Well don't you feel safer now?

So it turns out, despite what the Bush administration and their supporters would have you believe, that many of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay had little or no ties to terrorism.  In fact, some were working FOR the U.S.  Certainly makes me feel safer knowing the government is locking up our allies for years without a chance to defend themselves.

Comments

[anon]

At least 30 individuals released from Guantanamo (because, you know, the Army does release individuals) returned to the battlefield.

I'd hate to think about the people that are still at Gitmo.

[David K.]

So anon, you think its better to lock up innoncent people indefinitely and give them no chance to defend themselves just because some of them might not be innocent? Stalin would be proud!

[Angrier and Angrier]

This is what pisses me off about Scalia's opinion on the detainees. He totally disregards the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The government is calling these guys "enemy combatants." But what legal process was in place to determine that in the first place? NONE.

If somebody is technically an enemy combatant or illegal combatant and falls outside the boundaries of the Geneva Convention, that would be one thing. But you are telling me just because the U.S. government decides someone is an enemy combatant without any kind of hearing or due process, the government should be allowed to hold someone indefinitely????

[yea]

incompetence in the bush administration? who would've thought. thank science that this whole disaster will be over in a few months. too bad that this blog won't be up for me to laugh at the neo-cons after the impending november landslide.

[WobblyH]

Davie Boy,
With Brenners shutting down, are you going to start a blog? I wouldn't want you to be without a forum for these posts, big guy.
* Wobbly H

[David K.]

I'd thought about it, but I don't think i'd have interest in investing the time and patience it requires to run a blog. I don't' think i'd update near often enough to keep an audience going, nor do I have as much interest in things like hurricanes or college basketball to build up a diverse audience.

[anon]

David K.: I think we should lock up people whom, in the heat of battle, we suspect are guilty, and, after the passion of battle has cooled and we engage in an investigation, we release the innocent. This is how it works in the real world all the time--innocent people may be locked up (wrong place, wrong time, etc.), but this is not the case of a Stalinesque (how quickly you resort to Godwin's Law) rounding up of the innocent (e.g., arrested on contrived crimes, etc.). This is a case of the mistakenly guilty, which is a different matter.

Now, perhaps you'd like to condemn military officers who, when storming a house with al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan shooting at them and find a guy in the basement who insists he's innocent, lock away someone who, upon further investigation, may or may not actually guilty. But, in the United States, where, occasionally, non-Stalinesque police regimes in more enlightened states (Massachusetts?) storm houses with drug operatives shooting at them and find a guy in the basement who insists he's innocent, and lock away someone who, upon further investigation, may or may not actually be guilty. But, I guess because we can plausibly tie Bush's name to the first episode and not the second, we may classify only the former as "Stalinesque."

Angrier and Angrier: While you may think that you can one-up Scalia with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," realize that, in most circumstances, an individual may be detained in prison without bail until a jury finds him not guilty. What "legal process" is there in the first place to determine whether you lock somebody up on a drug bust? The judgment of the officer, followed by a justification to the court. What "legal process" is there in the first place to determine whether you hold a guy at Guantanamo? The judgment of the military, followed by a justification to a military tribunal. (That, for the record, is not "NONE.") And, no one is held "indefinitely." Several have taken advantage of the legal remedies available and been released. (Note that the population at Gitmo is a third of what its maximum has been.) For instance, the MCA was designed to give these detainees a chance to have a hearing. Unfortunately for Boumediene, he (or, more likely, his lawyers) decided to challenge the constitutionality of the MCA rather than take advantage of the possibility that he could actually be released under the legal mechanisms provided for in the MCA. And, doubly unfortunately for him, he's wasted two years without taking advantage of an available legal remedy for him, and he'll begin anew. Again.

[David K.]

