Look- I think is is stupid to invoke images of Nazi’s when what you are talking about is anything other than the systematic internment and murder of millions of people. We have talked about this at length, and I think many of us agree on that point.
Ok?
But this is just damned idiotic:
In a letter sent to United States Senators on Saturday, June 18, 2005, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called on the Senate to censure Senator Richard Durbin for his speech comparing U.S. servicemen serving in Guantanamo Bay to those of the Nazi Gestapo, Soviet KGB, and Pol Pot
demimondian
You know what I’m astounded by in all this? That the alleged grown-ups in both parties are only now learning the meaning of Godwin’s Third Law of the Usenet: “He that first invokes the similarity between his opponent’s position and the National Socialist Party loses.”
brenda
Washington has gone nuts on both sides. That’s why I have starting listening to The Current or my own music. Or something, anything but the news. Whenever I listen to the news I start packing and looking for an isolated mountain retreat to wait out this crazyness.
Stormy70
Newt’s a hack and a buffoon. However, Durbin deserves the smackdown from all sides for what he said. Durbin knew what he was doing, and he hurt the troops. I don’t excuse him, just like I didn’t excuse Lott for his remarks, for which Lott lost his leadership position. I think Durbin should lose his leadership position as well, but he probably won’t.
I like John Stewart’s take on all this.
James Emerson
I disagree with your characterization of Senator Durbin, I’ve always found him to be spot on in his criticisms of the the administration and the toadies who support it.
I cannot criticize him for the remarks where the word Nazis were slightly associated with those Americans who advocated or engaged in the torture of prisoners. Seems to me that we as a nation would want to be putting more distance…not less…between ourselves and those we hung as Nazi war criminals. It was correct of Durbin to point this out in terms that created a media storm. His frequent mild mannered but well reasoned criticisms had disapperaed down the memory hole in a hurry. Consider his statement the opening salvo, part of the building tsunami of rhetorical “nuclear options” to be used against the obviously and hopelessly corrupted administration and its congressional supporters.
As to Newt, does anyone take this man seriously anymore? The same man who demanded divorce from his wife while she was hospitalized in bed with cancer? The same man who had carried on a long termed sexual liason with an aide all the while he was frothing about Clinton’s affair? Get serious! The man is pond scum.
Stormy70
John – Instapundit also called on a Senator to censure Durbin, but he thought noone would because they wanted Durbin to keep talking.
Sojourner
The Repubs appear to have an endless quantity of shame. Rather than fix the (torture) mess, they puff up their chests, brag about how wonderful we all are, and attack the messenger.
How much longer will the American public fall for this?
Stormy70
Consedering the American Public wants Gitmo to stay open, I’d say a great while longer.
Mike S
Tammy Bruce is calling for him to resign.
Peter Parkman
Remember when the reactionary right was all up in arms about Newsweek magazine’s Koran flushing revelation? Remember all the wailing over that one? 3 weeks from now that is where this Durbin deal will be.
There is just no escaping it, the Bush administration, either through incompetence or deliberate intent, has been left holding the bag on the issue of prisoner torture. The Abu Ghraib pictures will be among the most enduring images of the Bush era. Guantanamo only sealed the deal.
George W. Bush, the man who holds the record for most executions by a sitting state governor, who rushed us into a gruesome and bloody war on the flimsiest of evidence, and is the president most of the world regards as a barbarian and a torturer, has been a disaster for America.
But you know what else? Bush has reduced the right to being little more than apologists for torture. And that level of disgrace is one big shit sandwich the right will never quite recover from.
Nathan Lanier
“If there is a punishment to be meted out, it will be at the polls when Durbin runs for election.”
I came across this today. He lost one vote.
John Cole
Nathan Lanier
It seems like a ploy by Republicans to divert attention further from the actual debate at hand, which is torture. Durbin fucked it up, and Republicans are capitalizing on it – Elevating the focus on Durbin and his stupid statements, not things that, you know, matter.
ppgaz
Well, really, it’s just a grandstand play on Gingrich’s part … and that should be obvious. He built a very successful career on grandstanding. Not that there is anything wrong with that, to parphrase The Seinfeld Show.
