Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

When We Torture »

Posted by: Beau7890 6 months, 3 weeks ago

8.7

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 37

Propped: 59

Comments: 97

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The most famous journalist you may never have heard of is Sami al-Hajj, an Al Jazeera cameraman who is on a hunger strike to protest abuse during more than six years in a Kafkaesque prison system. Mr. Hajj's story is sowing anger at the authorities holding him without trial. That's us. Mr. Hajj is one of our forgotten prisoners in Guantanamo Bay

Read Full Story at nytimes.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 97

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.63 Replies
- 0%
  Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  > Intersting that convicted felons have been tried, convicted, paroled, and are on the streets again ...
  It seems to me that you've answered your own question. You see, it's extremely dangerous to allow TERRORISTS back on the streets again.
  Reply
  27 Replies
  - 0%
    dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Then prove it and get on with it.
    Reply
  - 0%
    Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Just curious, "Thinker": What makes you think this man is a terrorist?
    Reply
    9 Replies
    - 0%
      muhairi86 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      Sami al-Hajj 'to be released'
      http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/15/...
      Reply
    - 0%
      Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      > What makes you think this man is a terrorist?
      The very fact that he was captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo. You see, the following rules apply during a war: one is guilty until proven innocent. This is the reason enemy soldiers who were lucky enough to stay alive were captured and kept as POW until the war ended. Then those who were proven innocent were released. As Islamist terrorism continues so does the war of terrorism and therefore, captured suspected terrorists will be kept in places where they can not do more harm.
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        al-Hajj wasn't captured "in battle," or on a battlefield. Unless you consider the entire world a battlefield, which means that we can disappear anyone we want--even American citizens--without any kind of cause, charges brought against them, or even a rationale made to somebody against it.
        In other words, if a Democrat became president, he or she could see that comment online and decide you're a threat and should be locked up forever. And there'd be nothing you or your loved ones could do to try to get you out of the situation.
        It's called the rule of law.
        Reply
      - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > I have to go on reasoning and logic...
        No one prevents you from doing it. You may start by realizing that it's illogical to allow captured terrorists back on the streets. You may continue by reasoning that doing so would result in more innocent people murdered and maimed.
        Good luck!
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I'm afraid that you're confused a bit here.
        It's not me who is saying this gentlemen is a terrorist.
        It's the US Government who put him in a camp for members of terrorist organizations. I have no reasons to believe that the US Government is lying in this particular case.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I can only say that if facts contradict your beliefs it's not the facts that should be fixed. The fact is that this gentlemen is imprisoned in the Guantanamo camp for dangerous terrorists. It's up to you to believe that he is innocent.
        Reply
  - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.15 Replies
    - 0%
      Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      > I could look at your comment in different ways. One, that convicted felons are to be considered as "terrorists"(which I find to be true - if guilty) and shouldn't be put back out on the streets(subject to a number of things IMO)
      I'm not sure how you came to this weird conclusion but it is completely wrong. Convicted felons that DID serve their time in jail CAN and SHOULD be released... and NO, they should not be considered as "terrorists".
      This is the definition of terrorism I'm using and if you'll use it, too, you will be guaranteed not to confuse terrorism with any other activities:
      TERRORISM IS DELIBERATE ATTACKING OF NON-COMBATANTS WITH POLITICAL GOALS.
      
