“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video
al Qaeda has released a video love letter (er, hate letter) from two Gitmo recidivists to the rest of the world as President Obama prepares to import a boat load of detainees into American civilian courts.
Sealed with a kiss-off:
Two former Guantánamo Bay detainees now appear to have joined Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, which released a video on Friday showing them both and identifying them by their names and Guantánamo detainee numbers.
American counterterrorism officials have already confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri, 35, who was released from the American prison camp at Guantánamo in November 2007, is now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch. He is suspected of playing a role in a deadly attack on the American Embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana, in September.
In the video released Friday, Mr. Shihri sits alongside a man identified as Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi, who appears with a script at the bottom of the screen giving his Guantánamo identification number, 333. That number corresponds to a man known in Pentagon documents as Mohamed Atiq Awayd al-Harbi, who was also released to Saudi Arabia in November 2007…
…Mr. Shihri also speaks in the video, saying “by God, our imprisonment only increased our perseverance in the principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for.”
AFP:
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana’ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees — about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released — are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
This is an issue the Right should unite around immediately and in full force. 9/11 families are leading the way. Don’t miss this must-read from Michael Burke, brother of FDNY Capt. William F. Burke Jr., who was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, and follow-up from 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Eric Holder: Seriously, We’re Going to Close Gitmo Pretty Soon
September 20, 2011 04:07 PM by Doug Powers
40 CommentsCharges to be re-filed against KSM and Company
May 30, 2011 11:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
53 CommentsWaPo: Family Visitations For Gitmo Detainees Under Consideration
May 12, 2011 04:08 PM by Doug Powers
105 CommentsWaterboarding Point/Counterpoint: National Security Advisor vs. CIA Director vs. Attorney General
May 3, 2011 08:27 PM by Doug Powers
48 CommentsThe suicide stunts at Gitmo revisited
April 25, 2011 10:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
117 CommentsObama administration retreats (again) on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed civilian trial; Holder blames Congress
April 4, 2011 11:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsOmar Khadr: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty
October 25, 2010 10:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
17 CommentsGitmo Horrors Continue: Detainees Limited to One Ice Cream
September 26, 2010 10:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Holder on hot seat at Senate Judiciary Committee
April 14, 2010 10:42 AM by Michelle Malkin
27 Comments
Categories: Gitmo
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Chap
You know better. The Congress can only declare war on a state. There is no state to declare this war on.
Does It bothers your legal senses when things can’t be wrapped up in a pretty box? This is a war that fits no previous definition, therefore there are no rules.
I am fine with being all informal with the definition of “war” if you recognize that means we don’t have to wait for the end of it (again, how do we know when it is over?) to try these people.
Including waiting until after the war to try those we hold, right?
Yes chap
“One Thing”
The pictures are faked they’re just extra’s from “City Slickers”
Chap
The result of closing the military detention centers for captured combatants, would amount to a de facto surrender. Yes, war is a messy business.
I wonder if their Screen Actors Guild union card is up to date.
Now now, not to worry my Bitter Clingers. Once President Barack Hussein Obama talks to the jihadist, Tehran and such all will be sweetness and light and all will be well in the world. It IS in the Southwestern deserts that his New Daddy Bill Ayres wants to build the death camps isn’t it?
—
Enjoy Sharia
Have a nice Jihad
Herding goats while
wearing a burka can be
liberating ladies
YUM
goat tacos.
Hussein isn’t governing in a post-9/11 world.
He’s dictating in a no-9/11 world.
Chap,
Why are you so hard up about protecting terrorists “rights”? Are they US citizens? Why should they be protected and given trials under the laws that were made to protect US citizens? Do they deserve habeas corpus?
Give us all a break. Do you think the US contractors who were executed were given a fair trial? Do you think decapitation is cruel or pouring water in a terrorists nose to gain information that could (and did) save lives? Which procedure left families without their loved one(s)?
You may be able to look beyond the terrorists acts and say to yourself – I blame Bush. The rest of us will look at the families of fallen loved ones through terrorism and say:
WE CHOOSE TO STAND WITH THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS.
The Soap’s are proud to say we stand with the families. You have endured enough. We are ashamed of some of our citizens who prefer to see you harmed more weather by design or ignorance.
Thank you for your gifts, we are sorry for your losses. We pray peace be with you.
