POW Status for Detainees

[101A]

Fits in with the "WWIII" rhetoric, IMO. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470)



BUSH ANNOUNCEMENT: HIGH-VALUE PRISONERS IN SECRET CIA PRISONS WILL BE GRANTED SAME PROTECTIONS AS OTHER PRISONERS
High-Value Detainees Will Be Given Prisoner-of-War Status
President Bush Expected to Announce Major Reversal in Handling of Terror Suspects


By JONATHAN KARL


Sept. 6, 2006 — ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

A source familiar with the president's announcement says it will apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.

The source says there are "about a dozen" prisoners now being held by the CIA.

Until now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons.

The Bush administration has come under harsh criticism for its handling of detainees captured in the U.S.-led military campaign to root out al Qaeda terror cells abroad.

Many detainees have been given the legal status of "enemy combatant," which includes both lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants.

[boutons_]

The CIA prisons really existed after all?

But I really believed and trusted dubya/dickhead when they said there no such secret CIA prisons.

I feel so betrayed. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

flip-flopper

[Zunni]

Running scared and trying to head off impeachment when the House flips in November.

[Clandestino]

fucking total bullshit... no reason to give these fucking terrorists anything except a bullet

[boutons_]

"except a bullet"

Why weren't they shot when captured or since then?

[johnsmith]

"except a bullet"

Why weren't they shot when captured or since then?

Because the American government seperates itself from others by trying to be civilized to their captives. Plus, I think the buy that made the "except a bullet" comment was just making a point and didn't want a reply you jackass. Now go back to posting other people's stories because when you don't, you end up sounding like an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

fucking total bullshit... no reason to give these fucking terrorists anything except a bullet

except when they might actually not be terrorists... :rolleyes

[Crookshanks]

Did any of you even listen to the President's speech yesterday? He gave detailed information on what the CIA was able to learn from these prisoners. They were able to thwart several attacks, as well as the development of anthrax. Since all of them are still alive, it doesn't seem as if the "torture" was that severe - nothing like what the terrorists themselves employ (beheading)!

Personally, I don't care what they do with these pigs - they deserve everything they get - and, if the information gathered saves the life of just one American, it's worth it!

[boutons_]

SC said dubya broke the law, and honorable military lawyers and military law scholars, and so now dubya is litmus-testing Congress by saying "Give the law I want to keep the SC out of it." Repugnant.

Americans do just as bad things to other Americans, and they have protections AS HUMAN BEINGS, not as American citizens, against abuses of the law. Those Americans still get successfully prosecuted and executed. Military prisoners are still humans, and are much more susceptible to being abused by military procedures and insane/violent/sicko military people than are civilian prisoners.

================

September 7, 2006

Plan for Tribunals Would Hew to the First Series

By KATE ZERNIKE and NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — Under the measure that President Bush proposed on Wednesday, Khalid Shaik Mohammed and other major terrorism suspects would face trials at Guantánamo Bay in military tribunals that would allow evidence obtained by coercive interrogation and hearsay and deny suspects and their lawyers the right to see classified evidence used against them.

The proposed tribunals would largely hew to those that the Supreme Court rejected in June. The measure says Congress would, by approving the proposed tribunals, affirm that they are constitutional and comply with international law, which the Supreme Court said they did not.

Senate Republicans, who have been working on their own bill, said they were wary of the provisions on hearsay and classified evidence and questioned whether the administration had resolved the problems that the court raised.

( ... is exactly why the Framer have 3 branches pitted against each other with checks and balance. The Repugs are all for strict Constitutional interpretation when it is to their political advantage. )

The Republicans said that the administration had come a long way in resolving differences with Congress in the last month and that they expected to smooth over remaining differences in time to pass a bill before breaking for the final burst of election campaigning.

“I do not think we can afford to again cut legal corners that will result in federal court rejection of our work,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said.

A former military judge, Mr. Graham is pivotal in the negotiations between the White House and Congress.

At the same time, the Pentagon released a new Army Field Manual that requires humane treatment of all terrorism suspects and sets strict limits on interrogation techniques.

( one has to respect the Army for the Army respecting itself. The Repugs don't respect the Army, or the Repugs wouldn't have started a trumped, phony war to throw the Army into.)

The rules apply to the 14 members of Al Qaeda who the president announced had been transferred from Central Intelligence Agency prisons to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba. Those prisoners have been interrogated in C.I.A. prisons and could be questioned further and brought to trial under whatever provisions Congress approves.

The manual covers specific methods that, although never authorized in the previous version, have been disclosed in abuse cases, including at Guantánamo and at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, since 2001.

The manual, held up for more than a year by debates in the administration and with Congress, specifically bans forcing a detainee to be naked or perform sexual acts; using beatings and other forms of causing pain, including electric shocks; and placing hoods over prisoners’ heads or tape on their eyes.

Also barred are staging mock executions; withholding food, water or medical care; or using dogs against detainees. In addition, the manual bans a technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to feel as if he is drowning.

( don't worry, the WH/Repugs will dream up other shit not explicily forbidden above )

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices,” Lt. Gen. Jeff Kimmons, a senior intelligence officer, said at a news conference in the Pentagon.

Democrats and Republicans praised the changes in the manual. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, welcomed them as long overdue.

“If the administration had behaved this way before Gitmo and the drifting of Gitmo to Abu Ghraib,’’ Mr. Levin said, “we would have been a lot more secure country, our troops would have been more secure, and our position in the world would have been more favorable.”

Mr. Levin and others contested points in the president’s proposal for tribunals, in particular denying the defense the right to see, and therefore respond to, classified information that is shown to the jury and allowing the introduction of hearsay and coerced evidence.

Those two categories would be allowed if the judge decided that they were probative and reliable.

“If the defense cannot see what the jury sees and argue against it in some way, then it’s inconsistent with our current federal rules, which are applied in trials against terrorists,” Mr. Levin said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, another important Republican on the committee, which will take the lead on bills, said a judge should decide whether classified evidence could be introduced.

“That’s pretty much been a 200-year standard for treatment of classified material,” Mr. McCain said.

According to the proposal, only in “extraordinary circumstances” could a judge allow classified evidence, and if it was allowed, the defendant could not be present when it was introduced.

Senators and top military lawyers had urged the administration to use military law as its guide in drafting proposal.

Mr. Graham emphasized again on Wednesday that the military justice system outlined ways to allow classified evidence to be introduced without jeopardizing national security.

“I do not believe it is necessary to have trials where the accused cannot see the evidence against them,” he said.

