On May 21, 2009, two American leaders, one a current president, the other a former vice president, stood before the world and gave two radically different answers to the same question: has Quantanamo Bay made America safer? While President Obama insisted that Guantanamo and the interrogations that took place there were the product of fear-mongering, Dick Cheney declared that closing the detention camp would be reckless and place Americans at great risk. Has Guantanamo made America safer?
(Photo by Staff Sgt. Jon Soucy, National Guard Bureau)
Featured Image:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Gee, Barry Hussein changed his mind? I wonder why?
The argument against Gitmo associated with torture is a distraction used by those who are anti- war . That fact is obvious. If indeed those captured are prisoners of war and can be dealt with as such, they can be interrogated by military means to obtain information in a timely manner to ease a threat or stop an attack.
For those whining about treatment of these soldiers of Allah captured by US forces, I have little sympathy. In fact, since they are caught wearing civilian closes they can be shot as spies, on the spot. That would solve the detainee problem pretty quickly.
I am amazed at all of the ilogical arguments both pro and con to Gitmo's efficacy. It is analogous to arguing what is on the other side of the moon by those that have never been there, seen it, or otherwise know the facts.
As far as torture goes, it takes place daily and is responsible for saving more lives exponentially than destroying them. Torture is the most proficient means of liberating the truth from humans.
The Geneva Convention has no effect on the way terrorist treat prisoners. Many American military die uselessly because of the pompous rules of engagement ehorted on them by congress . Battles should be fought to be won and without rules.
As a vet at 70, I can vouch for all I have stated. Two bronze stars, three purple hearts and others mean nothing to me compared to the loss of young American lives doing battle for specious causes.
I am sure most have no realization of the conflicts of WWII. It is easy to armchair philosophize about what you don't know, a trend popularised by the desire to be intellectually recognized.
Since there is no evidence that we have stopped terrorist attacks with information gleaned at Guantanamo why leave it open? Since those in charge will not fully disclose what they have learned, we can deduce that they have learned little, if anything, valuable.
The Catholic Heretic
Assuming that just because Obama does not declassify information- which would discredit himself- there is no worthy information is incurious at best.
This is not deduction, it is implivit trust in a lawyer/politician with a lot of face to lose. Obama cannot politically afford to be proven wrong by Cheney. Especially on such a large issue.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Cheney first says that declassifying information about the torture will make the US less safe and is tantamount to treason, then he turns around and argues for declassifying that same information in an effort to prove his point. Just like the religion debate, evidence that by definition cannot be provided isn't really evidence, it is just a scare tactic to try and get people to agree with the guy doing the scaring and to shut the f**k up.
Bush and Cheney did NOT keep us safe after 9/11. Anyone that tells you so has already forgotten about the anthrax attacks.
Making a larger and larger portion of the world more and more angry with us sure is a great way of discouraging people from making desperate acts to weaken and harm us, huh? It cost the terrorists enough guys to fly 3 planes, and now we have killed more of our own people in extremely dubious military action following that act. We've also sunk many billions of dollars into those military actions, and created a lot more people who are willing to become terrorists in response to us. The longer we wait before undoing everything Bush and Cheney ever did, the worse off we will be.
Gitmo has made us much less safe. A very high percentage of information derived from torture is bad, And the world will remember how we behaved. And for those who are stupid enough to say you don't care remember all "super powers" in history have fallen and so will the USA.
Just historical fact, change is constant.
...as a rule I think all forms of torture should be avoided. So far (as John McCain would agree) it's done nothing but serve as a propaganda tool for the enemy.
But if interrogations really do save lives then by all means do it. I'm not the government, I haven't seen what it's prevented, so I can't make that call.
Everyone opposed to the last administration seems to be conflating Gitmo and torture , kinda like Regime Change in Iraq in order to prevent state sponsored terrorism with establishing a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
We need to keep the issues separate, otherwise we'll never have clarity.
We abhor torture, but even more, we abhor not doing everything in our power to prevent innocents from dying. We abhorred the Taliban in the 80s, but we abhorred Soviet expansion even more.