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I'm writing my posts using plain English and pretty straightforward logic that (at least, in my opinion) is pretty difficult to understand in a different way without twisting my words. In addition, I usually mean what I say.
        Regarding the gunmen who killed their fellow students try to use my definition of terrorism directly above, as I've suggested. If these gunmen had POLITICAL goals then they were terrorists. As long as their goals are unknown so is the answer to the question of them being terrorists.
        Reply
      - 0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Thinker, you said "TERRORISM IS DELIBERATE ATTACKING OF NON-COMBATANTS WITH POLITICAL GOALS."
        So when exactly did Sami al-Hajj attack non-combatants with political goals? (Or without, for that matter?)
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > So when exactly did Sami al-Hajj attack non-combatants with political goals? (Or without, for that matter?)
        I don't know. You see, I was not the one who captured him, arrested him and decided that he should be jailed at Guantanamo... with all due respect.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Two questions about that.
        Who did capture him, arrest him, and decide he should be jailed in Guantanamo--do you know?
        Do you have utter and blind trust in our that person or group to always act on our behalf?
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > Who did capture him, arrest him, and decide he should be jailed in Guantanamo--do you know?
        No, I don't. Do you?
        > Do you have utter and blind trust in our that person or group to always act on our behalf?
        No, I don't. Do you always have utter and blind DIStrust in our that person or group to always act on our behalf? If you do WHY didn't you commit suicide yet?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        That's right. None of us knows who decided to send him away with no rights, or why they did so.
        THAT'S MY POINT.
        So you do trust our government to act on your behalf in at least the case of locking up foreigners and giving them no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Do you also have utter and blind trust in the government to spend your money wisely on social programs? How about to decide what to teach your children in school?
        Do you get it yet?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > None of us knows who decided to send him away with no rights, or why they did so.
        THAT'S MY POINT.
        Well, if THIS IS YOUR POINT and if you have troubles with it you also have the right to launch a private investigation to discover the name(s) of the officials(s) who did it.
        > So you do trust our government to act on your behalf in at least the case of locking up foreigners and giving them no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Do you also have utter and blind trust in the government to spend your money wisely on social programs? How about to decide what to teach your children in school?
        I trust the government to act on my behalf in many cases and or many issues. This is how democracy works. If you DO NOT trust the government you've elected WHAT ARE YOU DOING in this country? You should find a place for yourself where you'll trust your government.
        Do you get it yet?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Yes, I get it. You've been brainwashed.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      > Or, two, that you consider Sami Al-Hajj to be a terrorist, and that it is a dangerous idea to put himback on the strets. In that case, I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that he is a terroist, as he has been convicted of nothing.
      As you're, hopefully, aware, the Guantanamo base is being used as a prison for suspected terrorists. This means that Mr. Al-Hajj is considered a terrorist unless proven otherwise.
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > That's a pattern of logic I can't follow.
        If you can not follow logic try to follow history. I'm not aware of any war in human history where enemy soldiers were arrested and tried instead of being fought and killed or captured. On the other hand, I can give you a lot of examples when enemy soldiers were either killed (without a trial) or captured and kept in camps until the end of the war (again, without trials). A special term was even invented for such people, Prisoners Of War (POW) and a special set of international laws that apply to them. These laws also specifically define enemy combatants to whom they do not apply. Members of terrorist organizations are one of such exceptions.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        As I've said if you have troubles with logic (or if your understanding of logic is highly selective) try to follow facts first. It should make things easier for you.
        Usually one collects facts and then applies some logical rules to explain these facts. Not the other way around.
        Reply
- 0%
  bobo-in-texas6 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  This "journalist" collaborated with those killing American solders.
  Let him rot.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    See above.
    Reply
  - 0%
    ciera-marie6 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Bobo:
    And you know that how? Where is the proof?
    Reply
- 0%
  dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  "well why don't we ask those that were murdered by these terrorists and what they think."
  Well thank goodness! someone who's finally got proof! Then we can at last get on with the convictions and trials!! Okay, let's see it then.... hmmmm? :|
  Oh, don't need charges or proof just scurrulous accusations coz they're enemy combatants, right? War time stuff'n all. Okay, so I guess the war's finally been declared then after all. alrighty then, which nation?.... hmmmm?
  Oh, it's not actually a war on, well, a nation? oooooh-kay, so what is it then? a war on WHAT?.... an abstract noun? you're kidding right? :|
  That means we could go to war on anything that can't be really beaten because we never know when we've won, like say, waging war on anxiety, forgetfulness.... or uncertainty, and because of that we can detain anyone we like for as long as we like just by calling them... "enemy combatants". that's some real wacko sh*t which i think should have everybody worried.
  Reply
  30 Replies
  - 0%
    Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    I have some news for you:
    First, the enemy DOES NOT have to be an organized nation to attack the US or any other state.
    Second, if ANY group of violent murderers (not necessarily an organized nation) attacked the US or any other state it means that it started a war against the US or any other state it attacked.
    Third, if a war was NOT formally declared (there were no toxedoed diplomats delivering a beautiful letter titled "Declaration of war") it is still a war as long as people fight and get killed.
    Fourth, a war that started will continue until a peace agreement is achieved or one of the sides surrenders or is eliminated.
    Is it clear enough?
    Reply
    29 Replies
    - 0%
      Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      First, can you define the enemy in a way that can be applied in every case? When we're at war against a nation, we can.
      Second, "any group"? How large a group? Is two enough? If there was more than a single gunman who shot Kennedy, would it mean they started a "war"? If a member of an anti-abortion group blows up a clinic, should the entire group be locked away forever with no legal means of defense?
      Third, you can call it a war, but to use legal means to fight it and to imprison people means you need to have a legal basis for a war.
      Fourth, by your own statement, it's a war if people fight and get killed, with no formal declaration. Then how could there be a declaration of peace? Who has the official capacity to strike an agreement, if we're not at war with a nation? And how do you know if the other side is eliminated, since you can't identify them?
      "It's a war (or an enemy) because I say it is" is not very clear at all.
      Reply
      28 Replies
      - 0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > First, can you define the enemy in a way that can be applied in every case?
        Yes, I can. An enemy is a group or organization attacking us, our friends and our interests.
        > Second, "any group"? How large a group? Is two enough?
        One is enough in case military (and not only police) shouldbe activated to confront it.