He predicted that this would make the bill vulnerable to more court challenges and that it would establish a bad precedent that could be used against American troops if other countries brought them to trial. In the bill, the administration says military laws for courts-martial were inappropriate for terrorists. To use those rules, the measure says, “would make it virtually impossible to bring terrorists to justice for their violations of the law of war.”

The proposal found some support.

Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would endorse the approach over legislation drafted by colleagues.

( ... we can always count on this TX motherfucker to take the low road )

“I just believe that as a matter of principle that you don’t unnecessarily share classified information with terrorists in the course of a military tribunal,” Mr. Cornyn said.

( the Army justice system as is has sufficient protections, but Cornyn knows, sucking off dubya, knows better )

Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he would release the panel’s proposed measure in a few days.

The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday to hear testimony on the proposed legislation from military and administration lawyers.

In rejecting earlier tribunals, the Supreme Court said they violated a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3. The provision mandates the humane treatment of captured combatants and prohibits trials except by “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.”

The court said those minimal rights were missing in the first commissions because of the failure to guarantee the defendant the right to attend the trial and the prosecution’s ability under the rules to introduce hearsay evidence, unsworn testimony and evidence obtained through coercion.

The proposed legislation deals with the objections by saying Congress stands by the president in deeming them in compliance with Common Article 3. In effect, the legislation, if enacted, would pit Congress and the executive branch against the court in interpreting what was meant by the laws that say the United States will comply with Common Article 3.

( of course, if the Repugs could nominate just one more far right radical nutcase to the SC, there wouldn't be a problem with the SC. The US would become France, where institutions are ALWAYS given the power over individuals. )
To inoculate officials and civilian interrogators from the potential of being charged under the War Crimes Act for what they may have done, the bill has a provision making it retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

Since all of them are still alive, it doesn't seem as if the "torture" was that severeYeah, John McCain is still alive, so his torture couldn't have been that bad. Why don't you tell him that to his face.
Because the American government seperates itself from others by trying to be civilized to their captives.Or at least hides the fact that it isn't.

[boutons_]

September 7, 2006

Lawyers Warn Against Evidence Limits

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:27 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers took issue Thursday with a key part of a White House plan to prosecute terrorism detainees, telling Congress that limiting the suspects' access to evidence could violate treaty obligations.

( WH/Repug response will be: fuck treaties, We Don't Give Them No Respect, NONE!" We can do whatever we want and we'll keep our actions secret. )

Their testimony to a House committee marked the latest time that military lawyers have publicly challenged Bush administration proposals to keep some evidence -- such as classified information -- from accused terrorists. In the past, some military officials have expressed concerns that if the U.S. adopts such standards, captured American troops might be treated the same way.

The lawyers' testimony contrasted with the panel chairman's assertion that the United States must take a harder line when prosecuting terrorists.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, who heads the House Armed Services Committee, said at the hearing that any military commission established to prosecute terrorists must allow the government to protect intelligence sources. In saying so, the California Republican aligned himself with the White House position.

''While we need to provide basic fairness in our prosecutions, we must preserve the ability of our war fighters to operate effectively on the battlefield,'' Hunter said.

( well of course. Helping/protecting our military is being falsely made incompatible with human rights. Why don't the military lawyers themselves see it that way? )

Hunter presented the military lawyers with various scenarios in which it might be necessary to withhold evidence from the accused if it would expose classified information. But the service's top lawyers said other alternatives must be explored -- or the case dropped.

''I believe the accused should see that evidence,'' said Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's Judge Advocate General.

Black and the other lawyers said such an allowance was a fundamental right in other court systems and would meet requirements under the Geneva Conventions.

But Hunter suggested that such a requirement could hamper prosecutions.

''Some of these acts of complicity in terrorist acts are very small pieces . . . and you don't have a lot of evidence,'' he said. The chairman repeated a scenario where the only piece of evidence would expose the identity of a secret agent and asked whether it would make sense to drop the case entirely.

''You get to the end of the trail, then yes sir, you do,'' Black responded.

The hearing came a day after Bush acknowledged for the first time that the CIA had secret prisons overseas and defended the practice of tough interrogations to force terrorists to reveal plots to attack the United States and its allies.

He revealed that 14 suspects, including the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, had been turned over to the Defense Department and moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial.

Separately, State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III told foreign reporters Thursday that if additional members of the al-Qaida terror network were captured, ''We reserve the right to have those people questioned by the CIA.''

Bellinger said foreign governments were free to decide whether to look for the locations of any CIA prisons on their territory, but ''we are not going to talk about that.'' European lawmakers on Thursday demanded to know the exact location of the prisons.

The president proposed legislation Wednesday that would aid the government in prosecuting terrorists using secret military tribunals. The proposal left Republicans again divided over how the nation should treat its most dangerous terror suspects, setting up a showdown in Congress just weeks away from elections when all members will try to sell themselves as tough on terror.

Bush's announcement was immediately praised by those who said his policies were necessary to win the war on terror.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would like to take up the bill on the Senate floor as soon as possible, leaving open the door for a vote on the measure before lawmakers break at the end of the month for election campaigning.

But some GOP moderates are challenging the proposal. They include three senators with hefty credentials: Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam; Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer who still serves in the Air Force Reserves as a reserve judge; and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Bush's decision to prosecute the terrorists held by the CIA was long overdue. But, he added, the military commission system should be properly vetted through the Armed Services Committee.

''The last thing we need is a repeat of the arrogant, go-it-alone behavior that has jeopardized and delayed efforts to bring these terrorists to justice for five years,'' Reid said.

------

Eds: AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

except a bullet"

Why weren't they shot when captured or since then?

Yeah, why get intelligence that can prevent future attacks and save lives when we could just shoot them?

Damn boutons, you are one dumb son of a bitch.

Typical for an Al Qaeda sympathizer here though.

[boutons_]

Aggie fatherfucker

OK, deal. Torture the prisoners to near death, get a bunch of coereced BS, then shoot them. happy?

There are 2.5 million criminals, nearly all of them US citizens, in US prisons, many of them are just as monstrous as any terrorist, but they all have right to due process that protects against abuses.

[Crookshanks]

OK, deal. Torture the prisoners to near death, get a bunch of coereced BS, then shoot them. happy?



You call this BS? If so, you are stupider than I thought.

Administration Outlines Foiled Plots

Foiled terrorist plots, according to the Director of National Intelligence and President Bush's speech on Wednesday:

- In 2002, officials disrupted a plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to crash hijacked airplanes into targets on the U.S. West Coast.