Gitmo is a separate issue. I think the only reason to close it is because there is the stigma of harsh treatment to suspects, but the benefits outweigh the costs of keeping it. Harsh treatment is subjective and you would have forms of it in any prison. Lesson to take home: don't get apprehended on the battlefield and expect gentle treatment.
But you can't keep them there forever. We should try these people one by one until no one is left at Gitmo.
Lesson to take home: don't get apprehended on the battlefield and expect gentle treatment.
I think many of those apprehended were not on any battlefield. They were arrested as civilians.
Did Bush or Cheney actually draw up articles of War? If not you can say the word WAR all you want but it's a civil matter not military .
No matter how bad we want it never to happen again we probably will get hit again. It's the fear of not knowing when or how that the terrorists are after. How is you fear factor in the morning when you get in your car to drive off to work. Chances are much much higher you will die in a car crash than even if we had a much bigger terrorist attack than Sept 11, 2001.
Super Expert
Lesson to take home: don't get apprehended on the battlefield and expect gentle treatment.
I think most of those apprehended were not on any battlefield. They were arrested as civilians.
Did Bush or Cheney actually draw up articles of War? If not you can say the word war all you want but it's a civil matter.
Super Expert
Everyone opposed to the last administration seems to be conflating Gitmo and torture , kinda like Regime Change in Iraq in order to prevent state sponsored terrorism with establishing a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
We need to keep the issues separate, otherwise we'll never have clarity.
We abhor torture, but even more, we abhor not doing everything in our power to prevent pureblooded aryans from dying. We abhorred the Stalinist threat in the 2\30s, but we abhorred Jewish expansion even more.
Auschwitz is a separate issue. I think the only reason to close it is because there is the stigma of harsh treatment to suspects, but the benefits outweigh the costs of keeping it. Harsh treatment is subjective and you would have forms of it in any re- education camp. Lesson to take home: don't get apprehended on the battlefield and expect gentle treatment.
But you can't keep them there forever. We should shower these people one by one until no one is left at Gitmo.
Obviously people missed what I intended, but let me try again.
Mateo765 wrote:
- You're conflating the issues, but I agree
- Everyone opposed to the last administration seems to be conflating Gitmo and torture ,
- kinda like Regime Change in Iraq in order to prevent state sponsored terrorism with
_ establishing a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
- We need to keep the issues separate, otherwise we'll never have clarity.
- We abhor torture, but even more, we abhor not doing everything in our power to
- prevent innocents from dying. We abhorred the Taliban in the 80s, but we abhorred
- Soviet expansion even more.
- Gitmo is a separate issue. I think the only reason to close it is because there is
- the stigma of harsh treatment to suspects, but the benefits outweigh the costs of
- keeping it. Harsh treatment is subjective and you would have forms of it in any prison.
- Lesson to take home: don't get apprehended on the battlefield and expect gentle treatment.
- But you can't keep them there forever. We should try these people one by one until no
- one is left at Gitmo.
Let me parody it again, without errors.
- You're conflating the issues, but I agree
- Everyone opposed to the government of the reichskanzler seems to be conflating Auschwitz
- and torture, kinda like Regime Change in Ostria in order to prevent the marsh of
- bolshewism and jewish influence establishing a connection between the destruction of
- the reichstag and the liberation of Austria.
- We need to keep the issues separate, otherwise we'll never have clarity.
- We abhor torture, but even more, we abhor not doing everything in our power to
- prevent innocents from dying. We abhorred the Jewish and the communists in 1918s, but
- we abhorred Soviet expansion even more.
- Auschwitz is a separate issue. I think the only reason to close it is because there is
- the stigma of harsh treatment to the degenerate relocated there, but the benefits outweigh
- the costs of keeping it. Stern treatment is subjective and you would have forms of it in
- any place of re- education .
- Lesson to take home for jews, negroes, homosexuals and gypsies: don't get get apprehended
- in Aryan dominated land and expect gentle treatment.
- But you can't keep the detained there forever. We should deal with these people one by one
- until no one is left at Auschwitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Wikipedia is not a source, its a article that is changed daily
You make a mockery of yourself. You affirm what I suggested, *precisely*. But no amount of explaining will make you understand. It's a hopeless case.
