department interrogations and otherwise (that is, for the CIA) reinforce prohibitions on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment. Everyone understands that this would effectively forbid some interrogation methods now being used, at least by the CIA.

Mr. Cheney's stand is smoking out the critics, who for months have hid behind incantations first about Abu Ghraib, which numerous probes have proved had nothing to do with interrogations, and then the so-called "torture memos," which sanctioned no specific interrogation techniques. So congratulations of a sort to the Washington Post, perhaps the most vociferous promoter of the "torture narrative," for finally admitting in a Sunday editorial what so offends its editors.

It turns out to be "waterboarding," a rare interrogation technique reportedly used against the hardest al Qaeda detainees. The method involves immobilizing a detainee and inducing a feeling of suffocation. The Post says it should be banned both as torture and contrary to the U.S. Constitution. That's certainly worth debating, though [u]the Post may get an argument from U.S. servicemen who've endured the waterboard as part of training to resist interrogation--proof that, if practiced properly, it does no lasting physical harm. [/u]

There's also last week's ABC News report that 11 of 12 captured al Qaeda kingpins who have talked only did so after being waterboarded. This would appear to contradict so many glib suggestions, such as those in an open letter yesterday from Congressmen calling themselves the New Democrat Coalition, that such techniques "just plain don't work." The truth is that sometimes they do work.

But let's say waterboarding were banned.([color="#000099"]which since has been)[/color] The critics are still conveniently vague about just what interrogation techniques they would allow. The Post frowns on "other CIA pressure methods." Well, what are they? Sleep deprivation? Exposure to hot and cold? Stress techniques such as kneeling for a long time? Or how about good cop-bad cop interrogation of the kind practiced in the average American police precinct? That can certainly be "degrading" and "cruel" if you interpret those words in the most expansive manner.

Part of the problem with interpreting those words is that they depend on the context. All things being equal, we can't think of a worse human rights abuse than blowing someone to bits with a Hellfire missile. Yet no one objected when that happened to al Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia in Pakistan two weeks ago. If certain individuals can be ethically targeted for death in a war, then wouldn't the same hold true for rough interrogation methods? A strange code of morality would allow the killing of Rabia but not his stressful questioning to prevent further murders he might plan against innocent civilians.

Some of the more sophisticated critics recognize this, as well as the possibility of "ticking bomb" scenarios. That includes Senator McCain, who has written in Newsweek that on occasion "an interrogator might well try extreme measures." But he opposes writing any guidance into law or regulation --the way the Bush Administration has done--suggesting instead that the interrogator should go ahead and do what he thinks is needed and then depend on "authorities and the public" to "take [context] into account when judging his actions."

In other words, Mr. McCain admits that what lies at the heart of his Amendment is moral hypocrisy: We're supposed to ban rugged interrogation in general to make us feel better about ourselves, but only until such interrogation is required; then do whatever it takes. We prefer the Bush Administration's candor in approving certain practices in certain cases--all the more so because, in the real world, bureaucratic and political imperatives will almost certainly put an end to all such methods if the McCain Amendment becomes law.

And don't forget "rendition"--the turning over of captured terrorists--to the likes of Egypt or Syria, the [b]practice favored by the Clinton Administration because it lacked the nerve to handle captured terrorists outside the criminal justice system[/b]. We trust the CIA more than Egyptian intelligence, but where are the "torture" critics on the morality of this practice? The truth is that if the McCain Amendment passes, rendition will almost certainly increase. Perhaps this will be the next liberal target, [u]until every al Qaeda detainee is treated no differently than a common thief.[/u]

We realize that our views on this subject won't carry the day, [b]at least not until the U.S. suffers a more serious attack.[/b] The Bush Administration is already backing down from Mr. Cheney's earlier position, holding out in this week's negotiations on the McCain Amendment only for immunity for the past actions of U.S. interrogators. [b]We still wish the President would take his case to the public[/b] [b](why, they won't listen unless unless it is endorsed by their favorite MSM celebrity mouthpiece)[/b], and perhaps even request hearings next year on Capitol Hill, because Americans are more sophisticated about the reality of what it takes to break these terrorists than are most journalists. ([b]Maybe they will, but how do we gauge the true voice of the American people; by some obscure opinion pole of 1,000 people surveyed)[/b]

But at least the Administration has been willing to admit that protecting Americans takes more than denouncing "torture" at the top of one's lungs. Once the McCain Amendment becomes law, perhaps the torture moralists will continue their creeping honesty and let us know what U.S. interrogators can do to break the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[Homer_Rice]

Lawman;

You're right, I don't read anything. I do no research at all. I just make shit up.

