Telling It Like It Is

[CorpMediaSux]

I am guessing that the USA treats its prisoners, both those on the mainland and those being held at Guatanemo and elsewhere, more humanely and in better royal fashion than many countries treat their honored guests. We do not have a policy of mistreating anybody.

I think it's very funny that you said you "guessed" that the U.S treats detainees in a "royal fashion." It would suggest something which was already evident in your posts. You've done ZERO research into the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. detainee prisons. You also seem woefully ignorant of the way government beauracracy works. No government that mistreats it's prisoners has an official policy that says "we shall torture and mistreat." Yet the evidence of mistreatment in Guantanamo is voluminous. It ranges from witholding letters from family members, to physical beatings to sleep deprivation to forcing inmates to deface the Koran, to wrapping detainees in the Isreali flag, electro shocks, the list goes on and on and on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it's very funny that you said you "guessed" that the U.S treats detainees in a "royal fashion." It would suggest something which was already evident in your posts. You've done ZERO research into the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. detainee prisons. You also seem woefully ignorant of the way government beauracracy works. No government that mistreats it's prisoners has an official policy that says "we shall torture and mistreat." Yet the evidence of mistreatment in Guantanamo is voluminous. It ranges from witholding letters from family members, to physical beatings to sleep deprivation to forcing inmates to deface the Koran, to wrapping detainees in the Isreali flag, electro shocks, the list goes on and on and on.

How much research have you done other than read leftwing blogs and/or other rhetoric intended to condemn or embarrass the administration? I have a 'best friend', currently based in DC, who was on an ICRC team visiting Guantanamo (and who was appalled at confidential notes being published by, exaggerated by, and distorted by the NYT, Washington Post, BBC et al. The Red Cross has since issued a stern condemnation of the news accounts and has made it clear that they were unauthorized and they have refused to confirm them.) I trust Congressmen and Senators, both Democrat and Republican, who have visited and found nothing untoward. I have a relative who was stationed there for nine months. He reports a lot of abuse taken by our soldiers from the prisoners, but none going back the other way.

I distrust politically motivated people who report what they did not personally see or experience as fact and I think such people are far more likely to be deserving of condemnation than are those who have the difficult job of managing military prisons. I distrust anybody who takes isolated anecdotal incidents and trots them out as evidence of the whole condition.

Everything isn't as it seems when you get most of your information from Leftwing anti-Bush blogs.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Foxfyre
I want to start out by pointing out that you have STILL failed to raise even one counterpoint to my various arguments about the ineffectiveness of water boarding or torture techniques in protecting American lives. Are you ever going to attempt that?

I trust Congressmen and Senators, both Democrat and Republican, who have visited and found nothing untoward.

I distrust politically motivated people

That's almost enough to rest my case right there. "I distrust politically motivated opinions of Guantanamo. However I TRUST the statements of POLITICIANS." The logic there is a bit odd. But I don't want to be accused of cutting and pasting out of context so let's get to the meat of your post.

I distrust politically motivated people who report what they did not personally see or experience as fact and I think such people are far more likely to be deserving of condemnation than are those who have the difficult job of managing military prisons.

Politically motivated people like former Guantanamo employees and FBI agents who reported abuse to their superiors? The following is from the Washington Post in January of 2007

FBI agents witnessed possible mistreatment of the Koran at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including at least one instance in which an interrogator squatted over Islam's holy text in an apparent attempt to offend a captive, according to bureau documents released yesterday.

In October 2002, a Marine captain allegedly squatted over a copy of the Koran during intensive questioning of a Muslim prisoner, who was "incensed" by the tactic, according to an FBI agent. A second agent described similar events, but it is unclear from the documents whether it was a separate case.
In another incident that month, interrogators wrapped a bearded prisoner's head in duct tape "because he would not stop quoting the Koran," according to an FBI agent, the documents show. The agent, whose account was corroborated by a colleague, said that a civilian contractor laughed about the treatment and was eager to show it off.

The reports released yesterday were the result of an internal survey conducted in 2004 by the FBI, which asked nearly 500 employees who had served at Guantanamo Bay to report possible mistreatment by law enforcement or military personnel. More than two dozen incidents were reported, including some that the government had revealed in earlier document releases.

Foxfyre
I distrust anybody who takes isolated anecdotal incidents and trots them out as evidence of the whole condition.

What exactly is your threshold for anectodal vs. "the whole condition." The ONLY reason we know about the abuse reports from the FBI is that the ACLU had to sue the federal government, department by department to release information about conditions on Guantanamo, the justification for holding people there, etc. etc. etc. The administration has stonewalled every attempt to disclose information about conditions on Guantanamo and they STILL can't prevent abuses from being known to the public.

You are also forgetting that the U.S. government screwed itself by picking up hundreds of people who were not terrorists, had no links to terrorist organisations but were kept at Guantanamo for YEARS in the wake of 9/11. Once those individuals began to sue the government for wrongful imprisonment and were released they had many stories to tell about their experiences of being wrongfully and illegally held. See you are in a bit of a predicament here. Because if you're going to argue that ill treatment is deserved because people in Guantanamo are the enemy, how do you explain the huge numbers of detainees who have been released? Did they somehow stop being terrorists, were they reforms? No, they were wrongfully held and they've been interviewed outside of the U.S. and their stories are harrowing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think it's very funny that you said you "guessed" that the U.S treats detainees in a "royal fashion." It would suggest something which was already evident in your posts. You've done ZERO research into the conditions at Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. detainee prisons. You also seem woefully ignorant of the way government beauracracy works. No government that mistreats it's prisoners has an official policy that says "we shall torture and mistreat." Yet the evidence of mistreatment in Guantanamo is voluminous. It ranges from witholding letters from family members, to physical beatings to sleep deprivation to forcing inmates to deface the Koran, to wrapping detainees in the Isreali flag, electro shocks, the list goes on and on and on.

None of which you can prove. None of which has been substantiated, none of which has been observed by anyone outside the supposed victims.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

None of which you can prove. None of which has been substantiated, none of which has been observed by anyone outside the supposed victims

I first want to take on the notion that I would make up or imagine these things and why you believe I would do so. Like, this is what's so odd about the right wing in this country right now. It wants to pretend like the U.S. conducts war in some way that's entirely different from the way the rest of the world does it. In wartime detainees are mistreated when they don't have Geneva convention protections, it's just historical and empirical fact. Why on earth has the Bush administration been so ADAMANT about denying the applicability of Geneva conventions for detainees, just for the fun of it? Because it makes them look good in the world? If you simply use logical rules the denial of the Geneva convention is your first piece of evidence.

2. You have more and more internal documentation of abuse from government employees and departments. The FBI (as I quoted on this very page, please learn to read the thread) has released a series of documents that prove abuse has taken place in Quantanamo. The government itself has either released information or employees have leaked documents that detail waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other abuses. Now, just because you refuse to read the news stories that cover the release of official documents doesn't mean those documents don't exist.

3. When you combine the existing, governmental evidence, the Bush admin's denial of the Geneva conventions and the clear climate of abuse that produces moments like Abu Ghraib: THAT'S CALLED SUBSTANTIATION OF DETAINEE ALLEGATIONS. Again I ask, what burden of proof would you accept? Does someone have to get up in a court of law and say "I tortured that guy." Because dude? That's NOT gonna happen. Moreover, as you can not deny we held INNOCENT, non-terrorists at Guantanamo for years. It's the least that we as American can do, but to believe people who were wrongfully held for years by OUR government. But yeah you don't care about that.

 

[Annie]

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Jul/15-641403.html

Charges of Guantanamo Detainee Torture Unfounded, General Says
Investigation finds treatment policy violations rare, not inhumane

General Schmidt
Air Force Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt (AP File Photo)

A Defense Department investigation into claims by several FBI agents that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were tortured during interrogations found no evidence to substantiate the charges, the investigating general says.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee July 13, Air Force Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt, the senior investigating officer, told senators that “the bottom line [is] though, we found no torture. Detention and interrogation operations were safe, secure and humane." In a very few instances, however, investigators did find violations of military policy on detainee treatment, but nothing which Schmidt said he considered inhumane.

Responding to a question by Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, Schmidt said investigators distinguished between torture and inhumane treatment on the one hand, and abusive and degrading treatment on the other. "Something might be degrading," Schmidt said, "but not necessarily torture. And it may not be inhumane. It may be humiliating, but it may not be torture."

In his opening remarks, Warner noted that this particular investigation was the "12th major senior-level review of detainee operations and allegations of detainee abuse." He noted that this investigation was launched in December 2004 as a result of more than two-dozen e-mails from FBI personnel alleging mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo in the second half of 2002. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's ranking Democrat, noted that the FBI e-mails contained a reference to "torture techniques" in Guantanamo…

 

[Paulie]

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Jul/15-641403.html

 

[Annie]

Cute. FBI squealers: Good.
DOD response: Bad.

Thanks for playing, your bias is evident.

 

[Paulie]

Cute. FBI squealers: Good.
DOD response: Bad.

Thanks for playing, your bias is evident.

My bias? The DoD has been lying to the American people for decades, why should I trust them about this?

 

[ReillyT]

Cute. FBI squealers: Good.
DOD response: Bad.

Thanks for playing, your bias is evident.

Who has the greater incentive to be dishonest? I don't think it is the FBI.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre
I want to start out by pointing out that you have STILL failed to raise even one counterpoint to my various arguments about the ineffectiveness of water boarding or torture techniques in protecting American lives. Are you ever going to attempt that?




That's almost enough to rest my case right there. "I distrust politically motivated opinions of Guantanamo. However I TRUST the statements of POLITICIANS." The logic there is a bit odd. But I don't want to be accused of cutting and pasting out of context so let's get to the meat of your post.



Politically motivated people like former Guantanamo employees and FBI agents who reported abuse to their superiors? The following is from the Washington Post in January of 2007




What exactly is your threshold for anectodal vs. "the whole condition." The ONLY reason we know about the abuse reports from the FBI is that the ACLU had to sue the federal government, department by department to release information about conditions on Guantanamo, the justification for holding people there, etc. etc. etc. The administration has stonewalled every attempt to disclose information about conditions on Guantanamo and they STILL can't prevent abuses from being known to the public.

You are also forgetting that the U.S. government screwed itself by picking up hundreds of people who were not terrorists, had no links to terrorist organisations but were kept at Guantanamo for YEARS in the wake of 9/11. Once those individuals began to sue the government for wrongful imprisonment and were released they had many stories to tell about their experiences of being wrongfully and illegally held. See you are in a bit of a predicament here. Because if you're going to argue that ill treatment is deserved because people in Guantanamo are the enemy, how do you explain the huge numbers of detainees who have been released? Did they somehow stop being terrorists, were they reforms? No, they were wrongfully held and they've been interviewed outside of the U.S. and their stories are harrowing.

I'll stand on the evidence I have from eye witness accounts as counterpoint to your subjective opinions. I guess you're going to ignore those, however, as you didn't comment on them.

I said absolutely nothing about who was being held at Guantanamo, whether anybody was being wrongfully or illegally held, or anything about an 'enemy' in this context or any of the other issues you raise. We were discussing whether or not we mistreat people in our custody. Try to focus please.

(I do hope, however, that you don't apply the same standard of detaining and releasing suspects to the police force that you seem to apply to the military. You seem to want the trial before the investigation. And yeah, when we apprehend suspected terrorists, mercenaries, or other enemy combatants, it is more often than not going to be outside the USA and therefore, that's where they are most likely to be interviewed.)

I'm happy to know that you distrust politicos reporting on Guantanamo. If you throw out all the accusations and unsubstantiated reports those on your side have brought back, you'll have little case at all.

Anecdotal evidence is taking one incident and trotting it out as proof. It becomes dishonest when it is waved as evidence that 'this is what we do' while all the tens of thousands of acts and/or policies that clearly demonstrate otherwise are ignored.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

From the article Kathianne quoted

Responding to a question by Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, Schmidt said investigators distinguished between torture and inhumane treatment on the one hand, and abusive and degrading treatment on the other. "Something might be degrading," Schmidt said, "but not necessarily torture. And it may not be inhumane. It may be humiliating, but it may not be torture."

This proves the points of the left, rather than those who defend detainee treatment on the right. The Bush Administration and the Department of Defense is only interested in playing semantic games about whether something is "torture" or "humiliating" or "degrading." By making the debate about terms and definitions they refuse to engage in the morality of their ACTIONS. It's ironic, these people claim to be Christians.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

I'll stand on the evidence I have from eye witness accounts as counterpoint to your subjective opinions. I guess you're going to ignore those, however, as you didn't comment on them.

Your going on the eye witness counts of relatives who work AT Guantanamo over FBI reports of abuse? Yeah, that's definitely you being more objective. The FBI definitely has a reason to twist the facts about detainee abuse, whereas someone who WORKS at Guantanamo would have no reason at all to paint a more positive picture of what's going down. I'm producing documented governmental reports, combined with detainee testimony. You rely on the same people who just approved Mukasey as Attorney General and your friends. Who's subjective?

I said absolutely nothing about who was being held at Guantanamo, whether anybody was being wrongfully or illegally held, or anything about an 'enemy' in this context or any of the other issues you raise. We were discussing whether or not we mistreat people in our custody. Try to focus please.

You wouldnt consider being held against your will in a foreign nation's detention facility mistreatment? Remind me to ask the military to send you to Guantanamo indefinitely when you have done nothing wrong, clearly you'd have no problem with that.

I said absolutely nothing about who was being held at Guantanamo, whether anybody was being wrongfully or illegally held, or anything about an 'enemy' in this context or any of the other issues you raise. We were discussing whether or not we mistreat people in our custody. Try to focus please.

Oh really? This is how we should evaluate our leaders? In a purely utilitarian way, weighing the number of good vs. the number of bad acts. Interesting. That's the exact OPPOSITE of Christian moral standards which are supposed to be absolute. But beyond that, let's take our previous President for example. Were you one of the people saying "well considering the overall good state of the U.S. economy and success of American citizens, maybe we should ignore the blow job he got in office and that he lied about it." Somehow I doubt that. Now if you were willing to vote for impeachment you're whole "it's a matter of weight" arguments go completely out the window. DO keep trying though, it's amusing.


Are you ever gonna prove that torture works?

 

[Annie]

Who has the greater incentive to be dishonest? I don't think it is the FBI.

Again, look at the reasons for both. It's like comparing the police with the army, different reasons for being.

 

[Annie]

From the article Kathianne quoted



This proves the points of the left, rather than those who defend detainee treatment on the right. The Bush Administration and the Department of Defense is only interested in playing semantic games about whether something is "torture" or "humiliating" or "degrading." By making the debate about terms and definitions they refuse to engage in the morality of their ACTIONS. It's ironic, these people claim to be Christians.

Sorry, not buying that. The guy was answering honestly, not looking to prove you wrong. If that were the case, you'd have standing.

 

[ReillyT]

Again, look at the reasons for both. It's like comparing the police with the army, different reasons for being.

I don't get it. What is the incentive for FBI agents to come forward claiming abuse? Despite the myriad of laws we have in this country, whistleblowers generally don't end up as heroes. However, GB is an army base, staffed by soldiers. What would make you think that the Department of Defense isn't the party with the greatest incentive to cover-up its (arguably) illegally actions?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Sorry, not buying that. The guy was answering honestly, not looking to prove you wrong. If that were the case, you'd have standing.

Kathianne, please check yourself. If the statement of this man isn't meant to respond to my argumetns, THEN WHY DID YOU POST THE ARTICLE IN RESPONSE TO MY ARGUMENT?

Is this shit rocket science? More to the point, if you actually look at the article that YOU cited, the guy is precisely responding to allegations of torture of detainees in U.S. custody. His argument is that interrogation techiniques could be called, degraring or humiliating, but not "torture" it's a semantic game. I'm confused why did you raise this article if you didn't think it somehow proved that allegations were unfounded.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm happy to know that you distrust politicos reporting on Guantanamo. If you throw out all the accusations and unsubstantiated reports those on your side have brought back, you'll have little case at all.

Anecdotal evidence is taking one incident and trotting it out as proof. It becomes dishonest when it is waved as evidence that 'this is what we do' while all the tens of thousands of acts and/or policies that clearly demonstrate otherwise are ignored.

I am no expert on GB, but after a quick search on Google and Wikipedia, I feel pretty confident in saying that there is a lot of substantiation for abuse at Guantanamo. There were links to NYT articles, ICRC reports, Amnesty International Reports, former prisoner statements, and also statements by FBI agents. That seems like a fair amount of substantiation from groups that for the most part, seem to have little incentive to lie.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, please check yourself. If the statement of this man isn't meant to respond to my argumetns, THEN WHY DID YOU POST THE ARTICLE IN RESPONSE TO MY ARGUMENT?

Is this shit rocket science? More to the point, if you actually look at the article that YOU cited, the guy is precisely responding to allegations of torture of detainees in U.S. custody. His argument is that interrogation techiniques could be called, degraring or humiliating, but not "torture" it's a semantic game. I'm confused why did you raise this article if you didn't think it somehow proved that allegations were unfounded.

It is a response to the charges, after another investigation of the specific charges, as detailed. You can find the results online, not a problem. There are differences between torture and 'degrading.' Police are allowed to lie to suspects, it's part of getting to the truth.

Funny thing, criminals, whether at Guantanamo or Joliet, in general, tend not to be cooperative.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am no expert on GB, but after a quick search on Google and Wikipedia, I feel pretty confident in saying that there is a lot of substantiation for abuse at Guantanamo. There were links to NYT articles, ICRC reports, Amnesty International Reports, former prisoner statements, and also statements by FBI agents. That seems like a fair amount of substantiation from groups that for the most part, seem to have little incentive to lie.

Well I have read on the subject ad nauseum mostly because I was drafted to teach a class on it to some very well educated people--I didn't want to look like an idiot using flawed data. If you actually read all that stuff you Google up, you'll find the same tired stories using the same flawed reports repeated over and over and over, but trotted out each time as if they are new revelations. If you can get a few dozen active blogs to use the same phrases--and believe me this is a standard tactic--and add in sensationalist headlines from the mainstream media, you can also get those kinds of stories to rise to the surface and pretty well bury most of the more objective and honest accounts.

Meanwhile people without a political agenda have not substantiated the stories. As in any human organization, you're going to find a bad egg or two who steps over the line and commits the unacceptable. In every case this has been found, however, we have conducted a thorough investigation and have taken appropriate counter measures.

We are not torturing and/or abusing prisoners either as policy or in practice. We treat them very very well. It is fairly safe to believe that given a choice of serving time in one of our military prisons or anyplace else on Earth, most would want to be in one of our facilities.