Next time for you I'll quote the DSM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
But especially for you, here is a video . Maybe a popup color book would be better.
http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/the_healthcare.php
I have notice that everybody that does not stand in favor for this topic you simply shut them down and insult them. I'll be the bigger person of this arguement and walk away=) Btw I love popup books
Look, I'll say it plain and simple.
I quoted wikipedia on a generic psychological concept - "cognitive dissonance". It's like printing a link to an explanatory text on wikipedia such as "ad hominem" or "retardation" or "lying" or "combustion engine". Now if I had sustained a complex argument and used wiki as 'evidence', that would have been dubious quotation of a source. But I didn't - I emphasized my point that one side of the political extreme will live in complete denial of a situation, and the other side will do the reverse. That is why I referred to the psychological construct. In simple, "kinder, gentler" terms, it would be like a child whining about why his parents are so mean, and me linking wikipedia to this:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce
What would you say to the child in question it then would go and say "whhaaambulance, wikipedia is not a reliable source". You'd say, "that's beside the point you little smart-ass."
All the more ironic, since the response was a textbook case of, guess what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP-B1tgWfJU
"We abhor torture , but even more, we abhor not doing everything in our power to prevent pureblooded aryans from dying."
What planet are you from? There are not "pureblooded" anyone's anywhere on this planet. Answer me this: How many races of man are there currently on the planet earth?
If you answer more than one then re-take Biology 101.
The Catholic Heretic
I see, you think locking up and executing millions of peaceful Jews is the same as locking up and using harsh tactics on people who helped perpetrate the acts on 9/11 or who fight along side the Taliban?
The lunacy of the Left never ceases to amaze me.
If you knew for sure that all the locked were terrorist and had help perpetrated the 911 act, why have they not been charged and sentenced??
I see where most of you who think you are right do not realize that these people fighting against the US occupation in Afghan and Iraq, are acting in accourdance with intenational UN Laws.
You should look up the government facts/statistics on the number of people that were locked up in Gitmo, the number release, the number hel and the number charged. There were more than 1000 POW in Gitmo, today there is less than 250, to date only 1 has been charged. Innocent peole were picked and sold as bounty. Even the Bush administration has admitted that and is a reason why they had to release so many. Now they also have many other innocent peole locked up who they cannot release for fear of them being torture in their country of origin..oh, the irony. We should have shut down all operations in Gitmo and gave the property back to the Cubans. They don't want us there. And we should pay for the usage including interest and try to help those people to start living a decent life instead of continuing to punish them for things which they do not control.
You are under the impression that all of the people at Gitmo are guilty. That is misguided.
Assuming that the people in Gitmo all "helped perpetrate" the acts on 9/11 is not true, The Bush administration let many of the detainees go when they found that these individuals were wrongly detained or harmless. Unfortunately the US policy of apprehend today question tomorrow led to many individuals being unfairly imprisoned.
Another misguided opinion of yours is that the GItmo detainees all "fight along side the Taliban." Again, this is not true. While some of the detainees were in fact Taliban, many of them were not. Some of them were individuals who raised arms when their towns were attacked and were not "for" the Taliban, rather, were for protecting their families. Similarly, some of the individuals were part of the Iraqi or the Afghani armies, or the Fedayeen. If combatants formed part of any of these groups and followed the laws of war, then they are entitled to the privileges of the Geneva Conventions. The US can't just go around and declare that individuals are unprivileged belligerents whenever it is convenient.
Takehome: Under the Geneva Conventions, if you get detained on the battlefield, expect just and fair treatment that has been agreed upon by a majority of the nations in the modern world. That is, unless you are unfortunate enough to be detained by the US who does whatever the hell it wants and pays nothing more than lip service to the documents it signs yet wants others to honor. You can't have it both ways. I for one, was for the US taking the high road and leading by example by following the laws of war. But no, the US decided to make up new rules as it went along and became exactly what its enemies wanted it to become fueling the terrorist message and increasing its numbers.
The bottom line is that US troops will now be in greater danger on the battlefield as enemies would rather fight to the death than peacefully surrender and end up at Gitmo indefinitely as the "right" would prefer.
The lunacy of the right never ceases to amaze me. They follow whatever Fox news tells them like a bunch of lemmings.
The lunacy of the left never ceases to amaze me. They follow whatever ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPO tells them like a bunch of lemmings.
The Geneva Conventions cover enemy comabtants in a declered war . The people housed at Gitmo are civilians who are hell bent on destroying infidels, not just US citizens but everyone who isn't Islamic.
Terrorist were not at the convention! Plus also in the Geneva code to be a POW you must represent a rank, flag of your country, and not harm civilians. Now a terrorist blows up there own kind and others, do not resemmble a rank or fight for a country, they fight for a religion .
The US developed this convenient habit of just labeling anyone they wanted to as a "terrorist", and that gets around the nasty business of actually having to prove anything. Published studies have determined that actual, real terrorists (including most of the ones that blow themselves up) do NOT do it for a religion , as you claim, but actually for more political reasons - [my example:]such as seeing one or two political entities persecuting people they feel an affiliation with, then invading the country they live in.
Other studies have also shown that when torture is involved, the accuracy and truthfulness of the information gained does down precipitously - people will say anything to make the pain stop, and are certainly not above lying to the people that inflict such upon them. At the same time, you are validating every bad thing they have ever heard about the US, without having any opportunity of seeing any of our less barbarous tendencies. If a few Swedish soldiers picked you up off the street and took you to a prison on some island in scandinavia and tortured you daily for years on end, what would you think of that society ?
In short, until we can actually prove that each of these people have done anything wrong (and not just against US law - US laws don't apply inside the borders of other soverign nations), we have no moral or legal basis for holding them, and certainly no legal, moral, or rational basis for torturing them. (Beyond Cheney's fascination with torture)
I could never have expressed it better. I really hope the morons supporting the right will ask someone to explain this to them, because I eralize they do not have the capacity to think logically or even reasonably.
"You are under the impression that all of the people at Gitmo are guilty. That is misguided."
-You are under the impression that the people at Gitmo are protected by the Geneva Convention. You are misguided. GCIII states:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions :
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
None of the detainees at Gitmo meet all of those requirements and are therefore not subject to its protections.
"That is, unless you are unfortunate enough to be detained by the US who does whatever the hell it wants and pays nothing more than lip service to the documents it signs yet wants others to honor.."
-As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I find that comment offensive in the extreme. I would like to invite you to talk with some U.S. service men that were detained by Japan during WWII, or North Korea during the Korean War, or the North Vietnamese. Actually talk to them. I have, from all three of those wars. And I can tell you that their treatment was detestable. It was far beyond what a normal human being should be asked to endure.
Then see if you can find a German who was a POW, caught by the Americans. See if his story sounds anything like the previous examples. My guess is that it will be a dramatically different story.
Finally, as to the definition of torture . Waterboarding, which is the most extreme form of enhanced interrogation techniques shown to have been used by the U.S. is not any worse than what I, and thousands of others have gone through in TRAINING! As a matter of fact, it is not as bad. Talk to someone who is a graduate of S.E.R.E. Level-C training, as I am. I guarantee you, the Gitmo prisoners didn't see that kind of treatment.
And if you think U.S. troops are in greater danger than before, again, you are mistaken. Radicals cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be trusted. They do not use truth in their recruiting techniques. And nothing we have done will increase their already insatiable hatred of this country.
And please don't pretend that only the right has leaders which they follow blindly. Look at MSNBC and tell me that's an unbiased news outlet. OK, now that you've done that, do it with a straight face. Yea, I thought so. The left has just as many lemmings as the right. And somewhere in between are the folks who can engage in reasoned debate, and might even have their minds changed when confronted with irrefutable facts.
Your arguments don't hold water, and they are insulting to those that have paid the ultimate price to defend your right to say it. But that is my opinion.
Couldnt have said it any better, he does prove a point about our POW's, you try sitting down with your grandpa and asked him what the VC didto him while he was a POW.
First of all, I have read the Geneva Conventions and I know the provisions that apply.
I will use Iraqi forces as an example as per the rules of the Geneva Conventions:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer forces of such armed forces- Iraq is a party to the conflict. The Iraqi army is thus, an armed force of a party of a conflict. These forces are AUTOMATICALLY covered.