Look, the war is sliding in the polls. The president is free falling in the polls. I saw yesterday that 25% (!) think he has the right ideas on Social Security!!! Twenty-five! You could get 25% to say that if Bush declared the world flat, it must be flat. That’s the same as zero, you could not get below 25% if you declared Social Security to be the cause of Bird Flu.
But anyway, the Republicans are fully aware of the fact that they have lost the opportunity to govern. All the air is gone out of their agenda thanks to Iraq. Social Security is DOA in this Congress. They are in charge of everything, and can’t really do much of anything. The people are beyond restless, they are laughing at these numbskulls now.
Gingrich to the rescue! Tear off some red meat for the faithful!
Mr. and Mrs. America are paying no attention to this crap, I assure you.
jcricket
I think you’re exactly right John.I think the invocation of Nazi imagery was innapropriate and counter-productive, similar to when Santorum used it. However, I agree with the central point that Durbin was trying to make: If you didn’t hear that the quote about the prison conditions was from an FBI report about Gitmo, you would think it was from some despotic regime (Mugabe, Myanmar, Serbia, etc.). And that makes me sick to my stomach.
If those on the right were 1/10 as concerned about the _actual_ abuse as they are with 1/100th of the words in a speech, perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry about whether we’re creating more terrorists than we’re killing (yes, I mean it). Do those on the right really want our slogan to be: “America, we’re not as bad as those other guys!” or “America, if we have to kill a bunch of innocent people to get at the terrorists, so be it!”
I come from a long line of family members who volunteered to join the armed forces. I supported the first Gulf War and the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan. I have a lot of lefty friends who I had to continually argue with about how America is (mostly) a force for good in the world. And while I know we’ve done our share of bad things, I _never_ thought I’d see us torture and indefinitely detain 100s or 1000s of innocent individuals (yes, it appears that 50-90% of the people detained are innocent, judging by our continual release of prisoners from Gitmo and elsewhere).
I repeat, I’m simply sick to my stomach to know that in the 21st century we’re actually having a debate about “how much” torture we should commit. That’s why those of us on the left are so mad, and so shocked that those on the right are not.
SamAm
What’s really baffling in all this is the high probability that more Abu Ghraib photos and even some video will be released in a few weeks. I haven’t been following that court case too closey, but the last update I saw on it reffered to a court decision against the DOD re: release.
And yeah, I know Gitmo isn’t Abu Ghraib. But the people calling for Durbin’s censure appear to have no idea what’s about to happen. They’re waddling out on a branch that’s going to get sawed off (again). Are these howls of anger against Durbin pre-emptive pushback or just reflective of ignorance on the current events front?
Furthermore, can we please expunge the idea that the right takes accountability for anything. Jesus Christ, really, from Iraq to Schaivo to detainees; the problem is never the facts, but the people pointing out just how screwed up the situation is.
The people in power and their cheerleaders have nothing better to do than point out that Dick Durbin used some pretty dumb, inappropriate but narrowly defensible rhetoric in service to a broader, largely correct point? It’s beyond belief, but after 4 and a half years it shouldn’t be. And I’m none too surprised to find Instapundit leading the way. I’ll note, for the record, that none of the other moronic comments John pointed out drew calls for censure from Glenn. But that’s really, really not surprising.
Darrell
I repeat, I’m simply sick to my stomach to know that in the 21st century we’re actually having a debate about “how much” torture we should commit.
I think I’m over my daily allotted limit of outrage today, so I’ll ask our lefty posters to backup their assertions by a)providing evidence that torture is as widespread as they are suggesting and b)evidence that large numbers of verifiable innocents are being detained in Gitmo and other prisons for significant periods of time
Because unless you’ve got solid evidence to back up these claims of yours, then you’re smearing our military and our country through your wild-ass ignorant exaggerations. You’ve made and repeated the claims (lies?), now be honest enough to back it up with evidence or admit that you are full of sh*t
Kimmitt
Has everyone lost their damned minds?
Welcome to the Order of the Shrill. Here’s your fifth of bourbon.
providing evidence that torture is as widespread as they are suggesting
You’ll never hear me say this again, but read Andrew Sullivan. He’s been very thorough on this work, and he’s not a lefty.
Nathan Lanier
“I repeat, I’m simply sick to my stomach to know that in the 21st century we’re actually having a debate about “how much” torture we should commit. That’s why those of us on the left are so mad, and so shocked that those on the right are not.”
I understand this question tip-toes the edge of an incredibly slippery slope, but if, in extreme circumstances, coercive interrogation could provide intelligence so valuable that it could undoubtedly save American lives, would you support it?
My problem with the current administration (concerning torture, etc.) is this: They haven’t demanded the accountability necessary to show the world we are serious about setting moral standards in a time of undefined warfare, and they haven’t clearly defined interrogation methods.
I know I’m setting myself up for a hatchet here, but there should be a debate on the level of coercive interrogation necessary in clearly justifiable situations.
Mike S
I wonder why every single talk radio show has been starting at the exact same spot when playing Durbin’s remarks?
On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
They conveniently leave out the begginning.
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night.
If they are so sure of how absolutely evil his comments are, don’t you think they’d give the whole thing?
This is typical of the talk radio wing of the GOP.
SomeCallMeTim
John:
When you go into the voting booth in ’06 and ’08, all I ask is that you remember this trenchant bit of analysis from your side: “Durbin knew what he was doing, and he hurt the troops. If you’re comfortable with that level of analysis, then vote Republican. Otherwise, I’d remind you that we’re not all that bad on this side of the aisle.
John Cole
When you go into the voting booth in ’06 and ’08, all I ask is that you remember this trenchant bit of analysis from your side: “Durbin knew what he was doing, and he hurt the troops.
I don’t think Durbin compared our troops to Nazi’s, because what he said was:
If you looked at the actions done by X, you would think they were done by Y.
That isn’t saying we are Nazi’s, but I sure understand how it could be interpreted as extremely offensive. But censure? Good grief.
If anything, it is supremely stupid- he has to recognize that just like many on the right are distorting this to say he called our troops nazi’s, our enemies will sieze upon it and use it as agitprop.
In two years, it won’t be a benign comparison that is easy to refute because memories are fresh- people who hate us will be using it as proof that we are as bad as Nazi’s. Just like it is now acceptable for Germans to now openly discuss that 9/11 was an American government plot.
It was a careless, stupid, and ill-conceived remark, and people should just know better than to throw out the N-word unless it is a clearly light-hearted jab (before someone rakes me over the coals again for saying Safety Nazi).
But censure? C’mon. But can we please knock it off with the Nazi bullshit?
Darrell
I agree with SomeCallMeTim. If anyone thinks Durbin’s Pol Pot/Nazi comparisons did not hurt (and insult) the troops, then they should vote in solidarity with all those Dems who are defending and excusing Durbin’s remarks.
SamAm
I’d like to add that I’ve really appreciated the commentary John’s offered here on the whole flap. I’m not one disposed to give much creedence to what people like Newt want, but there’s still a good case to be made that Durbin’s language was wrong.
Cyrus
Well, apparently it’s much more economical for the Senators to get in the Circus Maximus themselves instead of hiring gladiators. “Bread and circuses” indeed. Who knew? I’m motivated to give a twist to that old joke about statesmen. “A statesman is a politician with his mouth shut.”
That being said, something earlier jumped out at me. Stormy said “Durbin knew what he was doing, and he hurt the troops.” And I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. Call Durbin incorrect, stupid, hysterical, shrill, evil – fine, at least all that has some tiny basis in reality. But “hurt the troops”? There are only two possible ways someone could say that. If you think that anything that could somehow even contribute to getting the troops out of Iraq sooner hurts them, or if you think that Durbin’s comment hurts our national reputation AT ALL, let alone more than the conduct he was trying to put a stop to.
The popularity of this “hurt the troops” buzzword is just stupid. And that’s giving it the benefit of the doubt, because it’s just a hair’s breadth from “criticizing the troops hurts them” to “criticizing them should be illegal.” I don’t think there’s any serious danger of that these days, but it’s still stupid. As Jon Stewart would say, you know what hurts the troops? Bombs!
Sojourner
Good god!!!! The Repubs’ beloved W starts a war based on lies, resulting in the deaths of more than 1700 American soldiers. And we’re getting lectures from them on how Durbin’s comments hurt the troops?
Are you guys on drugs or what?
jerry
Sorry, anyone that cuddles next to RJWEST for solace is still an idiot.
Welcome to your Rethuglican Party. Embrace it. Extend it.
It was your enabling that brought into existence, and now you cry foul.
John Cole
Howard Dean have you out looking for more Democratic votes again, Jerry?
Confederate Yankee
We’ve all lost our minds asking for censure? You must be really bent out of shape over what that right wing nutjob Abraham Lincoln had to say in similar cicumstances:
A censure is warranted at the very least. Personally, I agree with President Lincoln’s approach.
SomeCallMeTim
Just to clarify: I think the whole hurt the troops thing sounds like the same happy-pappy self-esteem crap conservatives used to rightly rail about when it was used in education policy. Our troops have a job to do, and there is little doubt in my mind that the vast majority conduct themselves as well or better than any military in the world would. But I don’t think that Iraqis inclined to hate our troops are going to need to look much outside their own borders to come up with a rationale. People who believe we should never question the prosecution of a war probably should vote Republican.
SomeCallMeTim
And here, writ small, is the whole difference in perspective: Abraham Lincoln had to say in similar cicumstances. Yeah, because if life during the WOT is reminicent of anything, it’s the disarray of the country during the Civil War.
jcricket
Because unless you’ve got solid evidence to back up these claims of yours, then you’re smearing our military and our country through your wild-ass ignorant exaggerations.
Are you kidding me? Ignorant? Wild-Ass?
Official FBI reports detailing torture that wouldn’t be acceptable in the worst American prison aren’t solid enough for you?
Amnesty International (who Rumsfeld was busy quoting when it supported his arguments about Saddam) and the International Red Cross reports are now “anti-American” and easily dismissed?
Videotape and hundreds of pictures from Abu Ghraib aren’t enough for you? And that’s just what we’ve seen so far. Sure, not everyone in the military is in those pictures, but it’s not just one or two people either.
200 innocent people released from Gitmo after multiple years without even being charged with anything isn’t good enough for you? Have you read what those people (presumably innocent, since we released them) said about their treatment there?
Multiple innocent people killed in Afghanistan after being tortured to death?
I’m sure all of this is just isolated incidents in your mind. I’m sure all the memos about how we should ignore the Geneva Conventions are just idle philosophy exercises, rather than proof of an administration hell-bent on sanctioning torture.
More importantly, point out to me where I said “everyone in our military is guilty or torture” or called people in the military “baby rapists” or Nazis or whatever. What I’ve been arguing is that the Bush administration is knowingly sanctioning torture, willing to defend and extend those policies (see Alberto Gonzalez, Dick Cheney, et. al.) and completely blind to how horrible it is to have the military do these things in our name.
If it were just one report, I could brush it off. If it were two reports, I could still say, “Hey, the military is a big organization, there’s always a few bad apples”. But all the evidence points to official sanction and continuation of these policies.
And the revelations have just barely begun, so be careful how far out you want to walk on that limb. Are you really willing to believe we’ve heard the last of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or dead taxi drivers in Afghanistan?
Stormy70
I have been reading the Milblogs’ take on Durbin, and I will have to side with them. This hurt our troops, and is an unintended consequence of Durbin’s remarks. Durbin is still idiotic for saying this on the floor of the Senate. For the last time, where is the actual proof of real, physical torture happening at Gitmo? Not rap music and no air conditioning equated as the vilest of torture.
