NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration on the war on terror, including one requiring that the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed within a year.

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. The order essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

So this seems a harsh rebuke of those who claimed that Obama would never follow through on his campaign promises to end harsh interrogation techniques, and plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay. What say you NSG?

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

Rep. Bill Young of Florida, the top Republican on the Defense Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday the executive orders "will leave some wiggle room for the administration."

Young said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about transferring detainees to United States facilities. "Number one, they're dangerous," he said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."

The level of incompetence in this country staggers me. It's no wonder it's rapidly turning into argentina.

I agree it is a harsh rebuke, both to the former administration and its idealogues, and to those who insisted on making dire predictions of what Obama would not do before he even got into office.

And I applaud Obama for these orders as well as the ethics orders he signed yesterday.

Now let's sit back and see how they pan out in practice. I will be interested to see how difficult or easy it will be to actually root out these bad practices.

The level of incompetence in this country staggers me. It's no wonder it's rapidly turning into argentina.

Oh, please. The US isn't even on that level.

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:
Holy crap. I mean...that's just...I don't know whether he sounds like a vicious bastard or just a totally ignorant one.

Any closure of current torture camps are trivial compared to the inevitable torture of all white Christians in the US. Barrack Saddam Hussein Obama Binladen doesn't care about torture in general, he only cares about torture on terrorists who hate happiness, he needs these people to complete his successful Jihad against the west. Don't you see!

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

There are people here in the forums who sound like that. But this guy is an elected congressman. That's the really scary part. :tongue:

There are people here in the forums who sound like that. But this guy is an elected congressman. That's the really scary part. :tongue:

XKCD once again has the answer:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

I'm so glad Obama seems to be a principled, decent human being and good leader- as opposed to that fuckhead.

Is Abu Ghraib still running?

Now let's sit back and see how they pan out in practice. I will be interested to see how difficult or easy it will be to actually root out these bad practices. don't forget. Pres Obama did say in his Inagural speech that mistakes will be made. I just hope these aren't some of them. but we won't know untill much later.

Is Abu Ghraib still running? I don't think so.

Good.

How sad is it that there had to be an executive order to stop waterboarding?

I am still a bit skeptical about our new President, but I must say, my opinion of the chap has reached new heights, considering how quickly he acted in this matter.

How sad is it that there had to be an executive order to stop waterboarding?
Sad isn't the word I'd use. Disgusting. Outrageous. Disgraceful. Those are more like what I'm thinking.

So he shut down gitmo? Good. Now, I wonder if he can shut down all the garbage compactors on the detention lever. Hmm.

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

Sigh...okay, One Rat, you are again revealing why Harvard educated legal scholars don't understand the Constitution.

Its like the guys says, they're our ENEMY! We've judged them (well, not technically, because that technically implies we've excercised some sort of fair, consistent process, but that's not important.)

Once we've decided somebody is bad, we don't WANT them to have the same kinds of "rights that you or I have" that we would want to protect ourselves from inequity in the process of deciding that we're bad.

These people are murderous terrorists, and applying that label to them completely justifies denying them the rights that serve to protect people from having their human rights stripped away because of a label.

What YOU'RE advocating would involve recognizing rights as a means of not only protecting the accused, but protecting the potentially accused, which is everybody. BUT:

You forget that wealthy, powerful people are rarely accused of this kind of thing, and have adequate resources to vigorously protect their own interests when they are accused, so they don't NEED such broad Constitutional protection. And as for the good foreigners in our society, they would never bomb us, so they don't really need rights or protections.

You just don't understand civil rights as a concept, Neo Art. You act as if the way we treat people, the rights we acknowledge for them, the process we're willing to provide, says as much about OURSELVES as it does about the accused.

I'm going to wrap this up before Nanatsu no Tsuki starts in about the British Economy again.

Muy bien.

So he shut down gitmo? Good. Now, I wonder if he can shut down all the garbage compactors on the detention lever. Hmm.
No! Shut them all down, shut them all down!

XKCD once again has the answer:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

And that about covers it.

So, a little bit of a nitpick, but...he isn't shutting down Gitmo, he's shutting down the detention facility in Gitmo. The base is still going to be there, it just won't be used for torture anymore.
:D

I am still a bit skeptical about our new President, but I must say, my opinion of the chap has reached new heights, considering how quickly he acted in this matter.

Interesting to see his priorities. Priority #1: Decency.

Or a cynic might see it as the most expedient way to make a clean break from the old administration. But it's still gonna help his and therefore the U.S.'s world image a lot.

So, a little bit of a nitpick, but...he isn't shutting down Gitmo, he's shutting down the detention facility in Gitmo. The base is still going to be there, it just won't be used for torture anymore.
:D

I don't know...Colonel Jessup orders a lot of "code reds"...

Any closure of current torture camps are trivial compared to the inevitable torture of all white Christians in the US. Barrack Saddam Hussein Obama Binladen doesn't care about torture in general, he only cares about torture on terrorists who hate happiness, he needs these people to complete his successful Jihad against the west. Don't you see!

um yes?

um yes?

Terrorist.

Interesting to see his priorities. Priority #1: Decency.

Or a cynic might see it as the most expedient way to make a clean break from the old administration. But it's still gonna help his and therefore the U.S.'s world image a lot.

The thing is, cynic or not, questioning his motivations or not, the RESULTS are still good.

It's a lot like during the election. Many accused McCain of picking Palin because she was a woman, because she pandered to a base, and that picking her wasn't a smart choice for the COUNTRY, but something to try and fill gaps in the TICKET. Something that would help him on November 4th, but be of absolutely no benefit on January 20th.

Of course, the right wing response was "oh, but Biden was any different? He just picked Biden to deflect the criticisms about not having any experience!".

Well...ok, maybe. But the end result of "picking someone to defect criticisms of a ticket with no experience" was...well...someone with decades of political experience.

The thing is, cynic or not, questioning his motivations or not, the RESULTS are still good.

It's a lot like during the election. Many accused McCain of picking Palin because she was a woman, because she pandered to a base, and that picking her wasn't a smart choice for the COUNTRY, but something to try and fill gaps in the TICKET. Something that would help him on November 4th, but be of absolutely no benefit on January 20th.

Of course, the right wing response was "oh, but Biden was any different? He just picked Biden to deflect the criticisms about not having any experience!".

Well...ok, maybe. But the end result of "picking someone to defect criticisms of a ticket with no experience" was...well...someone with decades of political experience.

