Posted on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 06:42 — by shays
I accidentally posted this in a different forum, so post it here, too, where I think it better fits. No need for anyone to blast me in both, though that is certainly your choice. Anyway ...
"Liberal" corporate-owned ABC has identified for us who will stand before the next Nuremburg Commission: Chair Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Now, I realize that there are still a few supporters out there who feel that a little water in the nose, small amounts of electrical shock, prolonged exposure to the extremes of noise and temperature, maybe a squeezed testicle or two amount to no more than baby-pats in the world of torture ... using chains to hang a German tourist from the rafters for consecutive days doesn't hold a candle to the "rack"; putting a Pakistani taxicab driver in a sealed box for a few days is nothing compared to the Iron Maiden ... and that those beasts who ordered young men to strap explosives to their bodies and kill innocent women and children don't deserve just treatment, anyway. That's fine for you to hold your opinion. The ends justify the means and all. Don't worry if we become like the people we are fighting. But don't hold your breath when the rest of the world decides it is time for it to sit in judgment on people who appear to have lost their own capacity to humanely reason.
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
If I am going to talk to myself, I might as well have some fun at it. I'm starting to feel like Ohso must feel ... no one seems interested in talking about the things that interest and infuriate me. A couple of readers to this forum have even decided to start using insult as a means to respond to my posts. Oh well ...
I post this to announce that there are once again some petitions circulating calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, since his Darth Vader views on life the universe and everything seem to confuse restrictions on applying "cruel and inhuman treatment" in the Constitution with interrogation techniques that only sort of hurt (and then, only a little ... and then, only if you are a baby) by simulating drowning, subjecting people to incredibly loud blaring of obnoxious music (Abba, I was told) and white noise 24-7, or placing them in humiliating positions that their religious convictions (backward and barbaric as they may be) tell them are dam*ing and will send them to h*ll. Hey ... he's the Vice of the Unitary President, and his office isn't even a part of the Executive Branch ... we can cut him some slack and let him do what he wants. We're grown ups here, and we know in our heart of hearts that tortured people provide credible evidence instead of merely confessing to whatever it is the torturer wants them to say in order to stop the "simulated" pain (that they are too babyish to stand in the first place).
Babies.
Whiners.
I think I'll go and sit in the corner.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 200
Report warhater
It’s not that as though no one reads you it’s just that the concept of torture is too horrific for most American’s to contemplate and therefore ignore it. When the first pictures came out pre-Abu Ghraib of US soldiers torturing in Afghanistan no one believed that the pictures were real and I was deemed a communist for showing them. As for you feeling like Ohso, remember that Ohso seldom if ever responds to those that take the time to answer him and therefore no one bothers and keep in mind also that most of his rants are psycho sexual which is about the same category that most Americans place torture.
By the way did ABC really identify the denizens of the Whitehouse as candidates for Nuremburg or is that possibility just a beautiful dream?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
No (unfortunately) ... ABC and the other networks did not describe key White House officials who met dozens of times to micromanage the "alternative interrogation techniques" (and how to "sell them" to an incredulous population, once word got out ... which even they knew it would) as war criminals. I put those words into their mouth(s). But it's only right, isn't it? This administration has flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions, invented its own definitions for all sorts of outlawed and inhumane behaviors, waged war against civilians (by most, a key definition for a terrorist), and generally behaved like the big bully on the block. Even John Ashcroft, who somewhere must have grown a smidgeon of a conscience (remember, it was he ... on potentially his deathbed ... who stared down Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzalez and refused to sign off on their strongarm tactics) was quoted on ABC News as saying: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 200
Report warhater
Alberto Gonzales, what a maggot of a human being. It makes me feel like brushing my teeth after saying his name. I can only hope concerning the Whitehouse henchmen that when the tide goes out we will all see who’s swimming naked.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
And now the McClatchey news service, after interviewing 66 former detainees from 11 countries, political and military officials in those countries (to establish detainees background and check their stories), and military and political officials from this country, tells us that ...