-In mid-2004, officials discovered a plan to bomb urban targets in the United Kingdom.

-Terrorists involved in a well-advanced plot to attack targets in Karachi, Pakistan, were detained in the spring of 2003.

-A plan to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack London's Heathrow Airport was disrupted in 2003.

-A plot to attack ships in the Persian Gulf was foiled in late 2002 and early 2003.

-One of the plotters involved in the plan to attack ships in the Gulf was also part of a foiled plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

-After a plan to blow up tall buildings in the U.S. was disrupted, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he directed his operatives to attack the buildings because they were too tall for victims to jump out of, ensuring they would die by smoke inhalation.

-In early 2004, a captured al-Qaida facilitator revealed a plan to send suicide truck bombers into Camp Lemonier, a Marine Corps base in the African nation of Djibouti. This information caused security at the base to be enhanced.

- In his speech, Bush said Mohammed and a terrorist named Yazid provided vital information on al-Qaida's efforts to obtain biological weapons that allowed officials to capture two other terrorists involved in producing anthrax for al-Qaida.

[boutons_]

Where does anyone say that all of these very suspect "foiled plots", trotted out in the middle of a Repug election campaign that is on the ropes, were foiled by coercing confessions?

[Crookshanks]

Where does anyone say that all of these very suspect "foiled plots", trotted out in the middle of a Repug election campaign that is on the ropes, were foiled by coercing confessions?

You are stupid! This information was stated immediately after President Bush talked about the 14 prisoners. He specifically stated that these plots were foiled as a direct result of information learned from these prisoners.

[ChumpDumper]

And he said we tortured them all too, right?

[Crookshanks]

And he said we tortured them all too, right?

The President said the CIA used "alternative methods." But that probably means some sort of torture. But again, so what - look how many lives were probably saved by the foiling of these terror plots.

[ChumpDumper]

The President said the CIA used "alternative methods." But that probably means some sort of torture. But again, so what - look how many lives were probably saved by the foiling of these terror plots.Did he say when he used torture and which information was gained through torture?

And as for "So what?"

Remember when the US used to hold the moral high ground when it came to the treatment of prisoners? Morals used to be important to the right, didn't they? Or is it only when it's convenient to you? Or dependent upon the last time you watched Jack Bauer?

How about those prisoners who we later admitted were guilty of nothing. We tortured those guys too. Do you think their thinking would be pro-US upon their release?

[Yonivore]

The President is being misunderestimated again...

An editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/opinion/07thu1.html?ex=1315281600&en=fab48c9cf88b46f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) in the New York Times praises President Bush's decision to transfer 14 top al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo Bay and push for legislation allowing them to be tried for war crimes. "Those are just the right steps," the paper declares.

But keep the presses rolling: Hell remains hot, and the porcine have attained no relief from gravity's constraints. For there is a "But . . .":


But Mr. Bush's urgency was phony, driven by the Supreme Court's ruling, not principle.
The Supreme Court's ruling that the Times now describes as "not principle" is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=05-184), the June case in which the narrowly divided justices held that military commissions could not go forward until authorized by statute. At the time, the Times exulted (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30fri1.html?ex=1309320000&en=51fd0d2062803384&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss):


The current conservative court is not hostile to law enforcement or presidential power. But it is proving to be admirably protective of individual freedom and the rule of law. Rather than continue having his policies struck down, President Bush should find a way to prosecute the war on terror within the bounds of the law.
Now that Bush has done exactly what the Times demanded, the paper accuses him of acting with a "phony" urgency. He just can't win with these guys.

Today's editorial also perpetuates an outright falsehood about Guantanamo Bay, namely the claim the detainees are held there "without due process." In fact, they have an astonishing array of procedural protections:

Every detainee at Guantanamo (possibly excepting the 14 new arrivals) has gone before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, also known as an Article V hearing, to determine whether he actually is an enemy combatant. The Geneva Conventions require such hearings only in cases of doubt, and the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally mandated them (in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696)) only for detainees who hold U.S. citizenship, of which none remain.
Each detainee annually goes before an Administrative Review Board--analogous to a parole board--to determine whether he can be released without endangering U.S. security. This process is described in a July 2005 Pentagon briefing (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696).
Pursuant to Rasul v. Bush (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334) (2004), all detainees have the right to retain lawyers and petition for habeas corpus.
War-crimes trials for the four detainees who've been charged have been delayed only because Osama bin Laden's bodyguard was able to avail himself of American appellate courts to challenge the legality of the proceedings.
This is not just procedural window dressing. As President Bush noted in his speech yesterday, some 770 detainees who've spent time at Guantanamo, of whom some 315 have been released from U.S. custody. More than a dozen of those, the president added, are known to have returned to the battlefield, suggesting that, if anything, the procedures are too lenient.

In his speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html) yesterday President Bush described how CIA interrogation of terrorists held overseas has saved American lives. It's worth quoting at length:


We knew that [Abu] Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used--I think you understand why--if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's] accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody--a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I." CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States--probably [sic] using airplanes.

During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent--and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.
Bush added: "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it--and I will not authorize it."

Some administration critics have argued (a) that any harsh interrogation amounts to torture, and (b) that torture cannot yield useful intelligence. These claims cannot both be true. I accept the president's assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture--but if you disagree, then you at least have to admit "torture" works.

Opponents of aggressive questioning, then, are willing to sacrifice the lives of American civilians, including women and children, for the sake of their own moral vanity. As a practical matter, they are also willing to sacrifice the civil liberties they claim to cherish. For as we have argued many times, it is highly unlikely that our current regime of civil liberties can survive another attack on the scale of 9/11.

[boutons_]

And how many suspects were tortured with wateboarding, dogs, menstrual blood, mock execution of themselves and others that DIDN'T turn up any info, or turned up infor that was pure up-the-wrong-tree BS?

[RandomGuy]

"Moral vanity."

I guess that is what amoral people call principles these days.

[ChumpDumper]

Now that Bush has done exactly what the Times demanded, the paper accuses him of acting with a "phony" urgency. He just can't win with these guys.Only an idiot would think that move was not prompted by the Supreme Court ruling.

Par for the course.

[RandomGuy]

I am fully willing to sacrifice American lives for the principles this nation was founded on, as I was and am willing to sacrifice my own for those same principles.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for those principles already. Are we any better than they?

We sacrifice tens of thousands of American lives EVERY YEAR in the name of convenience in the form of automobile traffic deaths.

