They did the research because they were working on the case. The sources they used were publicly available and the accuracy uncontested. There has been no claim by informed people on the other side that their data was wrong. Wrong? No. Incomplete? Certainly. This is a great source if you want to prove a point, as that was the point of the author. If you want to learn something, you need a completely objective source, and this ain't it.
Again, not to say he's wrong, but he has a job to do. His job is to represent a particular detainee at Gitmo. If he presents data that hurts that detainee, he's not doing his job and is doing a disservice to his client. So, if he is doing his job and representing his client, then he will ignore any data that harms his client and present data that doesn't. He would be wrong if he were impartial, as he would not be giving his client the representation he deserves.
OK, what would I accept as a non biased source. It really depends on the material, what is said and who said it. It should come from an "outsider". This is why I reject most of what your PHD wrote. He represents Gitmo detainees. He's going to find data that supports his position. He will also REJECT data that goes counter to his opinions. It would be as if were debating global warming and all I reported was temperatures retrieved in the dead of winter. So, a source must not be involved with the subject.
The source can not have an agenda. MoveOn.org would be an example. Not a good source. NPR, IMHO, has an agenda to push. I know because I used to listen, every day. A Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor is an example of "disguised bias". Sure, it's a comedy show with folk songs and down-home jokes, but Keillor will often take off on a left wing rant. More than once I heard him call members of the Bush administration "criminals". This was before the Iraq invasion, BTW. Diane Rehm is another example. I listened nearly every day when Clinton was being impeached and it was her topic every single day. Never did I hear the words "perjury" or "obstruction of justice" uttered, NEVER. If I got my news solely from that show, I would honestly think that Bill Clinton was being impeached for having an affair. About the only time I could expect NPR to venture from the far left was when the BBC would take over at night. So, NPR is out.
Of course I'll take Fox News. The rap they get as a right-wing institution is not deserved. Just because they are the only major news network that even presents the the right's side doesn't make them a right wing outfit. Before anyone brings up Bill O'Reilly, check out Keith Olbermann. At least Bill O'Reilly will have guests on that don't agree with him. Sure, he yells at them, but they are given a chance to speak their piece.
CNN is getting better, although they are still left of center. I would accept a CNN source. But, again, I would have to look at the story. Too many anonymous sources, or reporting something from "other" news sources would throw up a red flag.
As for the data in the piece you presented, some of it is good. But just like the author would more than likely do, I would only pull out that which supports my case. Although, I do see some opinion thrown in:
If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither. Under this assumption, the data reveals that 40% of the detainees are not affiliated with al Qaeda and 18% percent of the detainees are not affiliated with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. I did however look the paper over. It is well written and presents some good points. However, some of the points are dated or just wrong. For example, "The detainees have been afforded no meaningful opportunity to test the Governmentâ(TM)s evidence against them. They remain incarcerated." Define "meaningful". What non-meaningful opportunities have they had? What methods has congress passed that would allow for these detainees to test the evidence against them? And so ion...
While we all agree that these men should have a chance to prove their innocence and challenge their detention, we need a better way that affording them Constitutional rights and public courtrooms.
In WWII, we knew well ahead of time that the war was going to end and we had much more time to plan for it. Plus we had allies who were not going to go anywhere because they lived there.
In Iraq, the US Gov't underestimated what our military could do. The job was finished way too quickly. Of course, this is not the fault of the military. When you are bounding between fighting positions, you don't wait for the enemy to dig in.
Finally, we tore Iraq up. It's our responsibility to square it away. We must stay there until the job is finished and/or the elected government there asks us to leave.
Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news.
I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.
The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.
A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...
No one denied that Cheney made those remarks. I don't understand what was wrong with them. If on 9-10-01, you knew, without a doubt of someone who knew of the attacks and was going to let them go forward without telling anyone, would you torture this one man to save the lives of 3000 Americans if you were President of Vice President if that were the only way to get him to talk?
I would. Sorry, I know it sucks, but I would in a heart beat. Like I said, if it would make things better, you could do the same to me, IF IT WOULD SAVE LIVES. It's math really. Torturing one is less than the deaths of 3000 + the torture their families had to endure.
Seriously, you wouldn't torture someone who knew of 9-11 and was willing to let it happen, in order to prevent it?
You're so sure that every single person in Guantanamo deserves to be there, without doubt, forever and ever and ever. You have to be, otherwise you're saying "better the innocent to be punished than the guilty to go free", a 180 degree contradiction to the very foundations of our legal system, you know, that whole Constitution thing, that you swore to uphold and protect with your very fucking life? Are you 100% sure that every American citizen in our prison system is supposed to be there? No? Do you think that we should shut down our justice system? If not, why are you saying that the innocent at Gitmo deserve better treatment and consideration than those in our own prisons?
