mmmbop1976

Furthermore, I'd love to live in a world where everything is so cut and dry like you seem to think, Steven....'shut down the camps'...yeah that's a good solution

Yes, shut them down and then open a camp that has international oversight (EU or UN). It's what they've already recommended and would help to show the world community that we are committed to treating these detainees with dignity and using due process.

camp with internationanl oversight..hmmmmmm.....so their is transparency, yes? such as....

> Guantanamo Congressional Record Statement

[Transcript of remarks on the floor of the Senate - June 27, 2005]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. CRAPO . Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I stand and join my colleague, Senator Bunning from Kentucky. I was one of those who was able to be on this trip to Guantanamo yesterday. Along with Senator Isakson from Georgia, we were joined there by two other Senators, Senator Wyden from Oregon and also Senator Nelson from Nebraska, who came in on a separate trip.

We had an opportunity to view exactly what is happening at Guantanamo . As I said, I am glad to be able to stand with my colleague, Senator Bunning, and set the record straight about what the United States and the honorable men and women of our armed services are doing to serve the United States, the people of this country, and, frankly, the people of the world as we fight to defeat terrorism.

I want to first thank my colleague, Senator Bunning, who has given a very thorough and helpful review. I will try not to repeat too many of the things he went through, but he has identified the core points that need to be made as we discuss what is truly happening at Guantanamo .

I want to start out by going into a little bit of detail about who exactly is there. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about the legal framework because, frankly, a lot of the debate we hear throughout the country and throughout the world today has to do with different points of view about the legal framework within which we are dealing with the circumstances at Guantanamo .

Then I want to talk about the question of transparency; in other words, do we really know what is happening there? I know there are a lot of people who will say: You went there and you visited, but did you really see the truth? I want to talk about that. I also want to talk about what we saw--how are the detainees being treated.

Finally, I want to talk about our own troops. What is their morale? And what is their conduct? And then, actually, the last thing I want to talk about is: Of what benefit to the United States and the world is Guantanamo ?

I am going to go back now and talk, first of all, about who is there. I think there has been a bit of a misconception about who it is we are detaining at Guantanamo .

Since the effort began in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan--and it has expanded to the war in Iraq--the United States has captured more than 70,000 detainees--70,000--in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among that number, the vast majority have been handled in other ways. Either they have been released or they have been turned over to other authorities, other nations, or they are being held in facilities in the area of the battle.

But we are working with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other governments to make sure they take control of detainees to the maximum extent possible. But there are some detainees who are so dangerous that we have made the decision we must maintain control over them. They are also controlled because they have information that is critical to us in the battle against terrorism. And after a very thorough vetting process, out of 70,000 who have been captured in these battles and in other efforts to fight against terrorism, approximately 800 have been moved to Guantanamo .

My numbers are going to be kind of rounded here, but of that 800, about 235 have already been released or moved into the custody of other countries. My colleague, Senator Bunning, indicated that is not always good news. At least 12 of those who have been released have been found again in the battlefield--some of them killed in battle, others captured again, and at least one was found to have ordered some very significant terrorist activities after being released from Guantanamo .

But about 235 of the 800 who we determined were so dangerous they needed to be moved to Guantanamo have been released or put into the custody of other countries. Approximately 520 remain at Guantanamo . Who are these 520? These are terrorist trainers. These are bomb makers. These are recruiters and facilitators for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. These are terrorist financiers. These are bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. And these are would-be suicide bombers--to name just a few of those who we have identified and the activities we are stopping by keeping them detained.

I am going to come back a little bit later and talk about what we learn from these detainees. But I would like to talk, next, a little bit about some of the details of individuals whom we have identified. An elaborate process has been put into place, as I indicated, to identify whom we will return and take to Guantanamo to assess the threat they pose to the United States and the international community, and then to give regular review to this process to be sure they are still the threat that they were and deserve to be kept at the Guantanamo base.

But as a result of this effort, we have collected the most dangerous, and the ones with the most information who can give us the most assistance, through the interrogation process, to help us pursue the war against terrorism.

These detainees include terrorists who are linked to a major al-Qaida attack, including attacks in east Africa, the U.S. Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack; terrorists who taught or received training teams on arms, explosives, surveillance, and interrogation resistance at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere; terrorists who continue to express their commitment to kill Americans, if released; terrorists who have sworn personal allegiance to Osama bin Laden; terrorists who have been linked to several al-Qaida operational plans, including possible targeting of facilities in the United States; members of al-Qaida's international terrorism support network including the financiers, the couriers, the recruiters, and the operatives and those who participated in attempted hijacking instances.

Let me give a couple specific examples. One al-Qaida explosives trainer is there who has provided information to the United States on the September 2001 assassination of Massoud and on the al-Qaida organization's use of mines; another individual who completed advanced terrorist training at camps in Afghanistan and participated in an attempted hijacking and escaped while in custody that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani guards; another individual who was involved in terrorist financing who provided information on Osama bin Laden's front companies, accounts, and international money movements for financing terror. The list goes on and on. This is who is there at Guantanamo . These are the people whom we seek to detain and about whom the debate in this country revolves. They are dangerous, and they must be kept under control or they will kill more Americans and threaten people throughout the world.

What is the legal framework within which they are being detained? That is the crux, though it is not often stated that way, of the debate. I will get into this in more detail, but Senator Bunning has already indicated, the treatment that is being provided to the detainees is probably the most humane, high quality treatment any nation that has ever captured detainees at war has ever provided to its prisoners. I suspect no other nation today or throughout history could claim to be treating its detainees better. But still the question arises, how and under what legal framework should they be handled? There is an irony here. These detainees do not serve in a normal army. They do not wear uniforms. They do not serve a nation that is a signer to the Geneva Conventions. They do not honor Geneva Conventions, meaning they do not refrain from attacking civilians and conducting terrorist activities. And because they do not qualify in these categories, they don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war.

Here is the irony. If they were prisoners of war, they wouldn't be entitled to the legal benefits about which we are now wrangling. They would be entitled to humane treatment, but they would not be entitled to get into the court system of the country that has captured them.

Many throughout this Nation and throughout the world are saying we should provide all of the legal benefits in a criminal law system, such as the criminal justice system in the United States, to these detainees. The United States has declined to do so, stating that these are enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions. But they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. And there is the irony. If we could classify them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, we could avoid the debate about what their rights are and how they should be treated. Instead, since they are not a group entitled to participate in the United States criminal justice system and are not a group entitled to be considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, but are instead enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions in a category for which nations have not yet agreed on how they should be treated, the United States is embroiled in a debate as to how to treat them.

How have we resolved this decision? On January 19, 2002, the Secretary of Defense gave specific guidance that all detainees are to be treated humanely. On January 21, the same year, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued executive orders to commanders that transmitted the Secretary of Defense order that these detainees be treated humanely. On February 7, 2002, President Bush determined that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees should be treated humanely, consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions and consistent with military necessity. The detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity. It prevents enemy combatants from continuing to fight against the United States or its partners in the war on terror. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight would only prolong the conflict and endanger our coalition and American forces.

Here is the point of the debate. The United States, though these enemy combatants are in an uncertain category, has provided to them all of the humane treatment required by the Geneva Convention and more legal rights than they would have if they were prisoners of war. Yet the United States continues to be criticized because there are those--and this is what everyone needs to understand--who will not be satisfied until we choose not to treat these enemy combatants in the context of a war but instead choose to treat them as criminals in a criminal justice system and thereby change the legal framework under which they are being handled. The United States correctly and properly refuses to do so. If we were to do so, we would not be able to defend the interests of the country against enemies who are conducting war against us as effectively as we can if we are able to treat them under the Geneva Conventions as enemy combatants. And when you hear the debate about how they are being treated, listen carefully, because most of the debate is not about their physical condition or whether they are being treated humanely. It is about how they are being categorized with regard to these legal battles that those who are engaged in the issue wish to see ensue.

Let's talk about what we saw, and then I will describe how they are actually physically being treated and whether what we saw is true. I have already had those who knew that I went there ask me whether the opportunity we had is one which truly showed us what was happening at Guantanamo . To me this is an issue of transparency. What is happening there, and were we shown what was truly going on?

First, we visited every facility there. Five Senators, with many other individuals with us from other government agencies, went through and visited every facility. My colleague Senator Bunning indicated that we even went to Camp X-Ray which has not been utilized for 2 or 3 years and which is literally overgrown. I walked into one of the containment facilities there at Camp X-Ray. I had to brush away the weeds in order to move through the door and to go in and see what it looked like. We visited Camps 1, 2, 3, and 4. And they are numbered in terms of the order in which they were built. These are the newer camps that were constructed to provide better facilities for these detainees than were originally there at Camp X-Ray when we first started using the base.We were able to see the medical facilities. We were able to observe literally everything at the base. And I can say that I don't think it would have been possible for them to have hidden from us what was happening.

We were able to observe the interrogations, to interview and discuss with the personnel present what was happening, right down to the troops who were conducting the specific guarding activities inside the cell blocks. If that is not sufficient, the International Committee of the Red Cross has had 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week access to the facility at its discretion. They have had a permanent presence, recently changing that only at their choosing. The media, both national and international, have had 400 visits to Guantanamo, representing over 1,000 members of the media who have been there to also observe. Lawyers for the detainees, who would not even be allowed if we categorized them as prisoners of war, have come and, in many of the habeas corpus cases, to observe and discuss with the detainees. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 Senators and 75 to 100 Representatives, in addition to over 100 congressional staff, have been there to observe.

My point is that in terms of transparency, is the United States letting its own people, its Congress, and the world know what is being done there? I believe the answer is clearly yes.

My colleague Senator Bunning went through the numbers of deaths in the Nazi concentration camps, in the gulags under Stalin, and the numbers, you will recall, were in the millions. Not one detainee has died at Guantanamo . On the contrary, they have the best medical care that I believe any detainees in history have ever had. So as far as the question goes with regard to whether we are providing a true and accurate picture to the public about what is happening there, the answer is unequivocally yes.

What is happening there? I would like to talk a little bit about what we saw. As I indicated, there are a number of facilities. They are called Camp 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are building Camp 5 and Camp 6. They are different in terms of the levels of security and in terms of the operations. Those who are detained there are able to be in one of the camps versus the other camps depending on how they respond to their detention. If they are the more violent kind who do not follow instructions, then they are often in individual confinement. This individual confinement does not mean solitary confinement. It means they would be in a cell block with 40 or 50 others, and you can see each other through the cell. These are not enclosed. So they have the ability to play chess between cells and so forth. They have running water, sinks, and toilets in each cell.

They have religious paraphernalia so they can practice their religion. They are facilitated in the practice of that religion by being provided with prayer calls and with directions. From wherever in the camp you are, you can see an arrow that points toward Mecca so you know the directions. They are provided recreational opportunities, showers, and three, good, solid meals a day, as well as outstanding medical care. Those are the ones who are in the most closely confined circumstances. Those who are more willing to follow instructions and less willing to attack their guards are allowed to live in more communal circumstances where the rooms, instead of being individual cell units, are in units where ten or more can live together, and then those groups can go out in recreational facilities and have [Page: S7401] a little bit expanded recreational opportunity and the like.

Then there is the maximum security facilities which would be comparable to the kinds of similar facilities that are there that you could find anywhere in the United States, in prison facilities that are subject to extensive litigation and oversight by attorneys and our own judicial system. Throughout this entire process, whether one is in the most extreme, highest maximum security circumstance or whether one is in some of those areas where the more responsible detainees are able to be, they are always provided with the best possible treatment. I don't believe it would be possible for a valid argument of some type of physical abuse to be made because there is such care there to be certain that even when the detainees are being interrogated--and, by the way, the interrogation is a very humane and, frankly, easygoing process which does not create physical threat to the detainees--there are always more than one or two or three people observing what is happening so there cannot be a circumstance where something goes awry and someone abuses the relationship and the situation.

Let me talk a little bit about the medical care. I said they are getting top-notch medical care. I asked many of those who we were there with what the comparability would be between the medical care provided to these detainees and that provided to detainees by other nations in other wars or in other circumstances. Consistently no one could give me an example of better medical care ever being provided anywhere. I asked if it was equivalent to the kind of medical care that our own troops were being provided. The answer was yes. It is probably better medical care than these detainees have ever had in their lifetime. When they were first brought there, many of them had traumatic injuries from the battles in which they were captured. Those injuries were treated. Now they have reached a point that they have been there several years, some of them, where they are being treated for the kinds of problems you and I and others would want to have medical care for. They are getting annual checkups. They are being treated for diabetes, if they have back ailments or heart problems, whatever it may be, if they have dietary needs, they are being treated for them.

A number of them have lost their limbs, not because they lost them in battle but because they lost them while they were building bombs to blow up Americans. And we have provided treatment for their loss of limbs and actually provided them with prosthetics and helped them with the physical therapy so they can regain the use of their bodies to the maximum extent we can help them. We have facilities there to do major surgery. We have all kinds of other support. If they have medical needs that go beyond what we have there available, they are taken elsewhere to get that medical treatment.

In fact, I would like to move now to the discussion of what the morale of our troops is. I think as we met there with people at all levels, from the guards to those who ran the hospitals to the managers to everyone else, I could honestly say the morale of our troops there is very high. But there is a concern that was consistently expressed to me by them. I had the opportunity to have lunch with some of those who were literally on the front lines having to go into the cell blocks and to provide the guard service around the clock with these detainees.

And they are concerned about what the American people and the international public think about them and about what they are doing because they believe they are treating these detainees with the highest respect and with the most humane treatment possible. They are overseeing it rigorously. If any of them steps out of line, they get handled and they get in trouble. Yet they are subjected constantly to threats and harassment and abuse from the detainees.

It is my perspective that if anyone is being abused at Guantanamo , it is not the detainees, it is the good young men and women guards who are there on the front line, who are themselves physically threatened, verbally threatened, and in other ways abused. It has been reported what kinds of things are thrown at them through the cell blocks as they walk through. When they happen to go through and a detainee throws urine or feces on them, they have to go out, be hosed off, and go back into duty. If anyone is being abused at Guantanamo , it is the treatment that is being afforded to our men and women of the military that is causing the abuse to them, rather than the reverse.

For those here in this body or anywhere else to accuse our men and women of mistreating those at Guantanamo is a great irony because any abuse or mistreatment that is happening is the reverse.

I am proud of our men and women there. They are truly doing a great service for this country and for this world. Let me conclude by talking a little bit about what that is.

By the way, I forgot one piece of information. I have talked about the medical facilities and other kinds of support that have been provided to these detainees to make sure they are being properly cared for. In the newest facilities, the prisoners even get air conditioning, which is not something most of the troops get, at least during their working hours. But what does that cost us? What kind of investment has the United States made? To this point, the United States has spent over $241 million in providing these medical facilities, these containment and detention facilities, and for the care and treatment and feeding of these detainees. The annual cost will go on probably at $100 million a year, until we are able to resolve this conflict. The United States has also spent over $140 million in existing or new detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. So we are putting a tremendous amount in here.

What benefit does it provide to us? As I indicated, the purpose of this detention, to me, is twofold. First of all, it is to stop dangerous terrorists from being put back into the field so they can go back out and continue to kill Americans and others and train and facilitate other terrorists in doing the same thing. The first thing is to stop them from committing terrorist activity. The second purpose is to be able to gain from them information that will help us better pursue or fight against terrorists around the world. The question of Guantanamo detainees, which I will again state is not the kind of interrogation that one thinks of when they think of a gulag, or what you might see on TV as a threatening interrogation. This is entirely nonthreatening interrogation. It has improved the security of our Nation and coalition partners by helping us to expand our understanding of the operations of the terrorists. It has given us an expanded understanding of the organizational structure of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. It has given us more knowledge of the extent of the terrorist presence in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. It has given us knowledge of al-Qaida's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, of methods of recruitment and location of recruitment centers, terrorist skill sets, general and specialized operative training, and of how legitimate financial activities are being used to hide terrorist operations.

The intelligence we are gaining by the interrogations of those who are kept at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and has saved American lives. Not only has no one died at Guantanamo , not only has the highest health care possible been provided to them, but lives have been saved as a result of our activities there. Detainees have revealed al-Qaida leadership structures and operating funding mechanisms, training and selection programs, travel patterns, support infrastructure, and plans for attacking the United Sates and other countries. Information has been used by our forces on the battlefield to identify significant military and tribal leaders who are engaged in or supporting attacks on coalition forces. Detainees have continuously provided information that confirms other reporting regarding the roles and intentions of al-Qaida and other terrorist operatives.

I could get into details, but I will not do that publicly. The fact is, we are getting extensive, detailed information from the terrorists who are kept at Guantanamo , which is saving American lives and helping us to protect our young men and women in the military and people in other nations.

I want to conclude my remarks by coming back to the beginning. There has been a lot of debate about what is going on at Guantanamo . What is the United States doing? Why is it doing it? Is the United States creating some type of a new detention circumstance in modern warfare, which parallels some of the most terrible examples that our critics have been able to throw up at us? I went down there wanting to know and wanting to see and to be able to report back to the American people about what truly is happening.

What I found was that the U.S. men and women of our Armed Forces are committed, honorable, loyal, duty-bound members of the American military who are following the orders of their Commander in Chief to the letter, following the Geneva Conventions, and providing beyond what the Geneva Conventions even requires in terms of protection to these detainees, in a service to America and to the world. I found a circumstance where I don't believe a valid argument can be made that there is any nonhumane treatment of these detainees. I found a circumstance in which it appears to me that what is being portrayed by some is simply manufactured out of whole cloth in order to perpetuate a broader debate against the United States and our interests.

I also became convinced that, far beyond being simply a detention facility, Guantanamo is one of the key strategic interrogation facilities necessary for the United States in pursuit of the war against terror in this world. As we have said in both of our remarks, Guantanamo is where the worst of the worst are taken. They are taken there to be protected so that we can be protected from them and so that we can gain information from them that will help us better protect ourselves as we continue to fight to defend against the likes of Osama bin Laden.

I also stand here to commend the young men and women of our fighting forces--not just those who at Guantanamo are suffering the abuse of the detainees and the extremes of the weather and the living circumstances there to defend us, but those who serve throughout this world, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other points of conflict or in any other of the stations around this world, where we have men and women deployed to defend our interests.

The United States is at war against terrorists and we must acknowledge that. The efforts of the men and women in our military should be commended, not discredited. I stand as one Senator to thank the men and women of our Armed Forces for the tremendous job they do. They put their lives on the line daily for us and they should be given our thanks, not our criticism.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

http://crapo.senate.gov/legislative/transc.../guantanamo.cfm

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

steve, again in this text you provide, not 1 person alleges that we are torturing anybody, all they are doing is giving their opinion that torture is not effective. only 1, korb, states the administration needs to be held accountable, but for what? i suppose we are to infer he means torture. but that claim is never made by any of these officers.

