Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Jimmy Carter: Guantanamo ‘is a disgrace to the USA‘“

…Not that it matters, of course.  Carter’s just a fringe element of the Democratic party anyway, and besides—who listens to ex-Presidents? 

And do you honestly believe terrorists don’t have more important things to do than pay attention to the partisan sniping of grandstanding western politicos?  There are nail bombs to make, and buses and subway cars to blow up.

As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not!  Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won.  After all, aiding the enemy in their propaganda war IS the highest form of patriotism, and nothing says “I love my country” more than “I love my country provided its run by people like me; otherwise, I don’t really much like it at all—or rather, I like it, I just don’t like all the stupid rubes who keep ruining it by voting for evil assholes.”

From aljazeera.COM:

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Saturday blasted the U.S. detention center in Cuba, saying that Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment to the United States.

Carter was speaking at the Baptist World Alliance’s centenary conference in Birmingham, central England, where he also criticised the current American President’s decision to invade Iraq, describing the war as “unnecessary and unjust.”

“I think what’s going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the USA,” he told a news conference, adding that it was “the cause of terrorism.”

Carter went on to say that Gitmo “has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts”—a statement that, robbed of context, is certainly factually correct (after all, as the Times Online pointed out last week, London bomber Shehzad Tanweer cited it as a reason for his turn to jihad), but one that is nonetheless repulsive for being “true,” in that Carter is not only describing terrorist reaction, he is implicitly validating it by explicitly corroborating its claims.  So when the Moderate Voice argues that “It’s a separate issue as to whether the perception is correct,” and that “Guantanamo […] has become a public relations disaster for the U.S.,” the editors miss the obvious point, which is that pronouncements like Carter’s are what created the public relations disaster in the first place.

Rhetoric matters.  And no amount of defensive sneering will change that fact.

So, for my part, I’m going to continue saying so—in the most direct terms possible—until self-loathing terror apologists like Jimmy Carter are shamed into deferring their own self-righteous ego masturbations for the sake of waging war against those who truly do wish to destroy us.

****

Other thoughts from Betsy Newmark, Captain Ed, and Slant Point.

And see this related piece on the rhetorical biases of a holed-up press corp, compliments of Michael Fumento, via Faces from the Front (h/t Instapundit)

****

update:  additional commentary from Jawa Report/ OpiniPundit, Left Noose, A Goy and his Blog, Jonathan and Wanda Rantings, sand Macsmind.

100 Replies to ““Jimmy Carter: Guantanamo ‘is a disgrace to the USA‘“”

  1. B Moe says:

    It has become obvious to me that the Democrats want to regain power more than anything else in the world.  If Bush policies failing mean they look good and regain power, they are for it.  They want the rebuilding of Iraq to fail, they want the US to lose, and they want to embarass the military and make it look bad whenever possible.  This goes beyond rhetoric, it is truly starting to become treasonous in my eyes.

  2. CraigC says:

    As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not!  Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won.  After all, aiding the enemy in their propaganda war IS the highest form of patriotism, and nothing says “I love my country” more than “I love my country provided its run by people like me; otherwise, I don’t really much like it at all—or rather, I like it, I just don’t like all the stupid rubes who keep ruining it by voting for evil assholes.”

    That was really the only graf you needed, Jeff.  That says it about as succicntly as it can be said.

  3. Matt Moore says:

    CHERRYPICKER!

  4. norbizness says:

    And now, for my ego masturbation:

    Once again, the bombers in Britain did not magically discover Guantanamo last month when Durbin made his floor speech. Released detainees returned to Britain have been making abuse allegations for about a year now. Further, the very idea of a indefinite detention facility outside of all review is pretty much a public relations disaster in most parts of the world (whether one agrees whether it should be). Therefore, I’m a little dubious of the italicized proposition that Jimmy Carter created this PR disaster.

    I, for one, do not like what Guantanamo represents, I question its strategic importance and validity apart from abuse allegations, and I think that, in combination with the Bagram, Abu Gharib, and extraordinary rendition, it represents a huge long-term negative in any war/struggle against Islamic terrorism.

    P.S. I’m wondering how describing the terrorists’ activities “despicable acts” fits into any recognizable form of apologeia.

  5. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Well, you’re reading me too literally, norb.  Either that, or I was unclear.  What I meant in the italicized bit you cite was that pronouncements of the kind Carter made have an impact on the PR—not that these specific comments are responsible for a pre-existing grievance. 

    And I take you’re point that a detention facility for terrorists run by the military has PR disadvantages to begin with; but that doesn’t mean that the subsequent presentation of that facility in the media, or in the speeches of elected officials, can’t make the perception either better or worse.  I’d say we’ve gone HARD to the “worse” side—often for cheap grace and/or partisan gain, and often in advance of the facts or in direct opposition to the facts.

    Re:  “how describing the terrorists’ activities ‘despicable acts’ fits into any recognizable form of apologeia.”

    It is my contention that Carter’s description of the activities as despicable acts are at best perfunctory and at worse calculated to give him the necessary wiggle room to get away with what was the point of his entire tirade—which talked about the “impetus” US actions have given to terrorists.  And with Carter, the terror aplolgeia is hardly limited to today’s battles:  his legitization of Yasser Arafat and his consistent water carrying for Fidel Castro and others are, in my mind, additional examples of Carter’s ubiquitous willingness to support the worst of the world’s tyrants, provided they’re charismatic and carry with them the cache of “revolutionary.”

  6. norbizness says:

    Just briefly, and I’ll step aside.

    (1) Carter specifically called for Gitmo to be closed down before the London bombings, while at the same disagreeing with Amnesty’s loaded and inaccurate terminology;

    (2) To amplify a previous point, if you have British Muslim detainees released for a year and who have been making allegations in the British press that they themselves received and/or witnessed abuse, I don’t think that an internal military investigation, with or without Democrats’ pronouncements, will make a fart’s worth of difference.

  7. The ghost of FDR says:

    Christ, Carter, just shut up in fucking public, will you? Say what you like in private, but don’t keep doing this shit – it’s not helping.

  8. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I don’t know if we crossposted there or not, norb.

    So briefly:

    (1) The problem has been that Carter has been calling for Gitmo to be shut down—this, even though only 3 violations were noted in over 1000 interrogations. So Carter, in continuing his criticisms in the wake of the investigation, is implicitly saying he trusts the detainees trained to make allegations of abuse over the investigators who looked into the allegations.  That, to me, is a clear position.