• dozens (and possibly hundreds) of detainees were arrested on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence (but never were allowed to exercise habeas corpus to have those flimsy or fabricated bits of evidence weighed by a judge or military commission);
• soldiers at Bagram and Kandahar Air Bases in Afghanistan systematically abused detainees between 2001 and 2003, brutally beating to death at least two detainees while they were chained by their wrists and suspended from the ceiling; not a single soldier has been seriously punished for this routine and common behavior;
• no one from the White House or the Pentagon will speak to the authors of the McClatchey series of articles, and no one on any of the network or cable television news channels has bothered to report it either (of course, these are the same corporate entities who have not yet once reported or even bothered to address print news reports that they hired retired military officers who had been trained to propagandize "news" about Iraq and Afghanistan as "experts" on those corporate owned news outlets) ...
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 771
Report Clayton
Is that since Gitmo has been operational the US has not suffered a terrorist attack. You will, of course, never recognize or admit the connect between the two events, and we all accept that your liberal blinders blind you to the truth. But it will become even harder to bury bury head in the stand if Obama is elected, Gitmo is closed, and we are attacked again, (very possibly by a Gitmo detainee that a Liberal Judge gave civil rights and freedom).
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
Of course you draw a false logical conclusion (he who thinks that because no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq is PROOF that they exist) ... no attack on the US since 9/11 may or may not be related to Gitmo ... a place that both candidates for President of the US say needs to be closed. So, by your reasoning, if John McCain is elected and Gitmo is closed (which is part of his campaign) and we are attacked again ... that, too, will be the result of a liberal conspiracy.
No judge ... liberal or conservative ... has given civil rights and freedom to a Gitmo detainee. All detainees released, to date, have been released by order of the President of the US. That some of them learned new chops while imprisoned is part of the McClatchey story. Did you read it? Doesn't it make you proud to be an American?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 771
Report Clayton
is a rather dangerous topic for a worshipper of Al Gore, isn't it?
If you remember I said that not finding weapons is not proof that they do not exist (complicated to understand because the statement uses three negatives, not two).
Similarly, you are deliberately misreading what I opine about the lack of attacks since 9-11.
I said, to rephrase it more simply, that it is beyond mere coincidence that the incarcerations at Gitmo and the lack of successful attacks by terrorists coincide. THE PROOF will be the attacks I and others predict should OBAMA become President. Just like it appears to be more the mere coincidence that Obama's middle name is Hussein and that Arab terrorists support his campaign. Should we question whether they are contributing to it as well?
if John McCain is elected and Gitmo is closed (which is part of his campaign) and we are attacked again ... that, too, will be the result of a liberal conspiracy. Since McCain is a Rhino, yes. So, no matter who is elected, if we are attacked again, it is the result of a "liberal conspiracy" to sell out US soviengty to the global world order by giving American rights to those who attacked Americans.
LIBERALS ARE TO BLAME; NO MATTER WHAT.
That is what you wanted to hear, isn’t it?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
If you remember I said that not finding weapons is not proof that they do not exist
No, that is precisely what you argued ... they have a history of having them and using them, there is no record of them going somewhere else, we cannot find them, they must be hidden (Iraq is a big place, you said). And this is the same false logic you are using when describing the next attack ... there is a slim possibility that the right people have been incarcerated, and that explains why they have been no attacks; there are many other plausible explanations and factors to explain why there have been no attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo or even the war on terror. The fact that the odds of your explanation being correct are about a million to one means that technically, there is an outside chance that your explanation is valid. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. It's like saying the sun hasn't stopped setting in the west since they incarcerated those guys in Gitmo, so it MUST be working!
I said, to rephrase it more simply, that it is beyond mere coincidence that the incarcerations at Gitmo and the lack of successful attacks by terrorists coincide.
And why ISN'T it mere coincidence. Eight years passed between the two attacks on the World Trade Center. Does that mean that Bill Clinton must have been doing something right, and it was only when W took the helm that our ability to fend them off collapsed?
THE PROOF will be the attacks I and others predict should OBAMA become President.
I can predict proofs of future attacks if Gonzo was elected President! Big deal! What will you say if the American people select John McCain and attacks happen? And what does idle and misguided, ill-informed guessing have to do with a person's qualifications to be elected President.
Just like it appears to be more the mere coincidence that Obama's middle name is Hussein and that Arab terrorists support his campaign.
You smear mongers will stop at nothing, will you. I wonder what anti-Semites who find clever association with Barack Obama's middle name are going to do with Ehud Barak? Your "arguments" are so seventh-graderish as to be laughable.
Since McCain is a Rhino, yes. So, no matter who is elected, if we are attacked again, it is the result of a "liberal conspiracy" to sell out US soviengty to the global world order by giving American rights to those who attacked Americans.
You have to hand it to people who set up their world view so they can never be wrong. If you really believe that John McCain is a "liberal", then I have this bridge over the Willamette River you might be interested in purchasing ... interested?
The "global world order" to which you refer is also not a liberal conspiracy. The people who had the sense to recognize that to deny ANYONE the right to have the charges under which they are being held read to them, and the evidence upon which those charges are based also presented, are the very same people that will protect you when Barack "Red Menace" Obama sics his secret police on racist rumor mongers such as yourself and tosses you into the Halliburton constructed dungeons in Iowa. To deny anyone such a basic right simply makes it easier for the next wanna be Big Boss to find another way to qualify or restrict the meaning.
Remember, it is you who is the absolutist and I who is the relativist ... do the basic rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution exist only in the USofA, and under certain conditions dependent upon the color code of the Emergency Terrorist Watch List? Or are there permanent, universal rights and liberties that the Constitution describes?
LIBERALS ARE TO BLAME; NO MATTER WHAT.
That is what you wanted to hear, isn’t it?
No. But coming from you, it is not surprising.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 771
Report Clayton
No, that is precisely what you argued----and what is the difference between “said” and “Argued”.
there is a slim possibility that the right people have been incarcerated, and that explains why they have been no attacks; there are many other plausible explanations and factors to explain why there have been no attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo or even the war on terror. The fact that the odds of your explanation being correct are about a million to one means that technically, there is an outside chance that your explanation is valid. What would you suggests has a higher chance of being correct?
And why ISN'T it mere coincidence. Because logic would suggest, strongly, that it is not. Several terrorist attacks occur, those suspected of those attacks are incarcerated, those attacks stop. The pattern is pretty clear.
Eight years passed between the two attacks on the World Trade Center. During which time other acts of terrorism were launched against the US—Clinton was not successful at dealing with terrorists. During his administration, attacks worsened, culminating in 9-11. Clinton was too busy using his interns, and using the White House as a bed and breakfast to worry about terrorism
I can predict proofs of future attacks if Gonzo was elected President! Big deal! It is a big deal to those who die in such attacks and their families. Of course, Wright celebrated when Americans died, and preached that White America deserved it. My guess is that he will celebrate again, and possibly with Obama when it occurs again.
I wonder what anti-Semites who find clever association with Barack Obama's middle name are going to do with Ehud Barak? Probably plenty, that is politics. Of course then we know who the anti-semites are and can judge them by their true hateful nature. Is Obama one of those anti-semites, since his EX-paster so clearly is? (Ex Pastor like ex smoker?)
If you really believe that John McCain is a "liberal", then I have this bridge over the Willamette River you might be interested in purchasing ... interested? NO, I have lived in Salem, and I have seen the quality of engineering up there. If you look at the record of McCains proposed legistlation he clearly is a liberal Republican. Such do exist, just like Conservative Democrats, like say Lieberman exist, (does that make a Conservative Democrat a DINO?)