Does this mean we care more about cars than principles?

[ChumpDumper]

Some administration critics have argued (a) that any harsh interrogation amounts to torture, and (b) that torture cannot yield useful intelligence. These claims cannot both be true. I accept the president's assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture--but if you disagree, then you at least have to admit "torture" works.Not at all, unless there is some actual record of what torture was used for each prisoner. Did Bush make those available too?

[Yonivore]

Only an idiot would think that move was not prompted by the Supreme Court ruling.

Par for the course.
Only an idiot would call acting in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, "phony."

They set up a straw man that the President's action was phony show of principle and not in accordance with Hamden v. Rumsfeld. I don't see where the President made any such claim. In fact, he said back in June that he'd come to Congress with proposed legislation that conforms to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

What's phony about that?

He has proposed the legislation and he has brought 14 high profile terrorists to Guantanamo Bay so that the newly legislated commissions can get their tires kicked.

[RandomGuy]

Yoni, I may be committing acts of "moral vanity", but you regularly commit acts of moral cowardice.

[ChumpDumper]

Only an idiot would call acting in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, "phony."They called the urgency phony.

RIF.

[boutons_]

"he said back in June that he'd come to Congress with proposed legislation that conforms to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld."

dubya has flip flopped, again.

Yesterday he basically dared Congress to write him laws that would make legal what the SC said was illegal.

[Yonivore]

They called the urgency phony.

RIF.
What urgency? The legislation has been drafted. Time to run it up the congressional flag pole. When should he have comported with the Supreme Court's ruling?

It doesn't matter what the President does or when, the timing is always going to be questioned.

[RandomGuy]

Today's editorial also perpetuates an outright falsehood about Guantanamo Bay, namely the claim the detainees are held there "without due process." In fact, they have an astonishing array of procedural protections:

Every detainee at Guantanamo (possibly excepting the 14 new arrivals) has gone before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, also known as an Article V hearing, to determine whether he actually is an enemy combatant. The Geneva Conventions require such hearings only in cases of doubt, and the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally mandated them (in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) only for detainees who hold U.S. citizenship, of which none remain.
Each detainee annually goes before an Administrative Review Board--analogous to a parole board--to determine whether he can be released without endangering U.S. security. This process is described in a July 2005 Pentagon briefing.
Pursuant to Rasul v. Bush (2004), all detainees have the right to retain lawyers and petition for habeas corpus.
War-crimes trials for the four detainees who've been charged have been delayed only because Osama bin Laden's bodyguard was able to avail himself of American appellate courts to challenge the legality of the proceedings.

You say "astonishing array of procedural protections", and neglect the small detail that the administration has fought tooth and nail to give them even this "astonishing"-ly long list of four "procedures".

You also fail to mention that many of them can't afford to retain laywers, and of those that have, many have not been allowed to even MEET with those lawyers.

This administration's disregard for the law, decency, and the american public i this instance sickens me. Your partisan defense of the morally reprehensible doubly so.

[ChumpDumper]

When should he have comported with the Supreme Court's ruling?He should have had better lawyers in his employ in the first place instead of yes men who just wanted to facilitate torture.

[johnsmith]

You also fail to mention that many of them can't afford to retain laywers, and of those that have, many have not been allowed to even MEET with those lawyers.


I just get such a kick out of all the "FACTS" that you guys throw out all the time.
Let's see RG, do you know this to be fact?

[Yonivore]

He should have had better lawyers in his employ in the first place instead of yes men who just wanted to facilitate torture.
There you go Monday morning quarterbacking again.

Back to the question. When should he have conformed to the Supreme Court ruling? And, where has any allegation of torture been made or admitted?

I am glad to hear the CIA's alternative techniques produced results.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go Monday morning quarterbacking again.Just about anyone could see that this special status crap wasn't going to fly.
Back to the question. When should he have conformed to the Supreme Court ruling?I don't question the timing, just the fact that you're acting like he wasn't acting because of it.
And, where has any allegation of torture been made or admitted?

I am glad to hear the CIA's alternative techniques produced results.:lmao There's an admission right there.

[johnsmith]

Holy Shit, what a bunch of pussies you guys are :cry :cry :cry :cry
THey tortured people........who the fuck cares? Everyone hates America at this point anyway, I say torture the fuck away. Turn a blind eye to it as long as terrorists never pull off another attack. Jesus, our country is being overrun by a bunch of Sally's. Boutons, Randomguy, Chumpdumper, don't worry fellas, I heard Hillary is the frontrunner for potential democratic candidates in 2008, you'll get the chance to make the country more like you when she runs, feminine.
I'm always curious what a bunch of pussies like yourselves would say if your wife, or in the case of Boutons, husband, was killed in a terrorist attack. "Please stop torturing, you're hurting others feeling", fuck feelings. I've tried to take the high road and just argue my points with validity in regards to this subject (not on this website though) and I can't fucking take you bleeding heart, tree hugging homos. If I were in front of you right now I would have to beat you senseless because you guys are making my fucking head hurt with all your bitching. What a soft ass country, or maybe just soft ass website we've become.
Not to mention, you assclowns all seem to think you "know the facts". I got news for you, none of us know the facts except for the people running shit. Taking articles off other websites is like looking through the opinions column of the newspaper, that's all they are because even the media which people like Bouton rely on so much don't know the facts either. FUCK!

[Yonivore]

Just about anyone could see that this special status crap wasn't going to fly.
Hamden v. Rumsfeld was about the commissions not detainee status. You'll notice, the detainees' status haven't changed that much. The President still has the authority to hold them until the cessation of hostilities if he so chooses.


I don't question the timing, just the fact that you're acting like he wasn't acting because of it.
Where did anyone, myself included, act like the President was not acting in response to Hamden v. Rumsfeld?


:lmao There's an admission right there.
Alternative techniques the President says are legal, constitutional, and non-dangerous. Oh yeah! Alternative techniques that worked and probably saved American lives.

[Crookshanks]

We're supposed to give them 3 meals a day, medical care and general coddling - oh wait - that's what they're already getting at gitmo!!

I agree with John Smith - our country will be destroyed from within by all these wussified men and feminazis who want everybody to like us!

[ChumpDumper]

Hamden v. Rumsfeld was about the commissions not detainee status. You'll notice, the detainees' status haven't changed that much.:lmao again! No, no change at all for those guys.
Where did anyone, myself included, act like the President was not acting in response to Hamden v. Rumsfeld?What ever blog you ripped off was full of it.
Alternative techniques the President says are legal, constitutional, and non-dangerous.Take his word for it, since his lawyers said so, right? Even though they were completely wrong in Hamdan, right?
Oh yeah! Alternative techniques that worked and probably saved American lives.According to whom? Under whose oversight?