Not to mention the comedic value of Joe Biden. He had to throw the comedians a bone. *nod*

Not to mention the comedic value of Joe Biden. He had to throw the comedians a bone. *nod*

Biden made a crack about Justice Roberts yesterday I thought Obama was gonna bitch slap him.

even more reassuring to me is his closing of all CIA "black sites" where they "interrogate" people outside the country. no more secret torture either.

even more reassuring to me is his closing of all CIA "black sites" where they "interrogate" people outside the country. no more secret torture either.
I'm excited about this. I'm trying not to get excited, but I'm failing. :D

I don't care either way about Gitmo, but getting rid of waterboarding?
:eek:
He calls that torture? That's a f***ing spanking compared to what al-Qaeda and company do to their captives!
Gang-rape a woman 'til she's comatose. Make a guy eat his own crap. Anally rape his wife and children. That is torture.

I don't care either way about Gitmo, but getting rid of waterboarding?
:eek:
He calls that torture? That's a f***ing spanking compared to what al-Qaeda and company do to their captives!
Gang-rape a woman 'til she's comatose. Make a guy eat his own crap. Anally rape his wife and children. That is torture.

Oh well you know, compared to Hilter who killed millions of people, someone killing only one is just a spanking!

Oh well you know, compared to Hilter who killed millions of people, someone killing only one is just a spanking!

Godwin.

I say that for it's double meanings. Godwin's law, and you=god, you=win.

I don't care either way about Gitmo, but getting rid of waterboarding?
:eek:
He calls that torture? That's a f***ing spanking compared to what al-Qaeda and company do to their captives!
Gang-rape a woman 'til she's comatose. Make a guy eat his own crap. Anally rape his wife and children. That is torture.
I don't see how these forms of torture are mutually exclusive. Does that mean if I do something even worse than gang-rape, it will no longer be torture? That's a weird sort of value relativism.

I'm happy Obama closed Guantanamo, but not surprised. (I am not a cynic.) I'm still curious about what's next for these prisoners, though. They obviously won't be set free, but I also doubt they will be put in US jails. There are helpful lawyers on this forum, could one of them explain what possibilities exist for Guantanamo inmates?

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

So this seems a harsh rebuke of those who claimed that Obama would never follow through on his campaign promises to end harsh interrogation techniques, and plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay. What say you NSG?

He's just doing it to fool you! He'll secretly sign orders to keep them open as soon as the librul media stops watching!

I'm still going to remain skeptical of Obama but I admit that I'm glad about this. And we still have to wait and see whether the CIA will allow the president of the united states to tell them what to do - I some how suspect that they think they are above the law.

I'm still going to remain skeptical of Obama but I admit that I'm glad about this. And we still have to wait and see whether the CIA will allow the president of the united states to tell them what to do - I some how suspect that they think they are above the law.

They can't possibly think they are above the President. They learned their lesson after they shot JFK.

Biden made a crack about Justice Roberts yesterday I thought Obama was gonna bitch slap him.

I think he just learned why Vice Presidents are not usually allowed to do anything.:D

I saw this on the news in my doctor's waiting room this afternoon, and literally did a little happy dance right there. :D

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

So this seems a harsh rebuke of those who claimed that Obama would never follow through on his campaign promises to end harsh interrogation techniques, and plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay. What say you NSG?

What say me?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-dance_male.gif

Now let's see what else good Obama does.

And there goes one reason people can cockily declare Obama's presidency a failure.

So many more to go.

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

Rep. Bill Young of Florida

They love him in Florida too. Man he seems to be a tough bird.

http://www.house.gov/young/issues1.html

Well then, the administration is off to a great start. Let's hope he keeps it up. I put a good amount of work into the campaign, I really don't want to be disappointed.

Meanwhile, I thinkt he article does a fairly good job showing why republicans are so fucking scary:

Rep. Bill Young of Florida, the top Republican on the Defense Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday the executive orders "will leave some wiggle room for the administration."

Young said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about transferring detainees to United States facilities. "Number one, they're dangerous," he said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy.

As bad as that is, I thought this to be worse...

"We cannot risk going back to the politically correct national security policies that left us vulnerable in the lead-up to 9/11," Michigan GOP Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a written statement. "Without a clear plan for the detention and interrogation of captured terrorists and combatants, we are unnecessarily risking the safety of our nation."

So basically, this guy thinks we should have started torturing people more than a decade ago.

*facepalm*

XKCD once again has the answer:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

So, I still scrolled over it to see the hidden text... Even though you gave a direct link.

>.>
<.<

Every webcomic I see now, I do it...

Sorry, Obama does not get credit here. The orders he signed continue to allow people to be detained without trial in other U.S. prisons similar to Guantanamo, like Bagram. Secondly, its been suggested that Obama will use crooked military trials and not the U.S. legal system on at least some of the detainees at Guantanamo, similar to what Bush did.

Third, even if Obama does not modify the Army Field Manual to allow certain methods of torture, the Army Field Manual that Obama says he is going to follow contains methods of torture, such as sleep deprivation, that are still illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

In other words, everything is for the sake of appearances, the status quo will continue.

And most of this information was not that hard to find, a lot of the things that I said were said on Rachel Maddow tonight.

The US Army's (official) interrogation tactics aren't nice but they are much more humane than those practiced by the CIA. Some kind of a reasonable balance needs to be struck. I share you skepticism however that really nothing will *change* but I'm willing to admit that an end to water-boarding is a good thing even if I still don't trust Obama.

I personally think that if its torture, its torture. Even something as basic as sleep deprivation, used over a long period of time, drives a person completely insane. But this may in fact be moot, because apparently Obama left wiggle room to modify the Army Field Manual. In other words, he might be able to put in harsher interrogation methods.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

So this seems a harsh rebuke of those who claimed that Obama would never follow through on his campaign promises to end harsh interrogation techniques, and plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay. What say you NSG?

Rockin'

So this seems a harsh rebuke of those who claimed that Obama would never follow through on his campaign promises to end harsh interrogation techniques, and plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay. What say you NSG?

Obama is now more likely to receive that postcard I promised some week ago.

I don't care either way about Gitmo, but getting rid of waterboarding?
:eek:
He calls that torture? That's a f***ing spanking compared to what al-Qaeda and company do to their captives!
Gang-rape a woman 'til she's comatose. Make a guy eat his own crap. Anally rape his wife and children. That is torture.

That doesn't make waterboarding not-torture......

That doesn't make waterboarding not-torture......

What are you, stupid? Of course if there's something worst only the worstest thing is torture. Everything else is fine. That's how it works, you idiot!

What are you, stupid? Of course if there's something worst only the worstest thing is torture. Everything else is fine. That's how it works, you idiot!

I like you.