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

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

does it say anywhere in these paragraphs that detainees are being tortured? no! it says some were being abused, there is a big difference between abuse and torture. well, maybe not to liberals, they seem to think that if you talk to a detainee with an unfriendly tone in your voice that it's torture. the last paragraph simply says the military wanted to use harsher methods, but it does not say torture. why do you automatically assume that harsher=torture?

as far as the reciprocity, how we treat the detainees will not make one bit of difference in how are soldiers would be treated if captured by terrorists. they will be brutally tortured and then killed. that is al quada's goal, kill infidels, period. they won't care one iota that we treat there detainees "nicely". in fact, they are probably laughing there heads off that we are even having this debate in our country, as they plot more ways to kill us.

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

that's what i thought you meant, but i wanted to make sure because you said it was legitimate testimony. i don't think some excerpts from a washington post article, a known liberal paper, counts as legitimate testimony. i was thinking you had some military intelligence officers that had testified before congress or something like that.

Why not?

your joking abt this "why not?", right? you have to be. no newspaper article can be considered legitimate testimony. testimony is given under oath

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

does col rothtrock say the detainees are being tortured? no, not at all. he is simply stating what his belief is on the effectiveness of torture

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

does col herrington say the detainees are being tortured? not at all, nowhere does he make that claim. again he only states his opinion on the effectiveness of torture

gary gary gary, is that all you can come up with to support your argument is a letter from 3 senators (1 of which, specter, although republican is very independent)? come on man, you know unless you can get some excerpt from a liberal political rag like the washington post it doesn't count. sheeeesh

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

From earlier in this thread...

Here's something from military personnel regarding torture:

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan11.html

that's what i thought you meant, but i wanted to make sure because you said it was legitimate testimony. i don't think some excerpts from a washington post article, a known liberal paper, counts as legitimate testimony. i was thinking you had some military intelligence officers that had testified before congress or something like that.

your condescending attitude really is so funny, thinking i need your advice, and then you offer a washington post article as legitimate testimony....here's some really good advice for you..don't offer advice unless asked. i know you perceive yourself as so grasping of the issues and those that don't see things your way need your help in some way. pathetic

well, not a fair comparison, i don't think the KKK ever called themselves peaceful and non-violent.

No but they are religious extremists, who have historically committed heinous acts while claiming to be servants of God. My point was extremism is rooted in ignorance - and that there is a tendency for extremists (in general) to be badly educated, and that they turn to religion partly in the absence of that education.

You might also notice that the leaders and agitators are not the ones blowing themselves up.

oh, ok, i misunderstood your prev post. yup, you are correct. and i noticed long ago that it's not the leaders blowing themselves up. the other point i was trying to make though, is that this is a supposed peaceful, non-violent religion. now if it was just your average muslim on the street venting his anger at the pope, that's one thing, but when it's being led by the clerics who should know their religion intimately, it makes me wonder if it really is that peaceful of a religion. just seems to be so much anger there.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that leaving aside religion, there are significant cultural and political differences between "Muslim" and "Christian" countries. Why it always comes down to religion, and not these other factors - never ceases to surprise me.

Political repression, lack of education etc are what fuels fundamentalist interpretations of islam, but that really doesn't imply that Islam is an inherently "hateful" religion.

After all, the likes of KKK (for example) could hardly be called rocket scientists could they?

well, not a fair comparison, i don't think the KKK ever called themselves peaceful and non-violent.

muslims in iran are not repressed, the country is rich, and yet it was the clerics who were leading the angry mobs there. unless i don't understand something here, i believe clerics are religious leaders in islam, are they not?

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

1st, you don't have proof thay they are being tortured. all you have is your belief that they are because that is what supports your argument. 2nd, there are many others, military and civilian, saying that the current techinques that were used on KSM and others yielded valuable information that prevented attacks on us. i seriously doubt that this administration, or any US administration, wants to torture people just for the sake of it. that being said, i don't believe they are being tortured.

Here's some advice when arguing - try and address directly what was said. Go back read what those military interrogation officers said and then if you want to argue against what they said, come up with something more substantial than saying "I don't believe they are being tortured." It's not fuzzy facts, or fuzzy logic. It's simply relying on legitimate testimony. If you have legitimate testimony that counters their claims, be sure to find someone who actually addresses what was said.

what did the military intelligence officers say? i just want to make sure i'm responding to the correct thing. is it in this thread or some other thread?

Yeah, I just read the article in today's (Sunday) Washington Post, front section.

The situation "was and is" pathetic!

