 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
I wondered when this Illinois MilBlogger would respond.
He's got contact info for "Gitmo Dick" Durbin too.
Durbin offers this comment on his home page:
?More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country?s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.?My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.??I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.?
?I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.?
Ironic that while the US hasn't executed anyone at Guantanamo or any of our other terrorist holding camps Durbin's comments (carried far and wide by Al Jazeera) were tantamount to a death warrant for some US Soldiers and Iraqis involved in combat with these swine.
Update: Post non-apology, will the same folks who insisted that Dick Durbin didn't call US soldiers Nazis now also insist that he apologized for it? We'll soon see...
Well maybe the soldiers who have been torturing people, and the policymakers who have ordered them to do it, should have thought about the implications of what they were engaging in. That conduct has:
1. Endangered every future American POW.
2. Created immense hatred for the U.S. worldwide.
3. Eroded U.S. moral authority worldwide.
4. Helped the enemy recruit more terrorists who will endanger American soldiers and civilians in the future.
Nice job.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 01:11 AMHey, maybe the Republicans ought to test drive a new slogan: What happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmo. That's your basic message anyway, why not give it a catchy ring?
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 01:27 AMI have yet to see ( and I could have missed it. ) A point I assume. If we can't convict them in a court of law. Some lawyers and others( 9th circus ) are against Military Tribunerals and are doing everything they can undermine them....The Geneva conventions allow for the exact process that we have taken. He's wrong there too.
When these terrorists are released once again ... Will Dick Durbin take responsibility for the future deaths of US , Coalition , and Aghani people when they are killed by these terrorists ? I'm sure he won't. Why am I sure , Because he criticizes Rumsfeld for the release of prisoners in the past. He infers that they must not have been that great of threat. News Reports have shown that some of those people were later found fighting on the battlefield once again.
One other note ... as a member of the Judiciary Committee... the " Honorable " Senator Durbin should know ...there's precident for Enemy combatant and repeats the lies in his speach that this was all a Bush unilateral thing.
Many things in his speach aren't correct. Most of all the terms he used against those serving in Gitmo.
Posted by MorningSun at June 18, 2005 01:29 AMThe responsibility for future deaths goes to the traitors who ordered it and the fools who carried it out -- not to the senator who stood up for what's right by condemning it.
It's a sad day for America when the Republican Party stands for torture.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 01:38 AMNow that Dirty Dick has went on a radio program and declared he did not change a word in the report/memo i think the document should be made public. If an FBI agent compared our military forces to the worst disasters in history then I want his head. I doubt he/she made the comparison, I think Dirty Dick is lying again to cover his ass, but the only way to know is to see the actual document he quoted. It can no longer be classified since Dirty Dick made it public.
Posted by scrapiron at June 18, 2005 01:39 AMTwo things. First off, I see that the right wing's Official Drug Addict, Rush Limbaugh, is selling a T-shirt with that slogan. So much for the right-wing's condemnation of torture. You people get off on it.
As for anecdote in Durbin's speech, "scrapiron" it is you not Durbin who is the liar -- as usual. Check the links below. Compare the anecdote, which I believe is on page 6 of Durbin's speech, to the FBI e-mail. Lying rightwingnut, have you ever told the truth about a single thing?
http://talkleft.com/Gitmofloorstatement061405.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5053.pdf
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 01:46 AMI see the weakkneed liberals are defending a trairor. I hope they are also willing to accept the responsibility for the number of deaths of American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians they are responsible for. The blood of 7-8 in the past two day are on your hands.
I can't believe anyone is so stupid as to follow the current socialist/communist doctrine that so called democrats are putting out. How did they convince millions of even simple minded people that they would be better off living under communism. You have sold out to Soros (a socialist) and you praise the ACLU (communist 100 %) so evidently you want to live under a government system that has never worked. I guess you are willing to give up all your goodies and go work on a co-operative farm. That's what the communist do to so called intellectuals, put them on a farm and use them for forced labor, to feed the rulers. There is only two classes of people under communism, those who have nothing and those that have it all and you will not be in the ruling class.
Yadda yadda yadda. So scrapiron, what about your accusation that Durbin lied when he said he used the anecdote word for word in his speech? I guess [DELETED] never have to say they're wrong OR stupid, hmm? Debating you people is like shooting fish in a barrel. Folks, if you're going to lie at least try to tell lies that aren't so readily traceable.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 01:54 AMWillysnout,
Two minor points, if you will.
1. Since these fine upstanding individuals whose welfare you and Senator (sic) Durbin are so concerned about, our guests at Gitmo, weren't part of a uniformed army that was signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they don't apply.
2. Please contact Senator McCain about how well supposedly-civilized armies treat their prisoners. I don't believe that sleep deprivation, temperature extremes or crappy music were the worst things that the NVA provided for their prisoners. If you think that this will affect how our POWs are treated in the future, I doubt it will change it a bit. Uniformed/signatory armies don't dare screwing with us lest one of their counties should become self-lighting and very level, and the head-choppers were doing so long before the false representations of Gitmo and Abu were publicized by the left-lapdog press.
