Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.

    In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney cited the recent push by Iraqi forces to crack down on insurgent activity in Baghdad and reports that the most-wanted terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been wounded.

    The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

    "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
    CNN

    Well, at least this statement by Cheney is better than W's they are fighting us because they are losing statement he made a few days ago. I'm sure that statement left the asshats in the corporate press scratching their heads.

    I believe the administration is really laying the groundwork for a slow, steady withdraw - coming to you in incremental steps to be announced just before the 06 mid-term elections in which the Republicans could now lose a few seats in the Senate and House.

  2. #2
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice President Cheney said in an interview that he was "offended" by Amnesty International's comparison of the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay with the Soviet Gulag.

    Cheney, in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live," also said that stories about desecration of the Islamic holy book the Koran at the US "war on terror" prison in Cuba were mostly groundless and were being spread "to try to discredit the United States."

    "Frankly, I was offended by it," Cheney said when asked about Amnesty's description of Guantanamo, where hundreds of foreign terror suspects have been held without charge, as the "Gulag of our times."

    "I think the fact of the matter is the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world," Cheney said.

    ~snip~
    Yahoo News

    The fact that he's "offended" doesn't confirm or deny anything. Secondly, he says the claims about Koran desecration were mostly groundless. Again, as good as an admission that it did happen. Then, Cheney changes the subject to the tried and very true distracting rabbit trail of, "We're advancing freedom and liberty" argument: "Just in this administration, we've liberated 50 million people from the Taliban in Afghanistan and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, two terribly oppressive regimes that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people."

    Why, I'm offended too, anyone else offended?


  3. #3
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    By BRIAN KNOWLTON
    International Herald Tribune
    Published: May 30, 2005


    WASHINGTON, May 30 - Vice President Cheney emphatically defended the handling of detainees at Guantánamo Bay in an interview to be broadcast tonight, saying that they had been "well treated, treated humanely and decently" and that some accusations to the contrary were "lies."

    The vice president largely dismissed assertions that guards or interrogators at the American naval base in Cuba had mishandled the Koran or beaten detainees. He said that freed Guantánamo prisoners were now "peddling lies."

    Mr. Cheney's remarks, made in a weekend interview taped for tonight's broadcast of the CNN program "Larry King Live," represented one of the more unconditional administration defenses of American activities at Guantánamo.

    ~snip~
    NY Times

  4. #4
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Have there been abuses? Yes, probably.

    But here is the rest of the story -- the story that the Islamists and their sympathizers don't want you to hear.

    According to recently released FBI do ents, which are inaccurately heralded by civil liberties activists and military-bashers as irrefutable evidence of widespread "atrocities" at Gitmo:

    A significant number of detainees' complaints were either exaggerated or fabricated (no surprise given al Qaeda's explicit instructions to trainees to lie). One detainee who claimed to have been "beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog" could not provide a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive, but admitted he hadn't seen it.

    Another detainee disputed one of the now-globally infamous claims that American guards had mistreated the Koran. The detainee said that riots resulted from claims that a guard dropped the Koran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Koran then blamed a guard. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Koran admitted they had never personally witnessed any such abuse, but one said he had heard that non-Muslim soldiers touched the Koran when searching it for contraband.

    In one case, Gitmo interrogators apologized to a detainee for interviewing him prior to the end of Ramadan.

    Several detainees indicated they had not experienced any mistreatment. Others complained about lack of privacy, lack of bed sheets, being unwillingly photographed, the guards' use of profanity, and bad food.

    If this is unacceptable, "gulag"-style "torture," then every inmate in America is a victim of human rights violations. (Oh, never mind, there are civil liberties chicken littles who actually believe that.)

    Erik Saar, who served as an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co-authored a negative, tell-all book about his experience led "Inside the Wire," inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam -- to a fault, I believe -- the officials at the detention facility have been.

    Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.

    Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library -- yes, library -- is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Saar admits. "[I]t seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Saar notes that one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."

    Unreality-based liberals would have us believe that America is systematically torturing innocent Muslims out of spite at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, our own MPs have endured little-publicized abuse at the hands of manipulative, hate-mongering enemy combatants. Detainees have spit on and hurled water, urine and feces on the MPs. Causing disturbances is a source of entertainment for detainees who, as Gen. Richard Myers points out, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats" if released.

