Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people?

[BigSky]

Oh yeah, another crank ... the Dean of Yale law school. What does he know?

First just because he is a dean means nothing.  Especially since the fact that he served in the Clinton Administration may well have had a role in him getting his job as the dean.  Nothing like such places being able to tout that their "dean" worked for the former Clinton Administration when it comes time for donations from alumni.

The thing that supporters of this administration have done again and again is they fail to reckon or even acknowledge the costs of their policies. The imagined upside is touted as debate ending evidence that their choices are the right choices. Anybody who disagrees is Nevil Chamberlain incarnate. Never is there a sober reckoning of the costs of the imagined success, let alone the costs of the downside risk.

Not at all.  The costs are far cheaper than that of what we let happen during the Clinton years of not fighting terrorism and protecting this country.

Is it better to have dead Americans and a high standing in the world, or to have Americans alive and a lower standing?

Really now, are  we suppose to sacrifice American lives so that we are popular with the world?

[Bill Peckham]

So just how serious a threat are the people being held at Gitmo? Hicks has to spend 9 months in jail in Australia? Don't we give longer sentences for smoking medical marijuana? ( http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119409.html ). What a farce. One would have guessed that it would take at least a decade before the temptation of unchecked authority would completely corrupt everyone involved. However, here it is only five years since this administration decided it had unlimited power and the corruption is complete.

(h/t http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/)
"So Cheney goes to Australia and meets with John Howard who tells him that the Hicks case is killing him in Australia, and he may lose the next election because of it. Hicks's case is then railroaded to the front of the Gitmo kangaro court line, and put through a "legal" process almost ludicrously inept, with two of Hicks' three lawyers thrown out on one day, then an abrupt plea-bargain, with a transparently insincere confession. Hicks is then given a mere nine months in jail in Australia, before being set free. Who negotiated the plea-bargain? Hicks' lawyer. Who did he negotiate with? Not the prosecutors, as would be normal, but Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official. Who is Susan J. Crawford? She served as Dick Cheney's Inspector General while he was Defense Secretary. Money quote ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033100976.html?nav=rss_print/asection ):

    As the deal developed in recent weeks, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the lead prosecutor for military commissions, and his team on the Hicks case were not in the loop. Davis said he learned about the plea agreement Monday morning when the plea papers were presented to him, and he said the prosecution team was unaware that discussions had been taking place.

    "We got it before lunchtime, before the first session," Davis said at a news conference Friday night. In an interview later, he said the approved sentence of nine months shocked him. "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits," he said, referring to a sentence of at least 10 years.

If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is. For good measure, Hicks has a gag-order imposed so that he will not be able to speak of his alleged torture and abuse until after Howard faces re-election. Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn't a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice."

[kitkatz]

A simple answer to a simple question..... It is not acceptable for people to torture other people.

[Triker]

These aren't people. They're fanantic terrorists. They're not even soldiers, don't where uniforms, don't represent any country, and follow no rules of engagement. Do they fight fair? They slaughter inoccent civilians, women and children.

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it Not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001 ?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not Brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac From our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly Three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or Crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it Wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and Repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East Start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a Crime in Saudi Arabia .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for Hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling Slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come Out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by Hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in Search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their Suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law Instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine Roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who Have been Humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
Assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is Told not to Move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
Bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer Mat, and Fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is Complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely Believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and Other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! !

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a Difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope You forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will Be a nation gone under."
Also by.. Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked By one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he Said:"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how Many want in... And how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

[glitter]

 GO TRIKER!!!

 
 
 
 

[George Jung]

I was unsure as to where I should post this....figured it would be moat appropriate here but really applicable anywhere.  One thing all Americans are grateful for is the right to believe whatever you should choose.

Anatomy of a Peacemaker’s Brain
Posted in Mind Matters, Serotonin, Intelligence, rewire your brain, multiple intelligences, Martin Luther King, cortisol, Gandhi, Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, Nancy Pelosi, Tony Blair on November 19th, 2006

Tony Blair told leaders in Pakistan today what many mid-lifers said all along, that “Force alone can’t beat terrorism.” Baby boomers live in ideal spaces - somewhere between cruel ravages of yesteryear’s wars, and lively prospects for peace that could distinguish a new era. Luckily research shows novel ways that human brains adapt from traditions of battle - into legacies of peace. Why so many wars then, as we’re reminded in Brad DeLong’s more than fair daily journal?