Now, how do we get out of the mess that this incompetent, supreme court appointed, leader got us into?

P

Unfortunately, I think whoever is going to get elected next President will inherit this mess. Hopefully though, it will be someone who actually listens to expert advice and they will change the course we're on.

just curious steve, what course do you think we should be on in Iraq?

Unfortunately this man represents the church and he knows what and why he says what he say. He is not just a man. And I totally I agree that not all Catholics or Christians believe in what he says, the pressure is not on the western world or Christians is on their leaders who are desperately trying to poison the bridges between cultures and religion. The pope ignored history and acted as if he is innocent and people took his speech out of context.

He ignored the 500 years of crusade in the middle east when his church and by the name of God killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Muslims and eastern christens and stole their land and wealth for over hundred years. the pope ignored when in the last century the over hundred years when the west occupied the Arab/ Muslim land and killed hundred of thousands, I never heard an apology or a comment for that.

He also ignored the Holocaust which happened in Europe and in his own country killing innocent people and again in the name of God and because they are different. Any by the way the Jew sought refuge with many Muslim Khalif's (leaders) when they ran away from the discrimination and the killing that was waged against them in Europe- go the National Museum of History in NY and read the testaments from many of the Jewish rabaies.

He claims that Islam forces itself by war, please let him or anyone else go back to history and count the number of wars between Muslims and others and tell me where it happened; in Europe or in the East? And who moved armies to fight whom.

The pope ignored the many years of killing his church initiated against the Eastern Church killing many thousands of their leaders unless they submit to the pope in Rome.

And if Muslims are so cruel and forceful, how come we still have many Christians living among us in the Arab World with their own churches and getting the full support from Muslim /Arab government. As a matter of fact we have an entire country (Lebanon) who by the constitution must have a Christian president.

And No we do not want the western world to be sensitive to our needs or around us or stop your celebrations. Your religion and celebrations do not offend us as matter of fact we Muslims believe equally in Muses, Jesus and Mohammed; they are all brothers and messenger of God. What offended us is what some the western leaders and recently church leaders lie about our religion and prophet. And what offend us more is when they play innocent and ignorant.

I urge you to read more and do your own research

I believe Pope John Paul II apologized for the crusades and all religious wars started by the church. but your talking about history. in this present day you don't see the anger from christians when their religion is offended in some way. you might see some local protests by individuals, but when, for example, sinead o'connor tore up a picture of the pope on stage one time you didn't see catholic priests leading protests and calling for her to be hanged. but in the news today i heard that clerics in iran have closed schools and universities so that they could participate in protests against the pope. there have been calls for the pope to be hanged. a nun was killed today in retaliation. churches were firebombed in jerusalem. angry muslim mobs were all over tv yesterday. why all this anger? you call your religion a peaceful, non-violent religion. does that only apply as long as nobody says anything that you percieve as disparaging to islam? i'm sorry, but i'm not buying the "peaceful, non-violent religion" mantra anymore. actions speak louder than words, and what i saw on tv looked to be anything but peaceful and non-violent.

I never said he wanted to, in fact I quoted the video linked in that post which states he could and what Yoo says implies the president COULD. Not that he will or does.

However the in THIS thread I have claimed that our treatment of the "combatants" could send a message to other potential enemies. So far, no one has refuted that.

Another thing about that video, it only touched the topic of torture, the majority of that video discusses unwarranted wiretaps, which is a practice Bush has done against US Citizens.

It then shows a press conference where the retiring head of the NSA claims the phrase "probable cause" does not exist in the Bill of Rights.

In essence the majority of the video is the head of the NSA stating that NO probable cause is needed IF they have a "reasonable belief". The argument is that the courts will NOT grant a warrant without probable cause, EVEN if there is a reasonable belief.

so why in your post did you not say john yoo said there is no law to prevent the torture of children. you are right, most of that video deals with the wiretapping program, so why did you choose those 2 cuts to put in your post. why not just put the statement about the video with no excerpts, or some excerpt about the wiretapping. hence my view that you purposely chose those 2 excerpts and that you purposely attributed the 1st excerpt to noone, followed by a 2nd excerpt starting with "bush even claimed", to make it appear like he claimed that 1st excerpt also. and not everybody will watch that video and go away with the perception that pres bush condones torture of children. that's my view on it anyway.

as for the wiretapping program, well it's not secret anymore, and if it was so illegal i would think the democrats would be halting all business in congress until there was an impeachment hearing. in fact i would think that would be the only thing they would talk about on tv and radio every chance they had, but they don't

tell that to the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11

Oh whatever... Like you and the Bush administration alone have the monopoly on the national tragedy. That, my friend, is "propaganda of the worst sort". Why don't YOU explain it to this guy:

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

1st, who says torture is being used? i do know that pres bush said in his speech where he talked about the cia program that the techniques they used on ksm and others yielded useful information

Lets see - former detainees, human rights groups, certain members of the armed forces, service personnel....

If you think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident - discounting the idea (of which there is some evidence) that soldiers weren't acting solely on their own merit, the political confusion of the designation of 'detainees' vs. 'enemy combatants' etc. created the conditions that allowed this sort of thing to take place.

you should try to research the word propaganda. 2nd, former detainees are not a credible source, of course they will say they were mistreated, it's helps their cause of turning us against each other. human rights groups provide no evidence, just facts and figures that anybody could have made up. members of both political parties have visited gitmo several times and attested to the fact that the detainees are being treated very humanely.

So you disregard what military interrogation officers have to say about torture? Amazing. This Administration is notorious for ignoring anyone with substance on such importance matters. This is the Administration of Ignorance.

1st, you don't have proof thay they are being tortured. all you have is your belief that they are because that is what supports your argument. 2nd, there are many others, military and civilian, saying that the current techinques that were used on KSM and others yielded valuable information that prevented attacks on us. i seriously doubt that this administration, or any US administration, wants to torture people just for the sake of it. that being said, i don't believe they are being tortured. and i also believe that pres bush and his administration have one goal in this...to keep us safe from further terrorist attacks, and to spread freedom as far as possible to lessen the likelihood of future terrorist attacks against our children and grandchildren and generations to come. terrorism has been on the rise, unchecked, around the world for decades now, and thank god somebody finally wants to tackle this issue instead of just sticking his head in the sand and hoping it will go away, because it won't until the appeal of terror to new recruits is not as strong as the appeal of a peaceful, productive life.

you might want to call the admistration of ignorance, whatever....i know 1 thing, we havn't had another terrorist attack on th US homeland since 9/11....do you think it's because the terrorists have stopped trying?

you always harp about due process...how innocent people are being picked up in afghanistan or iraq for no particular reason, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being held and then released at some future time without being charged. our troops and cia personnel recieve extensive training on how to spot and interogate a suspected terrorist. i have confidence that our troops and cia are competent people doing a good job and they had good reason to detain the people they detained, as opposed to your side that must think our troops and cia are a bunch of bumbling dunderheads that couldn't spot a terrorist from the pillsbury dough boy. i think they had good reason to detain these suspects and if they had to be released without being charged it must be because they weren't later able to develop enough evidence against them. well, so sorry, it's not a perfect world, even here in our domestic justice system sometimes innocent people get arrested, tried, and convicted. we would all like a perfect world, but it never will be, because all humans are imperfect. i don't want innocent people detained, but i trust our troops only detain people for good reason. i know it's easy for you to believe these stories you see about so and so detained for no reason because of your distrust of the US military, i trust our troops. and, they must be getting some kind of due process because they are being released if no charges can be proved against them.

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Moral legitimacy and ethical accountability, that's what

tell that to the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

Is there any direct proof that torture "pressure" etc. has actually yielded useful results?

1st, who says torture is being used? i do know that pres bush said in his speech where he talked about the cia program that the techniques they used on ksm and others yielded useful information

They don't care because their ideology is short-sighted. The difference is - we ought to care, and before 9/11 and GWB - for the most part, people did.

and what did caring get us?

What do you think..............

Take a vote, yes or no (NO MAYBE!)

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

pope 9/14/07

P

Yes it showes hatered and ignorance of Islam and History.

Completely ignoring the fact that those words are NOT the Popes. He was quoting from a work written around 1344 or so.

right on platypius From the pope on sunday...

"These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought," Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.

it offends me that the OP tried to attribute these words to the pope and did not put it in the proper context. the pope, at the time, specifically said they were a quote from a byzantine emperor. what is offensive is how the OP framed her question.

What do you think..............

Take a vote, yes or no (NO MAYBE!)

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

pope 9/14/07

P

wow, talk about taking something out of context. why don't you put it in the proper context 1st and then repost it. then i'll vote

What do you think..............

Take a vote, yes or no (NO MAYBE!)

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

pope 9/14/07

P

wow, talk about taking something out of context. why don't you put it in the proper context 1st and then repost it. then i'll vote

I would love to get together with a bunch of Muslims and denounce the actions of those ####### terrorists...who's with me!?! Ummm anyone?

.

.

.

Hello? Guys?

.

.

.

(sound of crickets)

(CNN) -- Pope Benedict XVI came under a hail of criticism from the Islamic world Friday for comments he made earlier in the week regarding the Prophet Mohammed and the Muslim faith, in some cities provoking street protests.

A growing chorus of Muslim leaders have called on the pope to apologize for the remarks he made in a speech in Germany on Tuesday when he used the terms "jihad" and "holy war."

Pakistan's National Assembly, parliament's lower house, unanimously passed a resolution on Friday condemning the pope's comments.

Muslim protesters shouted slogans against the pontiff at a rally in Jammu, India. And in Cairo, about 100 demonstrators gathered in an anti-Vatican protest outside the capital's al-Azhar mosque.

Meanwhile, a youth center run by the Greek Orthodox church in the Gaza Strip was slightly damaged by a small explosion on Friday, witnesses told Reuters.

It was unclear if the blast was connected to the pope's comments.

During his address at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday, Benedict quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.

"God," the emperor, as the pope quoted, said, "is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." (Full story)

A transcript of the pope's remarks obtained by The Associated Press television network reads: "In the seventh (sura, or chapter of the Quran), the emperor comes to speak about jihad, holy war.

"The emperor certainly knew that Sura 2, 256, reads: 'No force in matters of faith'. It is one of the early suras, from a time -- as experts say -- in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened.

"However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors -- in a surprisingly brusque way -- with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

A Vatican statement said Benedict was not trying offend Muslims with his remarks.

"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to ... offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful," said Federico Lombardi, the Vatican press officer.

But offense was taken as Islamic groups and governments from across the globe weighed in.

"The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regrets the quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as 'spreading' Islam 'by the sword,'" a statement released by the OIC on Thursday said.

"The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the shedding of blood and violence, which is 'incompatible with the nature of God' is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history."

Muslim Brotherhood Chairman Mohammed Mahdi Akef also expressed anger over the pope's academic speech.

"The pope's statements come to add fuel to fire and trigger anger within the Muslim world and show that the West with its politicians and clerics are hostile to Islam."

Condemnation also came from Turkey where Benedict is scheduled to visit in November.

"His words are extremely regrettable, worrying and unfortunate in terms of the Christian world and common peace of humanity," the Anatolian state news agency quoted Ali Bardakoglu, the head of Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, as saying.

"I do not see any use in somebody visiting the Islamic world who thinks in this way about the holy prophet of Islam."

In Pakistan, the National Assembly and Senate on Friday passed unanimous resolutions against Benedict's controversial remarks.

The Pakistan Foreign Office also called into question the pope's comments, calling them highly controversial, regrettable and against Islam.

In Syria, the grand mufti, the country's top Sunni Muslim religious authority, sent a letter to the pope saying he feared the pontiff's comments on Islam would worsen interfaith relations, AP reported.

In Gaza City, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya issued a condemnation, saying Benedict's remarks "are not true and defamed the essence of this holy religion and it defamed the history of the Islam."

"We say to the pope to re-examine these comments and to stop defaming the Islam religion that more than 1 and half billion Muslims believe in," said Haniya, who made the remarks after Friday prayers.

But the Vatican statement said Benedict's discussion on Tuesday was quite to the contrary.

"The Holy Father's desire (is) to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, including, of course, Islam."

According to Lombardi, Benedict's speech was "a warning, addressed to Western culture, to avoid 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom.'"

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/0...slam/index.html

on the news now, 4 churches have been firebombed in jerusalem by muslims in retaliation for the pope's remarks. i dunno, for a supposed self-desrcribed peaceful religion they seem to be able to get whipped up into an angry frenzy quite easily. whether it was the pope or those cartoons before, seems to be a lot of anger in the worldwide muslim community. peaceful religion? i hope so, but that's not what i'm seeing.

that's because you assume that everything God did in making earth is in the Bible. God could have made many other couples that may have had daughters but chose not to include it in the Bible, maybe He put in just enough for us to know about Him. it's possible

I'm kinda olive colored...does that count?

black olive or green olive?

It depends on the intention - propaganda is intentional, a poor choice of words is not.

But again - the video is there for people to watch, and I'm not sure on the basis of a single forum post or even the video that any reasonable person would think that the administration condones the sexual abuse of children.

exactly my point erekose...when you put the excerpt "bush also claimed", it implies he claimed somthing else before this, hence the word "also" in there...and what is posted just before that, the excerpt about torturing children, as if this were the 1st thing bush claimed. i saw it as intentional propaganda and i took great offense to somebody trying to promulgate that kind of propaganda about the president, whoever the president is.

Well, when the cartoons were published they were pissed because supposedly those cartoons hurt their religious sentiments.

When the pope says his thing, they're pissed again supposedly because his words also hurt their religious sentiments.

While I don't understand the overreaction to a bunch of cartoons and something an old man in a fruity robe says, I can understand the feelings. Fine.

Every time a terrorist blows up someone and something, we are told that they are misusing Islam and giving it a bad name. Why doesn't this hurt their religious sentiments? Someone is using their faith to blow sh!t up and kill children, making their religion look awfully bad in the process, and that doesn't warrant protests?

ah yes, islam, that peaceful, loving religion i keep hearing about.......