You think you are doing us plain ole citizens a favor by defending our asses? Not true. What you are doing is providing cover for an evil, evil crowd. Unless, of course, you are part of that sick bunch, which might be the case.

Oh, and by the way, I've been to Gitmo, too. Probably stayed there longer than your cited neo-con reporters. It was 1975, so no prison there at the time of my 5 week stay, but wtf--if that is all it takes to establish credibility, I gots it, too!

[Homer_Rice]

I added emphasis.

Via [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html"]Pincus at Washington Post:[/url]

[quote]Waterboarding Historically Controversial
In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 5, 2006; Page A17

Key senators say Congress has outlawed one of the most notorious detainee interrogation techniques -- "waterboarding," in which a prisoner feels near drowning. But the White House will not go that far, saying it would be wrong to tell terrorists which practices they might face.

Inside the CIA, waterboarding is cited as the technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information -- though "not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

Waterboarding is variously characterized as a powerful tool and a symbol of excess in the nation's fight against terrorists. But just what is waterboarding, and where does it fit in the arsenal of coercive interrogation techniques?

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.

The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of "touchless torture" until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans.

Used to train new interrogators, the handbook presented "basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation." When it comes to torture, however, the handbook advised that "the threat to inflict pain . . . can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain."

In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the interrogation world changed. Low-level Taliban and Arab fighters captured in Afghanistan provided little information, the former intelligence official said. [b]When higher-level al-Qaeda operatives were captured, CIA interrogators sought authority to use more coercive methods.[/b]

[b]These were cleared not only at the White House but also by the Justice Department and briefed to senior congressional officials, according to a statement released last month by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Waterboarding was one of the approved techniques.[/b]

When questions began to be raised last year about the handling of high-level detainees and Congress passed legislation barring torture, the handful of CIA interrogators and senior officials who authorized their actions became concerned that they might lose government support.

Passage last month of military commissions legislation provided [b]retroactive legal protection [/b] to those who carried out waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques.[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

Whaddaya know, these guys have been to Gitmo, too!

[quote]AP Learns Gitmo Guards Brag of Beatings
Oct 6, 12:40 PM (ET)

By THOMAS WATKINS

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) - Guards at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.

The lawyer sent the statement on behalf of a paralegal who said men she met on Sept. 23 at a bar on the base identified themselves to her as guards. The woman, whose name was blacked out, said she spent about an hour talking with them. No one was in uniform, she said.

A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo "told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison," the statement said.

"One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee's head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others," the statement said. The sailor said he was never punished.

The statement was provided to the AP on Thursday night by Lt. Col. Colby Vokey. He is the Marine Corps' defense coordinator for the western United States and based at Camp Pendleton.

Calls left for representatives at Guantanamo Bay on Friday were not immediately returned. A Pentagon spokesman declined immediate comment.

Other guards "also told their own stories of abuse towards the detainees" that included hitting them, denying them water and "removing privileges for no reason."

"About 5 others in the group admitted hitting detainees" and that included "punching in the face," the affidavit said.

"From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice," the sergeant wrote. "Everyone in the group laughed at the others stories of beating detainees."

Vokey called for an investigation, saying the abuse alleged in the affidavit "is offensive and violates United States and international law."

Guantanamo was internationally condemned shortly after it opened more than four years ago when pictures captured prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. That was followed by reports of prisoner abuse, heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.

Military investigators said in July 2005 they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment of a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay that included forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog.

However, the chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, said "no torture occurred" during the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Last month, U.N. human rights investigators criticized the United States for failing to take steps to close Guantanamo Bay, home to 450 detainees, including 14 terrorist suspects who had been kept in secret CIA prisons around the world.

Described as the most dangerous of America's "war on terror" prisoners, fewer than a dozen inmates have been charged with crimes. This fall, the Navy plans to open a new, $30-million maximum-security wing at its prison complex there, a concrete-and-steel structure replacing temporary camps.

---

AP Writer Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.[/quote]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='359609' date='Oct 6 2006, 10:12 AM']Manchester Document:

[Emblem]: A drawing of the globe emphasizing the Middle East and [u]Africa with a sword through the globe[/u] [On the emblem:] Military Studies in the Jihad [Holy War] Against the Tyrants.

