I guess I understand what he is trying to say. That our troops need to be above reproach. But we have to be able to interrogate these people. They aren’t POW’s. They’re enemy combatants who don’t hold to the rules of war. We have been and of course will continue to do so. Temperature changes and bad music is hardly a death camp. I don’t think the comparison is fair. So…. What do you think?
*steps out of the thread before getting stuff thrown at my bad ankle*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, he said that what US soldiers had done would look to US civilians like the work of Nazis or the like if they didn't know otherwise, which is not the same thing.
Would you care to explain to me the difference between an enemy combatant captured in combat and a POW?
Not to mention that the evidence against many of them is so ridiculously weak the lawyers they finally managed to get are doing a bangup job of getting them off the hook, so I wonder where you're getting that they're all definitely people who don't hold to the rules of war.
Not to mention that the geneva conventions don't apply only to people we approve of -- that's part of the point, getting countries to provide decent care to people they may very well hate, because it sucks to be on the other end.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Hm. Sounds to me like he was being both accurate and respectful. The implication in his statement is that we're not Nazis nor Soviets, and it's a shame that we'd ever act close enough to make a comparison possible.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
They don't hold to the rules of war because we said so. Convenient, no?
This sort of thing doesn't help anyone, but I think underlying this stuff is the feeling that if reasonable criticism were floated, it'd be polarized and blown out of porportion anyway, in the current climate. A fear of if you moderate the "message" then the old "give an inch, they take a mile" proverb would come true.
If you want more moderation in message, then it has to come from those IN power first, I think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually disturbed by the distortion of fact used in the article's headline. Of course, it is WorldNetDaily, so what should I have expected?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Would you care to explain to me the difference between an enemy combatant captured in combat and a POW?" Enemy Combatant From http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312 An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
POW from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_War A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured servicemember must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practise these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms -or as in the guerrilla case, a badge- to keep this important rule of warfare.
The status of POW does not include unarmed non-combatants who are captured in time of war; they are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention rather than the Third Geneva Convention.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You know, someone breaking the rules does not mean we should then break the rules. I mean, it's Childcare 101. "He did it first!" does not mean that the second party to do it is absolved of guilt; it means both parties are in the wrong.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I see a difference between beheadings, burning bodies, dragging them through the streets, hanging them off of bridges, kidnapping civilians and being in a hot or cold room with loud music. I think that we treat our prisoners much better than they have treated their prisoners.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Illegal combatants are non uniformed people that don’t have any allegiance to a country. Where as a POW is a solider from a specific country and under Geneva conventions.
By the way, where is this evidence you speak of? Can I get a link to the charges that you speak of? I imagine that these terrorists who want to kill us don’t leave much of a trail and they’re held for reasons that might need to be kept secret.
Comparing our troops treatment of prisoners to death camps is accurate and respectful?!?!?!? Ok, that’s a bit of a leap. Wait, let me drink some more of the kool-aide and maybe I’ll see it….. gulp gulp gulp….. hum…. Nope, still don’t see it. Oh wait. My DNC goggles aren’t in yet. Silly me. The point is the comparison is totally inaccurate and will do nothing but empower terrorists in their recruiting and propaganda.
How is the headline inaccurate? He compared our troops to Nazis. You can hardly argue that point when you yourself said “it's a shame that we'd ever act close enough to make a comparison possible.” And again, I say, the comparison is not there.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I think that we treat our prisoners much better than they have treated their prisoners.
Again, any degree of immoral behavior on their part does not excuse any degree of immoral behavior on ours. Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If we want to take the moral high ground, we need to keep it by not acting immorally.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Comparing our troops treatment of prisoners to death camps is accurate and respectful?!?!?!?
Specifically, what he said is that our poor treatment of these prisoners is something that we do not mentally associate with American troops, but rather with gulags and death camps.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Specifically what he said was "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." He absolutely equates what he said we have done to being in a gulag or death camp. He specifically says that things were done by people who have no concern for human beings.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Again, any degree of immoral behavior on their part does not excuse any degree of immoral behavior on ours.
That is just not possible. Any degree of immoral behavior is sort of hard to define and can be interperted too many different ways. Is it moral to detain any one? These detainees are treated better than prisoners in our own jails. No mention is being made about the extradinarily lengths we have gone to supplying Korans, prayer rugs, time to pray, special meals, and so on.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I understand different rules for war and peace. But torture is immoral under any circumstances.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He specifically says that things were done by people who have no concern for human beings."
Nope. He says that Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot had no concern for human beings, and that a casual listener hearing our camps described "would most certainly believe" that Nazis, Soviets, and/or Pol Pot were in charge of the camps. There's actually a very vital distinction.
In case you missed it, here it is: we are and can be assumed to be better than we're acting. So we shouldn't act that way.
"That is just not possible."
Sure it is. Of course, it's not possible once we've decided to interrogate these people.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well, unfortunatly even torture is hard to define. Listening to loud rap music may be enjoyable for some, and painful for others. How do we define what the room temperature should be? Being in a hot room is not, to me, torture. Yes it is very uncomfortable, but I don't think I would consider it torture. Then again, I do live in PA and we have hot summers and cold winters so you kinda get used to being in very hot or very cold circumstances We have not mutliated them, cut them, hung them, burned them. That is what I would consider torture
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I am a casual listener and there is no way I would ever think sitting in a hot room is remotely like being in a death camp. Only someone who does not know anything about death camps or the gulags might think that there is some sort of comparision between us and Nazis, Soviets, etc. Millions died in the gulags. I would choose to be detained by us than by the Nazis, Pol Pot, or the Soviets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That is what I would consider torture.
So it's the degree to which we make someone miserable in order to get information out of them that distinguishes Abu Ghraib or Gitmo from a gulag?
That said, I'm glad that we're still more pleasant captors than the Soviets, Muslim terrorists, the Germans, or the Khmer Rouge. It's nice to hold a moral high ground.
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
Not anything like Sith Camps:
Club G'itmo Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's understood that circumstances will not always permit ideal conditions. However, it is our duty to always make the conditions as comfortable as is possible under the circumstances.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So it's the degree to which we make someone miserable in order to get information out of them that distinguishes Abu Ghraib or Gitmo from a gulag? Yes, absolutely. Just like making a child sit on a chair for 10 minutes for a 'time out' is a different degree than taping a child to a chair and putting him in a dark closet for a week. They are the same thing, just different degrees.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So….. what are we supposed to do to integrate prisoners? How do we get information to stop terrorist acts before they occur? What is your alternative solution? I really want to hear ideas. Saying don’t doesn’t solve the problem.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:These detainees are treated better than prisoners in our own jails.