Anon, there are a couple problems with your argument

1) The President can declare anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant, we have no proof they were taken in a raid of an Al Qaida safe house to go on, just that they say "hey this guy is a terrorist

2) Even if the first part of your theory is true, these men have been tortured, locked away for YEARS without any chance to appeal or fight their incarceration. That is where it becomes Stalin-esque. Godwin's law only applies when the reference isn't pertinent to the discussion. I'd certainly argue that our President locking people up and throwing away the key counts as Stalin like behavior. And your support of the policy classifies you in the same group. You may dislike it but its true. These are innocent men who have lost years of their lives living in a prison half way around the world who had no tie to terrorism and are being denied even basic rights because the President says so. That. Is. Wrong. If this war is actually about Freedom (yeah right) then how we conduct the war should be in line with that. The treatment of potentially innocent men, guilty until we decide otherwise (not even proven since we don't give them that option) is deplorable. I have no sympathy for the imprisonment of actual terrorists but the rampant paranoia of sweeping up whole groups of people and detaining them indefinitely because some of them might be dangerous is anti-thetical to everything this country stands for. This isn't making us safer and its just plain wrong.

[anon]

If you can find me a single individual, in Gitmo, who lacks access to a legal hearing, you will have yourself the most prestigious legal case of all time.

Unfortunately, I guarantee you that you cannot.

[David K.]

anon, up until the recent supreme court decision they did not have access to legal counsel or legal hearings.

[Jim]

If you can find me a single individual, in Gitmo, who lacks access to a legal hearing, you will have yourself the most prestigious legal case of all time.

Wow, that's pretty disingenuous right there. Has the ink even fucking dried yet on that?

[David K.]

Oh and anon, if you are refering to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, thats a laugh. Defendents were only given general charges against them, and had no right to present counter witnesses or cross examine government witnesses, nor, as far as I can tell to present any other sort of evidence. They were a sham and a disgrace.

[Alasdair]

David K - I hadn't realised that your last name was Godwin ! So the Law was actually named for *you* ? We are in significant company, indeed ! ("Godwin's law only applies when the reference isn't pertinent to the discussion. ")

[Alasdair]

Lest someone accuse me of either non-relevance or ad hominemicity with that most recent of my comments, I offer *this*, M'Lud, as supporting evidence ...

"1) The President can declare anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant, we have no proof they were taken in a raid of an Al Qaida safe house to go on, just that they say "hey this guy is a terrorist "

*IF* this happened to be either relevant or true, then Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Senators Clinton and Obama, and many others would have been in Gitmo years ago! The fact that those named are still freely walking around in this country, and have been able to speak freely to the Press and other media outlets without having their sorry fundaments tossed in Gitmo and the key thrown away is a sufficient and trivial proof of the UNtruth of David's statement ...

[thebeef]

"anon, up until the recent supreme court decision they did not have access to legal counsel or legal hearings."

Hey ass clown, are you mental?! The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) gave every detainee a right to appeal their CSRT hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read that one more time:

Every detainee had a right to appeal the constitutionality of their CSRT hearing in federal court.

Are you suggesting that an appeal to the D.C. Circuit is not a legal hearing?!?

[David K.]

Nice straw men Alasdair, come up with any others lately? Please add some facts to the discussion or go away. Thanks.

[David K.]

Check again Beef, the DTA PROHIBITS detainees from appealing to federal courts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

[Alasdair]

Brendan (or anyone else with actual legal training) - is David correct or is thebeef correct ?

(Or is there some truth in each ?)

[Alasdair]

David - are you telling us that Pelosi and Reid, and Clinton and Obama, are not freely able to move about these United States ? Are you telling us that none of them can talk freely to the media ?

As far as *I* know, it is a fact that each is at liberty at this very moment, enjoying freedom of movement and freedom of speech ...

Can you prove otherwise ?

[David K.]

Alasdair, none of that is relevant to whether or not the President can and currently does seem to have the ability to declare people enemy combatants. The fact that he hasn't used it to its extreme does, not, in any logical way negate what he HAS done. Again, please come up with facts relevant to the argument not straw men and red herrings.

[thebeef]

Alasdair, I'm a lawyer.

And unlike David, I actually READ Boumediene, as well as the DTA.

The later I'll quote:

"the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant."

David is confused. The DTA actually stripped the Gitmo detainees of their right to petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus under 28 USC S2241. However, it provided a review mechanism through the D.C. Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit alone.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Nobody needs to one-up Scalia. The court has already done it.

Scalia's idiotic opinion based on pure emotion and not on "constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution makes a mockery of the whole concept of "constructionism."

[WobblyH]

Allie, some of your comments on this blog are caricatures of the most absurd conservative arguments. Bush can't choose to imprison any non-citizen because he doesn't do so to citizen political opponents? Philly is more dangerous than Iraq? What an insult to the danger that our soldiers find themselves in every day.

You Scottish faggot.

[WobblyH]

beef,

You mean, citing Wikipedia isn't sufficient to develop an understanding of statutes and caselaw?

Davie, Congress left a narrow avenue prior to Boumadiene to appeal to one Federal court after the CSRT had run its course. My understanding is that the Court found this constitutionally inadequate (an impermissible suspension of the right to habeus corpus).

[David K.]

I stand corrected on that count Beef, however I still find it inadequate for a number of reasons, namely:

Any final decision? What happens until a final decision is made?

What rights does the detainee have during appeal under the DTA?

In addition, since they aren't afforded legal counsel how exactly are they supposed to be aware that they can appeal to the DC Circuit?

And finally, given that it was overturned as unconstitutional because it still limited their access to legal appeal (especially the suspension of filling a writ of habeus corpus) I question how fair it was after all.

Of course this is all getting away from the main point that these men have been held indefinitely with no real recourse, no ability to truly defend themselves, and it has turned out in some cases were in fact not only NOT terrorists but were actually our allies (i'm guessing not so much anymore). The very concept of guilty until proven innocent and ignoring not only the Geneva Conventions but U.S. law and the Constitution completely undermines the credibilty of this administration when it claims to be fighting this war for "freedom". This war is not about freedom, and its not making us or the world safer, especially with the uptick of violence and the re-growth of al qaeda and the talliban in Afghanistan (you remember them, they were the ones who actually DID attack us on 9/11).

[JO]

Actually, I do feel safer now. Thanks for asking.

[thebeef]

Mad Max,

Give me a break.

Boumediene is an absolute joke, as is its predecessor, Rasul v. Bush.

Boumediene has extended a constitutional right to habeas corpus to foreigners detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States. This, despite the fact that there is not a single precedent of extending the writ under such circumstances, and despite a case DIRECTLY on point, Johnson v. Eisentrager, which specifically denied that foreign detainees detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States have a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Boumediene is as manipulative and dishonest an opinion as there ever was. The liberal members of the court had an agenda and they worked their damndest to squeeze the existing case law into the result they were looking for.

The result is an opinion that is full of contradictions and tortured legal reasoning (no pun intended).

it's truly a shocking opinion. The first time that the judiciary, in a time of war, has overruled both the executive and the legislative branches on a national security issue--an issue for which the judiciary has said on numerous occassions that it is ill-equiped to deal with.

[Alasdair]

WobblyH - your Steerage Leahy sockpuppet was much more endearing ...

[Jim Hu]

Note that the study was on the people who were released from Gitmo. Even among these, the article concedes that a slim majority did, in fact, have connections to "militant groups or activities".

"Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had ties to al-Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear any of them knew any terrorists of consequence." And this is among the ones we let go! I feel so much safer knowing that we can't be sure whether or not they knew the A-list terrorists.

I can actually see both sides of the argument regarding the detainees. It would be nice if it could be discussed in terms of the extremely difficult balancing act it actually is instead of "Bush can lock anyone up" vs. "SCOTUS ♥s OBL". But this is a blog comment section, so that's clearly a foolish hope.

Disclaimer: I hate bicycle thieves.
Qualifier to the disclaimer: The Bicycle Thief is a great movie, and the bicycle thief in the article is undoubtedly more sympathetic than the middle class scum who lift bikes from campuses.

And yes, I was showing off by putting the ♥ in the comment... hoping it gets preserved on save...