Section 4.1.2. applies to OTHER militias and OTHER volunteer corps... belonging to a party of the conflict. Thus, 4.1.2. would apply to the Fedayeen etc. if they are not already covered in 4.1.1
Moreover, 4.1.2
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;- Um...I think his name was Saddam. The Fedayeen reported directly to Saddam.
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance - The Iraqi army and the Fedayeen have distinctive uniforms. This means that they are recognizable. They also have military flags which are recognizable. Just because the US decides that they won't "count" flags as symbols, doesn't mean that they really aren't so. The US refused to recognize belligerent flags as identifying symbols, yet the Red Cross flags were identifiable, and honored.
carrying arms openly- This would have to be determined on an individual basis as per common practice.
conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war- This requirement hails back to the other mentioned requirements, as well as more within the conventions. Again, is most likely determined based on documented atrocities on an individual basis since the entire army isn't violating the laws of war.
"None of the detainees at Gitmo meet all of those requirements and are therefore not subject to its protections." How do you know that each detainee didn't follow proper protocol? Because Bush said so? I don't buy into it as easily as you do. I am sure some of your POW friends can tell you that people are often captured and tortured for no reason.
For your comment about soldiers who were treated in a horrible manner, I agree with you. I have also talked to many service people from the Korean war, Vietnam, and both Iraqi wars. The point of my position is to stop exactly what you say your friends, and mine experienced. If you cannot lead by example, why would anyone else comply? And as you say, the treatment these individuals endured is far beyond what any person should have to go through. Don't you think that people in other countries think the same of us, and in all honesty, have a perfect right to?
I agree with you that a German soldier's story would be different. They were treated extremely well by the Americans. But what about the Japanese Americans during WWII? If memory treats me correctly, we sent them to internment camps. Do you think maybe a bit of ethnocentrism existed in this decision to treat whites foreigners differently from Asian Americans?
You say that water boarding "it's not so bad." Other's wouldn't agree. Then again, you signed up for it,and knew you were in a safe situation. What if an enemy was doing it to your son, would you be so apathetic to torture then? It seems that you lament when it happens to your friends, but think it is justifiable when it happens to your enemies. Turn that lens around, and can't you see how others could possibly have the opposing view?
I do think that US troops are in greater danger. We are not only sending this message that we will operate in a lawless manner to radicals, but also to nation states. To your point that nothing we have done will increase their insatiable hatred, um...yes it will. Terrorist groups are gaining new members daily. Individuals who may not have joined originally decided to once we blew up their home and killed their family. We have given many people a personal reason to hate us.
I don't pretend that the right is the only side who has individuals which follow blindly. I personally watch FOX, MSNBC, CNN, and NPR. I also find sources on my own. I read the Geneva Conventions, I read the office memos from the white house, I read legal scholarship on the war on terror . I formed an opinion based on such.
In closing, don't try to paint me as "un-American" because I don't agree with your position. Just because a layman knows the laws of war better than a military person isn't my fault. My family has served in American wars dating from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, First Iraqi War, Afghanistan, and the current Iraqi War. It is patriotic to question what your country does, and to want to strive for better. Sorry that I would just rather have service men home with their families, with proper pensions and health benefits than out in a desert fighting a pointless war. I think it is insulting that you would have us continue to fight in this money draining pointless war, and have more young men dead as a result. But this is just my opinion.
Just to make a short point, When people enlist they know that they are endangered in any war, if not, they have no reason to enlist.
The Iraqi forces that were under Hussein's control don't even play into this equation. We're talking here about Taliban and Al Qaeda members who were caught by U.S. forces, many of whom were involved in or planning acts of terrorism . So everything pertaing to Hussein and his forces is irrelevant. And they must meet ALL of the requirements, not one or two.
"How do you know that each detainee didn't follow proper protocol? Because Bush said so? I don't buy into it as easily as you do."
Or maybe because evidence to contrary also has not been produced. And who says they DID follow proper protocol? The Dhali Bama? I don't buy into his story that easily either.
"Don't you think that people in other countries think the same of us, and in all honesty, have a perfect right to?"
Absolutely they do. But we apparently disagree on the definition of torture . Therein lies the rub, wouldn't you say?
