Davidso rosie pops off about gtmo and ksm.
like the way she just states that ksm was tortured in cia secret prisons as fact? bogus. typical misinformed and underexperienced tard from academia who needs to get out in the world and see it. and i don’t mean from the balcony of her 5 star hotel as she kisses her lesbian tart of the moment.
i mean the three star hotel. where she needs the flak jacket and can’t drink the water. where the mosquito nets actually keep out malarial bugs.
ever heard of an armchair general? rosie o’donnell: armchair libshit.
there are no secret prisons. there has been no torturing of prisoners at gtmo. though i like to think tat some of the crap they served ME to eat qualifies as torture.
No Mlah. Everything you’ve gone through, whether it was in Fiji, Navy, or as a civilian in the sandbox, has been done as a result of your voluntary participation. If the same thing is done to someone who doesn’t volunteer, or even if they did volunteer, depending on the situation and circumstances (such as a pinning ceremony or other such barbaric activity caught on camera) then it’s considered torture.
If the prison does not have an air-conditioned recreation room, satellite television with at least 180 channels (and capable of picking of the Rosie show), and free high-speed internet access for the inmates, then it is a secret prison. Because, you see, no one would even know such a penal facility exists.
Given the use of torture (defined as keeping suspects against their will, not allowing them 12 hours of beauty sleep per day, not serving them nine-course meals) and the fact that the detention facility is secret (not open to unfettered visitation by the Rosie camera crews), then of course she is right.
GTMO, by the way, falls into the two categories defined above.
“typical misinformed and underexperienced tard from academia who needs to get out in the world and see it”
Since when is Rosie an academic?! You flatter her.
“lesbian tart of the moment”
She’s had the same partner for over 3 years. They’ve adopted 3 kids and had a 4th. What a slut!
“there are no secret prisons.”
Not anymore, but there sure were.
“there has been no torturing of prisoners at gtmo.”
How the shit do you know what went on behind every closed door? And even if there wasn’t any there, that’s what the secret prisons were for! That’s why they passed the law that said “Whatever may or may not have happened in CIA prisons is now retroactively off limits from prosecution for torture.” How convenient! You know, not that it was necessary or anything…
gussy boi makes the argument that there are no longer secret CIA prisons but there used to be and thus by definition there was torture there!
And Mlah, regardless of your time in GTMO, you have no clue whether there was torture there or not!
Please cite the law to which you refer, gussy boi. At any rate, if there is the clause that prevents retroactive investigation of whatever may or may not have existed in the sense of a secret CIA prison, don’t you think that is more rightly aimed at preventing a fishing expedition which would in all likelihood expose U.S. intelligence sources and methods? And it touches on the political, as well, since some countries are cooperating with us on CT issues which, should that cooperation become public knowledge, would seriously destabilize the government because their populace is sympathetic to the terrorists!
Imagine an investigation into CIA activities, with no basic wrongdoing identified but some fall guy sentenced to justify the expense and effort involved. Sort of like with Scooter and Martha. However, the dialogue with the CIA goon might be like this: Well, Mr Ahmed, we’ll infiltrate you into the terrorist group so you can spy for us at the CIA, but if Congress decides to investige, we will have to lay you out for public inspection of your activities, and unfortunately, then you will have to deal with the righteous anger of those terrorists who will kill you and your family.
incorrect yup. in spite of your opinion that i have “no clue” whether there was torture or not, i do in fact have a clue. having been in the prison, had full access to the guards, the interrogators, and well, my coworkers at parties with copious amounts of liquor.
look back to your time in the navy and remember the disgruntled sailors aboard ship.
i know the facilities. i know the personnel.
THERE WAS NO TORTURE IN GTMO.
I said so. ME. anybody who disagrees is wrong. now of course. i think we’re on about the same page as to what IS torture in the first place. gussie will agree with the terrorists that the
try this on for size.
there are secret education centerws run by liberals where they killl babies and drink their blood. happens in middle schools in hawaii. what? you disagree? you have no clue. where you there at all middle schools at all times? you say there is no proof? of course not! it’s all covered up!
Sorry Mlah, what I meant was that according to gussie boi’s posting, you have no clue of what went on at GTMO despite the fact that you were there.
de nada. i’m bit jittery over here. we’re all on edge.
jittery? why, you have lots of holdings in the Shanghai stock market?
I just read a decent article on KSM and the use of the war paradigm versus law enforcement paradigm in the fight against terrorists. It’s rather sensible.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03182007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/extreme_justice_opedcolumnists_david_b__rivkin_jr___rich_lowry.htm?page=0
btw, didja notice that gussy is more comfortable defending the rosie lesbianism than in defending ksm? at least we know where his liberal angst lies.