    The same unreality-based liberals whine about the Bush administration's failure to gather intelligence and prevent terrorism. Yet, these hysterical critics have no viable alternative to detention and interrogation -- and there is no doubt they would be the first to lambaste the White House and Pentagon if a released detainee went on to commit an act of mass terrorism on American soil.

    Guantanamo Bay will not be the death of this country. The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting Left is a far greater threat.

    Now, let's talk about the whole "gulag" moniker for a moment.

    In writing about the Amnesty International Report 2005, Edward at Obsidian Wings wrote the following:

    "It seems to me that Amnesty's point was that as the world's remaining superpower, the US bears a bigger responsibility than North Korea or Iran to set an example."
    Unless it has changed its vision, Amnesty International has no business making such a point:

    "AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."
    Emphases mine. There's no cherry-picking here, and there's no singling out a particular nation because that nation happens to be really, really powerful. The vision of Amnesty International is one standard applied to every person. To the extent that the leadership of Amnesty International has focused its ire on a country that has done more than any other on earth to advance freedom and human rights, it is an organization that has lost its bearings. To put it more forthrightly, the perspective of the leadership of Amnesty International is so whacked and so skewed that it's credibility as a human rights organization is in mortal peril. Consider the statement made by the Secretary General, Irene Khan:

    "The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law.
    I think The Washington Post responded to this best:

    "IT'S ALWAYS SAD when a solid, trustworthy ins ution loses its bearings and joins in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse. It's particularly sad when the ins ution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike. True, Amnesty continues to keep track of the world's political prisoners, as it has always done, and its reports remain a vital source of human rights information. But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States."

    "That vitriol reached a new level this week when, at a news conference held to mark the publication of Amnesty's annual report, the organization's secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the 'gulag of our times.' In her written introduction to the report, Ms. Khan also mentioned only two countries at length: Sudan and the United States, the 'unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power,' which 'thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights.'"

    "Like Amnesty, we, too, have written extensively about U.S. prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have done so not only because the phenomenon is disturbing in its own right but also because it gives undemocratic regimes around the world an excuse to justify their own use of torture and indefinite detention and because it damages the U.S. government's ability to promote human rights."

    "But we draw the line at the use of the word 'gulag' or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin's Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants in wartime. Abuses there -- including new evidence of desecrating the Koran -- have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages through which more than 20 million people passed during Stalin's lifetime and whose existence was not acknowledged until after his death. Its modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China's laogai , the true size of which isn't even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

    "Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty's legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as 'hysterical.'"
    I don't usually agree with the Washington Post, indeed, some of the premise for their argument seems flawed, but I felt the lefties on this forum (with the unique exception of Nbadan) might take the medicine from one of their own more so than if I'd quoted the Washington Times.

    And, after all, one of the Washington Post's columnists knows a thing or two about gulags. Morally equating a few hundred unlawful enemy combatants with the millions who died under the reign of Stalin is so irresponsible and so out of touch that Ms. Khan's judgment and leadership is too suspect for any reliance. John Podhoretz also offers a comparison between gulag and Gitmo. Consider also the words of William F. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA:

    If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.
    It is important to point out that, while Mr. Schulz is encouraging other countries to pinochet a dozen or so American officials, he is silent on the much worse transgressions by...

    North Korea, where access by AI was "severely restricted". Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose. Freedom House chimes in:

    "North Korea is one of the most tightly controlled countries in the world. The regime denies North Koreans even the most basic rights; holds tens of thousands of political prisoners under brutal conditions; and controls nearly every facet of social, political, and economic life.
    In effect, the entire country is imprisoned by the North Korean government, but not a peep from Mr. Schulz about pinocheting Kim Jong Il. Or...

    Cuba, where AI has not been allowed into for seven years. Curiously, even when the subject is Cuba, Amnesty International still blames America for Cuba's wrongs:

    "The US embargo and related measures continued to have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba."
    Yeah, right. If only the U.S. dropped the restrictions, then Castro would lighten up on his people. And when did Cubans under Castro ever have a "full range" of anything? To be clear, I do not fully support our Cuba policy, and would prefer that the restrictions on travel and cash transfers be lifted, but to blame America for the actions of Fidel Castro is beyond absurd, approaching plain stupid. For the countries that Fidel Castro visits, Mr. Schulz does not encourage them to put the bearded dictator under lock and key.