"You say that water boarding "it's not so bad." Other's wouldn't agree."
Not to be argumentative, but I really don't care if there are others that wouldn't agree. There are some that say any kind of coercion, even being forced to listen to rock and roll music, is torture. Yea, I signed up for it, but only because it's necessary. Other countries treat our SOLDIERS who ARE covered under the Geneva Conventions far worse than the treatment received by these folks. So forgive me if I don't lose a whole lot of sleep over it.
"Terrorist groups are gaining new members daily."
And I'm sure this started the day after it was discovered that the CIA was using waterboarding , right? As a I recall, when I was living in Europe in the 1980's, there were already plenty who hated the U.S., as the soldiers in the Berlin bombing in 1986 and the Marines in Beirut will no doubt attest to.
I don't recall saying anything that would imply that you are unAmerican just because you disagree with me. That would be very counter to the very idea of being American.
"Just because a layman knows the laws of war better than a military person isn't my fault. My family has served in American wars dating from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, First Iraqi War, Afghanistan, and the current Iraqi War."
Yea, and my dad was an Army helicopter pilot, but you won't catch me behind the controls of a Black Hawk, no matter how many times I listen to him describe flying one. So I'm not sure what your point is. And if that geneology lesson is supposed to put me in my place because of your family's military background, it fails. I don't know the entire history of military in my family, but I know we have fought in every war since the WWI, including 3 generations and counting of females. There hasn't been a day since 1914 that someone in my family hasn't served in the military. So please forgive me again if I don't bow down to your inexhaustable knowledge of the laws of war based on your family's pedigree. I will, however, thank every single one of them for their no doubt selfless service to a greatful nation.
"I think it is insulting that you would have us continue to fight in this money draining pointless war, and have more young men dead as a result."
Not sure where this came from either. I think we should get out sooner rather than later. I'm tired of seeing my friends come home a shell of their former selves, if at all. But this discussion wasn't even about that. It was about the legality of Gitmo. Personally, I really don't care what they do with the scum they keep in those places. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them have these pieces of trash back. Then they can deal with them. Peace in the Middle East ain't gonna happen during my lifetime. I don't care if it's Bush or Barack that's trying to broker it. You're not going to erase 5,000 years of racism and genocide with the stroke of a pen.
I just don't want them to have the same rights as real soldiers, and they shouldn't be marandized and get an American trial, when they committed no crimes on American soil. Plain and simple, they don't have the same rights as American citizens or soldiers of a national army.
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include: etc.etc. Well you are partly right. I totally agrre with you in part, because some of those people do not belong there! They are innocent! On the other hand, those who were fighting against the US army fit right into your description. I cannot see how they do not fit. You speak about the Japanese treatment of POW's, but that may have been the whole reason why the Geneva convention came about. To prevent this sort of inhumane cruelty to POW's. As for the comment about SERE training, what difference does it make if it is training or not. Did you feel like you were been tortured beyond what you could bear? If someone takes a drill and starts drilling in you ankle or pushes pieces of bamboo splinter under your finger nails, how does the source change the pain and suffering you will hve to endure? What is offensive about the statement that the US does what it feels like with utter disregard for the documents it signed? Do you really believe that the Legal team for Bush did mislead and create the framework for torture policy at the insisttence of Buscheney? I must you are so the first leftist with some form of intelligence I have actually come across in any discussion forum.
"[T]hose who were fighting against the US army fit right into your description."
Then maybe you can explain to those who have been killed by these terrorist how they missed the insignia on their uniforms. Or you can tell the world, who seems to have missed it, who is responsible for these "soldiers." And which "laws and customs of war" they are conducting operations in accordance with. Because everyone but you seems to have missed all of those.
You are correct about one thing, the Geneva Conventions were signed because of the treatment of prisoners during WWII, mainly. But that didn't stop the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese from torturing our soldiers in the most horrific ways. And my point about S.E.R.E. was that I endured worse treatment in training than these animals endured during their "war." And if what I endured was not torture (it was certainly harsh treatment, but not torture) then calling waterboarding torture is ludicrous.
Finally, I'm not sure what makes you think I'm a leftist. If I were to apply a label to myself, it would probably be most accurate to say I'm a moderate libertarian, far from left. More right leaning, if anything.