        > Third, you can call it a war, but to use legal means to fight it and to imprison people means you need to have a legal basis for a war.
        Not necessarily. An act of aggression justifying activation of the military will suffice.
        > Fourth, by your own statement, it's a war if people fight and get killed, with no formal declaration. Then how could there be a declaration of peace?
        First, this is a lie. I DID NOT say that. I've said that a formal declaration was not necessary. Second, here are some examples of "declaration of peace": Surrender of Germany and Japan in WWII, peace agreement between Israel and Egypt or Israel and Jordan.
        Reply
        27 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        1 & 2) Okay, so by your definition, anyone can be the enemy, at any time.
        3) The military is supposed to be activated only by a declaration of war. The president doesn't get to do it by himself.
        4) Go back and read what you wrote. So I need to quote you again--it's just three comments up, under "Third..." You said a formal declaration is not necessary if people fight and get killed.
        Reply
        26 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You seem to have misunderstood my point. You can negotiate with, and declare an end to a war with a nation.
        You cannot negotiate with some nebulous group who you cannot define except after the fact. You can't kill them all either--apprently, you don't know who they are until they're sent to Guantanamo. You're using circular reasoning.
        According to you, they're enemies if some mysterious person in charge of sending people away to Guantanamo says they are. (And who is that mysterious judge, anyway?)
        Who is the terrorists' leader? Who would surrender to us? Alternately, how would it be possible to kill them all, when they haven't all been identified by the mysterious person in charge of sending them to Guantanamo?
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > You can negotiate with, and declare an end to a war with a nation.
        This is correct.
        > You cannot negotiate with some nebulous group...
        This is not true. The US and Israel negotiated with "nebulous groups" like the PLO, Hezbollah, etc. When your statements and facts contradict each other it's not the facts that should be corrected.
        > You can't kill them all either...
        There is no need to "kill them all". If enough of them are killed in order for the rest to ask for peace the goal is achieved.
        > According to you, they're enemies if some mysterious person in charge of sending people away to Guantanamo says they are.
        This is a blatant lie. I've never said or implied anything like that According to me they're enemies if they attack us, our interests and our friends.
        > Who is the terrorists' leader? Who would surrender to us?
        The one (or ones) who has enough power and authority to issue orders and make sure these orders are followed.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        The PLO and Hezbollah have an internal structure that is something like the governments of nations--in fact, they're trying to become governments themselves. Al-Qaeda (if that's the terrorist organization you're talking about) doesn't operate that way, and its members will not simply take orders from Osama bin-Laden. So you can't negotiate a deal with Osama (even if we were trying to)--if we find him, we'll just kill him.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You said "There is no need to 'kill them all'." But you said in a comment above that that "a war that started will continue until a peace agreement is achieved or one of the sides surrenders or is eliminated." Elimated doesn't mean kill? Does it mean imprison in Guantanamo? You can't do that either, for the same reason I gave for not being able to kill them all.
        You said "If enough of them are killed in order for the rest to ask for peace the goal is achieved."
        Once again, I'd ask: Who are "the rest" who would ask for peace? They have no nation to defend. Why would they give up if they were suffering heavy losses? Destroying the countries where they operate will only serve their purposes--to foment instability and chaos, in order to gain support against the U.S.
        How do you not see that our actions actually help the terrorists rather than hurt them?
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Read your own comments. Don't you pay attention to what you write? Your first response to me at the top of the thread begins with:
        "> What makes you think this man is a terrorist?
        "The very fact that he was captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo."
        So...not a blatant lie that you said that they're enemies if some mysterious person in charge of sending people away to Guantanamo says they are. Exactly who do you think makes the decision to end them there?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        When I asked who would surrender, you replied:
        "The one (or ones) who has enough power and authority to issue orders and make sure these orders are followed."
        That's my point! There ISN'T one leader who can tell al-Qaeda to stand down--a franchise, if you will, like McDonalds. Individual owners of McDonalds franchises do what they want with their stores.
        Al-Qaeda is a loosely organized collection of small regional terrorist organizations around the world. And our "war" on them and draconian actions help them convert others to their cause--they don't care if they suffer losses here or there.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by your series of posts above but there are only two possibilities to deal with Al Qaeda or any other organization of terrorists no matter how loose or organized it is:
        We'll continue to fight them until their leadership (if it exist) will beg for peace or, alternatively, until there will be no one left to beg for peace.
        Is it clear enough? If it is not please consider that surrendering to a group of mass murderers because they're "not organized" in not an option.
        Is it clear enough now?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I don't think anyone (except you, just now) mentioned surrendering to terrorists.
        The main point of the argument I've been making this whole time is that we will never know whether the detainees are guilty under the current policies.
        We don't know why they've been sent to Guantanamo. We don't know what they've been charged with. We don't plan to try them.
        If there's evidence against al-Hajj and others, and they're guilty, it should be no problem to put that out there where the rest of the world can see it so that we can regain trust internationally and possibly reverse the huge number of converts to al-Qaeda's cause.
        As it stands now, we look like any other imperialistic dictatorship, imprisoning people with no rights whatsoever. Our government is giving terrorists rhetorical ammunition against us.
        Is that clear enough now?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I'm afraid that you're bursting into an open door. I've already clarified that detainees captured during a war are being detained until the end of the war. Usually without being individually tries and convicted. It is futile to claim that a war against terrorist organizations is somehow NOT A WAR because the terrorist organizations are "not organized states", "too loose" or because there was no "formal declaration of war".
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You said that detainees are captured until the end of the war. And I've said that this particular "war," if you want to call it that, can have no end, because the organizations are undefined. That lack of the ability to specify who we're fighting or who we could try to negotiate a peace settlement (or even who we should kill) makes it impossible to end, by your own definition of how a war can end.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > 1 & 2) Okay, so by your definition, anyone can be the enemy, at any time.
        This is not true. Only those who attack us, our friends and our interests and who are large and powerful enough to justify activation of the military.
        > 3) The military is supposed to be activated only by a declaration of war. The president doesn't get to do it by himself.
