June 18, 2005
A Reminder To Durbin
John Kass of the Chicago Trbune offers this pointed reminder -- and rebuke -- to Senator Dick-less Durbin regarding his outrage over the non-torture inflicted upon terrorist prisoners at Gitmo.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
We're at war, Senator. How can you possibly justify that statement?And you know what? We have learned from history. The reason buildings at Guantanamo are full is because there are two big holes in the ground in New York.
Senator, weren't you one of those legitimately complaining that U.S. intelligence dropped the ball and something had to be done so it wouldn't happen again?
It is being done. Much of it isn't polite or civilized and some of it upsets me, like the abuse of the Koran. Suspects have been pushed around, hurt, and enemies have been given propaganda fodder.
Clearly, Americans don't like it when others get hurt. But Americans really don't like it when Americans get hurt.
At any rate, this is not the kind of torture I've heard about. In World War II in Greece, my father was handed over to the Germans on the suspicion he aided downed British airmen. They beat him, day after day, making him dig his own grave. He played dumb to survive and it worked. An uncle was forced into a labor camp. The Nazis didn't use Christina Aguilera music on him, though luckily, he too survived.
Sen. Durbin, in other places, suspected terrorists have their feet flayed with rods, their families raped; they're force-fed a quart of olive oil, then tied, seated, to a block of ice. By your own words, Senator, Guantanamo isn't remotely like that.
You don't have to apologize to the Republicans in the White House. But Senator, you should apologize to the nation.
And if you don't have the stomach for the work, please have the guts not to play partisan politics with what has to be done.
Seriously.
Better yet, Senator -- RESIGN!
Posted by: Greg at
04:01 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Like the rest of the wingnuttia populace, this columnist is a complete jack-ass. Some how it eludes this alleged "professional" that Durbin was reading a report from the FBI. Instead of Durbin resigning perhaps you (and the rest of wingnuttia) should resign from commenting on the news until you re-educate youselves in the critical thinking department.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 15:24:43 2005 (aHbua)
2
Ah, ther we have it -- another Leftist out to set up "reeducation centers" for those who disagree with the Leftist party line of the day.
Durbin was not simply reading from teh report -- he characterized Gitmo as the equivalent of concentration camps, gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia. That is NOT in the report -- that is Dick-less Durbin's own assessment of this nation's government and the servicemen and women who are assigned there.
So why don't you go down and buy yourself a little bit of truth, rather than the Daily Kos talking points. And while you are at it, why don't you also see if you can develop some American values -- like respect for the right of Americans to engage in speech you disagree with.
Durbin was not simply reading from teh report -- he characterized Gitmo as the equivalent of concentration camps, gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia. That is NOT in the report -- that is Dick-less Durbin's own assessment of this nation's government and the servicemen and women who are assigned there.
So why don't you go down and buy yourself a little bit of truth, rather than the Daily Kos talking points. And while you are at it, why don't you also see if you can develop some American values -- like respect for the right of Americans to engage in speech you disagree with.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 18 15:46:37 2005 (fSzTq)
3
How about you make a stand against torture, or the appearance there-of, you simple buffoon. Think real hard about this, if we appear to be using torture in our interrogations, why should the other side refrain from doing so.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 19:34:06 2005 (aHbua)
4
Oh yeah you porcine piece of fecal droppings, you call me a "leftist/liberal" in your usual attacking manner and you expect me to just take it WELL FUCK YOU, you wing-nut asshole. I would strongly suggest that before you gin up your attack machine again, we swap DD214 info... oh what's that you fat fuck you never had balls enough to sacrifice 4 or 6 years of your precious life in defense of the constitution you allege you care about. You only give a shit about the constitution when it serves your purpose. Furthermore you're the asswipe that mentioned re-education centers, all I did was suggest your critical thinking skills were lacking and in need of refreshing, you lying fuck.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sat Jun 18 19:43:50 2005 (aHbua)
5
Hey, Lefto-fascist, I did my damnedest to get into the military, intending to make a career of it just like my father did. Unfortunately, twenty-three years ago some moron in an armor-plated security van rendered me I incapable of passing my physical when he ran a stop-sign and cut off my buddy and I when he pulled onto the highway in front of us. I spent the next 3-4 years rehabbing, and tried to enlist about once every six months during that time. I tried to do the same in August 1990, with the same results. So don't give me that crap about service -- it is quite clear that whatever lessons in Americanism allegedly come from military service didn't take in your case, or else you would realize that the Constitution applies to every American.