These scumbags are getting way more than they deserve now. If they do get moved anywhere gitmo will seem like club med. Them being dead wouldn’t bother me in the least and I know many others feel the same way. Rights? lol, that’s a good one, give me a break.
I’ll share with you one commenter’s ignorance and my reply.
Where are all the good firing squads when they’re needed?
As I posted on a previous thread–Any terrorist attack that occurs now, and especially in light of O’s first EO, He and his obamabots bare the responsibilty for any new terrorist attacks!
Heaven help us all if in the end the conservatives were proved right and the voices in the wilderness (or talk radio) are ignored by the msm.
GSP
“This is Sparta!”
If this doesn’t prove to the Executioner in Chief (at least for the unborn) that he made a huge mistake with last weeks Executive Order maybe we could arrange some late term abortions for the terrorists he wants to clog up our civilian court system with while compromising classified information and/or marking those that have worked with us to help capture this medieval savages for a grisly death. As many others have commented we need to treat the enemy the same way they have treated the prisoners they have taken. Kill and mutilate everyone of them!
Personally I would just go with a big pit or a jetty that leads out to GITMO bay and pop each one behind the ear with a .45 cal. Either way the worms or the sharks get to eat that should make the protectors of Ghia happy by reducing the carbon foot print of these murdering savages and feeding the friends of PETA. Consider it a twofer.
The wwo cents from another pissed off veteran for what ever it’s worth!
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: “Come and Take Them!”
Boomer,
Priceless! You did leave of the pork lard.
I am not interested in protecting the rights of terrorists. I am interested in ensuring our government takes reasonable measures to identify the actual terrorists among all of those being held on suspicion of terrorism.
They should be afforded basic protections and given trials because it is the right thing to do and it is a very scary thought to me that we would have a government that does not.
Do you wish those contractors had been afforded a fair trial?
Yes, decapitation is cruel. I am glad we do not do it. I am not going to get into waterboarding. I have never experienced it, nor have you (I assume and hope). I do know that it has almost universally been considered torture, even by us, in the past.
Please. The actual terrorist acts and invoking the victims have nothing to do with how we deal with those detained at Gitmo and ACCUSED of terrorist acts. That is a cheap appeal to emotion.
They are!
In one ear and out the other…nothing in between to stop it for mental processing.
So, you MUST assume they are NOT doing their job BECAUSE??? …the terrorists are not happy? …they got some water in their noses? … a few jerks treated them badly?
Oh, please. I commit a crime, I get a trial (unless I am a Dem Politican). These are NOT U.S. citizens and they WERE captured on the field of battle. Of course, you being an attorney and all believe they are ALL innocent and the people in our military are incompetent. How sad for you.
Do they lose their lives? No! Do we and can we gain information that will save lives? We have and we could still if the freaking people would get over it. Water in the nose, knife to throat? Give me the water. Of course, if I am a terrorist and I know (and they are trained to know our system) all I have to do is get the freaks all emotional, I can gain sympathy from my enemy and that is the beginning of winning them over.
PLEASE back at you. I do not care about the “appeal to emotions”. If that makes you feel better about your positions – fine. Since you brought it up, I remember the idiots dressed in orange who went off the charts, emotion wise, doing their faux waterboarding torture routine. Made me want to puke. Again, they care more about terrorists “rights” then the victims of terrorism.
All emotionalism aside, again, I will side up with the families here. You continue to believe our fighting men and women are incompetent or incapable of doing a just and proper job. You continue to rely on attorneys to make sure every terrorist get their free puppet trials.
I am sure the families are more thankful for Boomer, Sergeant Tim, gunslingerpatriot, ajmontana, myself and many others here who say:
We are sorry for your pain. We will not cause you further pain by siding with the terrorists. We believe your sons and daughters are doing a great job and we wish them well on their jobs ahead. We love you, care about you and pray for your safety. We do NOT support the order Obama has signed and believe the harm it caused you is real.
That is the reaction of a lawyer. I can tell you the reaction of a soldier is quite different. Therein lies the difference between those who ultimately view this in terms of law enforcement and those who view it as combat.
In combat, historically, the overriding fator is quarter. To contrast I give you WWII. Look at combat footage of WWII in Europe and you will see Ameican medics wearing red crosses, ambulances marked with red crosses and red crosses hung on top of hospitals. Try and find ONE red cross in WWII comabt footage in the Pacific.
Germans were captured and treated as POWs. Japanese were allowed to “fight to the death.” The presence and absence of red corsses tells you why. We have an enemy who ignores all civilized rules. They should be given comparable quarter up to an including the treatment of their captives.
War is cruelty. Lawyers have no place in the conduct of it.
the romans had it right..crucify people like these…and send films of every minute of it to their families and countries…
object lessons work…
You dared to speak for me and did a mighty fine job of it.
To be clear: well said!
Flyoverman,
Thank you for finding the exact words that I am going to borrow and send to the current seatwarmer at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It may get me fired, but I can’t do my job with both hands tied behind my back.
100%! And for those who say “we’re better than that”, or “that just lowers us to their level”, I say OK; what has playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules gotten us so far with respect to humane treatment of our people or for that matter, civilians? Not one thing.
If it is going to escalate, to borrow the current residents thought process, we hold the trump card. And in the end, a win is all we want. Anything less is like kissing your sister, which may be ok for a lawyer, but not for me. And I would rather they fear us than respect us, if we can only have one. Respect is out of the question and off the table at this point, so….
Seriously soap,
I cannot believe you would engage in such disingenuous false dichotomies and separations from reality.
I assume the US government has not done their job because the facts speak for themselves. They hold detainees for years without ever bringing them to trial. And when they are in some cases forced to, they scramble to assemble their evidence and make claims like “our evidence is that we say there is evidence.” If they are so obviously bad, why them hold up? No one objects to taking someone who has been found guilty in a meaningful trial and throwing them in the deepest pit forever.
Because I want to see fair trails or tribunals does NOT MEAN I THINK THE SOLDIERS ARE INCOMPETENT. the only people that ever say that is the right when they want to avoid dealing with a discussion.
True, but they are under control of the US, and that does mean they get certain rights. It was real cute what Bush tried to do with Gitmo, setting up a zone that we controlled, but then claiming that we didn’t control it. He was properly smacked down.
That is a lie unless you want to make the definition of “capture” and “battlefield” absolutely meaningless.
How sad that you are engaging in such empty rhetoric and silly mischaracterizations.
Is that the definition of torture? Not by any reasonable standard, it isn’t. If you want to say we can engage in torture to get information, fine, but don’t deny the fact that waterboarding has long been considered as such by any decent nation.
Bulls***. Is it really so difficult for you to understand the concept between “accused terrorist” and “terrorist”?
I am not going to sit here and let you or anyone say that I am not sympathetic to the families of victims of terror because I believe in a modicum of due process and do not believe that we have the right to just detain anyone we want indefinitely. It is amazing, for a group of people so distrustful of the power of government that you just allow yourselves to become compliant sheep in regard to this. And do you know why else I am not going to let you say that crap about someone like me not caring about the families of victims of terror? I am freaking in one. So stuff that crap.
Sergeant Tim,
I may not have served my country but I will be damned if I take up arms (figuratively or otherwise) against it. I am always thankful for the men and women who have served/are serving and before I EVER feel bad about a terrorist (for the liberal: person caught on the filed of battle) being held against their will I will put myself in the place of the father who has lost a child to terrorism and think:
How would this man feel?
I have a son in Afghanistan and I can’t imagine the pain we would feel to hear he was killed but an innocent citizen from GITMO who was released because of a mistrial in our “perfect” court system where a judge can have the say over the ENTIRE military. See, out military and government are expected to be perfect in this war where the enemy cares little about human life but we can expect out “perfect” court system to get it right all the while we neglect the very real pain of the families who are truly suffering.
It all make me sick.
You accuse me of a lot here. Do you even read your own words? It must be nice to have that opinion. With that opinion, I can hardly see HOW you can sit there and talk about being “sympathetic to the families” with this kind of thought process.
Again, attorneys can get it right; the military can’t do a damned thing right. The court are infallible and the military and Bush are completely wrong and can’t get it right.
BTW I know the difference between “accused terrorist” and “terrorist”. It is in the eye of the beholder. They are at GITMO – terrorist. They are in the courts – they are “accused”.
I choose to put my faith in the military men and women and not in our “infallible” courts.
Flyoverman (#33 and 82 in particular)
Yes, there is, actually. Prisoners of war are soldiers, with requirements such as a recognizable chain of command, uniforms, country belonging to, rules, etc.. Along with protections, there are also standards of behavior. Enemy combatants–like the partisans of WWII or spies–do not meet the definitions of soldier, and thus do not have the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions.
There are many ways to serve … You are doing a fine job; please continue.
chapoutier said: (#73)
Well, there are sharks and other unpleasant critters in the water. And I don’t think that Cuba, despite their dislike of the US, wants to help anyone escape to them. So, there aren’t any good options for the would be escapee. Besides, he’d never get fed as well on a continuing basis ever again in his life.
Chap, you say….”Bulls***. Is it really so difficult for you to understand the concept between “accused terrorist” and “terrorist”?”
Not difficult at all for those of us who deal with it. They are not accused without reason and/or cause. That a lawyer, whether yourself, Lynne Stewart or B.H. Obama, Esq., can interject themselves into a battlefield process of identifying people as the enemy from the comfort of their office or a courtroom with legal staffs who are expert at gaming the system, is the question at hand.
I say that before a lawyer gets involved, they need to remember that generally, these specific fine gentlemen from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would just as soon slit your throat and filet your glutes as accept your scholarly manipulations of the justice system.
They know the system can be gamed. They know how to beat the odds. If they had real brains, they’d be in Vegas making money….but that is for infidels. Much better to control drug networks, smuggling, prostitution….all evidently perfectly acceptable under sharia law, because no one ever rails on them about it. Funny, huh? All those mullahs and assorted religious leaders supporting crime as a means to an end – total domination of the world.
And we just watch….
As was written long ago:
“‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose
It’s got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watchin’
America, where are you now ?
Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?
Don’t you know we need you now?
We can’t fight alone against the monster.”
chapoutier said: (#124)
It never made sense to me, either, so I’m glad that we became more sensible on that point. (I also note that the claim was made when various refugee groups were held at GTMO, like the Haitians, by previous administrations. I think Clinton’s, but I don’t remember the year.)
Good. The trial/tribunal process/step is important. So is protecting classified information. I think that there can be a way to reconcile the two somewhat contradictory goals, but it’s going to involve a less-than-perfect compromise that will probably not be as careful as a US trial for a US citizen. “Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” only works for the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.
Even if we are 100% accurate that all these detainees are terrorists, a trial or tribunal would provide assurance of that fact to the outside world.
My sympathies; as I believe you mean that more specifically than all US citizens re victims.
These two bozos need to be thanking their lucky stars that they are even BREATHING today. I guarantee that events like this are only going to give our guys n’ gals more reason to expend a few more rounds of ammo and take fewer prisoners. And with good reason. I realize that when you’re the Good Guys, you have battlefield disadvantages, I can live with that. But willfully putting sharks back in the water is stupid.
Lifted from Neptunus Lex’s web site. But the bottom line….yeah, what is that buzzing sound? You ever heard a Predator before? Well…..
_______________________________________
The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.
His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.
Do you hear a buzzing sound in the distance Mr. al-Shihri? Are you sure?
As a sovereign country why can’t we make our own rules of wars?
Do we need to abide by any international law?
The prisoners are our captives. We should be able to do with them as we please.
“Faux News Alert”
Gitmo detainees all to plead temporary Insanity!!!
Upon this news the Odopey advisors have set up a 6th month prison term at Folsom state.
Followed by 1 year sentence at a half way house in downtown San Francisco.
The 250 detainees will be on the honor system without monitoring and required to work 20 hours per week for the state as volunteers and must have a permanent 40 hour a week job in the local community.
S.F residents are “thrilled” to have them as part of this Human Rights” issue
and looking forward to bonding with their new neighbors on the way to a new life.
Code pink has opened a new “wellness” center to help employ up to 70 of the “New Americans”
The positions with “Codes Open Wellness” Center or C.O.W. will be youth Counselors. .
Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying “Our newest Citizens path to freedom starts here”
The Govenator has a window of 4 months to open other C.O.W.S. in San Diego, Hollywood and Beverly Hills.
film at 11:00
Not directed at me but, the most factual answer is that it appeases Mr. I-Hate-America leftist that never has a job other than to show up everywhere and act stupid in front of the drive-by media.
If there IS any other reason, it would not be as true as the one above.
AJ, your depressing!
FamilyMan said: (#134)
And we did. Early on, President Bush (to some criticism) said the conditions of the detainees would be similar to that for POWs, with some exceptions such as contact with home.
It is a little telling that he thinks they are more of a threat than terrorists.
Then screw the critics.
The solution to the whole Gitmo thing is really very easy: Put ‘em all on a plane back to the middle east with a remote control pilot and not quite enough fuel to make the trip. Problem solved.
As was written elsewhere…..
“Enough with the niceties. We don’t lose our souls when we treat our enemies as enemies. We don’t undermine our principles when we post more police officers in vulnerable areas, or when we send Marines to kill bad guys, or when we torture terrorists for information.
And we don’t redeem ourselves when we close Guantanamo Bay or try terrorists in civilian courts or censor anti-Islam comics.
When it comes to war, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.“
Actually I disagree. I think since lawyers are so concerned over the rights of the terrorists, they need to volunteer.
Each and every unit that might come in contact on the battlefield with a terrorist should have at least one lawyer, if not several.
That way, they can ensure the terrorist is properly Mirandized (using a bullhorn to be heard over the firefight if needed), evidence is properly gathered (don’t worry about the site being cleared of UXO), witnesses are identified including holding those identified as material witnesses, etc.
Until that happens, it is ludicrous to suggest terrorists captured on the battlefield should be given the full legal protections afforded US citizens who might be shoplifters, including challenging any witnesses or evidence.
“…But Pelosi called the plan to use the next year to review the case of each detainee is “brilliant.”
“What the president put forth was very wise. He said he’s going to close Guantanamo, take the time to do it. You can’t just go down there today and say, ‘Everybody out,’ and lock the door. They’re going to review the cases, narrow it down and then go from there. … It’s brilliant,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”"
I think the only way SanFranNan would know brilliant would be if someone put a million candlepower flare up her backside and popped it.
“Whom God wishes to destroy he first turns mad.” (Euripides, 425 BC)
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being waged under a congressional joint resolution, as is consistent with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Its war and its legal. Deal with it.
As was already said, we aren’t dealing with shoplifters. 19 people, 19 people killed 3,000 of ours one morning, caused untold economic damage to our country, led to 2 wars, thousands of dead US soldiers, lots of money spent, etc.
We aren’t dealing with shoplifters. It isn’t better to let 100 guilty jihadis go free rather than put 1 innocent Pakistani in Gitmo. This isn’t about justice, it is about survival.
All of this is what Bush wanted to do with the tribunals, yet supporters of this ignorant wench fought it any way they could.
As the review process takes place, hopefully there will be good detail released showing what these guys have done, where they were captured, who their ties are to, etc.
I want to see exactly who the left was supporting.
But is the War Powers Resolution legal? I recall a lot of discussion in the past on that point. (Presidents tend to say “no”; Congresses, “yes”.)
Republicanvet said in #147:
True. I think that many of the things that President Bush was trying to do will suddenly be found to be okay once the “right people” are in charge (and/or the name is changed to remove the alleged taint of the previous administration).
The problem with holding prisoners until end of hostilities is, The war on terror has no end…ever.
Chaps:
I’ll cut through the PC crap that you pose as rational logic in regards to GITMO. You’re too interested in feelings and appearances than in what is actually necessary. It’s about the terrorists’ “rights” when they never allowed any for the 9/11 victims.
You may be in a family that has been victimized by terror and you may say that you “sympathize” or “empathize” with 9/11 families but in the end it’s all about protecting terrorists and not about getting these families justice. It’s the same thing with what happened to the sailors of the USS Cole, one of the first terror attacks that lead to the larger war. Where the hell is their justice?
While you may be part of a family that has experienced terror, you don’t represent the entirety of the emotions that the 9/11 families feel about what Obummer has done. You have no idea of the feelings of betrayal, anger, and despair that these families have been living with for years. It never goes away. EVER.
How are we supposed to get information from terrorists? How are our military members supposed to deal with these monsters? With kid gloves? In order to feel like we’re a civilized society we’re not going to do our utmost to collect information that may put more members of Al Qaeda and other terror cells out of business? What are your solutions?
This is a TOTAL load of crap and you know it. The government is not “torturing” its own citizens it’s torturing terrorists who are the basest form of human scum. Killers. Monsters. I want my government to do what it needs to do to get these guys and if it means using tactics that haven’t been approved by Chaps then so be it. It’s not like these terrorists are willingly going to comply and offer up information.
One more thing: if you think that Conservatives/Republicans are sheep then how would you characterize Obummer cultists? Those who slavishly pledge their loyalty and support but aren’t asking the important questions about any of his ideas right now. You’ve been on here long enough to know that Conservatives have questioned a lot of things that Pres. Bush did in his presidency. A lot. How much are the Obummer worshippers questioning?
Prior to the Hamdi and Hamdan decisions, Qurin and Youngstown provided ample justification for W’s handling of detainees at Gitmo.
For the life of me, I don’t see how you can apply treaty obligation under the Geneva Conventions to ineligible, i.e. unlawful, enemy combatants, to say nothing of the uncontitutional usurpation of executive perogatives by the court, which is ill-equip to provide a legal standard for what constitutes a threat to national security when traditionally such decisions have rightly been recognized as the province of politics.
Ah, but luckily, we have a lawyer in our midst.
Chap, could you please provide us with a legal standard for what constitutes a threat to national security? Also, could you also tell us what distinguishes your legal standard from a political one, and why its proper for the courts to make such a decision when the Constitution clearly delegates this power to the executive?
Much obliged.
One of the primary characteristics of conservatives is to question ALL politicians and their motives. We understand better than most that our constitution was written to limit the power of government. We are more watchful, even of our own party. Liberals have somehow missed that little memo.
Liberals have somehow missed that
little memoboat completely.As an example of conservative suspicion. I admired Sara Plain’s social values but I disagree that the oil companies need to share their revenue with citizen of Alaska. We aren’t parrots of the party, but question all actions and their relation to the constitution.
Chief,
One team; one fight. Glad I could assist.
Ok let us send the errant lads to the UAE, there is work for them in snow removal-if this story is true.
Come summer they can go back to their normal jobs of killing infidels, beating women and herding goats.
Goat tacos anyone?
—
Enjoy Sharia
Have a nice Jihad
Herding goats while
wearing a burka can be
liberating ladies
You don’t try POW’s – you hold them until the cessation of hostilities then send ‘em home. Geez – I thought even liberals have seen Hogan’s Heroes.
I honestly thought that the only person on earth stupid enough to want to set the presidence of trying POW’s as war criminals was that flaming a$$hat Jane Fonda – and she just wanted American POW’s tried.
The answer is simple – they’re POW’s. We hold them until their home country asks for them back, then we negotiate. Unfortunately most countries these walking feces come from are saying “Keep the damn things.” But I think we need to release the 2 Chinese prisoners to their home country without delay. China has said they will be executed if they ever return.
May 1, 1998
I can.
ABC’s Nightline, June 16, 2008
lol pk, they probably did but,
“They know Nothhhthink”
So true Familyman. This blog is a testament of criticism of all things government. Did you notice that the Exec order BHO signed ends torture, but he left in a caveat that if he sees fit, he can torture. Can you imagine if Bush did that? It is creepy how the left trusts BHO to have that kind of power. An exec order that bans torture, but doesn’t really ban torture. King Barak Hussein Obama anyone?
That Real-World view “24″ Episode
That Jack Bauer testimony before Congress episode ought be the lead for any story on treating terrorist with tea with kid gloves.
James Greenidge
Queens, New York
So, what will Obama (and Chapoutier) say to the family of the first American murdered by someone released from Gitmo?
WE WON. That trumps whatever you got.
At least that’s what I would expect Teh One to say.
Socky said:
“This is above my paygrade”?
chapoutier, you lost quite a bit of credibility with this stupid statement.
Bull.
The Khemer Rouge did it. Inquisitors in the Spanish Inquisition did it. The Gestapo did it. And under Bush, we did it.
And we did used to consider it torture, well when it was being done to our guys anyway.
Key Charges:
There are other examples here.
Talk about moral relativism. Oh…but war is “messy”. So that pretty much excuses everything.
As an aside, I could not care less what a torture apoligist thinks of my credibility.
Its sick and shameful.
mmmmm I’d like to see maybe a three second burst from one of those new high-energy high-volume rail guns fall on these little darlings. At 1,000,000 rounds a minutethat would be about 50,000 impacts. Maybe that’s a little excessive. Even D’oh Bama could go for that kind of push-button diplomacy.
How about testing Gitmo detainees for murderous intent? We put a bunch of them in a locked room alone with US soldier killer, John Murtha, and see what happens?
As for the Gitmo detainees, perform frontal lobotomies on them before release like old Joe Kennedy did to his daughter, or have any Kennedy drive or fly them home.
The US taxpayer got dinged for $10 million to locate John Jr.’s remains, and then they buried them at sea. Talk about dig a ditch and fill it in! What did they think they were going to find left in crab infested waters after the plane hit the water vertically at 700 mph?
chapoutier said:
Should the government allow “coercive interrogation” (mild “torture,” no finger- chopping here, Chap) on “illegal enemy combatants” (terrorists)? I’m not sure, I’d need more information about its limits. Terrorists are not soldiers. The U.S. is often compared to the Roman Empire. The Romans used torture. The Apostle Paul– now “Saint” Paul–used his Roman citizenship to avoid torture (Acts 22:22-30). I wonder if God secretly scolded him for doing that—nah, not really. The Constitution only protects citizens. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide what non-citizens get, which can change at any time, like it or not. That’s all I know.
Puleeze. You’re better than the illogical paragraph above. The Gestapo breathed oxygen and so did we under Bush! What the heck does that prove?
You need to defend your use of the word “universally.” You’ve fallen short so far.
Easy there, pal. Don’t get ahead of yourself.
1. I’m not a torture apologist. I don’t think the US government should support torture.
2. I don’t think the US government should support water boarding.
However, I do not think that water boarding is torture.
I have a great idea, chapoutier. Give us your definition of torture. Maybe you could read this article in the Atlantic and let us know where you fall? 0%?
So, if you prevent any kind of collection of information by the military using whatever techniques that could prevent future attacks, you would approve that, right? So it’s kid gloves all the way on our side while the sick monsters of Al Qaeda continue to bomb, maim, and torture all they want, right?
So, if you had a relative serving in the military on the receiving end of terror “torture,” you would feel better about it because our side didn’t do it, and you can sleep better at night knowing that our country is so much more civilized than the terrorists, right?
When you’re in a war and your safety and that of your country is on the line, you do anything to stamp out the enemy. ANYTHING. It held true in WWII. It should hold true now but moral relativists and weak-willed pacifists like yourself choose to hinder our military’s efforts and put up barriers to our military.
I have friends and a loved one on the front lines and I want them to use every tool at their disposal to take out terrorists. Permanantly. I will not accept half-truths or excuses from the likes of you who don’t have the will to fight except on compromised terms that you think acceptable.
It’s not sick and shameful to do whatever we need to do to put Al Qaeda out of business. However, your trust in the goodness of human nature is not only wrong, it’s misplaced and short-sighted.
I’m sorry but I won’t be taking your legal excuses as some sort of protection for people like my husband who currently serves. I’m also sure that many in the military find your perspective not only dim-witted, but not even based on what’s happening on the battlefield or in the intelligence realm right now.
Thanks but no thanks.
Well said, emjem.
God bless you and your husband, and all who serve.
Yeah. Its exactly like breating air. Why do you think the Khemer Rouge, Gestapo and Inquisitors did it? To make friends? Why do you think the US has consistently taken the position that it is torture in the past? Why do you think Susan Crawford is now admitting they tortured?
Tell you what: you find one or two accounts of the practice written before Yoo and Addington got their greasy little hands on it that describes it as something other than torture and I’ll consider removing the “universal” tag. Doesn’t mean its NOT torture, of course. Just that some apparently are as deluded as some here.
I am sure some here are comfortable with the notion that we should be allowed to torture. And if that is your position, own it. That, at least is respectable, if not reprehensible. But to deny what the practice is is to fly in the face of rationality and precedence. And to blanket oneself in the notion that because the other side engages in something, we have moral license to as well is stupid. The other side slaughters innocents. Does that mean we can to go into any random house in Baghdad and shoot up every man, woman and child?
Again with false dichotomies. Its all your side’s argument is reduced to isn’t it?
Would I feel better about his torture? No. Would I feel better about my country? Hell effen yes. But if you are willing to gague our morality as a country by its enemy’s lowest common denominator, so be it.
Really? I know you say they don’t apply here, but does that mean you do not support the Geneva Conventions? If our one and only consideration is to obliterate the enemy, free of any other moral consequences or considerations, why haven’t we just used nukes?
Would you cut off the fingers of an Al Queda member’s 7 year old daughter while he watched? Would that be morally acceptable?
Where the hell did I ever say I trusted the goodness of human nature? If there’s one thing torture apologists like you prove is that it is fantasy.
