In early 2004, when the first revelations about prisoners being tortured by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq appeared, the media covered the story on almost a daily basis for months.
With that as a pretext, the website The Smoking Gun has obtained graphic sketches of various torture techniques being employed by al Qaeda, as well as pictures of victims that have undergone such treatment.
As reported by TSG (link to article comes after the break due to graphic nature of the content):
In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal."
The article gruesomely continued (reader is warned to proceed with caution):
Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors.
With this in mind, given the media’s fascination with what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib, is it safe to assume that the same level of attention will be given to what our enemy is doing?
Or, would that be too much like journalism?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not only was a boy recently
May 24, 2007 - 16:41 ET by JDWNot only was a boy recently tortured in Iraq but so was one of those three soldiers, before they killed him.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
My deep felt sorrow goes out
May 24, 2007 - 16:50 ET by bigtimerMy deep felt sorrow goes out to those families of those three soldiers...and prayers.
I have been sick about this...with worry about what they must be going through, the soldiers before they died and the families.
My gratitude is deep to all who serve...now and in the past.
The media fascination over
May 24, 2007 - 16:44 ET by daenku32The media fascination over Abu Ghraib was because the torture there needed to be resolved, and that resolution could be done easily by pressuring the executive branch to clean up its act. And if you noticed, it worked (at least to the extent that Bush admin no longer officially allows tortue, as it did before).
As to Al-Qaeda, they are already on our the list as ruthless enemies. Exactly what here is news? You yourself warned that the images and descriptions are gruesome. Do you think the media should plaster the gruesome images just for the shock value?
Daenku
May 24, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Noel SheppardD,
Yes. I do. Especially given Edwards' recent remarks.
The media want everybody in America to believe that there is no war on terror, and that al Qaeda are not that big of a problem. I disagree.
As such, I'd like Americans to better understand who our enemy is, and what they are doing in Iraq.
After all, if what we're doing in Iraq is newsworthy, shouldn't what our enemy is doing be? ns
So you want the people to t
May 24, 2007 - 16:58 ET by daenku32So you want the people to think that every one of our enemies is part of Al-Qaeda? That would be pure distortion. Most of the people we fight in Iraq have no connection to Al-Qaeda. All I can recommend to you is to read the part of the Iraq Study Group that descripes all the different factions that oppose our presence there. Most of them are nationalist groups that only want political autocracy.
Daenku
May 24, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Noel SheppardD,
I didn't say that. This article is about al Qaeda. Have you missed that? And, they are indeed our enemy in the war on terror and in Iraq.
Do we have other enemies there? Sure. And, if we find torture manuals created by them, we should report those just as vociferously as we did the activities at Abu Ghraib as well. ns
Uh, do you have and credible
May 24, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Del DolemonteUh, do you have and credible evidence, other than quoting the "Iraq Surrender Group", that reliably confirms your assertion that "most of the people we fight in Iraq have no connection to al Qaeda"?
On the Israel Surrender Group
May 24, 2007 - 23:25 ET by UnsaneAh, the Israel Surrender Group...this is the same document that suggests all of Iraq will be a beautiful rose garden if only Israel coughs up the Golan Heights. (How that relates to what is going on in Iraq is beyond me...)
With contortions such as those, why should anything else in that document be believed?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
And, why not plaster them?
May 24, 2007 - 16:52 ET by DingbatAnd, why not plaster them? They (the media) had no reservations about "plastering" our errors. But to expose the barbaric nature of our enemy does not fit the media template that we are bad guys. But, if the media did show these, the by-line would be that the drawings were made by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
dae...In answer to your quest
May 24, 2007 - 16:58 ET by bigtimerdae...
In answer to your question...
YES!
That has been some of the problem..the media deciding for us what we can see or not see as adults... I am sick and tired of it...yes this should be exposed for all to see, people need to wake up and see who are enemy is and what they are capable of ...have done in the past and will continue to do.
We are grown adults, if we do not want to watch, we can turn the channel. the absolute silence on a lot of things since 9/11 has been outrageous as far as I am concerned, but we can get daily blathering dribble about how bad we are...along with the leftist politicians and some RINO's.
This will end up being at our own detriment as far as I am concerned.
Of course the leftists in the media have an agenda to make sure we do look bad, along with every thing else they have intentionally done to attempt and ensure defeat for us instead of victory.
Another lib with a goofy name
May 24, 2007 - 17:02 ET by SportPoliticsAnother lib with a goofy name.
Ok, first of all, being the left wing moron that I already know you are, how is it that you assume the Bush administration isn't torturing anymore ? Is there some kind of secret candid camera you have going ?
Secondly, was - and has become more apparent, or at least should have become absolutely apparent to your types when Tenet appeared a week or so ago on 60 minutes, that the torturing you crybaby morons fools refer to, that I call INGENIOUS, has been the most effective means of stopping terrorism - far above and beyond ANY OTHER ACTIONS.
Now, you idiot demolib jackasses have apparently successfully gotten waterboarding ( something you morons call torture) outlawed, and the devil knows what else, since it never was clear to me beyond that, except you tools of idiocy somehow feel you asserted your idiotic moron power. Wether loud music and hot and cold and standing or stange positions are used anymore I don't know.
I know this much though, I sure as hell hope that THEY ARE STILL DOING IT AND JUST NOT TELLING YOU JACKASSED FOOLS.
Try to understand that. ALL REPORTS have declared that what you morons call TORTURE has yielded the HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INTEL we have gained, that HAS IN FACT STOPPED MANY PLOTS ON USA SOIL POST 911.