And you are the one talking about the need to "re-educate" all of us -- I thought you would simply folow the tried and true Lefto-fascist methodology of silencing and imprisoning your critics until they have been propagandized, beaten, broken &/or killed.
Lastly -- WATCH THE LANGUAGE! WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION IN THE PAST!
And you are the one talking about the need to "re-educate" all of us -- I thought you would simply folow the tried and true Lefto-fascist methodology of silencing and imprisoning your critics until they have been propagandized, beaten, broken &/or killed.
Lastly -- WATCH THE LANGUAGE! WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION IN THE PAST!
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 01:34:45 2005 (XJvMc)
6
So, torture is absolutely unnecessary even if they try to extract info from a prisoner of war who has knowledge of a nuclear briefcase bomb hidden somewhere on the east coast? Perhaps coffee cakes and tea might do the job?
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 03:13:04 2005 (jXhtw)
7
TORTURE IS ALWAYS UN-NECESARY. There are much better proven methods of getting information from your "detainees". As an American these are actions I do not approve of in my name. That the residents of wingnuttia do support this says more about their under-educated red-neck/racist asses than it does about me. Especially the bigot that runs this site.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 04:40:02 2005 (aHbua)
8
I'll agree that torture is unnecessary -- but those of you who are upset that the gitmo detainees don't have turn-down service and a mint on the pillow have defined torture down so low that going out to mow the grass in normal June weather here in Houston would be considered torture if a detainee were made to do so.
Most of us are disputing if the charges in the report are true (lying about torture is a known tactic) and if they constitute torture.
Most of us are disputing if the charges in the report are true (lying about torture is a known tactic) and if they constitute torture.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 05:44:05 2005 (rMdBV)
9
Oh and chaining a human in a sitting "fetal position" for eighteen to twentyfour hours is not torture?? Does making a human being sit in their own excrement qualify? I could care less if their meals are "religiously correct", and I don't give a shit if their housed in tents, and sleeping bags. Ask youself why would the FBI agent lie? They like "Boy King", Dickless Cheney, "Rummy" et.al are sworn to uphold the constitution. From what I see unlike the aforementioned mal-administration fuck ups, the FBI is trying to uphold the LAWS OF THIS LAND!!
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 06:15:49 2005 (aHbua)
10
"There are much better proven methods of getting information from your "detainees"."
Such as? I'm curious to hear this one.
Such as? I'm curious to hear this one.
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 07:11:11 2005 (SALCs)
11
Well if the example of WWII may be used, American airmen have reported that they gave up more intelligence data when the interrogator just sat and had a conversation with them. When they were tortured, they would say whatever they thought the German's wanted to hear, just to make the pain and agony stop. If you want reliable intell, you do not need to resort to torture, or even the threat of it. For you on the right to approve tells me all I need to know.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 07:19:26 2005 (aHbua)
12
I seriously doubt that. There is also the fear that torture will be used and they'll spill their guts. How do you know there weren't any implied threat of torture just by having a "casual" conversation?
What were your orders if you were to be captured by the enemy regarding intelligence info?
What were your orders if you were to be captured by the enemy regarding intelligence info?
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 07:28:23 2005 (SALCs)
Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 19 08:13:40 2005 (r/FBF)
14
sub,
I actually proposed a hypothetical scenario involving, say, a neutron bomb hidden in a briefcase where FBI know it's hidden somewhere on the east coast and know that a captured terrorist knows exactly where the bomb is. I asked one Liberal nutball whether torture would be allowed under this circumstance knowing that perhaps 20 million people would die. He said, "No." That alone was a confession on his behalf that he favored the terrorists rather than to try and save millions of innocent people's lives...hypothetically speaking.
I actually proposed a hypothetical scenario involving, say, a neutron bomb hidden in a briefcase where FBI know it's hidden somewhere on the east coast and know that a captured terrorist knows exactly where the bomb is. I asked one Liberal nutball whether torture would be allowed under this circumstance knowing that perhaps 20 million people would die. He said, "No." That alone was a confession on his behalf that he favored the terrorists rather than to try and save millions of innocent people's lives...hypothetically speaking.
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 09:58:32 2005 (SALCs)
15
McConnell your briefcase neutron bomb scenario is specious at best. There is no way, even with the technology the US government has at its disposal, to make a brief case bomb yeild larger than 250-300 kilotons. Further there is no way a single device that size could kill twenty million outright. Shows just how much you know about weaponry, and tactics.
Posted by: at Sun Jun 19 11:02:52 2005 (aHbua)
16
Goddamn, I forgot the name thing again.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Sun Jun 19 11:03:28 2005 (aHbua)
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 11:32:45 2005 (SALCs)
18
I wish i had thought to ask him before he was banned for going ballistic -- how many dead Americans are acceptable to him before he is willing to allow for the comfort of a terrorist to be sacrificed?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 13:08:12 2005 (esPOP)
19
that was the whole point of my hypothetical scenario...even with 20 million, it wasn't worth the sacrifice of one terrorist's comfort to get the info. We are dealing with lefty yahoo lunatics. But I get the feeling they're trying to preserve their own hardline party thinking without resorting to agreeing that perhaps it would be better to beat the snot out of a terrorist to supply us the info to intercept that briefcase bomb in time. I'm sure they'll agree right along if they knew that their kids are in the blast zone and that one terrorist's comfort is worth more than the kids' lives along with pain and suffereing post-disaster.
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 19 16:29:26 2005 (jXhtw)
20
And I am not sure that i am in 100% agreement with you as far as actual torture being used -- but i have no problem with these folks being made uncomfortable if it helps national security in a real sense. The folks in the Turn-Down and Pillow-Mint Brigade view matters very differently, though.
Look at police interrogation techniques -- success is had by making folks uncomforatble, short of actual torture.
But then again, I think folks like Durbin and Bubba probably don't support the police, either.
Look at police interrogation techniques -- success is had by making folks uncomforatble, short of actual torture.
But then again, I think folks like Durbin and Bubba probably don't support the police, either.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 19 16:52:03 2005 (ibsIB)
21
Sorry RWR, but in a time sensitive situation, I'd have the belt sander and strings of fish hooks out in a freaking HEARTBEAT.
Bubba: I don't care if the bomb is the size of a semi or is hidden in a cargo container - the point is that it's dangerous to large numbers of people. I can think of a lot of things to get someone to talk, and the best part about them is that if you find out they have lied, you can save worse for later (and make them know what the price of lies is).
See, since I have nerve damage in my knee, I have a firm understanding of how *long* something can hurt. For me, it's forever. Thankfully, it's (usually) relatively low grade and I've even gotten used to it.
Now; what if the nerve damage was *really* severe? What if we tied the person down and force fed them a blended cocktail of pig's blood, bacon, and Jack Daniel's? What if we told the person that when he finally died, he would be buried in the skin of a pig (I'm told Muslims believe that will prevent entry into Heaven)? What if we threatened to air drop ten million gallons of pig's blood across Mecca in retaliation?
To save the lives of innocents, upon conviction from a military tribunal (in this case, an emergency one), I say we do anything it takes. I'd brand things that the person found to be sacriligious onto their skin. I would make freaking Savak and the Mossad look like pre-school teachers. Not only that, this would be Constitutional according to our current courts.
The reason?
This is not a punishment.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any freedom of harsh information extraction methods. This applies DOUBLY when one is on foreign soil. The Constitution only applies on American soil.
*bing*pow*zip*...done.
Even if the Constitution did apply and it WAS a punishment, it would be Constitutional. Wanna know why?
1. You're going to say it's cruel. Oh, but it is cruel. Oh, I'll grant you cruelty. Were I in charge, I would be phenominally cruel. I would be cruel like you cannot believe.
2. It is *NOT* unusual. This is done in many countries today and things of this magnitude have been done by us in the past.
Now...read the document. It doesn't say a punishment must be cruel OR unusual. It says a punishment must be cruel *AND* unusual to be unConstitutional. There's a TITANIC difference there.
See, punishments are usually inherently cruel, but they are not often unusual. That said; leeway is left for a punishment that is merciful but still is not terribly cruel. Some examples of unusual punishments that are not cruel:
1. Some people were stealing from crab pots, which is a felony. Rather than go to prison, they had to wear sandwich board signs saying the following for about three weekends for eight hours per day (paraphrased): Molesting crab pots is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. I know, because I molested one.
This was an actual case. The criminals sued, calling this cruel and unusual. It is unusual but also is in fact quite merciful. I'd MUCH rather wear a sandwich board than be a convicted felon who had 18 months in prison (with another 18 months on parole).
2. A vandal who rides a motorcycle through a community flower garden is convicted of . As punishment, he must purchase new plants and replant the entire area as well as beautify a (different) area.