[Brent]

Jim Hu,

Unfortunately, this is a post by the famous David K. There is no balancing act on this one since in his mind Bush is already the cause of all the world's problems.

I'd be very interested in seeing David make the judgement call on who's a terrorist or not in the middle of a firefight. Thankfully, I do not have to make that decision and fully support those that do.

[thebeef]

Jim Hu,

I would never deny that the Gitmo issue is an extremely difficult balancing act.

However, it's precisely BECAUSE it is an extremely difficult issue that I do not trust the judiciary to manage the situation.

Indeed, the SCOTUS has a long history of acknowledging its inherent weakness in matters of national security.

Yet this Court feels that the judiciary should play an active role in the war on terror, determining who should and who should not be detained--who is, and who is not, the enemy. No court in the history of Anglo-American history has ever had such wartime powers.

And what's more, they have taken the process of determining how to handle this extremely difficult and pressing matter away from Congress--away from the people. They have replaced our democratic will with their self-righteous judicial wisdom.

As Justice Roberts writes, the American people have lost "a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges."

[Jim Hu]

thebeef,

I may disagree with the 5 in Boumediene in the end - as I said, I don't think it's a slam dunk either way - but I don't find your argument that "They have replaced our democratic will with their self-righteous judicial wisdom" to be particularly compelling. That can be applied to any case where SCOTUS overturns a popularly enacted law; do you think they should never do that? Do you disagree with me in thinking there are also too many examples in our history where SCOTUS failed by not replacing the democratic will - Dred Scot, Plessy, and Korematsu, to name a few of the least controversial examples.

My inclination is to cut both the administration and the court some slack - I think both are acting in good faith to try and deal with the war on terror. While I don't agree at all with those who argue that it isn't a real war, it is clearly different from previous wars and there are real dangers in erring on either side. Maybe if I read the opinions I would change my mind about the presumption of good faith, but IANAL and I haven't.

[Wobbly H]

Allie, I wish we could meet in person. Then I would recognize you when you inevitably show up on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator." ("But Chris Hansen, I was just trying to teach her a lesson.")

[Wobbly H]

Jim,

I think you might have missed the point. You can be acting in good faith and still make an unprincipled power grab for the judiciary. You can certainly presume "good faith" and still think that the majority clearly misinterpreted the Constitution.

thebeef:

Ugh.... Eisentrager is not clearly on point. In Eisentrager, the detainees were being held after being convicted by military tribunal and sentenced to prison terms. Furthermore, Germany was in no way shape or form within the "dominion" or sovereignty of the United States.

In contrast, at Guantanamo, the detainees are being held under the authority of CSRTs without conviction of any crime. Also, Guantanamo Bay is unique in the world in that we have a perpetual lease there and for all intents and purposes a de facto form of sovereignty. It can arguably be said to be within the "dominion" of the United States

For a more detailed explanation see the Kennedy concurrence in Rasul.

[Jim Hu]

No, Wobbly, that would be a principled power grab for the judiciary ;)

[David K.]

Jim Hu,

Unfortunately, this is a post by the famous David K. There is no balancing act on this one since in his mind Bush is already the cause of all the world's problems.

I'd be very interested in seeing David make the judgement call on who's a terrorist or not in the middle of a firefight. Thankfully, I do not have to make that decision and fully support those that do.

HAHAHAHHAHA

Blame everything on Bush? Hardly. But the fact that you are denying his direct involvement in something which IS his fault makes this all the more amusing.

As for making that call during a firefight, who is talking about that? This has nothing to do with battlefield decisions and EVERYTHING to do with how you treat people you have captured, sometimes in those situations, and if you knew what you were talking about, you'd recognize that detainees were rounded up in completely non-combat situations as well. These people aren't an imminent threat on the battlefield, they are locked up in jail and at the very least should be afforded the opportunity to prove they AREN'T actually enemy combatants at the very least (note this is actually LESS of a standard than the U.S. usually affords, that whole innocent until proven guilty thing...)

