Posted by Tina
The venue meant that evidence would not be presented and the terrorist is found guilty of destruction of government property. Outrageous!
“Terror-trial travesty” – NY Post
Is there any better proof that Team Obama’s preferred approach to fight ing terror — through civilian courts — is dangerously misguided than yesterday’s acquittal of one of the 1998 US embassy bombers on all but one of 285 charges?
Ahmed Ghailani, the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in a civilian court, was convicted of only a single count of conspiracy to destroy government property and buildings using explosives.
Murder? No.
Terrorism? No.
He was up to his ears in a plot that took 224 lives, and he’s not a terrorist?
Preposterous.
Indeed! It takes a grownup to properly try and convict a terrorist. Unfortunately we are extremely short on that vital commodity in this administration.
So, a fair trial is NOT one of your conservative values?After hearing about this all morning on Hate Radio, I couldn’t wait to get home and see if you would parrot the Haters. Of course, I am not disappointed!
Was the man convicted?
Yes.
I he going to jail for twenty years?
Yes.
In your Machiavellian logic, Tina, this would be a good thing as the ends have justified the means. (I am thinking of the time you told me Andrew Breitbart’s destruction of Ms. Sherrod was a GOOD thing, because, in the end, she got a better job out of it!)
I tried to ask Hannity how this was a bad thing and his screener kept hanging up on me.
Perhaps you can explain to all of us how ensuring civil rights to ALL–even our enemies–makes our president a BAD man.
Quentin: “So, a fair trial is NOT one of your conservative values?”
Don’t be an ass Q, of course it is. A military trial would have served the people and would have appropriately allowed for ALL of the evidence against this man to be heard! As it is the people who were murdered through the actions of this “destroyer of buildings” are made irrelevant and the act of war that was clearly the purpose behinf the event is treated as a civilian crime. You can screw this into a pretzel any way you want; it is still a travesty!
“I couldn’t wait to get home and see if you would parrot the Haters.”
Well that shows what a predictable jerk you can be. I have been busy of late and have missed a lot of informative radio…this piece came from the established NY Post.
“I am thinking of the time you told me Andrew Breitbart’s destruction of Ms. Sherrod was a GOOD thing…”
Since it was Obama and the NAACP, not Breitbart, that “destroyed” Sherrod…before they tried to promote her…your point falls apart even before it’s made. I’m not surprised…you don’t seem capable of placing responsibility where it belongs.
“Perhaps you can explain to all of us how ensuring civil rights to ALL–even our enemies–makes our president a BAD man.”
The civil rights of enemy combatants was established internationally. the rights of this individual were ensured according to those laws and justice under a military tribunal would have been just.
Perhaps you can tell me where I said that Obama is a “bad” man?
I said before Obama was elected that he was not prepared to handle the job of President of the United States. I was not wrong.
Quentin, your rants are just unbelievable.
The man was found guilty of destroying govt property, but innocent of killing over 200 people that were in that property.
The verdict makes absolutely no sense. And I have to agree with the woman who lost both her husband and son who said, Justice had not been served. Twenty years will never come close to the equivalant of one life let alone over 200.
The only good thing that will come out of this verdict is knowing there will not be any more civilian courts used to try these terrorists.
Chico is so lucky you didn’t get elected.
Peggy it is pretty incredible that a man can be convicted of destroying the building but not the people in it!
I think the question of more civilian trials depends a lot on the will of the people (TPers take note) since Holder has said he would wait until after the 2012 election to make a decision about further trials.
I found one remark made by the judge during this trial interesting. Excerpted from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550512803967230.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
Trying terrorists in civilian courts is supposed to showcase American justice,
This would have been true several years ago when the rest of the world admired the US and all we stood for. But afraid statements made by Holder about the guaranteed outcome of these trials, the voter fraud and intimidation cases being dismissed, and our president constantly apologizing for who we are to the world has reduced the US to a country of contempt and undeserving of respect.
Not dealing with these cases in a timely manner by holding KSM and the rest of them forever will continue to reduce our standing in the world. We say we are at war with terrorist, but when we arrest them we dont know what to do with them. We may have the strongest military in the world, but our justice department and current administration has no back bone.
“The venue meant that evidence would not be presented”
Tina, this does not seem to be true. The evidence you are likely referring to was obtained through the use of torture. Neither a military nor a civilian court may legally use such evidence in a trial. The Manual for Military Commissions states:
“No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (as defined by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd)), whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission, except against a person accused of torture or such treatment as evidence that the statement was made.”
http://www.defense.gov/news/d2010manual.pdf#page=204
Many experts have debunked the idea that a military trial would have led to a harsher verdict. Media Matters has a handy collection of links.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011190031
“Since it was Obama and the NAACP, not Breitbart, that “destroyed” Sherrod…before they tried to promote her…”
Tina, if I spread a rumor about you and call you a racist, and you get fired for it, even though it isn’t true, your bosses are indeed responsible for their ill-advised actions. BUT SO AM I. The fact that I did not actually fire you does not somehow absolve me of any responsibility.
And if your bosses later apologize to you and offer you a promotion, while I blush and pretend that I never meant for you to suffer any consequences, and completely refuse to apologize to you? It’s pretty clear that I am the biggest asshole in this hypothetical situation.
“terrorists already know that if they’re captured they’ll get less vigorous interrogation than your average U.S. street criminal”
What? When did we start waterboarding average street criminals? I would think there would have been some outrage.
Chris, you made a mistake. You said a person is “responsible” for spreading a false rumor and this is not necessarily true, it depends on several other things.
Accountability for the rumor has to qualify. Re: You were criticizing Tina and Breitbart over the Sherrod case.
The law says in order to be responsible for either slander or libel . . .you must have originated the false rumor or meet a specific intent threshold.
To determine accountability you must first ask these questions and get the correct answers in order to show wrong doing which of course then leads to accountability: Did the person repeating the rumor about Sherrod know or have reasonable cause to know that said rumor was false? Did the person, knowing it was false, have a malicious intention or did they have some personal gain involved in the action?
These are high thresholds to prove and the burden of proof is on the acuser.
So Chris, you have to show cause (proof) for what you have said about Tina and Breitbart or it fails the credibility test. The video tape that started all the accusations as it was presented to Breitbart was “prima facie” evidence or evidence on its face or first impression.
Clearly you can see on the video was Sherrod making a statement that was blatantly racist. Only when it was taken in its full context did one become aware that the remark in question was subect to interpretation by the beholder. Tina and Breitbart have been completely exonerated of any wrong doing in this matter. To continue to knowingly indict them for a wrong doing to bolster your position when the evidence is to the contrary is in itself a mild form of libel (writen) or slander (verbal).
Here’s a further example of slander: “In a public meeting, a person falsely accusing his rival of serving a prison term for a felony amounts to slander, irrespective of whether his reputation is already damaged or there are chances that it can be damaged due to this accusation. According to the slander laws, the onus is on the person who files the defamation lawsuit, to prove that the said statement or gesture led to defamation of character, and/or eventually resulted in financial loss for him. That being quite difficult to prove, most of the cases of slander don’t go to the court of law.”
Chris, I don’t meaqn to be a stickler for detail, but since you are I thought I would hold you accountable to the same standards you’ve set for us. I love the study of criminal law so this was a treat for me.
Chris: “Tina, this does not seem to be true. The evidence you are likely referring to was obtained through the use of torture. Neither a military nor a civilian court may legally use such evidence in a trial.”
Chris I can’t blame you for not being informed on this one. The left media has not bothered to make proper distinctions regarding the interrogation of this man and the rules that govern military commissions. The sloppiness leads to misunderstanding but worse than that damage to future prosecutions:
http://www.aei.org/article/102644
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253615/about-ghailanis-trial-brian-bolduc
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ghailani-trial-provides-road-map-to-victory-for-future-terror-detainees/?singlepage=true
Even a well respected (left leaning) law professor has been duped regarding his interrogation:
Chris: “Tina, if I spread a rumor about you and call you a racist, and you get fired for it, even though it isn’t true, your bosses are indeed responsible for their ill-advised actions. BUT SO AM I. The fact that I did not actually fire you does not somehow absolve me of any responsibility.”
Horsefeathers!
The person responsible for firing me would be the only one with the power to take “destructive” action in my life. One would hope in such an instance that the person in power would take a moment to investigate the rumor before firing me…Tom Vilsack, Obama, and the NAACP all condemned her based on the section of You Tube video reposted by Breitbart. In other words, those in power accepted the clip in the same manner that you say Breitbart did.
Breitbart’s point in posting the clip was that the NAACP, in accusing the Tea Parties (without evidence) of racism was being disigenuous, if not hypocritical. Yet he was judged, mocked and accused while the NAACP and the WH are forgiven and exempted from further criticism.
“And if your bosses later apologize to you and offer you a promotion…”
Oh please! To cover their shameful asses! (And the entire left oooos and ahhhhhs and accepts it whle privately thinking, “whew, we dodged another bullet and turned this debacle to our advantage”)
“…while I blush and pretend that I never meant for you to suffer any consequences, and completely refuse to apologize to you?
Ahh, but that’s another point where the hypothetical is false. Breitbart didn’t owe her an apology because he wasn’t making a case against Sherrod or intending her harm. He was making a case against the NAACP. The NAACP, Obama, and Vilsack made the blog post about Sherrod and brought her comments on this section of video to the national stage by immediately firing her!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0729/Shirley-Sherrod-Does-she-have-a-case-against-Andrew-Breitbart
Here’s another perspective; Shirley Sherrod owed Breitbart an apology for statements she made about him. It’s possible he would have a better case than she:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR_Sherrod_Breitbart_072810.html
Indeed, she threatened a lawsuit. What’s interesting is that she made the announcement at a convention of journalists:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703999304575399372790501284.html
Breitbart did express regret that Sherrod had become a victim due to knee jerk responses to his post:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007210044
Breitbart didn’t apologized because he is not a racist, he was not trying to get Shirley Sherrod fired, and he was trying to create the media firestorm that caused the reaction that led to her firing. If anything, he was following the Presidents advice and furthering the discussion on race in America.
Peggy your point is well made and the basis for all right wing criticism (and exhaustion) on this subject. Thanks for weighing in.
Jack I love the law too but must rely on others more experienced and educated than I…thanks for educating us on this one.
Jack and Tina, thanks for the interesting information on libel laws, but I was not speaking of legal responsibility. I was talking about moral responsibility.
There are a lot of things we are allowed to do and say in this country that aren’t morally right. I am personally glad that we live in a country where libel and slander are such hard accusations to prove. I was accused of libel myself a few weeks ago because of something I wrote in a private Facebook message. What I wrote was true, and my intent was to stop a friend from making a horrible mistake, and I know if it ever did come to court (highly unlikely, the situation has pretty much been dropped) those facts would work in my favor.
Under the First Amendment, people should be allowed to say almost anything about anyone without fear of legal repercussion.
That said, it’s important to remember that Breitbart accused Sherrod of illegal activity, not just of being a racist. The text of the video he posted also claims, with no evidence, that Sherrod’s story was about her time served in a federal position. She was actually working for a smaller organization at the time. So Sherrod may have a legal case against Breitbart, or she may not. That’s not really my concern.
