NationStates Jolt Archive

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DETAINEE_ABUSE?SITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I know this will probably fire up some "the ACLU are commies!" comments.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

Oh fuck, a shitstorm is approaching...

*gets stack of porn mags for distribution during the storm*

This should be interesting.

Oh fuck, a shitstorm is approaching...

*gets stack of porn mags for distribution during the storm*

This should be interesting.

This just plain sucks. My government's repeated attempts to sweep this under the rug has resulted in de facto approval.

This just plain sucks. My government's repeated attempts to sweep this under the rug has resulted in de fact approval.
Well, if it helps, I'm outraged yet strangly enough, not really that surprised.

Well, if it helps, I'm outraged yet strangly enough, not really that surprised.The US gov uses Murder and Torture...

why should anyone be surprised ?


Disclaimer: most "Empires" have used murder and torture....US gov did not invent it...

*we did not start the fire*tune*... http://www.teacheroz.com/fire.htm

Does anyone in the USA pay attention to the ACLU anymore?:confused:

Does anyone in the USA pay attention to the ACLU anymore?:confused:
I do.

But...you are rigth...the voices of justice and freedom are being shot down by the Patriots...

Does anyone in the USA pay attention to the ACLU anymore?:confused:

Not really, no.

I do.

But...you are rigth...the voices of justice and freedom are being shot down by the Patriots...

No, the voices of justice and freedom are being shot down by blinded democrats and republicans. Not patriots. Supporters of the patriot act, perhaps.

Then again, the ACLU is not a voice of justice and freedom at all times--just part of the time. They pick and choose which amendments to support.

*SIGH* I , for one, condemn any type of murder. I thin that if it's true, charges should be brought against anyone directly involved. But let me ask everyone a question.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Can I stand up and say "everyone on this forum rapes animals, and have it be true? Does that make you all rapists just because I leveled the charges?

It's a sad double standard where on thread is full of people saying Saddam Hussein is guilty until proven innocent, and then in this thread, soldiers who fight for that right aren't afforded it by you people.

I don't know what is worse, murder of detainees. or murder of our soldiers rights whenever they are accused of something.

I don't know what is worse, murder of detainees. or murder of our soldiers rights whenever they are accused of something.
I do: It's the former.
People are worth more than "soldier's rights".

*SIGH*...
I don't know what is worse, murder of detainees. or murder of our soldiers rights whenever they are accused of something.interesting...maybe Sick-Nightmares thinks "American Citizens Rigths are worth more than (3th World) foreigners Lives."

remember: We are ready to carpet bomb cities...killing unlimited numbers...In order to preserve the "American way of life"

interesting...maybe Sick Nightmares thinks "American Citizens Rigths are worth more than third World citizens Lives."

remember: We are ready to carpet bomb cities...killing unlimited numbers...In order to preserve the "American way of life"

We who? I just want us to pull back in and just defend our borders.

We who? I just want us to pull back in and just defend our borders.we...the supposed majority..who voted for the War party...

I did not vote for Bush...I own a He-is-not-my-President-sticker/poster/mug...

but I feel still responsible for the Chimp-in-chief stupid War in Iraq...

interesting...maybe Sick-Nightmares thinks "American Citizens Rigths are worth more than third World citizens Lives."

remember: We are ready to carpet bomb cities...killing unlimited numbers...In order to preserve the "American way of life"


The ACLU 'wants' to blame the Soldiers, and by that, hold the administration responsible.

Every possible death that can be implicated will be presented as such, by them, and believed by some... Even the news article shows it.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defense Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, though his father has blamed the militiamen.

The ACLU doesn't care if its true, they care if the death can be used by them for anti-war, anti-administration propaganda... How many detainees beat the hell out of other detainees to 'shut them up,' or how many are legitimate complaints of abuse by interrogation? I do not know, but I also know that I can't trust the ACLU to tell us an impartial summary.

Cute, you all nit pick one select comment I overstate, instead of actually responding to the message.

I guess that just goes to show that people will answer you even if it's the answer to the wrong question.

Interestingly enough, they are the same people who will say preserving our rights is more important than protecting our lives. (IE: Patriot Act is EVIL, it infringes our civil liberties!)

So which is more important, our right to complete privacy, or the lives of our family and friends?

we...the suposed majority..who voted for the War party...

I did not vote for Bush...I own a He-is-not-my-President-sticker/poster/mug...but I am not looking to deflect Blame for my Country.

I didn't vote for Bush either. But putting forth a unified front for all the bad this country does? I can't do that. I can't do that for all the good this country does, either.

I didn't vote for Bush either. But putting forth a unified front for all the bad this country does? I can't do that. I can't do that for all the good this country does, either.You are rigth...I edited my post...

and Yes our Country has done a lot of good too.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DETAINEE_ABUSE?SITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I know this will probably fire up some "the ACLU are commies!" comments.
It'd be nice to see someone a little less biased, maybe the UN or the IRC, corroborate these claims.

So which is more important, our right to complete privacy, or the lives of our family and friends?
You're assuming that this "Patriot" Act could actually save anyone's life. I don't think it does.

At any rate, it's not really my business what the "Land of the Free" does to its freedoms - only when it starts doing stuff to foreigners do I get annoyed.
But I can say for one thing that the Australian Anti-Terror Laws due in the next few weeks do not have my support. The chance of getting killed by a terrorist is unbelievably tiny, I'll die of a lightning strike before I get killed by AQ.
That I should now be subjected to "shoot to kill" or "one year house arrest without charges" is ridiculous.

I don't know what is worse, murder of detainees. or murder of our soldiers rights whenever they are accused of something.
Surely you are aware that the ACLU does not have the power to impinge on people's rights.

Accusations from the ACLU are worth paying attention to but they carry no legal force. This statement should be a motivation to investigate detainee treatment, and to institute punishments against violators ranging (let's say) from dishonorable discharge to execution, but it by itself has no legal weight and cannot be considered a violation of anyone's rights.

You don't have a right not to be accused of crimes you didn't commit. Your rights are intact, until and unless you are actually convicted of a crime. (Unless you're taken into detention for national security reasons, in which case you have no rights at all.)

Interestingly enough, they are the same people who will say preserving our rights is more important than protecting our lives. (IE: Patriot Act is EVIL, it infringes our civil liberties!)

So which is more important, our right to complete privacy, or the lives of our family and friends?
Given that the chance of having your rights infringed upon by terrorists is small, and the chance of having your rights infringed upon by government is large, I would rather have a smaller government than live in a Fortress America police-state.

Also, there are simple and sensible measures you can take to minimize the risk that terrorists pose to you, if you're afraid of them. You can buy cheap, low-energy protective clothing that will keep low-energy projectiles from penetrating your body. You can also stock up on certain supplies you might need for a road trip, like a water filter, a camp stove, a first-aid kit, some anti-diarrheal medication, etc., etc.

I think I would trust my fellow Americans to protect themselves and not greatly fear what they don't have to fear very much, rather than trust the government to protect me. The government can't protect me from much more likely threats, anyway.

Cute, you all nit pick one select comment I overstate, instead of actually responding to the message.

I guess that just goes to show that people will answer you even if it's the answer to the wrong question.

Interestingly enough, they are the same people who will say preserving our rights is more important than protecting our lives. (IE: Patriot Act is EVIL, it infringes our civil liberties!)

So which is more important, our right to complete privacy, or the lives of our family and friends?

Freedom first. Always. The Patriot Act IS evil. I will not try to live at all costs, denying my honor, my conscience, or my will.

I will not let me be subjugated, just so I can exist. I what I can within those limits, to save those I love. I want to live, not exist--same for them. And to do that, you have to be human, not a dog that does whatever its master says to do (IE the government).

The ACLU picks and chooses its battles. It does not fight for all liberties, just ones of their choosing. Sometimes they do good work, but they are not the end-all-be-all of monitoring groups.

They only espouse freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion (not that I'm religious--but people are free to do what they want in regard to their religions--just can't force them on others) and they will not touch firearm-related issues.

Yes, anyone accused of murder should stand trial to find out what happened. Happy? Our government should be out of the "messing with other countries" game, period.

*snip*

You don't have a right not to be accused of crimes you didn't commit. Your rights are intact, until and unless you are actually convicted of a crime. (Unless you're taken into detention for national security reasons, in which case you have no rights at all.)


Sure you do. You have the right to not suffer from defamation of character and there are slander laws in place. You can't just go around publishing accusations against people you don't like without any reason to do so, you can be sued for that.