KC
Newt overstepped his bounds with impeachment, now he wants to do the same thing with censure. Look, Durbin didn’t say our soldiers were Nazis; he made a comparison that between incarceration at Gitmo and incarceration in totalitarian regimes. Newt and his ilk are now gearing up to destroy him.
I wish Durbin didn’t say what he said–he made himself a target–but he did. What Newt is doing though is taking things to a new and disgusting extreme. Does that guy need to laid more or what?
jcricket
I understand this question tip-toes the edge of an incredibly slippery slope, but if, in extreme circumstances, coercive interrogation could provide intelligence so valuable that it could undoubtedly save American lives, would you support it?
Based on your theoretical set-up, sure, I would support coercive interrogation tactics if we had a “ticking bomb” we needed to stop. As a pragmatists I recognize not everything is 100% black or white. For example, I have no problem with the police lying to suspects to gain information (which is totally legal, btw).
But there’s a reason we ban all sorts of coercive interrogation tactics like that within America (i.e. the police can’t do this stuff). Those techniques rarely gather useful information and too often innocent people are hurt terribly. The slope you mention is very steep – it is all too easy to move from “only use coercion as a last resort” to “beat a confession out of anyone who looks guilty”.
We’ve largely decided, within America, that the type of actions and conditions at the prisons in question are unacceptable. That the benefits _far_ outweigh the costs (both morally and practically).
We seem to have figured out how to get information out of all kinds of people without resorting to “water boarding” or creating conditions that make people tear out their hair and attempt to commit suicide.
I know I’m setting myself up for a hatchet here, but there should be a debate on the level of coercive interrogation necessary in clearly justifiable situations.
Sure, fine, let’s have a debate openly. I recognize that the asymetrical threat we’re facing may require new rules for capture, detainment and prosection.
Let’s just not pretend we’ve all decided it’s ok to classify everyone we capture as enemy combatants, detain them indefinitely (some off the books completely) and torture many of them because some of them are possibly terrorists with information.
Tim Z
Yes everyone, lets censure free speech on the floor of the Senate. I’m glad Durbin said what he did, unfortunately most have not taken the time to READ it. The torture at Gitmo was exported to Iraq and Abu-Ghraib. How many of you have been handcuffed to a rail and made to stand in that position until you pass out?The weight of your body is supported by cuffs on your wrists. Oh, its nothing, right.
Mike Jones
I’m confused. Perhaps someone could explain to me exaxtly how Durbin’s remarks “hurt the troops”, particularly since he was talking specifically about Gitmo and not at all about what’s going on in Iraq.
RW
1. Who’s rjwest? There’s no J in my name, at all. For someone who portends to know enough about me to smear my reputation one would think the basics should be paramount. My money’s on the “just went there & didn’t think he was lefty enough” angle, which is enough of a crime for some.
2. You had me at “rethuglican”.
brenda
“How much longer will the American public fall for this?”
The american people will continue to believe whatever they are told to believe. The Rupublicans will continue wining elections doing just what they have been, It’s worked for years now so why should they stop? The GOP strategy of distracting and shifting the argument onto the Dems hasn’t cost votes yet so I expect they’ll keep at it.
The Dems have yet to figure out how to respond to the GOP, doesn’t look like they will either. What they ought to do is to look deep and find some core values and beliefs that resonate with with all Dems and hopefully a majority of americans too. I think it can be done but can the current leaders do it? I’m not holding my breath.
Still, no one has lost votes underestimating the gullibility of the american voters. I don’t expect that to change either.
Sojourner
“A censure is warranted at the very least.”
How odd that there are screams over a statement by a Senator but total silence over a whopper of a lie by a president that caused more than 1700 deaths.
And you expect us to take seriously your claims of Support the Troops? With friends like that…
Geek, Esq.
Phoney outrage from the Rightwing Noise Machine (“RSM”)? And Glenn Reynolds, anti-free speech libertarian, is involved?
John, we libruls have been wise to the absurd hyperbole coming from Wingnuttia for a while. I mean, these are the people who claim that Ward Churchill is representative of folks on the left.