        Again, this is not true. The formalism of activation of the military depends on the laws of each particular country (the US in not the only country on the planet as you're aware). Second, I do not think that even in the US a declaration of war was issued every time military was activated. As a couple of recent examples please consider the use of US military in Iran, Granada and Panama. Show me the links to declarations of war against these countries if you don't mind.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        1 & 2) Don't be purposefully obtuse. I could have said, "Anyone can be *declared* the enemy, since those making that determination will offer no evidence of who's attacking us...
        3) "The formalism of activation of the military depends on the laws of each particular country (the US in not the only country on the planet as you're aware)."
        Again--you're simply changing your arguments based on semantics. We're discussing the U.S. here, in case you've forgotten while winding through your twisted rhetorical contortions.
        And you talked about Iran, Grenada and Panama--we used the military, but we didn't call it a war. We had specific objectives to achieve in all of those places, lame as they were, and when we accomplished them, we left. Saddam was deposed almost 5 years ago, but--surprise!--we're still there. What measurable and possible objective do we have left that would allow us to leave? When the terrorists surrender? My answer to that is above--that's not possible.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > We're discussing the U.S. here, in case you've forgotten while winding through your twisted rhetorical contortions.
        I'm not sure how you came to this decision but I have to remind you (again!) that there are other countries on this planet besides the US and that sometimes there are wars between two or more of these countries.
        Further, activation of military against another country or organization IS a war do you like it or not.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        The article is about a detainee in Guantanamo. We're discussing our treatment of those imprisoned there, and how unfair it is.
        Have you forgotten?
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > We're discussing our treatment of those imprisoned there, and how unfair it is.
        If you imply that similar treatment of prisoners by other countries in other places is somehow more "fair" I disagree. My definitions of "fairness" apply to ALL people and countries.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        No, I'm not implying that treatment of prisoners in other countries is more fair.
        I'm saying that our treatment is unfair, period.
        In other words, the determination of what is fair is not based on "what everybody else does," but rather on standards of how you, yourself, would like to be treated if you were in the other's place. (And don't tell me you wouldn't be in his place because you're not a terrorist--the methods being used by our government that you advocate can result in your being sent to a prison to rot for the rest of your life, if used injudiciously.)
        I'm arguing for fairness everywhere. It's one of the ideals on which the U.S. was founded. And this particular article happens to be about an example of unfairness perpetrated by the U.S.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > ...the determination of what is fair is not based on "what everybody else does," but rather on standards of how you, yourself, would like to be treated if you were in the other's place.
        Well, tell me how you, yourself, would like to be treated if you were in the other's place, namely in the place of someone caught as part of a bunch of murderous terrorists (And don't tell me that you would expect a five-star hotel with ten-course meals and live entertainment).
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I would like, and expect a government that prides itself on inalienable rights, to be treated fairly.
        In other words, I should not be kidnapped off the street of a foreign country and dropped off to be imprisoned somewhere else forever.
        If that somehow happened anyway, I'd believe everyone should have a chance to prove his innocence.
        The Geneva Conventions tried to put in place such standards of fairness in treatment of POWs.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > So I need to quote you again--it's just three comments up, under "Third..." You said a formal declaration is not necessary if people fight and get killed.
        Yes, I did say it and I've just asked yo to show formal declarations of war when the US army was activated, people fought and were killed in Iran, Granada and Panama, in order to prove my words to be wrong.
        Be my guest!
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I never said there were formal declarations. You're contradicting your own point in asking for them.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > I never said there were formal declarations.
        I'm afraid that you should consult your therapist and tell him that you have memory problems. This is what you've said just a couple of posts above:
        > 3) The military is supposed to be activated only by a declaration of war. The president doesn't get to do it by himself.
        Are you trying to say that a declaration of war that requires approval of an entire committee ABOVE the President of the United States is an... INFORMAL one???
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Apparently, you suffer from the same memory problems. If you follow the discussion, you can see that what is left out of my sentence is "I never said there were formal declarations of war AGAINST IRAN, GRANADA AND PANAMA, the countries about which you're asking." (caps for emphasis only, not trying to scream here)
        And I'm saying that Congress gets to declare war. Call it formal, informal, or whatever. The point is, the president doesn't get to do it.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > If you follow the discussion, you can see that what is left out of my sentence is "I never said there were formal declarations of war AGAINST IRAN, GRANADA AND PANAMA, the countries about which you're asking." (caps for emphasis only, not trying to scream here)
        There is no need to scream. Just look at your own post above:
        http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/14/...
        > And I'm saying that Congress gets to declare war. Call it formal, informal, or whatever. The point is, the president doesn't get to do it.
        I see. By YOUR definition if the Congress did not declare a war it's not a war... even if Millions of troops are fighting the enemy forces.
        All you had to do was to clarify the definitions you're using to make your statements.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        You said, way back on the first page, that wars don't have to be declared for our people to be killed, and.
        You made that point in arguing with dissent for ignoring the need for congressional approval to initiate and expand military actions.
        You imply that if a military action is occurring that places our soldiers in peril, the fact that they are in danger makes it a war, which justifies secret prisons, disregard of legal rights and fairness, etc.
        Here's where you did it:
        http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/14/...
        The logical conclusion to your arguments is that the president can unilaterally send our troops into battle anywhere, for any reason he chooses, then use their situation as an excuse to kidnap people off the streets of cities and lock them away in the Tower of London with no way to defend themselves.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > You said, way back on the first page, that wars don't have to be declared for our people to be killed...
        No, I did not. I've said that wars don't have to be declared in order to be wars.
        > You imply that if a military action is occurring that places our soldiers in peril, the fact that they are in danger makes it a war, which justifies secret prisons, disregard of legal rights and fairness, etc.
        This is not the case. Let me determine what I imply and what I do not imply. You're supposed to REPLY TO WHAT I SAY. Is it clear enough?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        If you say ll A is B, and all B is C, I will draw the logical conclusion.
        Whether you *meant* to imply it or not does not affect its validity under your own statements. It's a function of your thought process.
        Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
0%
Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