This could only be true if you didn't count due process as a way of being treated well.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Hm. Sounds to me like he was being both accurate and respectful. The implication in his statement is that we're not Nazis nor Soviets, and it's a shame that we'd ever act close enough to make a comparison possible.
I didn't actually call him a s**thead. I just said that, based upon his thought processes, if most people saw how stupid he was, they'd come to the conclusion that that his head was made of s**t.
I didn't call her a fat pig. I only said that if someone saw her, a human being, walking down the street, they'd assume that she was a pig because of how her body is shaped.
See, it's not an insult. I'm only being accurate and respectful. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So….. what are we supposed to do to integrate prisoners? How do we get information to stop terrorist acts before they occur? What is your alternative solution? I really want to hear ideas. Saying don’t doesn’t solve the problem.
There is no problem. Don't torture people, and if that means in some situations we'll miss out on important information, then so be it. It's not always beneficial to do the right thing.
The only good argument for the position that torture is OK is the ticking time-bomb scenario, which is something that hasn't happened yet in the history of the war on terror. (Or else if it has happened, it is being kept from the public along with all the rest of the important information about what our government is doing.)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"This could only be true if you didn't count due process as a way of being treated well."
We are conducting military tribunals in Cuba, and many detainees have been released.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did anyone read the rest of the speech Durbin made? He actually makes some extremely good points
quote: The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their detention in court, but it still claims that once they get to court, they have no legal rights. In other words, the administration believes a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside.
quote: A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings. The court concluded that the detainees do have legal rights
This one I think is really important:
quote:Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners
quote: In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using ‘‘torture techniques.’’
He then talks about the administration making rules and claiming that the courts and congress have no right to interfere. Which he follows up by saying the constitution actually guarantees that very right, and that Madison called the concentration of legislative, judicial and executive powers in one person's hand the very definition of a tyranny. Not a farfetched comparison if you ask me.
The following is part of a letter written from a former Congressman and former POW in Vietnam to Durbin.
quote: From my 61⁄2 years of captivity in Vietnam,I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival. . . . This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us. . . . We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
And by the way, the quote about the FBI report isn't just loud music and temperature extremes, here is the FULL version of what Durbin said:
quote:On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18–24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
Sorry I know that was a lot to quote in one post, but some people can't read the PDF file that the text of his speech is on, and some may not want to, so I posted what I thought were the more important lines from it.
I'm insanely surprised that Fox News decided to only talk about the Nazi line ( ), and leave out the main thrust of Durbin's point, that torture on enemy combatants could affect how our troops are treated when they become POWs behind enemy lines.
If our next war is against an enemy that can actually defend itself, a real country that is supposed to follow the rules of war, do you want them to throw out the rules and act as we have at Gitmo?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
One more thing, this was at the end of Durbin's speech on the floor. When Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which allowed detainees in the Civil War to challenge their detainment, the Supreme Court answered back with this:
quote: The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.
Edit to add: Next time, for those of you who freely bashed Durbin, you might want to read all the facts before just buying into what Fox News tells you. For those of you who said it, saying that Durbin doesn't care about the troops just looks silly to me now.
[ June 16, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
His speech was no so unreasonable. I think the way the prisoners have been treated is deplorable and could lead to our own troops being treated even worse.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One word.
One phrase and it kills the argument.
When Amnesty International came out with their report showing credible problems with Gitmo, the administration took one word--Gulag-- and harped on it. They took that one word, not from the report, but from an excited presenter talking about that report, and discredit a noble organization in the mind of the public.
And nobody said, "But what about the problems they mentioned?"
Now Sentator Durbin has said that. He brings a list of those problems to our attention. And again, one word, "nazi" is singled out and blown out of proportion to discredit the man and get our attention off of the problems.
Here is a list of the problems as I see them.
1) POW vs ENEMY COMBATANT. What we have done is said that the basic rights afforded to these people in our custody are not gauranteed. Because of legal loopholes that will stand up in court, we get to decide how we will treat these people, and while we promise to treat them well, thier final treatment is simply left to our whim.
A) This is legal. B) While I do not doubt the honor and compassion of this administration, this sets a terrible precedent for abuse in the future, or abuse by those elsewhere along the chain of command. Do you trust future Presidents with this power? How about every officer or soldier who may be eventually placed in a position of power at Gitmo? C) The need for intense security feeds those who sell the scarey scenarios. And AlQueda has proven adept at selling those scenarios. The result is that Gitmo is a anchor around our necks and a source of recruitment for terrorist organizations around the world. The evil that a small group of men can do with knives and explosives scares us, but the evil the greatest country on earth could do in the secret bowels of its most devious places terrifies them. And the most common response to fear, when there is no where to run, is to fight back with all means neccesary.
2) What is the difference between guerilla soldiers we gave POW status too in the past and Taliban soldiers defending their homes in Afghanistan?
There are technical answers I am sure, but to the Taliban fighter, their friend and families back in Afghanistan, and most of the rest of the world, this switch to less than legal status is seen as a forced cheat and unfair practice.
3) The beheaders and bomb planters and child killers that we fear are in Gitmo aren't. Most of them are still kept in prisons in Iraq. The Taliban and Afghanistan Al Queda people we think we have in Gitmo are there under very questionable circumstances. Someone said Ali was a Taliban so he was scooped up with the rest of those who may be Taliban and sent to Gitmo to be sorted out, but nobody ever sorted them out. Other than sorting out the most dangerous from the less dangerous, and the most valuable from the majority of nobodies, it took an order from the courts for the people to begin to have thier files reviewed. We have a lot of innocent people in Gitmo.
4) There is no exit strategy. Since Terror is not a political or military enemy that can be beaten, the war can never be won. Enemy Combatants are held until the end of the war. Hence, Guantanamo has no exit strategy, and will remain until all of those held there die. Thirty, Fourty, Fifty years from now we can still be talking about those held in Guantanamo. How long were the POW's held in Vietnam?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Talk of their release will only come about when the Administration is satisfied that the network of terrorist organizations in the Middle East is effectively dismantled. Until then, releasing them only poses a threat to the nation.
That's what they will say anyway. Realistically, I don't see what can be done with them. Many of them really are enemy combatants, and releasing them will only cause more problems. For the rest, they could try and wait for a stable government to form in Iraq, and then transfer the prisoners to them and their justice system, but how much will we trust it?