Jack, I disagree with you that the original video posted showed prima facie evidence of racism. It was clear to me upon first viewing that Sherrod was not done with her story. The video cuts off in a strange place. There was always a large possibility that Sherrod was telling a story of redemption. This in fact was the most LIKELY possibility, the first one that occurred to me. It reminded me of the testimonies of repented sinners at the church I used to go to. Anyone who wasn’t blinded by politics should have considered this possibility. That the NAACP and the White House, in their rush to deflect right-wing criticism, did not consider this before making their judgments against Sherrod is highly distressing. Make no mistake, everyone dropped the ball on this one.
Tina, the apologies issued by the president and the NAACP may have indeed been intended to “cover their shameful asses.” Or they might have been genuine remorse. Or they might have been both. But since neither of us are mind-readers, the fair thing to do is judge them by their actions, not what we think their intentions were.
They did something wrong, they apologized, and they tried to help the person they had wronged. That’s what decent people do.
What Breitbart did is deflect, absolve himself, pretend he didn’t mean to condemn Sherrod, and blame her plight completely on everyone else. What happened to the conservative mantra of “personal responsibility?”
The excuse that Breitbart’s point was to shine light on the NAACP’s racism doesn’t even make sense, because he had to use Sherrod to make that point! Her alleged racist behavior was key to that argument, and when it turned out that she was not actually a racist, the argument then fell apart.
It’s not even an honorable intention. The NAACP has done more for the cause of racial equality than Breitbart ever has or ever will.
Breitbart has also been caught promoting fraudulent stories in the past. The ACORN videos, which also prompted government action against Breitbart’s target, turned out to be heavily edited by his protoge James O’Keefe. The same James O’Keefe who last month attempted to sexually harass a female journalist on camera. Several investigations later cleared ACORN of any criminal wrongdoing, but their federal funding had already been pulled.
I don’t think Sherrod should have said that Breitbart wanted blacks to be slaves, but I can see why someone would lash out at a person who tried to destroy their reputation. And while her words were poorly chosen, she was making a judgment about Breitbart’s opinions, not an accusation of criminal behavior, so she certainly could not be found guilty of slander.
Nor could I be found guilty of libel, even a “mild” form of it, for believing that Breitbart (and to a much lesser extent, Tina) are responsible for the character assassination of Shirley Sherrod. Jack, you have to know that’s a ludicrous idea. If someone were found guilty of a crime every time they blamed someone for a problem, we would be living in a totalitarian state.
“If anything, he was following the Presidents advice and furthering the discussion on race in America.”
Tina, that’s quite an ambitious attempt at spin, but I don’t think anyone could see the Breitbart/Sherrod affair as being in any way conducive to a productive dialogue about race. Do you?
Chris I’m glad you found our information helpful. That’s excellent.
Next, you said, “Jack and Tina, thanks for the interesting information on libel laws, but I was not speaking of legal responsibility. I was talking about moral responsibility. There are a lot of things we are allowed to do and say in this country that aren’t morally right” And we can agree on this point. However, Tina was not wrong, nor was Breitbart IMHO. They were both victims of misrepresention in that now infamous video.
They both made a juudgement call based upon what was presented in the video as clear and compelling evidence, however it was not the whole story. That’s not their fault. It was only after a full review of the viseo that it became clear to anyone, Tiny, Breitbart, etc., that the alleged racist comments were taken out of context. But neither of them were guilty of doing that – so its my opinion they were morally and legally correct when rendering an opinion on the only evidence they had. No libel and no immoral conduct. I suppose you could argue that Breitbart should have asked if there was more video before taking it, but that wasn’t a moral wrong in my way of thinking. As it was later to come out he thought he had all that was necessary and relevant and was completely unaware of any more video to explain those sensitive comments.
Tina is 100% innocent of the charge and as we are fond of saying, if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit.
Well gee, duh, Peggy!
Y’think maybe then he WASN’T GUILTY?
I sure am glad you didn’t vote for me. You would have ruined my record of having only intelligent voters vote for me!
Good Christ! Now that we have a Black President, our system of justice is no good? Our system that has served as a model for the world for over 200 years is now no good?
Quit listening to hate. You sound as stupid as Tina.
“Don’t be an ass.”
Tina, this post is about the problems you are having with this eminently fair trial. Pardon me for thinking you had problems with a fair trial. I don’t know how I could have reached that conclusion.
Help me out.
IF the government tomorrow were to say you were a terrorist–and therefore an enemy combatant, and did to you what they have done to the guys at Gitmo and elsewhere, would you have a problem with it?
Why?
Do you feel you should receive a miltary trial? Why, or why not?
Question:
If we are, indeed, in a war, who are we at war with? The whole world? Can we just go anywhere, anytime and grab our enemies?
Why, or why not?
Jack, the wrong in my opinion is not so much the initial commentary on the video, which could merely be a misinterpretation, but the refusal to admit the mistake and apologize for smearing an innocent person afterward.
Now on to the more important matter of civilian trials v. military commissions. Tina, I am not sure I follow the logic espoused in that second link. The author writes that there is good reason for the government not to offer evidence challenging the accusation of coercion, and I think that makes some sense. But in the very same paragraph, the author quotes the government’s reply to the question of whether the detainee was coerced as being “Yes, Judge, yes.” That is a great deal more than simply not providing evidence to the contrary; that is the government admitting to coercion. Certainly there is a middle ground option here; couldn’t the government simply say “no,” or decline to comment?