But, when they introduce a measure to censure Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay and the rest of Wingnut Central for their overheated remarks, they can go right ahead.
Oh yeah, I’ll also support Durbin’s censure when Bush resigns for daring insurgents to kill American troops in his typical coward-pretending-to-be-tough manner.
The Sanity Inspector
There is an alternative to censure. I don’t remember many details, but back in the Carter years, or early Reagan years, a Senator got in some kind of ethics trouble. There was some talk of censure, but instead the Senate passed a resolution to “denounce” him. There was no real penalty involved, and the only reason I remember it is because it was the subject of a Pat Oliphant political cartoon at the time.
John Cole
Then there is always this alternative from a more saner time- he takes his lumps, and people who are deeply offended by his remarks work to defeat him in the next election.
Geek, Esq.
John:
You’re suggesting that the exercise of free speech and democracy is the appropriate response!?!?! You really come up with some whacky ideas.
Randolph Fritz
This lot wants all effective dissent silenced. I–
Oh, hell, I’m sitting here with my hands spread–literally–in utter helpless exasperation. Guy, this lot impeached a president because he lied about an affair. What they’re doing to Durbin is small potatoes compared to that, barely a blip on the radar. Dear gods where have you been the past ten years? Why would they stop, when what they are doing works? They’ve got a television network and innumerable radio shows distributing their talking points, and the rest of the media too cowed to criticize them. They are doing this because it works and they’ll keep doing it until their propaganda network is dismantled and they are completely discredited. Let that day come soon.
ppgaz
You know, the “hurt the troops” meme is wearing pretty thin. It’s completely dishonest, and manipulative.
The way to support the troops, in this context, is to give them proper leadership and run a humane and dignified detention operation.
The way to support the troops is NOT to spin every legitimate criticism of the conduct of these operations into cotton candy.
Dysfunctional operations are symptomatic of leadership that doesn’t know, or hasn’t been given to know, what its mission is and what the standards are, and why.
Neither Durbin, nor Al Jazeera, would have anything to bitch about it these operations were being properly conducted. The civilian potatohead leadership in the Pentagon and White House chose the situation we have now. I can’t see any benefit to it whatever. Why these detainees cannot have representation, have charges specified against them, have independent review of their treatment and have at least the same treatment that we’d accord an accused murderer in the civilian system, is beyond me. I am not so afraid of terrorists that I have to lock them away and throw away the key in order to protect myself from them. I’ve shared the world with terrorists for half a century now, I do not quake in my shoes.
If the detainee situation is appropriate, then let the people who run these programs come forth and prove it with facts and with shining some daylight on these operations. Every time they hide behind somebody else’s uniform and cry “foul”, I am more convinced than ever that they are not being forthcoming. I think THEY are hurting not only the troops, but the country, by giving every appearance of running a corrupt program here and providing more ammunition to America-haters, while at the same time, openly mocking genuine concern and legitimate inquiry. These are not the actions of good people, these are the actions of incompetant people who want to beat down any exposure of what they are doing. If they are doing good things, then let’s see them. Let the whole world see them.
Darrell
JohnC is correct that Newt is taking it a bit far calling for congressional censure over’s Durbin’s idiotic remarks. But speaking of taking things too far, ppgaz has touched on a belief held by much/most of the left which I do not believe can be rationally defended:
Why these detainees cannot have representation, have charges specified against them, have independent review of their treatment and have at least the same treatment that we’d accord an accused murderer in the civilian system, is beyond me.