I don't doubt that some of those in Gitmo are evil scumbags who get punished to the severest extent of the law. That is what we are, are we not? A lawful society? One built on due process? Exactly. Those who have done wrong will be punished, and those who have done extreme wrong will be extremely punished. Those who have not, or doubtfully have, will be let free.
That's all we ask for. That's why we don't have military tribunals to determine our guilt. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No, it's not. For starters, the American legal system is public and transparent. Our military is not. If you give these guys public trials with full Constitutional protection, then these guys have a right to face their accusers. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but their accuser may be a covert CIA agent still in the field. Their accuser may be an agent from Pakistan or the Northern Alliance. If outing Valerie Plame was such a horrendous crime, wouldn't this be that much worse? I've been through military court proceedings and I can assure you that they are fair and efficient since much of the legal bullshit, legalese and delaying proceedings have pulled out. They are also secret, which would protect undercover agents in the field.
Besides, I trust our military tribunal system much more than I trust the justice system that let OJ go free!
Either way, it's not like we WANT to let everyone in Gitmo, or anyone else, get off scot free. I am an American, and trust me, Americans are better than these scum we are fighting. If I learned one thing in a basic civics class, it's that we are better than everyone else precisely because we hold ourselves to higher standards (or, at least, we're supposed to be, and we're supposed to do that). I agree that these guys deserve proceedings to determine if they belong, and they were getting those proceedings. Those that are determined to no longer be a danger to the US and have no information worthy of seeking should be released and maybe even compensated for their time. However, I do not think that those proceedings should be done in public, or in civilian courts (unless the detainee is a US citizen, of course). This is a military matter and should be handled by the military.
You seem to have some strong opinions. Did they come from the primary source material? Did you note that the paper in question referenced large volumes of primary source material, and that raw numbers are quoted there? What are your sources? It's easy to dismiss things without thinking about them, but I recommend that you...well...think about them. sorry, but a paper by the lawyer of a Gitmo detainee is not a valid source. If he sites unbiased research then follow the sources he sites and link to them. It's far to easy to cherry pick data to match your predetermined conclusions.
As for source two, This American Life (with Ira Glass, right?) NPR?!!??! Sorry, I need an unbiased source. I'm assuming that all media sources will be biased, then. What would you consider a valid source? Are you just wanking at this point by demanding sources and then dismissing them without supporting your opinions with anything more than a hunch? Sorry, but NPR is the most biases source of any organization that considers itself to be unbiased. Ira Glass is vegetarian man from Chicago, now living in NY. I have nothing against vegetarians, NY'ers nor Chicagans, but odds are, if you are a vegetarian man living in Chicago or NY and working for NPR, there is a good chance you are left of liberal. I do enjoy listening to "This American Life" when I can catch it. It is probably the best thing that PRI (NPR) has on. However, no matter good his show is, he is biased. I would consider him a valid source as I would consider Garrison Keillor, Terry Gross, or the Klik and Klak guys! Now I take the NYT with a grain of salt, but NPR is thrown right out. They are on the same level as Huffington Post, IMHO.
As for me basing my opinions on a "hunch". Nope. Personal experience. Me saying that soldiers are lazy comes from my own experience as a soldier. If you need a source for that, I'd recommend military.com, but I'm not giving out my real name.
Now I will concede that there are people at Gitmo that don't belong there, like the example you sited. However, I seriously doubt that these guys are being interrogated beyond what it took to verify that they shouldn't be there. Once this happens, these guys stay until someone can be figured out what to do with them. Not to say that it's not a terrible situation, but should we shut down the US justice system because innocent people have been locked up?
Gitmo is run by American men and women, just like you and me. So were the internment camps for the Japanese in World War II. That doesn't mean that we didn't royally fuck up. We can be liberal about who we pick up and investigate, but we need to be equally vigilant about making sure that we get around to properly examining the evidence afterward. Disappearing people for years with no semblance of due process is just something we're going to be ashamed about in the long run. While interning the Japanese in WWII was not a good thing, it wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Families had their own homes and were kept together. Children went to school. They were fed well... and so on. While they were not free to leave, I wouldn't use the term "imprisoned" as it has connotations that would lead to an inaccurate impression of the camps. When I see the menu at Gitmo and learn that they are given full religious privileges (something they probably wouldn't get at home), and learn that most of them live in open bays and get to play soccer and so on, I don't think they have it that bad.