It doesn’t make sense for the government to admit to coercion if no coercion took place, even if it’s to save an officer’s cover. Either option is potentially damaging to national security, and the former seems much more dangerous to me than the latter. If a detainee is not coerced, and the government says they were simply because they don’t want to present evidence to the contrary, then the government is a) lying and b) unnecessarily jeopardizing their case.
Also, it isn’t just the “left media” that believes it is better to try terrorists in civilian courts rather than military commissions. Jack Goldsmith, former assistant attorney general for George Bush, agrees:
“The government had a difficult time convicting Ghailani in large part because presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan excluded a key witness that the government had acknowledged it knew about through coercive interrogations. Many critics of civilian trials claim that this problem would not have occurred in a military commission, but that is very probably wrong. The legal standard for excluding such evidence in military commissions would depend on the military judge’s sense of the “interests of justice.” The government would be foolish to rely on military judges’ willingness to admit evidence obtained – even in a derivative fashion – as a result of coercion. There is not much reason to think that the government would have had an easier time against Ghailani on this score if it had proceeded in a commission.
There is, however, reason to think that a commission trial would have presented problems not present in Ghailani’s civilian trial. One central problem is that the conspiracy charge on which Ghailani was nabbed might not be valid in military commissions; three sitting Supreme Court justices have said as much, and many scholars agree. On this and other issues from evidentiary and procedural rules to fundamental constitutional questions, military commissions raise legal uncertainties that have yet to be sorted out by appellate courts. Civilian courts, by contrast, are tried and true. They have produced a great many terrorist convictions, and a verdict in one is much easier to defend on appeal.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805020.html
Others who attest to the validity of civilian courts include former Bush administration Attorney David Kelley, and even Senator Lindsey Graham (R).
“David Kelley, who served as U.S. Attorney under President George W. Bush after successfully prosecuting 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef, called some of the initial reaction to the verdict misguided.
“This was a win by the government,” said Kelley, who now is in private practice. He said he supports civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees and believes the Ghailani case proved such trials could take place without disrupting the community.”
“Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is seen as key to any deal over Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo, said Thursday that top-level al-Qaida suspects should not be tried in civilian courts, but trying lower-level operatives in the civilian legal system “makes sense to me.”
The Republican senator said “I’m going to have my hands full holding back” some fellow Republicans who want to rule out the use of civilian courts altogether to try terrorist suspects.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202475105864&rss=newswire
But don’t take their word for it. Let’s look at what matters the most: results. When viewed objectively, it is clear that civilian courts have been better at obtaining justice against terrorists than military commissions.
“Human Rights Watch said that verdicts in the flawed and untested military commissions were extremely vulnerable to appellate challenge. “The federal court system has been tested over time, while the military commissions are making things up as they go along,” Mariner said….
Military commissions have been touted as swift and efficient, yet in the nine years since the military commissions were first announced, military prosecutors have brought only five cases to completion, three of them by plea bargain. The federal courts, by contrast, have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects during this period, among them convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and convicted “shoe bomber” Richard Reid.”
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/11/17/us-ghailani-trial-shows-federal-courts-task
Another reason not to try suspected terrorists in military commissions is that it legitimizes them by giving them the status of a soldier, instead of a common criminal, according to Human Rights Watch.
“Members of al Qaeda seek to be acknowledged as soldiers rather than denigrated as criminals, Human Rights Watch said. Putting them on trial in military commissions would have reinforced that view, handing al Qaeda an enormous propaganda victory. Trial in federal court will deny them the status of warrior.
Judge William Young underscored this point in the 2003 trial of the “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid. As Judge Young said at the defendant’s sentencing, “You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. . . To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature.””
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/13/us-federal-court-prosecution-911-suspects-victory-justice
Chris: it’s important to remember that Breitbart accused Sherrod of illegal activity, not just of being a racist. The text of the video he posted also claims, with no evidence, that Sherrod’s story was about her time served in a federal position. She was actually working for a smaller organization at the time.
He did not accuse her of doing something illegalshe admitted her bias. His piece was defensive expressing concern about the Tea party being labeled racist. His focus was the reaction of the NAACP audience (which I believe was his error). See the article and video here:
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/
Its also important to acknowledge that as soon as Breitbart realized his error about where she was working when she had these thoughts he posted a correction at the top of the story!
Anyone who wasn’t blinded by politics should have considered this possibility.
Have you also condemned the NAACP, the Democrat Party, its leadership, and most of the MSM for the hatchet job they were engaging in regarding the Tea Party? And what about your own remarks about what they said about the Tea Party?
But since neither of us are mind-readers, the fair thing to do is judge them by their actions, not what we think their intentions were.
Oh but I am judging them by their actions, as was Breitbart. They do not get to demonize the Tea Party out of one side of their mouths and then excuse themselves out of the other through an apology to Sherrod while remaining mum on the issue of demonizing the Tea Party. It doesnt pass the smell test.
Breitbarts sole purpose in posting the Sherrod clip was to expose the NAACP and the rest for their political racist labeling game. In an interview with Hannity on Fox a week later he explained:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597324,00.html
He also offered this as an example:
See her quote posted at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html
What Breitbart did is deflect, absolve himself, pretend he didn’t mean to condemn Sherrod, and blame her plight completely on everyone else.
Thats not an accurate description; it leaves out his original motivation and intention. Yes he erred, big time, in using this segment of video without considering it might be incomplete, but his explanation was not an excuse but a clarification of facts. And it is true that he did not have the power to fire Sherrod and make her firing an international story…the President did…the NAACP also did.
Breitbart was condemned not because of the error in judgment he made and not because anyone can demonstrate that he is racist or meant Sherrod harm. Andrew Breitbart was condemned because talking about him being a racist followed the same ugly political strategy of branding or labeling to discredit the opposition! Branding him a racist allowed the media to cover for their own negligence and lack of integrity when reporting this story as well as the stories about the Tea party being a racist organization. It certainly worked on YOU!
Several investigations later cleared ACORN of any criminal wrongdoing
Yes, the organization was not found guilty of anything like tax evasion or people trafficing or runnign a brothel…but at least one employee was fired as she should have been for giving advice about such things to possible clients.
But what about moral wrongdoing, Chris? Thats what were talking about here isnt it? What the video on ACORN revealed was an organization that was filled with corrupt, immoral workers. Several of them have broken the law and been convicted in court. Several of the offices were shut down due to fostering corrupt voter registration practices. The organization is not innocent. But you have chosen to ignore these important points about what the video on ACORN revealed about that organization and condemn the reporting insteadwhy?
I can see why someone would lash out at a person who tried to destroy their reputation.
Unless its a guy named Breitbart who was extremely offended and upset (as am I) that conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers were being labeled as racist both as individuals and as a group. These accusations were made without proof and went on for weeks on end from every imaginable news source. All it took was an accusation. this has been going on for decadesexcuse us if we are a little sick of it!
I don’t think anyone could see the Breitbart/Sherrod affair as being in any way conducive to a productive dialogue about race. Do you?
I realize you couldnt hear the sarcasm! The sentence was dripping, believe me!
FOR THE RECORD: The post I did on the Sherrod video was to point out that it is possible for a black person to have racist tendencies. The video does demonstrate that point perfectly. Also it was not my intent to harm Sherrod. I come from the point of view that we are all capable of just about anything.
After years of reverse discrimination and PC theres no way I would ever have thought that Sherrod would be fired or even reprimanded for Breitbarts blog post (or my blog post). If Sherrod has a bone to pick, she should pick it with whomever it was at the NAACP that allowed this video to be made public in the first place.
Chris I dont mind taking responsibility for thiswhat I mind is the hypocrisy that forgives those who first condemned her and had her fired and who, to this day, have not acknowledged their careless accusations of racism about the Tea Party. These accusations are at the root of this entire matter!
Peggy you now have the key to writing with superior intelligence…just repeat the following in future posts”
“Well gee, duh!”
“Good Christ!”
“Quit listening to hate…you sound as stupid as (blank).”
Such erudition and sheer brilliance is usually found only in the most prestigious of circles…and yet we are graced, almost daily, right here on the very humble Post Scripts.
Quentin, Pray tell us…oh brilliant one…why should having a “black man” in the White House make any difference at all?
“Tina, this post is about the problems you are having with this eminently fair trial.”
Ah yesa fair trial. The better questions would beis it appropriate and is it just? Obviously I dont think so.
I am not alone in this and the reasons involve legitimate legal and moral concerns, not to mention keeping the laws by which we ensure justice during times of war clear rather than muddled. You see the trouble with “fair” is that the terrorist attack on the two buildings was not fair. It was an unexpected attack and it resulted in many deaths as well as the destruction of a couple of buildings. But theres much more. This ruthless attack on civilians was just one of many such attacks in this cruel and relentless battle against our freedoms and our very lives. They were not criminal activities; they were part of an ongoing war.
Pardon me for thinking you had problems with a fair trial. I don’t know how I could have reached that conclusion. Help me out.
Ill give you a pass on the sarcasm since you are actually attempting to engage for a change.
Q: IF the government tomorrow were to say you were a terrorist–and therefore an enemy combatant, and did to you what they have done to the guys at Gitmo and elsewhere, would you have a problem with it? Why?
You leave out a number of pertinent facts about me when you conceive this little scenario and that makes your question difficult, if not impossible, to answer. For instance, I am a US citizen and I have not engaged in any activity that would cause my government to put me in traffic court much less in Guantanamo.
On the other hand if I, as was this man, a Tanzanian citizen with a record of terrorist activity it would be much different…wouldn’t it! There is strong evidence against me that indicate I was involved in blowing up two buildings and killing over 200 innocent people. There is a witness who sold me explosives. I was listed by Enterpol, the UN, and the FBI (Top 25 of Americas Most Wanted) as an al Qaeda member and terrorist:
So you see, if “I” were this man I would not only expect to be treated as the US has treated the men at Guantanamo I would probably expect to be treated with extreme cruelty given where I have come from, what Ive been doing myself, and the ruthlessness of the people with whom I have been associating.
You see Quentin, your assumption of innocence is based on a fantasy scenario and not the facts of this particular case. It belongs in a text book as the basis for an intellectual and moral starting point when discussing the law and the presumption of innocence but has little to do with real world evidence or circumstance.
Do you feel you should receive a miltary trial? Why, or why not?
I would expect a military trial given the circumstances. In fact I would expect a swift trial ending in death, given my own belief system and values.
Question: If we are, indeed, in a war, who are we at war with? The whole world? Can we just go anywhere, anytime and grab our enemies? Why, or why not?
We are involved in a defensive war with enemies who are not part of an army and do not represent any nation or statehence enemy combatants. Many nations in the world are also in this defensive war with us. Several of them are in the Middle East (and I suspect wish we would quit pussy footin around)
We can go into nations when the leaders of those nations agree that our efforts are in their best interests and cooperate with us. In rare circumstances we can choose to invade, as we did in Iraq, after Hussein broke the flyover agreement that was part of ending the war in Kuwait and after he refused to comply with the UN resolutions to disclose all of his WMD. This wasnt a quick or irresponsible decision but rather one that could have been avoided had Hussein cooperated with the UN.