These young men realized that an [u]Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle.[/u] [b]Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it.[/b]
The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, [b]does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy.[/b] But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
The young came to prepare themselves for Jihad [holy war],commanded by the majestic Allah's order in the holy Koran.
[Koranic verse:] "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike[b] terror [/b] into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

We cannot resist this state of ignorance unless we unite our ranks, and adhere to our religion. Without that, the establishment of religion would be a dream or illusion that is impassible to achieve or even imagine its achievement. Sheik Ibn Taimia -may Allah have mercy on him -said, "The interests of all Adam's children would not be realized in the present life, nor in the next, except through assembly, cooperation, and mutual assistance. Cooperation is for achieving their interests and mutual assistance is for overcoming their adversities. That is why it has been said, 'man is civilized by nature.' Therefore, if they unite there will be favorable matters that they do, and corrupting matters to avoid. They will be obedient to the commandment of those goals and avoidant of those immoralities. It is necessary that all Adam's children obey."
He [Sheik Inb Taimia] then says, "It should be understood [b]that governing the people's affairs is one of the greatest religious obligations[/b]. In fact, without it, religion and world [affairs]could not be established.

Importance of Military Organization:

Removal of those personalities that block the call's path. [A different handwriting:] All types of military and civilian intellectuals and thinkers for the state.
2. Proper utilization of the individuals' unused capabilities.
3. Precision in performing tasks, and using collective views on completing a job from all aspects, not just one.
4. Controlling the work and not fragmenting it or deviating from it.
5. Achieving long-term goals [b]such as the establishment of an Islamic state [/b] and short-term goals such as operations against enemy individuals and sectors.
6. Establishing the conditions for possible confrontation with the regressive regimes and their persistence.
7. Achieving discipline in secrecy and through tasks.



Your hatred and paronoia has been duly noted.

Today’s Terrorist Enemy

The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still dangerous al-Qaida network. Yet the enemy we face today in the War on Terror is not the same enemy we faced on September 11. Our effective counterterrorist efforts, in part, have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business. Our understanding of the enemy has evolved as well. Today, the principal terrorist enemy confronting the United States is a transnational movement of extremist organizations, networks, and individuals – and their state and non-state supporters – which have in common that [b]they exploit Islam[/b] and use terrorism for ideological ends. This transnational movement is not monolithic. Although al-Qaida functions as the movement’s vanguard and remains, along with its affiliate groups and those inspired by them, the most dangerous present manifestation of the enemy, the movement is not controlled by any single
individual, group, or state. What unites the movement is a common vision, a common set of ideas about the nature and destiny of the world, and a common goal of ushering in totalitarian rule. What unites the movement is the ideology of oppression, violence, and hate. Our terrorist enemies exploit Islam to serve a violent political vision.

[b]Fueled by a radical ideology and a false belief that the United States is the cause of most problems affecting Muslims today[/b], our enemies seek to expel Western power and influence from the Muslim world and establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of Islam. As illustrated by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, [b]such regimes would deny all political and religious freedoms and serve as sanctuaries for extremists to launch additional attacks against not only the United States, its allies and partners, but the Muslim world itself.[/b] Some among the enemy, particularly al-Qaida, harbor even greater
territorial and geopolitical ambitions and aim to establish a single, pan-Islamic, totalitarian regime that stretches from Spain to Southeast Asia.

This enemy movement seeks to create and exploit a division between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and within the Muslim world itself. The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers, including all those who disagree with them. Most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries – and most of the victims have been Muslims. In addition to this principal enemy, a host of other groups and individuals also use terror and violence against innocent civilians to pursue their political objectives. Though their motives and goals may be different, and often include secular and more narrow territorial aims, they threaten our interests and those of our partners as they attempt to overthrow civil order and replace freedom with conflict and intolerance. Their terrorist tactics ensure that they are enemies of humanity regardless of their goals and no matter where they operate.

For our terrorist enemies, violence is not only justified, it is necessary and even glorified – judged the only means to achieve a world vision darkened by hate, fear, and oppression. They use suicide bombings, beheadings, and other atrocities against innocent people as a means to promote their creed. Our enemy’s demonstrated indifference to human life and desire to inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and its friends and allies around the world have fueled their desire for weapons of mass destruction. We cannot permit the world’s most dangerous terrorists and their regime sponsors to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. For the enemy, there is no peaceful coexistence with those who do not subscribe to their distorted and violent view of the world. [b]They accept no dissent and tolerate no alternative points of view.[/b] Ultimately,[b] the terrorist enemy we face threatens global peace, international security and prosperity,the rising tide of democracy, and the right of all people to live without fear of indiscriminate
violence.[/b]
I will continue to fight protecting your ass, like it or not [/quote]


Like the man said, you're not protecting me; you're covering for an extremely evil crowd - unless you're one of them, which may be the case. You're more of a threat to me than any form of protection. YOU are the terrorist enemy at this point.