Best idea I can think of would be to find a neutral third party (Hellloooooo Hague) and send them there. Takes the pressure, focus and criticism off us, and will probably be more humane. Of course we'd be the laughing stock of the world if we did that.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
A lot of people think there are still POWs in Vietnam. At least, that's the idea I got from the ongoing POW/MIA publicity around D.C. I'm for the war on Terror, but don't support the continued detention of prisoners at Guantanamo. (Where did "Gitmo" come from, anyway?) If we have changed the regime in Afghanistan, I say send them back there. Though I seem to recall that being labelled as "outsourcing of torture".
And supporting the government even when it's wrong is no better than calling them "nazi" or supporting someone calling them "nazi".
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:We are conducting military tribunals in Cuba, and many detainees have been released.
That's not due process, it's a separate standard that is normally only applied to members of the US military who've signed up to be subject to it. Besides which, I don't think it's constitutional even when applied to volunteer soldiers. All the amendments in the Bill of Rights say "no person shall be denied...", not "No civilian US citizen."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Due process does not take 3 years to begin.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: His speech was no so unreasonable. I think the way the prisoners have been treated is deplorable and could lead to our own troops being treated even worse.
Exactly. Which is one reason why many military lawyers objected to the administration weakening our adherence to the Geneva Conventions. One Bush lawyer even called GC "quaint"--our current attorney general.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I support everything Durbin said, with the exception of that one sentence where he uses the Nazi Card.
I couldn't care less about that statement, it has little to do with the actual point of his argument, and though it was stupid, and misleading, it doesn't negate his point.
I think he might have said it just for the sake of bringing attention to the issue, it seems to be the only way these days to do so. But it's counterproductive, and only brings negative short sighted attention.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm with Lyrhawn on this.
Basically, if Durbin had spent any time at all on Internet Forums, he would know that playing the Nazi card means that no-one is going to pay attention to anything else you've said. I think we've seen examples of that here already. People get so up in arms, or try to nitpick the analogy, that ones main point is instantly and irrevocably lost.
I would expect better of a Senator. I mean, isn't one of the pre-requisites a certain facility of language and clarity of thought. Surely he knows that inflammatory rhetoric never wins an argument.
So, maybe it's just what adam613 says -- a way to talk show voters he's tough? Pretty stupid if you ask me, but then, if I were represented by this guy and he said this, would I be LESS likely to vote for him? Nah, probably not. Because I agree with much of what he said and I disagree strongly with the people who justify use of torture by US troops. Even "mild" forms of torture are still torture. Illegal under the treaties we signed. Short-sighted in that they give a built-in excuse for others to do worse to our troops (and civilians). And, from everything I've read, essentially useless as an interrogation technique.
I would just like to add that if we violate our own laws in response to bad actions of others, then we become more like them and less like us. Either we have ideals and try to live up to them, or we become something less. I would prefer that if we are going to go that route, we do it as a conscious choice where every person has a say in what our government does in our name. Nobody ever said a vote for Bush is a vote in favor of torturing prisoners (even mildly torturing them). I suspect that if the question were put to the voters with all the details laid out, we would have a different head of state.
I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that I've been so out of synch with the rest of this country that I would miss our preference for brutality over our own stated goals and ideals.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think it all went wrong when they decided to house the captives at Guantanamo... not in the 50 states.
I believe it was a conscious decision that was based not on security for US citizens, but to keep it away from prying eyes.
I still think that if the "detainees" are not under the Geneva Convention rules, we should still afford them the protections that we afford inmates in the US.
Posted by Dink (Member # 1185) on :
C'mon people, it must take a lot of brain work to really try to be "ashamed" of this Senator for speaking out the way he did. Regardless of your political beliefs, the message should still be heard, and it is this: We are being lied to. For a Senator to speak out like this is both politically dangerous and life threatening, so even if I'm ignorant enough to believe he's lying, I'd still respect his fearlessness. To say you are ashamed or would expect better from a senator is the equivalent of saying "I wish he had just kept his mouth shut", and if that's the case, then you belong in jail because you are obviously aware of the lies fed to us by the government and are more than alright with the continuation of such atrocities.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I was waiting for someone to draw the comparison with current US prisons.
-Trevor
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's interesting to note that, if you read the actual text of the original treaties, they are very much in the old tradition of Great Power politics, and international law based on force. Which is to say, they are agreements between nations with a capacity to be extremely nasty, who agree that they won't behave in certain ways, on pain of retaliation in kind. They spend quite a bit of text making it clear that, if one of the High Contracting Parties breaks the treaty, the others are entirely within their rights to do the same.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those treaties need to be rewritten to better represent the realities of a changing world.
Nations don't sign papers officially declaring war. There is no formality anymore. I don't think the law should be limited by rules written fifty years ago. The world has changed too much.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lyrhawn, I'd agree, except that recent experience has shown us (the U.S.) incapable of playing well within that new reality. We refused to sign a ban on land mines for crying out loud. We apparently hate the idea of limits on greenhouse gases.
I think our idea is that in any international treaty, we have the most to lose. That may be true (e.g., Kyoto is a lot easier on developing nations than it is on the industrialized ones), but I think we'd be giving from our enormous excess whereas most countries would be giving from their base.
We managed to get the G-8 to rewrite their statement on global warming from "it's happening, it's going to get worse, and we need to do something about it now" to something like "climate change is an important topic that effects the entire globe."
If the rest of the world ever grows a spine, we are going to be in serious trouble.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Kyoto places no restrictions on 'developing nations' like China while it would completely destroy most of our manufacturing plants in America. That is why we should not sign it. The rest of the world is trying to come to this nation, to work here, to live here. Although by reading this thread you would think we are the worst monsters ever in the history of humankind. Any allegation against the US is always correct, and no other country on earth ever has, or ever will do anything wrong that can compare to the atrocities that we have committed. I do apologize because that is more of a vent, but all that ever seems to happen anymore is the complete focus on the negative, like the US has never done anything positive ever. No one is spending any time here lashing out of Kofi Annan and how corrupt the UN is, just how terrible we are. No one is condemning most of the dictatorships around the world who actively torture their own citizens. I know the cries will go up that we have to be better than everyone else, we have to be do everything perfectly, we can never, ever make a mistake. Any small allegation, true or not, must have the immediate result of removing our power hungry dictator-President from office. Yet we have done the same and worse and there was not the same cries of America is a Monster. Clinton routinely sent enemy combatants captured to foriegn nations for torture, and as far as the press was concerned it was not that big of a deal. Let's also keep in mind that in the 1970's all scientists were completely convinced that we were headed for an ice age. Cosmos by Carl Sagan has that information in the foreward of the book.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For a Senator to speak out like this is both politically dangerous and life threatening, so even if I'm ignorant enough to believe he's lying, I'd still respect his fearlessness.