The United States has never engaged in imperialistic war around the world. We have engaged in liberating nations from tyrannical leaders and we have made considerable investments in supporting nations in becoming free and democratic. This is in our best interest. The tyranny of communism, Nazism, and yes, Islamism as practiced by terrorists and regimes that wish to take over the world, are offensive, dangerous, and unrelenting in their desires to rule over others. They have no use for freedom. They are aggressors that we cannot ignorewe must defend not only ourselves but in cooperation with our allies.
Here are a few questions for you:
What is wrong with military tribunals for enemy combatants?
Do you believe we hold people in Guantanamo without cause? If so, why and what evidence do you have to support the claim?
Do you think that in times of war innocent people are sometimes captured in error and if so, do you believe our government/military would deliberately hold such persons without due process even after they discovered the error?
You apparently believe the laws of this nation should apply to all people around the world no matter what the circumstance. Why? Do you think that noncitizens should have an established allegiance to America (and therefore assumed responsibility for upholding our laws) before being granted inclusion under our laws? If not, why not?
Nice chatting with you for a change…I hope you will honor me with a reply.
Chris the holiday has put me in a position where I don’t have much time for the blog. Let me just say, I don’t completely disagree with all of the arguments made by those you have posted.
Rather than arguing these points one by one I’m more inclined make additional points. Let me give you a couple of things to chew on…I’ll be in and out cause of cooking and playing with grandkids…
Civilian courts afford terrorists a platform from which they can recruit and, if clever, attempt to make a mockery of the US and its system of justice. They can use our system of justice and the spectacle of a civilian trial to further their goals.
One of the reasons that military tribunals have been problematic, and less than successful or timely, is due to political interference and disruption. The ACLU was relentless in their attempts to undermine the efforts of GWB. The current administration has adopted the same policies that GWB used with respect to these prisoners and Guantanamo. They have had to change their minds on several issues. (The left isn’t pleased but it shows Bush tried to do what was legal and smart)
Wish I had more time…hope we can revisit this after Thanksgiving. Right now I gotta catch some Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s.
The one exception to accessing the judicial system we all are privilaged too as American citizens should be national defense in a time of war. War has been declared on us by Al Qeada. War and a cumbersome judiciary fraught with loop holes and restraints on admissability of evidence do not fit well. And if one is foolish enough to try it, they risk the lives of others who fight the war on their behalf. That is patently unfair! If you want to talk about fairness, then consider them and the other lives we place at risk by extending Constitutional rights to those trying to destroy them and us.
Tina: “You leave out a number of pertinent facts about me when you conceive this little scenario and that makes your question difficult, if not impossible, to answer. For instance, I am a US citizen and I have not engaged in any activity that would cause my government to put me in traffic court much less in Guantanamo.”
While they weren’t U.S. citizens, I’m sure that Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar had similar thoughts as you before they were imprisoned and subjected to some of the most degrading torture imaginable. They were later found innocent of any ties to terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
These men were not picked up because they had engaged in any questionable activity. You left out a big factor working in your favor, Tina: you don’t have an Arabic name.
I’ll respond more later, I’m pretty busy too. Hope you all have a good Thanksgiving.
Chris: “These men were not picked up because they had engaged in any questionable activity.”
This is true but the comparison to someone being held for trial because of the evidence against him doesn’t fit. These are seperate issues. Innocent people are harmed in many ways during times of war. We in America do all we can to avoid harming innocent people but inevitably errors are made just as in any other areas of life. You seem to be implying that perfection is possible and we know that is nonesense.
Probabaly the most important argument for holding detainees (preferably without trial) until the end of the war is the need to protect not only our own military/operatives but also the people in the Middle East who risk their lives to help us. When the war is concluded then tribunals should be held.
Our military deserves every consideration and our full support.
Tina, I don’t see how my alarm over innocent people being brutally tortured by the U.S. government can be construed as a call for “perfection.” I would say that guaranteeing something like this never happens again would be the absolute bare minimum standard our government should be required to meet under the U.S. Constitution.
Accidents like these are unacceptable. We cannot just shrug them off as an unfortunate consequence of our national security policy. If these things are happening within the rules then the rules need to be changed. Holding people without trial is wrong precisely because not all of those people are going to be guilty. All Americans should know this. If America truly lived up to its values, everyone would know the stories of Arar and El-Masri, and there would be enough outrage to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Instead, very few people know about these men and those responsible for their treatment are completely let off the hook. Have we become so desensitized by war, that people are demanding impeachment of the president because of a non-existent raise on taxes, but torturing innocent civilians barely raises an eyebrow?
Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees that we are not living up to the values we have set for ourselves, and comes to see us as liars, hypocrites and torturers. In what way does this make us more safe?
Come on Tina, you have been outraged over far less than this, but you don’t even express sympathy for the plight of these torture victims in your comment. Can’t you see how messed up that is?
Your alarm for the US gov brutally torturing innocent people is a call for perfection Chris. Let me explain. First, your criticism now spreads over two opposing administrations. This means a whole new set of players have replace the old set and now we’re to believe that despite this big change the US gov still systematically tortures innocent people???? For what possible reason would we do that? What an incredible waste of time that would be! What a pointless, frivilous and maniacal project that could serve no good purpose! What massive group crazy people would do that in America?
This claim of the US brutally torturing innocent people fails the test of common sense and it is absent any credible evidence. We only have a few rare isolated incidents of non-sanctioned overly aggressive types doing things we didn’t approve of. We detain terrorists and obtain life saving information and its a hard job,. We have made a few isolated mistakes, this always happens. The sheer ratio between mistakes and guilty would tell the prudent person that the US does not deliberately arrest and torture innocent as a matter of policy.