[Lawman]

[quote]Oh, and by the way, I've been to Gitmo, too. Probably stayed there longer than your cited neo-con reporters. It was 1975, so no prison there at the time of my 5 week stay, but wtf--if that is all it takes to establish credibility, I gots it, too[/quote]

Refresher Training, I was here in 92 now back under other conditions.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='359823' date='Oct 6 2006, 05:13 PM']Whaddaya know, [i]this[/i] [s]these[/s] [s]guys[/s] [i]girl[/i] [s]have[/s] [i]has[/i] been to Gitmo, too![/quote]

Talking bravado bullshit trying to pick her up.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='360489' date='Oct 8 2006, 08:59 PM']Talking bravado bullshit trying to pick her up. [/quote]

You're right. It's a common practice to pick up chicks by wooing them with poetic tales of courage and valor.

A sample exchange:

Stud: "Hey, good-looking! What's a girl like you doing in a place like this?"
Muffin: "I'm a journalist working a story."
Stud: "Who do you work for?"
Muffin: "A think-tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies."
Stud: "Never heard of that one."
Muffin: "It's a spin-off, sort of grown out of the National Endowment for Democracy."
Stud: "You mean that outfit Reagan used to promote corruption in Latin America--the one that provided some cover for Ollie North?"
Muffin: "Yeah, that's it."
Stud: "Oooh...sexy. What's the story about?"
Muffin: "I'm interested in how the detainees are being treated."
Stud: "I can help you with that. If I tell you about how I put a whupping on some of these terrorists, would you mind if I looked at your gazongas?"

and so it goes....

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='360501' date='Oct 8 2006, 09:19 PM']You're right. It's a common practice to pick up chicks by wooing them with poetic tales of courage and valor.

A sample exchange:

Stud: "Hey, good-looking! What's a girl like you doing in a place like this?"
Muffin: "I'm a journalist working a story."
Stud: "Who do you work for?"
Muffin: "A think-tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies."
Stud: "Never heard of that one."
Muffin: "It's a spin-off, sort of grown out of the National Endowment for Democracy."
Stud: "You mean that outfit Reagan used to promote corruption in Latin America--the one that provided some cover for Ollie North?"
Muffin: "Yeah, that's it."
Stud: "Oooh...sexy. What's the story about?"
Muffin: "I'm interested in how the detainees are being treated."
Stud: "I can help you with that. If I tell you about how I put a whupping on some of these terrorists, would you mind if I looked at your gazongas?"

and so it goes....[/quote]

Cute story, however erroneous in descript; she was a 'Paralegal" and not a "Journalist".

... to be continued.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='360797' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:37 AM']Cute story, however erroneous in descript; she was a 'Paralegal" and not a "Journalist".

... to be continued. [/quote]

Actually, this is dead on:

[quote]Muffin: "A think-tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies."
Stud: "Never heard of that one."
Muffin: "It's a spin-off, sort of grown out of the National Endowment for Democracy."
Stud: "You mean that outfit Reagan used to promote corruption in Latin America--the one that provided some cover for Ollie North?"[/quote]

More to the point:

[url="http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17288243&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6"]Here's a link to something a friend of mine wrote about habeas corpus.[/url]

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='360825' date='Oct 9 2006, 02:39 PM']Actually, this is dead on:
More to the point:

[url="http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17288243&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6"]Here's a link to something a friend of mine wrote about habeas corpus.[/url][/quote]
That's worthy of being posted in full, and short enough to be read by all...

[quote]Why does habeas corpus matter?

Here is why:

The Latin phrase means "have the body." It refers to the right of an individual to be brought before a judge for investigation of restraint of that person's liberty.

The "compromise" between President Bush and Senate dumbasss on detainee treatment has many flaws, but one giant one. It carves out an open-ended exception to the great legal principle of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus has deep roots. It is said to predate the 1215 Magna Carta in English common law, from which we derive our own legal system. A petition of habeas corpus asks for an order, or writ, requiring a prisoner to be brought before a court to determine whether he is being lawfully held and, if not, released.