From what I’ve seen and read, this opinion, which I believe to be demonstrably whacked, is shared by a majority of the left. For the first time in the history of warfare, a country is being expected to provide civilian courtroom rights to POW’s. The left repeatedly demands it.. except these detainees are lower than POW’s, in that they were fighting in complete disregard to any rules of war. Fighting out of uniform, chopping the heads off prisoners and civilians, etc. The Geneva convention says they can be shot on site, but the left wants them to be given civilian courtroom protections and priveleges
The idea of bestowing civilian courtroom rights on the terrorists is ridiculous on many logical and intellectual levels, which is probably why it’s embraced by the emotionally driven idiotic left
In the heat of battle, there is no opportunity to engage in the evidence gathering process required in criminal courtroom cases without getting your head blown off. No army of detectives and crime labs descending on the scene afterwards…soldiers are too busy surviving to take notes on courtroom details needed to go into a trial. But somehow, the left cannot wrap their walnut-sized brains around these basic observations
In some cases a known (but unconvicted?) terrorist will have a list of cell leaders and head-choppers on his hard drive or notebook. Do we really want to alert his fellow terrorists that we have this in our possession, which would come out in an open trial situation? Do we want to exposes our military intelligence gathering methods and secrets in open court? Remember when it came out in some hearing that we were tracking Al Queda throught their satellite phones? Surprise! they stopped using their satellite phones after this info was released. No way of telling how many lives that leak caused. The left never considers the aftermath of such revelations. But according to ppgaz and other leftists, “what are we afraid of? bring in CNN.. give the terrorists full US citizen courtroom protections and rights”. This is seriously f*cked up. Where do you people come from?
I really hope that ppgaz and the rest of the leftist idiots make a huge push for courtroom rights to be bestowed on the terrorists. They want an OJ/Michael Jackson-like circus and if dangerous terrorists are released after trial, all the better.. another excuse to blame Bush and Rumsfeld. I want people to get a good up-close look at how the whacked out the priorities of the left truly are.
Kimmitt
I simply cannot comprehend the mindset of someone who inherits the freedom fought and died for by our forebears and decides to shit on their graves by tossing it out the window at the first sign of trouble.
Cyrus
For the first time in the history of warfare, a country is being expected to provide civilian courtroom rights to POW’s.
And that might be relevant or at least interesting, Darrell, if we were only talking about POWs here. But we’re not. We’re also talking about people who overstayed their visas and people with the same last names as suspected terrorists and family members of suspected terrorists and people who were picked up for assault and rape and theft. People have been imprisoned in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay for all these reasons and more like them. (By the way, sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities by bringing up Abu Ghraib, but it seems relevant here.)
I’d love to hear your legal rationale for denying a fair trial, due process and access to an lawyer to all those people. If only because I haven’t had a good laugh in days.
Darrell
Cyrus, I would love to see your “proof” that we have held for significant period of time with no option of trial, innocent people who merely overstayed their visa or who were accused of nonmilitary assault, as you claim. Please do provide credible evidence, because I know you lefties would never talk out of your ass or anything
I’ll wait.. If only because I haven’t had a good laugh in days.
Kimmitt, you seem sincere. What freedoms are we tossing out the window that has you so worked up?
Kimmitt
What freedoms are we tossing out the window that has you so worked up?
Right to a jury trial, right to due process, several aspects of the right to privacy, right to peaceably assemble . . . take your pick. If you’re white, you don’t feel it quite as much, but it’s like the statement goes, “first they came for the Jews, and then they stopped, because that’s how these things go.”
Darrell
Kimmitt, right to a jury trial, due process etc. has NEVER applied to POW’s, much less headchopping terrorists caught on the battlefield. I’m pretty sure you’re not stupid, so I assume then that your comparison of the lack of courtroom rights given to unlawful combatents/terrorrists/POW’s to the trashing of the “freedoms fought and died for by our forebears”.. unless I’ve missed something, your comment appears to be nothing but hyperbole, lacking logic and historical truth
Kimmitt
Kimmitt, right to a jury trial, due process etc. has NEVER applied to POW’s
Who said anything about POWs? Jose Padilla and Mike Hamdi were not POWs; Padilla in particular is a US citizen who was picked up in a US airport without committing any illegal act, and is still not charged with any crime. He has been detained for three years without charges, two of which were without access to counsel.
Darrell
thanks for the clarification. You are wrong, but not wildly unreasonable, regarding your point about Jose Padilla..