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

If you knew your Nostradamus, you'd know Obama isn't Satan. One of his financiers and advisor is named Mabus, the name given to Satan by Nostradamus.

Catch up.

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

"I hope he fails." -- Rush Limbaugh, on the Dark Lord.

I will give your president the same respect you gave mine.

Barack Hussein Obama: Arabic for "unqualified socialist son-of-a-bitch."

With people like you around, who needs satire? In fact it's sort of like you intentionally set out to humiliate the views you supposedly espouse. Hmm... were I suspicious...

So basically, this guy thinks we should have started torturing people more than a decade ago.

*facepalm*

I still can't believe Pete Hoekstra got reelected. Of course, that part of the state is Michigan's own bible belt, so it's to be expected.

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

He's so funny, I just want to keep him.

Anyway, good for Obama.

Sorry, Obama does not get credit here. The orders he signed continue to allow people to be detained without trial in other U.S. prisons similar to Guantanamo, like Bagram. Secondly, its been suggested that Obama will use crooked military trials and not the U.S. legal system on at least some of the detainees at Guantanamo, similar to what Bush did.

Third, even if Obama does not modify the Army Field Manual to allow certain methods of torture, the Army Field Manual that Obama says he is going to follow contains methods of torture, such as sleep deprivation, that are still illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

In other words, everything is for the sake of appearances, the status quo will continue.

And most of this information was not that hard to find, a lot of the things that I said were said on Rachel Maddow tonight.

Source and Proof.

Interesting to see his priorities. Priority #1: Decency.

I certainly hope not.

Or a cynic might see it as the most expedient way to make a clean break from the old administration. But it's still gonna help his and therefore the U.S.'s world image a lot.

Who cares why he does it?

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

Hey, here's an idea. They can take any actual unlawful combatants out of Gitmo and transfer them to...

FORT SUMTER

Hey, here's an idea. They can take any actual unlawful combatants out of Gitmo and transfer them to...

FORT SUMTER

Where all the real Americans can get their sadistic kicks torturing them to obtain reams of what must be true information as they couldn't possibly not have planned to attack America at arbitrary time and place in question. After all, they demanded they make up a non existant attack on the spot with a hammer.

Source and Proof.
what proof? he didnt really say anything did he.

its an executive order. he can change his mind any time. does that mean he WILL? no. but he could.

thats all that was brought out on the rachel maddow show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year. “The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them,” an American official said.

Really? That's the lesson? I'd have thought the lesson was 'Don't let them out" but apparently I'm the crazy person here. That guy will definitely bring 'change'...unfortunately, he'll be changing live people into dead ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year. “The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them,” an American official said.

Really? That's the lesson? I'd have thought the lesson was 'Don't let them out" but apparently I'm the crazy person here. That guy will definitely bring 'change'...unfortunately, he'll be changing live people into dead ones.
so its better to keep people incarcerated forever without charges without trials because they might be pissed about it all when they get out?

we need to follow the rule of law even when it sucks.

so its better to keep people incarcerated forever without charges without trials because they might be pissed about it all when they get out?

we need to follow the rule of law even when it sucks.
This.^^

And I would have thouht the lesson to be learned from this is that it doesn't pay to be a bastard. Do things right from the beginning, and you won't have problems like this down the line.

And I would have thouht the lesson to be learned from this is that it doesn't pay to be a bastard. Do things right from the beginning, and you won't have problems like this down the line.

He was in Gitmo in the first place because he was a terrorist, and when he got out, he - surprise, sur-friggin'-prise went back to being a terrorist. It's not like we made a mistake and locked up the Islamic version of Billy Graham here.

The level of incompetence in this country staggers me. It's no wonder it's rapidly turning into argentina.

Oh, please. The US isn't even on that level.

Now if only we could Dispel this ^^^

I mean, i dont go around talking about Argentina or Spain that way....France on the other hand *grumbles* lol...


But, in all seriousness, Im glad he did it, It was always a Stain on us and our Ideals and Values...

He was in Gitmo in the first place because he was a terrorist, and when he got out, he - surprise, sur-friggin'-prise went back to being a terrorist. It's not like we made a mistake and locked up the Islamic version of Billy Graham here.

Bullshit. Being in Guantanamo Bay doesn't make you a terrorist. It might make you want to become one once you leave, but that's not the same thing.

He was in Gitmo in the first place because he was a terrorist, and when he got out, he - surprise, sur-friggin'-prise went back to being a terrorist. It's not like we made a mistake and locked up the Islamic version of Billy Graham here.
Really? When was his trial? When was he convicted? Where is the proof of his crimes? I have been saying from the start that the balls-up incompetence of the Bush adminstration and their eagerness to torture and "disappear" people rather than actually obey and apply the laws they swore to uphold did nothing but hand a free ticket to legitimacy to our enemies. It made them legally untouchable and legitimized every bad thing they ever said about us as justification for acting against us. Bush & Co. could not have done a better job of supporting our enemies if they had actually been working for them.

As for these specific individuals, you have no proof that they were our enemies before they were arrested, but you can be damned sure they are now, and you can thank your boy Bush for that.

He was in Gitmo in the first place because he was a terrorist, and when he got out, he - surprise, sur-friggin'-prise went back to being a terrorist. It's not like we made a mistake and locked up the Islamic version of Billy Graham here.
bush didnt let anybody out of gitmo who was a terrorist before he got there.

He was in Gitmo in the first place because he was a terrorist, and when he got out, he - surprise, sur-friggin'-prise went back to being a terrorist. It's not like we made a mistake and locked up the Islamic version of Billy Graham here.

The same logic employed by Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, and yes, Hitler. (I'm aware it's Godwin, and I don't care. I brought him up to make a point.)

We have no idea if most of them were terrorists. We never tried to find out, we simply tortured them to make the say they were. These "millitary tribunals" were show trials. Nothing less -- nothing more.

Bullshit. Being in Guantanamo Bay doesn't make you a terrorist. It might make you want to become one once you leave, but that's not the same thing.

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect. But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel, and now they're considering death to the Great Satan. That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect. But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel, and now they're considering death to the Great Satan. That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.

Everyone in Leavenworth got a trial to determine they were guilty.

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect. But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel, and now they're considering death to the Great Satan. That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.
well WE didnt round them up. we paid other people to

thats how the uighurs got to gitmo even though they are not terrorists, never were and we dont know what to do with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect. But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.
Except there's a slight different between Guantanmo Bay and other prisons. Other prisons aren't run by the military, with prisoners being held indefinitely without even being charged, let alone tried, with prisoners being tortured, with attempts made to reclassify the prisoners as neither civilians nor prisoners of war in a piss poor attempt to make the blatant violation of their rights legal.

Comparing Guantanamo Bay to a regular prison is like comparing Iraq to Portugal.

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel, and now they're considering death to the Great Satan. That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.

And I'm sure the Bush administration let you in on the highly secret evidence that proves this. Evidence so secret that it's better to pretend it doesn't exist than to use it to legitimately place allegedly dangerous people behind bars.

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect. But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.
Bullshit. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to say, oh, yeah, mistakes can be made and a prisoner might be innocent, and in the next breath claim that being incarcerated is evidence of probable guilt.

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel,
Actually it is like that in some of the GITMO cases, especially if their neighbors didn't like them and there was a reward being offered for fingering anyone as a terrorist.

and now they're considering death to the Great Satan. That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.
I'm waiting for your link to the proof of any of that. Point us to the trial records.

well WE didnt round them up. we paid other people to

thats how the uighurs got to gitmo even though they are not terrorists, never were and we dont know what to do with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo

Don't you love how the article says they "were determined to be 'no longer enemy combatants'"? My guess is they never were.

Don't you love how the article says they "were determined to be 'no longer enemy combatants'"? My guess is they never were.
i think thats code talk for "their neighbors thought they were a pain in the ass"

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. You don't come off as the sympathetic type.

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.
dont worry, h, we have made so very many more terrorists than the few who are going to be released from gitmo that its highly unlikely that the one that blows my legs off is going to be one of those.

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.

You want to keep innocent people in one of the worst prisons in the world(if not the worst) on the basis that they were accused of being terrorists. What could possibly drive me to go to you for sympathy?

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.
I, for one, promise not to come running to you when I have no legs.

I, for one, promise not to come running to you when I have no legs.

Its a very ungrateful terrorist who blows up the people who wanted him out of jail before he left jail spiteful and full of terroristy thoughts. If anything they'd blow up Bush or Heinleinites for thinking its a good idea to lock up suspicious people without trial.

i think thats code talk for "their neighbors thought they were a pain in the ass"

Yeah, they've been agitating for independence from China.

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.

My legs already don't work. And don't worry, I want and would accept nothing from you.

You want to keep innocent people in one of the worst prisons in the world(if not the worst) on the basis that they were accused of being terrorists. What could possibly drive me to go to you for sympathy?

Gitmo is by far not the worst prison in the world. Look to China for the worst, then look to Cuba, then to every other 3rd world country and even though they may be civilian run they are still worse. I would rather spend my life in Gitmo where 'I'm tortured' instead of in China when the government makes every crime a death sentence. I rather be alive and in pain then dead. For terrorists who think that death is rewarding threatening to kill them is sort of like saying,"Here let me help you."

I am extremely conservative but I do understand both sides of the argument. Closing down Gitmo may seem like a good idea however moving the terrorist to the U.S. isn't. If you give the enemy the same rights as an American citizen, your just asking for trouble.

Bush did serve as one of the major sources of terrorism but when you have enemies who hide amongst the civilian population you may as well arrest everyone and sort out the civilians from the terrorist. Though this would serve as a problem and create more terrorist. As for 'rounding up large groups of people' that didn't happen. Gitmo would be full of hundreds of thousands of people.

It might be good to see Obama fulfilling his promises now but the future reactions are undecided.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them. While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it) it might serve as something of a deterrent.

I do not like Barack Hussein Obama but I do recognize him as our president and I grudgingly respect the man that he is fulfilling his promises even if I really really really wish he wasn't and he was an old caucasian guy named John McCain.

If you give the enemy the same rights as an American citizen, your just asking for trouble.
You say trouble, I say liberal democracy.

Gitmo is by far not the worst prison in the world. Look to China for the worst, then look to Cuba, then to every other 3rd world country and even though they may be civilian run they are still worse. I would rather spend my life in Gitmo where 'I'm tortured' instead of in China when the government makes every crime a death sentence. I rather be alive and in pain then dead. For terrorists who think that death is rewarding threatening to kill them is sort of like saying,"Here let me help you."
1) Your personal preferences are not more relevant than the law.

2) Other countries do not set the standard for how we behave. Their abuses do not excuse ours.

I am extremely conservative but I do understand both sides of the argument. Closing down Gitmo may seem like a good idea however moving the terrorist to the U.S. isn't. If you give the enemy the same rights as an American citizen, your just asking for trouble.
I look forward to your argument in which you lay out the reasoning behind that assertion.

Bush did serve as one of the major sources of terrorism but when you have enemies who hide amongst the civilian population you may as well arrest everyone.
In other words, if you're going to fight terrorists you may as well become one? If your enemy accuses you of abuses, then you may as well commit them?

As for 'rounding up large groups of people' that didn't happen. Gitmo would be full of hundreds of thousands of people.
Off-hand supposition =/= valid argument.

It might be good to see Obama fulfilling his promises now but the future reactions are undecided.
The future is always undecided.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is
The above words invalidate every attempt you are making to be fair and evenhanded.

one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them. While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it).
Actually, if you read the Geneva Conventions, you will see that all of those things are torture according to them. Also, the agreement to abide by the Geneva Conventions is not dependent on the other side also following them, so the fact that terrorists don't follow them does not let the US off the hook. And finally, just because Bush decided arbitrarily to make up some bullshit category for these prisoners, that alone does not prove that the Conventions do not apply to them, nor does it let the US off the hook of US law.

I do not like Barack Hussein Obama but I do recognize him as our president and I grudgingly respect the man that he is fulfilling his promises even if I really really really wish he wasn't and he was an old caucasian guy named John McCain.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them. While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it) it might serve as something of a deterrent.

Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Try again.

Third Geneva Convention, Chapter 5 Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Doesn't being a terrorist not comply? JK

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.

Third Geneva Convention, Chapter 5 Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Doesn't being a terrorist not comply? JK

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.

Thats funny... I swear these goalposts were over here just a minute ago... :confused:

(Of course now that my rear has been flanked and my information reinforcements have failed me[DAMN YOU GOOGLE DAMN YOU!!!] I might as well surrender. But my question still stands. If you get rid of torture how do you get information?





Furthermore....I got curbstomped. [damn you liberals])

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.

It's called "interrogation", and unlike torture, it actually works. You might want to actually look at how intelligence agencies operate some time.

Third Geneva Convention, Chapter 5 Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Doesn't being a terrorist not comply? JK

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.
thats what good interrogators DO.

they ask questions and get information. because they know what they are doing, they know when they are being lied to. they know when they are being told the truth. they figure out what questions to ask next.

its their job and they know how to do it.

