NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Michael Haley
Closing Guantanamo: A bloody mess
Monday, November 17, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By MICHAEL HALEY
Napablogger
October 28th, 2009
One final thought before signing off
September 23rd, 2009
Time for local economic stimulus
August 31st, 2009
Community in a world of chaos
August 20th, 2009
Schwarzenegger finally proposes pension reform
more
The Bush Administration had a bad habit of not thinking through the consequences of many of its actions, or not caring, and one of them was what is the eventual outcome going to be of torturing prisoners of war? It was inflicted on many of them, many of whom have turned out to be innocent, at least of terrorism.

But even in the case of top tier Al Qaeda prisoners that were tortured, there are huge problems and when Guantanamo is closed those problems are going to come to the surface.
When you capture someone and imprison them without trial, with little evidence often based on the account of another prisoner who has given the name under torture themselves, you end up with a system where the prisoners are unprosecutable under U. S. law. Once you take prisoners outside the rule of law, you have a hard time bringing them back in.

When you have tortured them, held them indefinitely without charges, and gained confessions under torture, you "shock the conscience of the court" in legal parlance by violating a number of United States laws including the Constitution. That is the situation we find ourselves in with many of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
Take Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, better known as al-Libi, his story is a key one. "The Dark Side" by Jane Meyer gives a detailed account of his story. He was the field trainer for one of Bin Laden’s training camps and trained hundreds of Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. He was captured by the Pakistanis in December of 2001, and for lots of cash from the CIA was turned over to the U.S.

Al Libi was taken captive by the FBI and questioned in a friendly manner, and gave them lots of actionable intelligence. He gave them information about Richard Reid the shoe bomber and could have been used as a witness in his trial, and he also told them about an upcoming attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Yemen which helped avert it.
In stepped the CIA, for reasons that are not entirely clear, who took him to Egypt under a rendition agreement and began to torture him. The most likely reason was that the Bush administration was looking for intelligence that said that Al Qaeda was in Iraq, and they were trying to torture it out of al Libi.

In the fall of 2002, Bush was trying to get Colin Powell to give what is now his famous United Nations speech supporting the need to go to war in Iraq. Powell was refusing to read the speech Cheney had written for him, and said that the intelligence was so weak he was seriously balking on giving the speech at all.

Then in came George Tenant, CIA Director, and said we had high level Al Qaeda intelligence that confirmed that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Powell was told that this was human intelligence from a former training camp commander, that had put Saddam’s secret police together with Al Qaeda in Iraq. And, they were using biological and chemical weapons. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s Chief of Staff, said that was the thing that turned Powell around and gave him confidence to give the speech.

But it was a lie, and top level Defense Intelligence officials that had reviewed the transcript of the sessions had been saying al Libi’s evidence looked highly dubious for months before that. That information was readily available to both Tenant and Powell yet somehow it did not make it to them.

A year after the war started al-Libi himself recanted his story, and it was obvious from the beginning that he was not in a position in the Al Qaeda organization to even know what was going on in Iraq. When asked why he made it up, he said "they were killing me. I had to give them something".

There are a whole lot of problems here, and if you read the entire detailed story you will see that there are even more. At this point the government is not saying exactly where al Libi is but he may be in Guantanamo, or he may be dead. The Bush administration has violated many US laws, not to mention the Constitution. No normal Judge would allow this kind of evidence or treatment to pass muster in court.

No current U.S legal system could convict al Libi, despite the fact that he was a high level Al Qaeda operative. If trials start for those like al Libi, the CIA torturers will face scrutiny as well. For the most part, the FBI, which ironically had much more experience dealing with terrorism than the CIA, did not want to get its hands dirty and stayed out of it. The whole torture system and systematic violation of US law and the Constitution is in the hands of the CIA and the Bush Administration, primarily originating with Dick Cheney.

Americans need to face and know the truth of what went on, who we tortured, how and why, and we must cleanse ourselves of this horrible contamination of the body politic of America. What makes American identity is not its geography, it is its adherence to principles. America stands for something, something of character, something of dignity and freedom. America’s soul rests on our ideals, and if this isn’t a violation of the American ideal, of freedom in the land of opportunity, of valuing the individual, the rule of law, of being the "good guys", then what is?

There is a point of changing yourself to respond to your enemies that you become just like your enemies. When you do that, you have lost the war, because the real war is about human dignity and the value of the individual. When your enemy brings you down to their level, they win. The Bush administration policy of torturing violated the most fundamental values of our Constitution and our nation and we have to repair the damage from that.

It is going to be more than a can of worms, it is going to be a big bloody mess, but it is our mess and we need to own up to it. Incoming President Obama should not back down from this challenge. We need it to cleanse our very soul.
102 comment(s)

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:40 PM:

" NB, why weren't you saying this earlier?

I'd really like to know, I don't recall your voice being raised in support of torture like lots of other Republican-enablers such as 'kevin' and even my stupider cousin Rush Limbaugh who called torture 'college pranks'.

The USA has never had truck with intentional barbarism ever since George Washington refused to mistreat British prisoners even though he knew the British were mistreating American prisoners.

If you are 'seeing the light' now, what brought you to this welcome status?

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:28 PM:

" Ruff, the reason I wasn't saying it earlier is because it is a complicated issue and I just didn't see how I could explain it in a short article in a way that would be very convincing. All it would do is set off a big back and forth of name calling, which it may do now, and not be very beneficial.

How do you explain to someone that torture is bad if they can't see it without having to have it explained to them? If someone thinks it is ok to have sex with children, where do you start to change their minds? It seems like a tough thing to do.

The other reason I think is that it just depresses me, the whole topic.

But I saw an opening with the Guantanomo Bay issue coming up and the story with al Libi, that it could work together in about a 1000 words (twice as long as I am supposed to write, but Dan lets me get away with it some times) and perhaps be more than reduced to a name caling session, and give people something to think about.

At first I wasn't concerned about the torture issue, in fact I think I wrote a letter to the editor defending Bush on it at one point, because I thought it was not really torture but playing loud music, etc.

What turned me around was the Capt Fishbeck story about two years ago. Then I realized this was a lot more than just playing loud music and that in fact torture was infesting the military from the top down. I plan to write more about this now as time goes on. "

kevin wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:06 PM:

" So who is "captain fishbeck"? I can't find anything about him online. I haven't heard any valid charges that there was any real torture at Guantanomo. (I don't consider squirting water up their nose torture).

So you agree with B.O.'s plan to bring these dangerous terrorists into the US? As you said, no court will convict them; what's the point? What are they supposed to do with them; their home countries don't want them and the prisoners don't want to go back anyway (they know they will really be tortured and/or executed if they go home.)

We will never know how much useful information was aquired from Guantanomo. I am thankful to all the men and women who have the discipline and fortitude to perform the difficult work required to keep this country safe. To do the necessary "dirty work" so people like NB can whine about the "inhumanity" of it all... "

Bill wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:23 PM:

" It's called moral relativism Kevin, glad you embrace it. No wonder you did not whole heartedly support your candidate. Strange that by supporting a dishonorable policy so many believe they are honoring service.

The value war you wish to pursue on all fronts needs an easily shifting moral philosophy where convenience serves as its fundamental tenet. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:39 PM:

" I can't wait for the next time Kevin or his cohorts accuse us liberals of moral relativism.

The issue of torture is the one area that I think that Bush and Cheney committed impeachable acts. The laws prohibiting torture are pretty clear, but Bush found a way to ignore them and stonewall any attempts to prevent them from doing so. The argument that we don't know what information was obtained is "convenient" nonsense. There is no way to prove or disprove it.

I hope that the Obama administration pursues this "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:44 PM:

" Again, you are making the false assumption that our legal systemn handles the Guantanamo detainees. They are battlefield captives and are not entitled to our civilian courts. How do you collect the evidence when you cature this loser with an AK-47 in his hands in a ditch?

treating as criminals and giving them a five year sentence in our prisions and then what. let them loose on our streets. As far as I am concerned if it kept us safe for the last 7 years god bless the boys of Guantanamo.

We have a long way to go before we quell these terrorists. Without uniforms they are difficult to spot. Even the ones already operating here. Once Obama outlaws guns we will all be safer.... "

napablogger wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:35 PM:

" Kevin and freeport, you have identified the problem. What if they were just a driver for Bin laden, and don't deserve the death penalty? Can we just keep them in prison forever, or just let them go?