Very unusual, not in the least bit cruel.
Oh yeah, FYI - the courts agree with that reading of the Constitution.
Sub
Bubba: I don't care if the bomb is the size of a semi or is hidden in a cargo container - the point is that it's dangerous to large numbers of people. I can think of a lot of things to get someone to talk, and the best part about them is that if you find out they have lied, you can save worse for later (and make them know what the price of lies is).
See, since I have nerve damage in my knee, I have a firm understanding of how *long* something can hurt. For me, it's forever. Thankfully, it's (usually) relatively low grade and I've even gotten used to it.
Now; what if the nerve damage was *really* severe? What if we tied the person down and force fed them a blended cocktail of pig's blood, bacon, and Jack Daniel's? What if we told the person that when he finally died, he would be buried in the skin of a pig (I'm told Muslims believe that will prevent entry into Heaven)? What if we threatened to air drop ten million gallons of pig's blood across Mecca in retaliation?
To save the lives of innocents, upon conviction from a military tribunal (in this case, an emergency one), I say we do anything it takes. I'd brand things that the person found to be sacriligious onto their skin. I would make freaking Savak and the Mossad look like pre-school teachers. Not only that, this would be Constitutional according to our current courts.
The reason?
This is not a punishment.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any freedom of harsh information extraction methods. This applies DOUBLY when one is on foreign soil. The Constitution only applies on American soil.
*bing*pow*zip*...done.
Even if the Constitution did apply and it WAS a punishment, it would be Constitutional. Wanna know why?
1. You're going to say it's cruel. Oh, but it is cruel. Oh, I'll grant you cruelty. Were I in charge, I would be phenominally cruel. I would be cruel like you cannot believe.
2. It is *NOT* unusual. This is done in many countries today and things of this magnitude have been done by us in the past.
Now...read the document. It doesn't say a punishment must be cruel OR unusual. It says a punishment must be cruel *AND* unusual to be unConstitutional. There's a TITANIC difference there.
See, punishments are usually inherently cruel, but they are not often unusual. That said; leeway is left for a punishment that is merciful but still is not terribly cruel. Some examples of unusual punishments that are not cruel:
1. Some people were stealing from crab pots, which is a felony. Rather than go to prison, they had to wear sandwich board signs saying the following for about three weekends for eight hours per day (paraphrased): Molesting crab pots is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. I know, because I molested one.
This was an actual case. The criminals sued, calling this cruel and unusual. It is unusual but also is in fact quite merciful. I'd MUCH rather wear a sandwich board than be a convicted felon who had 18 months in prison (with another 18 months on parole).
2. A vandal who rides a motorcycle through a community flower garden is convicted of . As punishment, he must purchase new plants and replant the entire area as well as beautify a (different) area.
Very unusual, not in the least bit cruel.
Oh yeah, FYI - the courts agree with that reading of the Constitution.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Mon Jun 20 13:10:44 2005 (r/FBF)
22
Hey, Bubba...I'll compare DD214s with you any day of the week. Except mine will show active duty in Iraq and Bosnia (91 B [Combat Medic] 701st MSB, 1st ID).
Your's most likely will not. But thanks for serving none-the-less. As John Kerry has already shown, not all service is honorable, especially when you come home and shit all over your band of brothers.
Which is exactly what you are doing here.
The main problem you seem to be grasping here, is that the enemy combatants (a.k.a. terrorists; a.k.a. the people trying to kill you and me and our repective families) are NOT being tortured. Just because you stand up and yell, "It's torture" does not make it so.
If you truly believe that these terrorists are being tortured, I know for certain that you have never seen combat.
You might have been brave enough to serve at one point in your otherwise pathetic existence, but since then you have withered into a shell of man.
Your's most likely will not. But thanks for serving none-the-less. As John Kerry has already shown, not all service is honorable, especially when you come home and shit all over your band of brothers.
Which is exactly what you are doing here.
The main problem you seem to be grasping here, is that the enemy combatants (a.k.a. terrorists; a.k.a. the people trying to kill you and me and our repective families) are NOT being tortured. Just because you stand up and yell, "It's torture" does not make it so.
If you truly believe that these terrorists are being tortured, I know for certain that you have never seen combat.
You might have been brave enough to serve at one point in your otherwise pathetic existence, but since then you have withered into a shell of man.
Posted by: Robbie at Tue Jun 21 01:32:51 2005 (lbWbV)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0061, elapsed 0.013 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 51 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 51 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.