Anyway, my point is that the media is only making a big deal out of this because it was Bush that was in office. If the Dali Bama had ordered the same, or even worse, they would be trampling each other to death for the privilege to be the first to kiss his butt for keeping us safe. It's not torture. Talk to someone who's been tortured, then talk to someone who's had water thrown in their face, or been made to stay up past their bedtime, or had to listen to music they didn't like. Tell me they're the same. Please.
Stop treating the Geneva Conventions as sacrosanct. Look up the definition of convention:
"An agreement between states, sides, or military forces, especially an international agreement dealing with a specific subject, such as the treatment of prisoners of war."
An agreement. Did al Qaeda's leadership sign (agree to) this treaty? No, and those were the ones that received harsh treatment, right? Agreements are made so that both sides can benefit. A terrorist organization doesn't care about the well being of their own members, so they ignore the geneva conventions. Besides, Obama's AG has suggested that detainees aren't entitled to geneva protections. Plus, violating laws isn't always immoral: civil disobedience, disobeying traffic laws to rush someone to the hospital, defending yourself...
This bogus line about we are less safe or our troops are less safe because of Gitmo and not the thousands of bombs and dead civilians, and not anything we did before 9/11 and every other terrorist attack is getting old. I guess al Qaeda knew we'd have Gitmo one day and decided to blow up the USS Cole in 2000.
There are conceivably three groups of detainees at Gitmo:
1) Innocents who have nothing to do with the Taliban or al Qaeda
2) People affiliated with the Taliban or al Qaeda, but not involved in any terrorist attacks or planning
3) Scumbags who will do everything possible to hurt and kill Americans, Jews, and/or other "infidels".
Who knows about the make up of those 3 groups, but I'm pretty sure there all there and we should try them to sort them all out. But how is this the same as Auschwitz? Really?? And because I reject that assertion, I'm a lemming???
There are a lot of lunatics on the Right, but not on this issue. They're all on the Left.
And just to be clear, if you throw out geneva conventions to protect people like KSM and equate our treatment of WOT detainees to the Holocaust, then you're in the lunatic fringe of the Left. If you say try these people and eventually close down Gitmo and end the wars ASAP, then you have a practical nuanced approach. Those on the lunatic fringe of the Right would just say kill them all, and that 9/11=The Holocaust. But who is saying that?
First of all, I never equated Gitmo to Aushwitz. So you can get stop your ridiculous rant about that comparison to me.
I just wanted to clear up your misconceptions on the Geneva Conventions and America's role in following them. For your information, America DID sign the Geneva Conventions, and once an international treaty is signed by the United States, it BECOMES PART OF United States national LAW.
You are correct that Al Queda did not sign the Geneva Conventions, and yes, the true Taliban or Al Qaeda forces who were not part of a national army or who did not follow the laws of war would not qualify for the protections the Geneva Conventions affords. But you cannot paint all detainees with such a broad stoke. Afghanistan, Iraq and the US DID sign the Geneva Conventions, so their armies DO qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Many of the detainees are Iraqi military forces. They weren't all Al Queda. Get real. Was the Bush administration ever able to prove the 9/11 Iraq conncetion? Last time I checked no. So how are Iraqi forces Al Qaeda? Oh, that's right they aren't. WE invaded THEIR country detained their citizens, stuck them in a black site, outside of the realm of US national law , and tried to evade every convention that we had signed on the laws of war. It is disgusting.
Your line about the USS Cole being proof that we are just as safe now as then assumes that the Taliban will be our only enemy. What about other NEW enemies we will face in the future who will think.."Hmmm the US didn't think that it was important to follow the laws of war, so they may repeat the same pattern of disobeying international law...so why should we follow them either?"
This line of logic could possible end up in the devolution of the entire international law system and would create MORE unsafety, not less. You are correct, the Geneva Conventions should not be treated as sacrosanct. They should be treated as a law that we signed, and intend to follow. Not just a rule of convenience.
I called rightists lemmings because they believed everything that the Bush administration said was factual and truthful. Such as the 9/11 Iraq connections, WMD's in Iraq, etc.