Let’s see, Padilla had moved to Egypt and received Al Queda training in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was a high level Al Queda operative (and multiple convicted felon here in the US) arrested and detained with a warrant from a judge when he arrived at the airport. It’s not at all unreasonable under those circumstances to declare Padilla an ‘enemy combatent’. We really are in a real live war with bullets and bombs you know.
This is all within well establised legal precedent. In WWII, Germans, along with a German American citizen, snuck into the US to, like Padilla, make terrorist attacks. These Germans, AND the American at that time, were all subject to a military tribunal, not a criminal court… a decision which was upheld by the Supreme court. After all the German American was fighting for the Nazis to kill Americans. hardly a civilian criminal act.
Given the history and circumstances, to single out Padilla’s case as an example of trashing our freedoms handed down to us from the founding fathers is an extreme position to hold.. but whatever. At least you’re not like the kooks demanding courtroom rights and trials for the Syrians, Pakis, and Saudis caught on the battlefield in Afhanistan and Iraq trying to kill our troops.
Kimmitt
Let’s see, Padilla had moved to Egypt and received Al Queda training in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So what you’re saying is that all the government has to do is CLAIM that you have received training from a terrorist organization, and you forfeit all rights. No opportunity to dispute the claim, no opportunity to inform the government that you have yet to actually do anything against the laws of the United States, nothing. And you aren’t terrified by this grant of absolute authority to the state over its citizens?
At least you’re not like the kooks demanding courtroom rights and trials for the Syrians, Pakis, and Saudis caught on the battlefield in Afhanistan and Iraq trying to kill our troops.
We are required by the Geneva Conventions to hold a military tribunal to determine their status as soon as is practicable. This is not just a human rights issue; it is common sense. This has not happened.
This is all of a piece; the conservative contempt for the rule of law, long dormant, has grown into full flower. It doesn’t matter if a person may belong to a category of people who piss you off. You still have to present at least a modicum of evidence that he or she is guilty of something, and you have to let that person question the evidence. This isn’t legal sophistry; it’s human decency.
Cyrus
As for people being arrested for crimes that had nothing to do with terrorism, read this. It’s a Newsweek story about some of the Abu Ghraib torture victims. Fun fact: you know the guy with the hood over his head and electrodes on his hands in the famous picture? He was a carjacker, according to the military’s case file on him. Not that you can trust those pinkos in the military.
As for people being held for a “significant period of time with no option of trial,” read this article. Specifically the third paragraph, where it says “Many of the detainees have been held for more than three years, and only four have been charged.” I’m a bit rusty on the legal lingo, but don’t you have to be charged before you can be tried? I’m sorry if three years isn’t long enough to constitute a long time for you, but don’t worry, I’m sure it will continue.
And as for people put in prison after 9/11 for long periods of time for overstaying their visa, read this. It’s about an Algerian man who spent 26 months in prison for overstaying his visa, beginning on September 11. Several months of that was in solitary confinement.
But oh, wait. I only found one example (in about half an hour searching for all these) of a guy imprisoned for overstaying his visa, and he wasn’t even in Guantanamo. And he was cleared of all terrorism charges, even though it took them five months to get around to telling him. And besides, these articles all come from the “MSM.” That must mean that I’m a hysterical, deceitful Communist. Whoops.
Peter Bernard
There is no such thing as someone “lower than a POW.” Our own conservatively-slanted U.S. Supreme Court even sides with this opinion. All human beings have a right to a fair trial in America, and these men, women and children have never even been TOLD WHAT THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR. That is literally Kafkaesque. If they were POWs they deserve a military trial, and if they are not, they deserve a civil trial. Bush says they are not POWs, right?
Peter Bernard
There is no such thing as someone “lower than a POW.” Our own conservatively-slanted U.S. Supreme Court even sides with this opinion. All human beings have a right to a fair trial in America, and these men, women and children have never even been TOLD WHAT THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR. That is literally Kafkaesque. If they were POWs they deserve a military trial, and if they are not, they deserve a civil trial. Bush says they are not POWs, right?
100 black
Where can I follow up for more information