Did you forget to turn your brain on today????
Reread my last comment. Not only did I state my opposition to US supported torture, I definitively stated my opposition to US supported water boarding – regardless of its label. Read it!
You really are idiot boy today, but I’ll play along. If Obama’s administration does ANYTHING that Khemer Rouge, Gestapo, and Inquisitors did, then it shall be universally considered torture.
BTW, according to you, the US government officially sanctions torture of its own citizens in the absence of any charges or probably cause. Do you stand behind this position?
While were on the topic, please let us know what you DON’T label as torture. I’d also like to know what interrogation tactics you approve. (I hope that those two questions don’t completely correlate.)
But I suppose we didn’t use “torture” during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW’s I & II, nor Korea? Come on – nation’s that win wars, do so through information collected by any means necessary.
If your idea of what constitutes torture is the standard – and it is not – then yes: we have tortured in the past. We tortured under Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. And we will continue to do so as long as there are wars; as long as there are bad guys vs. good guys or us vs. them; and as long as we want to win.
That comment was not directed at you. I realize now, it reads as if it was. For that I apologize.
Ohhh….is this supposed to be a trap of some sort? Are you referring to special ops folks undergoing waterboarding as part of their training? If so that is stupid. Those peopel undergo that voluntarily in a controlled environment, with people they generally trust, and (I assume) they can stop it any time.
If not referring to that what are you?
I approve interrogation techniques that are not torture. There may be some blurry lines as to what is and what is not. Is a stress position for 1 hour torture? What about 24?
It is not like I am the one that unilaterally decreed waterboarding as torture. It has always been considered as such.
Have you found any accounts of it that describes it as something other?
Blind folding and tying the hands of someone behind the back before pushing him or her off a second or third story building a repeated number of times (until enough bones are sufficiently broken and mangled) is torture. S. Hussein did this quite regularly. Simulating drowning is not. Coerced interrogation, maybe, but not torture.
I haven’t looked for any “accounts.” It’s meaningless as are your accounts. Your paper relied heavily on the opinion of Dr. Keller, testimony from witnesses, and the words of certain prosecutors. Additionally, much of those sources were describing acts in addition to water boarding.
I certainly wasn’t attempting to trap you. I assumed that you would immediately understand the reference. In fact, my point would have been completely lost if you hadn’t understood it. (I had other reasons for being coy about my reference.) That being said, you obviously don’t understand the military’s use of it. However, given your understanding, are you claiming that a practice can’t be defined as water boarding IF the practice is voluntary? Would two identical practices be defined differently if one was voluntary and the other was not? Would one be defined as water boarding and the other be defined using a different term? Is that what you’re saying? Because you’ve already definitively claimed that water boarding is universally defined as torture. Naturally, I assumed that the word universally means universally which would certainly include within military training circles. So, I’m confused.
Is a stress position for 1 hour torture? Gee, I don’t know. You tell me. If we find out that Obama provides written authorization for government interrogators to support stress positions for 1 hour would you consider that torture?
Was there anything remotely ambiguous about the example I cited? Did the US government not claim waterboarding as torture? Are you really claiming they said something to the effect of “X was tortured. They did a, b and c to him.” and claim they were only defining torture as a and b?
Is forcibly tying someone up and whipping the hell out of them the same as someone going to and paying a dominatrix?
If you want, I am perfectly willing to concede that there must be some element of coersion in order for any act to be torture. That a mere physical description of the act is insufficient.
You tell me. Do you consider random kicking torture? Unacceptable mistreatment yes, but kicking someone certainly isn’t torture. Unless you think that Jean-Claude Van Damme and Jackie Chan movies are full of on-screen torture. Unless you think that grade school girls are torturing each other when they engage in physical spats.
Yes, I want. But you really didn’t answer my question regarding a “non-coerced” (we’ll explore this definition later) version of the practice. I didn’t ask if it would be defined as torture. I asked if it would be defined as water boarding.
Wish folks would cease the all the pious ball. What it all comes down to is this; is a terrorist’s sprained thumb worth your daughter’s life (getting crushed, gassed, burned alive, etc.)?
“For the want of a tweaked toe a city was lost…”
May we never get this low thinking so highly of murderers.
James Greenidge
Queens New York
Sorry, meant “cease all the pious bull”. This issue just froths me!
James Greenidge
Queens, NY