Sure you do. You have the right to not suffer from defamation of character and there are slander laws in place. You can't just go around publishing accusations against people you don't like without any reason to do so, you can be sued for that.
That's true, but if you're a public figure (or an institution) and someone with permission to look takes a look at what you've been doing and says, "Aha, there has been a crime committed here..."

Also, whether you're a public or private citizen or an institution, there is a freedom of charges: anyone can sue you for anything, or accuse you of anything in court. Whether the charges will hold or not is a different matter.

The ACLU picks and chooses its battles. It does not fight for all liberties, just ones of their choosing. Sometimes they do good work, but they are not the end-all-be-all of monitoring groups.

They only espouse freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion...
I seem to recall that the ACLU successfully sued a school district to allow a student to read her holy books (the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) in class.

So which is more important, our right to complete privacy, or the lives of our family and friends?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

I seem to recall that the ACLU successfully sued a school district to allow a student to read her holy books (the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) in class.

COOL. Now, what if someone donated said holy books to the public school library? I'm guessing they'd be after the school to get them out of said library.

But the act you cited is pretty nifty. And RARE for them.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

I have that in my email signature line. :D

This just plain sucks. My government's repeated attempts to sweep this under the rug has resulted in de facto approval.

While we're at it, why don't we allege everything we can, and that way, we can sweep more under the rug. Let's see - the military painted the prisoners' bodies with purple paint before forcing them into acts of bestiality.

Nice. Kind of difficult to prove a negative - and I fail to see any solid proof other than "the ACLU alleges".

Allegations are not facts. While it does merit investigation, and would be a bad thing if true, none of us are privy to the facts.

COOL. Now, what if someone donated said holy books to the public school library? I'm guessing they'd be after the school to get them out of said library.
Maybe, maybe not. Libraries have a responsibility to stock useful texts, after all. I could see a library stocking them under "religion" for helpful reference to the students: someone doing a paper on the influence of Christian or Hindu legends isn't going to do well if he relied on the schoool for access to the New Testament or the Upanishads.

But the act you cited is pretty nifty. And RARE for them.
Yes, unfortunately. I think they've decided, though, that white Christians (being the in-group in US society) don't need that much protection, because they can generally take care of themselves.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
Gee, I wonder if Ben had ever seen what a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and rocket fuel can do. Or an Airliner with thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Or a cement truck full of explosives. Or Uranium.

Gee, I wonder if Ben had ever seen what a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and rocket fuel can do. Or an Airliner with thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Or a cement truck full of explosives. Or Uranium.
I suspect that, after studying the chances that such devices would actually affect individuals (rather than ever being used) he would've upheld his position. About 2700 people died on Sept. 11, 2001 as a result of the terrorist attacks. That's 2700 out of more than 280,000,000 people. The chance that you will be harmed is less than ten to the minus fifth power.

What Mao said about China and nuclear war stands true for the United States, as well: as tragic as it would be, the United States can afford to lose millions in a nuclear fireball. It has millions more.

Besides, the risk that terrorists are going to get their hands on an ICBM warhead is fairly low. The risk that they're going to get their hands on any functional nuclear warheads is also fairly low. Not zero, but low. We're not talking about people who have the capability to wage war against our infrastructure, we're talking about people who have the capability to scare the bejesus out of us. But it's our job to recover from being scared, pick up the pieces, and move on.

If we instead act like box turtles, we have failed utterly.

Maybe, maybe not. Libraries have a responsibility to stock useful texts, after all. I could see a library stocking them under "religion" for helpful reference to the students: someone doing a paper on the influence of Christian or Hindu legends isn't going to do well if he relied on the schoool for access to the New Testament or the Upanishads.


Wow. I didn't know that schools even had religion sections anymore. You don't really see those in most high schools--nor papers on the influence of Christian or Hindu legends. That seems to be more of a college-level paper.


Yes, unfortunately. I think they've decided, though, that white Christians (being the in-group in US society) don't need that much protection, because they can generally take care of themselves.

Their choice. They are a private organization, after all. Even though I think that someone using that particular name should stand for all of the liberties for all Americans.

Gee, I wonder if Ben had ever seen what a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and rocket fuel can do. Or an Airliner with thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Or a cement truck full of explosives. Or Uranium.
I wonder if you ever considered the technological power we have that can be used to combat all of those things.