[mdk]

thebeef, your characterization of this as a security issue is rather tenuous. It's not as though the detainees are actually being set free. They are just getting the chance to truly challenge the legal basis of their detainment before a neutral decisionmaker. For a more detailed explanation of this idea see http://www.slate.com/id/2193468/. (that's where I got it from).

This is a basic rights issue, not a security issue. The right to habeas corpus is an individual right so important that it is the only one even mentioned in the original text of the Constitution. Many "conservatives" love to tout their love of freedom when it comes to guns and taxes, but seem to scoff when it gets into the basic rights fundamental to a free society (like freedom from search and seizure, due process, equal protection).

PS I actually do believe in an individual right to bear arms... I also believe in a right to habeas corpus...

PPS I'm the poster that talked about Eisentrager at 12:40:18

[gahrie]

Just for the hell of of it,

Can anyone explain to me:

1)Why non-uniformed foriegn combatants and terrorists captured on a battlefield and not on American soil have any rights at all under our Constitution?

2) Why the above apparently have more Constitutional rights than any uniformed foriegn combatants housed on American soil have ever had in the past?

[Angrier and Angrier]

So apparently the military has been sodomizing detainees. Funny how soldiers can't sodomize each other but they sodomize enemy combatants all they want. Sick bastards.

Apparently you are an idiot.

[anon]

Just so we're clear, the "Stalinesque" procedures made available to the detainees, before the Supreme Court struck them down (and failed to explain what should replace them) were the following:

The right to hear the bases of the charges against them, including a summary of any classified evidence.

The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. Some 38 detainees have been released as a result of this process.

The right, before the CSRT, to testify, introduce evidence, call witnesses, question those the Government calls, and secure release, if and when appropriate.

The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before a CSRT.

Before the D. C. Circuit, the right to employ counsel, challenge the factual record, contest the lower tribunal's legal determinations, ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws, and secure release, if any errors below establish their entitlement to such relief.

[anon]

Oh, and to qualify David K.'s anti-historical claim:

Even if the first part of your theory is true, these men have been tortured, locked away for YEARS without any chance to appeal or fight their incarceration. That is where it becomes Stalin-esque. Godwin's law only applies when the reference isn't pertinent to the discussion. I'd certainly argue that our President locking people up and throwing away the key counts as Stalin like behavior

The Gulags (I'll assume you're not referring to the 40,000,000 Stalin killed, because, thus far, no Gitmo prisoners have been executed by the United States) were political prisoner work camps that housed nearly 20,000,000 Soviet citizens, seized for any imaginable violation, including tardiness or jokes.

I guess if you qualify, at a minimum, that Gitmo (1) isn't a work camp, (2) isn't a political prison but a war prison, (3) doesn't include American citizens, (4) doesn't include "any imaginable" violation, and (5) is approximately 1/20000th the size of the Gulags, then yeah, I guess the similarities are oh so very "pertinent."

[Joe Mama]

Cue David's sure-it's-not-Hitler/Stalin-yet-but-we're-moving-in-that-direction meme...

You know, kind of like how the Moon hasn't spun out of it's orbit around the Earth yet, but every day it moves further in that direction...

[thebeef]

Jim Hu

What's extraordinary about the Court's overruling of Congress and the Executive on this issue is that this issue is a national security issue. The precedent of the judiciary deferring to the legislative and executive branches on such issues is as long as the Court's tenure itself. The Boumediene holding, for the first time in our nation's history, places the judiciary squarely within the war effort against the Taliban and Al-Qaeada. The judiciary will now determine, as opposed to military tribunals acting under congressional legislation, who the enemy is and who isn't.

As to Eisentrager...

Eisentrager's HOLDING is directly on point. The Court held that non-citizens detained outside the sovereignty of the United States have no constitutional right to habeas corpus. The holding in no way suggested that the fact that they were tried as war criminals and found guilty had anything to do with the legal issue in question. It was hardly even addressed.

What's more, Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign territory, and under the SCOTUS' holding in Vermillya-Brown Co., the issue of sovereignty is a political question that is non-justiciable. SCOTUS has no legal authority to rule on whether Guantanamo is or is not sovereign, or whether it is "dejure" or "defacto" sovereign---that is for the other branches of government to decide.