Oh, really?
quote:To say you are ashamed or would expect better from a senator is the equivalent of saying "I wish he had just kept his mouth shut",
Or "I wish he hadn't played the Nazi card.
quote:and if that's the case, then you belong in jail
Big freedom of speech supporter, are you?
quote: because you are obviously aware of the lies fed to us by the government and are more than alright with the continuation of such atrocities.
If someone doesn't like Nazi comparisons they are aware of government lies?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I hear Al-Jazeera is having a filed day with Durbin. I’m sure they’ll happily use him as a recruiting tool for more suicide bombers. Reason #1 why this is such a horrible statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Jay, how would you suggest we criticize our government in a time of war?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I firmly believe in our rights to criticize our own government, and I don't think the senator should be censored, he had every right to say it.
And I have every right to be offended at what he said, since my father is serving right now in Guantanamo and I resent even the implication that he and the men and women serving with him can in any way be compared to Nazis.
The decent thing to do would be to come out and say that he regrets his unfortunate choice of words or some other pseudo-apology that politicians always try to get away with.
There are good, dedicated Americans serving us in Guantanamo. They're away from their families doing a difficult job in the midst of incredible scrutiny. They don't deserve to be insulted like this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There are good, dedicated Americans serving us in Guantanamo.
There have been good, dedicated servicemen on every side in every war ever fought. The most terrible thing about war is that it convinces good, dedicated people to do terrible, depraved things.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh okay, Tom does it make you feel better to take pot shots at my Dad and the people with him? Do you feel righteous?
What I'm trying to get across is that there are hundreds (thousands?) of good soldiers down there who do not do terrible, depraved things to anyone - they are trying to do their job and when you make blanket statements like that it's just as offensive as what Durbin said.
There are a select few servicemen and women who did things to prisoners they shouldn't have. I have no problem with them being punished for it, I do have problems with calling all the people serving in Guantanamo analogous to Nazis or people who do terrible, depraved things. Do you know anyone there? Do you have any idea what their daily life is like, or what they go through or what it's like to serve in a hostile place away from your loved ones?
The vast majority of the people in Guantanamo don't even have even occasional contact with prisoners, but I guess that doesn't matter to you. To you and Durbin it's okay to insult them all, say they are terrible depraved people like Nazis. That's despicable.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I’m sure they’ll happily use [Durbin] as a recruiting tool for more suicide bombers."
Of course, if Dubya hadn't "fixed the intelligence" to give excuse for invading Iraq, then lied to the American people about it, Dubya wouldn't have been able to get his jollies watching UStroops getting suicide bombed.
[ June 17, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh, one other point - my father did not vote for Bush, in fact before he accepted this deployment he worked for his state Democratic party.
Here is a line from a closing paragraph in his latest email.
quote:That's it from here at the "gulag" (hint: don't believe everything you read about this place, your father is involved in an honorable mission)
I can assure you that if he felt otherwise, he would tell me, and he wouldn't be there. This was a volunteer deployment for him. He didn't have to do it.
My father is not only involved in an honorable mission, he is an honorable man. As far from a Nazi or a terrible, depraved person as you can get.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note that neither the Senator nor Tom made a blanket statement about what troops were doing. The Senator in no way called all people there analogous to Nazis, or even most people, merely that the things we had done there ("we" being at least some US servicemen acting through their positions of authority) would, if shown to the american public absent context, look like something out of a totalitarian regime (for which he then gave examples of totalitarian regimes). That in no way impugns the general behavior of US soldiers in guantanamo.
And I'm completely confused as to how Tom's statement could be taken as a blanket statement.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Dubya wouldn't have been able to get his jollies watching UStroops getting suicide bombed." Do you honestly believe President Bush is getting his jollies watching US Troops die? We already a valid reason to invade Iraq. The UN and Saddam agreed to terms that Saddam repeatedly violated, for years. We had as much reason to invade Iraq as we did Kosovo.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, the Senator's comments were in no way directed towards your father or any of the soldiers serving at Guantanamo. It is actually possible to disagree with the use our military is being put to (as is being done here) and not be talking about the soldiers themselves. I think it's pretty clear that this is the case here.
Of course, I also think that, if you knew them, you'd find that the average Nazi soldier had a lot more in common with our troops than you would think. They weren't monsters either.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Of course, the Senator's comments were in no way directed towards your father or any of the soldiers serving at Guantanamo" Well, the soldiers at Guantanamo are the ones being accused of torturing the detainess so I'm not sure how that can be true. The Senator's comments have to be about the soldiers since he claims that they are torturing the detainees
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh yeah, I trust Time. Don’t they get their stuff from CBS?
Criticize at a time of war? As long as you’re not hampering the war effort, go for it. The time for debate about the war is till you go to war. Then it’s all about the mission. Durbin could have said this stuff without making it into a circus, he wanted the publicity and this isn’t the publicity we need. All he has done is aide the enemy here. Giving aide to the enemy is treason.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It doesn't matter what the intent was - words can hurt, and implications can be painful. In fact, if Tom said "Belle your dad is a Nazi" I would just dismiss him as a jerk.
It's the smugness of his remark that got to me, it was patronizing and quite frankly, ticked me off.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So Jay, given that the punishment for treason is death, are you arguing that Senator Durbin should be executed for his statements?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Average Nazis weren’t monsters huh? Yeah, tell that to millions of Jews.
The average KKK guy is really nice too. Plays pool, enjoys a good game of hang man.
The average Al Qaeda guy is great too. Loves flight simulators, little puppies, a good game of head knocking.
Get real. Evil is real.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
DK, he didn't say that they all were, just that if you look at incidences that HAD happened, and remove details that would give away their nationality, most Americans would have thought those actions were done by some of our favorite national boogeymen.
So Jay, if some al-qaeda guy reads your post above, and then shows it to insurgents, who use it as motivation to attack US soldiers, or the person uses it to recruit more insurgents by showing them how "we" really feel, does that mean you are aiding the enemy? Have you committed treason?
I think we both know the answer to that. IMO, it's also the answer, for similar reasons, to whether what Durbin did was treason.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What I'm trying to get across is that there are hundreds (thousands?) of good soldiers down there who do not do terrible, depraved things to anyone - they are trying to do their job.
This is true. And I'm sure that your dad is among that number.
But there are also hundreds, perhaps thousands of good soldiers currently deployed whose job is to do terrible, depraved things. Should we not be concerned by this?
Were your dad ordered to do something depraved, would he decline? I like to believe that he would. But not everyone in the military is so principled, which means that we have to go after this thing at the source -- our leadership -- rather than the rank and file.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Durbin will never come up on treason charges even though he is certainly guilty of it. It’s hard to deny that his actions will give aide to the enemy.
How is me saying something against the enemy treason? I think you have it backwards. Durbin said something against our guys (an untrue statement too) which is where the treason comes in since his aide is directly against our troops.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, it's only treasonous when it criticizes our troops?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Average Nazis weren’t monsters huh? Yeah, tell that to millions of Jews.
The average KKK guy is really nice too. Plays pool, enjoys a good game of hang man.
The average Al Qaeda guy is great too. Loves flight simulators, little puppies, a good game of head knocking.
Get real. Evil is real.
It's no that simple, and if you'd read more than Sean Hannity, you'd understand this. There have been many people who started off as decent, honourable people who love their children who for whatever reason get involved in a war, with Nazis or terrorist groups because they agree with their principals. Next thing you know, they start doing things which are wrong, convincing themselves that they are fighting a horrible enemy that needs to be fought, that these people are interfering with their way of life. Look, for example, at these photographs of lynchings. The most painful thing is how many people would bring their kids to stuff like this. How, until they grabbed some innocent man and hung him from a tree, they were decent regular people who love their kids and pay their taxes and happen to hate black people so much that in their mind it becomes ok to kill them. That's the agonizing thing. That anyone, without much thought can become no better than people who lynch or take pleasure in torturing a person.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613: The war in Iraq has done more to increase terrorist recruitment than any speech could ever do, which is why the insurgency continues years after we toppled the Iraqi government. Does that mean Bush is guilty of treason?
No, but it does mean he's guilty of deceiving the public and should be, in an ideal world, impeached and jailed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh come on people. The treason thing is a new Godwin. It's not something even worthy of debate.
I've never liked the Godwin thing. People get the idea that the offense is mentioning the Nazi's specifically, instead of making a terribly shaky analogy for the purpose of an emotional appeal. When the Catholic Church said that gay marriage is like marrying a cockroach, that was a Godwin. When someone says that any criticism of the way people are handling a war is TREASON (bump bump bum!), they're pulling a Godwin.
---
Jay, Do you have some strange view of history that leads you to believe that the average Nazi soldier was involved in killing the Jews? And, are you familiar with the Milgram experiment, which strongly suggests that the average American would behave quite similarly as the Germans did when put into a similar situation? Or are you just throwing around the evil label?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Anyone who thinks that the average "Nazi" was evil has a vast misunderstanding of human nature.
Can you really believe that nearly every man between 13 and 60 was "evil" in an entire country?
The second one is my favorite example of human psychology. They got average people to "kill" a stranger within minutes of meeting them.
Humans are humans, no matter what flag they have sewed into their uniforms.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The vast majority of the people in Guantanamo don't even have even occasional contact with prisoners, but I guess that doesn't matter to you. To you and Durbin it's okay to insult them all, say they are terrible depraved people like Nazis. That's despicable.
I'm sure that Durbin's remark, and every one the civil libertarians here have made about torture, have to do only with those people who are in contact with the prisoners and have tortured them.
quote:My father is not only involved in an honorable mission, he is an honorable man.
While I'm sure the latter is true, I can't but disagree with the former. Even if there is no torture going on at Guantanamo, I believe that the rights of those prisoners are being violated simply by holding them without right of appeal or the protection of relevant treaties.
The disanalogy with the Nazis, and the reason that Durbin shouldn't have made the comment, is that it seems quite possible for a rational person with certain sentiments about America's worth and the danger facing our country to believe that what's going on at Guantanamo is morally OK. (I still think these people are making a moral mistake, but that doesn't mean they're immoral people.) By contrast, I don't think any German could rationally have agreed with concentration camps.
quote:Criticize at a time of war? As long as you’re not hampering the war effort, go for it. The time for debate about the war is till you go to war. Then it’s all about the mission.
This point of view is nonsensical for many reasons. Surely there will be many decisions made about policy even after a war has begun -- for example, Truman's decisions about whether to nuke Japan in WW2, and later whether to nuke China in the Korean War. How should public discourse about these sorts of decisions proceed? If it's all about the mission, it sounds like the public (and even the US Congress, apparently) should be left out of the loop.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
There’s a difference between discussion and being harmful. Durban’s remarks are harmful.
I’m speechless and in shock of the defense of Nazi’s. I know history keeps getting rewritten all the time by the educators, but this one really is out there. Oh well. I don’t plan to comment or debate it since it’ll speak for itself on its own.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I like how the links to the Milgram experimant and Stanford Prison Experiment are largely ignored. People SO don't want to acknowledge the ugly tendencies inherent in people , including in American citizens and soldiers.
Milgram's original plan was to do the experiment in America and then do it again in Germany to show that the Germans were morally weak, It never got to Germany because the results in America were so distressing.
*Edit spelling and typos
[ June 17, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: mimsies ]
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
HMM, poor choie of words. I don't "LIKE" it... that was ironic. I guess it would be better to say I am struck by how the links are largely ignored
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jay: So since terrorists also sieze on our denials of doing bad things as reasons to attack us, does this mean its treasonous to make those sorts of denials?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: There’s a difference between discussion and being harmful. Durban’s remarks are harmful.
How are they harmful? By pointing out the truth? Pointing out what's going on? Or is it better for these few bad apples to keep ruining the reputation of our whole country and the whole armed forces? Exposing these people who are torturing prisoners does not count as treason and give aid to the enemy. But, letting it go unnoticed does!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering, if you went to Iraq and asked insurgents why they joined up, how many would say "Why, I heard that American Senator talk about Nazis at Guantanamo and I signed right up!"
Somehow I'm doubting the answer is that high. And, by the way, if that is your criteria for treason and execution, you'd have to execute Bush, Cheney and Rice along with him, because their actions have done more harm to the cause than Durbin has, regardless of anything good they may have done. Acts of good do not erase acts of wrong.
As for the average KKK/Nazi being a murderer, this is ridiculous. The average Nazi had little to no real knowledge of what was going on in the camps. The average KKK member during the height of the KKK was your average house wife or husband going off to work and bringing home the the bacon to his family. To call all of them murderers is as ridiculous as me calling all Republicans Bible thumpers who want to replace the constitution with the 10 commandments.
As for the time to end debate on a war. I don't think a limit should be placed on it. Give the men the support they need so they aren't in harm's way while doing it, but a war should be constantly questioned. Vigilance in the quest for right will almost always bring more good than harm, silence for the sake of unity will almost always bring more harm than good.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
"Vigilance, constant VIGILANCE!"
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: There are good, dedicated Americans serving us in Guantanamo.
There have been good, dedicated servicemen on every side in every war ever fought. The most terrible thing about war is that it convinces good, dedicated people to do terrible, depraved things.
Usually before those terrible, depraved things can be done to you.
You may not live by the sword, but you can still die by it.
-Trevor
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So we're back to that weak and pathetic conservative argument that criticizing administration policies before or during war is un-American, or as you say Jay, treason?
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Criticize at a time of war? As long as you’re not hampering the war effort, go for it. The time for debate about the war is till you go to war. Then it’s all about the mission. Durbin could have said this stuff without making it into a circus, he wanted the publicity and this isn’t the publicity we need. All he has done is aide the enemy here. Giving aide to the enemy is treason.
Is calling people traitors any less inflammatory than calling them Nazis?
Apparently, we're supposed to fight to bring democracy abroad, while sacrificing our freedom of speech here at home. Not much of an example for Iraqi constitution writers. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You may not live by the sword, but you can still die by it.
The trick as I see it is to arrange matters so it's not necessary to torture your neighbors to keep them from killing you.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Edit: Tom -
As I recall, and perhaps incorrectly, but aren't you morally opposed to taking life in any form?
Sorry, meaningless question.
-Trevor
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, so this is why the religious flamewar in the other thread petered out. Fickle and unreliable, the lot of you. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jay, I'd like to establish something here.
If my elected leaders do something I feel is wrong, especially when there may be evidence proving them wrong, I have a commitment to demand an explanation. If they refuse to examine the evidence or allow anyone else to examine it, I have a right to demand their removal. If my elected leaders embark on a program that seems, to me, to be dangerous and foolhardy, it is my obligation to speak out.
This is called being an American. Interestingly enough, there are quite a few of them around, and not all of them automatically believe every word that comes out of the White House, no matter who's curently sitting inside.
I'm interested in arguments and proofs and examinations of evidence, and I'd like to hear about anything that corroborates or disproves information set forth by people like Durbin. Attack his facts, explain his questions, answer his accusations with reason and I'll thank you.
But do not impugn his loyalty to his country, for he asks the same questions I would in his place.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Fungu – huh? Synesthesia – What Durban did is certainly harmful since it a lie that we are like Nazis. This will be used to encourage terrorists and harm our troops and citizens. Lyrhawn – it’ll certainly be added to the propaganda tape! Morbo – The treason was the Nazi gulag thing that can be used against use. Criticize all you want, but don’t do something this dumb that can be used against us. Adam – (no comment) Chris – I do impugn his loyalty when he puts troops at risk.
I really am surprised at the defense of the indefensible, been fun
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jay, take a look at what you wrote right after: you're arguing that anything which can be used against us is treason to say. Saying we're a country where women can do what they want is used against us among many fundamentalist terrorists; should people be prevented from saying that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oooh, or even better:
Bush's Axis of Evil comment was definitely used against us, to an extreme extent. Was it treasonous?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, it's probably because I don't think it's indefensible.
If some of our troops are committing acts that we abhor in others, it needs to be stopped. This administration doesn't seem to listen to claims of these actions. When they do address it, they are dismissive.
By placing these prisoners outside of the bounds of the Geneva Convention, by refusing to allow due process, by denying them any legal identity at all, by suggesting to the world that this is how we treat our prisoners of war, this adminstration is placing our troops at risk a hell of a lot more than a single Senator's speech. We are saying that the Geneva Convention doesn't matter any more, not if it gets in our way, and if any of our troops are captured we'll just have to hope it's by a country with higher ideals than our own.
I would like to hear the administration's position -- or yours, for that matter -- on that point. I won't, though, all I'll hear for the next few weeks is how this guy called them Nazis, because it's so much easier to take offense at that instead of defending the indefensible.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Nothing is indefensible.
If the Emperor doesn't want people to announce he's not wearing clothes, he should have passed out the memo earlier.
And considering our much-vaunted, alleged moral high ground, it doesn't seem inappropriate to question acts that seem contrary to everything one claims this country stands for.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Durbin's words are not putting our troops at risk! If there's anything that has done this is Bush's ill-executed, ill thought out war! Invading Iraq under such weak pretences was like stirring up a hornets nests. Besides, how the hell do you think the Nazis began? Small things like limited the rights of the Jews while convincing people that the Jews were threatening their way of life. Before long, concentration camps are set up, all because people who knew what was going on said nothing!
Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
because i'm interested, Synesthesia, do you think Bush should be president, and if not, who else. Also, what would YOU have done in his place eh? ~Total Curiosity~
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No. He should not. If he really deceived the public, fabricated evidence and planned to attack Iraq even before 9/11, he should be impeached and jailed. If Iraq had actually been a clear threat, perhaps I would not be so strongly against this war. In the president's place I would have never taken the focus off of Bin Laden and would have used international cooperation against terrorism instead of creating an ideal environment for new terrorists to be born. Just about every step of that war has been wrong, from the beginning. IF there were weapons of mass destruction, they would have been lost in the chaos of that first strike.
Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
But who should take his place. That was my main Question. A different Republican, w/ or w/o Dick, or KERRY?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
None of them. We need someone entirely different. Someone who isn't linked with Bush, Clinton or any of those people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ever notice how these newbies always come in pairs? Eyetell and Dink deserve each other. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Amen to that Adam.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I cannot believe it was one of my senators that spouted this crap. Why do they let Chicago and East St. Louis vote with the rest of the State?
I cannot believe 100 degrees is much of test to anyone, let alone anyone from here, I was out in 115 yesterday digging for weapon caches in full body armor and helmet, no hair pulling.
Any wrestler knows you train at over 100 degrees and sauna at much higher temps. Heck 100 is some peoples body temp!
Now I admit the rap music was cruel.
What it comes to is the whole irony of Cruel and Unusual taken to its logical end, all punishment, all incarceration must by definition be unusual and where cruel means uncomfortable to some degree and therefore a thing to be avoided, it must be that as well.
However where cruel means intentionally vicious out of malice, well that is to be avoided. We do not want discomfort inflicted because someone is a sadist, we want it inflicted to achieve an end, teach a lesson or obtain greater cooperation. I do not hear that they are dragging bodies out every day or even every week, so I suspect there are much worse prisons today. Places where rape and starvation and brutal punishment are just part of the routine.
Therefore this is just part of the Badwagon of America bashing that the media pushes and should be lumped in with the rest. We will keep driving even with idiots trying to stand on the brakes.
BC
Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
Now may I ask, Tom Davison, what classifies me as newbie? And i prefer not to be paired to anyone either. Just ask King of Men
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think he might have been thinking about things like this:
To quote today's financial times (the article about the ICRC),
quote:Prisoners were revealed to have been stripped to their underwear, manacled hand and foot to a chair bolted to the ground, while strobe lights flashed and loud rap and rock music was played through speakers close to their ears.
It doesn't sound so innocuous with all the details. Personally, I sort of have to wonder what the point was. And that there are worse places, even in the US, is not an excuse, its a failure.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're a newbie as long as you have a problem comprehending the basic differences between Judaism and Christianity, and possibly longer.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
My friends dragged me off to a dance club once. It had strobe lights and loud music. I was a complete wreck after an hour or so. Depending on how loud "loud" is, I could see where that is torture. If it causes permanent hearing loss, it's wrong.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, since I can't get an answer as to why ignoring the Geneva Convention isn't dangerous because of how our own troops will be treated when they get captured, I'll try another one.
What, exactly, do US troops have to do before criticizing their actions isn't considered treasonous? Is there a line they can't cross? Or do they have total freedom to do anything they can think of (or are ordered to do), no matter how heinous or reprehensible we find those actions when other countries do them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's a bit ridiculous for people to say "I listen to rap music all the time, it's not torture" or "It's hot in Texas, that's where I love, that isn't torture."
Until you actually live through whatever they live through, day after day, against your will, with no reprieve, and possibly fear of death, I don't think anyone has any room to talk. I've been outside all day in 100 degree heat, I certainly didn't like it, and as I was dehydrated, I almost fainted from heat stroke. It's not something I would care to repeat, especially every day of the week. Or to have the other extreme of cold with little clothing, shackled to the cement ground.
I say put up or shut up. If you've been through it, fine, talk about it. If you haven't stop pretending you know what it's like.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is this true? Is this is what's really going on? This is how it starts. It starts with a disregard for people's rights, which turns into people being tormented and tortured, and a majority of people saying, "They deserve it. They are {insert terrorist, a different race, a threat here}" Our president is leading us down a path of destruction I don't want to go down. This war, detaining these people, it's all wrong...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I did like McCain, but its too bad he seems to have gotten pretty wonky -- federally mandated sports steroid testing?!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.
Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."
He singled out the victims of the Holocaust, which Durbin called "the greatest moral tragedy of our time," as well as U.S. troops.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What a shameful apology. I could have lived with the gentle Godwining; the crocodile tears and mea culpas are just pathetic.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote: Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.
Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."
He singled out the victims of the Holocaust, which Durbin called "the greatest moral tragedy of our time," as well as U.S. troops.
I posted a link from Yahoo in my post up there. Democrats can be such... wimps sometimes. Perhaps Nazi was a bit strong, but, as I said up there, this is how it begins. Eroding someone's rights because they are "Terror suspects" or a threat or whatever. But, really you become no better than your enemy you claim to want to fight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm deeply disappointed in Durbin for knuckling under. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm deeply disappointed in Durbin for knuckling under.
I know. How the hell is anything supposed to change? Right now the Republican party is like a bunch of Rotteweillers and the Democrats are yapping little poodles that put their tails between their legs with the slightest little growl. They should be calling the Republican party on their wrong doings. The Republicans would do the same to the Democrats. Like back in the days of Clinton. All they could do is attack the slightest things he did. Now we have someone even worse than Clinton was. Someone who manipulates the public with false patriatism and piety, and what to the Democrats do? Instead of calling him on it, they wimp out. And this country ends up losing its honour as a result. I hate politicians.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In the president's place I would have never taken the focus off of Bin Laden...
America is capable of doing more than one thing at a time, Syn. Holding press conferences reiterating how we're focused on OBL does not mean we will apprehend him any sooner.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, that he's become a lower priority (as the President has said he has become) does mean we'll apprehend him much less sooner than if he were a higher priority, most likely.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
He apologized? Looked to me he said he was sorry if he offended anyone. I never heard him say that anything he said was wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How many resources can you spend hunting someone before you encounter diminishing returns, fugu?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that no one here is in a position to suggest that Bush will never or much later capture OBL because of a change in priorities.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He apologized for using language that offended people. He had no reason to apologize for being wrong about the facts he described or the outrage he felt.
[ June 22, 2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
From what I recall from actually hearing his "apology," he spent most of his time apologizing to the people who suffered through the Holocaust for having brought up the analogy in the first place. He didn't apologize for applying his analogy to the troops tortuting the "enemy combattants" in Gitmo.
I know I'm late in signing in to this thread, but I also want to say:
I'm Jewish, and I also believe that the average Nazi soldier was not a monster. Sure, the closer you get to the concentration camps, and the higher up you get in the chain of command; monster, monster, and more monster.
(Upon second reading, that sounds almost like a light-hearted sentence. It's not. I could recount--not from my family's experience, thank goodness--just how monstrous it was, and how monstrous some of the people were, but that's not the point on this thread. The point of this thread, I thought, was to realize the darkness hiding inside of most every human being, while at the same time trying to understand that dehumanizing "the enemy" is a sure way to let such darkness out.)
But the "Average Klaus" out in the field--probably fighting the best way he could, just like our guys. Of course, the more his chain of command lets him know that it's OK to act cruelly towards his enemy...well, we're back to the Stamford Experiment again, aren't we?
I seem to recall, when the whole Gitmo thing first came out, that people were starting to look up the chain of command, and were being met with a stone wall of "Nope! Nothing to see here!" And then (at least as far as I can tell), we stopped worying about who was pulling the strings, and just continued prosecuting the grunts.
[ June 22, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I think Democrats need to learn more about selling things (ideas in particular) and teaching. He only need lead the people to his point and let off before actually saying it. He could have said, "I have read about a certain country that has demonstrated how it treats it's prisoners, prioners who have yet to be convicted of anything. These people were chained to the floor for days, left to sit and lie in their own feces and urine, forced to endure extremes in temperature and so on. What nations come to mind when you think of such treatment? Add the United States to that list. Our sons and daughters are being ordered to act in a way that we would call foul and indecent..." And so on and so on. Put the responsibilty where it needs to be, in the laps of people making decisions. Point out that the victims are not only those people accused (not proven) of crimes but also the people ordered to be indecent. The Hitler analogy is a loaded one, that is for sure. But one thing is true of all those nasty leaders, their hands were clean. Hitler didn't turn on the gas chamber. Saudi royalty doesn't cut the heads off people and in this day and age, Cheney and Bush aren't chaining people to floors. We unintentially demonize our own citizen soldiers by condemning the acts and those that perpetuate them, not those that order or fail to stop them. It riles those that have those yellow ribbons on their SUV's and makes the discussion all but impossible to continue.
Durbin was stupid to say Nazi and even more silly for backing off of it like an whipped puppy.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Why was Trent Lott forced to apologize 5 times to quell a frenzy of Democrat-led criticism? Wasn't he forced to resign? Wasn't he just expressing his opinion? I believe that there is a better way to investigate alleged wrongdoings by US troops than to compare them with the actions in Soviet gulags. Durbin has that responsibility as an elected official not to give propoganda to the enemy. He could have demanded an investigation into the allegations, or he could lead an investigation to Cuba and see for himself what is going on, rather than making comparisions between Gitmo and Gulags. Then again, Democrats are using the Vietnam playbook to try and hurt the Republicans any way they can.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why was Trent Lott forced to apologize 5 times to quell a frenzy of Democrat-led criticism? Wasn't he forced to resign? Wasn't he just expressing his opinion?"
The difference here was that his opinion as most people (rightly or wrongly) understood it was that the South was better under Jim Crow.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Oh, so then there is no difference as most people (rightly or wrongly) understood it was that Durbin was calling our prison camps gulags or deathcamps.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Those demands have been made, for years now. Requests for investigations have been made. When those requests are consistently ignored or dismissed, how should someone go about trying to get them to happen?
Not being snarky, I'd like to know.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, he never called them that. He said that pictures of certain things done there would make american citizens think of those places.
Also, its rather different to say you see something morally wrong that you want to fix (even if you're incorrect) than to say that it would be better if we were doing something morally wrong.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think we have done investigations? Durbin just has to start calling for one, and it will happen. He could fly to Gitmo if he wanted to and see for himself
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There have been some investigations into specific allegations, but I know of no investigation as to whether the benefits of guantanamo outweigh the incredible PR costs to keeping it open, which is what he called for, and which could only be done by a bipartisan group with decent influence on the actual decision (that is, a congressionally appointed committee/panel).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"When the goal of the Bush administration is the destruction of America"
For what conceivable purpose would the Bush adminstration want to destroy America? So I, as a Republican, want to destroy America?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So we should just release all of the detainees and shut down Gitmo? So the plan for any enemy combatant captured should be make any claim you want against the US, and you will be able to get them to release you, and close down that prison. I wonder how well the hostages, or I guess they should really be called detainees, are being treated? Shouldn't we be calling on them to release the hostages because they are not following the Geneva Convention?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suppose it depends whether America, to you, is the country or the ideals of that country. I suppose one could make the argument -- flawed as it is -- that the Bush Administration wants to destroy what makes American special (in Adam's opinion) without destroying the country itself. But since it would cease to be "America" by that point, you could argue that the distinction is irrelevant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We have other places to put "enemy combatants", including within the US -- where, conveniently, they would immediately gain many rights.
I think it a general rule, at least for myself, that the rights I give somebody should not depend on their current location when I control their location.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and we do call for them to release hostages, strangely.
You have a particular gift for hyperbole; you might find your arguments might improve if you checked your notion of what other people are saying more closely against what they are saying.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
adam613, you clearly stated that the Bush administration wants to destroy America. You stated that is their goal. Now you are saying something completely different. You believe that they haven't done anything in the past 3 years that didn't furthur the goal of the destruction of America, and that is your belief. My belief is that bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East will ensure our long term safety and security in America and in the world. So if you were a Congressperson, and stated "When the goal of the Bush administration is the destruction of America, and the Republicans are backing up the Bush administration, hurting the Republicans in any way they can is a worthy goal from the standpoint of Americans" I think you can see why you would be blasted with outrage from Republicans, which is why Durbin is being blasted. Durbin has a right to express his beliefs, as we all do, and we have a right to express our beliefs about his beliefs, and on and on
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We do not send the Red Cross in to make sure the detainees held by the enemy are being treated fairly, I wonder why?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We do not send the Red Cross in to make sure the detainees held by the enemy are being treated fairly, I wonder why?
So your defense of our behavior is that our enemy is worse?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
No, I did not say that at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Democrats have gotten so used to being beaten over the last four years, they are afraid to be themselves for fear of losing even more ground to the Republicans.
They need to get in touch with their base, and realize that they do have supporters out there. If anything, I think they fear for job security, they don't want to get beaten in the mid terms by Republicans coming at them with a more mainstream position.
As far as I'm concerned, if they need to hide their liberalism, they aren't very good liberals. They should be vocal, unapologetically vocal. At least that way they'll have no regrets, and the Republicans might find themselves on their heels for once, rather than on the attack always.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes. They need to be as strong and tough as the Republicans, not become mini-Republicans. That's why you have a two party system! For balance!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ours is not the Red Cross to send, so I'm not at all surprised we don't send them. They go where they will (and others will let them), being their own organization.
You maintain you typically do your fact checking. Prove it by not saying silly things like that we can send the red cross somewhere.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe that the current administration honestly wants to help America become strong and morally right, and to help lead the world into a more democratic place.
I also believe they're going about it in an amazingly short-sighted, self-centered manner that ignores the concerns of the rest of the world and many of their own constituents.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm more cynical. Their economic policies suggest selfishness and caring about their own interests and angrandizement. But, I am bitter that way.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
The only reason why I'm skeptical about some of the reports coming out of Gitmo -- and why, to a certain extent, I don't necessarily think that everything we're doing there is bad -- is that Al Qaeda manuels actually instruct imprisoned Al Qaeda to immediately report that they were tortured when they are released. I don't know that we can trust the U.S. government accounts, but I also don't know that we can trust the released detainees who claim such torture took place.
Of course, what is actually logged/witnessed is another story. I'm talking about reports of forced sodomy and other, nastier things that have been reported by former prisoners.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), and leave out the main thrust of Durbin's point, that torture on enemy combatants could affect how our troops are treated when they become POWs behind enemy lines. ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)