SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/20/2005 7:09:15 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A tortuous use of language

By Jay Tea on War On Terror
Wizbang

I've mentioned before how important I think words are, and how frustrated I get when I see words misused, abused, and exploited. And I see it happening yet again.

"Torture" used to mean something. It was an obscene word, with an obscene meaning. It meant the deliberate infliction of great pain, great suffering, injuries, maiming, even killing people.

Nowadays, though, anything sort of the kindest and gentlest treatment by US captors is considered "torture." By calling the admittedly rough interrogation techniques reported being used in Guantanamo "torture," we devalue the word, and allow those nations who do genuinely torture people to draw moral equivalence with us.

I have a simple definition of "torture" as it would apply in Guantanamo. I would like to see the military not treat the detainees any harsher than they treat their own members. As long as the techniques are less than our troops routinely endure as part of boot camp and SERE training.

It's a simple matter of applying the Golden Rule. I don't want the interrogators doing anything to their captives that they themselves would not be prepared to endure.

It strikes me as an elegant and simple solution. Naturally, I expect it to go nowhere.

wizbangblog.com

training.sfahq.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/21/2005 4:19:30 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Betsy's Page

Michelle Malkin counters the false argument that is out there that the guys at Gitmo have not had any judicial proceeding. As she reminds us, they have all had a hearing in front of military tribunal. They aren't entitled to trials in the United States legal system. But they are getting hearings. And these proceedings will be upheld by the Supreme Court since similar procedures were okayed for an American citizen.

<<<

In the end, courts will almost certainly affirm the legality of the Gitmo tribunals, which were modeled after the due process standards described in the Hamdi decision.

The Hamdi decision addressed the detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. As former Attorney General William Barr noted last week in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Obviously, if these procedures are sufficient for American citizens, they are more than enough for foreign detainees….”

>>>

betsyspage.blogspot.com

michellemalkin.com

a257.g.akamaitech.net



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/22/2005 2:50:57 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Let's Hear From Someone Who's Served There

Power Line

As most of our readers know, we participate in a radio show called the Northern Alliance Radio Network every Saturday afternoon. The show is broadcast on 1280 am the Patriot in the Twin Cities, and is streamed over the internet. (You can link to the stream from our site, check the sidebar on the right.) Last Saturday, we bumped into State Senator Michele Bachmann, who is running for the House seat being vacated by Mark Kennedy, in the Patriot's basement--our headquarters--where she was about to do another show. She mentioned that she knows a Minnesotan who has recently gotten back from serving at Guantanamo Bay, and offered to call him to see if he would come on our show. She did, and he did, but we only had time for a brief interview. Because the issue is so important, we passed his contact information on to Hugh Hewitt and urged Hugh to put him on his show. Hugh did, and he has posted a transcript of the interview here.
hughhewitt.com

With all the nonsense being written about Gitmo, the interview is worth reading in its entirety. I would only add the the soldier, Pete, was the valedictorian of his high school class, graduated from Princeton, and now serves with the New Jersey National Guard.


Here is an excerpt:

<<<

Hugh: When did you serve in Gitmo?

Pete: I was there about two months ago, for a year.

***

Hugh: Did you see brutality at Gitmo?

Pete: I didn't see one bit of it.

Hugh: Are interrogations ongoing at Gitmo?

Pete: Absolutely. The facility is there to gather intelligence.

***

Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality of the prisoners you observed?

Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee to go back home who had refused to do so because he wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated so well.

Hugh: Food okay for the prisoners at Guantanamo, Pete?

Pete: I think it is better than what my guys got for a year, to be honest with you.

Hugh: You an officer, Pete?

Pete: Yes I am. Second Lieutenant.

Hugh: Are you proud of the way your men conducted themselves vis-a-vis these prisoners?

Pete: Absolutely. I mean, you've got guys from New jersey who were just, you know, minutes away from the Towers when they fell, who knew family members who died that day. And the professionalism with which they conducted themselves around men who may have been involved in those attacks was extraordinary.
>>>

The contrast between forthright young men like Pete and gasbags like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean is, I think, striking.


powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/22/2005 5:51:55 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
"Obviously, if these procedures are sufficient for American
citizens, they are more than enough for foreign detainees."

Debunking another Gitmo myth

Michelle Malkin
townhall.com
June 22, 2005

Newsweek. Amnesty International. Jimmy Carter. Dick Durbin. The Guantanamo Bay-bashing continues.

In a rant published Tuesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune actually castigated Durbin for "caving in" on his slanderous remarks comparing U.S. treatment of detainees at Gitmo to torture and genocide by Nazis, Soviets and Pol Pot. The paper wrote that Durbin shouldn't have apologized and decried the entire operation as a "hellhole."

But it's not just unhinged liberals who keep piling on.

The "maverick" Sen. John McCain echoed one of the Left's most oft-cited and erroneous complaints about Gitmo on NBC's "Meet The Press" this weekend -- that detainees have been denied trials:

<<<

"The weight of evidence has got to be that we've got to adjudicate these people's cases, and . . . if it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them. Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial."
<<<

(Can we put a lid on the Nazi analogies already? Crikey. A Knight-Ridder reporter was too smitten to be bothered by his Eichmann-invoking hyperbole: "McCain is emerging as a voice of conscience and nuance on the stay-or-go Guantanamo issue." Nuance?)

GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham, another newly christened "maverick" who appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, lodged similar allegations about the absence of trials for Gitmo detainees:

<<<

"We need a procedure and process that will allow us to determine who an enemy combatant is, interrogate them to make us safer in a humane way, and set up trials for the worst offenders and repatriate those who -- who don't meet the category of a -- of a threat. That, to me, would look good to the world. It would make us safer."
>>>

My friend, Judge Andrew Napolitano, made a similar assertion on Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor" last week:

<< "The government is not giving them those trials." >>

And now, the facts:

Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters -- with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial -- is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system -- long established in wartime -- in the first place.

The few critics who acknowledge the existence of the tribunals argue they aren't sufficient. They "provided due process in form, but not in substance," as Newsday put it. That view is shared by a Carter-appointed liberal judge, but an earlier decision by a Bush-appointed judge upheld the tribunals. In the end, courts will almost certainly affirm the legality of the Gitmo tribunals, which, as noted, were modeled after the due process standards described in the Hamdi decision.

That ruling, may I remind you, addressed the detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. As former Attorney General William Barr noted last week in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Obviously, if these procedures are sufficient for American citizens, they are more than enough for foreign detainees."

Do John McCain and the anti-Gitmo gang actually believe otherwise, or are they too clueless to realize the implications of their gulag-Pol Pot-Nazi-Eichmann-hellhole harangues?

***

Errata: Last week, I wrote that Barbara Walters "reportedly pronounced [an airplane encounter with a nursing mom] 'gross and disgusting.'" The quote came from The Calgary Sun, Ted Byfield, June 12, 2005, but Walters did not use those words as she frowned and complained she was "uncomfortable." My apology for the error. Walters also informs me that Elizabeth Hasselbeck has not completely given up nursing, and that Walters was "on a crowded shuttle," not first-class. All the more reason to cut the mom some slack.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/22/2005 8:46:54 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
"whether intentionally or unintentionally, much of the MSM
has failed to grasp the fundamental differences, long
recognized in the laws of war, between holding individuals to
prevent them from returning to the fight, and holding them on
a criminal charge."

DEBUNKING ANOTHER GITMO MYTH

By Michelle Malkin
June 22, 2005 11:32 AM

My latest column, bringing these arguments to my newspaper readers, is up. I've phoned both Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham's offices for comment, and will report back any reaction of interest.

Meanwhile, Lee Casey and Darin Bartram, who have written cogently on this topic, shared the following thoughts with me:

<<<

The bottom line is that the Administration's critics refuse to accept that the detention of an enemy combatant during active hostilities is fundamentally different from the confinement of an individual on a criminal charge.

All of the due process rights, to a lawyer, to an impartial tribunal, to know the charge and evidence, do not attach until -- and unless -- a criminal charge is brought. When a determination is made to pursue a criminal conviction against a detainee, which would permit the U.S. to hold him even after hostilities end, then the detainee is entitled to the due process guarantees characteristic of military courts and -- as you note -- approved by the Supreme Court in Quirin.

As you also correctly point out, only four of the detainees have been designated for criminal prosecution so far, and these cases are on hold pending appeals into the civilian system.

Overall, it is not accurate to claim that the detainees have not been given an opportunity to challenge their status. They have been given that opportunity fully in accord with the ground rules established by the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case. There, Justice O'Connor made clear that a process comparable to that required by Article V of the Geneva POW Convention would be sufficient, and this is exactly what the military adopted with the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. This was a plurality opinion, but on this point she commanded a majority of votes on the court.

The press has not covered this issue well.

Indeed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, much of the MSM has failed to grasp the fundamental differences, long recognized in the laws of war, between holding individuals to prevent them from returning to the fight, and holding them on a criminal charge.
>>>

michellemalkin.com

jewishworldreview.com

michellemalkin.com

fed-soc.org



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/22/2005 8:54:59 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
70% Say Gitmo Prisoners Treated Well

Little Green Footballs

A new Rasmussen poll shows that 70% of Americans believe the Gitmo Bay terrorists have been treated “better than they deserve” (36%) or “about right” (34%).

<<<

The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics. Sixty-nine percent disagree with that comparison.

This helps explain why Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized for making such a comparison.
>>>

The radical left’s campaign to demonize the War on Terror, the US military, and Guantanamo Bay is backfiring. Badly.


(Hat tip: scott in east bay.)

littlegreenfootballs.com

rasmussenreports.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/23/2005 3:56:40 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
They're not Buying It

Power Line

The American people, that is. Rasmussen has the latest
poll data on Guantanamo Bay:

<<<

A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly.

Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated
"better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%)
.

The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that
prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics
.

Sixty-nine percent disagree with that comparison.

This helps explain why Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized for making such a comparison.
>>>

So Americans who think the terrorists are being treated better than they deserve outnumber those who think they are being treated too harshly by almost two to one.

But, hey, the Dems are really solid with that 20%!

powerlineblog.com

rasmussenreports.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/24/2005 2:09:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DECAPITATION FOR DUMMIES

By Michelle Malkin
June 23, 2005 03:43 PM

Check this out:

<<<

US Marines have found manuals on taking hostages and decapitation during a raid on a guerrilla hideout
in the Iraqi village of Karabla, near the town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that in the hideaway the troops also found several hostages who were being held there by Islamic militants. The hiding place was being used as a centre for the interrogation and torture of hostages, and contained electrodes and other instruments of torture.

The manuals found were used as Jihad (Holy War) handbooks. The first was titled: "How to choose the best hostage", the second covered decapitation and was called: "Rules for cutting off the heads of infidels", and the third manual, "principles of the philosophy of the Jihad", was more theoretical.
>>>

Hat tip: Opinipundit, who comments, "We have manuals on how to properly handle the Koran and humanely treat prisoners, paying respect their cultural sensitivities, they have manuals on how to properly torture and decapitate hostages."

Yup.


michellemalkin.com

adnki.com

exposingtheleft.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/24/2005 4:14:48 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
US Acknowledges Torture, And Prosecution Of Those Committing It

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters

The United States has submitted a report to the United Nations that acknowledges its personnel has committed isolated acts of torture on detainees, the French wire service AFP reports.

Its unnamed source says that the American report was very forthright and involved a handful of cases which the US military intends on prosecuting as crimes:


<<<

Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP. ...

"They haven't avoided anything in their answers, whether concerning prisoners in Iraq, in Afghanistan or Guantanamo, and other accusations of mistreatment and of torture," the Committee member said.

"They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished."

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.
>>>

While I suspect that the hysterical Gitmo=gulag crowd will jump all over this, it does serve to remind people that regardless of how intent we are on acting under the highest principles, it takes good management and a lot of discipline to keep interrogators and jailers from crossing the line. That was the lesson at Abu Ghraib, one that most people missed in their rush to smear the entire chain of command with the absurd notion that naked pyramids and leashes had been approved at the top levels of the Pentagon. Those involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses -- which probably have been included in this report -- belonged to a unit with poor discipline and excessive fraternization, both of which directly led to the abuses in that prison.

The report also shows the difference between America and (I can't believe I even have to write this) Nazi Germany, the Soviet gulag, and the Khmer Rouge. Our policies and aims do not accept torture, and when it occurs, it is treated as a crime and punished appropriately. We also do not imprison people arbitrarily and have the appropriate process to determine their need for detention. The latter three examples ran prisons and camps for the express purpose of torturing and killing people strictly for their ethnicity, religion, or political speech, and succeeded in killing millions upon millions in doing so.

If Americans have tortured prisoners -- and that means really tortured prisoners, not just left them in cold or hot rooms or humiliated them by having women rub themselves on them -- then they should be tried and imprisoned for their crimes. The American military appears capable of investigating these problems and holding the guilty accountable.

Perhaps that will quell the hysterics from declaring the US a fascist state ... but somehow I doubt it.

captainsquartersblog.com

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/24/2005 9:21:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Reality of Gitmo

Little Green Footballs

Tennessee Army National Guard Major John Krenson spent a year in Afghanistan as an intelligence expert, dealing with the kind of people who are imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay:

<<<

Up close, these are the nastiest of prisoners.

“I worked with people who had worked at Gitmo earlier, I worked with people who worked at the primary detention facility in AFG, and I visited that facility many times. I saw detainees (many times on their prayer rugs, other times reading, other times talking when they were not allowed to). I saw the interrogation rooms. I worked with the soldiers and the leaders who ran this place.

“I know those operations fairly well, and I got to know the people who ran those operations — both active duty and reservists. They are normal Americans. They are good decent people who believed in what they were doing. Americans — including Sen. Durbin — can be and should be proud of them.

“Be assured the worst of the worst detainees are the ones at Gitmo. It took a lot of effort to get a detainee shipped over ... . They are no victims. ... Their victims are most often Afghan villagers who have risked their lives simply to vote or are construction and aid workers from around the world who are assisting Afghanistan to modernize and develop. The detainees at Gitmo are the ringleaders and verified trigger-pullers in these incidents.

“This is serious business with tens and hundreds of thousands of lives at stake. People have already lost lives because we’ve released Gitmo detainees. I read those reports, when they were captured — a second time. I can’t print the words we used in AFG when we found out a soldier died at the hands of a terrorist released from Gitmo. Gitmo didn’t make them want to kill again. Their release allowed them to kill again.”
>>>

(Hat tip: Alone in NY.)

littlegreenfootballs.com

tennessean.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/24/2005 10:25:22 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
“A commission will, in political terms, never clear the
Bush administration of anything.”

Gitmo Commission Gambit

The Editors
National Review Online

The flap over Sen. Dick Durbin’s vile comments behind them, Democrats are moving on to their next Guantanamo Bay gambit of pushing for an independent commission to investigate practices there. A common thread runs through Durbin’s comparisons and this call for a commission: an urge for national self-flagellation.