We rarely even use coercieve tactics on brutal terrorists. We do not torture within the context of what most of the world would consider torture: Beheadings, electrocution, mayhem, all that’s torture…we don’t do that.
For nitpickers just putting somone in a cell is a form of torture. Speaking in loud angry tones to someone is a form of torture. But, this is not what the overwhelming majority of the world would consider REAL torture. You want perfect – you can’t have perfect. Not ever. Not on anything. You are not perfect.
Jack, slow down–you’re not even making sense.
“This means a whole new set of players have replace the old set and now we’re to believe that despite this big change the US gov still systematically tortures innocent people???? For what possible reason would we do that? What an incredible waste of time that would be! What a pointless, frivilous and maniacal project that could serve no good purpose! What massive group crazy people would do that in America?”
I don’t understand what you’re asking here. Are you asking if the Obama administration is still torturing innocent people, as the Bush administration did?
I have no way of knowing this, since Obama has decided that his administration isn’t going to allow much greater transparency on this issue than the one before him. But I do know that many of the Bush provisions that Obama has decided to keep legal do open the door for this kind of thing to happen. And I think that this is disgusting and wrong, in addition to doing huge damage to Obama’s image as a progressive icon. Before the election there were many liberals excited over the prospect that Obama might not only close Guantanamo and stop the practice of torture, but that he might even prosecute the previous administration for it’s war crimes. Instead, Obama has only continued on the same path. Yes, I’m revolted.
“This claim of the US brutally torturing innocent people fails the test of common sense and it is absent any credible evidence.”
Are you saying that you believe El-Masri and Arar are lying about the treatment they received? There is plenty of evidence that their stories hold up. I am sorry you are so uninformed on such on such an important issue that you don’t know this.
“The sheer ratio between mistakes and guilty would tell the prudent person that the US does not deliberately arrest and torture innocent as a matter of policy.”
Of course they don’t “deliberately” arrest and torture innocent people. But they do deliberately make sure that the people they torture do not have a chance to stand trial and be found innocent first. If you don’t see how this is wrong, you need to read the Constitution again. Or maybe you need a trip to Guantanamo yourself. I doubt you’d react to this kind of treatment by saying it’s OK because it’s done in the name of security.
“We rarely even use coercieve tactics on brutal terrorists. We do not torture within the context of what most of the world would consider torture: Beheadings, electrocution, mayhem, all that’s torture…we don’t do that.”
No, we simply do this:
“Arar described his cell as a three-foot by six-foot grave with no light and plenty of rats. During the more than 10 months he was imprisoned and held in solitary confinement, he was beaten regularly with shredded cables.[31] Through the walls of his cell, Mr. Arar could hear the screams of other prisoners who were also being tortured. The Syrian government shared the results of its investigation with the United States.[32] Arar believes that his torturers were given a dossier of specific questions by United States interrogators, noting that he was asked identical questions both in the United States and in Syria.[33]”
“El-Masri wrote in the Los Angeles Times that, while held in Afghanistan, he was beaten and repeatedly interrogated. He has also claimed that he was sodomized.[4]”
“El-Masri alleges that they beat him, stripped him naked, drugged him, and gave him an enema. He was then dressed in a diaper and a jumpsuit, and flown to Baghdad, then immediately to “the salt pit”, a covert CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan which contained prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.[7]”
This is torture, Jack. If you think otherwise, then you aren’t even fit to have an intelligent discussion on the issue.
Chris: “I don’t see how my alarm over innocent people being brutally tortured by the U.S. government can be construed as a call for “perfection.”
I didn’t say your alarm was a “call for” perfection. I was saying that the expectation that perfection can be achieved by any country involved in a war situation is unreasonable. Your outrage implies that we (our country, the leadership) doesn’t feel any responsibility or regret or that we wouldn’t do whatever we could to remedy errors whenever possible.
“I would say that guaranteeing something like this never happens again would be the absolute bare minimum standard our government should be required to meet under the U.S. Constitution.”
OK…who says this hasn’t been the standard? Of course we would like for all people who are innocent to be spared injustices and harm…it just is highly unlikely that it can ever be met.
“Accidents like these are unacceptable.”
Grow up, Chris. We;re talking about war. In some instances we’re talking about circumstances where we fear there is no time to take out time and be considerate…we are in the buysiness of trying to save innocent life in tha face of a brutal enemy that has no compassion or consideration of innocent life.
You can find a timeline on the capture of al Masri here:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=khalid_el-masri
You will undoubtedly notice that many things contributed to this mans treatment including his mistaken identity. You know America isn’t alone in this fight. One of the things you might want to consider is that terrorists are a problem for many people in the ME as well. They want to defeat this enemy as much, or perhaps more, as we do…and their notions of brutality and torture after living under these thugs and murderers may not be as nuanced as yours and mine.
“If America truly lived up to its values, everyone would know the stories of Arar and El-Masri, and there would be enough outrage to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.”
NO NATION EVER CAN LIVE UP TO IT’S VALUES 100% OF THE TIME…THIS IS WAR! Your outrage won’t change that fact. (Still want to claim you aren’t expecting perfection?)
“…and those responsible for their treatment are completely let off the hook.”
You don’t know whether they have been let off the hook or not. It is actually quite stupid, as long as a war is ongoing, to trumpet mistakes to the world. It gives the enemy a psycological advantage. The military has a way of handling mistakes when military personal are involved. In fact the military does a better job than the civilian population and they do hold their people to a higher standard. The ACLU’s involvement with and treatment of these murdererous terrorists as if they were citizens of the US is wrongheaded and worse, undermines our war effort. The rules of war cannot possibly be the same as those that govern everyday civilian life…it’s a completely different animal!