As to MDK,

The only thing that is tenuous is your brain power. If the military's detention of battlefield combatants and foreign terrorists is not a national security issue, than I'd love to hear what is a national security issue.

[mdk]

thebeef:
Ah the resort to ad hominem attacks.
While I attacked the substance of your arguments you go and attack my "brain power." I'm so hurt... :-P

A national security issue would be one that actually risked the security of our nation. Did you even care to consider the likelihood of the success of their habeas petitions? What are you so scared of? Or is it that you fear that the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act really are unconstitutional? Oh no, the court is going to grant them due process. Give me a break.

The only way that these people are being released is if the basis for holding them is weak. In which case I don't think we ought to be holding them.

Wouldn't you rather that our procedures actually comport with the Constitution?

Not everything is a national security issue. Would it still be a national security issue if the Executive began summarily executing people at Guantanamo? At a certain point it goes from being a national security issue to an issue of rights. Where do you draw the line? There must be some point at which the Court steps in and says "This far and no further!" :-P No matter where they draw it seems someone is going to be unhappy.

As for Eisentrager:
The Court denied the right to habeas corpus because the "prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States." (emphasis added)

That second part (after the and) is also part of the holding. It did matter that they were captured, tried, and punished.

The detention was based upon convictions held outside the jurisdiction of the US. The holding can be read narrowly or broadly, but the holding is definitely open to debate. Eisentrager is not the be all end all that you purport it to be.

You want to debate me debate me on the merits. Forget the ad hominem attacks. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I in any way lack "brain power." I don't claim to be a genius, but I try to be well informed.

As for your comments on sovereignty, your cite doesn't seem to bring anything up on Google.

The sovereignty question is something that I've not read on extensively. Of course Guantanamo is by law the sovereign territory of Cuba... But, I'm sure there's a debate in there somewhere... (Rasul Kennedy, J. concurring).

[Sandy Underpants]

Some of the prisoners at Gitmo were picked up in Morocco, Europe, and other 'peaceful' countries. They weren't just off the battlefield or during a firefight.

The US tortures their prisoners, the world saw the pictures at Abu Graib. Nobody, outside of America, actually believes that was an isolated incident, especially in light of the Youtube video of the marine throwing a puppy off a cliff and laughing about it.

I don't know what the freedom hating rednecks on this board are going to do when people who actually care about the constitution, human rights, and freedom are running all three branches of government, but I'll enjoy watching you writhe through the next 4 years.

The other Ironic bit of information is that Republicans are suppose to believe in god, but they show absolutely no faith in god through their fear. If you love god, and believe in god, there ought to be no fear of death or anything, because you are suppose to draw your strength from god and his promise of eternal life after death. I don't even believe in god, and I can tell you there's nothing about dying or Gitmo prisoners getting a fair trial that scares me.

What color is the sky on planet douchebag?

[David K.]

Sandy, there is in fact more abuse being proven from medical exams of former prisoners:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/?iref=mpstoryview

As for the belief in God thing, I don't think fear of death is the issue, for those who both believe in God and are in support of these prisoners the issues are the unlawful detention of innocents and the fact that they have no problems with torture.

[Alasdair]

Brendan, thebeef, and/or other legally-trained folk ...

Do the details at the CNN cite rise to the standard of "abuse being proven" ? Or is this another CNN report of allegations (with which the Physicians group is in agreement) ?

[David K.]

So what are you saying Alasdair, that the doctors inflicted the evidence of torture on these men so it would like they were tortured?

The fact that you would side with the government who has allready (Abu Ghraib anyone?) been shown to use torture vs. doctors who have no evidence against them of ever having tortured anyone is more warped and twisted than most of your other conspiracy theories about critics of this administration.

[Alasdair]

David, dear, we *already* had this discussion ! According to your own beliefs, what *you* type is torture to rational folk ...