The underlying premise is that we have been bad, very bad, in daring to hold enemy combatants, never mind that doing so is intrinsic to the act of warfare. The 9/11 Commission did some worthy work, but it also created a politicized circus around its investigation thanks to its partisan Democrats and passive Republicans, on top of a press eager to give the Bush administration a black eye.

Who can doubt that a similar constellation of forces will be in play here?

Or that that is exactly what Nancy Pelosi is hoping for?

It is argued that a commission will help clear the country’s good name. Put aside that the portion of the foreign audience that hates us won’t be swayed by a commission’s findings one way or another. A commission will, in political terms, never clear the Bush administration of anything.

The Robb-Silberman Commission cleared Bush officials of the charge that
they pressured intelligence officials to hype intelligence about Iraq’s WMD.

Democrats and swaths of the media dismissed the report for exactly that reason.

The Pentagon has investigated its detainee practices repeatedly.

Air Force Lt. General Randall Schmidt’s investigation into Gitmo — it is his forthcoming report that Newsweek falsely said would contain the toilet-flushing incident — will just be the latest. There is no reason to believe that violations of the rules at the facility, including of the minute procedures for handling the Koran, haven’t resulted in discipline for the violators.

And numerous congressional hearings have been held about the detentions there.

An independent commission is not just unnecessary, it’s a cop out.

Democrats should simply say what they would do with the detainees, and offer a congressional resolution to that effect and vote on it. Do they oppose tough interrogation techniques for the 20th hijacker? Then they should put themselves on record against them, even if it’s only in a symbolic resolution. Do they think terrorists deserve Geneva Convention protections? That we should attempt (futilely) to try the detainees in the American courts and — failing that — release them?

If they are such fans of “accountability,” Democrats shouldn’t blanch
at putting such positions in black and white and voting on them.

Of course, they will do no such thing. They instead want to hide behind a commission that at best will duplicate investigative work that has already been done and at worst replicate the 9/11 Commission at its lowest, most politicized moments. The response to calls for such a commission should be simple: “Hell, no.” — The Editors

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/25/2005 1:23:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Markup

Media Blog
Stephen Spruiell Reporting

U.N. Uncovers Torture at Guantanamo Bay

The Associated Press chose that headline for this story about the latest 1st Avenue farce.

And how did the U.N. “uncover” this torture?

<<<

Many of these allegations have come to light through declassified (U.S.) government documents," said a statement from the four, who report to U.N. bodies on different human rights issues.
>>>

Yet, even though the U.S. government’s own investigations have provided the grist for this exercise in publicity, the U.N. accuses the U.S. officials of stonewalling investigators because they have so far failed to let this merry band have unlimited access to al-Qaeda fighters who have been trained to lie about their treatment:

<<<

The failure of the United States to respond is leading the experts to conclude that Washington has something to hide, said the specialist on torture, Manfred Nowak, a professor of international law in Vienna, Austria.

"At a certain point, you have to take well-founded allegations as proven in the absence of a clear explanation by the government," he said, though he also noted: "We are not making a judgment if torture or treatment under degrading conditions has taken place."
>>>

Is “U.N. Uncovers Torture” really the appropriate headline when even Manfred
himself said, “We are not making a judgment if torture… has taken place”?

I would suggest the more appropriate headline:

"U.N. Tries to Distract Press Attention From Latest
Oil-For-Food Scandal Revelations";

Officials Wave Hands, Shout “Look, Over Here!”

(via LGF)

UPDATE: Jeff Harrell at Shape of Days has more:

<<<

Only when you get down to the last graf does reporter Brad Klapper deign to mention that the [International Committee of the Red Cross] has been conducting inspections of the facilities at Guantanamo Bay since days after Camp X-Ray opened in January 2002. But the ICRC keeps their reports secret, you see. They’re obviously in on it.
>>>

UPDATE II: Jeff just informed me that the story has gotten an extensive rewrite, including a new headline: "U.N. Officials Seek Guantanamo Bay Visit." As he puts it, "If they could get the story right at 3:28 p.m., why couldn’t they get the story right at 12:04 p.m.?"

Agreed.

media.nationalreview.com

news.yahoo.com

pbs.org

news.yahoo.com
Ap_lWa_WIukaz2Xi.H_yq869IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-

voanews.com

theshapeofdays.com

apnews.myway.com

theshapeofdays.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/25/2005 1:42:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
U.N. "uncovers torture" at Gitmo

Posted by Dave Huber
Oh, That Liberal Media

Well, not exactly.

But hey, that News Journal/A.P. headline really pulls you in, eh?

<<<

U.N. human rights experts said Thursday they have reliable accounts of detainees being tortured at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The experts, who report to U.N. bodies on different human rights issues, said their request for a visit was "based on information, from reliable sources, of serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, arbitrary detention, violations of their right to health and their due process rights."

"Many of these allegations have come to light through declassified (U.S.) government documents," they said.
>>>

Where are these declassified documents?

Are these "reliable sources" as "reliable" as, say, Newsweek's or CBS's?

What exactly does "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" constitute?

As for "arbitrary detention" and "due process rights," each and every detainee in Gitmo has already had a hearing -- which means detainee detention is not "arbitrary," and they've gotten all the due process they're entitled to thus far.


<<<

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, said his team needed full access to Guantanamo's facilities and prison population, but the United States refused to guarantee him the right to speak to detainees in private.
>>>

And just what will the detainees say Mr. Nowak?

That they're being "mistreated"?

Certainly! It's right out of the al Qaeda training manual, after all.

(.PDF file, pg. 16-17) fas.org

An appropriate headline would be
:

<< "U.N. claims to uncover torture at Guantánamo" >>

But of course this would not draw in the reader -- certainly not like the definitive "uncovers torture" does. And based on recent comparisons (say, Dick Durbin?) and recent polls, A.P. obviously felt it needed all the help it could get to grab those readers.

UPDATE (6:10pm PST): The Wilmington News Journal has changed its headline to read "U.N. officials seek Guantanamo Bay visit."

thatliberalmedia.com

hosted.ap.org

allamericanpatriots.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/25/2005 4:32:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
James Lileks presents answers to some FAQs on Gitmo.

Betsy's Page

Here are some excerpts, but read the rest for more of Lileks' inimitable brilliance.

<<<

Gitmo is the gulag equivalent of a Ben Affleck movie: no one's seen it, but everyone has an opinion about it. Given all the rhetoric that's been spilled about this sorta-kinda-not-really Death Camp, it's time we re-examine the facts, and remind ourselves what's really at stake.

Herewith a summation.

....Q: Who's in Gitmo?

A: Operation Scoop Up The Little Lost Lambs plucked men from distant countries and brought them to Gitmo to beat them deaf for no apparent reason. There are between 400 and 30 million people at Gitmo, and somewhere between zero and 15 million people have died there.

Q: That's quite the range. Do we have precise figures?

A: Well, technically, no one has died at Gitmo.

Metaphorically, millions have perished, since Gitmo is the spiritual heir to assorted thug regimes -- except Saddam's, of course. Think Nazi death camps. Did you know one of the Nazis' Middle East allies was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, a Hitler admirer who was a mentor to Yasser Arafat? Funny how history works. Not ha-ha funny, but Seinfeld-ironic funny.

Q: History is boring. C'mon. Why do they hate us?

A: Because our women wear thongs, our media are naughty, our homosexuals walk around unstoned, and we refuse to let them finish Hitler's plans for the Jews. Because we are the infidel sons of monkeys and pigs who do not believe that most holy of books, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Also because we had something to do with Afghanistan.

Q: Afghana-what?

A: Afghanistan is a large, mountainous country that suffered an unimaginable geographical calamity a few years ago, when the entire nation slid off the front pages of the newspapers. Poor country: not a single runaway Caucasian bride to interest the media.

betsyspage.blogspot.com

newhousenews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/25/2005 5:59:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
If You Liked The Democrats' Policy On Criminals' Rights, You'll Love Their Policy on Terrrorists' Rights

posted by Ace
Ace of Spades HQ

They've gone nuts.

Nancy Pelosi asks the typical questions:

<<<

The treatment of detainees is a taint on our country's reputation, especially in the Muslim world, and there are many questions that must be answered. These questions are important because the safety of our country depends on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world.

There are many questions that have gone unanswered: What was the atmosphere created that permitted detainee abuse, and why was it tolerated? What was the training and supervision of the troops? Who had this responsibility? What is it that the Republicans are trying to hide? How far up the chain of command does this go? Why is the Secretary of Defense not taking responsibility? This happened on his watch.

Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly four years without being charged? Why has so little been done to resolve the status of the detainees?
>>>

Again, if you want to "raise questions" and you're "demanding answers,"
let me ask Nancy a couple myself:

What coercive techniques do you specifically approve of?

Why would you release enemy soldiers, "charged" with a crime or not, before the war is over?

Where in the Geneva Protocols do you read that captured enemy fighters are to be released if they are not convicted of a crime?

Has this ever occurred in any previous war (apart from voluntary prisoner exchanges and hardship cases, etc.)?

Once again, I don't expect answers, and I don't expect the MSM -- which loves "raising questions" -- to actually raise any to the left.

Thanks to NickS.

And PS... Hugh also has Paul Begala agreeing that the war is over... and we lost, of course. (Scan down to the last couple paragraphs of the exchange.)
hughhewitt.com

ace.mu.nu

hughhewitt.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/26/2005 5:13:00 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Politicians Tour Gitmo, No Torture Discovered

Little Green Footballs

Republican and Democrat politicians toured Guantanamo Bay today, and even the looniest of the bunch (i.e. Sheila Jackson Lee) had to grudgingly admit it didn’t seem all that bad: Pols:

<<<

Gitmo Conditions Have Improved.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba — Progress has been made to improve conditions and protect detainees’ rights at the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists, House Republicans and Democrats, including one who has advocated closing the facility, said Saturday.

The U.S. lawmakers witnessed interrogations, toured cell blocks and ate the same lunch given to detainees on the first congressional visit to the prison for suspected terrorists since criticism of it intensified in the spring.

The Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.

Still, lawmakers from both parties agree more still must be done to ensure an adequate legal process is in place to handle detainee cases. In the meantime, said Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., “I think they’re doing the best they can to define due process here.”

Republicans and Democrats alike fear the prison at the U.S. Navy base in eastern Cuba is hurting the United States’ image because of claims that interrogators have abused and tortured inmates. The White House and Pentagon say conditions are humane and detainees are well-treated. Lawmakers wanted to see for themselves.

After getting a classified briefing from base commanders, the House delegation ate lunch with troops — the same meal of chicken with orange sauce, rice and okra that detainees were served. They then toured several of the barbed-wire camps where detainees are housed, viewing small cells, dusty recreation yards and common areas.

From behind one-way mirrors, lawmakers watched interrogators grilling three individual terror suspects. None of the interrogators touched detainees.

In one session, they questioned a man who defense officials said was a Saudi national and admitted Al Qaeda member who was picked up in Afghanistan and knew nine of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. In another, a female interrogator took an unusual approach to wear down a detainee, reading a Harry Potter book aloud for hours. He turned his back and put his hands over his ears.
>>>

Here we see the dreaded slippery slope in action; from Christina Aguilera music, to puppet shows, to this horror. Where will our super slide into Nazi-like behavior end?

<<<

Bearded detainees in white frocks, flip-flops and skull caps quietly lingered nearby, although behind fences. At one communal camp for those given privileges because of good behavior, detainees played soccer.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, is one of many Democrats who have called for an independent commission to investigate abuse allegations and said the facility should close. She stopped short of changing her position after the visit, but acknowledged, “What we’ve seen here is evidence that we’ve made progress.”
>>>

The only effect this will have on the Amazing Lefty Torture Chorus will be to make them sing louder. La la la! I can’t hear you! Abu Ghraib!

UPDATE at 6/25/05 5:46:28 pm:

Nothing about this tour of glamorous Guantanamo at Daily Kos. Hmm. I would have thought that with their highly publicized Gitmo Easter Egg Hunt, they’d be interested in a story like this.

That Harry Potter thing, at least, is pretty bad. Read by a woman, too. And the inmates could get seriously injured playing soccer.

(Hat tip: efuseakay.)

littlegreenfootballs.com

foxnews.com

dailykos.com

littlegreenfootballs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/27/2005 1:02:40 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What A Difference Actual Research Makes

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters

After blathering on for weeks about the supposed gulag-like conditions at Guantanamo Bay, members of Congress finally visited the facility for themselves this week. To no one's great surprise, they left with a considerably change in their attitude after having done some actual research:

<<<

During a tour of the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists on Saturday, House Republicans and Democrats, including one who has advocated closing the facility, said the United States has made progress in improving conditions and protecting detainees' rights. ...

"The Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.

Still, lawmakers from both parties agree more still must be done to ensure an adequate legal process is in place to handle detainee cases. In the meantime, said Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., "I think they're doing the best they can to define due process here." ...

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, is one of many Democrats who have called for an independent commission to investigate abuse allegations and have said the facility should close. She said she stood by that position, but acknowledged, "What we've seen here is evidence that we've made progress."
>>>

No, Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Tauscher, what we see is that the two of you and most of your colleagues shrilly slander the US military without doing anything to check your facts beforehand. Prior to this delegation, only eleven Senators and a handful of Representatives had visited Camp X-Ray at Gitmo, despite having access to the facility since the war started. Instead of taking advantage of their opportunity to travel on official business to investigate this "hellhole", as one Democrat called it during open debate, the Leftists like Tauscher and Lee simply regurgitated slanders and accusations from hysterics like William Schulz at Amnesty International, who later admitted that he didn't have any idea whether what he said was accurate or not.

No one wants to muzzle dissent, especially not in Congress. But before our elected representatives at any level start making accusations of systemic abuse at places like Gitmo, where they have access to review the facilities for themselves, then we expect them to have made that trip and gathered the facts before launching broadsides at the armed services and our intelligence community. Shame on them for jumping to conclusions and publicly condemning them without making that effort -- and for playing into the propaganda of our enemies during a time of war just to play partisan games on Capitol Hill.

captainsquartersblog.com

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/27/2005 11:12:19 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Where's Amnesty International, the IRC & Senator Durbin now?

Freed Hostage Witnessed Murders

Little Green Footballs

Douglas Wood, the Australian hostage freed after 47 days of captivity by
Islamic “holy warriors,” told Australian TV that he witnessed killings
.

<<<

Douglas Wood, 63, also told Channel Ten of his efforts to retain his sanity during his captivity by replaying his life, the BBC reported Sunday.

Wood, who was bound and gagged by his captors, heard two Iraqi captives being shot on successive nights in the same room where he was being held and thought: “When is my turn?”

The low point of his ordeal, however, came when he saw his two Iraqi assistants being led away to their deaths. “I feel absolutely rotten. I was the ultimate cause of it,” Wood said. He said he planned to send money to the families of the dead men.

He also said he felt like a traitor when he was forced at gunpoint to make a video plea for the United States and Australia to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

>>>

littlegreenfootballs.com

washingtontimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)6/27/2005 11:24:57 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What I Saw at Gitmo

Little Green Footballs

Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu toured the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and here’s what he saw.

After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who
collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse
definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it
typically fails to receive the press attention it
deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on
American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs.


Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their
captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their
desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if
released, he would find MPs in their homes through the
internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the
throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others
claim authority and vindication to kill women, children,
and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission
authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every
cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect
it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S.
taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell
another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood,
although their blood is bitter, undrinkable....”

These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as
being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the
soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under
protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They
make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break
limbs as the guards pass them food.


We dined with the soldiers, toured several of the
individual holding camps, observed interrogations, and
inspected cells. We were impressed by the universally high
quality of the cadre and the facilities. While it may not
be exactly “Club GITMO,” as Rush Limbaugh uses to tweak
the hard-Left critics who haven’t a clue about reality
here, GITMO is a far cry from the harshness experienced
even by maximum security prisoners in the U.S.

Meals for detainees are ample:
we lunched on what several
thought was an accumulated single day’s ration for
detainees. “No,” the contract food service manager said
with a laugh, “what you’re looking at there is today’s
lunch. A single meal. They get three a day like that.” The
vegetables, pita bread, and other well-prepared food
filled two of the large Styrofoam take-home containers we
see in restaurants. Several prisoners have special meal
orders like “no tomatoes” or “no peanut products”
depending on taste or allergies. “One prisoner,” General
Hood said, “throws back his food tray if it contains
things he has specifically said he doesn’t want.” How is
he punished for this outrageous behavior? His tray is
numbered, the food he requested is put on it, and the
corrected “order” is delivered to his cell.

The detainees are similarly catered to medically.
Almost
every one arrived at GITMO with some sort of battlefield
trauma. After all, the majority were captured in combat.
Today they are healthy, immunized, and well cared for. At
a visit to the modern hospital facility – dedicated solely
to the detainees and comparable to a well-equipped and
staffed small-town hospital with operating, dental,
routine facilities – the doctor in charge confirmed that
the caloric count for the detainees was so high that
while “most detainees arrived undernourished,” medics now
watch for issues stemming from high cholesterol and being
overweight. Each of approximately 520 terrorists currently
held in confinement averages about four medical visits
monthly, something one would expect from only a dedicated
American hypochondriac. Welcome to the rigors of detention
under American supervision.

UPDATE at 6/27/05 4:36:01 pm:

At the official House of Representatives site, here’s the actual Guantanamo Detainee Menu. (400K, PDF.)
house.gov

(Hat tip: LGF readers.)

littlegreenfootballs.com

frontpagemag.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)7/13/2005 10:15:56 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Only Three Violations Of Rules At Gitmo

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters

An independent investigation into the detention facility at Gunatanamo Bay housing terrorists captured by the US only turned up three violations of Army regulations and the Geneva Conventions, the AP reports today. None of these involved torture of any kind, although one investigator found that the totality of techniques used on one prisoner qualified as "abusive":

<<<

The chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, described the interrogation techniques used on Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

It was learned later that he had tried to enter the U.S. in August 2001 but was turned away by an immigration agent at the Orlando, Fla., airport. Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, was in the airport at the same time, officials have said.

Schmidt said that to get him to talk, interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it. They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator, Schmidt added, and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog
.

Still, he said, "No torture occurred."

Al-Qahtani was provided food, water and medical care, he said. Together these techniques are degrading and abusive, he said. FBI agents raised their concerns about the techniques to Miller, and he should have monitored them, but he apparently took no action, Schmidt said.
>>>

As the data from this Senate hearing gets disseminated, watch to see where the overall violations get reported. In this article by the AP's John Lumpkin and Lolita Baldor, the fact that investigators could only find three violations out of thousands of interrogations performed at Gitmo gets held until the eleventh paragraph, about halfway through the report. Instead of putting this information into its proper context, Lumpkin and Baldor instead offer up some of the more sensational interrogation techniques used by Gitmo intelligence operatives:

<<<

Interrogators subjected a suspected terrorist to abusive and degrading treatment, forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog, military investigators reported Wednesday, saying that justified their call for disciplinary action.
>>>

Yes, the lead for this story is that we made an Islamist wear a bra, dance with another man, and act like a dog. That's the level of "abuse" that has captured the imagination of Dick Durbin and the rest of the Left that equates Camp X-Ray with Dachau.
When trying to get information about future attacks and terrorist networks that could save American lives -- and British lives, and French lives, etc -- these tactics seem rather mundane and unobjectionable, except to those who want each one of the detainees to be treated like an American criminal suspect instead of an enemy during wartime.

Let's remind people what the Islamists have in mind for those whom they oppose:
    Bouyeri, the son of Moroccan immigrants to the 
Netherlands, is accused of shooting and stabbing Mr van
Gogh to death in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam
last November, before nearly decapitating him and
impaling his corpse with a knife, which secured a five-
page note declaring a holy war.

That's just if they encounter people on a face-to-face basis. Otherwise, they would much prefer to blow up subways, trains, and buses as they did in London last week, killing dozens and perhaps more than that. In Madrid, in Morocco, and in Turkey, they killed hundreds in similar fashion.

The man at the center of this investigation, Mohamed al-Qahtani, only missed out on his chance to board Flight 93 and perhaps help the terrorists succeed in attacking the Capitol or the White House because of a sharp-eyed immigration agent in 2001.

We lost 3,000 of our fellow citizens in that attack, and these Islamofacist lunatics would like nothing better than to add thousands more to that number. Making him dance a jig in a bra with another man while barking like a dog in order to prevent that sounds like a damned good trade to me.

captainsquartersblog.com

news.yahoo.com

timesonline.co.uk



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)7/16/2005 1:01:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Suggestion on Terrorist Interrogations

Posted by Frank J.
LAMO

Since everyone seems so sensitive on the issue, so here's what I propose as the new regulations for interrogating a terrorist:

* He will be asked to "please" give us information.

* If no information is given, he will then be asked to "pretty please" give us information.

* If there is still no response, he will finally be asked to "pretty please with sugar on top" give us information.

* Any further requesting would be badgering and could be construed as torture. If given court approval, though, the interrogator could offer to be the terrorist's "very best friend" in exchange for information.

There. That should make everyone happy.

imao.us



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)7/16/2005 1:55:06 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The New York Times compares our female soldiers to prostitutes.

Betsy's Page

Okay, I'm sorry but I have to revisit the Gitmo story again because Michelle Malkin has brought to our attention this asinine editorial by the increasingly out of touch New York Times. It seems that the NYT has their panties all over their head worrying that female interrogators at Gitmo acted like sex workers in their attempts to find out what the terrorists could say about past and future plans to kill as many Americans as possible.

<<<

But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush: the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the United States military. This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.

Surely no one can approve turning an American soldier into a pseudo-lap-dancer or having another smear fake menstrual blood on an Arab man. These practices are as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners. They violate American moral values - and they seem pointless.
>>>

Yup, compare our female soldiers to prostitutes. That's a sure sign of respect. My only question is if these methods worked and they got information. If so - great. Dance away. If not, scrap them and go to the next plan. Perhaps Gail Collins thinks that these ladies were degraded as they tried to do their job to prevent the next terrorist attack, but I suspect that the female soldiers don't mind running their hands through a prisoner's hair if it means getting some good information. How does the NYT suggest that we interrogate these people? No torture, no hint of threats, no deprivation of any kind, and no lap dances. I'm not sure what position the NYT took on Christine Aguilera or reading Harry Potter. Will we be reduced to sending in Barney to sing happy songs to them?

IMAO had some ideas.
imao.us

betsyspage.blogspot.com

nytimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)7/16/2005 2:13:49 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
If we hadn't had politicians using bombast and hyperbole to characterize Gitmo, this story wouldn't have come out.

Betsy's Page

The American Armed Forces Press has news in their discussion of the treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo that should have been in every media outlet. You know that guy that had to wear women's underwear and was otherwise degraded? You know, the guy who admitted proudly that he was to have been the 20th hijacker on September 11th. Well, it seems that the interrogation techniques that made the New York Times complain that we were turning our female interrogators into lap dancers have actually been successful in getting this guy to talk and tell us information we wanted.

<<<

"He described the facilitators he met along the way, the methods of financing the (Sept. 11) operation, the way he obtained his U.S. visa, and the logistics involved in traveling to the United States and communicating with his handlers along the way," Craddock said.

By the fall of 2002 Kahtani had successfully resisted all interrogation techniques for eight months, so interrogators at Guantanamo requested, and received, permission to use more aggressive techniques. Craddock said officials were particularly interested in information about any possible attacks on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The application of these more aggressive techniques between November 2002 and January 2003 "led to breaking Kahtani's resistance and to solid intelligence gains," Craddock said.
>>>

This was always my main question about the techniques used in interrogation. Did they work? If they did, fine. Send in the ladies and start dancing. And the senators who were having coniptions that such treatment might lead the enemy to treat our guys worse if captured than the gentle Geneva convention treatment that we know the terrorists are inclined to use with those they capture can answer to the American people why they wouldn't want us to use all the methods we can to get someone like Kahtani to talk. And note that there was not torture or deprivation involved in these techniques.

Think of how their hyperventilating has actually achieved that which they wanted to avoid. If we hadn't had politicians using bombast and hyperbole to characterize Gitmo, this story wouldn't have come out. The senators could have had a closed-door hearing, but it needn't have been made public. So, those that the senators didn't want to offend wouldn't have known about the women's underwear story. Aren't some things just better kept secret. We don't have any need to know publicly what is going on at Gitmo. The senators can provide oversight and keep their big mouths shut. If that is possible.

betsyspage.blogspot.com

lincolntribune.com

betsyspage.blogspot.com

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)7/16/2005 10:17:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Eleven Troops Charged With Abuse

By Rob on War On Terror
Say Anything

<<<

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Eleven U.S. soldiers have been charged with assaulting detainees in Iraq, the military said Saturday, while three British soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in a rare attack in the relatively stable southern part of the country. . . .

The U.S. military said in a statement that the charges against the 11 troops, who served in the Baghdad area but were not otherwise identified, were filed Wednesday after another soldier complained about the alleged assaults.

None of the insurgents required medical treatment for injuries related to the alleged assault,” the statement added. “Only one of the suspected terrorists remains in custody of coalition forces at this time.”

The soldiers had been assigned to the Army’s Task Force Baghdad but were taken off-duty pending the investigation, the military said, adding that the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division would determine whether they should face trial by court-martial.

Allegations of illegal activities will always be thoroughly investigated,” said Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, a Task Force Baghdad spokesman.
>>>>

It sounds like the abuses were relatively minor. But still, an investigation is warranted and neccessary. America’s troops are not like the ruthless thugs employed by Saddam Hussein and the like to achieve their nefarious goals. When our troops do wrong they are held accountable for it.

feeds.feedburner.com

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)10/1/2005 2:56:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Our need to know--the ACLU and Abu Ghraib

By neo-neocon

Let's see if I've got this straight: US District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has ordered the release of more Abu Ghraib photos to help the ACLU prove that prisoners have been abused, and it's OK because the terrorists don't need those photos in order to hate us, they can do it very well for no reason at all.

And to think I used to give money to the ACLU.

This article from about a month ago makes the situation even more puzzling (link below). Apparently, back then, Judge Hellerstein seemed to be very hesitent to release the photos because of the national interest involved. Why the change in one short month?

I haven't found an answer, but the article explains why the ACLU is so hot to have these photos splashed all over the cable news networks and the newspapers: they're only thinking of us:

<<<

ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh argued that release of the pictures was necessary for the public to assess the scope of the abuse and whether it could have been carried out without the knowledge of military leaders.
>>>

Thanks a lot, ACLU. I really, really appreciate it. I'm sure that once I look at those photos I'll instantly know how high up the responsibility goes--no doubt, one of them features Rumsfeld holding a naked prisoner on a leash.

The underlying basis of Judge Hellerstein's decision appears to be compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently, the present rule is that information should be released under the act unless "disclosure would be harmful."

Our legal system ordinarily requires that a rape victim's name not be released because it might be harmful to her. A juvenile's court records are sealed because it might be harmful to the minor in question. The potential harm in both situations trumps the public's right to know.

In the present case, the public has seen photos of Abu Ghraib ad nauseum, so seeing a few more is hardly likely to give the us needed and vital information. The only effect such release is likely to have is to harm us, our soldiers, and our country still further.

Whether or not the terrorists need such information to hate us is hardly relevant; they could certainly use it.

I'm with Dickens--the law is an ass (not to mention the ACLU).

[ADDENDUM: I didn't see this when I wrote the post, but in the NY Times article on the subject, it mentions that, when the photos are to be released, the rights of the detainees to privacy will be protected:

<<<

Judge Hellerstein ordered that the images be edited to hide the faces of the Iraqi prisoners, to avoid violations of their privacy under the Geneva Conventions. He concluded that one videotape sought by the A.C.L.U. could not be adequately edited, and that it not be released.
>>>

So, to recap: a certain videotape will be surpressed because the right of the detainee to privacy overrides our need to see still more and more and more photos of abuse that has already been more than adequately covered in the press. But the rights of our servicemen and women to be protected from further inflammatory publicity on the matter, and our own right to be protected against increased rage in the Islamicist world, are both less powerful than that detainee's right to privacy. I'm in awe.

It's certainly possible that this decision makes perfect sense, if I were to read the entire transcript of the judge's ruling. Sometimes learning the details of a case makes all the difference in the world. But from what I've read in the press so far, this one seems misguided.

It's being appealed; it will be interesting to see what ultimately happens. But I think cases like this are an excellent example of why the public has become more dissatisfied with the judicial system in general.]

neo-neocon.blogspot.com

news.yahoo.com

cnn.com

veteransforcommonsense.org

pbs.org

bartleby.com

nytimes.com

volokh.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)10/2/2005 10:18:45 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
ACLU Double Standards

By Rob
Say Anything
October 2, 2005

Hmm…

<<<

WILMINGTON, Del. (WBOC/AP) - Civil liberty advocates are objecting to New Castle County’s new effort to fight prostitution: posting offenders’ names and photos on a Web site.

The new Web site features photos of convicted prostitutes and their clientele. The police say they hope it will discourage others from committing the same crimes.

But Delaware ACLU Executive Director Drew Fennell said public humiliation should not be used as a law enforcement tactic. He said the photos are degrading not only to the individual, but the person’s family, friends and employer.
>>>

Meanwhile…

<<<

New York — Saying the United States “does not surrender to blackmail,” a judge ruled Thursday that pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage the U.S. image.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved they “do not need pretexts for their barbarism.”

The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison
as part of an October, 2003, lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.
>>>

Just to sum up the ACLU’s positions: Embarrassing hookers: degrading and humiliating. Embarrassing America’s military and troops: a perfectly acceptable and desirable thing.

Glad to know where they stand.

sayanythingblog.com

wboc.com

theglobeandmail.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)11/3/2005 11:33:38 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
How We Treat Detainees

Power Line

Hysteria over our treatment of detainees in the war on terror continues. Obscured in the fog of political opportunism is the fact that President Bush has specifically ordered that all detainees be treated humanely:
    Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat 
detainees humanely, including those who are not legally
entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the
United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat
detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and
consistent with military necessity, in a manner
consistent with the principles of Geneva.
Yesterday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley made this basic point once more:

<<<

President Bush's directive banning the torture of terror suspects applies to all prisoners - even if held in a secret prison reportedly set up by the CIA for its most important al-Qaida captives, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley would not confirm or deny the existence of a secret, Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe that was described in a Washington Post account. The story said the facility was part of a covert prison system set up nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries.

Hadley said that "while we have to do what is necessary to defend the country against terrorist attacks and to win the war on terror, the president has been very clear that we're going to do that in a way that is consistent with our values." "And that is why he's been very clear that the United States will not torture," Hadley said, responding to questions at a White House briefing. "The United States will conduct its activities in compliance with law and international obligations."
>>>

Of course, leftists will claim that President Bush didn't really mean it when he ordered that all detainees be treated humanely. But if that were the case, why is it that service members who violate the President's directive are criminally prosecuted?

powerlineblog.com

powerlineblog.com

ap.washingtontimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)1/25/2006 10:31:17 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    "Why our best law firms would dedicate their pro-bono 
resources to suspected terrorists rather than, say,
people rendered homeless by Katrina, is beyond me,"....
...."By definition, these representations only serve to
expand the rights of alien enemy combatants during wartime."
    ....So, join al Qaeda, fall into allied hands, land in 
Guantanamo, and top-flight U.S. lawyers will fight for
your freedom while the Great Satan's captains of industry
unwittingly underwrite your legal expenses. Only in America.

Gitmo Legal

Why are top-notch law firms aiding Gitmo detainees?

Deroy Murdock
National Review Online

While some attorneys who defend enemy combatants may be wild-haired, sandal-wearing radicals, most members of the self-styled Guantanamo Bay Bar Association actually are well-heeled, "white-shoe" lawyers with America's premier corporate firms. They are at the top of their profession and enjoy the best this nation has to offer. They were schooled on our finest campuses and are enriched by fees from this country's most successful business clients. Their pro bono services — mainly filing habeas corpus petitions in Washington, D.C. to free detainees from military custody — are worth perhaps $300 per hour in donated value, last September's American Lawyer estimated. Detainees don't pay a dime, however. By covering their own bills, these firms' Fortune 500 clients, and their shareholders, indirectly subsidize legal aid and comfort to suspected Islamo-fascist terrorists.

Manhattan's Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), co-founded in 1966 by the late, left-wing, wild-haired attorney William Kunstler, has spearheaded legal help for Guantanamo detainees. This advances CCR's self-described progressive agenda:

<<< We continue to craft litigation that exposes the fundamental contradictions in American society that undermine the promise of justice for all: fault lines of race, class and gender; the ascendancy of global corporate privilege over individual rights; the intersection of poverty, race, and industrial pollution; and the indifference with which governments around the world continue to violate the human rights of their citizens. >>>

CCR's website says, "We're calling for the immediate closing of the Guantanamo prison camp." Until then, CCR "is leading a team of more than 400 attorneys from around the country representing the detainees in the court."

Enter the counselors in wingtips. Several major multinational law firms are helping CCR vacate Guantanamo before padlocking it:

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, the 11th largest firm in the Am Law Global 100, grossed $911 million last year, The American Lawyer estimates. "We now have 1,300 lawyers practising in seven U.S. cities and six European cities," its website notes. Its clients include Bell South, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Whirlpool, and UAL Corp., the parent company of United Airlines, two of whose airliners al Qaeda agents smashed, respectively, into 2 World Trade Center and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on September 11, 2001. This left United's 94 passengers and 16 crewmembers dead.

"'Social Justice' is our own construct," the firm explains. "We consider this to be our 'cutting edge' work...Examples of this work would be the amicus briefs we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the so-called Guantanamo Bay cases." Mayer leads John Does 1-570 v. George W. Bush, essentially, a class-action lawsuit involving every enemy combatant at Gitmo not already suing the president for release during wartime.

With offices in Manhattan's landmark Chrysler Building among ten others, Blank Rome offers legal advice to RJ Reynolds, Sunoco, and Boeing, manufacturer of all four passenger jets that al Qaeda weaponized on 9/11. Am Law ranks Blank Rome Earth's 100th largest law practice and believes that it grossed $247.5 million last year. Blank Rome lawyers filed Khaled Abd Elgabar Mohammed Othman et al v. George W. Bush, et al in federal court in Washington, D.C., on October 25 on behalf of a Yemeni "wrongfully designated an 'enemy combatant."

Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips employs 300 among seven offices in California, New York, and Washington, D.C. Among its clients: Alaska Airlines, Anschutz Entertainment, Harley-Davidson, Mattel, Pfizer, and Transport for London, the British agency that runs the London Underground, which al Qaeda bombed July 7, killing 52 commuters. On October 24, Manatt attorneys sued President Bush in federal court on behalf of suspected Islamic extremist Adbulkadar Abdulkhalik Dad.

Shearman & Sterling (Am Law No. 15; $775 million estimated 2005 gross) has some 1,000 attorneys practicing in 19 offices in a dozen countries. Deere & Co., Delphi, Ford, Morgan Stanley, and PG&E are among its corporate clients. Shearman partner Thomas Wilner, lead attorney for 12 Kuwaiti enemy combatants, wants Uncle Sam to compensate detainees for time at Guantanamo. "It would be very nice if they paid the people released at least as much as they paid the bounty hunters for capturing them," Wilner said in the September 13, 2004 Legal Times.

What drives America's highest-flying legal eagles to soar tirelessly and for free on behalf of suspected terrorists? While some attorneys seem driven by a leftish quest for "social justice," others seem intoxicated by a volatile blend of sentimentalism and naïveté.

Associate Sarah Havens of Allen & Overy's New York office flew to Guantanamo bearing gifts for her clients. (Am Law ranks the British firm No. 6 with $1.22 billion in approximate 2005 revenues, and Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and JPMorgan Chase among those its 1,800 lawyers serve from 26 offices worldwide.) "Snickers were a big hit," she said in last February 18's New York Lawyer. Her colleague, Sarah Fels, sounded downright weepy as she headed home: "The hard part was to leave and know they were going back into captivity."

Covington & Burling's Marc Falkoff helps defend 13 Yemeni bystanders, as he reportedly called them in last April 7's Miami Herald, who were arrested in the wrong place in Pakistan and handed to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Falkoff considers these men harmless.

"I would invite any one of them to sleep over at my apartment," Falkoff said. "None of these guys are terrorists. None of these guys is a danger to the United States." He said he has spent about 92 hours representing these detainees. This work, for him alone, is worth $27,600 based on American Lawyer's estimated $300-per-hour average pro bono rate.