Gitmo is by far not the worst prison in the world. Look to China for the worst, then look to Cuba,
I'm not going to have to embarrass you and tell you where Guantanamo Bay is, am I?
then to every other 3rd world country and even though they may be civilian run they are still worse. I would rather spend my life in Gitmo where 'I'm tortured' instead of in China when the government makes every crime a death sentence. I rather be alive and in pain then dead. For terrorists who think that death is rewarding threatening to kill them is sort of like saying,"Here let me help you."
That America is a first world country, supposedly the land of the free and a shining beacon for democracy, makes it all the worse. For this vanguard of freedom and democracy to establish a prison where people are tortured on the basis of an accusation is what places good old Gitmo so high. Or so low, perhaps.

I am extremely conservative but I do understand both sides of the argument. Closing down Gitmo may seem like a good idea however moving the terrorist to the U.S. isn't. If you give the enemy the same rights as an American citizen, your just asking for trouble.
Such is the price of being one of the good guys.

Bush did serve as one of the major sources of terrorism but when you have enemies who hide amongst the civilian population you may as well arrest everyone and sort out the civilians from the terrorist. Though this would serve as a problem and create more terrorist. As for 'rounding up large groups of people' that didn't happen. Gitmo would be full of hundreds of thousands of people.
Depends how large the groups of people are.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them.
I find it disgusting that you would torture them at all. Are you trying to make yourself as bad as them?
While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it) it might serve as something of a deterrent.
Somehow I suspect the Geneva convention does cover threatening to kill the prisoners, or trying to feed them something forcefully, or having them live with a barnyard animal. Perhaps not in those exact words, but still.

And it further disgusts me that you would try to find loopholes in a treaty designed to protect basic human rights in times of war? Really, it boggles the mind how you can even object to the actions of terrorists when you can support comparably evil actions.

Third Geneva Convention, Chapter 5 Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.
Are you attempting to argue that it is okay to punish disciplinary infractions with religious-based abuse, which you, yourself, described as torture? And are you attempting to suggest that the Geneva convention is inherently self-contradictory? It does not occur to you that the Convention is merely referring to not permitting specific religious practices that would themselves constitute disciplinary violations, such as animal sacrifices and such?

Doesn't being a terrorist not comply? JK
No, it does not, unless said terrorist was a member of the said military organization to begin with. Once they become prisoners, THEN the disciplinary routine applies to them, not before. You don't get to claim they violated your disciplinary rules before they were in your control or answerable to you.

In addition, the US military does not permit religious-based abuse as a punishment for disciplinary infractions, so no matter how you slice it, there is no justification for the torture you think is acceptable.

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.
It's called interrogation. It's a skill. People specialize in it. People who are not torturers.

(Of course now that my rear has been flanked and my information reinforcements have failed me[DAMN YOU GOOGLE DAMN YOU!!!] I might as well surrender. But my question still stands. If you get rid of torture how do you get information?





Furthermore....I got curbstomped. [damn you liberals])
You'll get used to it. :D

I'm not going to have to embarrass you and tell you where Guantanamo Bay is, am I?


(LOL I just read what I said, naming commie countries its amazing what you find out)

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?
dunno

its pretty hard for a person to never talk. i guess the pros exploit our need to communicate.

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?

I believe the Army has a manual describing how to go about interrogating someone without torturing them.

And what makes you think that torture will make them talk? Well, talk and give you anything even vaguely factual. That's the problem with detaining people who may not be terrorists. No amount of throwing pork products at them will result in useful intelligence.

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?
Nobody hears what they have to say.

Oh, you mean when prisoners don't talk in interrogation? Well, then...nobody hears anything from them.

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?

Everyone capable of speech will talk eventually.

there is probably an inherent "stockholm syndrome" effect of captivity that tends to make people want to cooperate with their captors over time.

there is probably an inherent "stockholm syndrome" effect of captivity that tends to make people want to cooperate with their captors over time.

If said captors don't act like complete barstards anyway.

Nobody hears what they have to say.

Oh, you mean when prisoners don't talk in interrogation? Well, then...nobody hears anything from them.


sounds like your saying they 'dissappear.'

From what I have read of interrogation techniques, it's actually not that difficult to get people to talk. Interrogators establish rapport with the prisoner by encouraging them to talk about personal things, as if they are not being interrogated. Once people start talking, it's easier to keep them doing it, especially if they feel a sense of connection or trust to the individual asking the questions. Interrogators use indirect questioning, so that the prisoner may not realize just what they are being asked to talk about and may say something they otherwise would resist saying. Interrogators also play to the innate desire of the prisoner to talk -- his ego, his desire to show off his superiority to his jailors, his zealous urge to promote his own beliefs/agenda, etc. People have things on their minds, and more often then not, it's harder for them not to talk than to come out and say it.

Why do you think our own personnel get training in how to resist interrogation?

Everyone capable of speech will talk eventually.

Not when we Torture the capability of speech out of those Terrorist bastards!!!

sounds like your saying they 'dissappear.'
No, that's not what I'm saying. I meant, nobody hears them. Auditorily. Because they aren't making any sounds.

So what happens when someone just doesn't talk?

He's been shunned. They all talk eventually. Remember third grade...

Everyone capable of speech will talk eventually.

I bet someone can.

If said captors don't act like complete barstards anyway.
in theory whether they do or not.

but torture has no short term "get the info faster" benefits and its never the torturer who gets the cooperation.

He's been shunned. They all talk eventually. Remember third grade...

Thanx man :(...

I almost blocked it out, but you just HAAAD to go there...gawd...

I will be back with more information. I will not see you win.
*Runs before you guys lessen my conservativeness.*

I will be back with more information. I will not see you win.
*Runs before you guys lessen my conservativeness.*
You'll have to keep your eyes closed if you don't want to see us win this argument. The history of the failures of torture is well established. So is its current illegality.

You'll have to keep your eyes closed if you don't want to see us win this argument. The history of the failures of torture is well established. So is its current illegality.

He'll have to keep his eyes closed most of the time. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Riiiight. And did you know, everyone in Leavenworth is completely innocent, too? That's not what I said. Yeah, being in Gitmo doesn't make you a terrorist, but being a terrorist will land you in Gitmo(or the afterlife, one of the two). Yeah, it's possible that mistakes might have been made, nobody is perfect.
A question worth asking concerning those people who have "returned to the battlefield" after being released from Guantanamo - and I don't mean "How did the military miss them while still keeping innocent people locked up" - is: How can we be sure they were terrorists before they were sent to GITMO? Can you guarantee me that it wasn't the years spent in Guantanamo that radicalized them and turn them into terrorists?