[Alasdair]

When I see "According to the report, Laith said the most "painful" experiences involved threats to his family: "And they asked me, 'Have you ever heard voices of women in this prison?' I answered, 'Yes.' They were saying, 'Then you will hear your mothers and sisters when we are raping them.' "" - my Davidian Logic detector goes off ...

"Laith" might as well have been quoting a bad version of the "1001 Nights' Entertainments" - "And then the legions of the 'efreet spoke, and said "Then you will hear your mothers and sisters when we are raping them." ... it's bad dialogue even for the 'toon versions of the Arabian Nights" ...

Or perhaps David believes that Laith is from an enlightened culture of peace and actually has "mothers" as in plural ? Perhaps from that well-known and well-respected Sura of the enlightened and socially progressive early Koran "Mohammed has two mothers" ...

So far, I'm not siding with anyone - I'm just really sceptical of a narrative that is unsupported by documentation ... and that is also unsupported by rational thought ...

[David K.]

What the hell are you talking about Alasdair?

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

Electric shock, beatings and sodomy aren't actually torture in your mind? Somehow i doubt you would feel that way if your family were treated that way, but i forgot, these men despite the fact that they have all been released and never charged with a crime are definitely guilty and deserve what they got, after all its what Jesus would want right? Its making us safe right? Its making us better than our enemies right?

I've thought you were stupid for a long time now, but since you are not only not bothered by this report, and instead trying to derail the discussion with something completely irrelevant you have reached a new level of lowness. You disgust me Alasdair, you're acceptance of this inhumane treatment is repugnant.

[Alasdair]

David - if everything is so cut-and-dried, then the perpetrators will face Courts-Martial, and will be convicted, and will have to face their punishment(s) ...

I have to admit I am curious as to what would constitute "medical evidence" of sexual humiliation ...

I also note that, as is customary, you make no attempt to address any part of the point I specifically raised ...

And, of course, when you head lemming-like over the cliff with "Its making us better than our enemies right?", I do the customary comparison ...

On one side, we have people able to be interviewed, able to allege that various things were done to them at Gitmo by US troops, able to freely talk with people in the West who then proudly spread the allegations without obtaining the corroborating proof such as the medical records of the alleged victims ...

On the other side, all we are left with is video of a man with his head being sawn off with a dull blade without anaesthesia by the 'troops' who are our enemies in this Global War on Terror ... and other such videos ... and Iraqi civilians being blown up by homicide bombers ...

Now, David ... concentrate ... it's really not a hard question ... it's not even a trick question ...

Which of the two sides is better ?

Try another question, David, if that one is too hard ...

Would you rather be Daniel Pearl or would you rather be one of the 11 mentioned in the report by the physicians' group ?

Me, I'll stick with our side, flaws and all ... cuz I'd rather have "my family" treated in all the ways you say than have to know that some psychopathic monsters had KILLED my family in painfully horrible ways as a publicity stunt ... but then, that's me ...

Apparently, for you, our side are infinitely worse ...

If I thought you were even vaguely serious in your assertions, David, I wouldn't let you anywhere near any of my daughters, never mind an infant like Loyette ...

I suspect, however, that you are just expressing your BDS, and are unlikely to act any of it out on real people other than verbally ... I hope and pray that I'm right ... Brendan and Becky end up with the responsibility for Loyette's well-being and safety ...

Oh - and while I cannot answer *what* has made us safer here for the past 6+ years since 9/11/2001, somethings and/or someones certainly have ... and since one side mostly whines about how bad the Eeeevil Booosh is, and the other side is making decsions and doing things (like removing the Taliban from power, and removing Saddam Hussein from power, and eliminating at least one significant source of income from trerrorists around the world, and eliminating the Oil-for-Food corruption), my bet is that the side actively doing something has earned the credit for whatever-the-felgacarb they have done - cuz it sure seems to be working somehow ...

With all due respect, David ...

Alasdair

[David K.]

Alasdair you are an utter and complete moron. This isn't about wanting the other side to win or siding with them. I find the behavior of the ACTUAL terrorists repugnant and deplorable, I have said so many times and I fully supported the actual fight in afghanistan against the terrorists.