“Please cite the law to which you refer”
The Military Commissions Act of 2006
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061108.html
First of all, did you happen to notice that the author of the article you cite, one JOANNE MARINER, is an executive with Human Rights Watch. I mean, not exactly an unbiased observer. She’s supposed to be the Terrorism and Counter Terrorism expert at that august body, yet her writings are undeniably slanted against the victims of the terrorists. Not much, if anything, has passed from her pen of a condemnatory nature pertaining to the terrorists themselves. In her book, they are all innocent until proven guilty in a Federal Court. Which is at the root of her disagreement with the U.S. Government.
That makes whatever she wrote a commentary, and a biased one at that.
So, you cite her writing in which she claims the MCA “immize[s] the CIA from domestic prosecution for the crimes it committed” in its interrogations of terrorists and terrorist suspects. Nice spin.
How about, it makes impossible the efforts of people like JOANNE MARINER and Human Rights Watch to retroactively declare illegal any actions untertaken by the CIA in this capacity, whip up public sentiment based on the citizenry’s poor understanding of the issues, and press for prosecution in HRW-friendly courts (such as the Ninth Circuit). I mean, the nerve of the U.S. forcing the poor detainees to eat three squares a day, to make them confused about which day or what time it is, to make them have any discomfort whatsoever, repeatedly asking them questions, and the like! MCA also kicks the legs out from under these folks in trying to force the U.S. Government to treat the detainees like mere criminal suspects held by the law enforcement community with all their applicable modern rights within the U.S., such as Miranda, satellite television, air conditioning, and tuition assistance.
So Gussy, your source, indeed, the whole direction of your argument, is not valid from where I’m standing.
“immunize[s]” of course.
There is no dispute as to what the law does.
“But the MCA retroactively decriminalized torture at least such actions committed before the end of 2005.”
–James Bovard, from 18 December 2006 issue of the American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_12_18/article2.html
Fecking idiot.
So you contend that the U.S. Government was conducting torture. Care to elaborate? Or are you just parroting the political line of your masters?
Because there are valid interrogation techniques that some idiots call “torture” but aren’t, just so they can score political points against Bush. And this particular president has been very lame on defending the actions of his government — look no further than his current inexcusable inability to declare and explain his prerogatives when it comes to hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys.
The political opposition to the Long War has hijacked the debate and declared nearly all interrogation techniques “torture.” (The kind of polite questioning where the suspect has been read his Miranda rights and is done in the presence of his defense attorney are still OK in their book.) The blanket condemnation of these interrogation techniques as torture has lead to silly practices such as the use of a leather recliner in which the terrorist suspect is invited to repose for up to 60 minutes of soft questioning at a time. That is, 60 minutes of easy questioning so long as the poor terrorist suspect doesn’t feel uncomfortable about his situation.
So please, you “fecking idiot,” explain yourself and your allegations of torture.
As for James Bovard, the man is an extreme libertarian critic of the federal government. Period. He has made a career over the last 16 years or so of criticizing the government, whichever party is in control of the White House and Congress. His writings are not neutral, he has a political cause in support of which he is writing. So the quote of his that you point to is also commentary.
By the way, Gussy boi, just so you would be a little biteducated about the argument you are making, here is the wording from the MCA:
(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
There you have it. No “decriminalization” of torture as you contend. In fact, statements obtained by torture are not allowed. (After all, some of our allies in the Long War have less than civil interrogation techniques.) The “decriminalization” in your view apparently comes from the disputed degree of coercion clause. A dispute does not a fact make.
And what does it say next?
So the same thing, except that the one you quoted didn’t include (3)– in other words, the interrogation methods used could have included “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”. INHUMAN! Why this distinction, unless they had to cover their asses? It doesn’t matter who comments on this provision, it’s ugly any way you look at it.
Hey Dumbass! They had to start the counter over when the new law called the Detainee Treatment Act was passed in December 2005. Prior to that there was no legislative control over specific methodologies, save for criminal culpability for torture. And as I mentioned previously, the bleeding hearts have grossly expanded the definition of torture to include “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” situations like Mlah and I faced in our respective fraternity days, in our Navy training, or elsewhere. According to the new liberal humanitarian ideas, what we underwent would make us victims of “torture.”
I refer you to the ECHR ruling in the 1978 Ireland v UK case, which declared that Britain’s subjection of Irish terrorist prisoners to sleep deprivation, hooding, exposure to hissing noise, reduced diet and standing against a wall for hours was “inhuman and degrading” but not “torture” within the meaining of the European Convention on Human Rights (You can find a summary of the case in Yearbook, European Convention on Human Rights 602 (Council of Europe), 1978.)
Now, under the DTA, such treatment is disallowed — made criminal. It was clearly not torture, based on the precendential findings of the most liberal human rights court on the planet, but was not at the time illegal.
So can you think rationally, Gus, or are you simply a parrot spewing the talking points of your cause?
he is not a parrot in this case yup. it is merely convenient for him to call it torture so he can decry the current administration. that’s all he really wants to do. rest assured is kaiser billy was stil cic he would not consider it torture.