This is a bulwark of civil liberty. It protects the individual and forces the government to obey the law.

Habeas corpus is specifically mentioned in Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution. It says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

"Rebellion or Invasion." Mercifully, neither is present today.

But the detainee-treatment bill would deny habeas corpus to foreigners and, arguably, American citizens deemed "unlawful combatants," an ambiguous classification that the president would have the right to define under the new law.

The law defines a combatant as one who "has engaged in hostilities" against the United States, which is one thing, but then goes on to broaden the definition to include one "who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

Since the war on terror is said to have no boundaries and no end, people could be detained anywhere in the world and held indefinitely, indeed for life, with no right of appeal to an impartial judicial panel and thus no way of challenging their imprisonment.

Since most detainees, like most prisoners of war, are unlikely ever to be charged with a crime, the length and terms of their incarceration depend solely on the good will of whoever is occupying the White House.

Here is something else the Constitution says, in Amendment V: "No person shall be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentation or indictment of a Grand Jury ... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law ..."

Due process of law is the U.S.A.'s gift to the world. If Americans cease to understand and defend it, we cease to be citizens in a republic.

John Adams said that "ours is a government of laws, not of men." One of the great principles of our law is habeas corpus. We can't "compromise" on it.[/quote]

[Lawman]

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='360828' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:46 AM']That's worthy of being posted in full, and short enough to be read by all...[/quote]

[url="http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060925458266.html"]http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060925458266.html[/url]

USA Today
September 25, 2006
Pg. 21

Opposing View

Habeas Corpus Not Needed

[b]We didn't try prisoners during WWII. Why should we start now?[/b]

By James S. Robbins

Extending the rights of habeas corpus to individuals detained during the war on terrorism would be an unnecessary and dangerous step.

The foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere [u]do not have the same status as criminals.[/u] These people are not being held for rehabilitation or as punishment. [b]The detainees are precisely that, detained[/b]. Some are useful for purposes of intelligence exploitation. Others are held simply to keep them from returning to the battlefield to kill Americans.

[b]According to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners (even legitimate POWs) may be held for the duration of hostilities without trials.[/b] We did not try prisoners during World War II, for example. The notion would have been thought absurd. Some have observed that the detainees potentially face lifetime detention if hostilities continue, but this is because their leaders refuse to end their jihad against the United States.

Furthermore, it is not as though all detainees are held for life. Approximately 315 of the 770 Guantanamo detainees have been determined by review boards not to be threats and have been released. Scores more are awaiting release to whatever countries that will accept them. [u]There are few takers[/u].

Note that our review process is not foolproof; for example, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, released from Guantanamo, renewed his career as a Taliban commander before being killed in 2004.

It is [b]not true [/b] that the detainees have been held [b]without due process[/b]. The debate over the McCain amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was an attempt to define exactly what process was due. Congress chose not to include habeas corpus in this bundle of rights, leaving the question of detainee status to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. [b]The Constitution gives Congress the right to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus in the interest of public safety.[/b]

Even if one assumes foreigners who have taken up arms against the United States enjoy the same rights as citizens, in the end [u]Congress makes the call.[/u]

[i]James S. Robbins is senior fellow on national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.[/i]

[quote]Habeas corpus is specifically mentioned in Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution. It says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

"Rebellion or [u]Invasion[/u]." Mercifully, neither is present today[/quote]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='360913' date='Oct 9 2006, 12:13 PM'][url="http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060925458266.html"]http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060925458266.html[/url]

USA Today
September 25, 2006
Pg. 21

Opposing View

Habeas Corpus Not Needed

[b]We didn't try prisoners during WWII. Why should we start now?[/b]

By James S. Robbins

Extending the rights of habeas corpus to individuals detained during the war on terrorism would be an unnecessary and dangerous step.

The foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere [u]do not have the same status as criminals.[/u] These people are not being held for rehabilitation or as punishment. [b]The detainees are precisely that, detained[/b]. Some are useful for purposes of intelligence exploitation. Others are held simply to keep them from returning to the battlefield to kill Americans.

[b]According to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners (even legitimate POWs) may be held for the duration of hostilities without trials.[/b] We did not try prisoners during World War II, for example. The notion would have been thought absurd. Some have observed that the detainees potentially face lifetime detention if hostilities continue, but this is because their leaders refuse to end their jihad against the United States.

