POW Status for Detainees

[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 pe ion 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.

There's an admission right there.

[johnsmith]

Holy , what a bunch of pussies you guys are
THey tortured people........who the cares? Everyone hates America at this point anyway, I say torture the 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", 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 ing take you bleeding heart, tree hugging s. If I were in front of you right now I would have to beat you senseless because you guys are making my ing head hurt with all your ing. 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 . 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. !

[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?

There's an admission right there.

Alternative techniques the President says are legal, cons utional, 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.

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, cons utional, 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 cares?

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

[Yonivore]

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 , what a bunch of pussies you guys are
THey tortured people........who the cares? Everyone hates America at this point anyway, I say torture the 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", 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 ing take you bleeding heart, tree hugging s. If I were in front of you right now I would have to beat you senseless because you guys are making my ing head hurt with all your ing. 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 . 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. !

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]?"