But this is another matter entirely. This is about what we do with prisoners, and how we treat people who are in our care. These people aren't an imminent threat, and *GASP* some of them are completely innocent! That isn't speculation, that isn't "BDS" its factually proven! The claims in this medical report have also been factually proven. These people were tortured. Torture is wrong. But its especially wrong when its done on innocent people.

You have proven what an utter lowlife you are Alasdair and you deserve no respect. You have accused me of siding with the terrorists, a baseless claim that only shows how utterly ignorant you are. More than that you have brought families into that and brought Brendan's family into a discussion which had absolutely NOTHING to do with them. You are a base low life coward who is so deluded in his world view he can't see cold hard facts sitting in front of him and has to just make things up. I don't know how it can possibly be more clear, but just in case let me sum it up for you.

The terrorists (the actual ones) have perpetrated disgusting repugnant and horrible acts and should be punished for them.

Those who killed an innocent man (Daniel Pearl) should rot in hell for what they did.

The U.S. should be BETTER than our enemies.

Torture is wrong

Imprisoning innocent people is wrong

Torturing innocent people is even MORE wrong

If that isn't clear to you, you must be more stupid than I thought possible.

I could make some choice comments about your family, but unlike you I won't resort to that, I'll save my ire for a spineless coward and fool that you are. The one good thing if Brendan shuts down this blog will be you losing a place to spout your ignorance and hatred. I sincerely hope you are an atheist, no true faith condones the type of torture and mistreatment of innocents the way you want to.

[Alasdair]

Unlike you, David, I was very careful to be sure that I didn't accuse you of acting out the stuff you type ...

I asked you a very simple question

"Which of the two sides is better ? "

and your answer, apparently is

"The U.S. should be BETTER than our enemies."

So - *you* apparently believe that the US is either exactly as bad as or is worse than the terrorists, or you could not have given that answer ...

[David K.]

Alasdair, this isn't about which side is better, I've allready answered that question. This is about your claim that its ok to do bad things as long as we aren't as bad as them. That's bullshit.

This is about what WE do. What they do to their prisoners is another issue, it does NOT justify our indefinite detention of innocents and torture of prisoners. This is not a grey area. Torture is wrong. Period.

I've answered your question, now answer mine. Do you support torture, yes or no?

[Alasdair]

I've already answered that, but I will answer it again ...

Torture is wrong ...

And I'm glad to see you on record as finally admitting that what the terrorists do is significantly worse than the worst the US does ...

[David K.]

Then why are you defending it? Why are you trying to justify it and distract from it? Why do you argue its wrong but ok to do because the other people are worse? And why do you feel the need to lie by accusing me of supporting the terrorists or claiming that i've never said the terrorists are worse? Seriously thats not just your beliefs, those are outright lies.

[Alasdair]

David

If you took the time to READ what I type, you would have noticed a pattern or two in the first few posts to which I tend to consistently adhere ...

I usually keep away from absolutes - and words like "never", "always", "everyone", "no-one" - because such words tend to detract from meaningful discourse ...

If someone has said that you "never said the terrorists are worse?", then that someone isn't me - cuz I don't do that sorta thing ... well, except possibly when I am channeling certain commenters on this fine blog ...

Check my comments ... it is a remarkable and rare event when I use a word like "always" or "never" ...

I cannot stop you having your beliefs and prejudices, nor would I want to do so ... have you ever considered why I don't accuse *you* of lying, in your assorted BDS ranting ?

[David K.]

Way to not answer my question and to pull in your little "BDS" card again. You are a coward and a liar Alasdair. Instead of condeming the torture, you try to nit-pick part of the article. You repeatedly accuse me of things that are demonstratably not true. You can't back up your arguments with facts so you rely on personal attacks and twisted word play meant to sound "clever".

Why don't you drop the crap for once and answer the question. If you don't support torture, why don't you condemn it, and why did you try and defend it? Simple question, lets see your answer.