They didn't think through what they were going to do with them before they started all this. In previous wars they just let prisoners of war go at the end of the war. This war isn't like this.

The really bad ones like the Nazi commanders were tried and hung. They had rules to follow for those trials. They got hung for doing things our government is now doing like waterboarding and torturing jews.

And a lot of those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq were really innocent people. You can't try them on US soil--unless you follow US law. And US law would let them all go based on how they have been treated. If they really just were captured on the battle field then they should have been held and released when we were done with them.

When the evidence has come out about the few that have gotten to court or information has been found out, the evidence that they were terrorists or bad guys has been very weak in a lot of cases. We really don't know all that went on in Guantanomo, true, or all the secret prisons that we still have all over the world hodling detainees from the war on terror.

But we need to find out. Bush's track record has been terrible and there is no reason to trust his administration. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:57 PM:

" Kevin, what I want is for the truth to come out fully, so we can see what we really have. We do not have that, as you mention. But what we do have is a ton of evidence from credible people like the FBI and military people that a lot of torturing of prisoners is going on out there and a lot of it on innnocent people.

Even Janet Karpinski, commander at Abu Ghraib, said 90% of the prisoners there were innocent, and other interrogaters who worked there for the military said that everyone was routinely tortured that came in there.

Fishback was stationed at a prison town in Iraq but not Abu Ghraib, near Fallujah. He wrote to his Congressman about what they were doing at that prison, routinely beating all the prisoners, to the point of broken bones, etc. He came and testified to Congress afterwards, then Rumsfeld started criticizing him indirectly in public for speaking out and I think he gave up and got lost.

Here is one NY Times story on Fishback, I misspelled his name:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/international/middleeast/28abuse.html

His story that abuses were going on all over the military toward prisoners caught my attention because I realized that they wouldn't be doing this unless their leadership was somehow condoning it. Fishback said that guys on their days off would come to the prison just to beat prisoners for fun.

I realized that the Bush leadership had led to this deterioation in our military. Everyone covers it up because to a lot of people for me to even talk about it is unpatriotic. But it isn't, because it isn't those soldiers fault. It is Bush and Cheneys' fault. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:16 AM:

" What is torture? anyone knows and I find the Republican torture supporters being a bit Clintonesque when they say that, like it depends on what the meaning of is is.

But stress positions like the Vietnamese practiced on McCain and other soldiers, extreme cold, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, beatings, being hung from walls by your wrists, etc, etc are all things the US has done and I believe are still doing. That is all torture, despite attempts at redefinition. About a hundred prisoners have died as a result, and I don't think you can say that it is just the result of a few rogue soldiers.

Torture supporters think that people like bin Laden and close to it are the only ones being tortured, and that is far from the truth. Once you get that kind of power over other people it becomes addictive and pleasurable, and it doesn't stop. There is evidence that it has spread throughout the prison system in the war zones and elsewhere that the CIA is using.

If they have stopped, it is only because they are afraid of prosecution. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:09 AM:

" A good definition of torture would be this: If they did it to Americans, would we be outraged. One of the ironies of this situation is that the techniques we have developed were used on American soldiers by the North Koreans and Viet Namese specifically to coerce false confessions. I guess that works on captured terrorists.

One of complaints I had abut McCain was that he was not vocal enough about torture. He talked the talk, but I felt that he had his presidential ambitions in mind when it came time to do something. If anyone in power knows what torture is, McCain does. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Mike\NB-

I do understand your arguement, but have you been to Guantanamo?

Have you seen for yourself the conditions of the detainees? If Bin Ladens driver was involved in plotting terrorist acts is he not a conspirator?

In writing your article and future ones of this type, remember a couple of historic issues. First, this war has been raging for 1400 years to spread Islam. Next, any kindness you wish to place onto these people is misplaced. They would love to cut your head off and evicerate your body in the name of Allah. Their thinking is centuries old and cannot be diverted from its purpose.

While the President Elect thinks he can talk to them, they will be polite and listen. But they will be thinking of nuking him and us the entire time. Your article underestimates the will power and purpose of this very dangerous group of peole. "

kevin wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Ok, NB, I read the article and it has NOTHING to do with Guantanomo!

The "torture" he alledgedly "witnessed" took place in Iraq. According to the article, he witnessed prisoners expoased to "hot and cold temps, sleep deprivation and forming human pyramids" (what's with the human pyramids? Is there something about human pyramids I don't know?) Nothing about "broken bones, etc"

It's old news and the perps were properly disciplined.

Again, where are you getting your information about Guantanomo? "

glenroy wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:27 PM:

" This is so lame it’s hard to take seriously…anybody can nitpick decisions after the fact, particularly when completely void of context ….…..

The vote to remove Saddam had nothing to do with any of these allegations…regardless of what is being claimed. Democrats had full access to all the intelligence…. they even voted approval three years prior to the commencement of hostilities. The real issue is our intelligence had been decimated as a Democrat policy. But, why bother with the disease when the symptoms suffice for partisan gain? Even if….what about the twenty something other causes listed in the congressional approval….irrelevant? Inconvenient? This is silly nonsense….

This nation has never fought a war that abided by our constitution, ever. The fact, is in every other major war ‘enemy caught without uniform’ were executed, most summarily, others after tribunal and not one was ever appealed in a US Court.

If Guantanamo was such a horrendous concentration camp, why is that the overwhelming majority of the known al Qaeda members prefer to stay in Guantanamo rather than be sent home? No mention how many of those released from Guantanamo turned up dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, though there are nonpartisan sites that do a reasonably job of tracking released jihadist

Give the circumstances, we were forced to fight this war with what was thought to be known then….like every war this nation has fought. The mistake that was made was relying on Pelosi/Obama Democrats to avoid the temptation of polarization when the eventual opportunity arose….as it has in every war. "

Bill wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:34 PM:

" Apologists’ a’plenty appear purposely to over look U.S. involvement in torture and mistreatment of prisoners of any kind. “It wasn’t really that bad, just boys playing around, and they were punished.” Turning a blind eye to real criminal behavior by those in charge.

Have any officers been punished or served any time in federal prison for the abuses that occurred in prisons they were responsible for in either Iraq or Afghanistan or Guantanamo? A lowly lieutenant somewhere? Anyone in the officer classes National Guard or RA?

As far as I am aware the only people being punished for any outrage are simple grunts while the officer and political corps take a walk. Early retirement? Wow!!

Still making excuses or justifying torture? Using the pretext that abuses occurred in the past to excuse continued abuse is not only for the lame minded but food for people who have absolutely no moral compass. The same reasoning has it that child abuse occurred in the past in labor markets as well as war so it is permissible today. Or the excuse that it is necessary to prevent what might happen as in I think you know some thing about your neighbor who has a meth lab so I’m Gonna waterboard you until I’m satisfied you have told me all you know. "

Bill wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:35 PM:

" I know of only one valid argument for tortures use and it is a slippery slope to follow yet I do not see it represented in any of the comments that have appeared in any of the NVR’s on line comments.

Torture is wrong it does not protect my family, my neighbors, my country or me. It does not define who I am or what I wish my country to be and my children to become. Those who make excuses for its use and advocate its application are criminals and real terrorists. "

kevin wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:39 PM:

" What part of "they are trying to kill us" don't Liberals understand?

They are not building a meth lab.

They are not violating child labor laws.

THEY WANT TO KILL US!

If it takes pre-emptive military strikes based on evidence obtained by "enhanced" interrogation techniques, I for one am very supportive of the policy! "

Bill wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:57 PM:

" Then for all your calling down of the blessings of the lord upon your president and and his adventure in Iraq you have become the destroyer if not of worlds at the minimum the destroyer of human rights.

You have looked too long into the abyss aand it has looked back. You have become evil that which you rail against the most. Your fear has engulfed you and frozen your mind against who we are as a nation. you are not conservative but a reactionary finding solace in an inquisition.

Any euphemism such as enhanced interrogation is still torture.

