However, since I don’t, I’ll just repeat what I always say when asked about my position on “torture” of animals with no rights under any convention known to man:

Red is positive, black is negative. Now get to it. And can I have video, please?

If you must know, though, I believe that terrorists, saboteurs and spies should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, should be locked up for a long time. You know, like the people who tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time around, or the Millennium bomber or the people who blew up the African embassies.

factoid on July 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Well if you do not want them locked up in Gitmo, then we should just follow the Geneve Convention and shoot them.

Verily.

Problem 1: The WTC bombing took place. Despite having an inside informant and having tracked the suspected terrorists for years previous to the event, the FBI did not move until after the attack took place. Big problem.

Problem 2: Exculpatory evidence. Handing sensitive information to the defense in turns allows the defendants to figure out how that information was gathered, thus burning sources and damaging intel operations.

Problem 3: Lynne Stewart passed instruction from Abdel Rahman to EIJ. While he was in custody and serving time.

Problem 4: There have been several terrorist activities aimed at gaining the freedom of the blind sheik.

Problem 5: Coordinating CIA and FBI is a tricky thing, and neither operates, always, under the assumption that the culmination of their efforts will be a trial. Thus, if we were to try all terrorists, spies, and saboteurs, we would have to put extraordinary restraints on those agencies. (Yes, the FBI does work under strict guildlines, as it should, but foreign nationals who have malicious intentions don’t qualify, in my book, as U.S. citizens).

These and others problems are avilable in Andy McCarthy’s great book, Willful Blindness. And that’s just the WTC bombers. Prosecuting all the detainees at Gitmo would pose quite a different challenge.

Do you know much about this case? I ask because there were some serious consequences to this course of action, and I was wondering if you were aware of them.
VolMagic on July 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM

I don’t know much about this case. Perhaps you would like to tell me about those serious consequences.

Well, facty, if we were discussing a post on how governments have tricked international aid groups into believing they were abiding by the Geneva Conventions, then that link would be illuminating. As it is, it appears that the link you provided, in this context, was aimed at saying something like, “Hey, the Nazi’s got away with it. How are we sure the Bushies aren’t getting away with it now.”

That’s how I took it, anyways. You then replied by saying that isn’t what you were doing followed by your explination of what you were doing, i.e. point 3.

Again, in this context, point 3 indicates to me that you think the Bush govt. is engaging in this type of action. In case you weren’t, I added the “Or are you just ‘airing a theory’” a la Sullivan.

I can read your words as just “airing a theory” or as a condemnation of the Bush govt.’s handeling of Gitmo. It is still not clear to me what you meant.

Oh, you were just pointing out that my happy-fingers can’t spell properly all the time? Brilliant!
VolMagic on July 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Yeah, that was a little cheap, but it was too hard to resist. Sorry.

VolMagic on July 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM

It seems like I’m not needed for this debate. You are perfectly capable of making not just your own case but also that of an imaginary opponent. What I say doesn’t even matter to you, apparently.

I believe that terrorists, saboteurs and spies should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, should be locked up for a long time. You know, like the people who tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time around

Do you know much about this case? I ask because there were some serious consequences to this course of action, and I was wondering if you were aware of them.

3) Yes, your analysis is correct. I was pointing out that governments running prison camps often try to make the Red Cross believe that the prisoners are being treated humanely when they are not. Theresienstadt is probably the most glaring example that sometimes these governments succeed.

factoid on July 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM

So, in fact, number 1 and 2 are what you are suggesting. I mean, why would you put that link in this thread, other then to point out that the Bushies would trick the gullible ICRC into believeing that no Nazi-like torture was going on in Gitmo?

Or were you just “airing a theory?”

Yeah, exactly, whatever.

Well, you should have noted that it was the ICRC instead of the ARC. While it may not be the case in this instance, I find that organizations with an “I” in front of their acronym seem… unreliable. Several come to mind.

I have no idea what “psycological torute” is.

I wasn’t asking you. I was pointing out that the ICRC, per your link, was worried about “psycological tortute psychological torture” and I wonder what metrics they use on such pronouncement.

Oh, you were just pointing out that my happy-fingers can’t spell properly all the time? Brilliant!

Is Gitmo a concentration camp? Are the Bushies Nazis? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you just pointing out that the ICRC cannot always be trusted? Funny, that.

VolMagic on July 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM

1) No, Guantanamo is most emphatically not a concentration camp. You should be ashamed for suggesting that.