But like any other prison, if you are there, there is a pretty good chance you belong there.
Rrrrrrrrreally? Is that a universal truth? Is it the same in Iran, in China and in Russia as it is in the US and in Canada?

It's not like we just rounded up a bunch of random guys simply because they were wearing bathrobes and standing near a camel, and now they're considering death to the Great Satan
You're closer to the truth than you'd like to know.

That's kind of been their theme all along, which is why they were there, and why they shouldn't be let out.
If you unquestioningly accept what former president Bush has told you, and swallow propaganda raw, then yes. For the rest of us: No. It's just not that simple. No fair trials, no proper convictions, and a whole bunch of people even Bush said were innocent.

You know what, y'all do whatever the hell you like, I don't care. But when you let those fuckers out, and then they turn around and blow off both your legs, don't come running expecting sympathy.
Of course you don't care. That was quite evident from the level of knowledge you've shown to possess on this issue.

But my question still stands. If you get rid of torture how do you get information?
Tell me, do you know how police and law enforcement officers manage to solve crimes?

what proof? he didnt really say anything did he.

its an executive order. he can change his mind any time. does that mean he WILL? no. but he could.

thats all that was brought out on the rachel maddow show.
Rachel Maddow said more, and her guest from the ACLU said even more than that. The guy from the ACLU was completely apologetic about "raining on our parade" in suggesting that Obama's orders had loopholes, but no one should apologize for speaking the truth. Sure, the executive order could be changed at any time, but far more suggestive is that gaping loopholes were left in the executive order. Does this prove that Obama will do the wrong thing? Well, the reason he issued an executive order instead of saying "trust me, I'll do the right thing" is because Bush proved the president can't be trusted just to do the right thing. And if Obama wants to truly end torture and detaining people without trial, why did he create executive orders with loopholes? If and when Obama ends torture and no longer detains people without a fair trial, then we can applaud him for doing the right thing. But not before he does this.

Rachel Maddow said more, and her guest from the ACLU said even more than that. The guy from the ACLU was completely apologetic about "raining on our parade" in suggesting that Obama's orders had loopholes, but no one should apologize for speaking the truth. Sure, the executive order could be changed at any time, but far more suggestive is that gaping loopholes were left in the executive order. Does this prove that Obama will do the wrong thing? Well, the reason he issued an executive order instead of saying "trust me, I'll do the right thing" is because Bush proved the president can't be trusted just to do the right thing. And if Obama wants to truly end torture and detaining people without trial, why did he create executive orders with loopholes? If and when Obama ends torture and no longer detains people without a fair trial, then we can applaud him for doing the right thing. But not before he does this.
I heard that guest's comments as well, and I am not convinced that the "loopholes" are as "gaping" as he suggested they are.

First of all, his own explanation of how the flaws in the orders might be loopholes suggested that they might most likely be exploited by individuals seeking to do an end run around the president's order. That does not actually suggest that Obama would tolerate such end runs.

Second, most of those loopholes sounded more like allowances for the time it will take, in practical terms, to actually cause the mandated changes to be carried out, or like allowances that the in-field requirements of the CIA might sometimes be different than they are for the Army. Both of those reflect realistic expectations of how things work, but do not suggest that the announced parameters are not going to apply. I do not see realistic expectations as a "loophole."

Finally, I personally detected in the ACLU guest's comments a level of impatience and "do it NOW!" that is popping up everywhere. It is understandable, but it is also unrealistic. Although I do approve of keeping the heat turned up on the government, including our shiny new president, I think it is just as premature to start claiming that Obama has failed to do something as it is to applaud him for having accomplished anything.

Rachel Maddow said more, and her guest from the ACLU said even more than that. The guy from the ACLU was completely apologetic about "raining on our parade" in suggesting that Obama's orders had loopholes, but no one should apologize for speaking the truth. Sure, the executive order could be changed at any time, but far more suggestive is that gaping loopholes were left in the executive order. Does this prove that Obama will do the wrong thing? Well, the reason he issued an executive order instead of saying "trust me, I'll do the right thing" is because Bush proved the president can't be trusted just to do the right thing. And if Obama wants to truly end torture and detaining people without trial, why did he create executive orders with loopholes? If and when Obama ends torture and no longer detains people without a fair trial, then we can applaud him for doing the right thing. But not before he does this.
if he truly wants to end torture he needs to have congress pass a law that he can sign.

executive orders are easily overturned by the next president. laws are not so easily changed.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them. While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it) it might serve as something of a deterrent..

Wow, yeah, there's a great idea. Let's attack their religious beliefs! Let's do the worst possible thing we could do and give final and complete confirmation of everything the extremists are saying to the moderate Muslims! Let's give every last moderate Muslim in the Middle East over to the terrorists! That'll show them! :rolleyes:

Wow, yeah, there's a great idea. Let's attack their religious beliefs! Let's do the worst possible thing we could do and give final and complete confirmation of everything the extremists are saying to the moderate Muslims! Let's give every last moderate Muslim in the Middle East over to the terrorists! That'll show them! :rolleyes:

Seriously, it's like it doesn't occur to people that trying to make people view us as a threat to their beliefs isn't in our interest.

Wow, yeah, there's a great idea. Let's attack their religious beliefs! Let's do the worst possible thing we could do and give final and complete confirmation of everything the extremists are saying to the moderate Muslims! Let's give every last moderate Muslim in the Middle East over to the terrorists! That'll show them! :rolleyes:

Real Americans™ know all those damn dirty ebil mozlems are all the same anyways.

In my opinion the best kind of torture is one that would attack their beliefs. For example dying with a pig is a great dishonor in Islam, threaten to do that. Or worse make them eat the pig, make them live with the pig. You use their ultra-radical beliefs against them. While this is not torture under the Geneva convention(which never covered the relations of when an enemy is a terrorist who doesn't follow the convention and who goes against it) it might serve as something of a deterrent.
Better yet, don't bury them at all (burn 'em or something instead). It's what they do to "apostates."

Better yet, don't bury them at all (burn 'em or something instead). It's what they do to "apostates."

Wow, yeah, there's a great idea. Let's attack their religious beliefs! Let's do the worst possible thing we could do and give final and complete confirmation of everything the extremists are saying to the moderate Muslims! Let's give every last moderate Muslim in the Middle East over to the terrorists! That'll show them! :rolleyes:
Ahem.