WHAT PART OF HONOR DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. "

jwk wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:18 AM:

" "W" did NOT want to shut this down. It was all the wimpy Liberal Democrats that constantly reamed Bush & Cheney throughout the entire conflict. But We all know Barack Osmambama will close this down so these terrorist can rejoin forces as they Retake the Middle East when the Dufus pulls our troops out. God help them and US here on American Soil!! You will get what you asked for Lefties. I just hope it's you who voted for this Imcompetent Fool who's friends and family are affectedand blown up not mine and the other half of the Non-Racist, Non-Radical right thinking Americans. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:41 AM:

" jwk - Drink DECAF !!! Calm down, have a little faith in the American miliatary the beat Germany, Italy and Japan without resorting to barbarism!

I find it hard to believe that truly "right-thinking Americans" are proud of what Dubya has failed to accomplish while selling out America's most sacred principles.

And Mr. Bungle, for all of his barabarism FAILED to get the job done.

~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:42 AM:

" There is no "honor" is allowing attacks to continue on American soil against innocent men, women and children. The honorable thing to do, as President Bush has done, to his credit, is to use all available means to prevent any more domestic attacks.

History will show that President Bush was correct, that his actions against the Islamofascists were effective and that he kept America safe under his watch.

God help us all under B.O.'s "rule" (that's the term B.O.'s Transistion team is using).

We know he is going to be "tested". We know he is inexperienced and unqualified. We know he plans to cut the military and surrender our victory in Iraq and run away.

Maybe another 9/11 is what it will take to wake up American's to the danger... "

ADark1 wrote on Nov 15, 2008 12:22 PM:

" I am torn in parts of this debate... However, Having been a graduate of Military School ( Florida Air Academy for those not in the know)I am of two minds.

1. I would do whatever it took to keep this nation safe.

2. I would do whatever it took to keep this nation safe as long as we passed the class taught geneva convention rules and laws.

3. Is a bombmaker as bad as a driver?

These are comon sense questions with comon sense answers. THe problem is, how do we get to the answers.

Sandra made a statement a few weeks back concering the fact that Islam is about submission or dying. When based on that, one should temper whatever methods used will find the end result.

Problem is, is the end result in fact justifying the means?

Your comments are welcome. "

Bill wrote on Nov 15, 2008 12:30 PM:

" This is your defense of torture?

Avoiding the subject and justifying its use by predicting what the future will say about today?

Torture is wrong. That is not a difficult sentence to understand or defend.

The criteria for its use is merely the defense of innocents appears to be your only justification. Yet you would condone the torture of innocents to obtain your goal.

The only criteria provided is suspicion for its use to be invoked.

I think history will find a much different scenario when it come to this administrations overt advocacy in the use of torture.

NB, if you are unable to write a short essay explaining why torture should not be used perhaps you should reexamine what you understand to be character.

In less than 300 words I can give you the only viable justification for its use and its single flaw. I notice that almost no one writing here or elsewhere in these blogs no matter how certian they are that it is sound policy has set it forward.

I believe they know it but it defeats their purpose as it would not allow them to apply torture in almost any instance they felt applicable. "

Bill wrote on Nov 15, 2008 12:33 PM:

" The advocacy of torture is not conservative it is reactionary. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:45 PM:

" Hey Kevin. The Nazi's thought that history would vindicate them. I would be that if we went back and examined the people who let the ends justify the means, that they all thought that history would vindicate them. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:24 PM:

" I am out of town on business but will write more tommorrow night when I get home.

Kevin, I never said Fishback was at
Guantanomo, if you look back I was answering a question for Ruff.

If all that got tortured were Osama and similar we wouldn't be having this discussion, that is the problem.

Everyone is speaking of Muslims as if they were all the same. Most are not terrorists, and we will never have peace unless we reach out to the moderates. Torturing innocent Muslims is not the way to get there.

Ruff, do you see why I was reluctant to get started on this?

The Bush administration has released very little info on this. They gave three bits of info they got from Zubadya and all three turned out to be suspect. He is supposed to be their big torture success story.

There is all kinds of believable circumstantial evidence of torture including Guantanamo, but little on the official record. That is why we need an investigation open to the public review. "

jwk wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:10 AM:

" Hey Kevin, We can always hope people like "Ruff" and Bill and their families are the first ones to have their heads removed by these "Nice Terrorists", not ours. ANy guess on who these Liberal appeasers voted for?? "

glenroy wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Amen Kevin and jwk……I’d almost suggest libs keep bringing this issues up to avoid being held accountable as the cause of the 9/11 attacks….maybe the cause of our energy dependence…. the cause of our collapsing economy…..but reality is that it’s just part of their DNA to rant and rave without a clue, no ability to discuss matters in the context of the events, armchair Generals…it’s jingoism personified. "

kevin wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:42 AM:

" I am looking forward to your "believable circumstantial evidence".

(Please don't embarrass yourself by including statements from the perps who were held at Guantanomo and released.)

Interrogation related to the security and safety of this country has nothing to do with "innocent" or "guilty". It has to do with information. Whether you have something useful or not.

Guantanomo works on another level too. The Islamofascists have no problem killing themselves for their "god", but I can't but help feel they stop and think twice when presented with the possibility of ending up in Guantanomo instead of "heaven"... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:05 PM:

" It amazes me that fallible human beings fail to understand that to allow torture AT ALL is to allow the torture of innocents because sooner or later you are going to make a 'mistake'.

So, all you torture-apologists, especially those who have no shame at the torture of women and children, please prepare for the well-deserved scorn of decent people everywhere.

It seems that some folks are just born without a conscience that makes them want to obey the Golden Rule.

The morally deficient are always looking for the time when some 'authority' authorizes them to become the beasts they proclaim to be fighting against.

During Mr. Bush's reign of terror, the beasts got their wish. And now the headlines are discussing the torture community asking for Mr. Bush to 'pardon' them for the crimes he authorized them to commit.

How shameful and anti-American.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:42 AM:

" Kevin, yes I am including information gathered from those released, as well as their lawyers, the FBI that visited there and have talked to the press, and the International Red Cross. When you read all the available accounts it gets pretty clear that a lot of bad things happened there. Nothing is on the record that can't be disputed, like saying the prisoners were trained to say that, but there is way more than enough to do an investigation.

And what do you do with a guy who was looking for a job and was a limo driver, who got caught up in it? Torture him, send him to prison for years with no charges, then send him home to an ally, Afghanistan? Is it a surprise they hate us after that?

A solely military solution will never work. We have to build bridges with them diplomatically and politically. We can't shoot them all.

We are destroying our reputation in the Middle East by torturing innocent people. Then we have a whole nother argument about that, but all I can tell you is that I thought the whole torture thing was about high level terrorists and some rogue military who were punished until I started to read in more depth about it.

It is way worse than that. But as I told Ruff there is no way to explain it in these comments or a series of articles even.

If you are interested I suggest reading Dark Side by Jane Mayer as a start. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:57 AM:

" ADark1 the answers are already out there, all you have to do is pick up a book and start reading. I suggest the Dark Side by Jane Mayer.

I do not believe that torturing has made us safer, it has made us less safe. The Bush administration has refused to give much evidence of what has happened in their secret war on terror, other than it has helped a lot. And he has told us about one terrorist that was tortured, Abu Zubayda, claiming three successful bits of intelligence which he named.

One was that under torture (which Bush called enhanced interrogation techniques) Zubayda gave up "Mukthar" as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Except we already had that information at the time, and he gave that information before the torture started. The second piece of information was similar, the third there are problems with as well.

THe Bush administration did the same thing with torture it did with their limited war in Iraq that led to the debacle. When Generals said it would take 200,000 troops to pacify the country before they started, Bush fired him. Then they didn't have enough troops and denied it.

Experts on torture told them it didn't work and would create more problems than it helped, and that has happened and Bush and some Republicans are in denial about it now. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:14 AM:

" Glenroy, if the enemy had been executed on the battlefield I would not have a problem with that. Or if they had come and they had killed Americans and they got whatever intelligence from them, they got a military court trial and execution, fine by me. In fact I think a lot more prisoners should be put to death than are.

But when a top military officer comes in and reviews who is staying in Guantanomo, concludes they are not getting much information out of them because half of them have no terrorist ties at all, then a later study concludes only 8% of them have any connection to Al Qaeda at all, and they are all getting "enhanced interrogation" then I have a problem with that.

Many of the people saying this are not the liberals you like to talk down to with name calling. This particular person was a senior military officer. Many of the people speaking out are true blue hard as nails FBI guys. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:29 AM:

" freeport, just catching up a bit tonight.