Now, I know you cannot fathom torture working, because some other moronic fool lied to you and your 3rd grade mind burbled with idiocy and thought, "duhh, dats rite boss, i always tet you whatever you want to hear... why didn't dey if it gots hurtins so bwad ?"
Yes, that's the size of it, a ****'in pea is too big for your cranium, but noone, including a terrorist knows something that you nor anyone else like you doesn't.
You know what you want to hear, that's why you interrogate, right, you freaking retard?LOL ( Yes, the libs and their retarded traitors wanted to stop the "forced confessions" by the frame up bush soldiers - we know your agendas you pieces of CRAP )
You people are IMMENSELY STUPID.
I think the reason you idiots hate the cia is because you are fully aware that stupidity precludes you from ever gaining employment there. You must feel "discriminated against". ( well, not perfectly or always, but what the heck)
dae, what went on at Abu Ghra
May 24, 2007 - 17:18 ET by bassndudedae, what went on at Abu Ghraib was not torture. Its and insult to every intelligent human on earth to call hoods, tied hands, cold rooms and a dog leash torture. Belitteling, perhaps but not torture by a long shot. Look at this hand book here. Thats torture.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
newbie liberal lies (sigh)
May 24, 2007 - 17:25 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls(at least to the extent that Bush admin no longer officially allows tortue, as it did before).
Flat out lie from a newbie here.
Typical.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
"The media fascination
May 24, 2007 - 19:07 ET by ckc1227"The media fascination over Abu Ghraib was because the torture there
needed to be resolved, and that resolution could be done easily by
pressuring the executive branch to clean up its act."
The media fascination over Abu Ghraib happened because it offered an excellent opportunity to slam the administration(again) over the actions of a few. The individuals who chose to engage in inappropriate behavior did so of their own choosing, not because of any policy put forth by the administration.
I also remember during that t
May 24, 2007 - 19:55 ET by well99I also remember during that time period 2 vans full of school kids were blown up in Basra(SP).Also a Israel woman who was pregnant with her 4 girls were slain by some terrorist.At close range.Did the media spend months hammering on the terrorist over that?Did these "Humans Rights" groups raise hell about that?Were celebs protesting that?Were liberal pundits bringing that up for months?The only thing the msm cares about is there agenda.
If they were dying of thirst I wouldnt urinate in their mouths.If Democrat had been in during Abu Ghraib it would of been a news item for a couple days at most.
Torture was living under the
May 24, 2007 - 23:26 ET by UnsaneTorture was living under the Saddam Hussein regime from 1979-2003.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Re: With this in mind, give
May 24, 2007 - 16:47 ET by DingbatRe: With this in mind, given the media’s fascination with what American
soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib, is it safe to assume that the same
level of attention will be given to what our enemy is doing?
I assume that this is a rehtorical question???? :-)
Well, nooooo...duh...Save a S
May 24, 2007 - 16:58 ET by bassndudeWell, nooooo...duh...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
No way, the media? Come on
May 24, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Richard RomanoNo way, the media? Come on, we expect them to be honest and balanced?
If we do not understand the nature of this enemey, we are doomed.
Richard Romano
May 24, 2007 - 17:23 ET by SportPoliticsRichard Romano, they all understand, even the lying liberal bleating sheeple crybaby liars. They just want to pretend for as long as possible. It goes along with their beliefs in "being creative" and "having imagination" and "opening up one's mind".
As soon as they are utterly reconvinced ( or convinced for the first time if they are a conspiracy loon - a lot of them are) that we are not invulnerable, they will have to plod that awful road back to reality. Wait till you hear them screaming for protection and vengeance. It's almost as irritating.
Well, let's hope they never have to plod that road.
real torture techniques
May 24, 2007 - 17:23 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsNotice that the al-Qaeda 'handbook' has real torture techniques, not the frat boy hi-jinks techniques (underwear on your head) that the idiots at Abu Ghraib used (on their own).
The MSM missed that.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Underware on the head? Male o
May 24, 2007 - 17:25 ET by bassndudeUnderware on the head? Male of female? If female, and she is cute, torture me!! Please!!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
real torture
May 24, 2007 - 17:30 ET by LionKingReal torture...entering into a debate with tumbler.
Worst part, it is self-inflicted...what's with that?
Thats called a masochism I th
May 24, 2007 - 17:34 ET by bassndudeThats called a masochism I think. Panties on the head count? And I hate lamp shades. Never can find one that fits....:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I give the illustrations a B+
May 24, 2007 - 17:43 ET by drillanwrI give the illustrations a B+ ...
They could have pulled an A+ from me if the artist had used Rosie as the "victim" in the pictures ...
Oooops! Did I say that??!!?
Listen, this is yet another one of those things that should be used on the Abu Grabbu screamers ... Right upside their block heads. The next time Kennedy is grilling someone about our people torturing them will the witness being raked over the coals PLEASE throw a hard copy of this in his fat face??!!? (Resulting in a paper cut or two ... at the very least!)
The first several drawings lo
May 24, 2007 - 17:49 ET by j. frank wilsonThe first several drawings look very similar to the torture handbook prepared by Saddam Insane's people.
Well, considering that Clinto
May 24, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Del DolemonteWell, considering that Clinton's own people stated as fact that al Qaeda and Iraq had a working relationship in 1998, that's not surprising.
And don't forget, all of the previous al Qaeda training manuals we've managed to capture all have one common point: if captured, the al Qaeda member is to whenever possible claim they were tortured, in order to gain sympathetic coverage from the "objective" media-you know, the same people like CNN, who covered up Saddam's atrocities against his own people for a decade, just so they could keep their Baghdad office open.
Wait! I thought some of tho
May 24, 2007 - 18:29 ET by drillanwrWait! I thought some of those illustrations looked familiar. The terrorists in this season's "24" used a few of them.