    (2) Probably not. But the propaganda war is not aimed only at terrorists; it’s aimed at weakening the will of allies, putting supporters on the defensive, etc.  And as I’ve argued before, recruitment is aided by being able to point to the pronouncements of a former US president, even if that aid is only minor.  The harm outweighs the benefit.

  9. Hal says:

    Um it isn’t the fact that it’s a “detention facility for terrorists run by the military” that is the PR disaster.  It’s the fact that the administration – and people like you – who believe it falls outside of all review.  It’s the fact that we had to define torture down to meet your assertions.  It’s the fact that we had to retract this definition down because when discovered the stench of it was smelled around the world.  It’s because there has been no independent review of Gitmo and any internal review is worthless.

    Your reaction is to simply discredit and tear down anyone who has anything critical to say about what’s going on.  In your world, even questioning whether torture has happened is tantamount to supporting torture.  You savage anyone who dares to think that something ugly is going on.

    You define torture down, pile on a heaping helping of ends justifies the means, and top it off with literally accusing people of supporting terrorism because they are speaking out based on their convictions.

    It’s just mean and nasty.  It’s not serious discussion.

  10. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Your reaction is to simply discredit and tear down anyone who has anything critical to say about what’s going on.  In your world, even questioning whether torture has happened is tantamount to supporting torture.  You savage anyone who dares to think that something ugly is going on.

    Uh, okay.  Except that that’s NOT WHAT I’VE DONE.

    First, I’ve NOT attacked “anyone who has anything critical to say.” I’ve attacked a former president who, on foreign soil, is calling for the shutting down of a terrorist detention center based on allegations that have been investigated and found to be false.  What’s worse, he offers no alternative.  He offers nothing by constant hyperbolic criticisms.  What would he have us do with these jihadists who are dedicated to killing us?  We don’t know.  We just know that holding them is an embarrassment to the US.

    And I don’t accuse just anybody of “literally” supporting terrorism; I accuse a man who has spent his public life doing everything he can to legitimize the grievances of terrorists, from Arafat to Castro. That you can’t make that distinction is not my problem.  That you can, but you refuse to, is your problem.

    If you want serious discussion, address the post. Stop insisting that I’m painting everyone with the same brush, then getting outraged over that particular straw man.

  11. Sean M. says:

    HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THEIR…aw, fuck it.  I guess you’ve gotta pick your battles.

  12. Hal says:

    Again, an internal investigation by the foxes of the chicken house clearing the foxes isn’t good enough.  That’s just my standards.  Has been that way for everything as I believe in REAL audits.  So your assertions of false are just that – assertions.

    And can we stop it with the “on foreign soil” bit?  This is just silly.  It’s never been operative, both sides have consistently and repeatedly ignored this.

    As to “no alternatives”, this is completely false.  Nice false dilemma you have there, sonny.  Criminal prosecutions, military courts, heck even the Geneva conventions have plenty of alternatives to an extra constitutional detention center on foreign soil – love that last bit.

    You’re claiming the critics are saying we can’t hold the jihadists.  False, false, false, false, false.  We’re just saying you can’t

    a) torture them.

    b) hold them without following the law

    It’s only you who are injecting the false dilemma here.  Not Carter.  Not anyone else.  Just you.

  13. TerryH says:

    Released detainees returned to Britain have been making abuse allegations for about a year now.

    Yes, released detainees were only too happy to pick up the false narrative, and spin it even more since it served their purpose so well.

    But, it is still a bullshit narrative that has been hyped way out of proportion.

  14. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    Let’s just go back and look at who these people are that are being held at Gitmo. We invaded their country without a declaration of war, so they are not POW’s.  So is this another police action on foreign soil?  I don’t recall the Taliban asking us for assistance.  If this is a police action, we got’m then we need to apply our laws to them.  Hiding them at a military base in a foreign country does not negate the rule of law in this country.

    I hope your very happy with the way the present administration circumvents the law of the land.

  15. norbizness says:

    How could the British detainees ‘pick up’ any narrative, false or not? As far as I can tell, their stories came out 11 months before either Durbin or Carter ever spoke out on the issue, and 10 months before the Amnesty report.

  16. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Get them out of Gitmo and turn them over to the new government and let them determine what they want to do with them.

  17. Jeff Goldstein says:

    See Hal—you’re resisting the “conservative” in conservatism.  I take seriously the long-standing tradition of not bad mouthing your country’s war position on foreign soil, particularly if you are an ex-President, who tradition suggests should not be advocating against the position of his country in public anyway.

    And it’s pointless to argue with someone who won’t accept the legitimacy of investigations into abuses but who will take quite seriously the allegations of detainees who are taught specifically to make such allegations.

    And I said Carter offers no alternatives, NOT that there aren’t any (and you accuse me of creating the false dilemma).  I happen to believe that the alternatives you offer aren’t particularly fruitful and privilige process over results. For instance, what civil provisions do we have for charging jihadis who haven’t yet been able to act, but who WILL ACT (according to them) the moment they’re released?  How can our criminal justice system accomodate the need to keep intelligence sources secret when disclosure rules require the information be shared with opposing counsel?  These are serious questions, and we need to grapple with them. Simply condemning what we’re doing in order to burnish your own human rights cred is not a serious response.  It’s an expedient and comfortable response.

    I’m a supporter of military tribunals, but again—what do we charge these people with?  They are prisoners of war, but they are part of no organized army.  They are not entitled to Geneva convention status, because those protocols were designed specifically to protect against what terrorists are.

    Your two assertions, a) and b), both beg the question.  I’m agreeing that we can’t torture jihadists (though I’m open to having a public debate on that issue); but what I’m saying is that we have not tortured them, so repeating the claim is counterproductive.  And what law are we breaking, exactly, in holding these terrorists?  The courts are deciding these questions, and I will support their conclusions.  But this is a new kind of war, so these questions are tricky ones.

  18. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    Your mixing my post with the post of Hal.  Please don’t mix them up.  But if you want to mix them then, again, send these guys back to Afganistan and let their government decide what to do with them.  Not hold them forever, illegally forever under military rule.

    Again without a declaration of war this was a police action.

