A deadly kindness

[Heracles 417]

Oh Steve, God love ya! There have been many people including congresspeople from both sides that have gone there and said the same things. The truth is this, we treat the detainees with kid gloves at the expense of our own safety. You can't refute it so you try to discredit it.

My wife's, friend's husband was actually stationed there and said if only they were allowed to talk about and show what sort of vicious scum bags most of these detainees are..

Its really easy to live in Laguna Niguel and criticize others who are actually serving the country, while one is sipping on their mocha latte ..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So your point is that we should give them full constitutional protections or let them go? Since they are not Americans and they aren't in America that would be a mistake. Barring that I guess you think we should just give up and surrender?

Here's a couple of hints: Transparency, Accountability.

You like to suck on the old freedom cigar (which is slightly manky by now) and toot your party horn about "what a great job we're doing", while ignoring the fact that those same liberated peoples are being offered little or not legal protections whatsoever. You keep making the assumption that everyone arrested must be guilty is supposed to be there - I simply do not see how you can possibly know that. There is room (and evidence) for some doubt, yes the Baghdad shopkeeper for one.

On the subject of torture, I'm surprised noone, so far, has mentioned "torture by proxy".

[mmmbop1976 1]

As for discrediting sources, Gary, I've posted numerous facts and testimony from people such as military intelligence officers who say otherwise, but you don't bother to respond to what they've said. This isn't nor should it be a politically charged argument, but one of fact finding and exposing the truth.

BS what you posted were opinions by a few military officers stating their opinions about the effectiveness of torture, that's it. one of them said detainees were being abused, not tortured, and he (col herrington?) stated that the military wanted to use harsher interogation methods than the FBI. harsher does not necessarily mean torture. but again, you always make that assumption because we are the bad guys here

[Fandango 1,439]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

Again - you don't know which of the detainees have actually committed any crimes or have demonstrated "reasonable suspicion" to justify their incarceration, so how should they be treated?

[Fandango 1,439]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

Again - you don't know which of the detainees have actually committed any crimes or have demonstrated "reasonable suspicion" to justify their incarceration, so how should they be treated?

Certainly not better than the brave men and women who actually put their azzes on the line for us...3 hots and a cot, 8 hrs sleep, 4200 cals a day? exercise, privacy, healthcare, dental, etc...#######?

I call bullsh!t.

sorry, these are drive by postings cos I don't have much time, but I am totally looking forward to beating this to death ad nauseum later

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, you're politicizing the issue. First it's, "We should be able to do with the terrorists what we want" (assuming of course that all detainees are bonafide 'terrorists'), then it was, "it's not torture" and now it's, "See! Gitmo is like the Marriott Hotel." (with the disclaimer that such kind treatment of these terrorists is undermining American safety).

Which is it? Can you find somebody who's not a supporter of the Bush Administration's policies - someone politically neutral who has reported on the facts regarding detainees?

I am politicizing the issue? hehe I'd say you are also. Let me ask you the same question. Find me one source that doesn't have a political agenda that has BEEN THERE that disputes the report. Rumors and 3rd hand info don't count. Show ME the facts.

You've politicized the issue by relying on politicians and political ideologues to tell you 'how it is', meanwhile ignoring the testimony by military intelligence officers (they have no political bend, Gary, just that they obviously aren't afraid to be critical of the Bush Administration). I'm going to keep harping on that until you address what they said. Quit ignoring their statements as if they hold no weight.

Here's more testimony...

Military, Intelligence and Law Enforcement Officers Opposing Torture

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy

"The United States has been a strong, unwavering advocate for human rights and the rule of law for as long as you and I have been alive. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that just because we are in a battle with some terrible people. In fact, in a war like this, when we are tempted to respond in kind, we must hold ever more dearly to the values that make us Americans. Torture, or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" conduct, are not part of our national character. Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but it's not reliable. Eventually, if you don't accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop. It may or may not be true. If you torture 100 people, you'll get 100 different stories. If you gain the confidence of 100 people, you may get one valuable story." (Legal Affairs "Debate Club" January 27, 2005)

Bob Baer, former CIA official

"And torture -- I just don't think it really works. I think it works for the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Saudis, who want to scare the hell out of people. But you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you." (Interview with Slate, May 12, 2004)

Lawrence Korb, former Naval Intelligence officer and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration

"The highest levels of the U.S. military, the Defense Department, and the White House must be held accountable for putting our troops at greater risk and diminishing America's moral authority across the globe." (Article co-written by John Halpin, Center for American Progress)

Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center

"I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear." (60 minutes "CIA flying suspects to Torture?" March 6, 2005)

Dan Coleman, retired FBI agent

"It’s human nature. People don’t cooperate with you unless they have some reason to." He added, "Brutalization doesn’t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul." (The New Yorker "Outsourcing Torture" by Jane Mayer)

Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1

"The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

Declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, responding to the question of whether FBI in agents Guantanamo agents were instructed to "stand clear" due to interrogation techniques utilized by Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security

"Our formal guidance has always been that all personnel conduct themselves in interviews in the manner that they would in the field. <redacted> along with the FBI advised that the LEA [Law Enforcement Agencies] at GTMO were not in the practice of the using <redacted> and were of the opinion results obtained from these interrogations were suspect at best. BAU explained to DoD, FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques."

http://www.kintera.org/site/pp.asp?c=fnKNK...E&b=1293047

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1

"The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

it should be noted that field manuals (FM's) are not the same as army regulations (AR's) and therefore are guidelines, not orders.

this btw is the actual paragraph. not the shortened version:

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

Edited September 18, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[GaryC 7]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

Again - you don't know which of the detainees have actually committed any crimes or have demonstrated "reasonable suspicion" to justify their incarceration, so how should they be treated?