I've been to CNN.com MSNBC.co
May 24, 2007 - 18:29 ET by CaringwhiteguyI've been to CNN.com MSNBC.com and Foxnews.com and was only able to find one reference to the torture manual. Should I check the New York Times or LA Times?
This is all a fraud because S
May 24, 2007 - 18:31 ET by Sonny LykosThis is all a fraud because Senator McCain said it might happen IF we toture others. So currently it's not happening.
What was the last conflict wh
May 24, 2007 - 19:36 ET by well99What was the last conflict where American troops captured were not tortured and not denied Geneva Convention rights.
WW1 maybe?
sorry i think WW1 preceded th
May 24, 2007 - 19:41 ET bysorry i think WW1 preceded the Geneva Convention
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Well... no actually
May 24, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Mr. BishopThe First Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, updated last in 1949.
The Second Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949, which actually was the successor to the 1907 Hague Convention IV.
The Third Geneva Convention was adopted in 1929, updated last in 1949.
The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949, based upon parts of the Hague Convention IV as well.
Subsequent protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which the US does not subscribe to all of them, are I (1977), II (1977) and III (2005). Protocol II the US has never ratified, so it is not recognized as having any authority over the actions of the US, as is the same with Protocol I.
So... as a whole, the Geneva Conventions did have parts in place prior to World War I, with the Hague Conventions taking authority in some areas, prior to the 1949 passings.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Thank-you Mr Bishop I was wr
May 24, 2007 - 19:58 ET byThank-you Mr Bishop I was wrong in thinking the post WW2 one was the only one.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Not at all
May 24, 2007 - 20:00 ET by Mr. BishopDon't worry at all... the only reason why any of it sticks in my head... was I was actually watching Stalag 17 the other day, and the Geneva Conventions was mentioned. I knew that most were passed and adopted post WWII, but was not sure about prior. I thought some were, and knew some had to be. However, I was not sure about any being pre-WWI.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
I find the history of the Jap
May 24, 2007 - 20:12 ET by danboI find the history of the Japanese army extremely interesting. How a people so nice could commit some of the worse war crimes. Though Japan did not sign the Geneva Convention, and it was usually ignored. There is evidence that the emperor instructed the army to follow the Geneva Convention guidelines. And I believe also during the Russo/Japanese war..
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
True, but
May 24, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Mr. BishopYou have to remember, that even within the initial belief of all things being decent -- mankind is still -- mankind. Mankind will have those that are extremely violent, as well as those that are ridiculously sadistic. Take for instance some things that may have happened in Abu Ghraib -- I do not think it was as bad as the media and the Democrats have made it out to be. I am sure there were some bad eggs there, that took matters into their own hands, as well as were acting extremely juvenile. However, I don't believe it was anything more then that.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
I agree. Problems at Abu Grai
May 24, 2007 - 20:48 ET by danboI agree. Problems at Abu Graib were blown out of proportion. Especially when you compare it to things as Sandakan or Nanking.
Even if the worse case is true, compared to that of slitting peoples throat with a dull knife, Or Sandakan or Nanking; Abu Graib is only a war crime to idiots. or people with no understanding of true war crimes. Or an axe to grind.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
The Japanese excesses were, I
May 30, 2007 - 20:58 ET by NL207The Japanese excesses were, I believe, a product of the application of Bushido to foreigners and a belief in the inate superiority of Japan and Japanese culture to all other Asian culture. In fact, the Japanese of 1939 considered themselves superior to all other cultures in the world excepting two: Britain, and to some extent, the United States.
PM if you want to chat more about this.
The media doesn't care abou
May 24, 2007 - 18:47 ET by GregEThe media doesn't care about that stuff. Nothing in there does any good to promote an anti-Bush agend or undermine America's war against radical Islam and all who support it.
Nah, panties on head and making someone stand naked is much more gruesome to the media. Oh, the horror of it!
Sorry. The media hasn't a clu
May 24, 2007 - 19:53 ET by danboSorry. The media hasn't a clue. Many of them don't deserve to be called journalist. They 'll only claim America is the big bad satan. And don't realize there are people trying to kill them.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Speaking of killing the enemy
May 24, 2007 - 21:13 ET by bigtimerSpeaking of killing the enemy Al Qaeda that is exactly what the Lebanese Army is trying to do at this very moment in Tripoli ...I pray they are successful....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275152,00.html
And of course Lebanon will be
May 24, 2007 - 21:25 ET byAnd of course Lebanon will be responsible for any civilian deaths and not the terrorists who use civilians for shields
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The double-standard clearly d
May 25, 2007 - 06:48 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe double-standard clearly demonstrates whose side the MSM is on - either knowingly or unknowingly.
New torture technique: lock
May 26, 2007 - 03:30 ET by thefightinggopNew torture technique: lock them in a room and force them to watch Rosie non-stop for 24 hours.
thefightinggop.org
That should start War Crimes
May 26, 2007 - 07:27 ET by danboThat should start War Crimes trials. That is torture.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Coverage
May 27, 2007 - 17:58 ET by belagHere's my view: Why we should concentrate on our own atrocities rather than others?
a) The US is a democratic society. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. They should each be judged by what standards they claim.
b) We can conceivable change our behaviour. We have much less influence over what Al-Qaeda does.
Therefore, in my view, people who criticize Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are engaging in patriotic dissent. You may disagree with them, to be sure.
So belag,You equate a leash a
May 27, 2007 - 18:14 ET by BlondeSo belag,
You equate a leash around the neck, led by a female, to broken bones, electrodes on the genitals, and the lopping of heads?
Grow up, grow a spine, I don't really care....go away.
Get real.