The "global world order" to which you refer is also not a liberal conspiracy. To conspire is to plot secretly, to work together toward a mutual and hidden goal. The Global world Order is a concept that was born of the socialist order and Communist Russians goal for world domination, and it continues today with Liberals such as yourself, revealing itself in numerous inroads into indivual librty and national soveignty such as a “World Court” or “World Constution”. You will deny it, of course; but history defies your denial.
To deny anyone such a basic right simply makes it easier for the next wanna be Big Boss to find another way to qualify or restrict the meaning. But to guarrenty that right by a tribunal that is not democratically elected, nor respects individual soveriegnty ensures a dictatorship at a global level. Hitler failed to achieve a socialist world order, Stalin failed; but you socialiss just keep trying don’t you?
do the basic rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution exist only in the UsofA. NO they exist where ever the NATIONAL government provides them, and every nation is free to modify them to fit their culture. Do you have the right to impose rights and liberties on nations and cultures that reject them? Can or should you force any nation to provide and protect those rights? Clearly you can not force nations to let weman vote, or to educate the poor. Nobody can force Zimbabwe to have free and fair elections, or force Sudan to stop killing people because of their religion. Another area you get into with this is independence movements; can you force France and Spain to allow the Basque people independence, or force China to permit Tibet freedom?
So all your movement does is penalize nations with rights, by forcing them to extent those rights to those who would harm them. But these are rich, big nations so I suppose a Liberal/socialist thinks it is deserved.
LIBERALS ARE TO BLAME; NO MATTER WHAT.
Since Liberals are to blame for most negative aspects of our global society, one has a pretty sure bet that liberals are to blame, no matter what. If you need a reference point, consider that my feelings about liberals mimic yours about corporations.
But have a nice day anyway.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
You argue (or say) out of so many different sides of your mouth, and in so many directions at once, it is near impossible to rebut your absurd comments. I'll try.
What would you suggests has a higher chance of being correct?
This question is in regards to my saying that are many many reasons why there have been no attacks on the US since 9/11. The first (and most obvious, which also usually is the most likely) is that eight years passed between the two attacks inside the US. It takes a long time for a small group of civilians to coordinate and launch such an effort (unlike a group the size of a country that stands permanently armed with a wanna-be war hero leader and ready to invade another country at the slightest hint of an affront ... and even then, it takes 6 months to a year for even a superpower to put all its ducks in a row and attack someone else). This is part of the reason the President's assertion(s) about imminent attack (by al-Qaida or Iraq) were so ludicrous in the first place, by the way.
Secondly, whether it is effective or not is still unclear, but security is much more stringent today than it was in 2001. Increased attention, in and by itself, acts as a deterrent.
Thirdly, there is a good possibility that the attention of al-Qaida (or other terrorist groups we do not yet know) is focused elsewhere at the moment. I am not privy to the goals and tactical strategies of Osama bin Laden. I doubt very much if you are, either. But if the focus is elsewhere ... or there's more bang to be made for a buck spent somewhere else ... then perhaps no attack in the US is the product of shifted strategies. Do not forget this simple fact ... Osama bin Laden is tactically very astute; you may hate him and you may not care for what he believes, but do not underestimate his skill.
Fourthly, Osama bin Laden has said ... on more than one occasion ... that his first priority is to suck American into a prolonged military adventure that it cannot win and that will bankrupt it. If it breaks the will of Americans in the process ... so much the better. He expected us to come after him in Afghanistan ... he got lucky that we stupidly walked into his trap in Iraq. Why does he need to spend any more money inflaming the tiger when he already has gotten want he wanted without even having to lift his finger?
How's that?
Because logic would suggest, strongly, that it is not [You are referring to my claim that the detention of 7 "high level" terrorists and the cessation of terrorist attacks in the US is coincidental]. Several terrorist attacks occur, those suspected of those attacks are incarcerated, those attacks stop. The pattern is pretty clear.