Now, back to this ruling: I think it's great that these guys will get some sort of trial. This will mean that some of these guys that don't belong may get released and maybe people will stop bitching about the rights for the guys that DO belong. However, I don't think these proceedings should be public as that could create a grave danger to US forces abroad. The right to face your accuser could be a killer as that accuser may be a covert agent, still undercover somewhere. This is the type of thing that I am afraid of, and this is the one of the reasons behind NOT giving these guys full Constitutional rights.
Who would you consider non-biased? The sources for this paper are available. The person who wrote it could be considered biased, but the numbers are taken straight from the detainee files. The people are, by and large, not people who were picked up by US troops on the battlefield.
If you're interested in a broader examination, I recommend the This American Life program on the topic. Transcript and audio can be found here. It has become clear to me that although the people running these things have good intentions, the result is that we're casting a wide net and sweeping up a lot of people without appropriate protections. Kangaroo courts don't count, and I think that the Supreme Court was right to come in and attempt to bring sanity to the process. Well, the first source looked OK, until I read this on the bottom the page.
The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo. A Lawyer? You're kidding right?
As for source two, This American Life (with Ira Glass, right?) NPR?!!??! Sorry, I need an unbiased source.
Listen, I don't know where these guys came from. I just keep hearing people say that a rival clan turned them in for bounty. It's as if they were just working in their fields, trying to grow flowers for Grandma in the desert sand when suddenly, their evil neighbor shows up with American forces pointing at the guy saying, "That's him!". However, from your first source,
Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. I don't think that the Norther Alliance gets a bounty for prisoners they turn over. They turn over prisoners who they think we may get information from, or WE think they have information we need.
Either way, it's not like we WANT to keep people at Gitmo or anywhere else. I was a soldier, and trust me, soldiers are lazy! If I learned on thing from basic training, it was that a good night's sleep is good, naps are better. Oh, and that volunteering for the service is the last time you volunteer to do anything. No one wants these guys there, but someone deemed it necessary. I'm not going to assume that Bush likes torturing people, just like I'm not going to assume that Obama hates white people or that Clinton trolls the malls for teenage girls. Gitmo is run by American men and women, just like you and me.
Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news. They are more of a left wing, anti American hate group. Here is where they got their "Cheney Endorses Torture" title:
In a radio interview yesterday, Cheney agreed that subjecting prisoners to "a dunk in water" is a "no-brainer" if it could save lives. A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.
Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
First, I don't consider water boarding torture. Water boarding makes you "think" you are drowning. While I'm sure it's quite unpleasant, I wouldn't call it torture. Torture, as I see it, is along the lines of peeling off your finger nails, getting "re-circumcised", forced to eat your own shit... that kind of thing. Making you THINK you are dying is not torture. Torture makes you WANT to be dead. Of course, that is just my opinion as IANAL.
Next, do I think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed deserved to be tortured? Hell, fuck yeah! This was the mastermind of 9-11. He is as responsible for 9-11 as Bin Laden, if not more! He got off light.
But, my opinion is worthless as I am (now) a bystander. Go ask a NY fireman what he thinks. Ask the wife.. now widow, who lost her husband in one of the towers or plane that slammed into them what her opinion is. Ask that dead guy's kids.
Well that sure makes up for the dog attacks, stress positions, rapes, humiliation, sleep deprivation, shocks to the balls, waterboarding, beatings, and you know, being dragged out of your house and detained on the words of an anonymous informant who got paid for ratting on you.
You got any sources on that 'asked not to be released' thing? Because it sounds like something the guys at Fox News would pull out of their ass, not anything real. Well, I've heard of dog attacks (which is probably letting dogs bark at you), sleep deprivation and stress positions. None of these are torture. Water boarding has been used three times at Guantanamo. Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as you remember, was the mastermind of 9-11. He got off light, IMHO). As for the rest, do YOU have a NON BIASED source?
Here is my source for the one of the detainees that doesn't want to leave Guantanamo. You'll note that it is the BBC. Hardly Fox news.
"I don't think there is even a sanatorium in Russia that would compare to this," Ayrat Vakhitov said in a letter to his mother published by Russia's Gazeta newspaper. "Nobody is being beaten or humiliated," he wrote. Here are a couple more.CNN
The Supreme Court refused to block the pending transfer of an accused terrorist held by the U.S. military, despite his fears of being tortured if he is sent back to his home country of Algeria.... Pentagon and State Department officials have said they would not repatriate any prisoner to countries where they would "likely" be tortured.
There was no immediate reaction from Belbacha's attorney, Zachary Katznelson. His lawyer said last week that despite the conditions of the prison, his client would prefer to stay if that were his only option. (He even has a lawyer?!!?)
Here is the Times Online
The Times has learnt that Mr Belbacha, who lived in Britain for three years, has filed an emergency motion at the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC asking for his transfer out of Guantanamo to be halted. He was cleared for release from Camp Delta in February and his lawyers believe that his return to Algerian custody is imminent.
