Gitmo

[Desertrat]

First off, I don't know of anybody who's posted here who condones physical injury as a legitimate form of "interrogation". Further, there have been all manner of allegations of treatment of those in prison at Gitmo. I ran across this article awhile ago:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm

From the article, it seems that the physical well-being of prisoners isn't a matter of concern, and their legal rights are not ignored:

"...Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis..."

Health? How about:

"Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs."

FWIW,

'Rat

[FatTony]

And free room and board, too!
:rolleyes:

[emw]

It does present an interesting irony. In the most visible front for the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, we used unnecessary violence (attacking a country that in all likelihood was at best peripherally involved in all of this), while in the front that may potentially yield the most real information, we aren't harsh enough.

Of course, in both cases were are ridiculously ineffective, failing to provide any real improvement in "safety" and in fact likely creating more danger to ourselves by continuing to alienate entire cultures in our quest to spread the democratic love.

On a positive note, we get to see the cell structure at work. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

And how many charges have been brought?

Would you be counting the tooth fillings and lawyers if US nationals were being held incommunicado and without charges for two or three years? Would you accept that as evidence of said US national's well-being, despite persistent rumors of physical and mentally abusive torture being SOP?

[Desertrat]

Those captured while bearing arms against us: I see them as being in the same condition as the POWs of WW II: In for the duration. My caveat would be that those who could be paroled and trusted not to again take up arms could be re-patriated. From what's said about their behavior, though, that doesn't seem to be a likely possibility.

Those arrested for alleged criminality: They should be charged and the normal legal processes followed, or they should be released. That is, however, a separate matter from the manner of treatment during incarceration.

'Rat

[mactastic]

So you'd be cool with US servicepersons being held "for the duration" as well?

[Desertrat]

"Held" would be a refreshing change from physical-damage torture and beheading. Are you stipulating decent diet, proper medical care, accomodation of religious views, etc.?

'Rat

[mactastic]

"Held" would be a refreshing change from physical-damage torture and beheading. Are you stipulating decent diet, proper medical care, accomodation of religious views, etc.?

'Rat
I'm stipulating the same conditions we hold our GWOT captives in. And that includes rendition, waterboarding, stress positions, the occasional beating, hypothermic cells, the so-called "attention grabs" etc.

And yes, they can have their bibles and their couscous and their teeth filled, in between "aggressive interrogations".

[pseudobrit]

I'm stipulating the same conditions we hold our GWOT captives in. And that includes rendition, waterboarding, stress positions, the occasional beating, hypothermic cells, the so-called "attention grabs" etc.

Do they get a Terrorist™ version of Lynndie English?

[Desertrat]

mac, I've already said my say about "waterboarding", etc.

'Rat

[XNine]

Interesting article. I'm glad my money went there instead of, you know, public schools, feeding the homeless, investing in alternative fuels... :rolleyes:

On the other side, I do believe that some force is alright in interrogation. A few smacks in the face, a punch or two. Do I think stress positions or demoralizing someone to an animal's level is okay? Absolutely not.

[.Andy]

On the other side, I do believe that some force is alright in interrogation. A few smacks in the face, a punch or two.

So you'd be completely happy for your fellow countrymen to treated the same way?

[Desertrat]

.Andy, would that not be an improvement?

Check out http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=222787 and scroll down to Post #16 for examples of present treatment.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, I've already said my say about "waterboarding", etc.

'Rat
Tellilng that you won't answer the question yourself...

But IOW, no you wouldn't accept Americans being treated the same as we treat our captives is what it sounds like.

Do you have any concept of how that makes other people view the US and our efforts?

[KingYaba]

So you'd be completely happy for your fellow countrymen to treated the same way?
Of course not. Any sane person would never be happy with the use of torture. The problem is there are times when it becomes absolutely necessary in order to save thousands of lives.

No one can endure water-boarding. That's the point. So don't start saying "what if your enemy did water-boarding" because chances are they do things far worse.

Saving American lives trumps the terrorist's well being any day.

I do not, however, want anyone to be able to authorize water-boarding any time they want. I'd rather have it be a last measure only the President can issue.

[skunk]

Of course not. Any sane person would never be happy with the use of torture. The problem is there are times when it becomes absolutely necessary in order to save thousands of lives.

No one can endure water-boarding. That's the point. So don't start saying "what if your enemy did water-boarding" because chances are they do things far worse.

Saving American lives trumps the terrorist's well being any day.All analyses of torture I've ever seen have established that torture doesn't actually achieve any beneficial results.

[calculus]

All analyses of torture I've ever seen have established that torture doesn't actually achieve any beneficial results.
Absolutely. Torture me and I will admit to anything, that's why it is flawed as a technique.

[KingYaba]

Have any better techniques? If so, I'd like to hear it.

[XNine]

So you'd be completely happy for your fellow countrymen to treated the same way?

I didn't say I'd be "happy" if anyone would be hit during interrogation. I said I think it's alright, because it's necessary at times. It's when you go past that and beat them bloody, attach electrodes to testicles, put them in stress positions or sick dogs on them that you're going out of bounds. A few punches when someone has refused to cooperate, will let them know you mean business. I think if you go any further than that you're forcing them to answer you when they don't ahve the answers you're looking for, and that's wrong.

[mactastic]

Have any better techniques? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Listen to the experienced interrogators. You develop a relationship with the suspect, then exploit that relationship.

This is the way police get information all the time.

[emw]

So instead of giving them dental appointments, we need to get them all memberships on eHarmony.com.

[zimv20]

very interesting piece about the camp, from the latest issue of new york times magazine, here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/magazine/17guantanamo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).

long read but worth it.

[mactastic]

So instead of giving them dental appointments, we need to get them all memberships on eHarmony.com.
No no, not an eros relationship. An agape relationship. :p

[.Andy]

I didn't say I'd be "happy" if anyone would be hit during interrogation. I said I think it's alright, because it's necessary at times. It's when you go past that and beat them bloody, attach electrodes to testicles, put them in stress positions or sick dogs on them that you're going out of bounds. A few punches when someone has refused to cooperate, will let them know you mean business.

This is so cowardly. There is no way you'd put up with your innocent family members being punched in the head to see if they know something. Someone else's innocent family members is fine. Just to let them know we mean business.

I think if you go any further than that you're forcing them to answer you when they don't ahve the answers you're looking for, and that's wrong.
How very noble of you.

[.Andy]

All analyses of torture I've ever seen have established that torture doesn't actually achieve any beneficial results.
It appears to achieve the perception that the military is doing everything necessary to save thousands of our fellow countrymen's lives. Which is what it's really about. Political spin at the expense of America's worldwide integrity.

[pseudobrit]

Listen to the experienced interrogators. You develop a relationship with the suspect, then exploit that relationship.

This is the way police get information all the time.

Jack Bauer never does this. He just starts hurtin' 'em and they open up like a book.

TV wouldn't lie to us.

[XNine]

This is so cowardly. There is no way you'd put up with your innocent family members being punched in the head to see if they know something. Someone else's innocent family members is fine. Just to let them know we mean business.

Again, you're blowing what I said way out of proportion, but that's alright too. I didn't say I would like it if it was my family member. But let's say there's a guy who knows where 7 bombs are located that are going to kill men, women, and children. Let's say this situation is in IRAQ just so you think I'm not some neo-con aplogist.

Now, he knows, but is not going to give you the information. It doesn't matter if you give him a gold-laden copy of the Koran, new clothes, a pack of smokes, tell him he's going to be let go and free... he ain't talking. What do you do, let all of those people die? I suppose you would because you wouldn't do anything else to get this information.

How very noble of you. Thanks. I like nobility. It's quite a nice sentiment these days.

[mactastic]

Again, you're blowing what I said way out of proportion, but that's alright too. I didn't say I would like it if it was my family member. But let's say there's a guy who knows where 7 bombs are located that are going to kill men, women, and children. Let's say this situation is in IRAQ just so you think I'm not some neo-con aplogist.

Now, he knows, but is not going to give you the information. It doesn't matter if you give him a gold-laden copy of the Koran, new clothes, a pack of smokes, tell him he's going to be let go and free... he ain't talking. What do you do, let all of those people die? I suppose you would because you wouldn't do anything else to get this information.
This scenario rests upon the assumption that any suspected terrorist is automatically guilty simply because we say so. That is why this scenario, while oft-cited by those in favor of torture, is complete fantasy -- something you'll only see in the movies or on TV.

[Desertrat]

mac, in a rather recent post in a recently-current thread in which you participated, I equated waterboarding with torture. Having once said that, "I said my say."

You might also review my first post in this thread, concerning physical injury.

FWIW, your post #20 is a view I also hold. That said, it's still not a 100% deal, given a hypothet such as Onizuka's post #27:

"But let's say there's a guy who knows where 7 bombs are located that are going to kill men, women, and children. Let's say this situation is in IRAQ just so you think I'm not some neo-con aplogist.

Now, he knows, but is not going to give you the information. It doesn't matter if you give him a gold-laden copy of the Koran, new clothes, a pack of smokes, tell him he's going to be let go and free... he ain't talking. What do you do, let all of those people die?"

I personally don't care about this guy's location. I'd do whatever it takes to make him talk. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would indeed weigh that particular one evil person against many good people. I distinguish between what could be called helpful information and life-threatening information.

But, it's not related to what goes on at Gitmo.

'Rat

[frankblundt]

Now, he knows, but is not going to give you the information.

That's the issue tho init? Like we knew that Saddam had 45 minute launch capability for his WMD. There's no knowing where we're going with this lack of knowing.

[mactastic]

mac, in a rather recent post in a recently-current thread in which you participated, I equated waterboarding with torture. Having once said that, "I said my say."

You might also review my first post in this thread, concerning physical injury.

FWIW, your post #20 is a view I also hold.
Ok, for the sake of argument, let's keep it at being held incommunicado, with minimal legal representation, and no right to either see the evidence against you, nor confront you accuser. I think we can agree that, at a minimum, this is the condition that we keep our prisoners in at Gitmo, regardless of how many dentist visits they get.

Would you be OK with US service personel being held under such conditions "for the duration"? No "that would be an improvement" type of "so's your old man" answers either. Just a yes or no will do.

That said, it's still not a 100% deal, given a hypothet such as Onizuka's post #27:

"But let's say there's a guy who knows where 7 bombs are located that are going to kill men, women, and children. Let's say this situation is in IRAQ just so you think I'm not some neo-con aplogist.

Now, he knows, but is not going to give you the information. It doesn't matter if you give him a gold-laden copy of the Koran, new clothes, a pack of smokes, tell him he's going to be let go and free... he ain't talking. What do you do, let all of those people die?"

I personally don't care about this guy's location. I'd do whatever it takes to make him talk. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would indeed weigh that particular one evil person against many good people. I distinguish between what could be called helpful information and life-threatening information.
I might do "whatever it takes" as well, just as I might be willing to face a life sentence in jail for a chance to kill a pedophile who had done the same to my child. In those circumstances you take that risk upon yourself, knowing the risks and the potential consequences. But you cannot have the law condoning those kinds of actions.

And in my previous post, I talked about the problem with this "ticking time bomb" scenario. It's just not real.

But, it's not related to what goes on at Gitmo.

'Rat
Maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that the abuses at Abu Ghraib ramped up considerably when personel from Gitmo were transferred to Iraq. Logically it follows that the interrogation techniques came from Gitmo with those officers.

[Lau]

Of course not. Any sane person would never be happy with the use of torture. The problem is there are times when it becomes absolutely necessary in order to save thousands of lives.

...

Saving American lives trumps the terrorist's well being any day.

What American lives exactly have torturing suspected terrorists saved?

[mactastic]

What American lives exactly have torturing suspected terrorists saved?
That's a secret. But we swear it's happened. Trust us.

[Lau]

That's a secret. But we swear it's happened. Trust us.

Oh I see. Well, in that case, I trust in the powers that be entirely. ;)

[solvs]

We should just beat them. No due process, no verifiable evidence. We obviously know they're guilty of something (somehow, but that's classified), so we should just trust the military and the administration to do whatever they think is right with no oversight because what would they possibly gain by lying to us. As a matter of fact, they should be able to do the same here. Just pick up anybody at any time for any reason (or no reason), beat them til they talk (even if they don't know anything), then bandage them up and buy them some nice food, sending them on their way. It doesn't really make us safer, but it does give the perception of safety and makes law enforcement's job much easier.

That's the America I want to live in. Nothing like those evil, theocratic, dictatorships we're supposed to be fighting. Where they just do whatever they want, torturing and kill people who disagree with them. I hate those places, just like they hate us for our freedoms.

[Desertrat]

"...let's keep it at being held incommunicado, with minimal legal representation, and no right to either see the evidence against you, nor confront you accuser."

So long as we're not talking about what I've referred to as a POW type, but about people who are alleged to be breaking laws: Some guy who's arrested for working for Al Qaida but was not captured in a military combat situation is an alleged criminal, and should be in the criminal justice system. Shouldn't be in Gitmo.

The only caveat I can see pertains to evidence: If revealing it in the proverbial "timely manner" would jeopardize an ongoing investigation involving undercover people, those undercover people could then be at risk for their lives. Ouside of that particular caveat, the accused has the right to see the evidence.

As far as "confront your accuser", there's no particular person making an accusation other than some arresting officer. After that, it's the prosecuting attorney that's brought into the case. An arresting officer shows up at the trial, to support what was shown in Discovery. If you're talking about the nature of the charges, those should have been made known at the time of arrest.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Well if you're not going to answer the question, you might as well save the wear and tear on your fingertips...

[Desertrat]

If a guy is in the criminal justice system, he's not incommunicado, etc., etc. He'd have a lawyer and all that.

Danged if I can figure out what you think is an answer, unless you don't know how the CJ system works.

'Rat

[mactastic]

If a guy is in the criminal justice system, he's not incommunicado, etc., etc. He'd have a lawyer and all that.

Danged if I can figure out what you think is an answer, unless you don't know how the CJ system works.

'Rat
I asked about US citizens, either soldiers or civvies, and whether you would sit quietly by as they were held under similar conditions by a foreign nation. So far you have bobbed, and you have weaved, you've obfuscated, and you've resorted to the infamous "so's your old man" argument, but you have not managed an answer to that question.

Recently, a high-ranking military officer was asked that very question by a member of Congress. He didn't resort to evasion tactics, and simply answered "Frankly, no".

[coffey7]

And how many charges have been brought?

Would you be counting the tooth fillings and lawyers if US nationals were being held incommunicado and without charges for two or three years? Would you accept that as evidence of said US national's well-being, despite persistent rumors of physical and mentally abusive torture being SOP?


The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.

[zimv20]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.
so your argument is that because you don't like iranians, the prisoners in cuba should be tortured? even if most of them, perhaps all of them, are not iranian?

i just love how anti-liberals are anti-logic.

[.Andy]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.

Please don't troll.

[mactastic]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important.
Terrorists have evidence of Bush breaking the law? Well shoot, you learn something everyday.

I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance.
With all due respect sir, up yours. You quite obviously have no idea what side I'm on.

Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life.
Prove it. Can you?

Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.
Boy you've really swallowed the righty kool-aid haven't you? Have I ANYWHERE said that I think Iran is "so great"? Or are you just lying out your ass?

[skunk]

I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.Are the American people the same as the US government? If so, why is the Bush rep at an all-time low? Might not the same apply in Iran?

[solvs]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.
I believe I speak for everyone here when I say... what?

[princealfie]

So you'd be completely happy for your fellow countrymen to treated the same way?

Looks like the guys did that in Somalia back in the good ole days of Clinton. Wasn't too pretty.

[princealfie]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.

So you thought that the Mossad did a better job of banging off the right people too?

[princealfie]

Jack Bauer never does this. He just starts hurtin' 'em and they open up like a book.

TV wouldn't lie to us.

Which 24 have you been watching? Geewhiz, don't download that bootleg torrent.

[Desertrat]

mac, it seems to me your question ignored the very first line of Post #1:

"First off, I don't know of anybody who's posted here who condones physical injury as a legitimate form of "interrogation"."

Now, going back to post #8: You ignored what I already had stated was wrong, when you wrote your stipulation.

So: If our guys become internees in an equivalent to a Gitmo-by-mactastic, I'd have no grounds on which to object, right?. But that's been implicit in every post I've written on the subject of arrests/capture/internment.

'Rat

[KingYaba]

The evidence is in the hand of the guys cutting peoples heads off in the name of a religion that oppresses woman and doesn't view life as important. I just love how liberals are on the side of people who would kill them or oppress them at first chance. Clinton said he loves Iran and how great it is to see how so many people there share his liberal views on life. Iran doesn't support gay marriage or any type of freedom. What is so great about them. They give 100 million a year to terrorist groups so they can kill Jewish school children.
Once again ferretboy, you gave me a good laugh. Thanks! :)

[mactastic]

mac, it seems to me your question ignored the very first line of Post #1:

"First off, I don't know of anybody who's posted here who condones physical injury as a legitimate form of "interrogation"."

Now, going back to post #8: You ignored what I already had stated was wrong, when you wrote your stipulation.

So: If our guys become internees in an equivalent to a Gitmo-by-mactastic, I'd have no grounds on which to object, right?. But that's been implicit in every post I've written on the subject of arrests/capture/internment.

'Rat
See, here's the problem. I don't want our soldiers subject to "alternative interpretations" of the Geneva Convention. That's called being pro-troops.

[pseudobrit]

Please don't troll.

His post was pretty much textbook trolling as per the forum guidelines. He was only missing a direct personal attack.

[solvs]

He was only missing a direct personal attack.
Walking the fine line of banhood.

[KingYaba]

Oh I see. Well, in that case, I trust in the powers that be entirely. ;)
I trust the military. I'm sad you don't.

[zimv20]

you can pretty much trust the military to carry out their orders. but who's issuing the orders? also, the CIA aren't military.

[skunk]

I trust the military. I'm sad you don't.Just a few bad apples, eh?

[mactastic]

Trust is not given to institutions, but only to the individuals that make up the institutions.

[solvs]

I trust the military. I'm sad you don't.
Have you read about the people who run the military? Or, as said, the intelligence agencies? They've long since lost my trust. I trust my friend in the AirForce, my Cousin in the Marines, and the few others I actually know. Even then. Other than that, why should I trust them any more than any other politician, civil servant, or any one else in the world for that matter without knowing anything about them?

Not saying they're all evil, but I'm not so naive as to think they're all good or that I should trust their ever more incompetent leadership.

[KingYaba]

I understand that just because someone puts on the uniform, it doesn't automatically mean they are a good person. For the most part, I trust the military.

[mactastic]

From the article, it seems that the physical well-being of prisoners isn't a matter of concern, and their legal rights are not ignored:
From the article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158108/), it seems that the physical well-being of prisoners IS a matter of concern:
Guards at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.

...

A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo “told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison,” the statement said.