> ...an Al Jazeera cameraman who is on a hunger strike to protest abuse...
I wonder WHY we never hear about Al Jazeera or other Arab journalists, news agencies or simple Arabs protesting abuse in Syrian, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Sudanese or Palestinian prisons. Apparently, there is no prison abuse in Arab states. An alternative and much more plausible explanation would suggest that hunger strikes or other forms of protest will not be effective there.
Reply
7 Replies
- 0%
  dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  We may not hear of protests, but let's face it, there's a lot that goes on in this world that we're never gonna here about tinker bell. something to do with our own good or something. but we do know about those places just the same. except when we've got a few dozen extraordinary renditions going in there. then it takes those foreign journalists to get the news out, you know, the stuff we never hear about. that's when we shoot the messenger or just send him to gitmo and call him a terrorist without charge or trial.
  We send people on those extraordinary renditions because these countries are already known to be vile and inhumane so it shouldn't matter. it's supposed to make us look better, but it doesn't, it just makes us look like lying hypocrites skulking around trying to hide our nasty little vile and inhumane habits that we preach to everybody else not to practice and then blame somebody, anybody else if we get busted. in fact, you did it yourself just then!
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    You did not answer my question WHY we never hear about Al Jazeera or other Arab journalists, news agencies or simple Arabs protesting abuse in Syrian, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Sudanese or Palestinian prisons.
    Are you able to produce a comprehensible answer instead of dancing around?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      I gave you an answer dopey. It just wasn't the one you wanted to hear. Too bad.
      Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
  - 0%
    Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    First, there are foreign prisons and there are foreign prisons. A Swiss prison is, probably, pretty different from a Syrian prison. Second, I've asked a pretty specific question about Arab (A-R-A-B!!!) journalists, news agencies or simple Arabs protesting abuse in Syrian, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Sudanese or Palestinian prisons. Again, I've asked about the reasons ARAB news agencies do not protest abuse of ARAB prisoners in ARAB prisons.
    Is it clear enough this time?
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
      - 0%
        Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        > You're plenty clear.
        Yes, I am pretty clear and you've given me the correct answer (at least, half of it). The other half is that no one would try to protest abuse in Syrian, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Sudanese or Palestinian prisons by a... hunger strike. If he did he would be allowed to die from hunger and no one would care.
        Reply
0%
Mutainia6 months, 3 weeks ago