We invaded Iraq, and seriously pissed off a lot of people. Does that count?
On a more serious note, would you happen to know how sending people to trial would interfere with public safety? Is it that there'd just be so many that it wouldn't be possible to schedule a trial for everyone within the allowed time limit?
Many, if not most of the detainees at Gitmo are from Afghanistan and have never been to Iraq. I understand that you may have strong feelings about Iraq, but keep in mind that not everything terrorism related has to do with Iraq.
The bench comments from the Supreme Court on this case pretty much expressly told the military that if they try that trick the SCOTUS will not stand for it. Their comments actually seemed a bit impatient and where clearly aimed at getting some real trials for the prisoners ASAP. They could just simply give them to Egyptians, Iraqis, or even better, the Israelis and tell the Supreme Court to go tell them what to do. No tricks whatsoever. "Yes, your honor, we released them to a foreign government that wanted them." Something tells me, however, that would much rather stayed at Gitmo and will be quite pissed at our Supreme Court.
The point here is that this Senator claims we are giving al Qaida members more legal rights than we gave German POWs in WWII. He ignores the fact that German POWs were treated very well, while we keep these al Qaida members locked in prison cells with occasional water boarding. Source please.
Also, I would hardly call three detainees being water boarded, occasional. I'd call that damn rarely.
From HERE:
Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.
Perhaps you think that even a majority of the detainees in Guantanamo were picked up on the field of battle. Most were not, but were taken into US custody as a result of a bounty program for informers. The problems with such an approach should be obvious. Source? Let me rephrase that...
True, but there is a big difference from catching a German Speaking Nazi and holding him until the war is over, and catching someone who might or might not be a terrorist and you having to figure out if they are friend or foe.
True. In the case of the Nazi, you know he's an enemy.
With many of those in Guantanamo, we didn't have that assurance before we put them there.
(Though, to be fair, we can probably pretty much count on it now.)
I prefer to use the Full Metal Jacket test
Pvt. Joker: How can you shoot innocent women and children like that?
Helicopter gunner: It's easy. You just don't lead them as much. You see, anyone that runs, is V.C. Anyone that stands still is well disciplined V.C. Ain't war hell? Get Some!
(Replace "VC" with "terrorists" where appropriate)
The other very important piece to securing a post-war peace was the Marshall Plan, designed to rebuild the shattered countries.
The reason that the Weimar government in Germany was so screwed up and produced quadrulple-digit inflation was due to the fact that the winner countries in WWI forced Germany to make a lot of expensive reparations, and never helped them rebuild their industry or economy.
That bad government in turn allowed Hitler his rise to power with the disaffected citizens and workers - and subsequent horror of the second war. It took a lot of effort and money to make the Marshall Plan work, but look at the Axis countries 70 years later - they are some of our strongest allies now! It's amazing how many "Out of Iraq NOW!" people don't know about this.
How long have those guys been rotting down there? 6 years? I keep hearing terms like "rotting" when describing Gitmo detainees, when the fact is, by many reports, they are treated quite well. They are fed better than American prisoners. Hell, they are fed better than airline passengers! They are given more religious freedoms they they would in their home countries. Many have even asked NOT to be released as they prefer being a prisoner at Guantanamo over being "free" in their home countries.
Hey honey, thanks for thinking of me, I really appreciate it! Exactly what I was thinking... if he trolls slashdot all day between compiles, I think you let the cat out of the bag.
Yeah, there was a ton of boasting about trying to bring CNN dot com down. Yet, it's still there. Just block all their IPs and be done with them already. Do not want *.cn
Also, to you/.ers making the South Park American Penis jokes, very funny, but those came from an episode where they went to Japan, not China. You frickin' idiots! Get some jokes from the episode where they have the South Park volleyball team in the world championships in China. The announcers from the game were priceless! Use those for reference. Thanks! Uh, I thought it was Dodgeball.
I suppose that for me the really infuriating thing about the oil company CEO is that he is raking in my tax dollars in the guise of subsidies. I'd rather the oil market was unsubsidized and deal with that reality, where if I don't like it I can choose not to support it. But now even though I chose not to buy oil (in the form of gasoline) the bastards still have a hand in my pocket. I'm not sure why that doesn't infuriate you too, though there have been some experiments which examine that phenomenon. What subsidies to oil companies receive? I looked it up, and came up with this:
There is growing awareness in this country that the full cost of using oil for transportation is "subsidized" -- that is, gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include
* reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
* lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
* government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists
* "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution Now we can eliminate the "environmental costs" because that's not a government subsidy.
We can eliminate the stuff that benefits motorists, as I assume that means traffic cops, street lights, roads and road repairs etc. Again, hardly an oil company subsidy.
"Lower than average sales taxes on gasoline" can't be considered since there federal sales tax is 0%, and you can't get any lower that that. Matter of fact, I'd call this one a downright fabrication.
Which leaves us with number one, "reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry". I don't know if I'd call this a subsidy either, especially since the federal and state governments make more money off taxing gasoline than the oil companies do. If the government is going to put a separate special tax on your product, I'd think they could let off the corporate taxes a bit.
Are there other subsidies that I'm not aware of? How do these subsidies compare to the subsidies in other industries, like corn, dairy, or pharmaceutical?
So if these are all the subsidies the gov't gives oil companies, then I'd hardly say that they are "in your pocket", and I don't understand why you would get so upset at oil companies and not others, like corn producers.
Because if the big oil CEO didn't get rich (say the oil was nationalized) it would probably save everyone $0.50 a gallon. That's the real tradeoff. People realize that a resource in the ground can be exploited differently and benefit them more than any currently proposed scheme. The problem is that one word of nationalizing oil causes everyone to run around screaming "communism!", despite the fact that the government already nationalized all the roads and rails you can use gas on. $.50 a gallon you say? Let's apply that to the math test. First we need to know how much gas the US consumes in a year. This site is as good as any, I guess.
Therefore, in the United States, something like 400 million gallons (1.51 billion liters) of gasoline gets consumed every day. So, we take that 400 million and multiply it by 365, we get 146000 million gallons of gas annually in the US, or 146 billion gallons. So, if $0.50/gallon goes to a big oil CEO, that would mean that they make a combined $73,000,000,000/yr. Of course, we would need to break that up between the big oil companies. How many are there? Let's say five, which would mean each would make $14.6 Billion a year, average. (Of course, this is just what these guys would make from the US and does not take into account world wide sales or other petroleum products like jet fuel, diesel and so on, so that number would be much, MUCH higher)
How does that compare to real life numbers?
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s outgoing chief executive, Lee Raymond, received $48.5 million in salary, bonus, incentive payments and stock awards last year...
The CIA can use interrogation techniques that are far short of torture that they would NOT be able to do if this law were passed.
Hmm. Such as? It's just that some people in our government have very, um, interesting views of what "techniques short of torture" may include.
I think MPolo responded to my post instead of yours. Here is what he said:
For example, lying to the detainee. This is forbidden by the Army manual, but allowed to the CIA. Or for example, being rude to the detainee. This is forbidden in the Army manual and allowed to the CIA. Are these torture? Is telling a detainee that his buddy has squealed torture? If so, I got issues with the Ft. Bend police department. They told me, "Your buddy said you did it. Now how 'bout you tellin' us what REALLY happened. (then they spit their chaw). This is what I meant when I said "techniques that fall far short of torture" that are forbidden by the Army manual.
We need to start representing both sides of the argument. That facts show that Supply/Demand does not just happen, but that it is directed by some sort of intelligent force. We need to teach Intelligent Economics along with Micro and Macro Economics. Seriously, it this a joke? It sounds like you are advocating economic ID.
This has the potential to be as bad as (or worse) than spam. Think about it - if you were telemarketing, you'd have to hire a bunch of people to work in a call center. This costs money (rent, phone lines, people). What about all those pre-recorded calls I get telling me to vote for Hillary Clinton or whoever?
(Disclaimer: That was not a jibe at Hillary. I actually got a call from a real live person working for the Hillary campaign when my state's primaries were looming. She just started talking, so I actually thought she was a recording. I was joking with my wife about "Hillary Clinton" showing up on the caller ID and said, "I told Hill not to call me at home! I wonder if Bill knows how much she calls me? I guess what's good for the goose..." That's when the lady said, "excuse me?" I then realized she was a real person.)
Slashdot Mirror
Again, not to say he's wrong, but he has a job to do. His job is to represent a particular detainee at Gitmo. If he presents data that hurts that detainee, he's not doing his job and is doing a disservice to his client. So, if he is doing his job and representing his client, then he will ignore any data that harms his client and present data that doesn't. He would be wrong if he were impartial, as he would not be giving his client the representation he deserves.
The source can not have an agenda. MoveOn.org would be an example. Not a good source. NPR, IMHO, has an agenda to push. I know because I used to listen, every day. A Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor is an example of "disguised bias". Sure, it's a comedy show with folk songs and down-home jokes, but Keillor will often take off on a left wing rant. More than once I heard him call members of the Bush administration "criminals". This was before the Iraq invasion, BTW. Diane Rehm is another example. I listened nearly every day when Clinton was being impeached and it was her topic every single day. Never did I hear the words "perjury" or "obstruction of justice" uttered, NEVER. If I got my news solely from that show, I would honestly think that Bill Clinton was being impeached for having an affair. About the only time I could expect NPR to venture from the far left was when the BBC would take over at night. So, NPR is out.
Of course I'll take Fox News. The rap they get as a right-wing institution is not deserved. Just because they are the only major news network that even presents the the right's side doesn't make them a right wing outfit. Before anyone brings up Bill O'Reilly, check out Keith Olbermann. At least Bill O'Reilly will have guests on that don't agree with him. Sure, he yells at them, but they are given a chance to speak their piece.
CNN is getting better, although they are still left of center. I would accept a CNN source. But, again, I would have to look at the story. Too many anonymous sources, or reporting something from "other" news sources would throw up a red flag.
As for the data in the piece you presented, some of it is good. But just like the author would more than likely do, I would only pull out that which supports my case. Although, I do see some opinion thrown in: If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither. Under this assumption, the data reveals that 40% of the detainees are not affiliated with al Qaeda and 18% percent of the detainees are not affiliated with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. I did however look the paper over. It is well written and presents some good points. However, some of the points are dated or just wrong. For example, "The detainees have been afforded no meaningful opportunity to test the Governmentâ(TM)s evidence against them. They remain incarcerated." Define "meaningful". What non-meaningful opportunities have they had? What methods has congress passed that would allow for these detainees to test the evidence against them? And so ion...
While we all agree that these men should have a chance to prove their innocence and challenge their detention, we need a better way that affording them Constitutional rights and public courtrooms.
I mostly agree, but there are a few exceptions.
In WWII, we knew well ahead of time that the war was going to end and we had much more time to plan for it. Plus we had allies who were not going to go anywhere because they lived there.
In Iraq, the US Gov't underestimated what our military could do. The job was finished way too quickly. Of course, this is not the fault of the military. When you are bounding between fighting positions, you don't wait for the enemy to dig in.
Finally, we tore Iraq up. It's our responsibility to square it away. We must stay there until the job is finished and/or the elected government there asks us to leave.
I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.
The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...
No one denied that Cheney made those remarks. I don't understand what was wrong with them. If on 9-10-01, you knew, without a doubt of someone who knew of the attacks and was going to let them go forward without telling anyone, would you torture this one man to save the lives of 3000 Americans if you were President of Vice President if that were the only way to get him to talk?I would. Sorry, I know it sucks, but I would in a heart beat. Like I said, if it would make things better, you could do the same to me, IF IT WOULD SAVE LIVES. It's math really. Torturing one is less than the deaths of 3000 + the torture their families had to endure.
Seriously, you wouldn't torture someone who knew of 9-11 and was willing to let it happen, in order to prevent it?
That's all we ask for. That's why we don't have military tribunals to determine our guilt. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No, it's not. For starters, the American legal system is public and transparent. Our military is not. If you give these guys public trials with full Constitutional protection, then these guys have a right to face their accusers. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but their accuser may be a covert CIA agent still in the field. Their accuser may be an agent from Pakistan or the Northern Alliance. If outing Valerie Plame was such a horrendous crime, wouldn't this be that much worse? I've been through military court proceedings and I can assure you that they are fair and efficient since much of the legal bullshit, legalese and delaying proceedings have pulled out. They are also secret, which would protect undercover agents in the field.
Besides, I trust our military tribunal system much more than I trust the justice system that let OJ go free! Either way, it's not like we WANT to let everyone in Gitmo, or anyone else, get off scot free. I am an American, and trust me, Americans are better than these scum we are fighting. If I learned one thing in a basic civics class, it's that we are better than everyone else precisely because we hold ourselves to higher standards (or, at least, we're supposed to be, and we're supposed to do that). I agree that these guys deserve proceedings to determine if they belong, and they were getting those proceedings. Those that are determined to no longer be a danger to the US and have no information worthy of seeking should be released and maybe even compensated for their time. However, I do not think that those proceedings should be done in public, or in civilian courts (unless the detainee is a US citizen, of course). This is a military matter and should be handled by the military.
As for me basing my opinions on a "hunch". Nope. Personal experience. Me saying that soldiers are lazy comes from my own experience as a soldier. If you need a source for that, I'd recommend military.com, but I'm not giving out my real name.
Now I will concede that there are people at Gitmo that don't belong there, like the example you sited. However, I seriously doubt that these guys are being interrogated beyond what it took to verify that they shouldn't be there. Once this happens, these guys stay until someone can be figured out what to do with them. Not to say that it's not a terrible situation, but should we shut down the US justice system because innocent people have been locked up? Gitmo is run by American men and women, just like you and me. So were the internment camps for the Japanese in World War II. That doesn't mean that we didn't royally fuck up. We can be liberal about who we pick up and investigate, but we need to be equally vigilant about making sure that we get around to properly examining the evidence afterward. Disappearing people for years with no semblance of due process is just something we're going to be ashamed about in the long run. While interning the Japanese in WWII was not a good thing, it wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Families had their own homes and were kept together. Children went to school. They were fed well... and so on. While they were not free to leave, I wouldn't use the term "imprisoned" as it has connotations that would lead to an inaccurate impression of the camps. When I see the menu at Gitmo and learn that they are given full religious privileges (something they probably wouldn't get at home), and learn that most of them live in open bays and get to play soccer and so on, I don't think they have it that bad.
Now, back to this ruling: I think it's great that these guys will get some sort of trial. This will mean that some of these guys that don't belong may get released and maybe people will stop bitching about the rights for the guys that DO belong. However, I don't think these proceedings should be public as that could create a grave danger to US forces abroad. The right to face your accuser could be a killer as that accuser may be a covert agent, still undercover somewhere. This is the type of thing that I am afraid of, and this is the one of the reasons behind NOT giving these guys full Constitutional rights.
Who would you consider non-biased? The sources for this paper are available. The person who wrote it could be considered biased, but the numbers are taken straight from the detainee files. The people are, by and large, not people who were picked up by US troops on the battlefield.
If you're interested in a broader examination, I recommend the This American Life program on the topic. Transcript and audio can be found here. It has become clear to me that although the people running these things have good intentions, the result is that we're casting a wide net and sweeping up a lot of people without appropriate protections. Kangaroo courts don't count, and I think that the Supreme Court was right to come in and attempt to bring sanity to the process. Well, the first source looked OK, until I read this on the bottom the page. The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo. A Lawyer? You're kidding right?
As for source two, This American Life (with Ira Glass, right?) NPR?!!??! Sorry, I need an unbiased source.
Listen, I don't know where these guys came from. I just keep hearing people say that a rival clan turned them in for bounty. It's as if they were just working in their fields, trying to grow flowers for Grandma in the desert sand when suddenly, their evil neighbor shows up with American forces pointing at the guy saying, "That's him!". However, from your first source, Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. I don't think that the Norther Alliance gets a bounty for prisoners they turn over. They turn over prisoners who they think we may get information from, or WE think they have information we need.
Either way, it's not like we WANT to keep people at Gitmo or anywhere else. I was a soldier, and trust me, soldiers are lazy! If I learned on thing from basic training, it was that a good night's sleep is good, naps are better. Oh, and that volunteering for the service is the last time you volunteer to do anything. No one wants these guys there, but someone deemed it necessary. I'm not going to assume that Bush likes torturing people, just like I'm not going to assume that Obama hates white people or that Clinton trolls the malls for teenage girls. Gitmo is run by American men and women, just like you and me.
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news. They are more of a left wing, anti American hate group. Here is where they got their "Cheney Endorses Torture" title: In a radio interview yesterday, Cheney agreed that subjecting prisoners to "a dunk in water" is a "no-brainer" if it could save lives. A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
First, I don't consider water boarding torture. Water boarding makes you "think" you are drowning. While I'm sure it's quite unpleasant, I wouldn't call it torture. Torture, as I see it, is along the lines of peeling off your finger nails, getting "re-circumcised", forced to eat your own shit... that kind of thing. Making you THINK you are dying is not torture. Torture makes you WANT to be dead. Of course, that is just my opinion as IANAL.Next, do I think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed deserved to be tortured? Hell, fuck yeah! This was the mastermind of 9-11. He is as responsible for 9-11 as Bin Laden, if not more! He got off light.
But, my opinion is worthless as I am (now) a bystander. Go ask a NY fireman what he thinks. Ask the wife.. now widow, who lost her husband in one of the towers or plane that slammed into them what her opinion is. Ask that dead guy's kids.
You got any sources on that 'asked not to be released' thing? Because it sounds like something the guys at Fox News would pull out of their ass, not anything real. Well, I've heard of dog attacks (which is probably letting dogs bark at you), sleep deprivation and stress positions. None of these are torture. Water boarding has been used three times at Guantanamo. Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as you remember, was the mastermind of 9-11. He got off light, IMHO). As for the rest, do YOU have a NON BIASED source?
Here is my source for the one of the detainees that doesn't want to leave Guantanamo. You'll note that it is the BBC. Hardly Fox news. "I don't think there is even a sanatorium in Russia that would compare to this," Ayrat Vakhitov said in a letter to his mother published by Russia's Gazeta newspaper.
"Nobody is being beaten or humiliated," he wrote. Here are a couple more.CNN The Supreme Court refused to block the pending transfer of an accused terrorist held by the U.S. military, despite his fears of being tortured if he is sent back to his home country of Algeria.
Pentagon and State Department officials have said they would not repatriate any prisoner to countries where they would "likely" be tortured.
There was no immediate reaction from Belbacha's attorney, Zachary Katznelson. His lawyer said last week that despite the conditions of the prison, his client would prefer to stay if that were his only option. (He even has a lawyer?!!?)
Here is the Times Online The Times has learnt that Mr Belbacha, who lived in Britain for three years, has filed an emergency motion at the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC asking for his transfer out of Guantanamo to be halted. He was cleared for release from Camp Delta in February and his lawyers believe that his return to Algerian custody is imminent.
We invaded Iraq, and seriously pissed off a lot of people. Does that count?
On a more serious note, would you happen to know how sending people to trial would interfere with public safety? Is it that there'd just be so many that it wouldn't be possible to schedule a trial for everyone within the allowed time limit?
Many, if not most of the detainees at Gitmo are from Afghanistan and have never been to Iraq. I understand that you may have strong feelings about Iraq, but keep in mind that not everything terrorism related has to do with Iraq.Also, I would hardly call three detainees being water boarded, occasional. I'd call that damn rarely.
From HERE: Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.
NON BIASED Source?
True. In the case of the Nazi, you know he's an enemy.
With many of those in Guantanamo, we didn't have that assurance before we put them there.
I prefer to use the Full Metal Jacket test Pvt. Joker: How can you shoot innocent women and children like that?(Though, to be fair, we can probably pretty much count on it now.)
Helicopter gunner: It's easy. You just don't lead them as much. You see, anyone that runs, is V.C. Anyone that stands still is well disciplined V.C. Ain't war hell? Get Some!
(Replace "VC" with "terrorists" where appropriate)
The reason that the Weimar government in Germany was so screwed up and produced quadrulple-digit inflation was due to the fact that the winner countries in WWI forced Germany to make a lot of expensive reparations, and never helped them rebuild their industry or economy.
That bad government in turn allowed Hitler his rise to power with the disaffected citizens and workers - and subsequent horror of the second war. It took a lot of effort and money to make the Marshall Plan work, but look at the Axis countries 70 years later - they are some of our strongest allies now! It's amazing how many "Out of Iraq NOW!" people don't know about this.
If you can teach that this law is enforced and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of this law, then you can teach skepticism.
Also, to you
* reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
* lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
* government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists
* "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution Now we can eliminate the "environmental costs" because that's not a government subsidy.
We can eliminate the stuff that benefits motorists, as I assume that means traffic cops, street lights, roads and road repairs etc. Again, hardly an oil company subsidy.
"Lower than average sales taxes on gasoline" can't be considered since there federal sales tax is 0%, and you can't get any lower that that. Matter of fact, I'd call this one a downright fabrication.
Which leaves us with number one, "reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry". I don't know if I'd call this a subsidy either, especially since the federal and state governments make more money off taxing gasoline than the oil companies do. If the government is going to put a separate special tax on your product, I'd think they could let off the corporate taxes a bit.
Are there other subsidies that I'm not aware of? How do these subsidies compare to the subsidies in other industries, like corn, dairy, or pharmaceutical?
So if these are all the subsidies the gov't gives oil companies, then I'd hardly say that they are "in your pocket", and I don't understand why you would get so upset at oil companies and not others, like corn producers.
How does that compare to real life numbers? Exxon Mobil Corp.'s outgoing chief executive, Lee Raymond, received $48.5 million in salary, bonus, incentive payments and stock awards last year...
I think MPolo responded to my post instead of yours. Here is what he said: For example, lying to the detainee. This is forbidden by the Army manual, but allowed to the CIA. Or for example, being rude to the detainee. This is forbidden in the Army manual and allowed to the CIA. Are these torture? Is telling a detainee that his buddy has squealed torture? If so, I got issues with the Ft. Bend police department. They told me, "Your buddy said you did it. Now how 'bout you tellin' us what REALLY happened. (then they spit their chaw). This is what I meant when I said "techniques that fall far short of torture" that are forbidden by the Army manual.Hmm. Such as? It's just that some people in our government have very, um, interesting views of what "techniques short of torture" may include.
(Disclaimer: That was not a jibe at Hillary. I actually got a call from a real live person working for the Hillary campaign when my state's primaries were looming. She just started talking, so I actually thought she was a recording. I was joking with my wife about "Hillary Clinton" showing up on the caller ID and said, "I told Hill not to call me at home! I wonder if Bill knows how much she calls me? I guess what's good for the goose..." That's when the lady said, "excuse me?" I then realized she was a real person.)