2) No, President Bush and his allies (you don’t mind if I show some respect to these people and don’t call them “Bushies” like you do, do you?) are most emphatically not Nazis. Again, you should be ashamed for suggesting that.

3) Yes, your analysis is correct. I was pointing out that governments running prison camps often try to make the Red Cross believe that the prisoners are being treated humanely when they are not. Theresienstadt is probably the most glaring example that sometimes these governments succeed.

The International Commision of the Red Cross is not the same of the American Red Cross. But whatever.

Yeah, exactly, whatever.

Plus, I’d like to know their idea of what “psycological torute” is.

Why don’t you ask them. When you find out, do tell me as well. I have no idea what “psycological torute” is.

alphie on July 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah XD
Man, are you for real? XD

So, do people still read/believe the New York Times when they come out with articles like this?

I mean seriously, how many body blows to their credibility does it take for people to stop believing?

So your saying the “terrorists, saboteurs and spies” should have been shot instead of being sent to GITMO?
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Huh? Where am I saying that? Are you confusing me with someone else?

If you must know, though, I believe that terrorists, saboteurs and spies should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, should be locked up for a long time. You know, like the people who tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time around, or the Millennium bomber or the people who blew up the African embassies.

As a follow-up, in 2004 (I believe, not certain), in an even more serious breach of core ICRC policy, a draft report of an ICRC inspection of a Coalition detention facility in Iraq was leaked. As usual, the US response was flaccid – we should have made a huge deal out of it, humiliated the ICRC and suspended their access until heads rolled and a grovelling apology was received.

That even the ICRC has, to some degree, gone off the rails post-9/11 is a chilling measure of the moral insanity that has gripped the west the last few years. Gitmo ranks among the world’s top 5% of humane and civilized detention facilities on Earth, in all human history (get out a bit more and consider what most of the world is like if you don’t instantly understand that assertion), it’s legal basis is unimpeachable (the Conventions and other agreements in current form simply do not account for this sort of lawless individual, notwithstanding the ICRC’s arrogant and baseless claims), and there is some reason to think it has achieved its purposes of obtaining information to take down terror networks and removing enemies from the field of action.

Sadly, Gitmo is a leading victim of the administration’s refusal to explain, educate, and defend well-founded actions and policies. And as with other such failures (maintaining the offensive initiative, pre-emption, the implications of unavoidably limited intelligence, etc.), the damage is not just to Bush’s current image, but far more importantly to critical policy options and freedom of maneuver for future decision makers.

Oh, and you last link is very intriguing. Is Gitmo a concentration camp? Are the Bushies Nazis? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you just pointing out that the ICRC cannot always be trusted? Funny, that.

You should read what you link, silly.

The International Commision of the Red Cross is not the same of the American Red Cross. But whatever. Plus, I’d like to know their idea of what “psycological torute” is.

factoid on July 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM

So your saying the “terrorists, saboteurs and spies” should have been shot instead of being sent to GITMO?

Could have avoided tempting the traitors at the Times and encouraging the anarcho-socialist-hate America crowd by just shooting all “terrorists, saboteurs and spies” when caught, as the Geneva Conventions say can be done.

Amen

The New York Times reports that a presentation at Guantanamo Bay on how to increase compliance from detainees on intel interrogations came directly from an analysis of Chinese Communist
In that case, Jimmy Carter says that these techniques are alright…

right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 12:21 PM

That says it all.

If Gitmo is such a gulag, then how come the Red Cross has never come out and said “oh my god, these guys are getting abused,”
Outlander on July 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM

The focus of the Red Cross in any detention situation is the well-being of the prisoners. Their policy is not to confront the government that is running the prison camp publicly because they are afraid they’d lose access to the prisoners then.

Back in 2004 the NY Times obtained a confidential Red Cross memo that detailed detainee abuse at Guantanamo.

In its response, the Red Cross acknowledged that the documents were real and said that they were “disturbed to see their reports made public.” Again, it’s because their focus is not to condemn America (or China, or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea or any other countries where torture is normal policy) but “to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence worldwide.”

So to recap:

Just because the Red Cross is not complaining doesn’t mean there is no abuse
The Red Cross, as it turns out, did complain, just not publicly

And as an exit thought, let me refer you to this little bit of historical trivia involving another prison camp.

Any jihadis with real intel value could have been kept in a covert prison in Afghanistan, questioned by people who can keep their own mouths shut, (-are there any left in the intelligences services?-) and then shot.

The propaganada bonanza they have provided the loons of the world has more than negated any putative “intel” value.