Gee, I wonder if Ben had ever seen what a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and rocket fuel can do. Or an Airliner with thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Or a cement truck full of explosives. Or Uranium.

Maybe Ben thought it better to punish after someone actually did something wrong, instead of pre-emptively punishing them.

If someone does something that heinous, their life is forfeit. But you'll never be able to stop someone from killing, if they are willing to die themselves.

Ben had seen what cannon can do. Still some explosive capability there.

Gee, I wonder if Ben had ever seen what a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and rocket fuel can do. Or an Airliner with thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Or a cement truck full of explosives. Or Uranium.
I wonder if Ben had ever seen the results of a year's worth of motor vehical accidents...

US citizens are more likely to be killed by motor vehical use than they are a terrorist attack. Current predominate attitudes in the US towards the risk posed by terrorism, appear to be based more on hysteria and hype than on an objective assesment of materially relevent facts.

But the act you cited is pretty nifty. And RARE for them.

Wrong (http://www.nation-states.com/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1)

By the way, for all of you claiming the ACLU defends "only specific rights", are you talking about the second ammendment? Because the ACLU co-operates with the NRA on that. But they let the NRA actually defend it, because it's a powerful orginisation with the specific objective of defending the second objective. The ACLU defends all rights in this way.

By the way, for all of you claiming the ACLU defends "only specific rights", are you talking about the second ammendment? Because the ACLU co-operates with the NRA on that. But they let the NRA actually defend it, because it's a powerful orginisation with the specific objective of defending the second objective. The ACLU defends all rights in this way.

That's a nice cop-out for them, now isn't it? They might lose a bit of their funding should the actively do something to help the right to bear arms.

I maintain: They do not protect all rights. Deferring doesn't count.

Does anyone in the USA pay attention to the ACLU anymore?:confused:

Well apparently. Bill O'Reilly says that they're the most dangerous threat to our freedom today, and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that it's their fault that 9/11 happened. So I guess if those guys are that opposed to them then they must be doing some damn good work. Hell, they must have the Arc of the Covenant tucked away somewhere.

I wonder if Ben had ever seen the results of a year's worth of motor vehical accidents...

US citizens are more likely to be killed by motor vehical use than they are a terrorist attack. Current predominate attitudes in the US towards the risk posed by terrorism, appear to be based more on hysteria and hype than on an objective assesment of materially relevent facts.

Dammit, hysteria and hype are the American way. If you take away our right to throw all sense of reality out the window and worry ourselves sick over nonsense then the terrorists win. Well, they won't actually win, because our hysteria and hype are their only real weapons, but... They'll do something.

Well apparently. Bill O'Reilly says that they're the most dangerous threat to our freedom today, and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that it's their fault that 9/11 happened. So I guess if those guys are that opposed to them then they must be doing some damn good work. Hell, they must have the Arc of the Covenant tucked away somewhere.

Gah, don't even get me started on those particular bozos.

Dammit, hysteria and hype are the American way. If you take away our right to throw all sense of reality out the window and worry ourselves sick over nonsense then the terrorists win. Well, they won't actually win, because our hysteria and hype are their only real weapons, but... They'll do something.

DAMN DIRTY APES! Oh wait, wrong movie.

Wrong (http://www.nation-states.com/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1)

By the way, for all of you claiming the ACLU defends "only specific rights", are you talking about the second ammendment? Because the ACLU co-operates with the NRA on that. But they let the NRA actually defend it, because it's a powerful orginisation with the specific objective of defending the second objective. The ACLU defends all rights in this way.

ACLU targets tiny cross on seal (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47022)

Proving it does not discriminate against the size of the municipality it will take to court, the American Civil Liberties Union is locked in a legal battle with a small New Mexico town over a tiny cross on its seal – this after last year forcing the County of Los Angeles to remove a cross from its seal.

I guess that tiny crosses are more dangerous than big pagan gods---on the Los Angeles city seal, the goddess Pomona was the central figure, with a tiny cross, symbolizing the early California missions, off to the right...

Any holy books the ACLU supports must be non-Christian in nature---they sure don't support any Christian symbols in public.:(

While we're at it, why don't we allege everything we can, and that way, we can sweep more under the rug. Let's see - the military painted the prisoners' bodies with purple paint before forcing them into acts of bestiality.