I am not trying to place kindness on them at all. I am trying to win a war. And in order to find peace, at least a peaceful conexistence and a diminishing of Islamic terrorism, we sooner or later have to talk and make some kind of agreements. Torturing innocent mid eastern people does not help that goal.

I believe that torture has caused things to get worse for us, not better. Bush has only presented one case of torture for review on the record for the public so far, Zubayda, and that has turned out to be suspect at best.

There is a lot of off the record information and it does not support that torture has worked.

Having licence to put someone into pain legally and have that kind of power over them is addictive. It also hurts the person who does it psychologically. It spreads like a drug problem and is hard if not impossible to contain. It is not like the 24 TV show.

I believe that a lot of innocent people have been tortured and that it has made things worse for the US.

That is why so many want to close Guantanamo, because it is an international outrage. That is why I think we need a full investigation of the whole thing so that Americans can become informed about this. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:18 PM:

" NB….’A’ top military official? How about several officials? Peel away the layers of BS and the core is our intelligence failures, whether that pertains to the need, operation or efficiency of Guantanamo.

As for obtaining useful intelligence…the percentage held who would have useful intelligence is a fraction, tiny fraction….most Guantanamo residents are there because of the threat they pose.

Defense lawyers? That’s a SNL gig….few held in Guantanamo were captured by US forces, you do realize that?….Secondly…according to defense lawyers our domestic prisons are also full of innocent victims….same sources same claims…why not include Pelican Bay?

Lastly…. Only 8% have connections? More than 8% refuse to return to their home land…which can only mean one of two things, both in conflict with your hypothesis, Guantanamo accommodations aren’t that bad or these are radical Islamists. How is ‘connection’ defined anyway? What difference would it make if the detainee hadn’t any connections if they were captured in battle, act or safe house?

There are books and articles by those who conducted the interrogations detailing the process that led to these innocent victims ending up at Guantanamo…..it would be worth while to consider for every detainee currently in Guantanamo thousands were weeded out through interrogations. As bad as some of our government agencies are…if they intended they could be that incompetent.

This just might be another partisan wild goose chase…..I’d bet the farm on it. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:32 PM:

" The Usual Suspects are still attempting to justify acting like barbarians because the enemy are supposed 'barbarians' who want to kill us all!

Not much of a debate actually.

It doesn't take much for the thin mask of civilization to be ripped off the faces of these torture-apologists pretending to be 'patriots', does it?

What made America special in the family of nations... is exactly what these self-styled 'patriots' insist must be taken away... to fight the enemy who fights to take away what made America special.

~Ruff "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

" glenroy-

don't forget that most of those detainees countries do not want them back and that they have gained weight from the three squares a day.

Funny there is never a mention of the feceses and urine that is thrown at our soliders guarding these punks. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:39 PM:

" I hear you Freeport….adding to your comments...just visited several nonpartisan sources brusihing up…even dug up some old books.

This ‘hypothesis’ is nothing but more vindictive partisan attacking… there are numerous sources documenting Qaeda/Saddam links long before his removal, including transferring WMD. An often quoted, ‘Imperial Hubris,‘ by the ‘left’ mind you, used to brow-beat the President devotes pages to these links….but it also includes a blistering attack (pg 252) regarding the unreported cover up by those avoiding accountability for the policies that enabled Qaeda. Needless to say, these were core polices of the current Congressional Democrat leadership… it’s not the first time they ruined our intelligence agencies then blamed Republicans….cowards everyone.

The Wall Street Journal has covered gitmo extensively form the day it opened for business….as well as most nonpartisan Security Think Tanks, not one I visited found any substance to these allegations of holding innocent Muslims in any numbers of consequence, in fact none were found….I wonder what they were innocent of?. They do point out the Geneva Conventions forbids trying enemy combatants in criminal court, specifically stating the jurisdiction resides with military tribunals…..

The context of these alleged abuses occurred in a period when gitmo held 440 combatants, at least 20 had prior knowledge of 9/11, 33% were designated ‘VHVT…Very High Value Target, like OBL. Richard Miniter, WSJ, Hudson Institute, was given unfretted access to all the detainees, through his interpreter each claimed Qaeda allegiance….each stated they will kill Americans again….not one claimed innocence. All that changed after American defense lawyers arrived….imagine that…American Trial Lawyers the largest single Professional, such as it is, organization in dollar donations to leftwing causes…another coincidence, I presume. "

kevin wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:12 AM:

" According the NY Times, it sounds like B.O. may be considering keeping Gitmo in business:

"The president-elect’s transition office would not comment on whether that idea was even under discussion. But human rights groups have been mounting arguments to counter pressure that they say is building on Mr. Obama to show toughness, perhaps by echoing the Bush administration’s insistence that some detainees may need to be held indefinitely."

I'm starting to feel better about this guy as President! "

misfit wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:46 AM:

" How does JWK calling for the torture death of fellow bloggers pass the moderator? You have got to be kidding. This paper or whatever you call it is infantile at best. It censors common, everyday words yet, it allows calls for beheading from people whose only life is splayed out on these blogs. Pitiful! "

glenroy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Heck… I though jwk’s comments were rather forwarding thinking, it is, after all, the preferred method of dealing with infidels….as opposed to this partisan hack job anyway which just plays into al Qaeda‘s modus operandi…..

It’s as clear as the beautiful weather we’re enjoying that a large portion of our society remains as clueless as they were on 9/11.… "

BILL wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Clueless in Gilroy prefers to grab a dark-skinned cabbie with a clipped Mid-eastern accent to torture for actionable information. No one has made any justifiable argument for the use of torture. Preferring to use fear as an excuse for turning the military and justice system into relying on information extracted from suspects with doubtful connections to any terrorist organization or privy to information about them. Refusing to realize that any such information is highly questionable even worthless, it as unreliable as hear say and renders action useless, it has arguably made us less safe and further endangered not only our civilian population but our military personnel.

Relying on suspicion only that there are bad things in the world and promoting preemptive action of any type as permissible is not rational policy. The same is applicable for drug dealers and organized crime, they are also happy to kill us and cut off our heads, or any number of psychopathic organizations and individuals. It is not effective to torture the street dealer in the hopes of catching a kingpin. Perhaps the analogies are not viewed as the same as Al Queda but they are valid as comparisons and any authoritative and knowledgeable law enforcement professional or military information gatherer recognizes this.

The people who are clueless are those who regard our actions and foreign policy as pure as the driven snow and refuse to recognize the hand we have in terrors creation or the situational ethics employed to undercut genuine interests of others occupying the same world. Innocence is something few people can claim let alone a nation state driven by pure self-interest and blind to the effects it has on others. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:26 PM:

" I guess until you have been there, witnessed first hand what is going on, the Red Cross has 24/7 access, you must not pay attention to the comments on the web or press. They are definately left leaning and incorrect. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:11 PM:

" Talk about clueless…there are none among as clueless as those who are attempting to shut down GITMO under these 'unsubstantiated' allegations. As long as the subject of closing GITMO remains under consideration, the least we can do is expose these career anti-American leftwing fruitcakes…with their own words… so debunk this.

From the WSJ:

Michael Ratner and the lawyers in the Gitmo bar have expressly stated that the habeas corpus lawsuits are a tactic to prevent the U.S. military from doing its job. He has bragged that "The litigation is brutal [for the United States] . . . “You can't run an interrogation . . . with attorneys….." "

jwk wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:54 AM:

" Figure it out unFit, We on the right don't want anymore unprovoked violence here and abroad nor any more INNOCENT Americans killed. You guys are on the wrong side and need to be willing to accept blame or the consequences that could occur when using your limp wrist ideals / tactics of appeasing, to fight the War on Terror!! How bout Off with your Hats?? Is that better for you? "

Raven wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:33 AM:

" my biggest concern, other than the brutality and torture being practiced is the precedent we have set for preventive detention ... holding some one for years with little or no evidence....GITMO is a blight upon our nation's reputation and should be closed..

and the red cross doesn't not have 24/7 access...they have been denied access on a number of times.....and you were there when? by that standard, freeport, why are you defending the conditions at GITMO?

as for the civilian courts not being able to handle them, can anyone name someone taken to GITMO, then tried in a civilian court and been found innocent?


glenroy, comparing prisoners in GITMO to US prisons is apples and oranges...for one thing, prisoners in pelican bay have access to the courts "

a teacher wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Aside from being a black mark on our nation's honor, ineffective in collecting useful intelligence and illegal, torture is complicating our efforts to bring justice to those "detainees" who might actually be guilty of crimes against Americans. I was reading in the NY Times that Mohammed al-Qahtani will be recharged with war crimes after the Pentagon suddenly dropped charges against hihim.

