"Capt.Mooron" wrote
If we thot he knew something he be at Gitmo.

No you couldn't.... he was not "captured" nor was he on any "list".

Hadn't thot of that ...

..... tortured for information he did not have.... all at the request of
your
government and their paranoid state of operation.

Obviously, this administration is the worst in our history. Worse than LBJ
and Nixon combined and "paranoid" is an apt description. Stupid men get that
way when faced with what to them are insoluable problems of their own
making - especially when everything they do makes things worse. "It must be
somebody is out to get me .."

All I can say is that most Americans did not vote for it, except by lack of
action. Yes, we are in deep trouble.


....... Do you even notice your rights and
freedoms being erroded? Is it because they are only taking small pieces of
it away at a time?

Sure, but we can only choose between the two parties, and they differ only
in what rights each wants to eliminate first. Iran's government is much
like your own - except that there is a supreme court that can negate (veto)
any at passed by the legislature and that court is comprised of radical
Muslims. When Bush's latest appointment is confirmed the majority of our
own court will be Roman Catholics - for decades to come.

I'm sorry these things are happening.

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Except that you *have* done it and there's no reason to think you've
stopped doing it. Your personal refusal to believe it is irrelevant.

There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago. Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.

The Auzzi held at Gitmo is not being physically tortured. He was
captured in
Afganistan by Afghans whilst fighting for al Qaeda and the Taliban,
having
left his family in Oz unsupported and gone there to support a gang who
killed women for being literate and no, I do not pity him. Why do you?
He
gve up his rights as an Australian when HE eagerly adopted the radical
Muslim system.

No, he didn't give up his rights as an Australian. In fact he's not
committed any crime under then existing Australian law. We have
freedom of religion in Australia so his being a Muslim is irrelevant to
what he does, legally. When did the USA outlaw Islam?

He is NOT being held over religion. He went to another country where he
helped impose the customs of a particularly radical sect upon people who
didn't want it. Afghans are Muslims like Aussies are Christians. They don't
believe in murdering women for being literate any more than you do. Yet that
is exactly what the Taliban did. And when Afghans rose to oppose the
Taliban, this man fought for the Taliban without benefit of uniform - a
capital crime under international law. The US Constitution forbids our
government to prohibit the free exercise of religion, but that does not
allow us to murder "infidels", overseas or otherwise. I'd be surprised if
yours does.

Now he has been tried under that system and given to us for
deprogramming in liu of execution. Would you rather he'd been beheaded?

If he was caught on the field of battle, shooting at people, out of
uniform, he could have been shot or summarily executed and I wouldn't
care at all. Once you bring him into the system, that's different. I've
come to the conclusion that you're never going to see this.

No, I dont 'see' that he must either be killed immediately or granted the
same rights as a soldier. I think that we can infict a lesser punishment or
hold him for a time before doing so. In my own personal opinion the man is
insane and might be cured by "deprogramming" and that this is better than
executing him.

There are US Citizens in foreign jails a we speak - perhaps some in Oz.
They are there because they broke the laws of their host country and were
tried and convicted according to that countries customs - customs very
unlike our own. IMHO, the same applies here. The man in question left Oz to
engage in a civil war in a Muslim country. He was captured in battle without
uniform, tried and convicted IAW Afghan custom. He could have been beheaded
but instead he is being held at Gitmo where, perhaps, he will come to his
senses.

The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. .....

You've got nowhere to go in that one Vito, except denial. It happened.
It was illegal. It isn't the only case. Nobody is safe transitting a US
airport if your Govt thinks they know something.

Obviously it happened. Would it have been legal to deport him to Canada? If
"YES" then the only question is "why Syria instead of Canada?" There are
two possible answers - either somebody had a hard on for this person or
somebody bungled. He was, after all a Syrian citizen too so I'd rather think
the latter ... that somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.

And no - Nobody is safe in a US airport - period! I won't go near one and I
advise you to do the same. At best you will be treated like a criminal,
possibly detained til you miss your flight and even strip searched. At worst
you too could end up in Syria.

People like you are pushing people like me away. I'm a right wing gun
nut by Australian standards. What do you think the long term
consequences of this sort of bull**** is going to be? ....

A set of principles, largely inherited, made the USA the greatest nation
ever seen. That our leaders and some of our people have abandoned those
principles, to our detriment, does not mean that you should abandon them as
well, especially to accomodate China. Someday somebody will take our place
just as we surpassed England. I hope that it will be Canada or Oz or some
combo of them - someone sharing the principle that government derives power
from the consent of the governed vs the national socialist principles we
seem headed toward.

Where is your space program?

Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.

For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police.

Have you read or heard of some of the work done by Manfred Nowak,
recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture? He thinks the US
may now be operating "Prison Ships", or "Interrogation Ships" away from
prying eyes of the Red Cross and his own International Commission of
Jurists.

The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?

Cheers
Martin

Martin Baxter wrote:
Have you read or heard of some of the work done by Manfred Nowak,
recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture? He thinks the US
may now be operating "Prison Ships", or "Interrogation Ships" away from
prying eyes of the Red Cross and his own International Commission of
Jurists.


Hmm, it's possible. A little far fetched maybe.

It sort of fits in with Rumsfeld's private "intelligence" agency which
is actually his personal special-forces arm. He's diverted a lot of
money into building this up and much of the abuse of prisoners by "OGA"
guys (military lingo for 'other gov't agency') is documented; plus they
do a lot of the capturing of terrorist suspects. A better term is
probably 'kidnapping.'


The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?


Hush, you'll get us all sent off to Gitmo. Or worse. I'm clamping my
hands over my ears and humming 'God Bless America.'

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

I can't say that beatings have entirely stopped - that no young Marine will
ever knock the crap out of a prisoner who insults him - but it is not our
policy or even common place. See below:

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically
torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.

Sad, but completely normal for politicians.

"Martin Baxter" wrote
The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?

It would be a mistake to lable Libby one of the "little guys". He is a
novelist, obviously quite adept at making fiction seem plausible. Think of
him as the Jo. Gobbles of the Bush Administration, the man who ran the
propaganda campaign that got us into the Iraq war. He did this by
publishing unfounded and unproven intel reports attributed to CIA which
later proved false (Like Abu Atta meeting with Iraqi intel to plan 9/11).
One was that Saddam was trying to aquire radioactive materials from Africa.
It didn't matter when CIA checked it out and found it false too - what
mattered was that the agent "leaked" the truth to the press damaging
Scooter's propaganda campaign. So he outed the guys wife to punish them.

"Vito" wrote in message

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

Yes... your country certainly _did_ hand him over on purpose...... and No!
it didn't come form a subordinate... and like I already pointed out ...
from the hearings it's been the USA standard operating procedure since
implementation of the office of Homeland Security.

CM

There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.


Vito wrote:
I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

It's not proven AFAIK, but then in a number of cases it sure looks that
way. Like the guy we just got back from the Saudis, who confessed while
being tortured and now that confession is the primary evidence against
him in a U.S. court.

But hey, at least he's getting a day in court. Lots of other folks are
just locked up for who knows how long.



I can't say that beatings have entirely stopped - that no young Marine will
ever knock the crap out of a prisoner who insults him

Actually, on the radio a few days back they had one of the Abu Ghraib
guards who was involved in a case of a prisoner who was fatally
beaten... and the one who did the beating was an "OGA guy." That
happened Afghanistan too.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?


What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.


I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

Well, why is the whole Bush Administration insisting on torturing
prisoners as a method of fighting the "War On Terror?"



For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.


Sad, but completely normal for politicians.


And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"? You seem to have a curious double-sided attitude, admitting
that torture is bad and also not likely to produce desired results; and
also that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the highest
levels... and you're totally willing to deny that it really happens or
that anybody other than the poor grunt offered up for sacrifice ought to
be punished. I wonder if this is how 51.5% of the voters last year felt?

DSK

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

Unfortunately, we did. We've been doing this for years, and prior to
Bushco. We'd send them to Egypt for example, knowing full well that
they used "more aggressive" techniques to get information. Sad really.

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

It's a bit worse than that. They will force someone to neither stand
nor sit for hours at a time... somewhere in between. This can be
extremely painful.

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

It generally gives you nothing useful, as the prisoner will say
anything to stop the pain. The point is that people are fallible and
they resort to things that don't really work to satisfy those higher
in rank or authority.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com