You have asked that several times so here is my answer, if the military feels the need to invest the time and money to hold these people then their suspition is good enough for me. I have trust in them. I know you don't and thats your opinion but I for one have faith in the people that protect me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

Again - you don't know which of the detainees have actually committed any crimes or have demonstrated "reasonable suspicion" to justify their incarceration, so how should they be treated?

You have asked that several times so here is my answer, if the military feels the need to invest the time and money to hold these people then their suspition is good enough for me. I have trust in them. I know you don't and thats your opinion but I for one have faith in the people that protect me.

You say that as though its beyond any possibility of doubt or question. I'm glad its good enough for you, but its not for me - for the reasons I have said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These detainees are treated much better than our veterans. And that's sick

Again - you don't know which of the detainees have actually committed any crimes or have demonstrated "reasonable suspicion" to justify their incarceration, so how should they be treated?

You have asked that several times so here is my answer, if the military feels the need to invest the time and money to hold these people then their suspition is good enough for me. I have trust in them. I know you don't and thats your opinion but I for one have faith in the people that protect me.

Then take pause with what the military experts are telling you that the interrogation techniques we've been using on the detainees are not only unethical but ineffective. Just be consistent about who you say you trust - give equal weight to those military experts who contradict the Bush Administration's view.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Aren't the 3 people currently demanding more transparency on the treatment of detainees not a bunch of mocha-drinking panty-waist liberals but GOP senators who are combat veterans? This includes John Warner who is often seen as the mouthpiece of senior military and pentagon officials?

If you want to politicize this, it isn't about "conservatives" as such but the Bush White House

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't the 3 people currently demanding more transparency on the treatment of detainees not a bunch of mocha-drinking panty-waist liberals but GOP senators who are combat veterans? This includes John Warner who is often seen as the mouthpiece of senior military and pentagon officials?

If you want to politicize this, it isn't about "conservatives" as such but the Bush White House

Thank you

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Aren't the 3 people currently demanding more transparency on the treatment of detainees not a bunch of mocha-drinking panty-waist liberals but GOP senators who are combat veterans? This includes John Warner who is often seen as the mouthpiece of senior military and pentagon officials?

If you want to politicize this, it isn't about "conservatives" as such but the Bush White House

Hit the nail right on the head.

As for more politically neutral testimony, Gary:

(Washington, D.C., April 26, 2006) – Two years after the Abu Ghraib scandal, new research shows that abuse of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantánamo Bay has been widespread, and that the United States has taken only limited steps to investigate and punish implicated personnel.

A briefing paper issued today, “By the Numbers,” presents preliminary findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project, a joint project of New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First. The project is the first comprehensive accounting of credible allegations of torture and abuse in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.

“Two years ago, U.S. officials said the abuses at Abu Ghraib were aberrations and that people who abused detainees would be brought to justice,” said Professor Meg Satterthwaite, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law School. “Yet our research shows that detainee abuses were widespread, and few people have truly been brought to justice."

Among the key findings released today:

* Detainee abuse has been widespread. The DAA Project has documented more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel are credibly alleged to have abused, tortured or killed detainees. These cases implicate more than 600 U.S. personnel and involve more than 460 detainees.

* Only a fraction of the more than 600 U.S. personnel implicated in these cases – 40 people – have been sentenced to prison time.

* Of the hundreds of allegations of abuse collected by the DAA Project, only about half appear to have been adequately investigated.

* In cases where courts-martial – the military’s equivalent of criminal trials – have convened, the majority of prison sentences have been for less than a year, even in cases involving serious abuse. Only 10 U.S. personnel have been sentenced to a year or more in prison.

* No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

* Although approximately 20 civilians, including CIA agents, have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for detainee abuse, the Department of Justice has shown minimal initiative in moving forward in abuse cases. The Department of Justice has not indicted a single CIA agent for abusing detainees; it has indicted only one civilian contractor.

Recommendations (Here's the clincher and what erekose was talking about - transparency and accountability)

In order to remedy the serious failures of accountability that the DAA Project research documents, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First recommend that:

* Congress should appoint an independent commission to review U.S. detention and interrogation policy and operations worldwide.

* The secretary of defense and the attorney general should order their departments: (1) to move forward promptly with investigations of allegations of torture and other abuse of detainees in U.S. custody abroad; (2) to initiate prosecutions where the evidence warrants; and (3) to instruct relevant authorities to ensure that appropriate criminal action is taken against all persons implicated in killings, torture, and other abuse, whatever their rank or position.

* The secretary of defense should appoint a single, high-level, centralized authority who can convene and prosecute courts-martial across the branches of the military to investigate all U.S. military personnel – no matter their rank – who participated in, ordered, or bear command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited mistreatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

* Congress should implement a check on officer promotions, by requiring that each branch of the military certify, for any officer whose promotion requires Senate confirmation, that the officer is not implicated in any case of detainee torture, abuse, or other mistreatment, including through the doctrine of command responsibility.

The briefing paper “By the Numbers: Findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project” is available at: www.chrgj.org, www.hrw.org, and www.humanrightsfirst.org.

[PlatyPius 5]

Apparently I'm not really understanding this discussion.....

I see Gary posting things that specifically address Gitmo and the conditions there. I see Steven posting generic statements of the ineffectiveness of torture. Am I missing something? Where are the statements of proof saying that they DO torture at Gitmo? Posting quotes that say "Torture is bad, m'kay?" says absolutely nothing about the original topic.

If, in the tangle of "YOU'RE A CONSERVATIVE!!" and "YOU'RE A PINKO COMMIE #######!", I missed out on the part where it was proven that Gitmo = physical torture, then I apologize.

From here, though, I just hear erekose and Steven saying "blah, blah, blah." And no; I'm not a republican or a conservative.