The explanation is that the Military felt that much of the evidence against him was obtained through torture, it could make a conviction difficult. Obtaining a conviction will still be difficult, but they must have another stratagey in mind. "

kevin wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:08 PM:

" The "stratagey" is to just keep him locked up forever... "

a teacher wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Kevin. If that were the case they could have put a bullet in his head and dumped him in a river somewhere.

BUT...

Their plan was to have a trial and THEN shoot him. Now, since they tortured him and they are probably using evidence obtained through torture it will be difficult to get a good conviction.

A part of our arsenal in the war on terror is the moral high ground. Our actions at Guantanamo, Abu Graib, etc chip away at that and give the other side ammunition. It's stupid tactics. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:09 PM:

" a teacher, you and I are in 100% agreement about this issue.

Another problem with al Qhatani is that he may not be who they say he is. In al Libi's case, they billed him as someone close to bin Laden, and that he knew about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Well, turns out he was not that close to bin Laden although he knew him, and that he knew nothing about Al Qaeda in Iraq.

One of the reasons that we have the rule of law is not only to give civil rights to the accused, to make sure they get a fair trial, but it also protects us. These are elaborate rules that have evolved over time to make sure that the guilty are really guilty and that the innocent are really innocent. It protects society as well as the individual.

When you throw all that out and you leave it to some overheated Administration to decide who to keep, you get a lot of mistakes.

al Qhatani is supposedly the 11th hijacker, but what if they found evidence in the meantime that exonerates him to one extent or another? What if they never tried him and that were the case?

As Raven has pointed out, shouldn't they have some process to discover evidence and have an impartial body weigh it, say a court and Judge?


This is the problem they have created by torturing, they don't want that exposed so they may be throwing out evidence and letting people go that should be put to death, or they may not put those on trial who should be let go for fear of exposing their weak cases against them, after they have held them for years now. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:20 PM:

" I guess I am thinking again about my answer to Ruff, this is too big a topic to argue in one blog. But what I am going to do is when a timely related subject comes up in the news I am going to post about it, or if there is another finite case to be made about a particular issue I may write about that.

The problem here is that all of us are officially in the dark, and all we have is mostly circumstantial evidence to go on. My conclusions were reached after agreeing with those who felt that there wasn't real torture going on by the weight of gathering evidence over time. There is no way I can repeat that in brief.

We know that Salim Hamdi, bin Laden's driver, was tried but only got five years, even though he was arrested with two SAM's in his car. Was that because the Bush administration was afraid to admit evidence found under torture, or because they held someone who was really innnocent of any real terrorism? We may never know.

I believe that the truth about all this needs to come out, so that we can have a clean record. I am not now in favor of the outlandish proposals to impeach Bush and Cheney. I also doubt that we should arrest CIA officers over this, but we do need to know what happened and to develop a workable and consititutionally based system for handling terrorists. "

kevin wrote on Nov 20, 2008 5:06 AM:

" NB, it all goes back to the question of how do you defend the country from terrorism? Do you use the courts and rule of law like Bill Clinton did for the first WTC attack? They convicted most of the attackers, but the end result was another (successful) attack by the same perps 10 years later.

President Bush promised to protect this country and he did that by prosecuting the war on terror and using the military instead of lawyers. It has been effective but one downside is that some of these combatants are not going to be prosecuted as criminals. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:45 AM:

" kevin, if you throw out the system of laws and courts we allegedly subscribe to...what country are you defending...we are a nations of laws and adherence to the belief that no one person is above the law, even the government....and we have always, since the revolution, declared we do not torture prisoners....

if we lower ourselves to our opponents level, what have we really gained? "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:41 AM:

" kevin, yes and some of them are going to end up getting released, possibly into our own country because their countries won't take them back.

The alternative is that some innocent people could get locked up and never let out and never get an independent review of their crimes. We are back to the Dark Ages then and have defeated our own national ideals of freedom and fair play.

My main point is about how badly they have managed Guatanamo and left us with no reasonable legal path to resolve what to do with those prisoners. If they had been more careful about who they picked up and what they did with them it would have helped, to say the least.

I am against torture in any form, but that is another problem seperate from what to do with these prisoners. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Kevin, one more thought, I would question whether Bush's approach has worked any better than Clinton's. We could still get an attack at any time even though we have all these people locked up, and worse we may have to let them go.

Either that or we keep anybody we want for any reason in prison indefinitely. Besides the morality of that, it continues the war. The families and communities of those locked up know about it and will never let it go. Like it or not, you have to deal with your enemies or they will remain your enemies and will find a way to continue the war against us.

It may be emotionally satisfying to lock up people, but in the end it may create as many new ones against us as it stops.

There is no way to end the conflict without some kind of diplomatic solution, war is only the first step. When we have this festering wound to many in the east of Guantanamo which now stands for torture and unfair imprisonment, it keeps the hate alive. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:55 AM:

" ItsBush'sfault, your comment is indecipherable. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I think it's an open question whether any of the information from Gitmo or our other sources (let's not forget our "rendition" program) has effectively combated terrorism. The same can be said for Bush's more muscular war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's Wars have cost us thousands of lives and perhaps trillions of dollars. We have inflicted an incalculable amount of damage and caused the deaths of an estimated 100,000 to 1,000,000 people who were by and large not our enemies. We have created a pool of ill will that will plauge us for years to come.

Stating that because we haven't been attacked (here in the USA anyway) since 9/11 ignore some inconvienent facts. The first World Trade Center bombing happened in 1993, shortly after Clinton took office. The next attack took place 8 years later shortly after Bush Jr took office. Al Queda moves slowly. "

Raven wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:27 AM:

" another blow struck....federal judge today ordered 5 detainees to be released. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Personally I don't think it requires more space....it requires more substance and objectivity....

Raven…I left the intellectuals space to ponder….if it’s good enough for rotten apples, why not rotten oranges?…I mean isn’t rot still rot ….at least unless the rot was bought.

I is not more than a little inconsistent, if not hypercritical, relying on Trial Lawyers for one, but not the other....either they are or are not a legitimate source to free Guantanamo Bay residents, and if so, then they ought to be good enough to free Pelican Bay domestic residents… Seems to me…good for goose, then gander too….or does it only apply to Muslims…you can decide for yourself … visit the Wall Street Journal , DEBRA BURLINGAME ‘Gitmo's Guerrilla Lawyers’ Thursday, March 8, 2007.…like so many things about this war this issue has been so distorted it’s hard to take seriously….

On the other hand, if you’re an idealist concerned with our world image while digging up gitmo bones.… then it’s as much your fault as anyone’s, you should have spoken up in 1998 when the disinformation campaign against US Iraqi policy was converting a couple thousand per month into jihadists, without fear or consequences… by far the numeral uno recruitment rhyme was ‘starving Muslim children‘ .….since the liberation of Iraq, Muslim world opinion of the US is up significantly across the board and 3 to 4 times higher than our opinion of the Pelosi Congress…imagine that, more unintended consequences. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:19 PM:

" GlenRoy said:"since the liberation of Iraq, Muslim world opinion of the US is up significantly across the board"

An interesting comment. I just read a report of research from the Pew Center that said the exact opposite.

BTW, GlenRoy, the difference between the inmates in pelican Bay and the inmates at Gitmo is that the inmates in Pelican bay have been tried and found guilty of a crime in a US Court, a fair and transparent process. Not true for Gitmo "detainees". "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Nov 20, 2008 12:44 PM:

" The Republican-enablers hearts must be breaking. After eight long years of repeating mindless talking points about how torture was a good thing for America, we are finally coming back to America's roots in abiding by the law and shunning torture.

A Federal Court judge ordered 5 GITMO prisoners released.

BRAVO! The American Judicial System can handle Mr. Bungle's 'Bloody Mess' just fine!

This stain on America's commitment to 'The Rule of Law' is starting to be washed away.

I am a very proud pinko, commie, socialist bullgoose supporter of Truth Justice and the American Way' today!

Let the torture-apolgists commence squawking!!!