Nice. Kind of difficult to prove a negative - and I fail to see any solid proof other than "the ACLU alleges".

Allegations are not facts. While it does merit investigation, and would be a bad thing if true, none of us are privy to the facts.

Kinda convenient for you not to read the AP article, considering the eviudence for these allegations COME FROM DOD FILES secured by the freedom of information act that include autopsies that confirm that the detainees died by homicide.

Goddamn, how can you even BEGIN to snipe at the ACLU when you don't even freaking read the article?

The ACLU 'wants' to blame the Soldiers, and by that, hold the administration responsible.

Every possible death that can be implicated will be presented as such, by them, and believed by some... Even the news article shows it.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defense Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, though his father has blamed the militiamen.

The ACLU doesn't care if its true, they care if the death can be used by them for anti-war, anti-administration propaganda... How many detainees beat the hell out of other detainees to 'shut them up,' or how many are legitimate complaints of abuse by interrogation? I do not know, but I also know that I can't trust the ACLU to tell us an impartial summary.

If Jesus came down from Heaven and endorsed the ACLU, you'd change religions.

ACLU targets tiny cross on seal (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47022)



I guess that tiny crosses are more dangerous than big pagan gods---on the Los Angeles city seal, the goddess Pomona was the central figure, with a tiny cross, symbolizing the early California missions, off to the right...

Any holy books the ACLU supports must be non-Christian in nature---they sure don't support any Christian symbols in public.:(

Provably false.

Do I really need to site the dozens of cases to refute your pure bullshit? See here (http://www.nation-states.com/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1) for starters.

Provably false.

Do I really need to site the dozens of cases to refute your pure bullshit? See here (http://www.nation-states.com/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1) for starters.

My question is, why is the ACLU acting against the cross shown in the link given?

Why file suit at all? It's hardly a religious display.

My question is, why is the ACLU acting against the cross shown in the link given?

Why file suit at all? It's hardly a religious display.

Since when is a cross not a religious display?

Why does the city need to endorse Christianity in its official seal?

If the city seal had a pentagram, you'd sing a different tune.

If Jesus came down from Heaven and endorsed the ACLU, you'd change religions.

*snort, laugh, guffaw*

Funny ;) Not true, but funny :D

Since when is a cross not a religious display?

Why does the city need to endorse Christianity in its official seal?

If the city seal had a pentagram, you'd sing a different tune.

To be fair, just about every panel on that seal can be interpreted as a religious symbol. (I am not sure about the ship).

*snip*

Why does the city need to endorse Christianity in its official seal?

*snip*

Perhaps because the city legend/history has it that it was founded by Spanish Christian missionaries?

You know, before long, is it going to be illegal to display Spanish ships on Columbus day because they have a red cross on their main sails? Seeing as how everyone hates Columbus day already anyway :p

May I remind everyone that this isn't about little tiny crosses on city seals (which I could give a shit about either way.) This is about people, who've had no due process, being beaten to death, smothered, dehydrated and god knows what else.

Those of you who defend the Bush administration should be ashamed that a group you seem to monolithically despise, the ACLU, is the only group really trying to do something about this. I mean, the Bush admionistration threatened to veto a resolution prohibiting torture! This crap was taken from the DOD's own files! The only thing the ACLU has to do with this is that they're the ones following it up.

I hear people bitch and moan about "speaking up against the war harms our soldiers" or "you're anti-American if you speak out against the President."

Fuck that. Torture is unAmerican. Killing people whio may or may not be innocent in a slow, excruciating manner is unAmerican. You want to piss about the excesses of the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union is dead. This shit is happening now, and our glorious administration tried it's best to make it legitimate.

Screw that. That's evil, pure and simple. Get off yourselves. Jesus himself would give two flying fucks about a cross (in fact, I bet he rather dislikes the fact that his instrument of excruciating torture and death is the main symbol of his religion...bread and fish seems like a much more beautiful symbol.) Jesus would be pissed at this shit.

Who would Jesus torture to death?

Screw your religious "symbols." Would a godly man beat a helpless prisoner over the head till he was dead?

The ACLU can allege what ever they like. No one who's had access to Guantanamo Bay has made these allegations.

The ACLU can allege what ever they like. No one who's had access to Guantanamo Bay has made these allegations.

Out of curiosity, did you bother to read the article or just read the topic and make your own response?