[ChumpDumper]

THey tortured people........who the fuck cares?Yoni says they didn't. Take it up with him.

[Yonivore]

:lmao again! No, no change at all for those guys.
Difference between no change at all and very little change. Tell us, what exactly has changed?


What ever blog you ripped off was full of it.
Really, tell us how?


Take his word for it, since his lawyers said so, right? Even though they were completely wrong in Hamdan, right?
Yep. What else you got to go on? And, your use of absolutes such as completely shows your ignorance.


Oh yeah! Alternative techniques that worked and probably saved American lives. According to whom? Under whose oversight?
According to the President. Apparently you didn't read far enough into the speech to see where he detailed how these techniques led to the capture of al Qaeda operatives and the disruption of their plans.

[Yonivore]

Yoni says they didn't. Take it up with him.
The President says they didn't. Take it up with him.

[ChumpDumper]

Difference between no change at all and very little change. Tell us, what exactly has changed?Yep, no change at all. This is a victiry for the administration.
Yep. What else you got to go on? I don't need anything else.
According to the President.Yeah, that guy has been completely upfront about everything.
Apparently you didn't read far enough into the speech to see where he detailed how these techniques led to the capture of al Qaeda operatives and the disruption of their plans.What techniques? As verified by whom?

[RandomGuy]

I just get such a kick out of all the "FACTS" that you guys throw out all the time.
Let's see RG, do you know this to be fact?

I was listening to interviews with those lawyers and frustrated relatives on the news the other day. The lawyers were of a caliber that I would take their word as truth.

[ChumpDumper]

The President says they didn't. Take it up with him.How can I? He won't say what was done. And the last time I trusted him was about WMDs. That turned out less than well.

[RandomGuy]

Holy Shit, what a bunch of pussies you guys are :cry :cry :cry :cry
THey tortured people........who the fuck cares? Everyone hates America at this point anyway, I say torture the fuck away. Turn a blind eye to it as long as terrorists never pull off another attack. Jesus, our country is being overrun by a bunch of Sally's. Boutons, Randomguy, Chumpdumper, don't worry fellas, I heard Hillary is the frontrunner for potential democratic candidates in 2008, you'll get the chance to make the country more like you when she runs, feminine.
I'm always curious what a bunch of pussies like yourselves would say if your wife, or in the case of Boutons, husband, was killed in a terrorist attack. "Please stop torturing, you're hurting others feeling", fuck feelings. I've tried to take the high road and just argue my points with validity in regards to this subject (not on this website though) and I can't fucking take you bleeding heart, tree hugging homos. If I were in front of you right now I would have to beat you senseless because you guys are making my fucking head hurt with all your bitching. What a soft ass country, or maybe just soft ass website we've become.
Not to mention, you assclowns all seem to think you "know the facts". I got news for you, none of us know the facts except for the people running shit. Taking articles off other websites is like looking through the opinions column of the newspaper, that's all they are because even the media which people like Bouton rely on so much don't know the facts either. FUCK!

The fact that I am willing to die for my principles and you aren't says all that needs to be said.

[johnsmith]

I was listening to interviews with those lawyers and frustrated relatives on the news the other day. The lawyers were of a caliber that I would take their word as truth.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA everyone in the American government is a liar and a thief but you'll take the word of some lawyers on Television. Priceless.

[johnsmith]

The fact that I am willing to die for my principles and you aren't says all that needs to be said.


Does this mean you are going to kill yourself?

[Yonivore]

Yep, no change at all. This is a victiry for the administration.
It may be.


I don't need anything else.
Okay.


Yeah, that guy has been completely upfront about everything.
He's yet to lie.


What techniques? As verified by whom?
Those who verify such things I'd imagine.

You forgot a glib response to the question, "Really, tell us how [my source has it all wrong]?"

[johnsmith]

The fact that I am willing to die for my principles and you aren't says all that needs to be said.

Futhermore, how the fuck would your sorry little ass know what I would do for my principles? Oh yeah, I forgot you know everything. You my friend, are a douche bag.

[RandomGuy]

The ideals that make up the fabric of the constitution are bigger than any one person.

People who say "torture away if it will save American lives" spit on every soldier and civilian that has made the "the last full measure of devotion".

[Yonivore]

How can I? He won't say what was done. And the last time I trusted him was about WMDs. That turned out less than well.
Serious question.

Do you truly believe the President -- any president -- should reveal interrogation techniques, the knowledge of which would then be used to train terrorists how to defeat them, just so you can be satisfied we're not torturing terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

It may be.It's never anything else according to you.
He's yet to lie.:lmao At the very best he has consistently horrible judgment in whom he chooses to listen to.
Those who verify such things I'd imagine.Meaning no one. It's enough for you.
You forgot a glib response to the question, "Really, tell us how [my source has it all wrong]?"Hey, if it's not worth saying where you stole it from....

[johnsmith]

The ideals that make up the fabric of the constitution are bigger than any one person.

People who say "torture away if it will save American lives" spit on every soldier and civilian that has made the "the last full measure of devotion".


Just once, once can you acknowledge that you are expressing opinion. Finally, my father was a Vietnam vet, I have no problems with any soldiers, I love that Americans are willing to die so I can come post on some random website, it's you that I don't fucking like.

[RandomGuy]

Futhermore, how the fuck would your sorry little ass know what I would do for my principles? Oh yeah, I forgot you know everything. You my friend, are a douche bag.

Since you prefer torture and therefore the betrayal of decency to American (and by extention) deaths, that says all I need to know.

I am not saying be stupid in this struggle, merely that principles are worthy things, and those principles are stronger than any military force can be.

In saying that torture is the way to win, you give up our greatest weapon this "war", and are playing into the hands of Al Qaeda as surely as if you handed them 5 tons of ammonium nitrate and the keys to a rental truck.

[ChumpDumper]

Serious question.

Do you truly believe the President -- any president -- should reveal interrogation techniques, the knowledge of which would then be used to train terrorists how to defeat them, just so you can be satisfied we're not torturing terrorists?Well, we let hundreds of the detainees go. I'm sure many had "alternative techniques" used on them. Would you not say that cat is probably out of the bag? Seriously?

[johnsmith]

The fact that I am willing to die for my principles and you aren't says all that needs to be said.