If Guantanamo's detainees are all innocent, hapless goat farmers who wandered into the wrong Afghan place at the wrong Pakistani time, the entire Guantanamo Bay Bar Association deserves a standing ovation. But military and intelligence experts are not applauding. They vigorously assert that Gitmo overflows with hardened Islamic fanatics who thirst for American blood.

    The U.S. military's "detention of enemy combatants is not 
criminal in nature," says Pentagon press officer
Commander Flex Plexico, "but to prevent them from
continuing to fight against the United States in the War
on Terrorism...as well as to gather intelligence to
thwart further terrorist assaults."
    "Many of these enemy combatants are highly trained, 
dangerous members of al-Qaida, its related terrorist
networks, and the former Taliban regime," asserts a
Pentagon paper that was declassified last March 4. "Our
intelligence and law enforcement communities develop
leads, comprehensive assessments, and intelligence
products based on information detainees provide. The
information includes...plans for attacking the United
States and other countries."
    "Some detainees served as trainers in al-Qaida training 
camps," the document continues, "significant among these
are the detainees that served as explosives trainers."
The document quotes and paraphrases several detainees. It's fair to say they lack their attorneys' generosity of spirit — misguided or reckless though that may be:
A detainee with ties to UBL, the Taliban, and Chechen
mujahideen leadership figures told another
detainee, "Their day is coming. One day I will enjoy
sucking their blood, although their blood is bitter,
undrinkable..."
    A detainee, who fought as a Taliban soldier at Konduz, 
stated to the MPs that all Americans should die because
these are the rules of Allah. The detainee also told the
MPs that he would come to their homes and cut their
throats like sheep...
    After being informed of the Tribunal process, the 
detainee replied, "Not only am I thinking about
threatening the American public, but the whole world."...
    A detainee who admits to being one of UBL's primary 
drivers and bodyguards had in his possession surface to
air missiles when captured.
Some 12 released detainees have resumed terrorist attacks, murdered an Afghan judge, and shot at U.S. and coalition forces.

No one reaches Gitmo without permeating the Pentagon's multi-layered screening system for distinguishing likely terror suspects from disoriented Islamic pilgrims. While imperfect, it also is no drift net. It is safe to say that nearly every Guantanamo detainee is there for behaving badly. Much of the information on specific detainees remains classified. The Associated Press, however, has posted Combatant Status Reviews on 55 current Gitmoites, among some 500 total. These CSRs reveal some of what interrogators have gleaned from selected detainees.

After a November 15, 2004 hearing, for instance, a CSR Panel decided unanimously that Rami Bin Said Al Taibi "is properly classified as an enemy combatant because he was part of or supporting al Qaida and associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

The document notes that this Saudi detainee denied the allegations against him, "asserting instead that he had traveled to Afghanistan as a tourist for the purpose of observing the Taliban's practice of Islam."

The tribunal's charges do not exactly read like the back of a postcard:

    Unclassified Summary of Evidence (Exhibit R-1) indicates,
among other things, that: the detainee is associated with
Al Qaida; the detainee traveled to Afghanistan from Saudi
Arabia in approximately August of 2001; the detainee
received training at a terrorist training camp in
Afghanistan; the detainee's name was included in a
computer file recovered from an Al Qaida safehouse in
Islamabad that listed prisoners currently incarcerated in
Pakistan; the detainee's name was found in a document
recovered from an Al Qaida safehouse in Karachi; the
detainee's name was listed as Al Qaida mujahidin who had
not yet completed training in a document recovered from
an Al Qaida safehouse in Rawalpindi, Pakistan; and one of
the detainee's known aliases was on a list of captured Al
Qaida members that was discovered on a computer hard drive
associated with a senior Al Qaida member.
"The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not criminal defendants. They are enemy combatants in the midst of a war against the United States using the courts of the United States as a weapon against the people of the United States whom they are trying to kill," says Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and NRO contributor. "Interesting that the establishment bar, when it decides to provide pro bono help, picks al Qaeda."

In 1995, McCarthy led the federal prosecution of "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the plot to blast New York City landmarks. He adds: "Any of our assets that must be diverted from the war to shoulder the resource-intensive burdens of litigation impedes the war effort and imperils Americans."

The attorneys who assist these detainees have wedged themselves between terrorist suspects and U.S. personnel who try to garner valuable intelligence to uncover and thwart future hijackings, subway attacks, and dirty bombs. Muslim extremists at Gitmo, who otherwise might spill the beans about their buddies, instead see high-end attorneys jet in to tell them: Sit tight. We're working night and day to get you out of here.

"Why our best law firms would dedicate their pro-bono resources to suspected terrorists rather than, say, people rendered homeless by Katrina, is beyond me," marvels one former high-level federal attorney who previously was involved with these issues. "By definition, these representations only serve to expand the rights of alien enemy combatants during wartime."

Lawyers from these other top-drawer firms that represent America's largest corporations also are members of the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association:


Covington & Burling (520 lawyers; Am Law Global 100 rank: No. 76; $337.5 million in estimated 2005 earnings.). Clients: Coca-Cola, Deere & Co., Emory University, Goodyear, IBM, Merck, Microsoft, the NFL, UBS, and 13 Yemeni enemy combatants at Guantanamo.

Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis (640 lawyers; Am Law No. 78; 2005 gross: about $330 million). Clients: 3M, Cargill, ConocoPhillips, General Mills, Northwest Airlines, and six Bahrainians at Guantanamo.

Holland & Hart, Denver (300 attorneys in 12 offices). Clients: Safeway, Sears, the Williams Company, and five Algerian terror suspects, including Dr. Abu Muhammed, Abbar Sufian al Hawary, and Motai Saib.

Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia ("850 attorneys. 16 offices. Since 1901.") Clients: Bank of America, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Eli Lilly, General Dynamics, General Electric, and six Yemeni suspected terrorists, including Issam Hamid Ali Bin Ali Al Jayfi.

Paul, Weiss (Am Law No. 38; approximately $504 million in 2005 revenues). Clients: Chubb, DirecTV Group, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Philip Morris, Time Warner, Viacom, and 11 Saudi Guantanamites.

So, join al Qaeda, fall into allied hands, land in Guantanamo, and top-flight U.S. lawyers will fight for your freedom while the Great Satan's captains of industry unwittingly underwrite your legal expenses. Only in America.

— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va. The author thanks Mr. Marco D. DeSena for his research assistance.

law.com

ccr-ny.org

demaction.org

mayerbrown.com

mayerbrown.com

blankrome.com

manatt.com

tfl.gov.uk

shearman.com

allenovery.com

defenselink.mil

wid.ap.org

nationalreview.com

defenddemocracy.org

cov.com

dorsey.com

hollandhart.com

hunton.com

paulweiss.com



To: Sully- who wrote (11521)3/25/2006 5:57:00 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Abuse Is Evidently In The Eye Of The Beholder

-- Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit.com

Greyhawke makes a couple of excellent points in this post.

mudvillegazette.com

First he points out that the U.S. forces rescued the ungrateful peace activists this week after interrogating a prisoner who pinpointed their location. He wonders what type of interrogation led to their rescue, and what the CPT’s position might be on that type of interrogation.

Then he points out that the CPT say they were not abused by their captors. Greyhawke says, “Thus officially eliminating diet restrictions, kidnapping, and murder from the Christian Peacemaker Team’s definition of abuse. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.” It does indeed.

It also makes me wonder what type of treatment of the Iraqi detainees that they could have been referring to in this statement.
polipundit.com

polipundit.com