“One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee’s head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others,” but that he was never punished, the statement said.
FWIW.

[Desertrat]

Sounds to me like Bo and others oughta be candidates for Leavenworth.

From the standpoint of understanding motivations, I can see why guys in the field in combat would beat on some captive if there's concern about an ambush or some such problem. But beating on somebody "just because you can" has always been a mystery to me. I just don't understand why.

Heck, it goes back to school days and schoolyard bullies. Why? I later ran across an article about a Psych Dept. experiment at (IIRC) Stanford U., where the class was divided into prisoners and guards. It wasn't long before the students who were declared to be guards began to act thuggishly. And, scarily enough, the "prisoners" accepted the maltreatment. It didn't answer my question of, "Why?" but it showed that it's not a specific evil which is limited to only a few.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Sounds to me like Bo and others oughta be candidates for Leavenworth.

From the standpoint of understanding motivations, I can see why guys in the field in combat would beat on some captive if there's concern about an ambush or some such problem. But beating on somebody "just because you can" has always been a mystery to me. I just don't understand why.

Heck, it goes back to school days and schoolyard bullies. Why? I later ran across an article about a Psych Dept. experiment at (IIRC) Stanford U., where the class was divided into prisoners and guards. It wasn't long before the students who were declared to be guards began to act thuggishly. And, scarily enough, the "prisoners" accepted the maltreatment. It didn't answer my question of, "Why?" but it showed that it's not a specific evil which is limited to only a few.

'Rat
How can you comport what you just said (that abuse happens when power is given to one group and removed from another) with your assertion in the beginning of this thread that everything was hunky-dory at Gitmo?

[FFTT]

So just because someone says you " might " be a terrorist or withholding information out of fear for the lives of you and your family, that gives our government the right to detain you and hold you indefinitely without charge or
even the slightest indication of why you have been detained.

So what happens if a vindictive neighbor turns you in, just out of spite or to collect a reward on false grounds.

This is not only possible, but probably happens more than we are being told.

This is why the writ of habeas corpus should never be denied to anyone accused of breaking any law.

Ignoring these basic human rights only adds fuel to the fire for reprisals in the future.

[KingYaba]

You know what FFTT, I think you're right about the habeas corpus thing.

[Desertrat]

mac, stipulating that the Bo statement is fact and not bar talk, that's the first time there's been anything associated with any particular person. "They're cruel!" as an accusation is meaningless; "I did it!" is a wholly different deal.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, stipulating that the Bo statement is fact and not bar talk, that's the first time there's been anything associated with any particular person. "They're cruel!" as an accusation is meaningless; "I did it!" is a wholly different deal.

'Rat
But wouldn't your instinct lead you to believe that where there is a power imbalance there is a good chance of trouble? Add in all the rumors coming out over the years, and I find it hard to believe that you didn't suspect that some illegal abuses were occuring at Gitmo. At least enough concern that transparent oversight would be a Good Thing? (And not some BS walkthrough by some FOXNews reporters whom everyone knows are coming.)

[clayj]

So just because someone says you " might " be a terrorist or withholding information out of fear for the lives of you and your family, that gives our government the right to detain you and hold you indefinitely without charge or
even the slightest indication of why you have been detained.Aside from Jose Padilla, I wasn't aware that any of the folks being held down at Gitmo were American citizens. Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the US Constitution applies to non-US citizens who aren't even inside the United States. In case you all forgot, Gitmo BELONGS to Cuba and we just have a perpetual lease there ($1 per year, if I remember correctly).

Habeus corpus for US citizens? Absolutely.

[mactastic]

As the Jose Padilla case proves, Bush doesn't believe Habeus Corpus applies to American citizens.

The rest are (or should be) covered by the Geneva Conventions, but that's something else Bush doesn't believe in.

[KingYaba]

I wasn't aware that the US Constitution applies to non-US citizens
Some may argue that the constitution is not limited to only US citizens. After all, that is not specified either.