Or why don't you go join the jihadis? They'll certainly laugh at you before they chop your silly head off.
Appeasement didn't work prior to WWII, and it won't work now. If you care to try out your thesis, however, be my guest. Just leave me, and the rest of us, out of your little experiment.
There was one crime at Abu Ghraib
May 27, 2007 - 18:17 ET by Free StinkerThere was one crime at Abu Ghraib. Remember the picture of that German Shepherd dog barking at the terrorist?
It's criminal to expose a dog to that terrrorist scum! ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Comprehension
May 27, 2007 - 19:18 ET by belagHere's a simple request. Read what I say. Don't lump me with someone else you disagree with.
Criticizing Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib is appeasing the terrorists? What kind of logic is that?
You're pathetic, belag
May 27, 2007 - 20:20 ET by RJThe original question was will the media report the torture methods of the terrorists with the same negative zeal as they reported abu ghraib...
Obviously, the answer is no. The reason for that is that the media and the left is enthusiastic about reporting things negative to our military (but never say they don't support them). It's the constant criticism of our military, right from the beginning that is pertinent. That's what appeases and encourages the terrorists. That you claim to not understand that reveals everything about you.
When the events at abu ghraib were revealed, our military changed. Does anyone suppose the terrorists will change now that their far more brutal methods have been revealed? Of course not. Yet, you give them a pass simply because they're terrorists. Standards are only for the U.S. Only the U.S. is condemned. You're pathetic, belag.
Criticism, dissent and appeasement
May 28, 2007 - 03:31 ET by belagWell, I have a very different view of criticism. As I mentioned, it's elementary morality to pay attention to our own crimes, because we can stop committing them.
This has nothing to do with supporting the troops. Being against war means undermining the troops? I totally disagree.
Dissent is what makes democracy work. You should support what you think is right but oppose what you think is wrong.
At least you don't deny your hypocricy, belag
May 28, 2007 - 10:25 ET by RJWell, at least you don't deny your hypocricy.
"it's elementary morality to pay attention to our own crimes." Perhaps for a moral relativist who can only condemn his own country for "crimes", while giving a pass to terrorists. The more you try to deny and defend your undermining of the troops, the more you reveal your true anti-American beliefs.
I repeat, we changed abu-ghraib tactics (and prosecuted the offenders.) Why do you keep harping on the subject, except to undermine the military and your country, while encouraging the terrorists?
I can answer that one about belag
May 28, 2007 - 10:55 ET by SportPoliticsI can answer that one about belag.
The reasons are:
belag can hate GWB and blame him for everything in Abu Ghraib, and try to get the war stopped over it, try to get Bush impeached or brought up on international war crimes charges, and foment the enemies hatred by exagerrating AbuGhraib to a hideous and monstrous level with the likes of Illinois Sen, Dick Durtbin, promote the democratic party who cannot be blamed for it, spread the hatred of the US forces as all tortures and murderers and sick sadomasochists worse than Saddam and his sons, and crying and whining about the USA is a thousand times safer for belag and those like him since they figure the terorists will see they know their complaints and will spare then if it ever comes down to it - even on the streets of the USA. They must practice their beliefs for the day they might need to "share them" with the enemy that may abuct them here.
That's a rough outline of some of the major reasons. The UN taking over the USA policy is another, there are many more....hatred of USA Imperialism... etc..
Yep, that's really why. Oh it's alot of fun for them, too, since they hate republicans and the republican massive majority soldiers - so they see themselves as peacenick new wave progressive pacifist women in touch with their inner female and the way to worldwide kumbaya. If Osama heard what lovey dovey tree huggers they are, he would put away his jihad and jagged knife for sawing off heads and sit and sup with them. Yea, they are here to save the world.
Reading what I say
May 28, 2007 - 18:39 ET by belagAgain, a simple request: Read what I say. Don't lump me with whoever you disagree with.
Criticizing Abu Ghraib means giving a pass to the terrorists? What kind of logic is that? Can't we condemn both? Do I say Al Qaeda has a right to do whatever they want?
If we are serious about morality, we apply the same standards to ourselves as we apply to others, if not stricter ones.
By the way, have we really stopped Abu Ghraib tactics? I totally disagree. What about Guantanamo?
What about Guantanamo?What ab
May 28, 2007 - 18:44 ET by bigtimerWhat about Guantanamo?
What about it belag?
HUH?
They are treated better there than the majority of prisoners here in the US.
I am still waiting belag....Y
May 28, 2007 - 19:51 ET by bigtimerI am still waiting belag....
You must be a typical leftist trollster, post and run, answer hours and hours later when nobody that asked will notice.
I'm glad I'm not the only who
May 28, 2007 - 20:12 ET by zfI'm glad I'm not the only who's noticed that.
Guantanamo
May 28, 2007 - 22:03 ET by belagI don't know what frequency you expect me to answer with bigtimer. I'm sorry if you had to wait.
About Guantanamo: well, the overwhelming majority of them have simply not being brought under trial, nor are they expected to.
See, about the people there: how do you know that they're guilty? Because the government said so?
A basic right for any prisoner is to at least know why's he being held. That's not granted. There are hundreds who have been held indefinitely without any charge whatsoever.
<edit> As to torture, there's plenty of evidence of torture going on there and in general the 'extraordinary rendition' program.
Oh please....Prove your lies
May 28, 2007 - 22:16 ET by bigtimerOh please....
Prove your lies with there is plenty evidence of torture....
If they are tortured I bet there are millions that are incarcerated here that would love to trade places with them.
Second..they are POW...they have no constitutional rights here under our system of Justice...they are not US citizens.
I am quite sure others will put it much more succinctly than I have.
Rights and torture
May 28, 2007 - 22:37 ET by belagLet's first address the issue of rights. You're saying that the govt. has the right to call anyone a terrorist without having any evidence whatsoever?
Also, prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Conventions. The US govt. declared them (until around a year ago) as 'enemy combatants' to specifically avoid the Geneva Conventions. That was rescinded by the Supreme Court, but their rights are still not respected.
About torture: there's tons of evidence both in Guantanamo and in general the extraordinary rendition program. Amnesty International just came out with a report about the state of human rights worldwide. That just gives a summary. You can look at specific documents on their site and at many other organizations.
Fair Enough belag
May 28, 2007 - 22:27 ET by acumenFair enough -
well, the overwhelming majority of them have simply not being brought under trial, nor are they expected to.
And what crime does that fall under? Keep in mind, as non-subscribers to the Geneva Convention, I will not consider the Geneva Convention applicable to the circumstance of the prisoners at Gitmo.
See, about the people there: how do you know that they're guilty? Because the government said so?
I don't know that they are guilty. What I do know is that these folks were captured in the process of trying to harm Coalition Forces. That seems serious enough to warrant holding them/preventing them from further acts of violence against Coalition Forces.
A basic right for any prisoner is to at least know why's he being held.
If I know that the prisoners being held there are "enemy combatants" why do you suppose the prisoners at Gitmo don't know that? Feel free to substitute prisoner of war if you prefer.
As to torture, there's plenty of evidence of torture going on there and in general the 'extraordinary rendition' program.
Not to my satisfaction. If you want to engage in he said, he said - My independent, unbiased sources, one who has made two trips there to investigate such claims, state emphatically they have seen nothing to indicate any of the enemy combatants have encountered anything remotely resembling torture. Quite the contrary, my sources reported they are actually housed and fed better than US troops stationed there. Of course if you would care to offer unbiased sources to support your torture claims I would take the time to review such claims. But please don't waste my time with claims by those released from Gitmo (I have yet to hear one prisoner throughout history claim they were adequately housed) or as stated previously, biased sources (false Koran flushing - which to my mind did not constitute torture to begin with).
The Geneva convention and other things
May 28, 2007 - 22:47 ET by belagLet's first address the Geneva Conventions issue. The Supreme Court ruled that the the Geneva Conventions will apply to the Guantanamo prisoners. To my mind, that's not an issue. If you want to elaborate on why they shouldn't apply, feel free to elaborate.
About being guilty or not. How do you know that the people held there were trying to harm the Coalition troops? Some of them undoubtedly are, but the vast majority have been held for unspecified crimes and don't even have the right to be heard by a tribunal.
Being an 'enemy combatant' is not a charge. A charge is a specific crime which the person is alleged to have committed.
About torture: what would you consider an unbiased report? Would Amnesty International suffice? Or Human Rights Watch? If you can elaborate, I'll give you links. And, no, I don't mean flushing the Koran down the toilet either.
Let me help you here, Belag.(
May 28, 2007 - 23:09 ET by NL207Let me help you here, Belag.
(1) The only Geneva Conventions that are binding on the US are ones that have been Ratified by the US Senate, as per SCOTUS.
(2) The act of engaging in combat while out of the uniform of any of the warring factions is considered a crime by the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing the conduct of war. This is precisely what those "detainees" in Gitmo did. Look carefully at Article 4 section 2. This defines who legal combatants are and who is considered to be a prisoner of war. Al Qaeda thugs hiding their weapons in their pants and dressed as civilians don't get the royal treatment.
Under the commonly accepted rules of war, such persons as those classified above, that is illegal combatants, have been historically put to death by the conventional execution method of the captor. Nathan Hale was one such instance, hanged by the British as a Colonial spy.
You can elaborate all you want. Case closed. You lose.
Image and reality
May 29, 2007 - 00:26 ET by belagSince it's useless to argue with someone who'll not listen and has already decided I'm wrong, I won't do so.
I think the point was, the Gi
May 29, 2007 - 22:42 ET by NL207I think the point was, the Gitmo detainees are not political prisoners nor are the prisoners of war. They are illegal combatants according to the Geneva accords and therefore CAPITAL CRIMINAL OFFENDERS. The only thing we can't do with them is physically torture them, since our Senate saw fit to belatedly ratify the Geneva Convention barring torture in its last Democratic session back in 1994, some 16 years after the treay was originaly negotiated by that numbskull Jimmy Carter.
Obviously, your case has no merit. Therefore you do not argue it.
Not listening
May 29, 2007 - 23:26 ET by belagYou said case closed, I lose, you won't hear me. Fine.
belag--I submit---
May 28, 2007 - 18:53 ET by misterbillbelag--I submit---you don't know squat about Gitmo. Unfortunately, I do not trust the Fourth Estate to tell me the truth about anything anymore. Hey, what about the young couple in Knoxville? Truth in reporting is a relic of the past. Furthermore, you should care what Americans think about the different situations. If you think airing our laundry out in front of the world is agood thing, I think you leaving us is a better thing. In certain parts of the mideast, your tongue would have been ripped out by now.
belag is a phony "moralist"
May 28, 2007 - 19:57 ET by RJI specifically answered what YOU said, belag, not others. And I specifically pointed out that you condemn the U.S., while you have yet to to condemn the terrorists for far worse behavior.
"Serious about morality?" Your "morality" is subjective and you are a phony moral relavitist, belag.
But you see, he can't condemn
May 28, 2007 - 20:10 ET by zfBut you see, he can't condemn them, because they're terrorists and therefore their behavior is to expected.
Makes no sense, but that's basically what he said earlier.
That's EXACTLY what he said
May 28, 2007 - 20:19 ET by RJThat's EXACTLY what he said, but he'll deny it because he is incapable of accepting responsibility for his words. Like all elitite, moral relativists, he really believes that others can't see him for what he is.
Slogans and name-calling
May 28, 2007 - 21:10 ET by belagAgain, I disagree that that was what I said. Of course, you're quite within your rights to interpret yourself what I said.
I'll rephrase again my point. We should concentrate on our own crimes and stop committing them. If there are more evil people elsewhere in the world that doesn't mean we should ignore our crimes.
Nobody's apologizing for Al-Qaeda. We can condemn both crimes, but we can directly influence what's happenning in Guantanamo while we have less influence over what Al-Qaeda does.
Seems the problem is you who
May 28, 2007 - 21:17 ET bySeems the problem is you who have us spend so much time dealing with the gnats that there would be no time left to deal with Al-Queda. That's the results of your stance and 'intentions' really don't mean as much to me when you hide behind 'intentions' KNOWING the result will be the opposite. It's called hypocrite.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Gnats and mosquitoes
May 30, 2007 - 20:41 ET by belagIt's very interesting I make the point about acknowledging our own crimes. It's very easy to trivialise our own crimes and denounce others. You know, what's called hypocrisy.
Let me point out a case, far from being the only one. Ever heard of a country called East Timor? Know what happenned there? 200,000 people died or were murdered. A third of the population. You know, genocide.
90% of the arms supplies to Indonesia were from Britain and US. Ford was there just one day before the invasion. Kissinger personally gave the green light. Clinton stepped up arms supplies when he was president. Carter did the same. So did Reagan. The "MSM" refused to publish it. Six Australian journalists were killed prior to the invasion.
And how did the slaughter end? US just had to say to Indonesia, the game is over. No diplomatic support. No arms support. You don't have to send a couple thousand troops there.
There's plenty of evil in the world. Unless you start with yourself, you won't get anywhere, especially when our own record is far from insignificant.
This has nothing to do with left, right, liberal or conservative.
Maybe you didn't notice this,
May 30, 2007 - 20:50 ET by NL207Maybe you didn't notice this, but the people in East Timor who were nurdered were Christians, Roman Catholics. The people who killed them were Muslims. The motive for their slaughter was religion. Does this theme sound familiar?
The means were the weapons the killers had at hand. Where they obytained them or under what conditoins is irrelevant. The killers, by acting with intent and under their own volition own 100% of the reponsibility for this mass murder. Moral relativists like you seek to blame inanimate objects supplied by foreigners and the foreigners themselves for these murders. The partcular weapons have nothiong to do with culpability. As the Hutus have amply demostrated in Rwanda, guns are not even necessary. Machetes will work just fine for this purpose.
Take your guilt trip and pedal it somewhere else. The owners of this sin are its perpetrators and no one else.
Muslims and Catholics
May 30, 2007 - 23:14 ET by belagI can tell that you didn't read anything related to Timor. The massacre had nothing to do with religion. Indonesia was a "secular" state then (they were backed fully by the Western world). They wouldn't have cared if the Timorese were Martians.
The Western world holds direct responsibility for Timor because without their approval (explicit approval) and huge increase in arms after the invasion, Indonesia wouldn't have invaded at all.
<edit>In addition, how did the perpetrators in Indonesia get there? Well, in addition to tons of other crimes, the CIA gave lists of "dissidents" in Indonesia (where around a million people were killed) to the government so that they could "dispose" of them. It's not a matter of some small negligence somewhere. It was active, knowing support</edit>
You want to see the vicious war waged against the Catholic Church? Try reading about Oscar Romero, Archbishop of El Salvador. No Muslims murdering Christians there. His crime? Speaking against the military dictatorship supported by the Carter administration. Tons of arms, diplomatic support, financial support, press censorship there.
Or want to take the case of Nicaragua? The case where the world court condemned the US for international terrorism, the only country so condemned in the world? No mullahs there trying to murder everyone.
If you want to see things, you'll see them. Islam is a convenient punching bag, no more. Unless we correct our own crimes, it's impossible for the situation to improve.
Your moral relativity screams from every post, belag
May 28, 2007 - 21:28 ET by RJYour moral relativitism screams from every post, belag. You claim to take an objective, high moral road, but you subjectively refuse to admit the difference in the behavior of the U.S. and the terrorists. As such, your position is a lie.
belag...I see you are back an
May 28, 2007 - 21:43 ET by bigtimerbelag...
I see you are back and I would appreciate a direct answer to the direct question I asked you posted above.
Dittos BT
May 28, 2007 - 21:51 ET by acumenI would be interested in that response myself BT. What exactly is the "crime" at Gitmo? Was the Coriander Chicken with Mango Salsa overdone?
We cannot stop committing our
May 28, 2007 - 11:28 ET by NL207We cannot stop committing our own crimes. Why? Because the only offenses that our leadership believes are crimes are commiitted by individuals acting outside the authority of the chain of command. Unsurprisingly, these persons are what are traditionally called "criminals". The best we can do with them is to try and punish them after the fact.
There have been and will no doubt continue to be actions by US forces and agencies taken that some minority in this country will define as "crimes", actions, which in legal opinion are perfectly within the law, and therefore, NOT crimes, regardless of what non-authoritative sources say they are.
While it is true that opposing criminal activity within the ranks of the armed forces has nothing to do with supporting the troops, being against the war and actively opposing the mission the troops are on is another matter altogether. Some would construe anti-war activity as a form of treason. I will argue that those disseminating enemy propaganda behind the lines, read that the MSM, are serving the Islamofascist cause. Any action taken by you or any other "dissenter" that is reported to the enemy and causes that enemy to conclude he should continue to perservere in his struggle against our troops is literally KILLING MORE of our troops. If that is not 'undermining' the troops, I don't know what is.
Dissent has nothing to do with Democracy. Democracy has been shown by history to NEVER work. It fails in the long term wherever it is tried. What does work are republican forms of government, especially those where the power of the state is curbed. The United States is a Representative Republic, not a democracy. Until the corrution introduced by Franklin Roosevelt, it was a Limited Republic. The authority of the national government was curbed by law [the Constitution]. Carte Blanche dissent is not sanctioned by the Constitution. It is specifically limited. to. wit. Article I, section 9.: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." and again in Article III, section 3. Any "dissent" which actively aids those levying war against he United States can rightly be viewed as treason. Lincoln used executive authority during the Civil War to arrest and imprison various Copperheads.
Beware what it's "not about'
May 28, 2007 - 04:23 ET by Cool ArrowHe who says "It's not about supporting our troops" is really saying "It's about not supporting our troops"
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
belag - Perhaps you can answe
May 28, 2007 - 19:46 ET by thefightinggopbelag - Perhaps you can answer this for me. There are those who say, "I support the troops, but not the war." What does that mean exactly? How do you support the troops, but not what they're doing? I guess what I'm asking is:
"What is it about the troops that you do support?"
thefightinggop.org
Troop support
May 28, 2007 - 22:22 ET by belagWell, it's very simple. The troops shouldn't be led off to war unless an overwhelming burden of proof is met. There are many issues:
a) Are the crimes serious enough to go to war?
b) Are there any other diplomatic, legal and political solutions?
c) What're the logical consequences of going to war?
and many others
Failing that, they should be withdrawn. That's support.
As to what should be done now:
There are regular US and British polls in Iraq. An overwhelming majority of the Iraqis (along with around 70% Americans who oppose the war) feel the US troops are a magnet for violence and they should be withdrawn in 6-12 months.
That poll ws taken in Sept. 0
May 28, 2007 - 22:31 ET by bigtimerThat poll ws taken in Sept. 06....by Brookings Institute no less.
Btw...I could care less about polls.
Victory is the only solution.
Il-informed belag
May 28, 2007 - 22:45 ET by acumenIt's obvious you are ill-informed of the typical Iraqi sentiment towards the US presence in Iraq belag. I suggest you go here to get up to speed. If that is not satisfactory there are many links at the site to give you a broader view of Iraqi opinion of the US presence. You would serve our soldiers and the Iraqi people better by listening to those in Iraq and not a biased US media whose only interest is a self-serving agenda. If you take the time to read some of the posts at the link I provided, you will shortly observe that the Iraqis want us to stay in areas where we have run al qaeda out of. At least until the Iraqi police and military are able to provide ongoing security so that al qaeda doesn't return once the Coalition forces move out. A lot of decent Iraqi citizens are counting on you and like-minded defeatist Americans to stop whining and start supporting them. It's time for you to put aside your personal interests and begin thinking of the Iraqi people. Go to the link.
Links and polls
May 28, 2007 - 22:59 ET by belagI looked at the link for a little time. I'll be glad to go through it in more detail, but I wanted to clarify one point.
Do you disagree that the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqis are according to the poll results I quoted? If yes, why?
If you can give me some other unbiased (according to you) polls that'd be good.
My thoughs on the poll belag
May 28, 2007 - 23:13 ET by acumenDo you disagree that the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqis are according to the poll results I quoted?
Yes.
If yes, why?
Because I believe the poll questions were posed to achieve a certain outcome. On the other hand, when I read or view detailed accounts from Iraqis I come away with a much better understanding of their true sentiments. If you follow the links, I believe you too will get a better grasp of how most Iraqis feel about our presence - it is positive. This video should provide additional insight into what is currently underway in many neighborhoods in Iraq. I hope you find this helpful.. It is late and I am very tired. Goodnight belag.
Opinion in Iraq
May 29, 2007 - 01:14 ET by belagThe poll includes a questionaire/methodology used. Can you say specifically what do you feel is the problem? Do you know of any other polls you'd feel comfortable with?
Also, these are not the only ones. Virtually every poll has given the same numbers. And it's been that for a long time.
I'm not doubting either you or the person who owns the blog you gave me. Undoubtedly there are a few people in Iraq who see the US troops as a helpful force.
However, I'm not sure how you can get a representative opinion of the people in Iraq other than a poll or a referendum.
If we're looking at setting up a democracy in Iraq, the minimum we can do is to listen to what people there are telling us.
acumen....Thanks for that sit
May 28, 2007 - 23:10 ET by bigtimeracumen....
Thanks for that site.
I bookmarked that and hope to get back to some more later in the next few days...I got caught up reading the posts....some sound mighty familiar...lol!
"Failing that, they should be withdrawn. That's support."
May 28, 2007 - 23:17 ET by misterbill"Failing that, they should be withdrawn. That's support."
If I had that kind of support in my jock while I was playing football, I would be singing soprano now!
Where’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land? And the parent that wouldn't be honored by the sacrifice?
Sir Walter Scott & Noel Sheppard
Failing that, they should be
May 29, 2007 - 14:41 ET by thefightinggopFailing that, they should be withdrawn. That's support.
belag - Pardon my ignorance (I'm not being funny, I'm trying to understand), but are you saying that since they aren't being withdrawn you no longer support the troops? Please explain.
Do you disagree that the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqis are according to the poll results I quoted? If yes, why?
Yes. The polls were reported 9-27-06, with the majority of Sunni answering against the U.S. Five months before the "surge". Also 5 months before the Sunni tribes in an-Albar province turned against al-Qaeda and joined with the U.S. forces in what the tribal leaders call The Awakening with violence against our troops (by those tribes) stopping overnight. See this on a USA Today story.
thefightinggop.org
Troop support and poll results
May 29, 2007 - 20:23 ET by belagLet me address those points:
a) In my opinion the conditions for a "just" war were not satisfied. Therefore, I want to support the troops by withdrawing them. They shouldn't be killed and kill others for immoral and illegal reasons.
<edit> Let me elaborate on that a bit. You're aware that under international law, foreign aggressors have no rights in another country. A majority of the Iraqi people as well as terrorists see them as legitimate target for attack. So the best way to support them would be to get them out of there (assuming you accept my opinion about the legality of the war for a moment)
b) As to what should happen now. I looked at the site you provided. I'm not doubting there are some people in Iraq that look on the US troops favourably. I'm not doubting either your or the site's people.
I'm not sure how you'll get a representative opinion on all the Iraqi citizens other than a poll or a referendum? And if that poll is too old for you, you can just google "poll iraq 2007" to get the latest numbers. Here's a detailed one I found:
I guess it's just a matter of
May 29, 2007 - 22:02 ET by thefightinggopI guess it's just a matter of who does the polling. Your most recent one was completed 3-5-07 with 2,000 Iraqis being polled and for two of the MSMs.
As you suggested, I googled and came across this one of 5,019 Iraqis being polled and done on 2-22-07 about the same time (they provide a link to the actual polling information). This was done and by an independent firm in the UK. The difference being quite remarkable. In both polls, the Sunnis brought the numbers down.
The fact remains, however, that both polls were conducted prior to the "surge." Here's a milblog post dated 3-30-07, showing that the tide was just beginning to change with the Sunnis.
I was unable to find a poll from late-May, which would be closer to gauging the actual beliefs held by the Iraqis (including Sunnis) since the "surge" began.
Bottomline, belag, I disagree with you about our "right" to be in Iraq. We had faulty intelligence, viewed by Democrats and Republicans alike. Based on the best intelligence we had at the time, the majority of BOTH parties felt the U.S. was being threatened by Iraq and voted for war.
Regardless, Al-Qaeda's there and for every one we get rid of over there, is one less we have to worry about over here.
thefightinggop.org
Poll results and Democrats
May 30, 2007 - 00:06 ET by belagLet me first clear up a point. I'm not defending the Democrats. I'm not saying Democrats are better than Republicans. Indeed, many Democrats trusted their own advisers and are equally complicit.
Let's look at the poll results. Let's assume it's an independent poll. I don't find any contradiction with the poll results I quoted. It doesn't ask what's the sentiment of the people towards troops nor, whether they want them to be withdrawn or not.
I found one sort of relevant question: "What do you think will happen when the troops are withdrawn?" with people saying the situation will get better by a ratio of almost 2 to 1. (53% to 26%).
Let me say what I'm arguing about and what I'm not. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was an angel and all was right about him. So the question whether people prefer his tyranny or the current occupation is kinda moot. There were always much better options. But that's a topic of another post.
My point is the following. Why not listen to the Iraqi people? It's their country after all.
My point is the following. Wh
May 30, 2007 - 15:14 ET by thefightinggopMy point is the following. Why not listen to the Iraqi people? It's their country after all.
My point being that your poll and my poll are moot...as they do not provide a true representation of the Iraqi's feelings since the "surge" was begun.
The MSM is fixated on body and terrorist attack counts. When the news media repeatedly reports the same stories, that tells me there are many other stories that aren't being told. (Hence the "Leave Iraq?" series.)
So, with my keyboard, I set out to try and find those other stories. Here's one that let me know I was on the right track. It's long, but WELL worth the read.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on the Iraqi's opinion of life without Saddam being moot. Had we not gone in to begin with (because, as you suggested, we didn't have a legitimate reason), the Iraqis would currently be living under the thumb of Saddam and his sons.
Instead, they are experiencing the growing pains of democracy.
Democracy and polls
May 30, 2007 - 20:21 ET by belagI agree somewhat with your point about democracy. We can easily forget what happens in the early stages of democracy. There's slaughter, imprisonment, torture, everything. After all it was 150 years here when women were allowed to vote.
I'm not at all doubting your sincerety, neither the sincerety of the link your provide. I'm sure there are some people the surge is helping.
But let me say this, do you know about the ones who it's not helping? How'd you get a representative opinion about what the average Iraqi is thinking?
About Saddam Hussein's tyranny, I find it very interesting that you're assuming there are only two alternatives, that tyranny and the current situation. Why? If you want me to elaborate on that further, I'll be glad to.
Believe me belag, I'm trying
May 30, 2007 - 21:24 ET by thefightinggopBelieve me belag, I'm trying to get the information. It would make life so much easier if the MSM would just try to pry their attention away from the terrorist attack and body counts, and report on the things their viewers/readers want to know.
You would not believe my "daily read" list. Countless milbloggers and bloggers (who are literally paying their own way and rely on donations) to embed with our soldiers so they can "tell it like it is"...good, bad or indifferent.
In reading countless stories and posts, I have yet to see one report of an Iraqi who wants us to leave yet. To the contrary, they all fear what will happen if/when we leave prematurely.
They do realize that there will come a day when they will be self-sufficient and feel safe and secure by their own hand, but they fear that premature withdrawal will leave their government and security forces in the hands of the highest bidder...whomever that may be.
Just a little over a month ago, the Maysun province was the 4th of 17 provinces that was turned back over to the Iraqis. That's progress! Yet the MSM buried the story under that day's attacks.
Sorry, as you can tell, I'm (as are many others) very passionate about getting "the rest of the story."
thefightinggop.org