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Terror will never be eliminated. Life itself will need to perish first. Any idea that a war on terror will be successful is a complete fools paradise.

We are a nation of laws and with out laws freedom does not exist. If we can pick and chose arbitrarily which laws apply to others and which laws apply to us then the law has no moral force and we are condemned to be slaves in a pitiless universe. If Habeas Corpus does not apply for one individual it does not apply for any individual and leads to the terrorist you see everyday in the mirror.

It does not matter that others do not play by these rules but it does matter, if you call yourself an American then you must. As an American if you find it in your conscience to willfully disobey or disregard the law you must realize that you must accept the consequences for that action.

If you employ torture and deny the Great Writ, no matter the out come, you must face punishment under the law. If there is a law that I do not agree with I may disobey it of my own free conscience but I must be willing to accept the consequences and so must you all. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Bill, I agree and I would think that the Republicans would understand this better than anyone. There are "eternal" values and things that are just wrong, you don't murder innocent people, you don't have sex with kids, you don't torture anyone, any time for any reason.

Perhaps there are some incredible exceptions to all of these rules, but then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

It seems like the liberals think it is ok to ignore the law for social justice around issues of sex and race, and the conservatives think it is ok to ignore the law around issues of war and security. I say no to both. "

BILL wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:12 AM:

" I will disagree on two points it is not how liberals or conservatives ignore laws, that is a false dilemma great for sparking meaningless accusations but the most unconstructive for chewing on difficult problems. It allows for great name-calling and characterization of the other but does nothing to enhance understanding. Most are unable to grab what is liberal or conservative with either hand.

The other point is that there are no “eternal” values. Humans make values the universe does not care. The biggest problem is the belief that one possesses absolute truth, certainty and value when all one actually possesses is knowledge of what works. Religion touts its certainty of this eternal yet it changes with every age and culture, We constantly hone what value means to us as rational beings but that does not make it eternal. Eternal is only used to give license to despots. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:39 AM:

" Teach….I haven’t been to the Pew site in a few months and I stopped using their material years ago while teaching when they used information related to central American political prisoners that I knew to be bogus because I worked on that data as an internship supervised by Tom Lantos…I never understood half what he was telling me…besides Pew has been way off any number of polls selectively over polling Sunni without disclosing unless you read the microprint within the microdots on a microfiche reader.

As for the Pelican Bay…first off….the Geneva Accords forbids trying enemy combatants in criminal courts, explicitly in the courts of the country detaining the combatants….military tribunals are an accepted means for determining guilt and the level of guilt. There is a reason for that….when an enemy combatant surrenders in combat the presumption of innocence is not in question and should not be because it is against GC accords to try otherwise….

Secondly….the ‘core’ of the cry to release these jihadist is based on Trail Lawyers leaks that conflict with the facts…the bulk of the detainees confessed and some provided intelligence prior to the arrival of Trail Lawyers, they were interviewed by numerous nonpartisans without any widespread claims of abuse…until lawyers arrived. If you believe Trial Lawyers are a reliable source then Pelican Bay is full of wrongly convicted citizens…not even enemy combatants.

Thirdly….the majority residing in gitmo don’t want to go home nor does home want them back….this is pure play for unconditional release… "

a teacher wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I love this. A respected source of data disagrees with you so it must biased. Not surprising.

However, your defense of military tribunals is Orwellian, Rovian, positively Clintonian. You want to defend the use of military tribunals using the Geneva Conventions. The same Geneva Conventions that Cheney, Rumsfield, Gonzales, et al, insist don't apply to the prisoners at Gitmo. The same Geneva Conventions that we violate with our treatment of these prisoners. That is just mind blowingly absurd.

Of course you missed the point. The point is that the prisoners in Pelican Bay have had due process, the Gitmo prisoners have not. I don't object to military tribunals. Coerced evidence won't cut it there either. That's why the Pentagon dropped their case against al Qhatani. "

BILL wrote on Nov 21, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Only when the source supports Gilroy's theory is it reliable other wise it is a mere liberal rag or media mouth piece. Frequently he uses the NYT to support his truncated arguments or WSJ with lots of ..... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:00 PM:

" No one missed your point…I just don’t think it has relevance.

This entire gitmo charade is based on the words of same trial lawyers who claim our prisons are full of innocent victims….credibility either exists or it does not….if it exists, then it should extend equal consideration to Pelican Bay…innocence is innocence if the source is credible. Never mind this hack job is being funded with jihadist money pouring in from Muslim fanatics who have hired public relation firms and lobbyist to promote a picture of massive abuse. It simply does not exist anywhere near levels claimed, if at all then or now.

There are countless reasons charges are dropped or reduced unrelated to guilt….of the of thousands that have been detained, in any number of countries less than 10% will face charges…what of it?

I’ve followed this issue, all these issues, very closely….It’s worth pointing out that libs were the ones who demanded gitmo residents be given protection under the Geneva Convention and once they were given protection only then realized that ’required’ military tribunals. Now libs are making new demands under additional unsubstantiated claims from the same time period….nothing new here because the motivation is purely a partisan hack job and some of us who worked on your side know it well when we see it.

My personal experience is that the hypocrisy on the left has no bounds….it had no bounds when we provided A.I. ‘prisoner of conscious’ data throughout Latin America which was used in part by Pew years later…similar to your use of a report that is two years old to imply current opinion. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:07 PM:

" WOW! If that isn't a load of paranoid elephant droppings, I don't know what is. How about backing that up with something other than the ravings of some right wing blogger.

The Pew Research Center is one of the more reputable research agencies, however to you it's all a vast left wing conspiracy. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:27 PM:

" glenroy..I am glad you so blithely dismiss that only 10 percent may ever face charges....so we have held these hundreds in captivity for years for no reason....and you are proud of that?...actually what most of us have been saying is the prisoners at GITMO get the same protections other military prisoners get...and the military tribunals called for under the accords are a far cry from the farce going on now..... "

Paddy wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:06 PM:

" The delicate sensibilities of some of these comments is incredible. Waterboarding as 'torture'? What is torture? My guess is hot metal rods shoved under fingernails then used to pop those fingernails off before removing each digit a knuckle at a time would be considered torture. Then tie each leg between two poles and beat them with sledge hammers. There's the standard draw-and-quarter or the ancient method of filleting that would be considered torture. The list goes on and on and on and none of these things were done by Americans in the name of America.

What some might have done could be called extreme interrogation against extremeist, suicidal bombers that think nothing of strapping on bombs and blowing up anything and everything around them.

There aren't many ways to get through to animals like that and unless Obama toes the line the dirty bombs will rain on Ruff and Bill and teacher and me and I'll be SO angry! Bush has done his job to keep us safe wheter you like it or not. Get ready for a tough future. "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:24 AM:

" Paddy, one of the reasons torture isn't used is that it is know to be unreliable....the victim will tell you whatever you want to hear to end the torture....

Waterboarding has been and is considered torture by every civilized nation on earth, including the US...look at the anti torture bill co-sponsored by McCain last year....and the army field manuals on interrogation techniques...care to give it a try and see...search youtube for water-boarding and you will see a demo done by a tv reporter, CNN I think, last year for a taste of it.. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Know what would be real torture:

Playing National Public Radio and speeches by Obama 24 hours a day seven days a week for these detainees. Or forcing them to watch Farenheit 9/11, or any Micheal Moore film nonstop. They would loosed it real quick that way!! "

Paddy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Raven - we're not dealing with a "civilized nation". We're dealing with gangs of international sociopaths rooted in the stoneage. I can appreciate their cultural, religious right to act as they will but once they attacked my country everything changed. This includes how we deal with the animals hiding behind women and children and think nothing of blowing up women and children along with everyone else including themselves. "Pretty please" won't cut it.

I don't care what McCain did. He's a politician with presidential aspirations. Where's George Patton when you need him? "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Patton abided by the rules of the Geneva convention, you sure you want him...? Frankly, if the US is to stand for anything it is to be a nation that doesn't stoop to the tactics of our enemies...doesn't matter if the other folks are civilized or not, we are...and should remain so.... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:23 AM:

" LOL….talking about paranoia, the entire foundation of these phony claims of wide spread abuses remains completely unsubstantiated based on Trial Lawyer’s who have absolutely no credibility, all of which is being funded with jihadist money pouring in from the Middle East… so instead of defending your accusations lay on the 3rd grader name calling….LOL….I’d be paranoid too, if I was trying to make such a ridiculous claim using these sources….LOL…then add the double whammy it was libs like yourself who demanded the Geneva Convention accords be applied, at least until they realized that meant Military Tribunals instead of Criminal Court…wow….this is like a Born Loser Cartoon….LOL….