  19. Hal says:

    Right.  You take the symbolic act seriously, but the long standing bright line on what constitutes torture and constitutional law you throw by the way side when the ends justify it.  Nice to know which is more important to you.

    I don’t cherry pick my investigations.  The AI, the IRC, the FBI – lot’s of investigations have shown what everyone else on the planet considers to be torture.  We have one internal investigation which says that things didn’t rise to the level of what Yoo considers torture and you say it’s case closed.

    And I’m not sure how your parsing of Carter’s statement is even valid.  Sure, he’s offering no specific alternatives at the moment because he’s saying that Gitmo is an abomination.  Your defense here is truly bizarre. 

    Yes, simply condemning things that are affront to our basic principles as a nation is a serious response.  What isn’t serious is saying that it isn’t serious because he didn’t state the fact that there are plenty of alternatives.  It’s like claiming someone can’t condemn police brutality without outlaying alternatives to police brutality in the same sentence.  We already have plenty of alternatives.  Torture isn’t one of them.

    Oh, and didn’t you get the memo?  This is no longer a “war”, rather it’s now a struggle against violent extremism.

    We don’t need to invent any new concepts here.  All you’re doing is trying to invent new kind of excuses for inexcusable behavior.

  20. TerryH says:

    From Norb’s link:

    “I was left in a room and strobe lighting was put on and very loud music. It was a dance version of Eminem played repeatedly.”

    Damn.  Now that’s just plain mean.

    Makes blowing up civilians on the subway look like Disneyland.

  21. Jeff Goldstein says:

    What’s most important to me is how to protect ourselves against a non-state actor bent on killing as many civilians as possible in a world in which no one is ever more than 24 hours apart.

    There are hard questions to ask about this threat, Hal. You say I’m trying to invent new excuses for inexcusable behavior.  I say I’m trying to come to grips with a new kind of enemy whose strategy and techniques frustrate our previous clearly defined distinctions between dealing with those who’ve declared war on us but who act, in the abstract sense, more like criminals.

    Carter’s statement is an exemplum of the kind of rhetoric that undermines our efforts to combat an enemy whose entire strategy hinges on propaganda—from explosions that get news coverage to statements that exploit what bin Laden and his ilk this is our biggest weakness:  our collective will.  And if you don’t think its serious to point out the effects this statements are likely to have on public opinion here and abroad, then we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.  Because that’s the argument.

  22. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    The only inexcusable behavior here is the US invading Afganistan and not declaring war.  The people at Gitmo would be POW’s, but Dubya is smarter than that and wants to create new international law ie. “enemy combatent” where this administration can make its own law.  Rumsfeld knows as well as everybody elso that by the time the courts are done with it the “detainees” will have been in prison for 10 years.

    I’m not speaking for Pres. Carter but why not just send them back to Afganistan and let Karzai determine what he wants to do with them.

  23. peggy says:

    “I take seriously the long-standing tradition of not bad mouthing your country’s war position on foreign soil, particularly if you are an ex-President, who tradition suggests should not be advocating against the position of his country in public anyway.”

    Jeff, you’re the only ‘rightie’ I currently link to, because you are smart, a good writer, and I think you have a healthy sense of the surreal.

    That said, if ever there were a time in America for any and everyone (including ex-Presidents) to speak up and out, yea! publicly..man, it is surely now.  I admire Carter more than ever, so sue me.  Someone has to speak truth to power.

    I know, I know…you don’t see it that way. Try going to a funeral. You hear the most interesting things.

  24. B Moe says:

    Yeah, everybody knows how big the Muslim world is on due fuckin process.  I feel like I am living in Heinleins “Job” novel these days.  Every morning I read the paper to try to figure out what world I woke up in today.

    spam word “art”: as in I’m all out of it

  25. Hal says:

    I think their tactics frustrate our reactions because we’re thinking we can win this as we would a war.  bin Laden and Al Qaeda wouldn’t currently be a problem if this administration hadn’t taken its eye off the ball to go into Iraq.  The problem isn’t that we don’t have any effective strategies against these jokers, it’s that we aren’t using them.  Worse, we’re playing into their hands and creating more and more of them every day.

    I, as an individual, cannot declare war on the US.  And even if this was, indeed, something that was “new, novel and hard to deal with”, we have plenty of experience of dealing with these kind of people already – domestic terrorists in the form of militias have repeatedly declared “war” on the US and we deal with them as we’ve always dealt with criminals.

    And as to their propaganda strategy, it’s ludicrous to proclaim that it hinges on what Carter or Durbin say.  It depends on what we do.  And Yoo’s memo is far more damaging than anything Carter can say in your wildest wet dreams.  Abu Ghraib did far more to damage our reputation than anything any lefty liberal politician ever could.

  26. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Come on Jeff, respond.  I’d like to know why after 3 years why should these detainee’s not be charged with crimes or shipped back to his own country for appropriate judgement?  I’d like to know your thoughts, if you have any that might be outside the talking points of the Bush administrationl.

  27. corvan says:

    Englebert,

    Let me get this straight.  You were agitating for a declaration of war before military action in Afghanistan?  You support the action in Afghanistan and its goals?  You support the Karzai government?  I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from.

  28. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    The only inexcusable behavior here is the US invading Afganistan and not declaring war.  The people at Gitmo would be POW’s, but Dubya is smarter than that and wants to create new international law ie. “enemy combatent” where this administration can make its own law.  Rumsfeld knows as well as everybody elso that by the time the courts are done with it the “detainees” will have been in prison for 10 years.

    I’m not speaking for Pres. Carter but why not just send them back to Afganistan and let Karzai determine what he wants to do with them.

  29. I am not an animal!

  30. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    Where I’m coming from is that we holding not POW’s from Afganistan we are holding “enemy combatments” which is a label that has no rights under any court of law.  By using this label the administration is trying to creat new law.

    If this was a police action then detainees are entitled to our criminal justice system.  But this administration wants to make its own rules for these Taliban fighters, who were defending their own country.

    If some country invaded the US., then I would kill as many of them as I posible could.  What is the difference?

    Turn these men over to Karzai and let him and his gov’t determine their future

  31. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Englebert —

    Are you saying we shouldn’t try to adjust our strategies to meet new threats?  Wasn’t the Civil Rights Act, for instance, “new law”?

    Hal —

    Debate ends when someone equates al Qaeda and its supporters with US militias. 