As for "intense hatred" being fomented "worldwide", which is worse? Multiple choice quiz: 1) Another 3 or 5 or 10 or 100,000 dead citizens because of our previous paper-tiger reputation, or 2) some folks who are peeved at us because of (false) allegations that we tortured some guys who were captured trying to shoot our folks in faroff lands?
Quick, you've only got one choice. Pick one.
And if assholes like our fine Senator weren't fluffing up the pillows of unrest by their shrill (and factually inaccurate) rhetoric, perhaps a few less foreigners (whose opinion I could really care less about) would be unhappy.
Oh, and I've already ordered my "Club G'itmo" apparel from Rush.
Posted by Patrick at June 18, 2005 02:25 AMPatrick, it's not about the Geneva Conventions, it's about what we as Americans think is right. You think it's right to torture people and force them into sexual perversion. So does most of the rest of [DELETED] America.
As for your question, the assumption buried in it is that we must torture and rape POWs to show "the terrorists" who's boss. I flatly disagree. At a pratical level, I think it causes many more problems than it solves. At a moral level, it is wrong. I know that you have no morals -- you've made it abundantly clear here that you LIKE torture and rape -- but I think this country should do what's right. Why? For its own sake.
There is nothing factually wrong in what Durbin said. You are lying about that, but then what can be expect from a [DELETED]and [DELETED] of the far right wing?
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 04:34 AMWilly, based upon your obsession with perversion, rape, etc., I think I might have figured out your true identity.
You wouldn't be Fred Phelps, wouldya?
Wow,
Willysnout sounds like he's talking about [DELETED] Durbin... as "senator" [DELETED] comments have:
1. Endangered every future American POW.
2. Created immense hatred for the U.S. worldwide.
3. Eroded U.S. moral authority worldwide.
4. Helped the enemy recruit more terrorists who will endanger American soldiers and civilians in the future.
Your words have described this traitor, spin doctor to a tee! My only wish is that this loser was holding office in WW2...
Posted by HUTCH at June 18, 2005 07:10 AMBTW, Willy ... you should be glad that Greyhawk is more tolerant than our mutual friend, SMASH.
I've noticed lately that SMASH (whose site I frequent) demands that posters substantiate some of their wilder assertions (which, IMO, you have not done here, yet ... you just regurgitate the same ol' Leftist froth, just as I see at Indymedia and DU). If you don't do so after a few warnings, he will ban you.
He (and I) do not consider it "censorship" ... he calls it "quality control", essential to maintaining the integrity of the information that appears on his site.
Greyhawks ... it's just a suggestion, but y'all might want to consider emulating SMASH in this area. I, or Willy, or anyone else needs to "put up" if we post here ... or shut up.
I couldn't possibly care less if Greyhawk bans me. Frankly, I expect him to do it pretty soon, because if there's one thing the right-wing in this country cannot stand it is dissent. You people passionately hate the freedom you falsely claim to defend, and there isn't a single principle you won't abandon at a whim. Go ahead. Ban me. Make my day. It's what I expect.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 07:30 AMWilly, based upon your obsession with perversion, rape, etc., I think I might have figured out your true identity.
It ain't my obsession, it was the obsession of those at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and elsewhere who made it their business to reopen Saddam's rape rooms under American management.
Speaking of the cutting off of limbs, I'm sure you've now read about the U.S. giving inadequate medical care that led to amputations that otherwise would have been unnecessary, followed by forcing the detainees to balance themselves on their stumps while American soldiers laughed at them. I guess we really aren't any better than the terrorists, huh?
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 07:33 AMPut up or shut up, Willy ... give us a link that credibly documents your assertions. If they're true, the MSM will make sure it's out there.
Posted by Rich Casebolt at June 18, 2005 08:18 AMIt's all in the FOIA stuff forced out by the ACLU, plus the Taguba report. I've repeatedly cited links, and all you people do is make up new lies. Who can be surprised? You're merely following your [DELETED], [DELETED]Chief's example.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 08:23 AMI note that the Greyhawks have now instituted some quality control ... I will be more careful in my posts from now on; in fact, avoidance of the dreaded "[DELETED]" will make the level of erudition on this site go way up!"
Willy, I wasn't around here when you posted the links the first time ... but I have come here often enough to know that Greyhawk will respect credible evidence. I don't see him tolerating conduct by his chain-of-command that would besmirch the reputation of soldiers like himself.
Will you please put CREDIBLE links up, in this thread ... but keep in mind that I will read them for facts, not wild interpretations that fit your, or my, ideological bent.
Willy ... I did find the executive summary of the Taguba report over at MSNBC, and I did a little word searching.
"Rape" appears four times in the exec summary -- twice referring to detainees who allegedly committed rape while in the prison, once with regards to the "soldiers" threateningdetainees with rape, and once where a guard wrote "I am a Rapeist" on the thigh of one of the accused rapists.
No references to sexual assualt ... only one reference to beating ... one reference to injury (from a dog bite) ... all this from a group of rogues that happened to find themselves put together in this prison.
I leave to you, Willy, to show me more evidence ... particualrly links to SPECIFIC information in the FOIA package that PROVES (not just states, PROVES) your assertions that any of this ... much less the worse offenses you assert, that are not shown here ... is a matter of government policy.
BTW, the fact that General Sanchez ordered this report, and General Taguba composed it, shoots holes in your conspiracy theory about a cover-up. Like I said in that other thread, that is the last refuge of the truth-deficient. Why? Because anyone who understands the perpetration of evil knows that it cannot stay in the shadows forever if it seeks to maintain control over others ... and the obsession for control will eventually override the sense of the perpetrator, and compel him to act in the overt, instead of in the covert.
Therefore, conspiracy theories that depend upon perpetual secrecy are practically unviable in fact.
Willy,
I don't think it's OK to to "torture people and force them into sexual perversion", or does anyone I know, nor does the government who has vigorously prosecuted the people responsible. Of course, you think the missing smoking gun e-mail memo from Rumsfeld ordering the pyramid of buttcracks would just tie it all together.
As for your repeated references to rape and torture, this conversation began in reference to Senator (sic) Durbin's comments about Gitmo. I repeat, where is the torture? Please try to focus and answer.
As for what interrogation technique is appropriate for dealing with jihadists who have been schooled in interrogation resistance, I'll leave it to those folks. I know, with certainty, that if the enemy had you or I in a room they certainly wouldn't stop with making it uncomfortable cold or hot or having a female intrude our space. They proved that in Gulf War I, and that was a uniformed army at the time.
Let's go to the tape. "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control. You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings." You assert "There is nothing factually wrong in what Durbin said."
I'm sorry, but that is flatly inaccurate, as is your defense of it. Turn in your "tinfoil hat of the month" membership card - you have fallen off the left side of the planet.
Posted by Patrick at June 18, 2005 01:39 PM"I don't think it's OK to to "torture people and force them into sexual perversion", or does anyone I know, nor does the government who has vigorously prosecuted the people responsible."
Ah, but you disagree with Willysnout and all he really has is slander when he's cornered.
Posted by Patrick Chester at June 18, 2005 03:32 PMNot that evidence ever matters to any of you people, because you have no principles and don't ever care about the truth -- but in the interest of defending myself from your attempts to smear ME, here goes. From the Taguba report:
[Greyhawk notes: classified segments deleted. For more on the Taguba report see here. Key quote from Taguba: "We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level," Tugaba said. Now back to Willy]
8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
Something else of interest. You right-wing extremists actually get off on this stuff. You deny it happened and, when contfronted with the evidence, you minimize it. But here's what the Taguba report said:
1. (U) Due to the nature and scope of this investigation, I acquired the assistance of Col (Dr.) Henry Nelson, a USAF Psychiatrist, to analyze the investigation materials from a psychological perspective. He determined that there was evidence that the horrific abuses suffered by the detainees at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) were wanton acts of select soldiers in an unsupervised and dangerous setting. There was a complex interplay of many psychological factors and command insufficiencies. A more detailed analysis is contained in ANNEX 1 of this investigation.
Now, Taguba played along with Bush's "isolated incidents" lie. It was enormously significant that, before Taguba finished his report, Bush predetermined the conclusion. He sent a clear signal that he wanted no inquiry into the formulation of the torture policy at higher levels. This was to be pinned on a few people at the scene, and the reservist general.
Beyond that, you people -- the same ones who get off on torture and perversion as long as it's done to foreigners -- act as if the only things that happened are those documented in the report. In fact, logic would dictate otherwise. If they did it then and there, then they can be logically presumed to have done it when undetected. Look at the FOIA'd documents on the ACLU website, and there are all kinds of reports of torture, rape and abuse. Taguba found a way to believe at least some detainees, so the right-wing tack that they're all lying terrorists is not credible.
CONCLUSION: You don't want to know the truth. When confronted with it, you will lie. When convenient, there isn't a single principle you won't abandon, because you are [Deleted]. Every last one of you.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 07:30 PMCONCLUSION: Willysnout has NOT proven that these incidents are a matter of policy ... instead he makes the unsubstantiated assertion of a consipiracy at high levels to cover such a situation up. He resorts to the age-old tactic of the Big Lie.
Put up ... or shut up, Willy. From what I see, the only "torture" you really care about is the fact that the presence of George W. Bush in the Oval Office -- a President who ACTS to SOLVE problems people like you let fester and grow for decades, yet are never held accountable for their INACTION -- is torture in your own mind.
You sure don't care about what it takes to stop the beheaders and shredders who are on the other side of this conflict. There is only one thing that will stop them ... the resolute use of force.
Your outrageous assertions get in the way of applying that force with the greatest effect ... not by getting in the way of nonexistent torture policies, but by distracting our leaders from their duties to answer such stupidity.
Posted by Rich Casebolt at June 18, 2005 07:49 PMSee, you can post the incidents but you people still run from the truth like cockroaches from the light. American troops tortured and raped POWs, and Rich Casebolt calls them "incidents." Is that what you'd say if someone shoved a broomstick up and American soldier's rectum?
As for the policy side, your lying president essentially told Taguba what his conclusion should be when, a couple months before the report was final, he went on TV and said the torture and rape were "isolated incidents." No general officer is going to publicly contradict his commander in chief. The fix was in, just like it was with Bush's lies on WMD and Saddam-terror links.
Seymour Hersh, whose reporting in The New Yorker has been spot on, extensively documented the application of the secret U.S. "Copper Green" torture program to Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq; to Gitmo; to Afghanistan. Now, you people hate the truth so it doesn't surprise me that you've dumped all over Seymour Hersh. I mean, here the army's own report confirms torture and rape and the Rich Casebolts of the world put "torture" in quote marks to suggest that's not what happened.
Look, folks, you're not interested in truth. You lie effortlessly, just like your president. You have no moral values and no principles that you won't abandon on a whim. The American public is finally catching on to your act, which is part of the reason why only 37% of the public thinks your dirty little war in Iraq was worth it.
I know you'll never do it, but telling the truth might be the way to start digging out of your hole.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 08:22 PM... act as if the only things that happened are those documented in the report. In fact, logic would dictate otherwise. If they did it then and there, then they can be logically presumed to have done it when undetected.
By that same logic, Willy, Saddam's possession of, and plans for, WMD, really WERE a "slam dunk". Your logic, when applied to that aspect of this conflict, backs up my President's judgment on Iraq -- and the war IS justified. When will you issue your statement to that effect?
The differenece is, of course, the differnce between trusting a meglomaniac in total control of a nation, and trusting a government that has structural checks-and-balances in its systems to prevent abuse as a function of policy.
Violations "Here and there" as a function of their respective national policies are far more plausible in the case of the meglomaniac, than they are the case of this Adminstration.
And speaking of that, where were your cries to shut down the REAL torture going on in Iraq, before we invaded? We did believe AI then , because their assertions were plausible -- not over-the-top as they are now. I'm waiting for your press release supporting this Administration's success in eliminating this torture, as well.
Willy -- where were the assertions of rape in the Taguba report? I only found four instances of the word in the exec summary, and half of them were where the detainees were the alleged perpetrators ... one was allegations of threatening detainees with rape, not actual rape, and one was the "I Am A Rapist" marking on a detainee accused of rape.
No rapes there ... in fact, most of the "abuses" were simply humiliation, not even coming close to the torture you accuse us of.
And, I call all these things "incidents", because they are NOT functions of policy (and you have not proven they are, despite your attempts at extrapolating Abu Grahib into the Big Lie), but they are the actions of depraved individuals, just as they are when civilians perpetrate them in any major city around the world.
Your lack of perspective destroys your credibility, just as it is doing to Senator Durbin as we speak.
By that same logic, Willy, Saddam's possession of, and plans for, WMD, really WERE a "slam dunk". Your logic, when applied to that aspect of this conflict, backs up my President's judgment on Iraq -- and the war IS justified. When will you issue your statement to that effect?
In fact, your lying president made and continues to make use of inductive logic with respect to Saddam. Inductive logic is useful, but not perfect. It's a starting point, not an ending point.
And speaking of that, where were your cries to shut down the REAL torture going on in Iraq, before we invaded? We did believe AI then , because their assertions were plausible -- not over-the-top as they are now. I'm waiting for your press release supporting this Administration's success in eliminating this torture, as well.
My press release? What a foolish comment. Of course Hussein's human rights violations were horrific. I've never argued otherwise. But that's not why your president lied his way into Iraq. I mean, if that was the motive then what about Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, just for starters? There are a whole lot of countries out there with abysmal human rights records and we don't invade them over it.
As for success in eliminating Saddam's torture, you know it would have been a little easier to celebrate this is the U.S. didn't immediately impose a rape and torture policy of its own. The most we could do, if we were to be honest -- something you could never be -- is claim a big reduction in torture. That one just doesn't resonate with me. I don't think the United States military should be turned into torturers. It's wrong, it's dishonorable and it's plain ineffective.
All hyperbole aside, I genuinely struggle to understand how the Republican Party could be speaking up in favor of torture. By denying that it happened and minimizing those examples that are proven, you're making it clear that you approve. I have a difficult time with that. The U.S. shouldn't be torturing people. Not even bad people in a difficult war. We're better than they are, or at least we should have been.
This is a sad day for our country, and the stain is going to linger.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 08:36 PMWilly, how can the GOP (btw, I'm an independent) favor torture, when it convicts and imprisons the torturers?
As for the Saudis and Uzbecks ... their time will come, and the former are not the monolith of brutality you make them out to be.
How about giving plausible answers to the above question, and back up your assertions of torture-as-policy with FACTS, not Seymour ... instead of repeating the Big Lie?
I've never used anything but Seymour Hersh's work to support my assertion of torture as policy. Hersh is a great reporter who has been like a smart bomb down the smokestack in his Iraq War reporting, much to the consternation of the right wing which hates the truth and has no principles. Look, Rich, you'll sit there and deny that U.S. forces tortured and raped people even when I posted the evidence from official reports. Face it, there's no lie you won't tell.
By the way, were you in favor of Clinton's NATO campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo? He couched those as human-rights wars, which by the way I never believed for an instant. I always looked at them as wars to keep the Islamic hordes from moving north to protect their brethren under assault. To me, it was a European security operation.
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 09:47 PMWillysnooter,
Point of order. Dick Turbans original statement that started all the ruckus was relating to Gitmo, and not Abu. However, if it's convenient, you may lump all Americans into your neat little package of rapists and murdering thugs.
You are an unhappy little person. You should seek some help. Every post contains such vitriol, that you appear to be a danger to yourself and those around you.
At his impeached worst, I didn't generate as much negative energy for the serial adulterer that was your hero in 8 years than you do in one posting.
Posted by Patrick at June 18, 2005 10:34 PMSorry, Patrick, you've lied once more. One of these days you'll actually tell the truth. The eighth paragraph of the by Senator Durbin, who does not lie every time he opens his mouth like you lie every time you use your keyboard, says this:
I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.
http://durbin.senate.gov/gitmo.cfm
Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 11:00 PMWilly,
You wear your ignorance as a crown. The quote from Durbin's website was not his original statement. It was his remarks about his original statement. He's so callously ignorant of the true meaning and effects of his words that he repeated his original remarks, then made comments to clarify that he didn't mean what he meant. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "gulag" is.
Once again, for the third or fourth time, where was the torture at Gitmo? Please just answer the question without resorting to using Al Franken's favorite word three or more times in a sentence.
Posted by Patrick at June 18, 2005 11:33 PMWe see through the broad-brush strokes of the Big Lie, Willy ... the lie you tell, that we and our President are lying, and that we approve of torture.
No one here has said that the prisoners at Abu Grahab were not mistreated, and that prisoners at Gitmo have not been mistreated.
However, you attempt to broad-brush that into torture as official American policy ... when you show NO reasonable proof of same.
We, on the other hand, see the investigations and their results, consider the analysis of others who are in a far better position than Seymour Hersh to know how our military deals with this (i.e. Greyhawk, SMASH, and others) and conclude that:
> The mistreatment of these prisoners was the result of rogue elements within these prisons, and not derived from official policy.
> Virtually all of the mistreatment, regardless of the source. does not fit the classical (as opposed to the hard Leftist) definitions of "torture".
> According to the official, Taguba report, there were NO CASES where a solider raped a prisoner at Abu Grahab ... another lie you've been caught in repeatedly
> Despite the less-than-tortorous nature of the bulk of the mistreatment, those who significantly participated in the mistreatment have been investigated and censured appropriately.
Assertions of you, or Seymour, or Amnesty International, or your creation of conspiracy theories, or cherry-picking phrases from reports and tying them together to make them appear as the whole story, are NOT ENOUGH to make your case.
Show us SUBSTANTIAL evidence that policies came down the chain of command from the SECDEF, that approved the use of torture. Back them up with REASONABLE arguments, not just a broad-brush set of assertions. Until then, this issue is a tempest-in-a-teapot that is whipped up by ideologues like yourself.
Put up ... or admit you're the liar here, then shut up.
And let me make something perfectly clear ... when I said "prisoners" above, I was speaking of the relative few in these prisons who have actually been mistreated, not the prison population as a whole ... which has probably fared better in detention than they would have under their Al Quada commanders in the field, when it comes to treatment and living conditions.
Actually, Rich, I AM saying that prisoners at Gitmo weren't mistreated. Sorry, but nothing I have read about it, and certainly not what Senator (sic) Durbin read into the record, rises to torture or even mistreatment. We have conducted Gitmo well within even the most restrictive interrogation doctrine ever seen by our military. Everything is well lawyered before it is done. And, quite frankly, the jihadists know that the first thing they should do is claim mistreatment and whining limp-wristers like ol' Willyboy will do what they do best - blame America first, ask questions later. Willy represents one fine example of September 10 thinking.
Posted by Patrick at June 19, 2005 03:20 AMWell, Patrick, it looks like I might have to stand corrected re: Gitmo.
If nothing else, I guess I was assuming that you can have isolated incidents of mistreatment in any prison setting, civilian or military.
Extrapolating that into a policy of torture, as Willy tries to do with only the broad brush strokes of Leftist vitriol, is another thing entirely ... and unjustified, based upon the evidence.
As I said to Willy, what he was calling torture in Gitmo was reminiscent of a 24-hour version of two-a-day football practices in my youth.
And, referring to September 10 thinking to describe him is giving him too much credit ... his thinking looks more like February 1968 than like 10 Sept 2001.
I wish I could not waste my time chasing his tail ... but his Big Lie repetition act, at both the personal and national levels, has the potential to poison others here. Therefore, I have been compelled so far, to challenge him ... and God willing, he will soon understand the meaning of the tagline from my own blog:
In the blogosphere, revenge is a dish best served cold ... as in cold logic, cool and collected reasoning, and cold, hard fact.
The quote from Durbin's website was not his original statement. It was his remarks about his original statement.
Another lie from Patrick. The material I quoted from Durbin's website was his original speech. So Patrick, do you think you will EVER tell the truth even ONCE? You're pathetic!
Everything is well lawyered before it is done. And, quite frankly, the jihadists know that the first thing they should do is claim mistreatment and whining limp-wristers like ol' Willyboy
Yoo hoo, censor? I can see that the Republicans of Mudville, whose whole reason for this website is not to honor the sacrifices of the troops but to exploit the Iraq War for partisan purposes, are willing to stick a magnifying glass at my words, but it's o.k. for the wingnuts to call me a homosexual because I aggressively note their lies. How typical of you people.
Geez, Willy, a little touchy? Limp-wristers is not necessarily a reference to your homosexuality, but if you want to wear that on your sleeve I guess it's your right to do so. It was intended as a reference to loud-talking do-nothing simps like the previous occupant of the White House. Of course, since I speak from a conservative perspective, I must be everything-phobic, right? You are a simpleton, but at least you are consistently so.
As for Durbin's posted comments, I stand corrected. Since he's issued several statements, I referenced the wrong one. So it's a mistake, not a lie.
And how, exactly, will the Iraq war benefit me or conservatives or Republicans (and yes, I do make a distinction between them)? Yup, I sure have noticed all of the cheap oil flowing into the gas tank of my gas-guzzling Subaru Forester.
You are a perfect example of the ultra-liberal in 2005. You accuse my side of the world of using the Iraq war for "partisan purposes", while breathlessly defending a sitting US Senator who has demonstrated a most egregious example of exactly that behavior. There has never been a larger chasm between the levels of political discourse as that coming from the White House and Administration, and the "leadership" on the raw-meat left. Our side has ideas, your side just complains and criticizes. Even when Clinton was President, it was a war of ideas. Now it's just serve and volley negativism.
Posted by Patrick at June 19, 2005 03:42 PMGeez, Willy, a little touchy? Limp-wristers is not necessarily a reference to your homosexuality, but if you want to wear that on your sleeve I guess it's your right to do so.
Funny how you want to label me as homosexual, even though you're the one who is o.k. with American soldiers shoving chemlights and broomsticks up the rectums of foreign POWs. I'd call it a case of "projecting," Patrick, and in more ways that one.
how, exactly, will the Iraq war benefit me or conservatives or Republicans
Your president has already used the war for political ends. The Republicans bathed in the blood of 9/11 at their hate-fest last summer, which was ironic seeing as how your president is the one whose negligence (at best) allowed the attacks to succeed. Now, the right wing is trying to use the war to attack the patriotism of anyone who opposes it, and/or opposes the United States sinking to the use of torture.
All of this worked for a while, but the shine is wearing off. Nearly two-thirds of the public thinks your dirty little war was a mistake, Patrick. If I were the Republicans, I'd be a little apprehensive about being the pro-torture, pro-war, pro-death party. But, hey, the choice is yours.
Posted by Willysnout at June 19, 2005 08:17 PMDon't blame me, Willy. You're the one who copped to your homosexuality. But hey, it wasn't your choice, right?
Please focus on the facts at hand. This comment thread is about Dick Durbin's seditious bleatings, not about Abu Ghraib. At Abu Ghraib, a number of individuals went haywire, and are being punished for it. There is exactly zero evidence of any institutional behavior of this type. So I shan't address your obvious attempt to change the target here.
Your reply about how conservatives have benefited from the war is incoherent and shall be ignored.
As for how the public perceives the war in Iraq with a 100:1 ratio of bad to good news on the evening news, can you possibly get it through your thick skull that neither the President nor I care about what you think? The technique of push-polling has been perfected by the mainstream media.
This war was undertaken for a myriad of reasons, none of which was for oiiilllll. The ultimate result will be, despite your best attempts, an overwhelming success and a free Iraq that will be an ally, rather than a threat.
I know that success in Iraq is anathema to such a self-loathing Bush-hater as yourself, but you'll get over it.
As for questioning your patriotism, "Love of and devotion to one's country" isn't exactly what you ooze when you parrot the bleatings of Dick Durbin that our soldiers (note that you don't isolate it to a sick few) are sadistic gulag-meisters.
Posted by Patrick at June 19, 2005 08:37 PMYou're the one who copped to your homosexuality. But hey, it wasn't your choice, right?
If I were homosexual I wouldn't worry about acknowledging it, but I have not done so. This is one more of your many lies, Patrick. Perhaps you can go find my "admission." See, this is another tactic of the far-right. Anyone who sticks up for gays is called homosexual themselves as a means of intimidation. As I've said many times here, there is no principle you won't abandon on a whim and no lie you won't tell, including that one. And becuase "Mudville" is a far right-wing site, the censors here are perfectly o.k. with you doing it.
This comment thread is about Dick Durbin's seditious bleatings, not about Abu Ghraib. At Abu Ghraib, a number of individuals went haywire, and are being punished for it. There is exactly zero evidence of any institutional behavior of this type.
Durbin's speech was about American torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. The Red Cross confirmed conduct "tantamount to torture" and said it appeared to be standard operating procedure. Seymour Hersh substantiated the policy, and you and others here have offered nothing other than ad hominem attacks on Hersh in return, in spite of the fact that his reporting in the Iraq War as been highly accurate.
The Taguba report admitted "horrendous abuses" at Abu Ghraib, and FBI e-mails and detainee testimony indicates similar abuses at Gitmo. You people immediately discount all detainee testimony, which is a departure even from the U.S. Army, which acknowledged the truth of detainee accounts at Abu Ghraib.
Ergo: You run from the truth like a cockroach from the light.
As for how the public perceives the war in Iraq with a 100:1 ratio of bad to good news on the evening news, can you possibly get it through your thick skull that neither the President nor I care about what you think?
The media have been propagandists for your president. Every now and then a blade of truthful grass with sprout through the cracks. Truth has a way of doing that. And yes, I know that your lying president couldn't care less about the truth. That much has been obvious for a long time.
Willy,
You have now proven yourself to be the raving lunatic we all suspected. With the exception of one cable TV network and a smattering of newspapers, the media is so obviously leftward slanted as to be undeniable. To do so only shines a light on your rabid partisanship.
You're quoting the International Red Cross? Who next, the UN?
I've wasted my time conversing with you (LIES, LYING LIAR, MORE LIES).
Posted by Patrick at June 19, 2005 09:56 PMLet's see. The Red Cross is wrong. The Taguba Report is wrong. Amnesty International is wrong. The pictures are wrong. The detainees are wrong. The FBI e-mails are forged. You're pretty far out on that limb, Patrick.
Now, have you found the posting where I declared my homosexuality, or do you think I'm just going to let your lie on the subject slip past?
Posted by Willysnout at June 19, 2005 11:49 PMSorry, Willy. I assumed because you went off on my reference to limp-wristers, I had touched a nerve. I wasn't referring to homosexuality, but you sprung to their defense anyway. So you brought it up.
I apologize to any homosexuals I might have offended by any inference associating you with them. I have known quite a few gay folks and, come to think of it, most were quite normal, unlike your rabid partisan frothing.
I leave you the last word.
Willy -- let's understand something here, AI and the ICRC are offering their OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS ... not PROOF of policy-directed abuse.
In the case of AI, given their selective focus of criticism upon America, vs. relative passivity in pursuing other regimes (among other things, like, IIRC, statements recently made by their leaders to one of their award-winning "prisoners of conscience", when he refused to endorse their opinions of Gitmo et. al., to the effect of, he should endorse them because it would be good for AI's image and fundraising), AI is not credible.
As for Taguba, I've already shown how the report contradicts your assertions about rape at Abu Grahab ... and BTW you also contradict yourself, by dismissing the lack of accusations of higher-ups in the chain-of-command as selective reporting being directed by the Adminstration, then citing this report as proof of abuse. If there is selective reporting, isn't the whole report tainted ... or is cherry-picking still allowed?
The abuses you describe occur almost every day in a civilian prison somewhere in America ... perpetrated by other criminals, including on rare occasions, guards.
Why aren't you calling for the closure of these prisons ... thousands more people are involved than there were in Gitmo et. al.?
I know why ... because you know and I know that such abuses are not part of the governing policies of those institutions, but are instead violations of those policies by the criminals themselves, and/or rogues that are low in the chain of command.
Looks an awful like Abu Grahab and Gitmo to me -- in fact, Gitmo looks a lot SAFER than your typical state pen!
I tire of seeing repeated, logical analysis, from myself and others, being responded to with your broad brushes of Big Lies. You have yet to PROVE that the abuses seen at Abu Grahab, or seen anywhere else in the detention systems we use for enemy combatants, were directed by government policy! Until you correct that oversight, get used to seeing the following response to ANY post you direct at me, on any subject:
PROVE that torture was policy, Willy ... put up, or stop lying and shut up!
Posted by Rich Casebolt at June 20, 2005 03:23 AMSorry, Willy. I assumed because you went off on my reference to limp-wristers, I had touched a nerve. I wasn't referring to homosexuality, but you sprung to their defense anyway. So you brought it up.
There you go again, lying. The term "limp-wristed" is one of the classic epithets directed at homosexuals. By saying you weren't referring to homosexuals when using it, you're lying once more. Not that it surprises me, Patrick.
I apologize to any homosexuals I might have offended by any inference associating you with them. I have known quite a few gay folks and, come to think of it, most were quite normal, unlike your rabid partisan frothing.
I'd be interested to know what the "quite a few gay folks" you claim to have known would say in response to your having lied about my sexual orientation. I think if someone asked them they would say your words were those of a classic gay-basher.
test
Posted by Willysnout at June 20, 2005 06:25 AMAI and the ICRC are offering their OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS ... not PROOF of policy-directed abuse.
ICRC has been tracing POWs since 1870, and has been routinely granted access to POW camps since 1939. But now, the American right-wing, which has become the champion of torture, decides that they are terrorist sympathizers. In the case of AI, the Bush regime and their right-wing fellow travelers were happy to quote AI reports that cast a bad light on enemies of the Bush administration, but was quick to condemn AI once it reached the "wrong" conclusion about U.S. activities.
This is all because the American right wing has no standards. You run from the truth because it hurts. You have no morality, nor do you have any principles, that you're not willing to abandon at the first hint from your political masters. There is nothing whatsoever, other than hatred of consensual homosexual relations, that you believe in at all times and in all places.
And I doubt that even that barrier is very strong, given the right wing's embrace of the homosexual prostitute, "Jeff Gannon," who received special access to and treatment within the White House between 2003 and 2005. Anything goes with you people.
In the case of AI, given their selective focus of criticism upon America, vs. relative passivity in pursuing other regimes
That's simply a lie, although with you people it's another day-another lie so this one doesn't stand out. AI is critic of human rights violations wherever they occur, as any visitor to their website can ascertain.
As for Taguba, I've already shown how the report contradicts your assertions about rape at Abu Grahab
You've shown no such thing. The Taguba report confirms the rapes at Abu Ghraib. But, since the right wing continues to lie about this, it will be necessary to force the remaining photographs and videotapes into the public domain to demonstrate vividly the extent and nature of your lies.
by dismissing the lack of accusations of higher-ups in the chain-of-command as selective reporting being directed by the Adminstration, then citing this report as proof of abuse. If there is selective reporting, isn't the whole report tainted ... or is cherry-picking still allowed?
The Taguba report was reasonably good at documenting at least some of the torture at Abu Ghraib, but it whitewashed the senior-level policy dimension. This is because your lying president, George W. Bush, stated the conclusion before the Taguba report was finished.
The abuses you describe occur almost every day in a civilian prison somewhere in America ... perpetrated by other criminals, including on rare occasions, guards.
Is this justification for torture committed by American military personnel? I don't think it is. Incidentally, not all of the abuses described by Taguba, the ICRC and the accounts from detainees and FBI agents contained in the FOIA'd documents are common in U.S. prisons. Sexual assault is sadly common, but not too many of the other things.
Why aren't you calling for the closure of these prisons ... thousands more people are involved than there were in Gitmo et. al.?
Since when did I call for closure of Gitmo? Please find my posting in which I did so. See, Rich, you are so accustomed to lying that you can't even control it.
You have yet to PROVE that the abuses seen at Abu Grahab, or seen anywhere else in the detention systems we use for enemy combatants, were directed by government policy! Until you correct that oversight, get used to seeing the following response to ANY post you direct at me, on any subject
You don't want to believe that the U.S. military did anything wrong. You think the U.S. military is perfect. That we are as gods walking on this earth, above the scrutiny and criticism of mere mortals. In fact, the U.S. military was ordered to use the very same torture techniques perfected by Stalin's NKVD and Hitler's Gestapo. Now that they've been caught red-handed, you want to deny it. This is because the Republican Party would sooner become the American Torture Party than acknowledge the truth about anything.
It's really a sad day for this country when the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt is turned into the party of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Willysnout at June 20, 2005 06:26 AMPROVE that torture was policy, Willy ... put up, or stop lying and shut up!
Posted by Rich Casebolt at June 20, 2005 06:41 AMCensor? Some time back, you deleted a posting that I duplicated verbatim in several threads. As a result, I have been making similar points but with different wording. It is yet one more sign of this site's far right wing bias that you will forbid my using repetition while allowing your ideological allies to do so. This strengthens my charge that Mudville exists for the purpose not of supporting the troops but to politicize the Iraq War for partisan and ideological ends.
So, Greyhawk, as I get closer to the essential truth of what you are doing, I suspect I am getting closer to being banned here. I've said all along that it's just a matter of time.
Posted by Willysnout at June 20, 2005 08:32 AMLet me illustrate "essential truth":
The Greyhawks and their blog will be looked upon well into the future, as a reliable chronicle of the times we live in, and as a unique, resoned viewpoint on the same.
I'll end up a small, small footnote to this history, if I'm even mentioned.
Willysnout, on the other hand, will be lost in the noise of history, just part of that vile pack that stretches from George Soros to Jacques Chriac ... another shrill, small man, on a virtual podium this time, screaming and broad-brushing the Big Lie, with no credibility to anyone but the dullest among us as a result.
The first shall continue to be far more credible, even on their most partisan day, than the last will be on their most even-handed.
why do Willysnout and Rich Casebolt hate America?
Posted by Willy Casebolt at June 22, 2005 02:05 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(53) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