It’s probably not to our children’s benefit that someone like yourself teaches math…but on the other hand… better math than history or current events because we can teach our children that 2+2 really is and has always been just 4 nothing less and nothing more than 4...…LOL….

Paddy….bravo!

GB the USA! "

glenroy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Update "GITMO" Alumni Association....

Excerpts Investors Daily regarding innocent gitmo graduates...


"Taliban leader Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from cruel American bondage in 2004. He insisted he was an innocent traveler when captured in Afghanistan, not a terrorist fighting with the Taliban. While out on his own recognizance, he returned to his native South Waziristan, where he rebuilt a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers.

Last year, Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade to avoid arrest during a raid. But his brother, Baitullah Mehsud, now commands 30,000 fighters who actively support al-Qaida in Pakistan. He also allegedly masterminded the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

These are the supposedly innocent goatherders, shepherds and bedouins the ACLU and other bleeding hearts claim the military is torturing at the camp they so desperately want to shut down."



Oh well....no doubt the consequences of being feed 3 meals a day while staying at our expense at Club Guantanamo. Sooner or later we'll find a 'innocent' gitmo alum before he blows himself up and then our pacifist libs allies will hear it directly from the terrorist...until them keep believing their American trial lawyers, while the rest of us bury our dead..... "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:53 PM:

" glenroy...it must make things easy to casually dismiss the reports of abuse, suicide and torture at GITMO...but why won't US authorities allow the Red Cross to make unannounced visits to the facility if things are so nice and easy for the inmates there..... "

a teacher wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:06 PM:

" Now Glenroy, there you go again with baseless attacks. I have no problem with military tribunals. I first heard of this from reports form soldiers (Abu Graib for example), FBI and the JAG officers who represent some of these people. Not a trail lawyer in the bunch, which throw out like you throw out "liberal", that is a horrible insult.

From what I can read you've never been right about anything you write here, from Obama smokes crack to drill now drill later. You use situational ethics to defend your positions - using the Geneva Convention to justify our legal treatment of "detainees", while we ignore them when we torture them. You throw insults about whilst complaining that I'm acting like a third grader.

You have no credibility. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:38 PM:

" I guess you didn't watch the special on Obama the other night....LOL.... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:34 PM:

" There has not been a single death of a gitmo resident related to alleged abuse….notta.

The phony flushing of the Koran was retracted…the few alleged abuses, such as inhuman immobilization of gitmo residents, in each situation the investigators noted that it was in response to a previous act, defensive restraint happens all the time. It wasn‘t, as is being implied, the result of claiming innocence, they were restrained because they were throwing feces on the guards, biting, spitting and urinating on the guards and the fact is only a small percentage have done so, so even that that can‘t be considered massive in nature. Nobody has claimed a total absence of individual or isolated abuse and nobody is claiming it’s a perfect situation…but they should be thankful they weren’t treated in the same fashion our guys and girls were treated by them….. There is absolutely no proof of massive abuse or of innocent bystanders who were just minding their own business working the poppy fields of Afghanistan being rounded up and shipped off to gitmo….none. It is well documented who and by whom this disinformation campaign is being driven, and whether you choose to believe it makes little difference to me or anybody else I know….my concern is entirely the well being of those protecting us.

I’ll also let you in on a distinctly jihadist trait that apparently went unnoticed…..…they like to commit suicide, big deal they‘re insanely dangerous…..better they kill themselves without killing our guys….or should we be expected to provide them a little companion compassion? LOL>>>> go ahead and volunteer or maybe we can get a few of these trial lawyers who are bent on having these parasites released in our community to ‘hang out’… "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:54 PM:

" none whatsoever.... "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Glenroy- Can't debate with a like-minded group who believes the US is evil, we are not in a religious war with fanatics and there is a moral equivalency to water-boarding and lopping off the head of an innocent aid worker. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:49 AM:

" cab e-girl, you can't argue when your opponents see you in two dimensional, cartoon terms. I don't think the USA is evil. I do believe we are in a war with religious fanatics. I don't believe there is a moral equivalency between water boarding and loping off the heads of your enemies. Your side tends to paint anyone not agreeing with you as "librulz", "trial lawyers", "America haters", etc. You never seem to consider that we just have a disagreement on strategy and tactics. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Teach- You are in the minority, when it comes to liberals and conservatives debating. It is actual possible to have a reasonable debate with you. You are incorrect about my consideration of disagreement. I believe a debate of strategy and tactic as prudent in solving any problem. You are correct about me seeing MOST of my "opponents" as cartoon characters..........namely "Goofy." :) The uninformed rhetoric that comes off the keyboards of many "librulz" as you say, is extremely anti-American with very little room for reasonable debate. "

Bill wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:31 PM:

" So lets recap the momentum of this thread. Situational ethics is OK, moral equivalency is OK, torture is OK especially when anyone gets to define it and lawlessness is OK as in no Great Writ.

Cabbygirl, gilroy, paddy, kevin, auntycommie all appear to believe that law is to be invented on the fly where their view of any circumstance prevails. None has offered any justification for torture and have consistently equivocated about what torture is.

If you do not understand that the methods of torture you advocate are in fact torture there is no debate only equivical meanderings reinventing current events and name calling. "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:33 PM:

" cab-e-girl, explain to me how wanting the US to abide by its own laws is evil,,,,the most patriotic service one can do for your country is not only support it, but when you see it veering away from its core principles, to fight to steer it back to the values that make it a special place..... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:21 PM:

" cal e-girl.....loud and clear....and bravo!


educator?….such 3rd grader mentality…

You have repeatedly made or supported the claim of wide spread torture and abuse at GITMO and you haven’t given a credible source to back it up. I took the time to back track these unsubstantiated claims…several hours from link to link to link peeling away the layers to find where these allegations originate and whom deserves the credit. Using ‘your claims’ or those you’ve agreed and vigorously defended, the driving force is the Association of American Trial Lawyers’ which is directly funded by jihadist money and that’s public records...they're even registered as foreign agents.

I’ve provided verifiable GITMO statistics during the periods these alleged atrocities occurred that would at least refute the statistical claims of massive abuse. Provided links,(though 95% were blocked by the Register, which is their right) references and quotes of recognized experts that at leads to more than a little doubt as to the validity of these claims. The response, whenever challenged on any number of issues from claiming our oil reserves were merely a few billion barrels, to ignoring the links between al Qaeda/Saddam, to claiming Bush and Republicans started this war….has and remains personal attacks…oh well…no big deal I‘ve learned to expect little more when libs have to walk their talk….they can‘t so they attack. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Raven: Did I say that wanting the US to abide by it's own laws is evil? I disagree with treating war prisoners as though they are US citizens. They are not, and should not be given the same rights as you and I. I also do not believe that wearing a pair of underwear on ones head is torture. I don't believe that playing Brittney Spears is " real" torture (although I could probably support the other side of that statement as well ;). Flushing a Koran down the toilet is also not torture and has never been proven for that matter. The torture you guys bring up constantly has been over played and magnified by the media. Just what torture are you talking about? Please be specific. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:18 PM:

" Bill: Did I say that I am advocating torture? Silly me, I don't see it anywhere in my post. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:11 PM:

" Excerpts from a… BBC wire story…lovely situation…..a terrorist coming near you soon. Originally, as the argument went….American Trial Lawyer’s emphatically claimed terrorists would not be released domestically in to our populations and would be returned to their homeland…but like this entire campaign their mouths were way out front of reality….I suppose, no in fact, their definition of a terrorist is after they’ve killed an American….not that they were captured attempting to kill Americans….so the gates are now open.

BBC Oct. 7 2008
"The US has reacted angrily after a judge ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay should be released into the United States. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said the US could not hold the 17 as they were no longer considered enemy combatants. The Uighurs (WEE'gurz) were cleared for release in 2004 but they may face persecution if returned to China. The White House said the ruling could set a precedent that would allow "sworn enemies" to seek US entry. The government says the 17 also pose a security risk if released into the US. Lawyers... for the Bush administration have argued that federal judges do not have authority to order the release into the US of Guantanamo detainees.