So seriously, when will you be dying for your principles?

[RandomGuy]

Just once, once can you acknowledge that you are expressing opinion. Finally, my father was a Vietnam vet, I have no problems with any soldiers, I love that Americans are willing to die so I can come post on some random website, it's you that I don't fucking like.

It is my opinion that you have not clue one about what it will take to win against al Qaeda. :lol

[johnsmith]

Since you prefer torture and therefore the betrayal of decency to American (and by extention) deaths, that says all I need to know.

I am not saying be stupid in this struggle, merely that principles are worthy things, and those principles are stronger than any military force can be.

In saying that torture is the way to win, you give up our greatest weapon this "war", and are playing into the hands of Al Qaeda as surely as if you handed them 5 tons of ammonium nitrate and the keys to a rental truck.

Never said torture was the way to win, just said for you guys to quit being pussies. If they torture, eh, who am I to judge?

[RandomGuy]

So seriously, when will you be dying for your principles?

I served in the Army for four years and made my peace with such a sacrifice.

If I were to die tomorrow in a terrorist attack caused by my country doing the right thing, I would be at peace with that as well.

[johnsmith]

It is my opinion that you have not clue one about what it will take to win against al Qaeda. :lol

I forgot, you know exactly how to beat Al Qaeda, that is why you are sitting in a college classroom at the age of 36 just waiting to pounce all over these terrorists and solve the worlds problems.

[johnsmith]

I served in the Army for four years and made my peace with such a sacrifice.

If I were to die tomorrow in a terrorist attack caused by my country doing the right thing, I would be at peace with that as well.

:lol :lol :lol :lol I'd be at peace with you involved in that attack as well :lol :lol :lol

[RandomGuy]

Never said torture was the way to win, just said for you guys to quit being pussies. If they torture, eh, who am I to judge?


I say torture the fuck away. Turn a blind eye to it as long as terrorists never pull off another attack.

You imply that we need torture to prevent further attacks. Preventing attacks=winning, yes?

[RandomGuy]

:lol :lol :lol :lol I'd be at peace with you involved in that attack as well :lol :lol :lol

Are YOU willing to die for your country to do the right thing?

[johnsmith]

You imply that we need torture to prevent further attacks. Preventing attacks=winning, yes?

I'd say it's more killing the terrorist=winning.

and if you yourself get hurt in the process, well that wouldn't be so bad either.

[RandomGuy]

I forgot, you know exactly how to beat Al Qaeda, that is why you are sitting in a college classroom at the age of 36 just waiting to pounce all over these terrorists and solve the worlds problems.

I would be willing to bet I know more about the world, islam, middle east dynamics than you do.

[johnsmith]

Are YOU willing to die for your country to do the right thing?


Honestly, do you think I'm going to say no to this question? Don't be an idiot.

[johnsmith]

I would be willing to bet I know more about the world, islam, middle east dynamics than you do.


Ok. It doesn't make you any less of a pussy.

[johnsmith]

I would be willing to bet I know more about the world, islam, middle east dynamics than you do.

Alright I can't help myself, how are you going to prove this to me?

[RandomGuy]

I'd say it's more killing the terrorist=winning.


Military force is necessary but not sufficient. Even this incompetant administration has finally come around to that conclusion.

The fact that you think killing will win the "war" merely demonstrates that your outlook and decision-making model is too one-dimensional.

[johnsmith]

Military force is necessary but not sufficient. Even this incompetant administration has finally come around to that conclusion.

The fact that you think killing will win the "war" merely demonstrates that your outlook and decision-making model is too one-dimensional.


Yes I know, you have to win the hearts of the middle eastern people as well as the rest of the world, blah blah blah.
This wasn't a thread about how to win the war on terror, it was an opinion on torture thread.

[RandomGuy]

RG-Are YOU willing to die for your country to do the right thing?
Honestly, do you think I'm going to say no to this question? Don't be an idiot.

I notice you dodged the question anyways.

As much as you doubt what I say as the truth, I honestly don't think that if someone held a gun to your head, you would have any principles.

Again, that says all that needs saying, however many times you call me a "pussy" for thinking that ideals and morals matter.

[johnsmith]

RG-Are YOU willing to die for your country to do the right thing?

I notice you dodged the question anyways.

As much as you doubt what I say as the truth, I honestly don't think that if someone held a gun to your head, you would have any principles.

Again, that says all that needs saying, however many times you call me a "pussy" for thinking that ideals and morals matter.


Because you know me so well and you know what I'm all about huh? I'm calling you a "pussy" because you are one. You hide behind your little computer and complain and complain but neither you nor your buddy Boutons ever has a solution. I take that back, sometimes you do have a solution but guess what you do after you find said solution? Nothing, you go right back to posting on your website.
Oh, and why would it take someone to hold a gun to my head for me to have or not have any principles? I don't understand.......Oh, you mean that they'd pull the trigger if I didn't have any......I see, well that goes back to that, you know me so well thing doesn't it? You jackass, if I met you on the street tomorrow I could manipulate your trusting little brain into thinking I held the exact same principles as you just as I can manipulate you into thinking a certain way about me on this website. Or maybe I already have met you and you just don't know it..............

[johnsmith]

Oh, and as for dodging the question, read between the lines Sally, of course I would, I just wanted to make sure you knew you were an idiot.

[spurster]

It's all BS. Enough "aggressive interrogation techniques" have been applied so that all their cases are completely trashed. There are two underlying goals that I can see. One is the next election. The other is to stall freeing them as long as possible.

[RandomGuy]

Because you know me so well and you know what I'm all about huh? I'm calling you a "pussy" because you are one. You hide behind your little computer and complain and complain but neither you nor your buddy Boutons ever has a solution. I take that back, sometimes you do have a solution but guess what you do after you find said solution? Nothing, you go right back to posting on your website.
Oh, and why would it take someone to hold a gun to my head for me to have or not have any principles? I don't understand.......Oh, you mean that they'd pull the trigger if I didn't have any......I see, well that goes back to that, you know me so well thing doesn't it? You jackass, if I met you on the street tomorrow I could manipulate your trusting little brain into thinking I held the exact same principles as you just as I can manipulate you into thinking a certain way about me on this website. Or maybe I already have met you and you just don't know it..............

Meaning that if it were a choice between your principles and your life, you would easily give up what you profess to believe in for your life.

The implication is cowardice and hypocrisy. I might add a lack of reading comprehension to that for good measure. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Oh, and as for dodging the question, read between the lines Sally, of course I would, I just wanted to make sure you knew you were an idiot.