It takes jumpstarting a brain’s working memory for tactics that rewire old basal ganglia habits. Those well-reinforced words images and traditions for violence unfortunately control a whole cultures’ basal ganglia. You may recall from earlier posts how the basal ganglia stores and resurfaces mental habits. Because of war words, battlecry images, the basal ganglia holds us in ruts with routines for tough talk and one-upness that lead to war.

In contrast, peace plans rewire human brains for remarkable benefits, when leaders draw from hidden or unused parts that rejuvenate the brain’s working memory for change. Yes, even a warrior’s brain rewires when peaceful benefits override the horrors from war. It starts with one act of peace, because the brain reshapes itself based on stimulation from what we do.

Not surprisingly, the brain’s plasticity is rewired for non-violent solutions, when peacemakers lead us to question, target, expect, move, and reflect our way to redirect our brains toward the power of peace. In the past week, I’ve run into several such leaders - who show how the minds of peacemakers work.

One such remarkable leader at Strong Hospital, Reg Stewart, pulls together diversity that draws the best from people’s cultural background as well as their unique intellectual strength.




Reg Stewart’s brain-based-peace-plans inspire us to QUESTION … “What if people come together to build on every person’s strengths in ways that that would benefit their entire communities?

When we question to ask, “What if…” as Reg does, the brain builds new neuron pathways for peaceful benefits on both sides of any challenge. Peacemakers spark amazing mental acumen - that removes guns from the equation - and offers peace possibilities in place of battle plans. Have you noticed how great questions tend to target action?

You may remember Crash Davis, a baseball great played by Kevin Costner, in the movie “Bill Durham,” who described a TARGET to peace. Do you recall Davis’ plan for people to come from all over the place philosophically and “have some fun at the same time?”

Target peace, as Crash Davis did, and you also release serotonin … a chemical that surges through the brain to increase non-violent solutions through cooperation and well being that shows up in respect for others. Serotonin is less available to those who wage wars to get their way. Instead, its enemy hormone, cortisol tends to rage through brains of people lash out… strike back… or seek revenge…. Spark this chemical and war’s a done deal, because it is the brain’s hormone for violence and self-serving.

EXPECT your brain to show you exceptional solutions with hope for more global interests, when you draw from Dr. Howard Gardner’s wider mix of intelligences. Dr. Gardner prospers peace and we-being by helping peacemakers to rewire their brains for words and images that spark success from multiple angles. Expect your best options, see the benefits, and it’s time for action before any lasting peace plan takes root. Moves from peacemakers are easily missed by those who bank on armies. Mother Teresa showed us why….




MOVE peace forward the way Mother Teresa did, and you experience its advantages in smaller packages at first. She simply followed a call to act peacefully on a daily basis, and her brain rewired for goodwill that followed. In spite of criticism from many groups, Mother Teresa moved from one needy person to another, and refused to be intimidated by big groups organizing to fix the “bad guys.” She taught teachers one at a time under trees, airlifted sick babies to hospital after commissioning enemy airplanes, refused payoffs, and took time to hold the hand of one person at a time in spite of many who clamored for her help. For the brain to light pathways to peace, it needs time and space to reflect on war in all its horror and rewire victory in non-violent ways.

REFLECT for peace as a tool for the next overwhelming dilemma you face and share with one other person how peace replaced war to bring victory. It’s too early to tell, but New US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, took advantage of the brain’s plasticity to reverse trends of war-wired brains, when she broke traditions of scraping with political opponents and spoke of freedom that follows when leaders listen to, respect, and work with the other side. Wow – let’s support these words and images of peace that could mean change for Western nations. Imagine new neuron pathways in minds that prosper peace and preclude wars.

Never have we faced a better time to celebrate diplomats like King, Gandhi, the Dali Lama, or contemporary ambassadors of harmony listed here. With their skills for humanity, they also refuel a brain’s basal ganglia where the mind stores peace and reverses violence.


http://www.brainboomer.com/category/dali-lama/

[Bill Peckham]

The piece triker posted has been circulating via email since 2005. It was written by Doug Patton. “Doug has served as a speech writer and policy adviser to federal, state and local candidates and elected officials. He founded the Nebraska chapter of the Christian Coalition in 1995 and served as its first executive director for nearly 3 years. He was a candidate himself for the Nebraska Legislature in 2000.” I guess when you live in Nebraska the world is a much simpler place.

I wonder if Mr. Patton cares when people who turn out to be just wrong place, wrong time are secretly jailed for years or if the Hicks fiasco caused Mr. Patton to raise an eyebrow. Glitter, Triker - What's you take on the Hicks case? I'd love to hear from our Aussie friends: How does the US look from down under?

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=david+Hicks

[Bill Peckham]

Here's a thoughtful rethink. Fortunately most Americans are coming around to their senses too. Too late, or just in time, time will tell.

The trend in the blogosphere for the last few weeks leading up to the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq has been to look back and admit to stuff you were wrong about.

So I'll admit to one rather glaring item. It's a post that Glenn Reynolds regularly seems to link when he wants to make a "hey, I'm not as bad as those guys" kind of statement about various positions he takes in the war on terror. That post is here. http://www.theagitator.com/archives/005009.php

Since I'm not comfortable being the de facto "even anti-Bush libertarians like ________ support torture" guy, I think it's worth putting up a post noting that I have changed my mind.

For starters, I was bit more flip than I should have been. At the ripe age of nearly 32, I probably can't get away with blaming that on my frivolous twenties. But in any case, yes, I have changed my mind on torture in the last four years. I was wrong.

But I will add a few points for clarification.

First, I still don't buy into the emotional "torture is always wrong, period," stuff (articulated by my friend Jim Henley as, "we don't torture because we're the United States of p*cking America). I still don't see much moral difference between torturing an captured al-Qaeda suspect who might have useful information and evaporating him with a missile fired from a Predator drone.

Second, I'm still not convinced of the argument that torture has never worked, and could never work. In fact, I'm certain it could, and has.

Finally, I do still have problems with the overly broad definitions of torture often tossed about. I don't think taunting, or psychological manipulation, or insulting someone's religion amounts to torture. Waterboarding? Yes, that's torture. Interrogation by ladies wearing bikinis? Not so much.

All of that out of the way, I was still wrong. I should have opposed torture for the same reason I oppose just about every other surrender of power to the government that naive people (in this case, like me) tend to think looks good on paper: Because the government won't use it competently, because the government will abuse it, and because the government will find new, inappropriate contexts in which to use it.

It's one thing to argue that torture may be justifiable and effective in a few, limited circumstances. It's another to believe that once you've given it the power, government will only use torture in those same limited situations where it's justifiable and effective.

I'm certain that if given the power to torture via public support and the endorsement of Congress, it'll only be a matter of time before the definition of "national security" expands to include not just terrorists we're certain have designs on killing us, but terrorists who might have designs on killing us, to terrorists who could, one day have designs on killing us. And of course, from there it's a short jump to a an expanded definition of torture-able "national security" threats broad enough to include accused child pornographers and drug dealers.

Of course, all of this likely moot. There's no doubt in my mind that we're currently torturing suspected terrorists. The question is whether or not to sanction it under federal law. I'm now opposed to that. I'm now of the opinion it should remain illegal. It'll still happen, but it's important that the presumption be that it's wrong, and that those we catch doing it will be punished. If an agent of the government can prove in a court of law, or perhaps in the court of public opinion, that torture was necessary to prevent a catastrophe, let him try, and let the president pardon him if he proves persuasive.
Posted by Radley Balko on March 19, 2007
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027599.php#027599

[BigSky]

These aren't people. They're fanantic terrorists. They're not even soldiers, don't where uniforms, don't represent any country, and follow no rules of engagement. Do they fight fair? They slaughter inoccent civilians, women and children.

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it Not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001 ?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not Brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac From our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly Three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or Crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it Wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and Repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East Start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a Crime in Saudi Arabia .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for Hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling Slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come Out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by Hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in Search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their Suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law Instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine Roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who Have been Humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
Assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is Told not to Move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
Bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer Mat, and Fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is Complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely Believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and Other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! !

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a Difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope You forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will Be a nation gone under."
Also by.. Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked By one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he Said:"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how Many want in... And how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

[/b]


 

[George Jung]

These aren't people. They're fanantic terrorists. They're not even soldiers, don't where uniforms, don't represent any country, and follow no rules of engagement. Do they fight fair? They slaughter inoccent civilians, women and children.  Unfortunately, they ARE people.  Sick/demented, mislead, among  other things but human none the less.  Do they fight fair?  As in?

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it Not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001 ?  We are.  Do we have the necessary support from the world community?  Can we do it alone?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not Brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac From our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly Three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or Crushing death that day, or didn't they?  It was the most tragic event in my lifetime (opinionated).

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it Wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.  Do you care that Senator Obama used the Koran to swear into his position?

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and Repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.  Will you really?  Would it mean that much to you?

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East Start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a Crime in Saudi Arabia .  America at it's greatest....freedom of religion.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for Hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling Slashed throat.  There is no way to make anyone feel better about this horrible crime.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come Out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by Hiding in mosques.  Thought you didn't care about their religion?

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in Search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their Suicide bombs.  Hopefully this will all end but how exactly would you care?

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law Instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.  International law should supersede all law in my opinion.  Having to do with international events obviously.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine Roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.  As long as it's done necessarily

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who Have been Humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
Assured: I don't care. College-hazing?  Give our government more credit than that.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is Told not to Move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
Bank: I don't care.  In order to save the innocent you have to do what is necessary in such situations.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer Mat, and Fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is Complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely Believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.  I'm with you there.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and Other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! !  And here.  Big deal, everyone knows what it is that is being referenced.

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a Difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan  They sure don't, and none of the brave Americans that make a commitment to protect our country do either.

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope You forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will Be a nation gone under."
Also by.. Ronald Reagan  This will never happen, I am confident of that.

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked By one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he Said:"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how Many want in... And how many want out."
Good point!  Let's keep it that way.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

[Bill Peckham]

Glitter, Triker - What's you take on the Hicks case? I'd love to hear from our Aussie friends: How does the US look from down under?

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=david+Hicks

Where's the icon for the sound of crickets chirping in an otherwise silent forum?

I find it a bit shocking - the complete lack of commentary about the Hicks case on the Bushie blogs. If you do a search of NRO's The Corner or Red State for Hicks you'll get multiple references to Taylor Hicks who apparently is or was an American Idol contestant but no commentary on the David Hicks plea agreement engineered by the administration. Same is true of Rush's site though he manages to avoid American Idol discussions, so I assume Limbaugh hasn't talked about Hicks with his Dittoheads. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy. Our detention policies are held up a a vital element in the "War on Terror"/"World War IV" yet we spin off someone we've held for five years without batting an eye, without comment.

On this thread there is a lot of scoffing at the idea that we should give a damn about what people in the middle east think about us but what about people in Australia? Australia is one of our truest historic allies - they've stood with us in every fight - yet reading their papers in the last two weeks it is clear that America has lost their admiration and respect. David Hicks will probably be elected to their Parliament while Bush will be a punchline to jokes for generations. Still, from the Right there is only the sound of crickets.

This is how Bush has lead the Republican Party into the wilderness. His entire administration and the policy formulations of the Republican Party are based on the idea that we are fighting WW IV. We have to throw out all historical precedent and establish secrete prisons because it is WW IV. We have to wire tap without warrants because it is WW IV. We have to torture because it is WW IV. Yet it is clear that the leaders of the Republican Party don't believe their own rhetoric. It is clear the President and the Vice President don't believe their own rhetoric. In fact I doubt the pro-Bush posters to this thread believe their own rhetoric.

Obviously if this was a true existential fight for the survival of America we'd have a draft. Rather than tax cuts we'd be talking about war bonds. If this was truly WW IV, a "War on Terror", we'd have declared war.

By 2009 the American voters will realize the Bush formulation is a dead end rhetorically and militarily. The new President whoever he or she is, will have reorientated the fight against the murdering meatheads of the middle east as a law enforcement issue. And we will start the process of rebuilding the long list of things destroyed by the Bush administration - our reputation, our military, our international relationships, our commitment to the rule of law ... well it's a long list.

[BigSky]

Glitter, Triker - What's you take on the Hicks case? I'd love to hear from our Aussie friends: How does the US look from down under?

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=david+Hicks

Where's the icon for the sound of crickets chirping in an otherwise silent forum?

I find it a bit shocking - the complete lack of commentary about the Hicks case on the Bushie blogs.

Because no one gives a sh*t about those terrorists and those that associate with terrorists.

[Bill Peckham]

I think you've made it clear that you don't give a hoot, I'd also note that you've made it clear that when you say "no one" you mean the thirty percent of US voters that think Bushie's doin' a heck of a job.

The point of the Hicks case is that is shows the administration and its supporters don't believe their own rhetoric. If you or Rush or The Corner believe your rhetoric, where is your outrage at this administration releasing a terrorist for transparent (yet likely fruitless) political reasons?

[Triker]

I originated the first line of my reply. The rest was from someone else, but it seemed rather appropriate. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a horrible experience, but we might speaking Japanese if not for it. Was it right? I guess I'll never know. Good people do horrible things, when our way of life and our very existence are threatened. The terrorists threaten our very existence. They have come to our shores and continue to try to this day. I'm not a big Bush supporter, but he is our sitting elected president, and I am an America supporter. In this country, we can elect another president if we don't like the old one. That's more than can be said in many countries.

I don't know who wrote the passage, but it seems odd that a known terrorist would write it. Still, whoever wrote it seemed to be right, in any case.

[Bill Peckham]

The terrorists threaten our very existence.

That's just it. If our very existence is at stake why are were we not talking about a draft and war bonds in the 2004 and 2006 elections? Are tax cuts and gay marriage amendments our highest priority when our very existence is on the line? If David Hicks is a terrorist and a threat to the existence of the US how could the administration allow him to be released after a couple more months in an Aussie prison? Is shoring up Howard's electoral chances enough of a reason to risk the existence of the US??

I don't know who wrote the passage, but it seems odd that a known terrorist would write it. Still, whoever wrote it seemed to be right, in any case.

I wrote "It was written by Doug Patton. “Doug has served as a speech writer and policy adviser to federal, state and local candidates and elected officials. He founded the Nebraska chapter of the Christian Coalition in 1995 and served as its first executive director for nearly 3 years. He was a candidate himself for the Nebraska Legislature in 2000.”

Does being from Nebraska make you a known terrorist? Or is it founding a Christian Coalition chapter that crosses the line?

[Triker]

Bill, you sited a source from google that you suggested we read, that seemed to claim that he was a known terrorist. Perhaps I read it wrong. Maybe this David Hicks is the terrorist. I don't know either man, or who wrote it. I think you're confusing the issues. I don't know who wrote it, but truth is still truth, and if Jack the Ripper wrote it, Jimmie crack corn, and I still don't care. LOL!  Is America perfect? Nope, but it's still the greatest country on earth. JMHO I'm not jumping on a boat and leaving for anywhere else. I'm not for tax cuts for the wealthy, or gay marriage, and I've already said that I'm not a big Bush supporter, but the topic is: is it acceptable for the us government to torture people? In most cases no, but with terrorists, I say yes. The war on terror isn't a conventional war. Would you want to go to a boxing ring and fight by the rules, and the opponent didn't have to? I think not.

[BigSky]

I think you've made it clear that you don't give a hoot, I'd also note that you've made it clear that when you say "no one" you mean the thirty percent of US voters that think Bushie's doin' a heck of a job.

The point of the Hicks case is that is shows the administration and its supporters don't believe their own rhetoric. If you or Rush or The Corner believe your rhetoric, where is your outrage at this administration releasing a terrorist for transparent (yet likely fruitless) political reasons?

Actually I mean most of this country and the world.

It has nothing to do with the performance of the president as you seem to think.

In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way. ----MSNBC 2005

Also the fact that hicks pleaded GUILTY

[BigSky]

That's just it. If our very existence is at stake why are were we not talking about a draft and war bonds in the 2004 and 2006 elections?

There is no need for a draft or war bonds today because the military is far better prepared to defend than it was in the past when that stuff was needed.  Back then this country was relatively unprepared for such stuff.

Are tax cuts and gay marriage amendments our highest priority when our very existence is on the line? If David Hicks is a terrorist and a threat to the existence of the US how could the administration allow him to be released after a couple more months in an Aussie prison? Is shoring up Howard's electoral chances enough of a reason to risk the existence of the US??

The nation is capable of doing its business and improving the economy at the same time and fighting terrorism.


Hicks was given 7 years with all suspended but 9 months.  He screws up back to prison he will go.  He is lucky we are lenient against him.  He was captured in Afghanistan and could have paid with his life for his crimes. 

Hicks---->>> GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hicks, acknowledged that he trained with Al Qaeda, fought U.S. allies in Afghanistan in late 2001 for two hours, and then sold his gun to raise cab fare to flee to Pakistan.--Reuters

[Triker]

One more thing before you try confusing the issues, with Bush bashing, and faulting his administration, need I remind you that Laden and his band of followers declared war on America long before Bush was in office.

[George Jung]

There is no need for a draft or war bonds today because the military is far better prepared to defend than it was in the past when that stuff was needed.

How are you assessing our military function?  I was under the impression that the troops were being rushed into battle with inadequate training and those serving 2 or 3 successive tours need a break and are not getting it.

Hicks was given 7 years with all suspended but 9 months. He screws up back to prison he will go. He is lucky we are lenient against him. He was captured in Afghanistan and could have paid with his life for his crimes.

Hicks---->>> GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suspended sentence?  What happened to killing ALL of those bastards?  You don't sound bothered by the fact that we are going to let this guy walk.  Where is this compassion(?) coming from?

[BigSky]

How are you assessing our military function?  I was under the impression that the troops were being rushed into battle with inadequate training and those serving 2 or 3 successive tours need a break and are not getting it.

I suggest you look at why the draft and war bonds were first instituted.

Troops are properly trained with basic and MOS.  As to funds we have plenty, well that is if the democrats try not to stab the the troops in the back with their plans to eliminate funding to the troops like they have been.

Suspended sentence?  What happened to killing ALL of those bastards?  You don't sound bothered by the fact that we are going to let this guy walk.  Where is this compassion(?) coming from?

If it were up to me he would rot in prison forever, I don't care if he was repentant for his terrorist activities.  However I am not the one who gave the sentence in this case.  However if I was to meet him on the street it may well be a different story.

[George Jung]

May I suggest you read what I asked again! 

"How are you assessing our military function?"

Our Troops Are Being Pushed Beyond Their Limits

31: Number of Army combat brigades that have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, out of 44 total

420,000: Number of troops that have deployed more than once

50: Percentage of troops more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour

50,000: Number of troops on whom “stop-loss” has been imposed, meaning they are prevented from leaving the Army when their enlistment end date arrives

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/iraq_by_the_numbers.html

 

[George Jung]

ACLU and Human Rights First Express Disappointment at Dismissal of Rumsfeld Torture Case (3/27/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - A federal judge today dismissed a case brought by nine Iraqi and Afghan former detainees for the torture they suffered in U.S. military custody against former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The suit charged that he was responsible for policies of torture and abuse. All nine were released from custody without any charges against them. The case was brought in March 2005 by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First on behalf of the former detainees.

"We are deeply disappointed in today's decision," said ACLU attorney Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel on the case. "Despite recognizing that torture is categorically prohibited and that the treatment of our plaintiffs 'constitutes an indictment of the humanity with which the United States treats its detainees,' the court ruled that innocent civilians tortured by the United States cannot seek recourse in the federal courts to hold responsible officials legally liable. We believe that the law and Constitution require more, and that the former Secretary of Defense must be held accountable for his policies that led to this abuse."

In his ruling, Chief Judge Thomas A. Hogan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia described this case as "lamentable" and "appalling." He noted that "the facts alleged in the complaint stand as an indictment of the humanity with which the United States treats its detainees." Nonetheless, he concluded that the plaintiffs could not invoke rights under the Constitution or international law against former Secretary Rumsfeld and other military officers. The ruling concluded that constitutional protections did not apply to Iraqi and Afghan nationals in U.S. custody in those countries and that the U.S. officials were immune from lawsuits stemming from actions taken "within the scope of their official duties."

"The right to be free from torture is fundamental under U.S. and international law, and it should not be the case that victims like our clients have no recourse in the U.S. courts," said Hina Shamsi, deputy director of Human Rights First's Law and Security program. "This ruling leaves a gap in the law, which the judge recognized, on accountability for torture."

The decision details the abuse suffered by the plaintiffs in U.S. custody, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions.

The ACLU and Human Rights First had argued that the Constitution and international law clearly prohibit torture and require commanders to act when they know or should have known of abuses. In addition to the orders they gave directly, Secretary Rumsfeld and the other defendants were repeatedly notified of abuse and torture at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan by military reports, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other reports and complaints by human rights organizations.

The groups further charged that Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved brutal and illegal interrogation techniques in December 2002. Those techniques included the use of "stress positions," the removal of clothing, the use of dogs, and isolation and sensory deprivation.

"I was confident that the American people would stand with me for justice, and I am very disappointed," said Thahe Sabbar, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Retired military officers and military legal experts along with international law scholars filed legal briefs in support of the lawsuit. According to the military law experts, "It was the essence of Secretary Rumsfeld and other defendants' scope of employment to educate and train those within their command responsibility to adhere to domestic and international standards and to do everything within their power to prevent and punish deviations from them."
 
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/29209prs20070327.html

[George Jung]

Guantanamo conditions 'worsening' 
 
Some of Guantanamo's inmates have been held for five years
Conditions for detainees at the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay are deteriorating, with the majority held in solitary confinement, a report says.
Amnesty International said the often harsh and inhumane conditions at the camp were "pushing people to the edge".

It called for the facility to be closed and for plans for "unfair" military commission trials to be abandoned.

Many of the 385 inmates have been held for five years or more, unable to mount a legal challenge to their detention.

"While the United States has an obligation to protect its citizens... that does not relieve the United States from its responsibilities to comply with human rights," the report said.

  Some [inmates] are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown

UK director Kate Allen
Amnesty International

"Statements by the Bush administration that these men are 'enemy combatants,' 'terrorists' or 'very bad people' do not justify the complete lack of due process rights," the group said.

Amnesty reiterated its call for detainees at the prison camp in Cuba - many of whom are suspected Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters - to be released or charged and sent to trial.

'Already in despair'

The report, published on Thursday, said about 300 detainees are now being held at a new facility - known as Camp 5, Camp 6 and Camp Echo - comparable to "super-max" high security units in the US.

 
The US says it plans to prosecute 80 of the 385 remaining inmates
The group said the facility had "created even harsher and apparently more permanent conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation".

It said the detainees were reportedly confined to windowless cells for 22 hours a day, only allowed to exercise at night and could go for days without seeing daylight.

The organisation's UK director, Kate Allen, described the process at Guantanamo as "a travesty of justice".

"With many prisoners already in despair at being held in indefinite detention... some are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown.

"The US authorities should immediately stop pushing people to the edge with extreme isolation techniques and allow proper access for independent medical experts and human rights groups."

'Serving justice'

The provision that stripped detainees of their right to mount a legal challenge to their confinement was upheld by a US federal appeals court in Washington in February.

Pushing the anti-terror legislation through Congress last year, Mr Bush said he needed the new law to bring terror suspects to justice.

It allows for the indefinite detention of people as "enemy combatants".

The US has said it plans to use the military tribunal system to prosecute about 80 of 385 prisoners remaining at the camp.

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6526589.stm

[BigSky]

May I suggest you read what I asked again!

"How are you assessing our military function?"

Well george if you had bothered to educate yourself on the military you would know why we no longer need a draft or war bonds.

Today's military fights in a manner in which people are given time off during war.  Unlike the past such as WW2 troops served relatively ongoing until the war was over, with noted exceptions for leave from time to time.  Today we rotate troops in and out of battle because it is possible to do this now.  Despite what you think troops are well trained.  Everyone does goes through basic and MOS training. 

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who joins the military knows their terms of service these days and have known it for quite some time.

Yes I said everyone because when I joined the military we were well informed of what is expected and our obligations.