Of the seven held at Guantanamo, two are high-level enough to be said to have been a part of the planning cadre. The highest of the high al-Qaida leadership is still operational (and directing an almost stand-up effort to reclaim part of Afghanistan) ... and, quite frankly, we don't think about them anymore (at least our President doesn't). The attacks IN THE US have stopped (see above). Terrorism, and terrorist attacks, have increased steadily since 9/11. I guess that because they occur in foreign countries, they don't count?
During which time other acts of terrorism were launched against the US—Clinton was not successful at dealing with terrorists. During his administration, attacks worsened, culminating in 9-11.
Attacks against US forces and property were, indeed, made between the two attacks on the World Trade Center. Sept 11, however, happened on THIS President's watch. Efforts were made to deal with terrorists abroad -- the Republican Congress was too embroiled in semen smeared dresses to support the President's efforts to take more firm action. You will have to defend your use of the term "worsened". You will also have to finally admit that Bill Clinton, despite posturing to the contrary, succeeded in getting Saddam Hussein to end his wmd programs.
Clinton was too busy using his interns, and using the White House as a bed and breakfast to worry about terrorism
I left this bit alone, and separated it from the rest, just to make a point I made in a different thread. This statement of yours, and ones like it, went on from the moment Bill Clinton secured the election in 1992 to ... obviously ... the present day. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of saying bad things about George W. Bush ... a man whose bad things are bankrupting this nation and cost tens of thousands of lives. Just a point.
It is a big deal to those who die in such attacks and their families. Of course, Wright celebrated when Americans died, and preached that White America deserved it. My guess is that he will celebrate again, and possibly with Obama when it occurs again.
You are sick. My point is that it doesn't matter who is elected President ... I can predict, with a great deal of confidence in accuracy, that no matter who is sitting in the oval office, there will be some act of terrorism directed against the US, somewhere. I can also predict, with equal certainty, that some natural catastrophe will strike, no matter who is President. There is nothing about celebration here -- it is your sick and twisted mind that makes that particular connection.
The Global world Order is a concept that was born of the socialist order and Communist Russians goal for world domination, and it continues today with Liberals such as yourself, revealing itself in numerous inroads into indivual librty and national soveignty such as a “World Court” or “World Constution”. You will deny it, of course; but history defies your denial.
No ... the "Global World Order" is ExxonMobil, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, IT&T, Chase, Citicorp, Saudi financial institutions, German banks and a hunk of others carving up nation states and finding proxy leaders to stand in and pretend it's business as usual. Inroads to liberty include striking habeas corpus from the books, spying on Americans via the John Poindexter route and accumulating massive data bases and building massive detention centers in the middle of the USA.
But to guarrenty that right by a tribunal that is not democratically elected, nor respects individual soveriegnty ensures a dictatorship at a global level. Hitler failed to achieve a socialist world order, Stalin failed; but you socialiss just keep trying don’t you?
How in the world do you go from me defending the basic rights of suspected terrorists (i.e., the right to have the charges against them announced, and the right to see the evidence upon which those charges are based are the ONLY rights that I have defended) to socialists attempting to enslave the globe? How does my small-government, individual liberty argument which I make to warn of the potential abuses of power a wannabe dictator can use if it is okay to start chipping away at the Constitution and qualifying under which circumstances it applies (essentially a conservative point of view) turn into asking for a non-democratically elected tribunal with no respect for national sovereignty?
Do you have the right to impose rights and liberties on nations and cultures that reject them?
That's what we did in Iraq. Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course we do not have the right to impose our beliefs or our political system on others. But we DO have the right ... indeed the obligation ... to extend them to people who fall under our jurisdiction. Do unto others is what my mom used to tell me.
Clearly you can not force nations to let weman vote, or to educate the poor. Nobody can force Zimbabwe to have free and fair elections, or force Sudan to stop killing people because of their religion. Another area you get into with this is independence movements; can you force France and Spain to allow the Basque people independence, or force China to permit Tibet freedom?
Of course we (or you, or I) cannot do those things. Nor is anyone saying that we should (though our President seemed to think HE had the right to remove the head of state of a sovereign state and give them a system that they didn't ask for). But what we DO have control over is how we deal with other people. Just because some of them do things differently than us, just because we really object to the way they do some things, does not necessitate that we emulate them or do the things we otherwise say are wrong. If WE believe in the inalienable rights of all men, then whenever we have the opportunity, we extend those right to ALL men (not just the ones we like, and not just the ones who were born inside our borders).
And I can care less about your feelings about liberals. You don't have to like them. You don't have to live with them. But tell me ... when was the last time that ANY corporate head or ANY corporate governing body gave you the option to choose who would take over as the next leader of that corporation, gave you ANY opportunity to have your voice heard (as if it gives a rat's patooty if your refuse to purchase any more of its products)? I can probably answer that question for you ... NEVER! But when was the last time that a Liberal gave you the option of choosing your next head of state or your next representative in our republican system of government? When was the last time a liberal gave you an opportunity to have your voice heard? I can probably answer that question for you, too ... whenever we have an election, for just one example.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 200
Report warhater
You forgot the massacre at Dasht Leilli when prisoners were put into shipping containers and shot en-mass by US allies under the eyes of the US military; the prisoners pleaded for air holes and recieved bullet holes instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacre
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
Well, you know what they say ... war is hell and every war has one. This report conjures up vague memories, but for the life of me it seems I would have held something that blatant a little more securely in memory. I mean, I have not forgotten Mai Lai. Nor Wounded Knee. This does not mean I mistrust the account, or anything of the sort. Young soldiers in a foreign land who have been whipped into a frenzied blood lust will do bad things. The systematic use of torture, however, is not blood-lust in the air ... it is a program and a way of thinking. It was created by the biggest of the big leaders in this Administration and disseminated through the ranks. Implementation by boots on the ground stuck in god-forsaken foreign places in the middle of the night when they are tired and frightened and possibly angry, lacking disciplined oversight (or the disciplinarian visibly "looks the other way") and having lots of time to kill ... well, maybe they actually carried out their "orders" in ways not exactly intended by the suits in the White House. But the buck doesn't stop at Bagram Air Base, does it?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 623
Report shays
More to Add:
(also posted at the Bush Legacy Topic)
More to add:
(1) The first habeas corpus case from a detainee at Guantanamo made it to the traditionally conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention and throwing out his designation as an "enemy combatant". The Court ruled that the military had to either release him immediately or hold a new evidentiary hearing immediately if it wished to reinstate charges. Parhat never fought against the U.S., and government lawyers concede there is no evidence he ever intended to. The initial story of the ruling can be read at many sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370209,00.html
http://www.startribune.com/nation/20654954.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_go_su_co/guantanamo_chinese_muslim
and so on.
A few days later, the Court released a statement explaining its decision. In essence, it claims that the government's evidence was hardly reliable. According to the Court, the military tribunal that judged Parhat to be an "enemy combatant" reached its conclusion based on evidence in classified documents that "do not state (or, in most instances, even describe) the sources or rationales for those statements." The judges were particularly concerned with government assertions that the evidence was reliable because it was repeated in separate documents (some of the "separate documents" being government documents that were repeating the assertions) and that officials would not have included the information if it were not dependable (which sounds like a Clayton line of reasoning). Referring to Lewis Carroll's "Hunting The Snark", a George W. Bush appointed judge said just because "the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true." In short, the Court was concerned that most of the "evidence" was based upon allegations the government made, that it then used as "evidence".
Round 1 of habeas corpus = government 0, detained terrorists 1.
(2) Today, we learn that the chart that intelligence officers used to train guards at Guantanamo in "alternative interrogation techniques" was taken from a journal article written in 1957 about the interrogation techniques used by Chinese Communists against American prisoners of the Korean War (that garnered mostly false confessions). What a beautiful piece of irony. The tactics we are using to torture suspected terrorists (and that many on this board applaud) were invented by people whose tactics and strategies we deplored during the Cold War (and who those very same people still villify as stinking communists).