So you *do* want your country to do the right thing?

You *do* want your country to stand for something noble?

[RandomGuy]

It's all BS. Enough "aggressive interrogation techniques" have been applied so that all their cases are completely trashed. There are two underlying goals that I can see. One is the next election. The other is to stall freeing them as long as possible.


Exactly. Boutons may be a bit over the top most times, but the naked politics he has detailed here, the bits that the administration is attempting just before the election are sickening.

Clinton was bashed all to hell for military strikes during the lewinski scandal, and the same people that did that give Bush a ride for doing similar right before an election. Bush offers a ton of new "proof" how well his administration, and by extension the GOP, is doing in the "war" on terror, and all of this coincidentally right before a crucial mid-term election when people are really starting to realize how badly his policies have failed to do what he said they would.

[johnsmith]

Meaning that if it were a choice between your principles and your life, you would easily give up what you profess to believe in for your life.

The implication is cowardice and hypocrisy. I might add a lack of reading comprehension to that for good measure. :lol


You think I have a lack of reading comprehension? Based on what jackass. Watch this, I think you're a fucking idiot that will never amount to anything and be a dissapointment to your children :lol :lol :lol See I can throw out insults and little smiley faces too..........fucktard.

[RandomGuy]

You think I have a lack of reading comprehension? Based on what jackass. Watch this, I think you're a fucking idiot that will never amount to anything and be a dissapointment to your children :lol :lol :lol See I can throw out insults and little smiley faces too..........fucktard.


So you *do* want your country to do the right thing?

You *do* want your country to stand for something noble?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There are 2.5 million criminals, nearly all of them US citizens, in US prisons, many of them are just as monstrous as any terrorist, but they all have right to due process that protects against abuses.

Hey, dipshit, show me one criminal in jail that has killed three thousand people in one fell swoop.

I'll even give you a whole day for your democraticunderground.org bulletin board reply bot to come up with a name.

[RandomGuy]

Alright I can't help myself, how are you going to prove this to me?

I would have to sever you from Google first.

Make you a deal.

We'll find a neutral party, and then both take the state department civil service exam, and have the scores sent to the neutral party.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, dipshit, show me one criminal in jail that has killed three thousand people in one fell swoop.

I'll even give you a whole day for your democraticunderground.org bulletin board reply bot to come up with a name.

Not the point.

The point is that they were given trials, and, even as prisoners, have rights. Basic, unalienable rights are the foundation of democratic principles.

Some of them may be peices of irredeemable shit, but they are still human.

Deny people rights, and you have gone back on some very deeply rooted ideals central to America.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Where were you and croutons crying about rights of people in Iraq who are getting their heads chopped off or riddled with bullets because they don't pledge allegiance to Osama?

Howabout when they blow up women and children as long as they can kill one US troop or one Iraqi policeman when they do it?

I don't see either of you bitching about that. The chickenshits you are, you blame it all on Bush.

In short, I could give a damn about your sorrow over this. I'd rather we make them stand on one leg for 14 hours listening to Yani than see another terrorist attack on American soil.

We're dealing with people who want us dead. Not peace, not a resolution of understanding, they want me, you, Bush, croutons, everyone dead.

And you guys want our country to fight that with both hands tied behind its back because heavenforbid we should threaten to break some guy's knuckles one by one to get him to talk.

Wake the fuck up, we're fighting for the right of Americans, as well as all of Western civilization, to continue to exist.

Just admit you don't give a shit about the terrorists, you just hate what our intelligence folks are doing because it's preventing attacks on this country. And if an attack happens, then you get to blame it on Bush and that's all you give a fuck about. It's all anyone in the democratic party gives a shit about.

[RandomGuy]

Because you know me so well and you know what I'm all about huh? I'm calling you a "pussy" because you are one. You hide behind your little computer and complain and complain but neither you nor your buddy Boutons ever has a solution. I take that back, sometimes you do have a solution but guess what you do after you find said solution? Nothing, you go right back to posting on your website.
Oh, and why would it take someone to hold a gun to my head for me to have or not have any principles? I don't understand.......Oh, you mean that they'd pull the trigger if I didn't have any......I see, well that goes back to that, you know me so well thing doesn't it? You jackass, if I met you on the street tomorrow I could manipulate your trusting little brain into thinking I held the exact same principles as you just as I can manipulate you into thinking a certain way about me on this website. Or maybe I already have met you and you just don't know it..............

That's right. You have manipulated me into thinking you are an idiot.

Your evil plan is working.
:worthy:

[boutons_]

Get a grip, dickless aggie twerp, you're going to get owned a lot more times if you stick your dumbfuck bonehead in this forum. Bend over, grab your ankles, and grin.

[RandomGuy]

Where were you and croutons crying about rights of people in Iraq who are getting their heads chopped off or riddled with bullets because they don't pledge allegiance to Osama?


That is every bit a tragedy, cruel, and evil.

Do you seriously think that I think this stuff is good?

[boutons_]

"rights of people in Iraq who are getting their heads chopped off "

Muslims killing Muslims 10K miles from USA.
WTF does this have to do with my USA security? Swords are WMD?

So you are saying where this type of murder is going on, eg, Darfur, Zimbabwe, east Africa, etc, that the USA should invade and start a war for another $1T to stop it?

btw, Americans murder more Americans every fucking year, year in and year out, than Muslims ever have murdered or ever will muder, and I don't see you justifying martial law and federal troops in LA, Chicago, Baltimaore to save America from itself. I guess these 15K+ Americans murdered every year just don't have enough oil worth fighting for?

Is a Muslim beheading Muslims your ex post facto justification #38 for The War That Never Was and Still Isn't Justifiable?

Clinton is fully to blame for WTC and the dubya/dickhead aren't.

The Iraq was was/is justified and the USA is winning it.

Any other bullshit you, Whott, and Yoni want to keep throwing around?

[johnsmith]

"rights of people in Iraq who are getting their heads chopped off "

Muslims killing Muslims 10K miles from USA.
WTF does this have to do with my USA security? Swords are WMD?

So you are saying where this type of murder is going on, eg, Darfur, Zimbabwe, east Africa, etc, that the USA should invade and start a war for another $1T to stop it?

btw, Americans murder more Americans every fucking year, year in and year out, than Muslims ever have murdered or ever will muder, and I don't see you justifying martial law and federal troops in LA, Chicago, Baltimaore to save America from itself. I guess these 15K+ Americans murdered every year just don't have enough oil worth fighting for?