IF this journalist is successful in getting a lot of people to believe his Jihadist story (Jihadists would NEVER lie, right?), he can get rid of water-boarding those who might know when a nuke is to go off in New York City some day. I wonder if he will succeed so New York can be attacked?
Reply
4 Replies
- 0%
  dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  jibberish.
  Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
  - 0%
    Mutainia6 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    We know that politicians lie, that's a given. But, not to many people in this world realize that, thanks to Quranic surahs 3:28 and 16:106, a Muslim is allowed to lie (even deny faith in Allah) IF he feels his life is in danger OR, if he is telling Christians and Jews that he's their friend. Being so the case, IF this guy is a Jihadist (who views the world divided between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb), and KNOWS about those two surahs, well, what he says is automatically suspect. How can it NOT be?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

First of all the man has been convicted of nothing and under legal theory in every Occidental nation on the planet one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise by a jury of his peers. Of course it's obvious to a lot posters here anyone captured/abducted the U.S. government anywhere on the planet is a terrorist. They casually forget about the hundreds of people captured, held with charge for years while being tortured before eventually being released and still are stupid enough to think America's government is hated because it's freedom loving.
The reason why thoughtless 22 never hears about Arab journalists being abused by Arab governments is because he doesn't follow the Arab media or European outlets critical of various Arab governments. The reason why thoughtless 22 hears about Arab journalists being tortured by Americans is because the American government does so often enough that it's hard to ignore.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  > The reason why thoughtless 22 never hears about Arab journalists being abused by Arab governments is because he doesn't follow the Arab media or European outlets critical of various Arab governments.
  At this point you're supposed to show multiple links to Al Jazeera and other Arab media (Europe is NOT Arab yet) to support your statement above, bowel.
  I'm all ears.
  Reply
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

It's very disturbing to know that the armchair sadists here are so predictable and incapable of reason. Whenever the American government is exposed for torturing someone suspected (not proved) of resisting American imperial governance in Iraq that they raise the specter of a nuke in NYC just like they saw on 24 Hours. When I am afflicted with the inhuman miasma Mutainia, BoBo and others here spout I marvel that Americans aren't hated even more then they all ready are.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  It is somewhat disturbing, but I take solace in knowing that, generally speaking, commenters out here and elsewhere on the Internet represent the most reactionary and dogmatic elements of our society.
  Reply
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

I hope you are right Beau but when I consider that talk radio hosts with millions of listeners sound just like the 24 Hr. freaks here I really wonder just mainstream is the perversity found here. Hearing Bush & company proudly defend the indefensible doesn't help either.
I was given the "water cure" numerous times over a period of several months along with some other stuff I don't want to get in to now by the sort of people that BoBo & company presumably are against yet they support the same behavior with same logic. What depresses me most of all is knowing that a country I so strongly believed in for so long has embraced such evil with such gusto. I know I was naive and I can't go back to thinking that way but honestly, it was comforting to be blind that way.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  I think that the heyday of blind trust of rabid talk radio hosts is over. Some of the worst of them are losing ratings and popularity, and it appears that the electorate is beginning to recognize their limited credibility.
  At least, I hope so.
  Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
0%
Itachirumon6 months, 3 weeks ago