Analysts say the ruling is a rebuke for the US government and could set the stage for the release of dozens more detained at the military jail in Cuba."

I wonder how long it will take ACORN to register them as Democrats.... "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:14 PM:

" as for the torture, see what state you are in after hours of sleep deprivation or a bout of water-boarding or constant music played at a volume you cannot control...or being made to stand on your feet and not allowed to move from that position for hours upon end.....

cab-e-girl, you didnt say this?...Can't debate with a like-minded group who believes the US is evil...? and no one is saying treat them as US citizens but in accordance with the treaties we have signed....

so why is it I can get links thru and you cant glenroy...try just listing the site and the search terms..? and the rest of the story glenroy is the appeals court stayed the judges order..so no one is being released yet...and these are people the government has said are no threat...... "

Paddy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Raven - "...hours of sleep deprivation...constant music played at a volume you can't control..."?! That sounds like any given day around my house. Torture? I tell my kids it can be. But when a soldier nabs one of those suicide bombers just before he/she blows him/herself to "paradise" with 200 innocent men, women and children I don't consider any of the techniques described as overly abusive when trying to learn where the bomb factory is that may blow thousands of children to oblivion in the name of jihad...

It's truly sad you, Bill and the other enablers really don't get it. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Raven: I don't believe the methods you have listed are "torture" especially when the enemy puts a hood over the heads of our young soldiers and cuts their heads off with a knife. I see a HUGE difference in the methods. What I don't understand is your failure two delineate the two. "

Raven wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:43 PM:

" you may not believe they are torture but the army field manual of interrogation does...and i am not comparing the two....the second are crimes of inhumanity and barbarity, but that doesn't justify allowing ourselves to descend to that same level...

no paddy I would say you and the others enablers don't get that if we drop to the level of our enemies we lose that moral high ground of claiming we are a nation of laws.....and that we as a nation have scorned the use of torture since our inception...

and to compare interrogation techniques to suicide bombings....two totally different topics and has no bearing on our treatment of prisoners ...another smoke screen to avoid the subject ....and can you show me one documented case where torture at GITMO enabled a soldier to nab a bomber?.. "

Bill wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:15 PM:

" Maybe a strange sentence such as,"Can't debate with a like-minded group who believes the US is evil, we are not in a religious war with fanatics and there is a moral equivalency to water-boarding and lopping off the head of an innocent aid worker. " or "I don't believe the methods you have listed are "torture" especially when the enemy puts a hood over the heads of our young soldiers and cuts their heads off with a knife. I see a HUGE difference in the methods. What I don't understand is your failure two delineate the two. "

It is called situational ethics and equivocation. Water boarding is torture.

If you can not delineate between torture and its use as revenge then of course you do not understand. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:20 PM:

" An article pulled of threatswatch.....


What do three Afghan boys think of Camp X-Ray? Cuba? It was great, say boys freed from US prison camp.

The food in the camp was delicious, the teaching was excellent, and his warders were kind. “Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don’t have anything against them,” he said. “If my father didn’t need me, I would want to live in America.”

Asadullah is even more sure of this. “Americans are great people, better than anyone else,” he said, when found at his elder brother’s tiny fruit and nut shop in a muddy backstreet of Kabul. “Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier.”

This might seem to jar with the prevailing opinion of Guantanamo among human rights groups. [….]

Loitering in Kabul this week, Asadullah came across an American soldier. “I asked him, ‘How are you, sir?’,” he recalled, grinning shyly. The soldier said he was well, and asked the boy what he wanted. Asadullah replied: “Nothing, I was just asking,” as the American walked away.

Just asking. Just being friendly. Imagine that. No hatred towards his ‘torturers’. Go figure. How can this possibly be?


Go figure.... "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 1:59 AM:

" hmmm don't believe we have said that every detainee was tortured....only that torture was being used...and a cynical mind might think several things....first of....three squares a day might seem quite good to a youth coming out of war torn Afghanistan....second, that there is a difference between confronting people who are your captors in a prison and someone on the street in your own country... and that threatwatch has a vested interest in the war on terror...

and I noticed that there is no source listed at all for the story, which is from 2006 btw....... can you do what any respectable media source does and show us a where the original material for your story came from? Threatwatch doesn't list its source "

Raven wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:21 AM:

" and there is this..from the nytimes today

This month, almost seven years after detainees began arriving at Guantánamo Bay on Jan. 11, 2002, a verdict was handed down in the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding so-called unlawful enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Yes, this was the first hearing in a habeas corpus case, so long has the legal battle been to get to this point, and so stubborn has the administration been in seeking to keep Guantánamo detainees out of reach of civilian courts.

Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington ruled that five Algerian men had been unlawfully held at Guantánamo and ordered their release. He said: “Seven years of waiting for our legal system to give them an answer to a question so important is, in my judgment, more than plenty.”

Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those “enhanced” techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.


slowly but surely the laws do work....and we are nothing if we are not a nation of laws.... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:05 AM:

" … after all, that is the core point….‘ ‘those making these claims have no “”bloody”” idea what went on down there, yet they just keep repeating the myth of a bloody mess….’ reality is what abuses occurred were highly unlikely the consequence of systematic policy….which is precisely the imagine being falsely portrayed.

People need to pay attention to politics...all things are politics….partisans have caused the ruin of this country numerous times, partisans like Porklosi and Murtha with their comments after gaining congressional control…‘make this country unmanageable’….by making the ‘war unmanageable’…they said it and immediately commenced to doing it ….and we’ve given them all the keys to the future of this country….like the good old days of ‘destruction of reconstruction.’

The current policies that resulted from this myth is now we ‘catch a terrorist then release a terrorist’ and more innocent people are dead and many more will die…sons and daughters needlessly.

Maybe we should have our troops bull horn ‘Miranda’ before commencement of fire…and only then after fired upon….or to meet the ‘threshold of intent’ only after they kill someone so we can drag irrefutable evidence of body parts into court…stack the pieces up like cord wood…

There were thousands 'grabbed' and whittled down to over 900 who have resided at one point or another in gitmo....'the trees are still in the way of the forest.' This all has less to do with enforcing laws than understanding the nature of this threat and how to fight a 'two front war' ...which began 30 years...next year...ignorance was bliss then and it's blooming again.

This nation will once again rue the day partisans wedged this issue merely to make political hay…. "

Raven wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:53 PM:

" glenroy, the only issue we are making is the US is a nation of laws, and that torture 1) doesn't work and 2) is inhumane and beneath us as a nation and 3) since we have agreed to the Geneva accords, which outlaw torture, and our own laws and policies, like the army interrogation manual, we should abide by them ... you can try and trivialize it with your lil jokes about Miranda but it shows how out of touch you are.

as far as the catch and release.....the terrorists we have convicted in civilian courts are still in prison.....so who has been released that was a proven terrorist? "

glenroy wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Nice try. DIY ‘gitmo’…(no links allowed) .. within ’gitmo’ results.. ‘caught’… ‘captured’ …. ‘Iraq‘…‘Pakistan’ or ‘Afghanistan.’

Gitmo residents have been documented to slaughter again after being released in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria …..such a surprise, they all said they would when released.

This argument has little to do with ‘law,‘ at least in the implied context. Under the current ’anti’ strategy, if successful, these terrorist will become American citizens release in the public….not their homeland…….

Read the GC accords…roughly 90% of the gitmo residents were captured in combat; military tribunals being the sole legal process… ‘captured in combat’ equates to a level of guilt to be determined by military experts, supposedly knowing the laws of combat. Name a country that considers foreign terrorists criminals?….water boarding’s been around for centuries…why is it not listed as torture in the accords? Sleep depredation the same?

The history of this country and every other civilized country dating back centuries has been to try enemy combatants as terrorist/spies without distinction…..as recently as WW 2 domestic military tribunals resulted in executions. "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:00 PM:

" and those tribunals were carried on within the contexts of the geneva accords glenroy....and the citizen theory is bull and you know it...no one is saying they will be released here but rather in there home country....and again....show us the facts....which web site....the no links thing is an excuse...I and many others have posted where they find their results but you consistently refuse to do....

and you avoided my question which is which terrorists convicted in a US court have been released?...and since only 17 people by CNN's count have been tried via the tribunal system at GITMO, which ones have been convicted and then released...the answer, none... "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley || Parade Magazine
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy