Text 9300, 158 rader
Skriven 2009-02-20 23:04:44 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: GITMO DISTORIONS EXPOSED
================================
DC>  The US has been anti-torture since George Washington.
 
JF> That's correct, that is why we only used waterboarding and other
JF> harsh interrogation methods.  Oh, so now they 'call' waterboarding
JF> 'torture'. Waiting for the day where they call a spanking 'child
JF> beating'. There is a big difference between a beating and a
JF> spanking...no matter what sort of label you hang on the latter.
JF> There is a big difference  between sticking a read-hot poker 
JF> in one's eye and  waterboarding.   Yet you have these things 
JF> all lumped together.
 
DC>  Waterbaording meets all of the definitions of torture.

  A legal distinction.  Again, your label hanging will never put
waterboarding in the same category as real torture, where eyes are 
dug out, fingers are chopped off, red hot pokers are used, heads are
put in vices, etc.  Get a grip.


DC>   Your problem is that you believe Bush and company with 
DC>   their Orwellian re-dedfinitions  of the word.  

  Your problem is if some one hangs the word torture on it, you'll
believe it and lump it all together with red-hot pokers in the eye, etc.
A rather typical partisan pathology apparently.


 
DC>  An estimated 70% of Gitmo detainees are considered  
DC>  to be completely innocent. 
 
JF>  Who has made that claim, and moreover, how can they make that 
JF>  'estimation' when the detainees have yet to be tried?
  
DC>  The US Military, for one. 

  Show me where they made such a claim, and then try to explain how they
did so if, as you claim, they were never tried.
 
 

DC>  That's why so many have been released under Bush.  
 
JF> Yet later many of them turn up at terrorist training camps and other
JF> camps and other similar points of interest.  


 
DC> Just how many would that be?  1, a couple, 12, 25?  (repeat number 
DC> sequence in different order a few times) 

  Pick your own number and tell me what you would like this distinction 
to amount to.
 
 
DC>  Because those are the "exact figures" given 
DC>   out by the US gvt on it.

  Which figures?  1? 12? 25?
  


JF>  And how do you know they weren't released just so they could 
JF>  find out where they would go and to whom they were reporting to?

DC>  [no comment]



DC>  Mot only that, those that did so aren't even identified.  I think 
DC>  that 3 is the number of cases that can actually be verified.

  Empty claim.  Show your sources.  This is obviously a partisan beef 
that only attempts to give weight to it with the spurious claim that 
operations were not performed 100% correctly, 100% of the time.
Remember, the total number at Gitmo was around 300.  Seems you want us 
to believe they drove around with Buses and just rounded up Muslims for
no reason whatsoever.



 
JF> Again, these individuals were picked up as enemy combatants.  
JF> They weren't found sitting at home having dinner.  And they are not 
JF> waterboarding or harshly interrogating everyone.  They usually know
JF> who to interrogate through harsh measures and who not to.  
 
DC> Many were.   Many were turned in by their neighbors  
DC> simply for the reward money. 

    Now we're supposed to believe that they carted away anyone who was
turned in by a phone call.  Baloney.  Cite me one confirmed example.


DC>   There were few investigations before they  
DC>   were transfered to Gitmo.  

  Says who?  The ACLU?  Bill Ayers?   C.A.I.R.?

   
 
JF>  While we're at it, conditions at Gitmo are much better 
JF>  than they are in an average prison in the US, 
JF>  which are over crowded, for openers.
 
DC>  You mean like, 24 hr lighting, lack of blanckets,
DC>  let alone bedding? 

   You're referring to some of the techniques used to make some of them
them talk.   Poor baby didn't have a blanket?  How horrible!

    I've listened to several interviews from people who worked there. 
They said that because of all the media hype, the ACLU, and foreign 
interests sticking their noses into affairs at Gitmo, they're were
finally made to walk on eggshells, and went out of their way to make 
conditions there very nice, as prisons go.

    There are also other guards who took the side of the inmates, 
like Terry C. Holdbrooks, who became a Muslim convert, and before 
long was acting like a puppet for the inmates and their lawyers.
They spoke of the "abuse" the inmates went through.  Yes, POW camps
are supposed to 'abuse' the prisoners to not only get info from them 
but to keep them in line.  It's a POW camp.  Not the county jail.

    There were a couple of guards who got way out of line, but only in 
response to being spit at and having dung thrown at them.  Of course 
you'll believe the inmate's versions along with those of their activist 
lawyers before you will believe our guys and for what looks like 
partisan vindictiveness only.  Your choice. 



 Q.  How do you tell the difference from foreign interests 
     trying to undermine our military and intelligence 
     through our legal system from the useful idiots who 
     have been 'inspired' to do it on their own?

 A.  You don't.  You just resist all such efforts with great scrutiny.



JF>  Gitmo inmates have better medical coverage than the average
JF>  American. Geeze, why don't they just stick their heads up 
JF>  their butts and get  it over with?
 
DC>  They can't because the guards are sticking foreign  
DC>  objects up there already. 

  Bullsh_t.

   This is obviously a partisan and spiteful issue for you.  Try to retain
some objectivity.



---
 *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)