From what I have read of interrogation techniques, it's actually not that difficult to get people to talk. Interrogators establish rapport with the prisoner by encouraging them to talk about personal things, as if they are not being interrogated. Once people start talking, it's easier to keep them doing it, especially if they feel a sense of connection or trust to the individual asking the questions. Interrogators use indirect questioning, so that the prisoner may not realize just what they are being asked to talk about and may say something they otherwise would resist saying. Interrogators also play to the innate desire of the prisoner to talk -- his ego, his desire to show off his superiority to his jailors, his zealous urge to promote his own beliefs/agenda, etc. People have things on their minds, and more often then not, it's harder for them not to talk than to come out and say it.

Why do you think our own personnel get training in how to resist interrogation?

This hits the nail on the head on the proper way to garner information from prisoners. People watch too much 24 and Alias and the whole "need the information right now!" kinda nonsense that permeates television. There are very few interrogators (in the Army at least from my experience) that are the big hulking intimidating types. That simply does not work. Back when I was a cadet, there was another cadet who was a prior enlisted interrogator. She was this little 100 lb filipina and she could get those guys to sing like canaries. It is really all about investing in your work and establishing a relationship with the prisoner. No one reacts well to in your face coercion, it's the more subtle type that actually works and garners reliable information.

Also to Wilgrove I belive it was, Abu Ghraib was demolished several years ago. The buildings don't exist anymore, it's now a marketplace if I recall correctly.

EDIT: Wrong on Abu Ghraib, it was going to be demolished, never was, now in control of the Iraqi Government as far as I can find out.

I love the first segment of this. These congressmen, senators, etc. all sound like a bunch of FARKING idiots. Who the F thinks we're just going to let them loose on the streets. Hell, I'll let them loose in Brooklyn and see how well they do. Do these lawmakers even have a clue? http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=216568

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

They aren't being released you JA. They just aren't being kept and tortured while being denied the inalienable rights that our country says that all men have. It's not like you'll see KSM walking into your local post office tomorrow. Damn you for making me even respond to this trollish idiocy.

Third Geneva Convention, Chapter 5 Article 34
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

Doesn't being a terrorist not comply? JK

How do you suppose we should get information from them. Its not like you just ask them and they give it away.

Having been in the field I'd say that there are several better ways to get information from a suspect. I really can't detail them here as it would not be prudent. Torture does not produce valid information.

(Of course now that my rear has been flanked and my information reinforcements have failed me[DAMN YOU GOOGLE DAMN YOU!!!] I might as well surrender. But my question still stands. If you get rid of torture how do you get information?





Furthermore....I got curbstomped. [damn you liberals])

Good show sir. It is admirable to find people on NSG willing to admit they have been in error.

Theyre closing down Gitmo?...


http://www.thedailytube.com/videoimage/10895/156x116-gitmos-first-prison-camp.jpg



...:(

They should start closing down those other prisons (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/report.html) too. The ones filled with two kinds of criminals - the ones that deserve to be there, and the ones that they choose to rape with implicit (and sometimes explicit) institutional support.

This is a political no brainer. Gitmo is the source of all the negative attention, the other prisons (i.e. Bagram, Jordan etc.) much less so. Close down Gitmo in a blaze of publicity, and release a few as a token gesture, then transfer all the "eb1l terrorists" to the others. Honest Obama gets to bring "change" and meet an election pledge, and you still get to keep your dodgy torture prisons. ;)

Obama is a true politician, much better at it than Bush.

I love the first segment of this. These congressmen, senators, etc. all sound like a bunch of FARKING idiots. Who the F thinks we're just going to let them loose on the streets. Hell, I'll let them loose in Brooklyn and see how well they do. Do these lawmakers even have a clue? http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=216568
no kidding

i saw a congressman from kansas talking about how they better not put KSM into leavenworth because...what if he escaped!

good lord, if he got loose in kansas he wouldnt survive long enough to be recaptured.

no kidding

i saw a congressman from kansas talking about how they better not put KSM into leavenworth because...what if he escaped!

good lord, if he got loose in kansas he wouldnt survive long enough to be recaptured.

the jon stewart bit on that was fantastic though, showing clips of various dangerous criminals.

And it's true, none of these terrorists are any more dangerous than...say...McVeigh, who ACTUALLY BLEW PEOPLE UP or Manson who ATE PEOPLE. The american prison system worked just fine for them.

Unlike what you see in moves, by and large, people don't escape from supermax prisons.

the jon stewart bit on that was fantastic though, showing clips of various dangerous criminals.

And it's true, none of these terrorists are any more dangerous than...say...McVeigh, who ACTUALLY BLEW PEOPLE UP or Manson who ATE PEOPLE. The american prison system worked just fine for them.

Unlike what you see in moves, by and large, people don't escape from supermax prisons.
ya but

what if KSM were..... found not guilty on a technicality...and

what if he had to be released

and what if he went to a judge to plead for assylum AND GOT IT?

then pretty soon he is on the path to being a citizen

and then what if obama makes him..... the next secretary of state!

then where would we be?

gitmo must stay open!

ya but

what if KSM were..... found not guilty on a technicality...and

what if he had to be released

and what if he went to a judge to plead for assylum AND GOT IT?

then pretty soon he is on the path to being a citizen

and then what if obama makes him..... the next secretary of state!

then where would we be?

gitmo must stay open!
:tongue:

I love Jon Stewart!

Also, the stupidity of that person is baffling. How does such people get elected to hold office for anything?

If you don't understand that there'll be no US embassies inside the US, you don't get to hold office! Can we make that a rule?! :mad:

Terrorists worldwide celebrate the first victory handed to them by the Dark Lord.

Real Americans keep counting the number of released Gitmo terrorists who take up arms against us again.

You know one of the greatest things I'm enjoying about this, NM?

The desperation of people with such distorted worldviews as yours.

They're suffering. They're hurting. They're crying bloody tears over their powerlessness.

And I'm LOVING IT.

If you support torture, curtailing of civil rights, abolition of the rule of law, and religious prosecution, then guess what:

YOU ARE NOT A REAL AMERICAN.

Oh, and, by the way: You claim you'll respect "our" President like "we" respected "yours". Fine. But bear in mind that this will elicit in me the reaction of demanding "Agree with my president or you're an US-hater" like YOUR ilk did to all liberals.

Ahem.
Three words: They started it.
That is all.

If you support torture, curtailing of civil rights, abolition of the rule of law, and religious prosecution, then guess what:

YOU ARE NOT A REAL AMERICAN.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

Looks like Obama isn't a real American in your eyes then.

Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.

The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States".

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

"The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

Can you tell me under what, if any, conditions you would approve of rendition?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

Looks like Obama isn't a real American in your eyes then.



Can you tell me under what, if any, conditions you would approve of rendition?

1- And what leads you to that conclusion?

2- With evidence, approved by a judge.

1- And what leads you to that conclusion?


Because he approves of rendition, which in his eyes doesn't require a judge.

Just the say so of a few agents in the field, who then pass the poor fellow on to be detained and questioned by fairly unfriendly foreign agents, who aren't under our new rules about being nice.

Because he approves of rendition, which in his eyes doesn't require a judge.

Just the say so of a few agents in the field, who then pass the poor fellow on to be detained and questioned by fairly unfriendly foreign agents, who aren't under our new rules about being nice.

So you NOW call this torture?

So you NOW call this torture?

You're the one calling it torture. You said that anyone who condones it is un-American.

Ergo, Obama is not a true American.

You're the one calling it torture. You said that anyone who condones it is un-American.

Ergo, Obama is not a true American.

Feel free to show where I called extraordinary rendition torture.

Feel free to show where I called extraordinary rendition torture.

Why do you think they do it?

It's so someone can be questioned by non-Americans on behalf of Americans, using techniques we're not allowed to use.

I'm just pointing out that if you're going to be "better" than the Bush team, you're going to have to refrain from using the same broad brush.

It has a tendency to paint both ways.

Why do you think they do it?
Well, both Reagan and Clinton did it to arrest people, not to torture them. Of course, under Clinton it was used to ensure that people "disappeared" in Egypt.

But the practice of extraordinary rendition, while a violation of international law, doesn't automatically mean torture. So the Obama administration may hopefully only use it to apprehend people and bring them before a court.

We'll see.

I have a much easier way of telling who is a "real American" and who is a "fake American".

Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood)

The first way that a person can obtain American citizenship is jus sanguinis, or right of blood. This method of gaining American citizenship is an automatic method that bases a person’s right to American citizenship on their parents’ citizenship. A child is given American citizenship automatically if at least one of their parents is a legal U.S. citizen at the time of their birth. This is true even if the child is born outside of the U.S. or its territories.

Jus Soli (Right of Birthplace)

The second way that a person can obtain American citizenship is jus soli, or right of birthplace. This is another automatic citizenship method, however, this method is based on where the child is born. If a child is born in the United States they are automatically granted American citizenship regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. Citizenship is granted to the child even if their mother has entered the United States illegally. The only restriction to gaining American citizenship through this method is placed on children born in the United States to parents who are foreign diplomats at the time of their child’s birth.

Naturalization

For all other situations, naturalization is the most common way that a foreign-born person can try to gain American citizenship. To qualify for naturalization you must meet a number of prerequisites.

I have a much easier way of telling who is a "real American" and who is a "fake American".

Good point, but go ahead and tell that to the morons who first threw these soundbites around; "real American", "fake American". I'd not have responded to NM that way if he didn't use that idiotic soundbite. Little tip, it starts with "B" and ends with "ush supporters".

Good point, but go ahead and tell that to the morons who first threw these soundbites around; "real American", "fake American". I'd not have responded to NM that way if he didn't use that idiotic soundbite. Little tip, it starts with "B" and ends with "ush supporters".

I don't want to throw soundbites around myself, but if you don't play into their schemes they'll give up. They are only soundbites if they are effective.

I don't want to throw soundbites around myself, but if you don't play into their schemes they'll give up. They are only soundbites if they are effective.

...is it you that are very good for a newbie or I that got stared right back by the abyss...?

I love the first segment of this. These congressmen, senators, etc. all sound like a bunch of FARKING idiots. Who the F thinks we're just going to let them loose on the streets. Hell, I'll let them loose in Brooklyn and see how well they do. Do these lawmakers even have a clue? http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=216568

My guess is that yes, these Congressmen/women know full well this is not what will happen, but they're banking on their constituencies not knowing this.

...is it you that are very good for a newbie or I that got stared right back by the abyss...?

Hey, it says I'm a Veteran!

Compare to the interrogation methods of alqeida waterboarding is tame.

Compare to the interrogation methods of alqeida waterboarding is tame.

Do you believe that justifies waterboarding or are you just offering us a comparison?

Compare to the interrogation methods of alqeida waterboarding is tame.

And compared to rape and murder, shoplifting is tame. Should we allow shoplifting?

Also: Al Qaeda. Not alqeida. But it's to be expected from someone who has displayed such knowledge about the issue as yours.

And comparing [shoplifting] to rape and murder [makes] shoplifting [/is] [look] tame. Should we allow shoplifting?Work on that sentence structure and conveyance before ragging on other people's communication skills. ;)

Work on that sentence structure and conveyance before ragging on other people's communication skills. ;)

It's 2 AM here, and, much though I may seem like one, I'm not a native speaker. Besides, I got confused by his own "compare to", I think. I don't know. I'm tired, I have a headache, and I somehow found it in my heart to answer torture-apologist two-post wonder here. Also, fixed.

Compare to the interrogation methods of alqeida waterboarding is tame.

Compared to the Khmer Rouge ripping someone's intestines out through their mouth is tame.

Compare to the interrogation methods of alqeida waterboarding is tame.

Compared to the scorched earth policies of the US during WWII and the atom bomb, 9/11 was tame.

Compared to the scorched earth policies of the US during WWII and the atom bomb, 9/11 was tame.

Compared to a solar flare, the atom bombs were tame...

Hey, everyone! I just invented a new game!

It's 2 AM here, and, much though I may seem like one, I'm not a native speaker. Besides, I got confused by his own "compare to", I think. I don't know. I'm tired, I have a headache, and I somehow found it in my heart to answer torture-apologist two-post wonder here. Also, fixed.1.) Knew you weren't a native speaker.
2.) His was worse than yours, but yours could have been a lot clearer.
3.) ;)

Compared to a solar flare, the atom bombs were tame...

Hey, everyone! I just invented a new game!

I wanna play!

Compared to a giant asteroid hurling through space on a collision course with Earth, 9/11 was tame!

I wanna play!

Compared to a giant asteroid hurling through space on a collision course with Earth, 9/11 was tame!

Compared to Jupiter crash-landing on Earth, your asteroid is tame!

Compared to Jupiter crash-landing on Earth, your asteroid is tame!

Compared to the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy, Jupiter is tame!

Compared to the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy, Jupiter is tame!

Compared to the Universe ripping itself apart through its ever expanding tidal Forces...the Collision is tame!

Ok, the game stops now.

Ok, the game stops now.

Compared to time stopping all of a sudden, the game stopping is tame!

:D:D:D:D:D

(Ok, I'll stop now. Because compared to getting modded, getting told to stop is tame.) ;)