    China. In AI's own words:

    "Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights and were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death or executed, many after unfair trials. Public protests increased against forcible evictions and land requisition without adequate compensation. China continued to use the global 'war on terrorism' to justify its crackdown on the Uighur community in Xinjiang. Freedom of expression and religion continued to be severely restricted in Tibet and other Tibetan areas of China."
    Does Schulz suggest some time in the slammer for Hu Jintao? Nope. How about...

    Sudan, where there is an ongoing genocide? The harshest thing Schulz can muster is to encourage Secretary of State Rice to go there and to support the International Criminal Court in its investigation of crimes committed. This is brain farting nonsense, tantamount to closing the barn door after all the horses have run out. What Darfur needs right now is action, not visits, not tribunals after the crimes have been committed. Does Schulz envision a jail cell with al-Bashir's name on it? Apparently not.

    The point is this. To the extent that Amnesty International overemphasizes transgressions made by the United States, they are underemphasizing the many more serious violations in the rest of the world, and that is a fundamental disservice. In their work, the one factor they should be spotlighting more is denial of access. If AI isn't allowed in or is hampered by excessive restrictions, the operating assumption should be that the government is hiding something and to expect the worst. By do enting only snippets of what is available in places like China, North Korea and other places of repression and oppression, the picture they're painting is out of kilter.

    What are AI's apparent priorities? From its individual country reports, the snapshots it gives are of the countries' positions on the death penalty, the International Criminal Court and UN Women's Convention and its Optional Protocol. Does it provide a snapshot glimpse of a country's own system of checks and balances or its own rule of law relating to human rights? No, and that's a problem. When William Schulz states that the "US government is a leading purveyor and prac ioner of this odious human rights violation [torture and ill treatment]," by what measure does he have to make such a conclusion? None. Amnesty International has no rating system, and they provide no reportage which quantifies or objectively measures alleged transgressions of the governments in the world. In effect, there is no mechanism for country-by-country comparisons. That is a fundamental disservice because, in doing so, AI fails to prioritize the worst abusers of human rights.

    Also, if openness is a policy that Amnesty International is in favor of, they could start with themselves. While their website states that "no funds are sought or accepted from governments for AI’s work investigating and campaigning against human rights violations," their financial disclosures are opaque when it comes to knowing who the big benefactors are. If a large chunk of the funding is coming from Bush-hating liberals, it would explain quite a bit.

    Because of the odd and distorted emphases by its leadership, also called into question is the culture of Amnesty International. If this person does indeed work for Amnesty International, and if the leadership agrees with any semblance of that distorted worldview, then the organization is in serious trouble.

    Just to clarify my views on prisoners and detainees, I'm seldom in complete agreement with anyone, but I am with Dale Franks when he wrote this:

    "My preferred method of dealing with these terror prisoners would be to get two captains and a major together as a tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and put them in front of a firing squad. Now, maybe, because we're nice guys, we could let them know that if any of them give us verifiable, useful information, then we'll commute their sentences, and won't shoot them. Otherwise, however, it's a blindfold and a last cigarette for the lot of 'em."

    "The difference of course, is that doing so would be legal."
    I don't think this was what Tom Friedman had in mind, but it would effectively end the detainee operation at Gitmo. Such a course may put the collective panties of AI in a twist, but at least there would be no violation of the Geneva Conventions.

  5. #5
    Injured Reserve Vashner's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    6,791
    Yes Islam when they take you prisioner they give you english bible... 3 square meals + snack treat.. uh huh..

    Before Bush went to Iraq.. it was all rainbows and butterflies.. and the streets where full of chocolate and bunnies.

  6. #6
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,717
    Holy . Somebody had better call those insurgents and tell them it's over. They keep bombing every day, surely only because they haven't been informed of this development.

  7. #7
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408

  8. #8
    JEBO TE! Clandestino's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    5,649
    the thing is most people captured by the terrorists don't live to tell about the treatment they endured. perhaps the u.s. would be more humane if cut the heads off of the captured terrorists and put them on a website.

  9. #9
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Holy . Somebody had better call those insurgents and tell them it's over. They keep bombing every day, surely only because they haven't been informed of this development.
    Don't worry, the USMC is delivering the message in person.

  10. #10
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    the thing is most people captured by the terrorists don't live to tell about the treatment they endured. perhaps the u.s. would be more humane if cut the heads off of the captured terrorists and put them on a website.
    Comparing the death of a handful of hostages, most of whom were in Iraq by choice, to the estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed is somehow fair?

  11. #11
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    By the way, this last-throes statement by Cheney sure sound alot like the 'light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel' statements made about Vietnam.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •