The Senator Would Like to Add that He is Vewy Sowwy

Dick Durbin finally gives the people what they want, a (sort-of) retraction of his (sort-of) comparison of U.S. interrogation techniques to those of the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge:

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," said the Illinois Democrat, at times holding back tears. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

I, for one, am glad to see that this national crisis is over. Words have consequences, a "lesson that we all learn over and over again and again," as Bill Frist aptly noted. To pre-empt the occurrence of any similar atrocity, perhaps the White House press apparatus, in conjunction with the Office of Legal Counsel, could put together an exhaustive list of acceptable metaphors, similes, historical analogies, proverbs, and various turns of phrase that will enable criticisms of government policy to lead to lively debates about…government policy.

Comments

[dhex]

what a fucking pussy.

[British Libertarian]

my sentiments exactly

[Swede]

I can't wait until all major political figures just start yelling at each other in the manner of five-year olds...

Senator A: "You're stupid!"

Senator B: "No, you're stupid, you stupid head!"

Senator A: "No, you're stupid, Commie Gulag operator! Nobody likes you!"

...and so on. Frankly, it is quite similar to comparing opponents to Hitler and saying that opponents must not love America and all of that crap.

[rob]

Ok, so he's an idiot, but not so stupid as to be completely unable to recognize when he not only has crossed the line but blown right past it.

Apparently someone on his PR team pointed out that it's not a good idea to take a crap all over the citizens he represents by comparing them to brutal Communist and Nazi overlords in the same breath he denigrates the service of military troops he claims to support by comparing those troops to Nazis and Communist secret police/torture squads/death squads.

The reason for "His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes," was undoubtedly self-pity as most of his constituency was turning its back on him.

It's a tough sell for me to believe the guy was actually crying from sorrow over how his remarks might have hurt serving military personnel.

But I believe they WERE real tears - it hurts him to think of how those remarks will come come back to haunt him as attack ads during his re-election campaign.

[David]

what a fucking pussy.

Exactly, show some balls, Dick!

[anonymous coward]

You can fault Durbin for being a pussy, but the vast majority of my ire here is directed at the various GOP hacks who turned this into an issue. Katherine Lopez led the hysterics over at NRO, and Hugh Hewitt actually called for censure for what was, to me, really quite a moderate and respectful speech. I mean, I generally can't stand listening to speeches, and I'm often revolted by leftist hyperbole on the War on Terror, but damn, I really couldn't find anything objectionable in Durbin's speech. When even moderate criticism of administration policies is beyond the pale, we're headed down a dangerous path.

[M]

Has anybody actually ever said "he must not love America" about anybody, or has it only been the case that some people have said "Some people say that I must not love America, but let me tell you, I LOVE America!". (The "some people" gives it away, doesn't it? But it's always "some people".)

Similarly there have been lots of loud defenses against the accusation that one must be unpatriotic for not supportint the war, but has anyone ever actually been accused of that?

Back on topic, was anyone offended at what Durbin actually said? Yeah, it's a cheap comparison to score points and get his voice on double- and single-digit channels, but he made a valid point: if you read a list of things being done to prisoners in Guantanamo, and all you had was that list of things being done, you might suspect the list was of things being done at one of those other places.

Not that he shouldn't have known better as the Gulag and Nazi camp comparisons had already been made by various dickwads and making the comparison makes him a dickwad by association, but geeze...his first apology was lame, but his original crime was relatively inoffensive.

OTOH, I wish every senator would be made to cry whenever they say s/t stupid and self-serving.

[David]

It's a tough sell for me to believe the guy was actually crying from sorrow over how his remarks might have hurt serving military personnel.

When did our military become so sensitive that criticizing interrogation methods hurts them?

[rob]

AC - Moderate? How are those remarks moderate? I just don't see how invoking Godwin is moderate. I mean, unless you're ACTUALLY talking about someone firing up torture chambers and extermination camps, it seems the opposite of moderate to me...

[dhex]

"pparently someone on his PR team pointed out that it's not a good idea to take a crap all over the citizens he represents by comparing them to brutal Communist and Nazi overlords in the same breath he denigrates the service of military troops he claims to support by comparing those troops to Nazis and Communist secret police/torture squads/death squads."

if zee jackboot fits, mein herr...

sorry, i was dying to use that line. it really wasn't that batshit crazy a remark, in the context of the speech, but apparently his balls were secreted to an undisclosed location for safekeeping.

[David]

Rob,

Did you read the actual remarks or just the commentary afterwards? There is a difference between the two.

[M]

It's ironic (isn't it?) that his original comments suggested that, geeze, we really ought not be doing things that sound like they come from the most horrendously evil prisons on earth. He was saying, in effect, we're NOT Nazis, we're NOT PolPot, we're NOT Stalinist thugs. We're the gawddamn US of A and we don't DO that kind of shit!

Why couldn't he have just said that instead of apologizing the first time? I mean, his comment did NOT liken our troops to nazis - and maybe quite the opposite.

Sheesh.

[Jeff]

Wasn't Dick Durbin the guy who played Swamp Thing?

[rob]

David - Oh, yeah, military folks are impervious to having their service denigrated. They're too tough for that, right?

I suppose you think it has no effect on morale to have leadership accuse serving military personnel who are doing their duty honorably of being inhumane, torturing sadists. Like it was great for morale to call them murderers and baby-killers during Vietnam.

How would you like to be associated with the people your friends, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers all fought (and sometimes gave their lives) to defeat?

[rafuzo]

As someone who never knew his grandfather because he was disappeared into the gulag system, I do in fact find it mildly offensive that a place serving better food than I have in my apartment is compared to a 'gulag'. But that offensensitivity has more to do with people looking for outlandish comparisons to make things seem worse than it actually is. I mean, if I made a statement like "if people read a list of the things the IRS has done to citizens over the years, they'd see it's something to expect from the Gestapo or the GPU", nobody would take me seriously, regardless of whether I had a good point.

I'm not too happy with the quasi-legal status these detainees have or don't have down there, but I'm not ready to criticize the critics of some gov't hack who tried to make his point by comparing something clearly non-atrocious to an actual, honest-to-goodness atrocity.

[rob]

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings," the senator said June 14.

David - So this quote is entirely out of context?

Or this, which is clearly 100% untrue?

"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.

[MJ]

The only pussies are the ones whining about what goes on at Gitmo.

"It's ruining our reputation internationally."

Who cares everyone hates us already.

"Torture doesn't yield good intelligence."

When was the last time something blew up around here?

"But what about the Geneva Convention?"

No uniforms + no order of battle + no problem killing civilians = no Geneva protections

"What does it say to the Arab World?"

Fuck with us and you'll end up in a cage in Cuba with some infidel from Nebraska pissing on your Koran and generally making your life a living nightmare.

"Are you saying that if I speak out on this I hate America?'

No, I'm saying you?re a misguided pussy better suited for dorm room debate sessions than the realities of the world.

I now open myself up for the barrage of abuse that is sure to follow this post.

[anonymous coward]

Rob,

The key point of Durbin's speech, where he makes the comparison to a bunch of Very Bad People, is as follows:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

This follows Durbin's reading from an FBI report where the investigator spoke of having seen, among other things, a man on the floor of his cell, chained in a fetal position, covered in his own filth. It seems to me that he makes a valid point. If you were to describe these conditions to me out of context, I would, in my optimism, ascribe them to every other regime in the world, before I would guess that our own government was responsible. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

[Julian Sanchez]

Atrios had an amusing observation about all this preposterous fuming. What Durbin said was that if you heard this description:
"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

...you'd think it must refer to something Nazis or Stalinists or Pol Pot did, not Americans. To those who find that outrageous: Is YOUR reaction to that description: "Why yes, that sounds like something the United States must have done"? Wouldn't these same folks lambaste as a Michael Moore-worshipping anti-American anyone *else* who reacted to such a description in that way?

[rob]

AC - If I describe a US prison it's likely to sound even worse. Doesn't make it the gulags, the concentration camps, etc. Adding 18 words doesn't change the sentiment. This guy KNEW what he was reading, and couldn't resist the temptation to compare Gitmo to the worst crimes imaginable. Those 18 words don't change his meaning. That makes Durbin the kind of guy I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire.

[thoreau]

I now open myself up for the barrage of abuse that is sure to follow this post.

Abuse? We won't abuse you. Just ask any apologist for the administration and they'll tell you that it isn't abuse when people are being sodomized, or chained into the fetal position while covered in human waste.

Don't worry, whatever we do to you, there's no way it could be considered abuse.

[David]

David - So this quote is entirely out of context?

If taken to mean that Durbin sees all our troops as Nazis, rather than a statement that the U.S., a civilized nation, shouldn't be using techniques then yes, I'd say out of context.

[rob]

Julian - Loud rap music all day and night? That means my neighbors are guilty of torturing me? (Ok, maybe I'll give you that one.)

They pooped and peed on themselves? My neice and nephew do that all the time (potty training is still underway, admittedly). Are they torturing themselves?

The AC is too cold? Wow, that's a shame. I stood 4-hour watches on the North Atlantic Ocean in sub-zero temperatures. God forbid someone turn the AC to "frosty."

No AC? Geez, to think that most of humanity lives without it. That's really crazy torture there!

Prisoners chained hand and foot? Ever seen a first-world prison where that doesn't happen?

Sure, it doesn't sound like a fun experience, but it's a far cry from torture.

[rafuzo]

I see, thoreau, anyone who doesn't reflexively sneer at the policies and actions of this administration is an apologist for it. Now who's making ridiculous connections?

I suggest reading the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenistsyn, the first quarter of the Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz, or Night by Elie Wiesel, come back and compare what's in that report, and see if it is indeed what you'd expect from totalitarians.

[rob]

"If taken to mean that Durbin sees all our troops as Nazis, rather than a statement that the U.S., a civilized nation, shouldn't be using techniques then yes, I'd say out of context."

Ok, so you're saying that those comments were only directed at all those who have served at Gitmo? Still a bad idea. Still an even worse idea to try to calim that the U.S. is acting similarly to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler.

"it isn't abuse when people are being sodomized, or chained into the fetal position while covered in human waste." - thoreau

Sodomy is on the list of authorized interrogation techniques? Uh... looking at that list... nope. Don't see it. Clear violation of Geneva as well, in whose spirit the detainees are to be treated by order of the President. As for pooping and peeing on one's self, I've seen that at nursing homes.

[thoreau]

rafuzo-

I've read a few of the books that you describe, and my standard for my beloved country is higher than "Still not as bad as Stalin or Hitler."

He said that some of what's being done in our names is the sort of stuff that Americans associate with prisons of dicatorships. That's not the same as saying that everything we do is as bad as the very worst of what others have done. But like I said, I have a high standard for my beloved country.

Don't you love our country as much as I do?

[rob]

There have been abuses, and people have been convicted for engaging in them. But those abuses were violations of policy, not within that policy, as thoreau seems to suggest.

As for a higher standard for the U.S., I think we are still - far and away in the lead for winning the "most lenient" category. I'm comfortable with that. The inerrogation tactics list approved seems truly tame to me. Almost laughably so in many respects.

[MJ]

thoreau,

You can't really consider me an apologist for the administration. I don't think they have anything to apologize for as far as Gitmo goes.

I think that they should abuse the shit out of these intolerant, psychotic, women beating fucks who can't seem to use their American university degrees to fix their own fucked up countries so they have to try and blow up mine instead.

[Keith Allan]

My Family has sent officers and soldiers into battle since the French & Indian War.Also, the Scottish side of my family sent Anzacs,South African, Canadian,Welsh and Brittish men in four Scotch regiments to fight Real Nazis.If everyone is a Nazis,a racist, anti-semetic etc,than no one is.
There is a real war going on now.We have defeated Communism,Fascism and now we must crush the Islamofascists.
The Daemoncrats like Durbin et al, are in danger of becoming the 21st century equivelent of the Copperheads from the Civil War"
It is time to place the Democrats on the dustbin of American failed political parties.Next to the Whigs,Do-nothings and Copperheads.

[R C Dean]

I think what goes on at Gitmo meets a standard that is far above "well, it ain't as bad as the Nazis and the Commies."

At Gitmo, not one death. Nazi and Commie prisons ran up death tolls somewhere in the ten figures.

At Gitmo, no one is starving. Nazis, Commies, not so much (food, that is).

At Gitmo, physical "abuse" does not extend to maiming, burning, cutting, flogging, or other forms of real torture. Nazis, Commies, well, yeah.

At Gitmo, abuse and degradation have tended to be the exception, not the rule. Nazis, Commies . . . .

Context, people, context.

[Josh]

It's a shame that President Bush, Senator Frist, and the Right-Wing Blogospheric Noise Machine can't summon the same level of outrage they've mustered over Durbin's comments over the account he read in the paragraph before - or the countless others like it. Don't hold your breath for a word from Bush or Frist this week to condemn the use of starving and freezing as interrogation techniques.

Instead, they're accusing Senator Durbin of comparing all of America's servicemen and servicewomen to Nazis, a charge as willfully inaccurate as Frist's claim that Durbin called Guanatanamo a "death camp" (that's what happens when you get all of your news from the Washington Times). While Durbin's phrasing is awkward, his plain meaning is clearly not that America is a Nazi state but rather that torture is a practice which better befits an oppressive regime than the United States. Leaving people restrained without water in oppressive heat to defecate on themselves, Durbin reminds us, is a violation of the values of this country. The obvious question, then, for Durbin's critics is this: Do you see leaving people restrained without water in oppressive heat to defecate on themselves as as expression of the values of this country. Only a truly perverse definition of patriotism would demand, when we see unamerican crimes perpetrated under the American flag, that we change our values as a country to justify our behavior rather than the other way around. There's no need to mention Nazis in order to make this point. But there's no justification for reading it as a smear of the US as Nazi Germany or men and women in the service as Nazis.

The latter - the accusation that Durbin attacked Americans in the military - is even more insidious than the accusation that he attacked America itself. The implication is that anyone who criticizes a policy military personnel carry out is expressing scorn, distrust, or murderous rage towards every American in the service (this is analagous to the strategy Thomas Frank documents in One Market Under God of dismissing criticisms of business as expressions of elitism towards the American consumer). It's a strategy we saw in the Presidential debates, as Bush implied that criticism of our Iraq policy showed a lack of faith in our troops in Iraq. It's a strikingly tendentious rhetorical move and a pox on a discourse we desperately need to be having as a nation.

Most of all, pretending to hear criticism of the policy as an attack on the troops is a show of incredible cowardice. Faced with much-deserved rhetorical volleys, George Bush is essentially dragging American soldiers in front of him as an unwitting buffer between himself and the rest of the American people. In this rhetorical draft, American soldiers are called to act as a symbolic first line of defense against justified outrage over the administration. Never mind the number of those soldiers and their families who share that outrage, or who have no interest in being drafted -voiceless - into ideological warfare on behalf of the chickenhawks and policies which lead to needless death. Critics of torture and critics of war are taking on our leaders, not our troops. That those leaders, rather than defending their choices, make a show of rising to defend the honor of the troops just shows how little shame they have.

Josh

[drew]

The amnesty international comment calling gitmo "the gulag of our time" is reprehensible for the reasons pointed out here.

Durbin's comment that one would expect to find the practices he mentions in a facist prison rather then in the US seems pretty much on target (ie most people if asked who performed these actions US prison or Soviet era gulag would choose the later). His choice of phrasing may not have been the best, but any soldier that cannot stand up to this mild criticism, well perhaps they need a new job. Stating that you cannot criticize the military at all, even when your goal is to change policy and not to demoralize, is facism.

The real question is are these methods truly over the top? Or are our expectations too high for the treatement of terrorists? This is the actual debate we should be having. Durbin pointed out an inconsistency between the publics preceptions and actual facts. It is my opinion that are (intentionally or not) avoiding this actual discussion. As such they are the ones truly disserving this country its soldiers and its citizens. A democracy whithout public discussion is a democracy without democracy.

[Jon H]

"At Gitmo, physical "abuse" does not extend to maiming, burning, cutting, flogging, or other forms of real torture."

No, our military does that elsewhere, like in Afghanistan.

[Jon H]

RC Dean wrote: " Nazi and Commie prisons ran up death tolls somewhere in the ten figures."

So if they killed, say 10% of that, would it have been okay?

5%?

1%?

.1%?

How few deaths would have made the Soviets and the Nazis tolerable to you?

Is the problem with the Nazis not their behavior in general, but that they crossed some threshold? Would they have been okay killing 600 Jews instead of six million? If they had merely locked up people in work camps for years, but none had died?

Similarly, would it be okay if we had 100,00 people in cells, in their excrement, freezing?

If not, why is it okay to have one person like that?

[Jon H]

RC Dean writes: "Context, people, context."

Context? If you bring context into play, then you're dealing in rank moral relativism.

What happend to absolutes? Black and white? Wrong and right? Good and evil?

[fyodor]

To the folks who likened prisoners pooping on themselves to toddlers who don't know better or to elderly folks who can't control themselves, there's a pretty big fricken difference between something that's avoidable and something that's not. You may as well dismiss murder by saying there's plenty of dead people in cemetaries.

[Jon H]

"The AC is too cold? Wow, that's a shame. I stood 4-hour watches on the North Atlantic Ocean in sub-zero temperatures. God forbid someone turn the AC to "frosty.""

Naked?

[ralphus]

Jon H,

Way to be cute.

The only reason we know about these abuses is because of internal investigations conducted by the military. It's not as if some intrepid reporter blew the lid off of all of this. It was all right there to be found in the various documents of the government agencies involved. We are investigating and punishing those involved in the worst of these incidents. People do stupid things and we should weed out and punish those responsible. We shouldn't shutdown the scariest place in the world to a terrorist.

[ralphus]

Jon H,

How do you propose we deal with these guys? What methods are apropriate?

[Josh]

A: "Gitmo is like the Gulag!"
B: "No, abuses X, Y, and Z happened in the Gulags, not Gitmo."
A: "Well I have a higher standard for us than the Gulag!"

etc.

[Jon H]

" We are investigating and punishing those involved in the worst of these incidents."

And promoting the most responsible.

[Jon H]

The reaction to Durbin reminds me a little of the reaction to the soldier who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib.

Durbin got off lightly, though, and hasn't needed to go into protective custody.

[ralphus]

Jon H,

Still waiting for an answer instead of a snappy comeback.

How do you propose we deal with these guys? What methods are apropriate?

[thoreau]

Whatever one might think of the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, what about the lack of due process?

One can make the argument that they aren't normal criminals, so they don't belong in the regular courts. OK. But not everybody there is actually a bad guy, as our own government has admitted. So we still need SOME sort of process to sort out who should stay and who should be released. So if not the regular court system, then what type of process?

People here have made good arguments that the processes governing prisoners of war don't apply. Fair enough. But if that process doesn't apply, and the regular courts (you know, the third branch of government established in the Constitution) don't have jurisdiction, then who exactly is supposed to supervise the executive branch's actions in Gitmo?

What's that? The executive branch can police itself? That may be working for now, but anybody who trusts that state of affairs to last indefinitely is smoking some interstate commerce.

[Jon H]

"The amnesty international comment calling gitmo "the gulag of our time" is reprehensible for the reasons pointed out here."

I think the "gulag" comment was drawing a parallel between our distributed network of detention camps, and the gulag's distributed network of detention camps, along with the issues of people being imprisoned without trial.

I don't think it was intended to focus on the numbers of people involved.

There isn't really another adequate analog for our network of camps, prisons, and interrogation sites. The gulag is *famous* for being that kind of a Structure (hence, "Gulag Archipelago").

Again, ours doesn't involve remotely as many people. And ours isn't as bad (though it can certainly be bad.)

But if the real Gulag were scaled down to the size of ours, and the age of ours, just how much better would ours really be?

[ralphus]

thoreau,

Good question. That should be the real point of discussion here. I always thought the military was in charge of processing and dealing with enemy prisoners. Seems to me that the international press, congress and the military itself are doing a good job keeping tabs on what is happening in our detainment camps. I know more about what is happening inside of them than I do about what?s happening in Iraq besides car bombings.

[Jon H]

"How do you propose we deal with these guys? What methods are apropriate?"

You mean the prisoners?

First of all, torturing and/or abusing and/or killing innocent people hurts our cause and our image. Whether or not Newsweek reports on it. The terrorists have made their minds up, but we need to not lose the "swing voters".

Beyond that, "methods" would seem to depend on what the goal is. I don't think the Pentagon has a very good idea what they're trying to accomplish.

I'm certainly not sure what they were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan by crushing a man's legs to a pulp and letting him die, even though they thought he was innocent.

If they just want to set the people aside, keep them out of trouble, then I don't see what the point is of the abuse, coercion, and torture.

[Ken Shultz]

Ya'll should see rob's take on the Schlesinger Report--it's a riot!

[Northpaw]

Durbin should have to eat his words. And you're being petulant asking to have a list of approved words submitted by the White House.

Durbin could have made his point without going over the top the way he did. Lively debate will occur when we can speak in clear, concise, meaningful ways about issues, without the infammatory rhetoric.

[Ken Shultz]

"Lively debate will occur when we can speak in clear, concise, meaningful ways about issues, without the infammatory rhetoric."

I can provide empirical evidence that lively debate will occur regardless.

Is there a more clear, concise or meaningful way to describe the way we treated these prisoners other than comparing it to other well known instances of abuse? ...Go ahead, give it a shot.

Have you checked out that near-drowning technique?

By the way, I agree that there were major differences between gulags and death camps on the one hand and Guantanamo and Abu Gharib on the other, and those differences should be pointed out.

...in spite of all the similarities.

[ralphus]

Jon H,

So you?re fine with holding these guys (terrorists) for an indefinite amount of time. Thanks for clearing that up. So we need a place to do that and Gitmo is as good as anyplace else. We just need to police what happens there to make sure no one is abused. I'm fine with that. Because that is what's happening!

You're still ignoring the fact that the soldiers who committed the act you keep referencing in Afghanistan are being prosecuted. As are the Abu Grab idiots and countless other morons who crossed the line. What else do you want done?

Ken,

The difference between our practices and those of the Communist, Nazis and other fucked up regimes is that we practice near-drowning techniques instead of just plain old drowning.

[Ken Shultz]

"The difference between our practices and those of the Communist, Nazis and other fucked up regimes is that we practice near-drowning techniques instead of just plain old drowning."

Although some people in American custody have in fact died under interrogation, that's a good one ralphus! I have another.

One of the differences between our practices and the gulags/death camps is that when we do shit like that, loyal Americans and some of their political leaders publicly condemn it and cry out for accountability.

...The ball's back in your court.

[thoreau]

Here's a difference:

When officials from other governments talk about how well-fed their prisoners are, conservatives in the US dismiss it as propaganda.

When officials in our government talk about how well-fed our prisoners are in Gitmo, conservatives in the US take it as proof positive that nothing's wrong.

[Jon H]

ralphus writes: "So you?re fine with holding these guys (terrorists) for an indefinite amount of time."

They should have a trial. And the evidence on which they were brought in should be scrutinized with a critical eye.

"You're still ignoring the fact that the soldiers who committed the act you keep referencing in Afghanistan are being prosecuted."

As I recall, the military originally was going to give them a pass, were they not?

"As are the Abu Grab idiots and countless other morons who crossed the line. What else do you want done?"

Not the officers. Nor has all the evidence been released.

[Jon H]

"The difference between our practices and those of the Communist, Nazis and other fucked up regimes is that we practice near-drowning techniques instead of just plain old drowning."

Actually, didn't the Nazis subject prisoners to experiments which involved drowning, or near-drowning?

Or maybe I'm thinking of experiments where the Nazis gave their prisoners cold baths. (Actually, ice-cold baths meant to induce hypothermia and test human endurance. But according to the Bush apologists, they would just be tepid baths. Luxury!)

[Rick Hall]

Once more for the bloodthirsty morons: "These guys" are not all terrorists. We do know that a significant portion of Gitmo detainees have been simply released (after years of imprisonment)without apology. If these guys were truly dangerous, why were they ever released? Without a trial or any kind of public records, we'll never know how many inmates of Gitmo are just cab drivers in the wrong place at the wrong time who got swept into the system and are now assumed to be harboring vital information about the next boxcutter assault.

That's where this incredibly complex, newfangled concept of a presumption of innocence comes in. Unless, by "these guys," you really mean to say "brown people." If that's the case, my bad.

[Ken Shultz]

"If these guys were truly dangerous, why were they ever released?"

As I recall, they were released because the Administration was forced to try them, and the Administration didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute. To me, that doesn't mean that they weren't dangerous; in fact, I don't see any reason not to believe that they are dangerous. I think this is further evidence that Rumsfeld and company are incredibly incompetent.

They made a couple of bungling errors.

Error One: The Administration never should have tried to exempt them from Prisoner of War status--I don't care what the treaty says! If they were POWs, we wouldn't have had to give them a trial. If they were POWS, my understanding is that we wouldn't have had to let them go--they'd still be in our custody!

Error Two: We should have treated them as if they were covered by the Geneva Conventions. According to the Schlesinger Report, it was the confusion created by Rumsfeld's change of policy for Guantanamo (under the advice of our current Attorney General) that led directly to the heapin' helpin' of disgrace we had to eat at Abu Gharib.

Check out the Schlesinger Report Here.

Contrary to popular perception, Donald Rumsfeld is a buffoon. This shouldn't come as a shock--some of the smartest people I've ever known have made some of the stupidest mistakes I've ever seen.

P.S. Please note that the errors of invading Iraq on false pretenses, alienating our traditional allies and inadequate preparation for the occupation/insurgency, while not listed above, have been duly noted and documented by this commenter in other posts.

[ralphus]

"Unless, by "these guys," you really mean to say "brown people." If that's the case, my bad."

Come on Rick, you're better than that. If you want to paint me a racist just say it and don't be a flippant little pussy about it. You were scoring points with your argument up until that point. I assume that many of the detainees are in fact "brown people". There are most likely white people, black people, beigish people, and yellow people as well. I don't care. The only prejudice I hold is against people who want to blow me the fuck up.

Now to your worthwhile arguments; You are correct. The Constitution says every citizen has the right to due process and the presumption of innocence. The key word being citizen. These brown, white, yellow, black, beigish detainees are not citizens. However we are providing them with a chance to state their case.

"We do know that a significant portion of Gitmo detainees have been simply released (after years of imprisonment)without apology."

So obviously there is some form of process at work to filter out the wrong place wrong time guys from the hardened jihadist. I admit it kind of shitty we didn't apologize and that we picked them up in the first place. But I'm willing to wager that more than two or three hardcore jihadist played the "I am but a simple cabbie" card. I'd rather they cast a wide net and nab a few unlucky shlubs and sort it out later than let one lucky, deadly bastard get away.

Ken,

"One of the differences between our practices and the gulags/death camps is that when we do shit like that, loyal Americans and some of their political leaders publicly condemn it and cry out for accountability."

I agree. I'm not as bloodthirsty a racist as Rick would like to think. Dissent and oversight are good things. I just don't want to lose sight of the fact that we are fighting a dirty fight with some real hardasses. I don't mind that there is a place on the planet that every terrorist is afraid of. They may not fear death, but they fear Gitmo.

Accountability is a good thing and for the most part I think those who step over the line are being held accountable. But lets not be naive about who we are fighting and lets also not be naive to the fact that when you get rough sometimes people get hurt and die. The point I was trying to make with my near-drowning comment is that death is not the results we seek but, unlike other countries of the past and present, when it does happen people are punished.

I still ask all you non-bloodthirsty folks, what should we do with this racially diverse group of terrorist guys? If you were in charge of dealing with captured enemy combatants what would be your policy? I?m not trying to be a dick, I just really want to hear some better ideas than our current solution.

[rob]

Yes, by all means, go back and read the threads where I mopped the floor with every single one of Ken Schultz's claims. Like Ken does, I also urge you to read the Schlesinger Report, which supports NONE of his claims, but which Ken refers to frequently.

That's the report he claims shows orders & policy to torture, but which actually contains Bush's presidential order to extend Geneva to all detainees - even those who don't qualify for it!

Ken, give up, let it go, you're just plain wrong. Unless you can prove that the Bush memo is a secret code that means "break out the dog leashes and commence Operation Sodomy."

"Is there a more clear, concise or meaningful way to describe the way we treated these prisoners other than comparing it to other well known instances of abuse? ...Go ahead, give it a shot." - Ken Schultz

Yeah, Ken, I've given you nursing homes, US prisons, etc. I'd even throw in some military training environments (boot camp, Ranger school, SERE training etc.) as equivalent or considerably worse treatment.

Deaths at Gitmo, Abug Ghraib? Well, yes, people have died while in military custody. People DO die. It happens even OUTSIDE of military custody, to large numbers of people every year. If it was a murder, it will be dealt with by the same sort of military justice that EVERY Gitmo detainee has had. As much as I hate to use Michelle Malkin as an example, she has a good editorial that discusses the military tribunal system and briefly discusses why it is used at Gitmo and why the claims that "detainees are locked away with no due process" are BS, pure and simple. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050622.shtml

[rob]

Jon H ? You?ve obviously had a long, deep drink of the Ken Schultz Kool-Aid. In his version, the Schlesinger Report is a smoking gun showing policy & orders to torture. (No such claims are in the Report.) In your version, which you ALSO have no evidence for, the military was going to give the Abu Ghraib dimwits a free pass. That no officers were tried spells cover-up, rather than the more likely "no officers were involved." Of course, I'm sure you can provide photos of Lynddie England and some dumb-ass Lieutenant playing "hide the light-stick" in some guys butt... (Like Ken has the memo to Lynddie England and the package Rumsfeld sent her the dog leash in with his return address on the package?)

You reference "crushing a man's legs to a pulp and letting him die, even though they thought he was innocent." This is new to me. I'd appreciate a reference to something that corroborates it. If it?s true, then I suspect it?s going to get more crowded at Leavenworth. But pardon my skepticism?

"then I don't see what the point is of the abuse, coercion, and torture?
Apparently Bush doesn?t see the point either, which is why abuse and torture has (and continue to) be prosecuted under the UCMJ. Even the abuse at Abu Ghraib doesn't rise to the level of torture, tho - with the possible exception of sodomy. (But then, most US prisons are torture institutions by this logic, and I?m hard-pressed to defend US prisons on this point.)
?Context? If you bring context into play, then you're dealing in rank moral relativism.?
What??? You mean like the context you claim makes Amnesty International?s use of the word ?gulag? okay? (Oh no, they meant it as a term of organization? Apparently no matter how ridiculous the argument, you?ll go with it if it?s on your side of the issue, Jon.)
?What happend to absolutes? Black and white? Wrong and right? Good and evil??
Nothing. But you may have noticed that the detainees don?t fit into nice, clear-cut categories the way POWs in WW2 did.
One note for the record, in the North Sea I wasn't naked - I was in uniform AND wearing cold weather gear during my watch. And I guarantee you it was colder than the AC turned all the way down at Gitmo. Clothed or naked. I nearly lost body parts during that idiocy, and no one raised a bit of fuss over it. Pardon me if I don't feel too bad about a naked detainee in a chilly cell. Cry me a river.

Ok, the caffeine buzz is wearing off, and my capacity to muster indignation at some of the loonier bits of this thread. Maybe we'll pick this up in the morning...

[Rick Hall]

Ralphus, not everything revolves around you. There are plenty of bloodthirsty morons; I was addressing those who, like you, conflate the word "terrorist" with the phrases "enemy combatant," "detainee" and "guys who talk funny and wouldn't obey our commands in English at the checkpoint." Even after conceding that they might not all be guilty of anything except running too slow, you still, in your last paragraph, call them terrorists. This is a major point. THE point, IMO.

You seem to proceed from the idea that this is the first time in history that America has had to contend with the enemy combatant issue. Excuse me, but there are a few protocols that had evolved from wars fought previously. Some of them were pounded out in jazzy, all-night diplomatic bull sessions in places as far away as Geneva, Switzerland. Before 9/11 (which changed everything, yeah, we know, we know) certain agreements protected OUR captured soldiers, by giving the U.S. a moral high ground that didn't require niggling calculations of relative degrees of pain and/or disingenuous parsing of language to defend torture, torture-lite, forced sodomy, fraternity fun or whatever the Republicans are calling it.

"I'd rather they cast a wide net and nab a few unlucky shlubs and sort it out later than let one lucky, deadly bastard get away." Well, that's one big difference between you and me, and I think it's a fundamental view of justice - some of us would rather the State set free a couple of guilty people than to punish one person unjustly, while others would rather see many innocent eggs get smashed in order to make an omelet that nobody escapes from. I'll add that those of the latter opinion never seem to imagine themselves in the role of the innocent victims... only as badass punishers of the clearly guilty.

The problem isn't that jihadists "fear Gitmo." I fear Gitmo, and what it represents. As should anyone with a conscience, anyone who sees a future for the ideals in our founding documents.

As a beigist myself, I'll take you at your word that your arguments don't spring from racism. There are much, much worse things in this world than racism. For example, moral exceptionalism.

[kwais]

Interesting comments.

I just have to add that some of the guys released, when they releases all those dude. Some of the guys released were infact terrorists. There was intel on them before they were released, and some of them were picked up again, or killed after they were released while in the process of other terrorist acts.

So the process for treating these fuckers does need to be refined.

Also, on the issue of abuse. From all that I have heard our guidlines are too strict. I think that our interrogators should be allowed to do more than they are allowed to right now to get information. But I think the standards should be enforced more strictly.

Sort of like; The US Navy has sticter standards than the Marine Corps for physical appearance. But as anyone in either branch will tell you there are many more fat guys in the Navy, because they don't enforce the standards.

I don't think that the prisoners should have the right to a koran, or a prayer mat, or to excersize, or to 8 hours of sleep. And I think that the interrogaters should be allowed to inflict some pain and discomfort on prisoners. But I think that it should be strictly regulated, and strictly observed, and there should be strict standards for when these techniques can be used.

That is just me.

[zach]

I just have to add that some of the guys released, when they releases all those dude.

finally, concrete proof that no one who posts on hit & run after 12AM is sober.

[kwais]

Rick Hall

"I think it's a fundamental view of justice - some of us would rather the State set free a couple of guilty people than to punish one person unjustly"

Dude, did you ever hear of Dresden? In the US we would rather set free 100 guilty than imprison 1 innocent. In war we kill thousands who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is the nature of war. Both the enemy soldier and the civilian collateral are not criminals, and they are not guilty of anything by definition.

The terrorists are not guilty of anything. They are not in any US jurisdiction, and have not commited any act against the US yet. But they are still our enemy, and we need to win against them.

"guys who talk funny and wouldn't obey our commands in English at the checkpoint."

WHAT??? the fuckers don't speak English, and still you feel sympathy for them??? Are you kidding?

[kwais]

Zach, my bad,
I am sober and it is almost 10 am where I am.

I really do need to proofread my shit though.

What I meant to say, before I puffed on the crackpipe was,
Some of the guys that were released were recaptured or killed during acts of terrorism. Or acts of war against the US. (Some of them I think, were caught in Russia trying to help the chechens).

[thoreau]

As I recall, they were released because the Administration was forced to try them, and the Administration didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute. To me, that doesn't mean that they weren't dangerous; in fact, I don't see any reason not to believe that they are dangerous. I think this is further evidence that Rumsfeld and company are incredibly incompetent.

Now you know how those of us in southern California feel with our security in the hands of LA prosecutors and juries!

But seriously, that's a good reason to run these investigations like criminal investigations, with documentation of evidence. We need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and prove that we did so.

Now, it would be tempting to say "Oh, look at that liberal weenie thoreau, demanding that we give these guilty guys the benefit of the trial." But in fact, what I'm suggesting is that we keep the terrorists locked up rather than release them. It's just that if you want to keep people locked up you have to have a trial. And no, it's not for their benefit. If they're terrorists I don't really give a damn about them.

It's for our benefit: The executive branch needs to be kept on a short leash at all times. No, I'm not paranoid enough to think that they'll start arresting opposition candidates tomorrow if they get to hold terrorists without trial. But neither am I naive enough to think that if we let them off the leash they'll never, ever go down that slippery slope. It won't happen tomorrow, it won't even happen under this administration, but if we let them off the leash it will eventually happen. Call me paranoid if you will, but history is on my side.

kwais-

I might not agree with you on exactly what the parameters should be, but I agree 100% that they should be explicitly defined and strictly enforced. In fact, I'd be willing to (reluctantly) accept a lot of things if they were done in a controlled manner. My biggest fear is not any particular thing that might be done. Rather, it's what might happen if government agents learn that rules are meaningless.

[kwais]

Thoreau,

"I might not agree with you on exactly what the parameters should be, but I agree 100% that they should be explicitly defined and strictly enforced."

Thats cool, when we are in charge I'm sure we can work out the details.

Serously though,

"what might happen if government agents learn that rules are meaningless."

Amen.

Some of the Geneva convention needs to be scrapped. Like the part that says that I can't have hollow points in my magazine. What kind of crap is that.

Somebody needs to revise the rules, somebody that has been in the trenches, somebody that knows reality. They need to make new rules, and the rules need to be strictly enforce. Even though all the rules might not be agreed with they need to be rules that can be respected.

My take on the drinking age is the same. It is a rule that is not going to be followed, and it causes people to come to the conclusion that laws are to be disobeyed. I don't know if that is a stretch, it is my theory.

[ralphus]

Play semantics if you want Rick. From now on I'll just go with "the fuckers that are trying to kill us" when referring to detainees/terrorist/enemy combatants/what he fuck ever you wan to call them.

The Geneva Convention set the rules of engagement between sovereign nations during wartime. The protections are there as incentives to keep both sides from resorting to the tactics we today call terrorism. Why would we reward those who use those very tactics with Geneva defined POW status.

That being said, as rob has pointed out, our policy is to give the fuckers who are trying to kill us Geneva treatment. Granted it's Geneva Light, but it's more than they deserve according to the very document those guys pounded out in Switzerland way before 9/11.

As for my moral exeptionalisim. If thinking I'm better than a bunch of intolerant, misogynistic, backwards looking, murderous, nihilistic religious zealots makes me guilty of a sin worse than racism - I guess I can live with that.

It's explains why I don't vote Republican.

[ralphus]

I'm also in agreement with kwais and thoreau. Set the rules and enforce them 100%. Stop whining about what we have to do and figure out the best way to do it and live up to our values.

Which brings me to my unanswered question. How would those who oppose or current system for dealing with the fuckers who are trying to kill us change it? What is your answer?

Still waiting ....

[The Real Bill]

ralphus,

My only suggestion for change would be to give them due process. If and when a detainee is released who may still be a threat, we should have him followed by the CIA. We might learn more by following the guy than leaving him naked in a cell.

[kwais]

Real Bill,
The due process they get is what landed them at Gitmo. Someone had good reason to believe that the person was a terrorist. Witnesses were not brought against the dude, that would be silly. There were no fingerprints to match anything. The dude was not allowed a defense counsil, that would be silly also. The method that determined that the dude was a terrorist is not open to public review, because that would betray tactics, technique and technology, and even maybe human assets.

Having a CIA dude follow the suspected terrorist? Right, because we really do have those assets and capabilities.

[Stevo Darkly]

kwais brings up an interesting point I might have if I weren't too busy/lazy: Our biggest worry, as civil libertarians, is that some fraction of the people detained at Gitmo are in fact innocent. How many?

I just read (in a Mark Steyn column) that about 200 people have been released from Gitmo; of those released, 12 have since been recaptured on the battlefield. In a way, that's reassuring -- at least we know some of those guys were guilty of acting against the US. At least 5%, or one in 20. For comparison, I'd like to know what percentage of people arrested by civilian police are later convicted of the crime for which they were arrested.

What really sticks in our craw is the thought of people being held at Gitmo without a formal, just and timely process of deciding whether they are guilty, or are innocent and should be let go.

Although kwais pointed out, evidence for their guilt might have been gathered by spies and whatnot, and it might not be possible to review that evidence in any kind of open court without exposing and endangering those agents. That's something I hadn't considered before.

[Phil]

The Constitution says every citizen has the right to due process and the presumption of innocence. The key word being citizen.

Uh, you may want to read that there Constitution a second time, for clarity's sake. Let me help you out:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I'll wait patiently while you point out all instances of the word "citizen." For bonus points, maybe when you find them (or don't) you can explain why we are holding these people in Cuba rather than in the United States.

[James]

I'd bet my last beer that we have followed at least a few of the releasees. That's probably how we've been able to reengage them so often, and fully killing or maiming a few of their brothers at the same time. I'll go for due process if the final sentence for guilt is reskinning in pig hide.

[James]

That should read "hopefully".

[rob]

Phil,

So your argument boils down to the idea that "the people" refers not to citizens of the U.S., but to everyone in the world? I for one DO NOT look forward to the bloody, genocidal effort it would take to ensure that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to whoever survives the Global Human Rights War that establishes U.S. hegemony.

The Constitution can only be applied to our citizens, obviously... If you don't accept that, please explain how we're going to enforce the Bill of Rights abroad without military intervention.

If you are not a citizen, you can be deported or detained by the U.S. We don't do that TOO often, as it would certainly be bad for tourism (to cite the least compelling reason). But we've done it in the past and we continue to do it. It's a prerogative of sovereignty over "visitors" and a perk of citizenship that citizens have the protections of citizenship.

[rob]

"The due process they get is what landed them at Gitmo. Someone had good reason to believe that the person was a terrorist." - kwais

Exactly! And the military tribunal that is used to determine that they should stay at Gitmo IS due process.

In fact, similar procedures can be used to try OUR military personnel for crimes. But according to some of the posts here, that's not enough due process. So how is this good enough for our military personnel but not good enough for the guys detained while trying to kill our military personnel?

The detainees get "appeals" to a military tribunal periodically - that's how 200 or so have been released. And how some of them got back to Iraq and Afghanistan to shoot at our folks again.

Here's a primer on military tribunals: http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/tribunals.html

"What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust."

Taken out of context, how would one EVER guess that I was talking about Nazis and not the current breed of dangerous, illegal enemy combatants being detained at Gitmo?

In fact, if I didn't know better (due to context), I'd think that was quoted from a Congressional dimwit complaining about our military personnel serving at Gitmo. But no, it was Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel, Nuremberg, during his opening address about ACTUAL Nazis.

It may shock many posters on this thread to discover that military tribunals were used during the Nuremburg trials to try Nazis fair and square. Oddly, this was done without anyone accusing the U.S. of BEING Nazis or of running gulags without granting benefit of due process to the enemy.

[R C Dean]

rob punctures one of the biggest myths, and one of the few legitimate complaints, about detention at Gitmo. That myth is that we just round these guys up and ship them off and there is no review or process for determining whether we have grounds for detaining them. It is just that - a myth.

[David]

Rob,

T
I think you have Phil's point backwards. It's not that our bill of rights applies to people everywhere, it that it's our law, meant to restrict what our government can do to people. Much in the same way that someone gets into trouble in another country, and is punished under their laws regardless of whether he is an American citizen or not.

RC,

I think we would have fewer such myths if they were more forthcoming with information. In the absence of the truth, people will believe rumor.

[ralphus]

Phil,

You got me on finding the word citizen in the Constitution. However, I dont think the document was intended to apply globally. I think it was a delineation of your rights as a citizen of the United States of America. I'm sure that the suspects in Aruba would be glad to find out that they don't have to stay in jail 6 months without being charged because the US Constitution applies to them.

That being said, we should use the Constitution as our moral guide when dealing with these fuckers who want to kill us. And we are - to a point. That is why we do give them hearings. Do they get the same protection as a US citizen in those proceedings? No. Because they aren't citizens. They are non-citizen fuckers who are trying to kill us. Do we make the proceedings open? No. Because of the reasons that Stevo hit on above. It would tip our hand to the fuckers that are trying to kill us that are still on the loose. This is not a matter of crime and punishment, it's a matter of war.

As for why are we stashing them in Cuba as opposed to say Montana or the Utah dessert? Why would you want to bring some of the most dangerous guys in the world to the continental United States? Even our most remote regions are to close to too many people. It may sound far-fetched, but what if they escape? Unlikely, but a scary enough thought that I want them far away and isolated.

I also think the location has a huge psy-ops value. Like I said before. The Jihadist may not fear death, but he is afraid of Gitmo.

[General William T. Sherman]

War is cruelty, you cannot refine it. And the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.

We cannot change the hearts of those people, but we can make war so terrible, make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.

[Phil]

So your argument boils down to the idea that "the people" refers not to citizens of the U.S., but to everyone in the world?

Settle down, Beavis. My point is that the protections of the Constitution -- particularly the ones involving criminal prosecutions -- generally apply to all persons (legally) within the territory of the United States, not just to US citizens.

The Constitution can only be applied to our citizens, obviously

No. And the courts are quite clear on this. If we arrest a Mexican citizen within our borders for a crime, they are protected by the Constitution's provisions concerning representation, searches, testimony, trial, etc. This is so blindingly obvious that you cannot be missing it except on purpose.

... If you don't accept that, please explain how we're going to enforce the Bill of Rights abroad without military intervention.

I propose no such thing. When you find someone who does, feel free to press them on the issue.

[joe]

rob, RC, there have been only a few dozen tribunals held for the hundreds of prisoners in Gitmo. And no, the tribunals were not held before they were shipped to Gitmo and treated in ways that violate the Geneva Convention's standards for the treatment of POWs.

[SR]

To amplify Phil's point, some sections of the U.S. Constitution refer to the rights of a "citizen", while some refer to the rights of a "person" or "the people". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language very consistently for the last 150 years or so: "citizen" means an official citizen, but "person" or "people" means anyone physically present within the territory of the United States. Even illegal immigrants and foreign tourists are entitled to most of the same rights as resident aliens. (To the extent they have fewer rights, that's because the Supreme Court has found that Congress' constitutional power to regulate citizenship/immigration allows for downward departures from due process standards on certain issues.)

[SR]

Oh, and fun stuff at WorldNet Daily - Hal Lindsey is calling for Durbin to be charged with (you'll never guess!) treason: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44941

[dhex]

is that the "end of the world spooky oooky" hal lindsey?

[ralphus]

"No. And the courts are quite clear on this. If we arrest a Mexican citizen within our borders for a crime, they are protected by the Constitution's provisions concerning representation, searches, testimony, trial, etc. This is so blindingly obvious that you cannot be missing it except on purpose."

Talk about missing the blindingly obvious.

Gitmo detainees were not arrested within our borders. Technically they were never arrested at all. They were captured on the battlefield. Mussoui (sp?) arrested here and tried in a court of law with Constitutional protections. John Walker Lind, US citizen tried in a court of law with Constitutional protections. Padilla?s case is somewhat stickier, but all signs point to him having his day in court.

The Gitmo detainees are not criminals captured in the US or it's territories so they are not protected by the Constitution. They are non-state actors so they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Read what the Geneva Convention says about treatment of out of uniform spies, saboteurs and non-state actors. We're treating them better than even that document demands. According to it we can outright kill them if we so choose. Instead we?re giving them four squares, a chance to practice their faith and generally treating them better than half guys in county lock-up.

[Native NYer]

Why not just send them to Rikers Island holding pen? If it's good enough for US citizens just being held on suspicion of wrongdoing to be ass raped by members of the Latin Kings then it's good enough for guys caught taking potshots at Army boys in the hills of Iraq and Afghanistan.

No A/C in most parts of Rikers either.

I mean, if it's OK for people arrested for possession of an ounce of interstate commerce, than it must be OK for folks under suspicion of making war against the United States.

What about sending them down to one of those southern work prisons as seen in Cool Hand Luke? We could lock them up in the box when their mommas die so they don't get no wandering feet. Does the man without eyes work for the feds at Gitmo?

[Melissa]

Rick:

Maybe we should learn from the Israelis, who have been dealing with terrorists for years. Faced with monsters who blow up children in cafes, one can't indulge in all sorts of touchy-feely liberal nicities. I say torture tham if that's what it takes.

[thoreau]

I'm not interested in the rights of the detainees.

I'm interested in limiting the powers of the government.

There's a difference.

[Melissa]

Thoreau:

Just limit government, huh? That seems simple-minded to the point of idiocy. If the military took over altogether--ever heard of a military coup?--government as we understand it in normal parlance would be kaput. We have to deal with terrorists without becoming terrorists ourselves. You might try reading some history.

[thoreau]

Melissa-

That was sort of the point of my post. People are saying "Oh, they aren't citizens, and they're bad guys, and they aren't covered by this or that treaty." And by focusing on whether the detainees are or should be specifically protected, they miss the point: If the executive branch can do whatever it wants without judicial or legislative scrutiny, then all sorts of nightmare scenarios become possible.

No, those nightmare scenarios won't happen tomorrow. They won't arrest opposition candidates in the 2006 elections. But it is naive to think that we can remove the leash from the executive branch without having a nightmare scenario some day. It might take a long time, but without a leash on the executive branch it will happen.

Anyway, this is a first: Somebody takes me to task for not being enough of a civil libertarian!

[Melissa]

Thoreau:

But you're talking about making government stronger, not limiting it. If the executive branch can do whatever it wants, isn't that limited government? If the executive branch has to answer to a strong legislative branch, isn't that more government? If the military takes over, isn't that the end of government? Maybe you should define your terms.

[gaius marius]

I really couldn't find anything objectionable in Durbin's speech. When even moderate criticism of administration policies is beyond the pale, we're headed down a dangerous path.

this is what i took from this entire sad affair. and we wonder why the msm is reticent to bring up even realtively trivial items like the downing street memo.

[gaius marius]

Why not just send them to Rikers Island holding pen?

within range of camera lenses.

[gaius marius]

That myth is that we just round these guys up and ship them off and there is no review or process for determining whether we have grounds for detaining them. It is just that - a myth.

whether or not its a process worth having, that would withstand an iota of skepticism, is another thing, of course, mr dean.

[gaius marius]

http://www.townhall.com

lol -- citing townhall doesn't exactly reinforce an argument.

[Native NYer]

Yeah, Thoreau, less is more! What do we want all these governmental branchess and hundreds of congress critters for?

Every revolution requires one man with a vision!

[thoreau]

Melissa-

I want a judicial process to review detentions.

[Melissa]

I think maybe Thoreau has confused a label with a thought process.

[gaius marius]

If the executive branch can do whatever it wants, isn't that limited government?

i've never heard the argument for an american "benevolent despot" so concisely made. ms melissa, you've enlightened me on a new point of view.

[Melissa]

Gaius M:

Well, I hope I've enlightened you. There's not much government in a dictatorship,just the trappings.

[David]

Melissa,

How would checks and balances equate to more government? To my thinking, government is a semi-external control over society. So it's more government(regardless of branch) when goverment continues to wield increasing power over lives of the people while becoming less answerable to the people.

[drf]

Dick Durbin is a weenie, anyways. He is a jerk of the highest order. Although he'll vote against the flag burning bullshit, that falls into the "hitler liked dogs" (he can godwin, so can i)

I lost it with him when he was a loud voice against a democratically-elected government in Austria in Feb 2000. (that was also the "proof" about how evil the EU is, imo).

May he become a private citizen soon, come his re-election. And then actually contribute to society 🙂

of course with the circus freak running against looney lib last time for senate, the cure might be worse than Mr. Durbin's policies. Lol.

[rob]

Jon H - Ah, you mean THAT guy. Sorry, I didn't know what you were referring to at first. Yeah, I've heard of that. If the evidence bears out, then like I've said before, Leavenworth (where military prisoners are sent) will get more crowded. But I believe that by charging and convicting Graner & Co. it has shown that it's not going to let someone get away with homicide.

"If the executive branch can do whatever it wants without judicial or legislative scrutiny, then all sorts of nightmare scenarios become possible." - thoreau

Totally agree with you - most porblems in gov't are the fault of the over-powered under-checked Executive. But I think that there's plenty of scrutiny and Congressional oversight of the detention centers right now. If there wasn't oversight, we woudn't be talking about it right here.

[Melissa]

David,

I suppose it depends on what you mean by government. It's very important to know precisely what you mean by things. Most people understand government to mean those institutions that set policy, make laws, enforce laws, and so on. So a dictatorship that concentrates all these functions in one or several people would be less government. If what you mean is simply that government = bad, then, I guess anything you don't like is more government. It seems a little silly for people to claim they want oversight over the executive branch in its so-called war on terror and then to blather on about wanting limited government. Makes you think they don't know what they're taling about. Slogans are not a good substitute for thinking.

[ralphus]

gaius marius,

What would be the appropriate process?

thoreau,

The point I was trying to make was that the Executive Branch doesn't wield un-checked power to deal with all terror suspects/detainees. Citizens and foreign nationals caught inside the US committing or plotting terrorist acts are still subject to all the Constitutional protections they are entitled to.

Members of Al Queda captured on the battlefield are not entitled to Constitutional or Geneva protections. They fall well into the Executive's jurisdiction since it is the Executive's power to wage war.

Those captured in Iraq, who are part of a guerrilla movement or insurgency are protected by the Geneva Convention. Although if you go by the letter of the document, many of their actions forfeit those protections.

"In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44 , Sec. 3)"

"Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4 , Sec. 2)"

"In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)"

"Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. ( Protocol I, Art. 48)"

(source: http://www.genevaconventions.org)

Now, I will grant you, the executive branch has been, at the very least, pushing the boundaries of their powers, but as we see now the courts and congress are pushing back.

The reason I don't fear the slippery slope thoreau is that the Constitution, the judiciary, the legislative branch people like you and, despite what many in here might think, myself will be there to stop the slide. I have faith in that.

I don't think shining light on abuses is a bad thing, but I do think grandstanding by politicians is. Instead of condemning and over hyperbolizing they should sit down and establish the rules of detainment if you will and make sure they are enforced 100%.

[gaius marius]

What would be the appropriate process?

a public one, for starters. we held nuremberg trials publicly. we can hold these in exactly the same fashion.

and we can afford them counsel, which we currently don't. and discovery. and make the government make its case before the people -- prove to us, mr rumsfeld, that you know what you're doing with the powers we've granted you.

something very definitive must be done generally to break the chokehold of secrecy that now envelops most of the executive. a secret government is not a republican one. these trials are as good a place to start as any.

[rob]

GM - The only problem with the idea to hold these tribunals publicly is that, unlike with Nuremburg, the war isn't over.

It's one thing to trot out the bad guys and go over every detail in public after the enemy has been throughly beaten and has officially capitulated. It's another thing entirely to hold public trials when there's a likelihood that information revealed in a public trial could further endanger covert operatives and/or military personnel still operating against the enemy.

What do you think happened to spies and saboteurs during WW2? They were held indefinitely, not tried publicly, and dealt with by "secret" military tribunal. If it was good enough for our enemies in the 40s, it's good enough now.

As for a "chokehold of secrecy" when did we see this much publicity about captured combatants in a previous war? For an administration accused of being "super-secretive," these guys are terrible at keeping stuff quiet!

Frankly, I think that any time the approved interrogation tactics have been leaked it gives an inestimable advantage to those who study them prior to capture.

I know how I'd act during interrogation... "Oh, is this the part where you put a girl in my personal space? Or are we going straight to the simulated drowning? Is this the part where you leave me to poop and pee on myself and dehydrate myself while pouring water over my head (drink it or wear it). I know you're going to get me cleaned up and give an IV, so I'm not too worried. Or are you just going to turn the AC off? Hey, I like dogs, guys, so a barking military working dog who isn't allowed to bite me isn't going to be effective..."

(Loud rap music all day and all night might get me to crack, but I'll never tell them that!)

[thoreau]

rob-

Good point! Until the State of Emergency ends, it will be necessary to maintain secret courts and prisons.

[Hosni Mubarak]

Until the State of Emergency ends, it will be necessary to maintain secret courts and prisons.

And this is a bad thing because....?

[David]

Melissa,

How did you get that from what I posted?

A dictatorship would only be less goverment if the dictator interfered in the lives of the people less than the previous system. Except that a dictator who did that, wouldn't last long.

[Stevo Darkly]

Hi, Melissa. To define some terms, 'round here when we talk about limiting government, or smaller vs. bigger government, we generally are talking about the government's power to control and intervene in people's lives -- not how many people are on the government payroll, or how many branches it has.

You might try reading some history.

That is a very good idea. You might want to read through some other posts, maybe skim through some of our archives. You will learn, for example, that Dr. Thoreau is not the "simple-minded" slogan-spouter you appear to have assumed.

[ralphus]

gaius marius,

What rob said!

I would add that to get sent to Gitmo you have to go before a military tribunal in country. So there is due process. We don't just hit a village, throw sacks on all the men's heads, beat them up and ship'em to Cuba.

Gitmo has flaws that can and are being corrected, but it is appropriate and necessary. Unless someone comes up with a better and plausible alternative it should remain open.

I'm still waiting for those better and plausible alternatives ... Anyone?

[Melissa]

David,

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. First, you have to define government. I would define it as those institutions that set policy, make laws, enforce laws, and so forth. Now, one can easily see that in a dictatorship, these instituions exist only as a sham since the dictator and his coterie fill all those functions. Hence a dictaorship has less government. How do you define government?
I'm sure that you can easily see that those posting here who want more oversight over the excutive branch because of stuff like Gitmo are calling for more government, or at least for one of the existing branches of government to be more active, even though like garden-variety true-believers they keep mouthing the same slogan about less government.
Forget the slogan and try to think.

[Melissa]

Sorry for the typos. My nails are long.

[Rick Hall]

Melissa, would the phrase "government power" be more to your liking? I'm struggling to imagine what you're trying to get at here.

[Melissa]

Stevo:

A dictatorship that has destroyed the institutions of government has more power over people's lives than, say, a president who has to contend with Congress and the courts. Be careful what you wish for.
Let's just say that Dr. Thoreau seems a little confused, but posting here, he has lots of company.

[thoreau]

Melissa-

You're arguing semantics. Call it more government, call it less, call it whatever you want. I want to limit the power that the government wields over individuals. If that means making it "larger" by adding more officials to check each other, so be it.

[Melissa]

Rick:

I'm pleased that your struggling with a new thought. Government power that resides in the various institutions of government is a protection against the abuse of power by one who might concentrate the functions of government in his/her own hands. Let me give you a concrete example. Stalin destroyed all institutions of government and made the courts, the police, the rubber-stamp Duma literally his private property. The Communist party was the only instituion that functioned, so the Soveits certainly had less government. Any lights coming on?

[gaius marius]

the war isn't over.

hey, it's up to you -- if you're comfortable with the executive fighting unending secret wars in distant lands without an iota of scrutiny, go on and offer them carte blanche. i would merely submit that this practice is a big part of the reason why the wtc is now scrap, whether mr rumsfled understands it or not. and i'll ask you not to be appalled by such comparative trivialities of unchecked power as, say, eminent domain abuses.

if, on the other hand, you feel that there is a reasonable amount a democratic government can and must say before the people -- yes, even if it does slight the technical efficiency of the war machine -- as a means of ensuring accountable government and the safety of the nation from the armed forces, then you're closer to my position.

(Loud rap music all day and all night might get me to crack, but I'll never tell them that!)

lol -- mr rob, those tactics are designed to overwhelm your reason and resistance.

So there is due process.

due process in fact or in appearance, mr ralphus? big, big difference. the old soviets gave you due process in appearance. and we cannot know what those people are being offered if we can't see it.

Gitmo has flaws that can and are being corrected

you cannot know that, mr ralphus. that's a statement of faith in your government to do the right thing. are you in the habit of according them such leniency?

[Melissa]

Dr. Thoreau:

Is semantics knowing what you mean by the words you use? Is your doctorate in Phys ed by any chance?

[rob]

"Good point! Until the State of Emergency ends, it will be necessary to maintain secret courts and prisons." - thoreau

The prisons are hardly secret. Picked up a copy of Newsweek lately? Scanned the Schlesinger Report? I can't find anything from a previous war that details our treatment of prisoners and gives away our interrogation techniques so blatantly... But I haven't searched THAT hard, and I'm certainly open to 40s-era newsreels that document these things that were released during the war.

Hell, the detainees are lucky we don't use Andersonville as the template for their prison! "If it's good enough for Americans..."

As for the tribunals being secret "for the duration," there were classified portions of the publicly-held Article 32 hearings for the Tarnak Farms friendly-fire incident. The guys being tried were USAF fighter pilots. While most of it was open to the media, big chunks of those proceedinggs were closed due to classified information and security concerns. Due process was observed for that hearing, and for the trial that followed. I submit to you that such is the case with military tribunals for detainees.

Again, if a "secret trial" is good enough for Air Force pilots...

[thoreau]

Melissa-

Look, some phrases have commonly understood meanings. "Less government", as used by most people usually means "less power for the government to control the lives of the citizens" and/or "fewer exercises of power over the citizens." That doesn't necessarily mean fewer people in the government.

Besides, the vast majority of the people in the government are in the executive branch. You talk about a dictatorship: Sure, there's one man at the top, but there's usually lots of henchmen and bureaucrats and whatnot carrying out his orders. Adding in a legislative body means a few hundred more people, plus their staff, but it might lead to fewer exercises of power over the citizens. Sure, maybe more exercises of power within the government, but fewer actions against the rest of us.

Now throw in an independent judiciary and you're adding perhaps a few thousand judges in a typical country, plus their staff. But the exercises of power will be subject to more scrutiny, and will be more constrained. Not to mention that a legislature may be in a position to reduce the size of the much larger (in terms of staff) executive branch.

As to my Ph.D., it's in Physics. You brought it up, not me, so let me tell you a little bit about my Ph.D. I've got research articles in the pipeline, I've graded lab reports, I've given written reports to industrial funding sources, I've written a grant application, and I've presented at conferences. I understand the importance of language and communication.

What's your degree in? I haven't thrown my degree in anybody's face before on this forum to belittle them, but if you want to start talking smack about degrees, I'll talk some right back.

[David]

Melissa,

Very well then,

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gov?ern?ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r(n)-m&nt, -v&-m&nt; 'g&-b&m-&nt, -v&m-
Function: noun

1 : the act or process of governing; specifically authoritative direction or control.

gov?ern
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&rn
Function: verb
1 a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

To me, it the amount of control, rather than the number of people who wield it that matters.

[thoreau]

OK, I exaggerated one bit: I didn't write an entire grant application. I wrote a research statement for an application for an NIH research funding award. My research advisor wrote the rest of it.

[Melissa]

Dr. Thoreau:

My apologies. I'll bet you're really very smart. It's not as readily apparent here as it probably is in your many contributions to the field of physics. I thought you might be a jock. Sorry.

[rob]

Melissa - Go easy on thoreau. I think you guys are arguing definitions tho your intent/position is very similar if not exactly the same. It's sometimes tough to figure out what some of the in-jokes are here, and to understand HNR terminology it usually helps to be a bit... insular for lack of a better word. In on the shorthand, I suppose is a good way to put it.

thoreau - No, I'm not comfortable with an Orwellian state of eternal war. But this war certainly hasn't met that criteria!

"i would merely submit that this practice is a big part of the reason why the wtc is now scrap, whether mr rumsfled understands it or not." -thoreau

I would submit that our foreign policy is going to piss people off no matter what we do, including regressing to total isolationism.

Last I checked there were still angry, Mexicans who want Texas back, Native Americans who are pissed about getting screwed, and people who have never suffered the yoke of slavery clamoring for reparations.

I honestly think that the terrorists will choose us as their enemy no matter what we do - for a big cause you need a big enemy. This administration did not set the stage for that, the previous administrations did, and nothing we do is going to stop them from coming after us EXCEPT their utter defeat.

The hornet's nest was already stirred (and I can't imagine a way to avoid stirring it with this group of bad guys). We're just trying to kill off the hive, now that we've been stung a half-dozen or so times.

"if...you feel that there is a reasonable amount a democratic government can and must say before the people...then you're closer to my position." - thoreau

I think we're very close on this issue. But I happen to think that the situation is being handled about as well as can be expected, given the circumstances. I'm all in favor of the gov't operating in the sunlight. The only exception to that, IMO, should be situations such as the one we currently face, in which doing so endangers national security. But that's what various elected representatives who serve on committees with Top Secret, compartment-classified clearances are for. They're supposed to make sure we don't become the scary future you envision.

I think the amount of sunshine and scrutiny on these issues is a sign that the system is still healthy, beleive it or not... And a powerful guarantor against an Orwellian future.

[rob]

Dr. T - I've been waiting for the day you'd clobber someone with your credentials... As I said when you were "doctored":

"I pity tha fool who messes wit' Dr. T!"

(Of course, I'm as guilty of messin' wit' you as anyone... I'm terrible at taking my own advice!)

I'm glad, however, that you have stuck around here rather than declaring "I ain't got no more time fo' all this jibba-jabba fools!"

[thoreau]

rob-

The comment "i would merely submit that this practice is a big part of the reason why the wtc is now scrap, whether mr rumsfled understands it or not." was written by gaius marius, not me.

[rob]

My bad. Sorry bro!

[Stevo Darkly]

Melissa --

By any chance are you a gay/bisexual French ex-Marine, currently making a living as a historian/attorney and given to reminiscing about your childhood and Little Round Top?

[Melissa]

Stevo:

No, I'm just a troll.

[Stevo Darkly]

(I have no idea what made me think of this, but this is from memory of a song posted at MC Hawking's Crib -- the Web site of Stephen Hawking, gangsta rappa.) (The physicist thing is just a hobby.)

Straight out of Oxford
A crazy motherfucker named Hawking
When I step up to the mike
Everybody's gawking

Doctor Dre can suck my dick
That bitch ain't got no Ph.D.s
I lost track of mine
I've got a million whack degrees...

[thoreau]

Now I feel dumb for arguing with a self-described troll.

[Melissa]

Thoreau:

Yeah, you should stick to arguing with those who share your views and respect your credentials. I wonder who told then to address you as Doctor.

[Creg]

What's a troll?

[Dogzilla]

There are a lot of different dergrees of apology.

1. I'm sorry I called you an idiot.

2. I'm sorry I called you an idiot. I should have used the word "slow".

3. I'm sorry you got mad when I called you an idiot.

4. I'm sorry you're such an idiot.

Durbin's was a number 2. I knew he would have to apologize, but I was hoping for a 4.

[Ken Shultz]

"That's the report he claims shows orders & policy to torture..."

That's a stupid lie. You can't show one comment where I ever claimed that. I have in the past and will continue in the future to make statements consistent with the following quote:

"The existence of confusing and inconsistent interrogation technique policies contributed to the belief that additional interrogation techniques were condoned."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 12 of 126

Where's the beef?

"...but which actually contains Bush's presidential order to extend Geneva to all detainees - even those who don't qualify for it!"

...You dolt, Rumsfeld's policy changes--the policy changes in question--put into place on December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003, occurred after the Presidential Memo you seem to be citing. This memo you're referring to, is it not the Memo dated February 7, 2002 that the Schlesinger Report labeled as Appendix C?

Is there somewhere else in the Schlesinger Report that you see some other memo referenced that said such a thing?

...That is to say, the changes Rumsfeld made on Gonzales' advice were made after the the President's memo on February 7, 2002, not before.

Do you find repetition helpful?

It was Rumsfeld's policy changes made subsequent to the February 7, 2002 memo--made on the advice of Alberto Gonzales I add--and the subsequent policy confusion--that led directly to the abuse at Abu Gharib, or, as the Schlesinger Report says:

"...As already noted, the changes in DoD interrogation policies between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003 were an element contributing to uncertainties in the field as to which techniques were authorized."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 16 of 126

The Schlesinger Report

[rob]

Ken,

The only reason I have to keep repeating myself is because you keep going with this debunked line of crap after getting hammered on that previous thread. Maybe you're the one who benefits from repetition?

"You dolt, Rumsfeld's policy changes--the policy changes in question--put into place on December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003, occurred after the Presidential Memo you seem to be citing." - KS

So what? All that means is that the policy from Rumsfeld is intended to be in keeping with Geneva. From looking at those memoes, I'd say yes, they are in keeping with that.

Couple of ad hominem responses:

1. If I'm a dolt, that would make you the guy who is so mentally inept/intellectually bankrupt that he can't win an argument with a dolt, right?

2. Why is it that every time you get hammered intellectually you get all profane and start insulting people?

3. The last time you lost, your posts degenerated into barely comprehensible profanity. How much longer until you wind up in the same mental state?

4. It makes me wonder just how mentally stable you are. Do you find yourself resorting to fistfights to solve verbal disputes?

(All that ad hom and no profanity... You should try that yourself, perhaps in concert with some Valium or anti-depressants.)

Back to the actual subject, tho...

Even if I agree with the conclusions you claim are made by the Schlesinger Report, that there was confusion about what is and isn't allowable during interrogation, NO ONE changed the UCMJ. That's what governs military behavior. Not some advisory memo from the DoJ. Confusion about what the administration might have been trying to allow STILL doesn't supersede the requirements of the military justice system - and that's what military personnel KNOW they must obey.

Grow up and face reality - your argument is based on your preconceived notions and you can't see past that. That your convictions are impervious to repeated doses of reality - from the Schlesinger document YOU cite as your best proof - does not change the reality that the document STILL doesn't prove your claims.

That you've changed to a variation of your argument than you started out with doesn't change the fact that (let me repeat this for you, since you "seem to find repetition helpful") ad hominem attacks and biased readings of Schlesinger don't bear out your claims.

Why are you still pushing the same lame arguments and ad hominem attacks that I discredited last go-round? What is this about anyway? Vain hopes of regaining some of your shot credibility??? Just change your screen-name, since based on your debating tactics, intellectual honesty probaby isn't a concern...

But hey, I've had this discussion with you already. And you lost that time, as well. Maybe you're not totally nuts, just a masochist.

[Ken Shultz]

"That you've changed to a variation of your argument than you started out with doesn't change the fact that..."

I never changed my argument.

"...ad hominem attacks and biased readings of Schlesinger don't bear out your claims."

Ad hominem attacks and biased readings don't bear out anything, of course. ...But then my reading of the Schlesinger Report isn't biased, and my argument isn't based on ad hominem attacks--maybe I'm missing one?

...then again, maybe you don't know what an ad hominem attack is--here let me give you an example:

"Grow up and face reality - your argument is based on your preconceived notions and you can't see past that."

"...from the Schlesinger document YOU cite as your best proof - does not change the reality that the document STILL doesn't prove your claims."

"...the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 7 of 126.

"...[Donald Rumsfeld] directed the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel to establish a working group to study interrogation techniques. The Working Group...included wide membership from across the military legal and intelligence communities. The Working Group also relied heavily on the OLC. The Working Group reviewed 35 techniques and after a very extensive debate ultimately recommended 24 to the Secretary of Defense. The study led to Secretary of Defense's promulgation on April 16, 2003 a list of approved techniques..."

----Schlesinger Report, page 10 of 126

"The existence of confusing and inconsistent interrogation technique policies contributed to the belief that additional interrogation techniques were condoned."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 12 of 126

"We cannot be sure how much the number and severity of abuses would have been curtailed had there been early and consistent guidance from higher levels. Nonetheless, such guidance was needed and likely would have had a limiting effect."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf pp. 15 & 16 of 126.

"...As already noted, the changes in DoD interrogation policies between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003 were an element contributing to uncertainties in the field as to which techniques were authorized."

----Schlesinger Report .pdf page 16 of 126

P.S.

"That's the report he claims shows orders & policy to torture..."

That's a stupid lie. You can't show one comment where I ever claimed that.

[rob]

"I never changed my argument." - KS

Really? So all that stuff about being offended by my tinfoil hat comment on the previous thread was NOT a defense of what I was poking fun at?

Gee, my bad... Here I thought that you only retreated from that position mid-way through the last thread - after thoreau bailed you out by making you sound almost reasonable. Oh wait, upon re-reading that thread it STILL looks that way to me.

Wondering why it's so easy to quote ad hominem attacks from my previous post?

It's because the ad hom attacks are there ON PURPOSE. (You know, like the statements in the Schlesinger Report that make it ludicrously obvious that only someone with your particular set of blinders on would believe it to be unimpeachable proof of your POV.)

In large part, my entire last post was intended to be a parody of your ad hominem attacks. (I thought about including a link to the Schlesinger report in it - the way you do in every post in vain hope that it will vindicate you - but figured it would be a dead giveaway.)

Face it Ken, not only have your arguments been discredited, but you managed to get "PUNK'd" in the process. Another of those "if it weren't so sad, it'd be funny" moments...

Regardless, I'm done arguing with you on this topic. You have nothing new to say and I can't be bothered to re-state the exact same arguments that shot you down in the previous thread.