Anybody who STILL thinks Gitmo is a good place is so f.u.c.k.e.d. in the head, they need to get out of this country. I had more that was much more devisive and more violent but for the sake of non-hypocrisy I'm not going to say it
My boyfriend may love 24 but he loves it for the action not for the torturing of brown people.
Reply
0%
HMMace6 months, 3 weeks ago

HAS ANYONE EVER DEFINED--"TORTURE"...
LIKE MAKING THEM BLEED...--OR LEAVING SCARS---OR BREAKING BONES--
WATER BVOARDING DOES NONE OF THE ABOVE--"IT SCARES YOU"..
COULD THIS BE DEFINED AS "TORTURE"..I THINK NOT..
Reply
1 Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

I can't believe anyone is so willfully ignorant or clueless that this even need be said. Torture is the infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion upon someone unable to defend themselves. Water boarding is drowning someone but (hopefully) stopping before they die. The process is traumatic, painful, sometimes results in brain damage or death and is done as punishment or a forcible means of persuasion upon someone unable to defend themselves. America has executed people as war criminals for water boarding but it seems that the armchair sadists think it's just fine when the U.S. does it to "suspected terrorists".
Reply
1 Reply
- HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

Thoughtless, your use of fecal humor used in a debate shows you really are to stupid to be worthy of a response by me but I'll show you what two minutes of casual search with goggle can do since you're clearly not up to the task.
On propeller today a story about killing witches: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm Stories like that are published here several times a week.
Check our Saba news for endless stories about arab governments abusing human rights http://www.sabanews.net/en/news146555.htm
Mathaba has more of the same and they are complaining about Lybia at the moment http://www.mathaba.net/info/
www.al-bab.com Is committed to complaining about human rights in Arab countries and censorship in particular and has a huge collection of links.

Reply
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

(continued for thoughtless)
Various criticisms here:
http://http//www.bianet.org/english/kategori/en...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7212452...
http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/statements_deta...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5024874.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,134305...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/72...
Here you can read about torture in Egypt and an al Jazeera reporter being victimized the same way Sami al-Hajj was: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=150
Which leads to using the search function of Al Jazeera turning up tons of stuff critical of various Arab goverments...">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/69764E50... rights violations&PageIndex=1

Reply
3 Replies
- 0%
  Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  > ...your use of fecal humor used in a debate shows...
  When you're trying to insult your opponent by distorting his moniker you should expect something similar in response.
  Now to the point of your links. Two of them were actually Arab sources (as I've said Europe is not Arab yet). Only ONE was a news agency (Saba) and this one reported that Yemen where it is located was EXCLUDED from the list of states guilty of human rights abuse.
  This is all you were able to find?
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    that was an accidental pos, so i take it back. but i'll tell you what tinkerbell, seeing as how much you like to play the You Haven't Answered My Question!! Game with absolutely EVERYONE, why don't YOU write the answer YOU want to hear, seeing as it's the only one you'll accept, and WE get to tell YOU if it's an answer or not. what do you think? i'm expecting an answer
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      > that was an accidental pos, so i take it back.
      I'm not sure what you're talking about. I had a discussion with another poster who referred to himself as "bowel" or something.
      Second, when someone is asking me a question I usually produce a direct, honest and unequivocal answer to that specific question and I expect the same from others.
      Is it clear enough?
      If you have troubles answering the question above here are two possible canned answers. Please select one:
      1. Yes, it is clear, thank you.
      2. No, it is not clear to me. I do not understand what you mean by "clear enough" and I need additional clarifications.
      Is it clear now?
      
      Reply
0%
Bovver6 months, 3 weeks ago

Thoughtles

Hello!

When We Torture »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at nytimes.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 97

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.63 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

muhairi86 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.5 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.15 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

bobo-in-texas6 months, 3 weeks ago

dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago

ciera-marie6 months, 3 weeks ago

dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

dissent6 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

HomeGManComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

Thinker226 months, 3 weeks ago

Mutainia6 months, 3 weeks ago