    And ask yourself: why do we allow Abu Ghraib to hurt our reputation?  I submit that had we pulled together and presented that as an indication of our willingness to investigate our own – beginning internally—and then prosecute wrongdoers and admit to our mistakes, it would have reflected well on us.  Instead, it’s been used as a partisan wedge, and has turned into a PR boon for the terrorists.

  32. corvan says:

    Englebert,

    You didn’t answer my questions.  Would you have supported a declaration of war in Afghanistan?  Do you support the American military presence there and its goals?  Do you support the Karzai government?  While I’m at it, I’ll throw in one more.  Are you truly drawing a parallell between yourself and Taliban fighters?

  33. Hal says:

    Right, the debate ends when you say it does – lovely technique.  Well, what do you call someone who has a sodium cyanide bomb, hundreds of explosives, half a million rounds of ammunition, scores of illegal weapons, and a burning desire to overthrow the US government?

    After all, he just had a real live chemical WMD and was planning to use it.  Nothing at all like a bunch of foreign terrorists trying to do the same thing.

    As to “why do we allow it to hurt our reputation”… That’s a nonsensical question.  We don’t “allow it”.  Our reputation isn’t something that we allow to get sullied or not.

    The reason it has turned into a PR boon for the terrorists is that the prosecutions are limited to the lowest levels, no officers have been prosecuted, and the whole thing has been an obvious white wash.  It’s only a partisan wedge because people like you keep on telling us it’s a partisan wedge and only Saddam coddling terrorist supporters would even bring the subject up.

  34. Hal says:

    Are you saying we shouldn’t try to adjust our strategies to meet new threats?  Wasn’t the Civil Rights Act, for instance, “new law”?

    No, it wasn’t.  It was just recognition that we’ve been doing things wrong in the past.  Treating people like equals isn’t a “new” concept.

    Part of what makes us different from the bad guys is that we have limits.  Limits that – apparently – you don’t think we should have.  And when that happens, it isn’t “adjusting” to meet new threats.  It’s giving up what makes us the good guys.

    It’s called “ends justifying the means”.

  35. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    Are you saying the Civil Rights act is unjustified, or are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was not passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President?

    Now, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

    The present law is that these people at Gitmo are criminals and deserve, under US law, a speedy trial.

  36. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Jesus, Hal. Where to begin?

    You’re right:  I’m not allowed to end the debate.  It must continue on as long as YOU want it to.  Somehow that’s a different technique.  And you’re right:  its “nonsensical” to think we might actively affect our own reputation by pushing back against the framing of events by those who oppose us.  After all, ontologically, reputations just are.  We can’t do anything to better them.  And finally, you’re right:  any proceeding in which the US investigates itself is de facto an unreliable white wash.  And because there were no upper level scapegoats, the prosecutions were unsatisfactory, the punishments meaningless, and our perfidy carved in stone. 

    Which, for someone who is constantly screaming for due process, you certainly have a hard time accepting the conclusions.

    And finally, domestic terrorists are citizens.  So it’s clear how to deal with them.  Whereas foreign fighters aided by foreign governments who maintain a deniability and are willing to use suicided attacks are a different problem.

  37. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Corvan,

    I’m sorry, I wrote the last missive to someone else before reading yours.

    I think the US should have declared war on Afganistan before we invaded.  I support the government of Karzia.  My question is why do we still have these guys incarcerated at Gitmo?  Ship them to Karzai and let him do what he and his courts want to do with them.

  38. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Are you saying the Civil Rights act is unjustified, or are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was not passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President?

    Huh?  No. I’m saying “new law” is not necessarily a bad thing.

  39. corvan says:

    Englebert,

    You still haven’t answered my questions.  Would you have supported a declaration of war in Afghanistan?  Do you support America’s presence there and its goals?  Do you support the Karzai government?  Were you drawing a parallel between yourself and Taliban fighters?

  40. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    Are you saying the Civil Rights act is unjustified, or are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was not passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President?

    Now, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

    The present law is that these people at Gitmo are criminals and deserve, under US law, a speedy trial.

    Please answer

  41. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I already did.  See above.  The rest of your response begs the question.  We are currently engaged in a series of legal battles to decide if present criminal law applies to the detainees at Gitmo.

  42. corvan says:

    Englebert,

    You only answered two questions.  There were four.  Do you support the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan?  Were you drawing a parallell between youself and Taliban fighters?

    Also, since you support the Karzai governement I assume you would support its prospective decisions regarding the interrogation and punishment of Taliban fighters?

  43. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Corvan,

    Yes, of course I would have supported a Declaration of War.  Yes I do support our goals in Afganistan.  I do support the Karzai government.

    You got to be kidding, I said that if a foreign country invaded the US, I will use all of my 7 firearms to kill those pricks as quickly and efficiently as I can.

  44. Hal says:

    You can end the debate Jeff, as by definition it takes two parties.

    As to your other points, yes.  I do find that an Administration which has already gone to extraordinary lengths to define down torture, reversed it under extreme embarrassment, uses extraordinary rendition to other countries for interrogations, and is currently fighting tooth and nail against wording in a law which would define a bright line as to what is acceptable interrogation tactics an administration that will white wash the very acts under discussion.

    As to due process, I’m not doubting the conclusions of due process.  I’m demanding an independent investigation where I can be assured that there is due process.

    Finally, I see no difference between foreign and domestic terrorists.  And our constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non citizens as far as the due process rights of the accused.

    But I guess you’d like to change all that.

  45. peggy says:

    “New laws” have often been good things, in our history, and are the best ones are borne of that good stew: social conscience + adherence to the ‘We the People’ thing + all kinds of other things that stir we’s the peoples’ minds, like truth (WMD? What, me Worry? Heck no, Let’s Take the Fight to Them Over There Before They…blah blah blah)

    “New Rules” should be the province of Bill Maher, not our government. 

    Gitmo seems to be all about ‘New Rules,’ -as defined by, well..no one. To quote Butch and Sundance, “Who are those guys?!”

    Damned if we the peeps know.

  46. corvan says:

    Englebert,

    You don’t answer all the questions.  You answer the parts of the questions you like.  Would you and your seven guns support Karzai’s regime in its decisions as to the punishment and questioning of Taliban fighters?  Do you support the American military presence in Afghanistan? 

    And by the way, what you seemed to be saying was that a Taliban fighter shooting at American soldiers in Afghanistan would be no different from you shooting at an invader here in the United States.  That isn’t a parallell?

  47. peggy says:

    man, did I not edit that. (pizza is cooking, Six Feet Under is coming up soon, and there you have it…that’s why the Republicans have already won). Plus, it’s thundering outside, and I can’t afford another motherboard, much less another motherf*cking unintentional argument on someone’s pretty decent blog.

    Hold the anchioves? Ok.

    Piece (as in ‘slice&#8217wink yo. Out.  Happy Sunday night.

  48. Jeff Goldstein says:

    “But I guess you’d like to change all that.”

    Of course.  It’s not that I think we might have to out necessity take a new look at how we deal with terrorists who are in league with foreign states; it’s that I want to change the established order that has served us so well under different circumstances…why, exactly?  For kicks?

    Sorry, but this administration has gone to extraordinary lengths in response to an extraordinary threat.  As to how our Constitution deals with the threat we’re dealing with now, that’s what all the court battles are about, so the question is by no means settled.  And frankly, tt would be silly for the Administration NOT to push the limits of its power to see just what exactly that power is.  Because from there it is easier to formulate a strategy for dealing with enemy combatants, who aren’t traditional prisoners of war and whose organizing structure is intended to exploit the criminal laws of liberal democracies.

  49. TomB says:

    Did someone actually say that if we had had a declaration of war against Afghanistan, the inmates at Gitmo would be POWs?

    You’re leaving out a few necessities, i.e. fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, proper commander, carry arms openly, conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war, etc.

  50. Engelbert Humperdick says:

    Jeff,

    You failed miseralbly in proving your point.  Please reprint to save some sort of dignity.

  51. TomB says:

    Jeff, you forget to close the door or something?

    What’s with all the wildlife?

    Heh. Turing word is “leave”.

  52. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about, Englebert. You said the President wants to make new law, and you implied that such was a bad thing.  I pointed out that new law is not necessarily bad—that in fact, new law is often necessary.  I gave as an example of new law the Civil Rights Act.

    I’ve been extremely civil in all this, despite writing the post and now answering a barrage of comments for the last several hours.  If your response to that is to begin talking about my dignity and the like, you can fuck off right here and now. 

    Understood?

  53. mojo says:

    Well, forthe record (what record? Oh, shut up…) I’ve got no problems torturing jihadis captured under arms. They’re very lucky the US is not one of the countries that would simply summarily execute the bastards as illegal combatants (like, say, Egypt or Syria, or Saddimist Iraq for that matter), so whatever they have to go through at Club Guantanamo is just dandy. Comes under the general heading of “tough shit”.

    They don’t wanna be there, we got a big desert to bury ‘em in.

  54. RTO Trainer says:

    Englebert,

    You don’t display a full grasp of the laws involved here.

    First, declaration of war is not required for the US to engage in hostilities.  This has been true since John Adams, our second Presidnet, a Founding Father, and an architect of the Constitution decided to engage in hostitilites with the French, without such declaration, on the high-seas in the Quasi-War.  Thomas Jefferson, our third President, a Founding Father and author of the Declaration of Independence, did likewise witht eh Barbary Coast Wars agains the Pirates of Algeria and Tripoli.  In fact, though ultimately it wasn’t done, Jefferson did authorize reigeme change and set about to replace the Dey of Algiers with his brother.

    Congress decided, after the Vietnam War, that the tensions between the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief to wage war, and their authority to declare and finance war were beig strained.  They passed the War Powers Resolution that sets specific rules for how these matters should be conducted.  I recommend looking it up.

    The point is, that by law and by precident, a formal declaration by Congress is not required.  In the specific instance fo the GWOT, you may wish to consider agains whom such a declaration would have been addressed.  We are, and were, not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq.  Rather we are at war with al-Qaeda and the administration of Saddam Hussein and those parties that had and have supported them.

    While you look up the War Powers Resolution, you should also check into the Second Geneva Convention which outlines how its signatories must treat POWs.  It also defines what a POW is.  Without quoting the Convention I’ll tell you that the persons detained in Afganistan and Iraq do not meet the requirements of the convention to be considered POWs.  Also, a declaration of war is not a consideration as to whether these defintions apply.

    Finaly, with regard to “charging” the detainees, these persons are battlefield captures subject to military authority, not criminals subject to criminal courts.  I might point out that if they were determined to be POWs as you desire, they would be held for the duration of the conflict.  That’s also in the Geneva Convention and it doesn’t seem to be what you have in mind.

    Don’t take my word for any of this though.  Please look it up for yourself.

  55. Hal says:

    So, this “in league with foreign states” thing.  What’s the problem of declaring war?  If you’re sure of the fact, then that’s an act of war.  No “new” laws or kinds of “war” required.  Just do it.

    And it’s not like we haven’t dealt with this before.  History is filled with foreign governments financing, training and supporting individuals who try to bring down other governments.  Just ask Oliver North.  Or heck, just ask Pinochet.

    I’m just stunned that you think this is a magical new problem that you just discovered.  It’s been going on for as long as there have been states.

    As to pushing the limits – no.  That’s why they are called “bright lines”.  You do not push the limits of torture.  That’s why we’re the good guys.

    The bad guys push the limits of torture.  The bad guys justify the means by the ends.

    The good guys don’t.

  56. TomB says:

    Hal, what “limits of torture” were pushed at Gitmo?

  57. Patrick says:

    Lord, I’m glad I was away from reasonable internet service this weekend so I didn’t have to watch this real-time.

    Hal, please introduce me to the “extraordinary lengths to define down torture”, as I have apparently missed it.  If you mean the Durbin-esque torturous extremes of temperature and music, don’t even bother to respond. 

    If you mean Abu Ghraib, please Google “abu ghraib court martial”, rather than responding.

    Let’s face it.  Hal won’t be satisfied by anything less than a grand inquisition held by Kofi at which time all of our sins shall be held high.

  58. Jeff Goldstein says:

    I don’t think this is a magical new problem; I think we’ve dealt with it poorly for many years now.

    Incidentally, the limits I was talking about pushing were legal limits.  Not the limits of torture.  I’m happy to have a discussion on what constitutes torture, though.

  59. mojo says:

    Good guys? Bad guys?

    The are no good guys and bad guys, Mr. Naive. There’s just a bunch of guys trying to kill each other.

    The prize for winning is you get to keep living.

    Period.

    So stuff your “bright lines”, huh?

  60. Hal says:

    I see the puppies of war have arrived.

    Well, I guess you could just go read Slate’s interactive guide to “what is torture”.  Or you could peruse the documents collected under the freedom of information act by the ACLU.  Or you could just read the JAG memos on the subject.

    Heck, you could just open the latest issue of Newsweek and read all about the just released memo about the FBI’s view that extraordinary rendition was against the law – not to mention reprehensible, unethical and contrary to the principles of our democracy.

  61. TomB says:

    No Hal, I don’t want links, I want you to spell out for us SPECIFICALLY what torture is going on at Gitmo.

  62. Hal says:

    Hmmm.  I don’t think I can say it any better than the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.  Why don’t you go read their viewpoint, as it’s actually relevant and interesting from an actual fact point of view.  I’m not sure what on earth it would add to have me spell out specifically what torture is going on in various places – not just Gitmo.

  63. TomB says:

    No Hal, you seem to have an extraordinarily high opinion of yourself, so go ahead and enlighten us. Tell us, in your OWN words, what “torture” is occurring at Gitmo.

  64. Patrick says:

    First, Hal, if you find some of Jeff’s regular readers unpalatable, I see nothing here keeping you from going back to the NPR version of the world.  Although, as sure as I am that you’re doing nothing more than leaving a flaming bag of dogshit and ringing the doorbell here, you won’t leave because you enjoy having your ramblings read by more than your five or so readers.

    As for your links, I appreciate them and I’m perusing them but don’t find much there that hasn’t been on the 10pm news.  You’re lumping in the idea of outsourcing interrogation by sending some of these fine folks off to be quizzed by people as ruthless as they are, with Camp Gitmo which is what the doddering old ex-President keeps mouthing about. 

    And the end of Isikof’s references exactly what “Engelbert” is advocating – sending the detainees back to their country of origin for disposition (and probable disposal.) Which I’m not sure I’m entirely against.

  65. Hal says:

    No, I just think that if you started acting this way to Jeff he’d slap you down.  Since you’re just acting this way to me, I’m sure it’ll be just fine.

    And no, I’m not confusing the two.  They’re both defined as torture – whether we do it or someone else does it.  And both are violations of the torture statute.

  66. wishbone says:

    Where to start…

    One would think that the man who admitted that he was surprised to learn he couldn’t trust the Soviets would have been discredited about everything by now.  And if you want the primary reason I became a Republican early in my political life re-read the previous sentence.

    Can someone please point to some conclusive PROOF about bad things happening at Guantanamo that outstrip, say, daily occurrences at Georgia state or federal penitentiaries while Jimmah was their respective chief?  Yes, let’s close Leavenworth now because it causes more criminals in Peoria, Mobile, or Juneau because the unlawful are upset about the activities there.  The Islamofascists are the primary source of evidence about “abuses” at Gitmo.  Sorry folks, loud Cristina Aguilera or infidel pinkies touching the Koran don’t count as abuse.  As I said in a comment a few days ago on this topic, if you do not have objective, verified proof of unrighted (key word) wrongdoing on the part of your countrymen during wartime and you take the side of the enemy in the absence of such proof—you have deserted your morals.

    Also, the Geneva Convention does not apply to these losers (read it).  Neither does US domestic law.  So, it come to Congress in our representative democracy to make law regarding their treatment, so please Dems, make that case to the American people for the 2006 elections.  I am sure such a suggestion would be warmly welcomed in the districts that are home to Camp Pendleton and Fort Bragg, for example.

    The mind reels at how vapid the left has become on this issue…

  67. docob says:

    Jeff,

    You failed miseralbly in proving your point.  Please reprint to save some sort of dignity.

    Man, it’s almost like rudeness and stupidity feed off each other.

  68. CraigC says:

    Violations of the torture statute?  This entire thread has been a neverending wrangle over legalistic mumbo jumbo and minutiae.  Hal, you and the rest of your friends are never satisfied.  You object to everything.  If I didn’t know better, I’d think maybe you’re just reflexively against everything America does.  But that can’t be true, can it, because then I’d be QUESTIONING YOUR PATRIOTISM.

    Let’s cut through the bullshit.  They want to kill us, and destroy our way of life.  They are not lawful combatants, according to your precious Geneva Convention.  They are entitled to nothing, NOTHING.  In fact, what they’re entitled to, and what would happen if we had an administration that cared about defending us, is summary execution.

    Your arguments amount to polishing the brass rails on the Titanic.  The ship is going down, but by God, those rails are sparkling clean.

  69. Buster says:

    Give the old bastard a hammer and a bib of nails and tell him to shut the fuck up, nobody wants to hear his crap.

  70. Matt Moore says:

    66 comments on a Sunday? Wow.

    “If you started acting this way to Jeff he’d slap you down.  Since you’re just acting this way to me, I’m sure it’ll be just fine.”

    Well, sure. It’s his blog. You’ve got one, too, so if you want your ass kissed post this shit over there.

    I find it telling that Hal almost immediately showed that he’d misread a comment. “And can we stop it with the “on foreign soil” bit?  This is just silly.” Sure, it would be silly except that Jeff wasn’t talking about Gitmo being on foreign soil, he was talking about Carter being on foreign soil.

    If Hal’s reading comprehension is this good, think how great his critical thinking is.

  71. RTO Trainer says:

    Hal,

    What does the Torture Statute say?

  72. TomB says:

    Come on Hal, I’m still waiting.

    Since more “puppies of war” have shown up, I’m sure they would like to see you list the numerous and egregious instances of torture that have occurred at Gitmo.

  73. Matt Moore says:

    Hey, another thing I don’t understand. When someone described playing Christina Aguilera and getting a book wet as torture, and we all laughed, was that “defining down?” Because at the time it seemed like just the opposite.

  74. TomB says:

    Gee, and Englebert disappeared too. I hope he’s reacquainting himself with the Geneva Conventions.

  75. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Somebody help me out here, but isn’t the back and forth between the Justice Dept and the military (as presented in the JAG memos precisely the kind of thing we want?  Those who are calling the JAGs “heroes” clearly think they were right in their assessment of how interrogation of terrorists should be handled; but wasn’t the Justice Dept within its right to disagree and call for a change in policy?

    This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’ve long held that new circumstances call for new considerations of old rules, but I’m willing to have someone who knows more on the subject weigh in here.

  76. Hal says:

    Yea, the collective JAG are just knee jerk anti American brass rail polishers who are missing the larger picture.  You should actually, you know, READ them before spouting off such canned crap. It’s not like they’re a novel or anything.  It’s strange how they sound just like Carter:

    4. Should any information regarding the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques become public, it is likely to be exaggerated/distorted in both the U.S. and international media.  This could have a negative impact on public perception of the U.S. Military in general.

    5. Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have operated in recent history.  We have taken the legal and moral “high road” in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate.  Our forces are trained in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter active duty.  It should be noted that the law of armed conflict and code of conduct training has been mandated by Congress and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our POWs were subjected to torture by their captors.  We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that the U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful

    Man, the JAG are nothing but a bunch of lefty hippy American hating wimps who don’t know how to fight a real man’s war.

  77. Matt Moore says:

    “Should any information regarding the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques become public, it is likely to be exaggerated/distorted in both the U.S. and international media.”

    Isn’t that what we were talking about?

  78. Don Meaker says:

    For the people who want to close down Gitmo, I have a silly question:

    1. Where would you put these people? Or would you just release them so they can try to kill more Americans? As I recall, we didn’t release any German or Japanese prisoners until WWII was over.

    2. Since there has been non-stop discussion of Gitmo in the press, the Red Cross/Red Cresent has been there all along….How is this beyond review?

    3. Since they are not covered by the Geneva Convention: (they were not following the Geneva Convention, were not fighting in a recognizable uniform, and did not follow a chain of command) they do not deserve even the conditions afforded to Prisoners of war.

    4. Since they are outside the US, they are not provided the protection of the US Constitution. I bet that is what the sweet people really complain about: The trial lawyers can’t make money representing these wannabe murderers.

  79. Patrick says:

    Hal, if I acted the way you are, running off the talking points at broadband speed, Jeff would put up with me as long as his sadistic need to surgically carve humans went unsatiated that day. 

    As for the late arrivals to this debate, perhaps some of us actually have things to do on a sunny weekend besides waxing rhetorical.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.  Especially if you’re the owner of this blog.  Kind sir.

  80. Hal says:

    Matt, see Jeff’s previous comment on reputation and how we’re allowing this to happen.

    Don,

    1. Prison?  Military prison?

    2. Um, no.  The “review” is called due process under the law.  Unless you think that talking about this is due process…

    3. Right….  They’re “infidels”.  Seems like you have a lot in common with our enemies.

    4. See the Supreme Court ruling which said this is bullshit.

  81. TomB says:

    Come on Hal, we’re STILL WAITING!

    Why are you so hesitant?

    Is it because even you’d be embarassed to actually write down that loud music and reading Harry Potter is torture?

  82. wishbone says:

    All,

    You’re not going to get a meaningful response from Hal or Jimmah C. or anyone else on the left on this issue.  When we fail to concede that “torture is going on at Gitmo” and “the prisoners are not being treated lawfully”–their case kinda disintegrates. 

    This is a war against an implacable enemy that loathes the very protections that the left trumpets.  You can’t be tolerant of the intolerant.  Should the federal government have given up on integration because Kluckers (sorry, Senator Byrd) bombed churches and lynched innocents?  The analogy is striking and instructive.  We need resolve, not mutual understanding.

  83. Hal says:

    Nice group of blokes you have around here Jeff.

    Okay Tom, here’s one for the road

    “they [MPs] pushed in the back of the detainee’s knees with their knees, taking the detainee to his knees. Then holding the detainee by his upper arms they slammed his upper body to the floor.” (1318) “This procedure was repeated 25-30 times” and “the floor was shaking with such force that [redacted] as well as the next booth over were shaking [redacted] stated that as the detainee was forced to the floor, he turned his head so the side of his face was hitting the floor. He further stated that the force being used on the detainee caused REDACTED great concern for the detainee’s safety.” (1318) A female witness “further stated that she witnessed [redacted] and laughing while this activity was taking place.” According to one of interrogators who participated in the interview, “the technique was appropriate, approved, applied properly, and was common practice.” (1319). The MPs denied that the detainee’s head was allowed to hit the floor (1320). The use of MPs in interrogation was apparently approved by a “previous JIG commander.” (1320) “Military police stated that they have [standard operating procedures] for Camp Delta but no guidelines for the interrogation areas. They stated that they do not know what the limitations [are] and whether they should aprticipate in any aspect of the interrogation process. (1321).

    Pretty sure that meets the definition 2a of the torture statute.

  84. Shaggy says:

    Normally, I wouldn’t get into this, but if you like indefinite detentions then the festive robbing of Japanese Americans must warm your heart. The whole problem with Gitmo is the total lack of process and protections. Holding individuals indefinitely by creating a non-status for them is wrong, period. There’s no government to negotiate a trade of “enemy combatants” with so we can keep them long after Afgahnistan and Iraq are over. Terror will continue as a methodology, so the war is eternal. The war goes on and these guys, no matter who they are or what they have done have been given life in prison at Gitmo. If they deserve it, fine, try them and sentence them in a publicly accountable way.

    Putting it beyond the US is just weaseling to avoid having this kind of accountability. Who is there? We really don’t know and why should the administration tell us? The US will never be the shining star of freedom we pretend to be when we have our very way to disappear people and hold them forever.

    Using 9/11 or some other ideological argument to justify to inconcionable is cover.

  85. wishbone says:

    Hal,

    Read the JAG’s Point Number 4 AGAIN.  Yes, they were prescient because the exaggeration and distortion (not truth telling) is what happened.  This does not discredit advocates for the interrogation techniques, but in my eyes (and ears) those who exaggerate and distort.

    And the follow-on reports from Gitmo do not bear your claims of torture.  Period.

  86. Matt Moore says:

    Hal – The JAG memo talks of “more extreme interrogation techniques” being exagerated and used against us. I assume by “extreme” that they meant something more than flushing a Koran and playing pop music, but that’s what is being used against us. And I’m also assuming that they never thought it would be a former President doing the propagandizing.

    I’m mostly just confused why you’d blockquote something that makes your opponents’ point.

  87. maggiekatzen says:

    1. Prison?  Military prison?

    is this not where they are, essentially?

    3. Right….  They’re “infidels”.  Seems like you have a lot in common with our enemies.

    where do you get “infidel” from “not covered by the geneva convention”?

    4. See the Supreme Court ruling which said this is bullshit.

    this article is about a 9th circuit court decision.

  88. Hal says:

    I’m mostly just confused why you’d blockquote something that makes your opponents’ point.

    Because, in essence, this is my point.  See Shaggy’s comment above for more explanation.

    In this war, as Jeff says, rhetoric matters.  This is a war of propaganda and ideas and torturing is just providing our enemies with ammunition which is unconscionable as well as unethical and reprehensible.

    I’m not sure why you don’t see this.

  89. TomB says:

    Hal, you blithering idiot, that is from the investigation of abuse which is clearly stated on the page you linked to. If we are condoning the torturing prisoners at Gitmo, why are we investigating the torturers? Kinda counterproductive, no?

    I bet there were a lot of investigations like this at Lubyanka.

  90. Matt Moore says:

    “The US will never be the shining star of freedom we pretend to be when we have our very way to disappear people and hold them forever.”

    It’s a good thing those terrorists were disappeared so totally. Otherwise people would be openly debating their rights on blogs and such.

  91. Patrick says:

    Hal, you’re such a hoot.  You link to a CNN article that the 9th Circus Court of Appeals has done something stupid.  While referring to it as “the Supreme Court”.  It might be the Supreme Court of leftist America, but hardly represents more than the most overturned appeals court in the country (you could look that up, chum.)

  92. wishbone says:

    Pretty sure that meets the definition 2a of the torture statute.

    I’m pretty sure that constitutional rights do not apply to these idiots.  So we’re on equal ground.

    Just for argument’s sake, though–Any evidence that this practice remains uncorrected?  ANY?

  93. Matt Moore says:

    Hal – We’re not torturing. Jimmy Carter says we are. He’s exagerating, just like your beloved JAG memo said he would. Letting dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo with time served isn’t going to stop Carter from lying about us to foreigners.

    Sorry, Shaggy’s point was lost when he spoke of “disappearing” people whose case was subsequently heard by the Supreme Court.

  94. RTO Trainer says:

    1. Prison?  Military prison?

    That’s what we’ve made Guantanamo.  You should be happy.

    2. Um, no.  The “review” is called due process under the law.  Unless you think that talking about this is due process…

    POWs do not have due process rights.  These persosn are not even POWs, why do you wish to award them by giving them greater rights?

    3. Right….  They’re “infidels”.  Seems like you have a lot in common with our enemies.

    They are Unlawful Comabtants, which are persons engaging in beligerant acts in a war zone that do not meet the Geneva Convention standards to be considered POWs.

    Incidentally, perhaps you should outline what rights and privileges that are afforded to POWs that the detainees at Guantano are not enjoying?

    4. See the Supreme Court ruling which said this is bullshit.

    Which Supreme Court ruling is this?  Ex Parte Quirin doesn’t agree with your position.  Though Don’s phrasing would suggest that it would be different if they were on US territory, which is not the case, is that the “bullshit” you cite?

    Posted by Hal | permalink

    on 07/31 at 08:25 PM

  95. Hal says:

    Maggie,

    1.  No.  As the government argued in the Supreme Court, this was an extra constitutional detention area.  A prison is not such a thing.  It’s not the location, it’s the legal status.

    3. Right.  So if you’re not a POW, you can be tortured and held without charges.  This kind of “ends justify the means” is precisely what they’re doing.  We’re better than that.

    4. Whoops.  Here’s the Supreme Court decision.

  96. Clyde says:

    Jeez-o-pete, when is that old gasbag going to die already?  I’m a government employee and I could use another “day of mourning” holiday.

  97. Hal says:

    Okay, so it’s not torture and even if it is torture because they’re in a prison which is not a prison because it’s extra constitutional means that we can torture them anyway because we’re in a war against no state and that means we have to write new rules and in any event they’re not POWs so we can do anything we want.

    Got it.

    Nice country we used to have.  Wish I knew where it went.

  98. Matt Moore says:

    I was going to tell you to feel free to simply amalgamate all our arguments into one big contradictory sentence that you can easily dismiss. But you already did. Carry on.

  99. Fresh Air says:

    TomB–

    Hal can’t answer the question because there aren’t any examples of torture to be found at Gitmo. None. Zero. Zip. Goose egg. Reading Harry Potter to them for hours at a time? Holding arms over their heads until they collapse? Three days without sleep? Give me a break. Anything we give out in worse measure to our own forces in SERE training cannot be considered torture. And calling it that doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times you are forced to the fainting couch over the latest “atrocity” committed by U.S. troops.

    Hal clearly suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) like most of the other lefty trolls who are posting here. They think torture should be happening at Gitmo, insofar as: (a) they disagree with the aims of the war; (b) Gitmo is super-secure, remote and thus “suspicious”; and (c) they are reflexively hostile to both the military and their commander-in-chief…okay, work with me now…therefore it must be true! That is all the “proof” you’ll ever get out of these people: They have a “feeling,” and therefore don’t need any, you know, evidence (see also “Oil, No Blood for”).

    If you want to see another example, ask these lefties whether our civil liberties are disappearing. Then ask them to specifically name one that has. They can’t do it. All they do is rant and rave, mumbling about John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act (which they haven’t read), and little old ladies taking their shoes off at airports. (One guy told me he thought Bush had something to do with their being an armed security guard at the local Border’s. I’m not kidding–and neither was he.)

    These disingenuous Cassandras willfully ignore the fact that the detainees at Gitmo are kept in far more comfort than they should be, even though they have pledged to kill Americans without hesitation, and have tried to do so–many even since being taken prisoner. Furthermore, as RTO astutely pointed out, <i>they could just as easily have been declared illegal combatants on the battlefield and shot on the spot.

    So this is what the complaint is about: Because we have spared their lives and because a Republican is in the White House, we have listen to self-loathers like Jimmy Carter bitch and moan about what awful people we are. But it’s truly all a pose, a symptom of the madness of BDS. I’m quite sure if Guantanamo Bay was closed tomorrow that asshole would have some more choice words of anti-Americanism ready by Tuesday.

Comments are closed.