Is a Muslim beheading Muslims your ex post facto justification #38 for The War That Never Was and Still Isn't Justifiable?

Clinton is fully to blame for WTC and the dubya/dickhead aren't.

The Iraq was was/is justified and the USA is winning it.

Any other bullshit you, Whott, and Yoni want to keep throwing around?


Honestly, you sound like you hate America more and more every day.

[johnsmith]

I would have to sever you from Google first.

Make you a deal.

We'll find a neutral party, and then both take the state department civil service exam, and have the scores sent to the neutral party.

This sounds like far more time and effort then I'm willing to put in.

[johnsmith]

That is every bit a tragedy, cruel, and evil.

Do you seriously think that I think this stuff is good?

He's not saying that you think this stuff is good, he's saying that you guys never make mention of these things.

[RandomGuy]

He's not saying that you think this stuff is good, he's saying that you guys never make mention of these things.

Ok, I will. They are evil things, the people that do them are despicable.

Done.

That said, do they work for my government?

[johnsmith]

That said, do they work for my government?


So, you are only allowed to criticize your own government?

[Crookshanks]

You guys keep throwing out the statment that our constitution guarantees certain rights. Well, that's right - but since it's the Constitution of the United States, those rights ONLY apply to American citizens!

These terrorists should not be granted the same rights and privileges as our citizens - and I believe most americans understand this (except for Dan, boutons and Randomguy).

[boutons_]

"ONLY apply to American citizens!"

So human beings who are the fucking unluckiest human beings in the universe because they don't hold US citizenship are what, legally, vis a vis the USA?
legal dogs?
legal rocks?
legal potatoes?
legal microbes?

So legal and illegal visitors in the USA who commit crimes are not protected by and processed according by the US legal system?

Give up, Crookie, you've already admitted your mind was closed hermetically shut when you were 9 years old and you prove it every time you open your mouth.

[RandomGuy]

That said, do they work for my government?--RG

So, you are only allowed to criticize your own government?

That is not an answer to my question.

The obvious answer to my question is no, the terrorists do NOT work for my government.

Their actions are actions that I can't and shouldn't be responsible for.

The actions of my government, a government that was democratically elected is much more relevant.

I can flagellate as much as I want to about how terrible the people we are dealing with are, but that won't make their behavior more ethical.

What I *can* do is affect my own government to act in an ethical manner. That is why I spend my time attempting to do so.

The fact that ethical behavior is one of the key weapons in the war on terror that will ultimately win it for us makes doing so all the more urgent.

[RandomGuy]

You guys keep throwing out the statment that our constitution guarantees certain rights. Well, that's right - but since it's the Constitution of the United States, those rights ONLY apply to American citizens!

These terrorists should not be granted the same rights and privileges as our citizens - and I believe most americans understand this (except for Dan, boutons and Randomguy).

So, if people we capture aren't US citizens, what moral responsibilities DO we owe people we capture?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Get a grip, dickless aggie twerp, you're going to get owned a lot more times if you stick your dumbfuck bonehead in this forum. Bend over, grab your ankles, and grin.

Bitch, your mom wouldn't call me dickless, so shut the fuck up.

I'm getting owned? :lol I'm not the one they call bot poster, fucking backdoor boutons.

I'd tell you to bend over and take it up the ass, but you're too busy alternating between sucking Osama's dick and tossing Michael Moore's salad.

So young, and so dumb. Maybe one day you'll graduate junior high special ed and get a clue.


"rights of people in Iraq who are getting their heads chopped off "

Muslims killing Muslims 10K miles from USA.
WTF does this have to do with my USA security? Swords are WMD?

So you are saying where this type of murder is going on, eg, Darfur, Zimbabwe, east Africa, etc, that the USA should invade and start a war for another $1T to stop it?

btw, Americans murder more Americans every fucking year, year in and year out, than Muslims ever have murdered or ever will muder, and I don't see you justifying martial law and federal troops in LA, Chicago, Baltimaore to save America from itself. I guess these 15K+ Americans murdered every year just don't have enough oil worth fighting for?

Is a Muslim beheading Muslims your ex post facto justification #38 for The War That Never Was and Still Isn't Justifiable?

Clinton is fully to blame for WTC and the dubya/dickhead aren't.

The Iraq was was/is justified and the USA is winning it.

Any other bullshit you, Whott, and Yoni want to keep throwing around?

Hey dipshit. If the radislamists had anyone to project their power 10K miles, they'd be chopping off your head right now.

What's comical is that if you ended up bound and gagged with some raghead POS sawing off your head with a butterknife, you'd still be giving him head until your last breathe.

I feel sorry for stupid fucks like you. You should just change your signature to 'Allah Akbar' and get it over with.

[smeagol]

A piece of shit of a person who rapes and kills a child should have as close as no rights at all as possible.

Dito, for a terrorist who plans an attack to kill thousands of civilians (a la 9/11).

It's so annoying to see people more interested in defending these miserable human beings than caring about the victims themselves.

It's sickening.

[Winehole23]

The secret diaries of the Guantanamo Bay detainee known as Abu Zubaydah, which the Bush administration heavily relied upon in its justification for many elements of the “War on Terror,” are no longer solely in government custody.
Al Jazeera America has obtained (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/abu-zubaydah-diaries.html) the U.S. government’s English translation of the diaries that span more than a decade from Abu Zubaydah’s time as a student to just days before his capture in March 2002 in Pakistan. Al Jazeera says it will publish reports and the six volumes of the diaries over the course of multiple installments, the first of which is available today (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/5/notebook-one-thesecretdiariesofabuzubaydah.html).


The diaries are routinely used by U.S. officials as the justification for holding several prisoners in Guantanamo, but were never made available to experts or journalists despite several vigorous campaigns to obtain them through the Freedom of Information Act.


The sensitivity of obtaining the documents is underscored by Al Jazeera’s decision (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/5/a-document-mule-intheinternetage.html) to send a company representative from New York to Los Angeles to retrieve the diaries from reporter Jason Leopold, who says he obtained the volumes from a former U.S. intelligence official.http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/11/diaries-of-a-tortured-gitmo-detainee/

[boutons_deux]

"information wants to be free(d)"

[Winehole23]

through ethically troubled heralds like Leopold, it would seem.

[boutons_deux]

through ethically troubled heralds like Leopold, it would seem.

the message is the message, the medium is not.

[Winehole23]

Jason Leopold seems to me an odd choice of point man. Lotta weird baggage.