Furthermore, it is not as though all detainees are held for life. Approximately 315 of the 770 Guantanamo detainees have been determined by review boards not to be threats and have been released. Scores more are awaiting release to whatever countries that will accept them. [u]There are few takers[/u].

Note that our review process is not foolproof; for example, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, released from Guantanamo, renewed his career as a Taliban commander before being killed in 2004.

It is [b]not true [/b] that the detainees have been held [b]without due process[/b]. The debate over the McCain amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was an attempt to define exactly what process was due. Congress chose not to include habeas corpus in this bundle of rights, leaving the question of detainee status to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. [b]The Constitution gives Congress the right to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus in the interest of public safety.[/b]

Even if one assumes foreigners who have taken up arms against the United States enjoy the same rights as citizens, in the end [u]Congress makes the call.[/u]

[i]James S. Robbins is senior fellow on national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.[/i]
[/quote]


Under the circumstances, this is the logic of Stalin and Hitler.

[Homer_Rice]

I'm glad that you keep responding to these posts, Lawman. It gives other observers the opportunity to see just what a potential Brownshirt might be like. The tendency of our population, no doubt fueled in part by decades of WWII movie characterizations, as well as horror flicks, is to think of fascists as monsters--easily identifiable semi-human purveyors of evil so gross that all one would have to do to recognize their enemy would be to look at them.

That is, of course, a myth. The truth of the matter is that most people who participated in the anti-human evil of the 30s and 40s were, individually, seemingly nice folks, the kind you might exchange a pleasant nod with on the street or buy a friendly beer in a neighborhood pub.

I'm sure you fit into the category of this kind of nice person, though I am less sure of your full commitment to the evil policies you tend to defend. I do not envy you. After all, you are the one who has to grapple with your conscience. There may, or there may not, be a moment in which you realize that the policies you advocate are both contrary to the interests and ideals of this nation and generally anti-human, too. If that moment comes, I wish you the best, and hope you find some redemption.

Since WWII, the havoc caused by arrogance of this sort--the kind which is ultimately godless and unprincipled--has brought sorrow in untolled measure. These newer permutations of lawlessness, in which the rivers of blood are in danger of drowning civilization, cannot be solely laid at the feet of one particular nation. American exceptionalism has led to the codification of evil--the recent act of legislation which caused this thread contributes to a growing body of positive law which is, in essence, contrary to the interests of the human race. The barbarity of other nations and networks is equally appalling.

But here's the rub.

At some moment, a person has to decide just where they reside in the scheme of things. In this sense, confusing as the world might seem, the choices are actually pretty cut and dry.

You're for humans. Or you are against them. It's a matter of principle.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='361305' date='Oct 9 2006, 11:00 PM']I'm glad that you keep responding to these posts, Lawman. It gives other observers the opportunity to see just what a potential Brownshirt might be like. The tendency of our population, no doubt fueled in part by decades of WWII movie characterizations, as well as horror flicks, is to think of fascists as monsters--easily identifiable semi-human purveyors of evil so gross that all one would have to do to recognize their enemy would be to look at them.

That is, of course, a myth. The truth of the matter is that most people who participated in the anti-human evil of the 30s and 40s were, individually, seemingly nice folks, the kind you might exchange a pleasant nod with on the street or buy a friendly beer in a neighborhood pub.

I'm sure you fit into the category of this kind of nice person, though I am less sure of your full commitment to the evil policies you tend to defend. I do not envy you. After all, you are the one who has to grapple with your conscience. There may, or there may not, be a moment in which you realize that the policies you advocate are both contrary to the interests and ideals of this nation and generally anti-human, too. If that moment comes, I wish you the best, and hope you find some redemption.

Since WWII, the havoc caused by arrogance of this sort--the kind which is ultimately godless and unprincipled--has brought sorrow in untolled measure. These newer permutations of lawlessness, in which the rivers of blood are in danger of drowning civilization, cannot be solely laid at the feet of one particular nation. American exceptionalism has led to the codification of evil--the recent act of legislation which caused this thread contributes to a growing body of positive law which is, in essence, contrary to the interests of the human race. The barbarity of other nations and networks is equally appalling.

But here's the rub.

At some moment, a person has to decide just where they reside in the scheme of things. In this sense, confusing as the world might seem, the choices are actually pretty cut and dry.

You're for humans. Or you are against them. It's a matter of principle.[/quote]


What a silver-tongued devil. Well said. Well said.