Have we become so desensitized by war, that people are demanding impeachment of the president because of a non-existent raise on taxes, but torturing innocent civilians barely raises an eyebrow?
First of all, assuming you know the emotional state of anyone, including the President, regarding these matters is a huge mistake. Second your use of the word torture is just flat out wrong. (I knowyou disagree) But a distinction must be made!! Our military must know what it can and cannot do by law so they can do their job with certainty. A decision was made in good faith on this issue. when challenged it was also slightly altered…but rendition was not ruled out by President Obama. It’s helpful to remember the following:
Chris the world had a front row seat when the towers came down and when Daniel Pearl’s head was severed off slowly. This is the realm that we enter when we engage this enemy. It is brutal and ruthless; it is kill or be killed but what makes it worse is that this enemy doesn’t engage other men in a battle…instead they are cowardly, they attack innocent people unexpectedly and it is their ongoinjg plan to do so until the entire world conmes under their rule. For heavens sake acquire a little perspective!
“…the rest of the world sees that we are not living up to the values we have set for ourselves, and comes to see us as liars, hypocrites and torturers.”
And why does the world see us this way? Think about it!!! They see us this way because the left, including the left media, does not get that war is REAL LIFE and BRUTAL. Instead of supporting the effort to defeat these murderous thugs they choose instead to look for the few incidents where mistakes have been made and then blow them out of perportion by harping on them as if they defined who we are. THEY ARE WRONG BUT THEY DON’T GIVE A RATS ASS!!! How many tinmes did GWB have to come to the microphone and say, “The US does not torture people!” He couldn’t have been more emphatic. But a few weenies that cannot get with the very difficult real world of war makes the US a bigger enemy than the terrorists!
“Come on Tina, you have been outraged over far less than this, but you don’t even express sympathy for the plight of these torture victims in your comment. Can’t you see how messed up that is? ”
You have no idea how I feel. My feelings about these men don’t make any difference. My sympathies with the plight of the millions of people in the world who suffer every day won’t change their circumstances or the outcome in any way. Emotions are useless self indulgences when confronting problems of this size. But as long as you bring it up…what about your consideration of the people who are charged with extracting information from people THEY BELIEVE are terrorists? How do you think they feel, especially if they discover they have been extremely tough on an innocent person? Do you assume they feel nothing? That would be a huge mistake. It takes a BIG person to fill the shoes of those who take this responsibility on…they KNOW there will always be room for error. They have to accept that errors will be made and choose to focus on the bigger picture instead to be able to perform their jobs. It takes extreme training and resolve most of us will never have to experience…and burdens that none of us will ever have to carry.
As a mental exercise you might want to consider the injuries to John McCain who cannot lift one of his arms above his head due to the beatings he endured. Now see if you can recall any injuries sustained by any of those we have seen at Guantanamo that even come close…consider the facility itself and the accomodations for their prayer times, holy book and special food. America should have a sterling reputation around the world and we would were it not for people on the left and the lef media making mountains out of a few incidents while at the same time taking every chance to denegrate America. Frankly it is this that makes me so sick I find it difficult to express whatever regret or sympathy I might have for the innocent victims of war.
Let’s get real. The bad guys, the ones we should be holding accountable for all of this, are generally left out of these discussions. Why is that? Some of them are even defended and made into victims. You might want to ask why America is held to an impossibly high standard while the enemy is not held to any standard at all.
“Obama has decided that his administration isn’t going to allow much greater transparency on this issue than the one before him.”
Now that he’s seen the intelligence he has a better idea of what the enemy is like. Transparency has no place in war. It is enough that those who are in positions of leadership know and hold accountable those under them that make mistakes. When the war is over if other issues need to be addressed they can be…NOT WHILE MEN ANRE FIGHTING AND DYING! And not as long as this enemy refuses to play by any rules but instead uses our rules as weapons against us (with the assistance of the ACLU)
“Yes, I’m revolted.”
Also immature and living in a dream world…as was Obama before he stepped into the actual shoes of the Presidency.
“No, we simply do this: ‘Arar described his cell as a three-foot by six-foot grave with no light and plenty of rats. During the more than 10 months he was imprisoned and held in solitary confinement, he was beaten regularly with shredded cables…'”
A. This may have happened while he was held by our allies in their countries. We are not their rulers and we don’t get to tell them how to interrogate.
B. Some of this may be a lie or an exageration after being lawyered up and coached.
C. Amazingly you are inclined to give them the complete benefit of the doubt but do not afford your own military and administration the same consideration.
This war will go on for many more years than it needs to and harm many more inniocents than need be simply because of people who do not get that we are at war and cannot fathom that this war was not our choice…and it is indeed hell! Would that you have only half as much passion for winnign as you bdo for condemning your country for it’s few mistakes.
Now it’s my turn to be revolted!
“I didn’t say your alarm was a “call for” perfection. I was saying that the expectation that perfection can be achieved by any country involved in a war situation is unreasonable.”
Well, in that case you were engaging in a non-sequitur, then.
“Your outrage implies that we (our country, the leadership) doesn’t feel any responsibility or regret or that we wouldn’t do whatever we could to remedy errors whenever possible.”
This is the truth. El-Masri and Arar have not received any acknowledgment of responsibility, regret, or remedy for their situation from the government.
“OK…who says this hasn’t been the standard? Of course we would like for all people who are innocent to be spared injustices and harm…it just is highly unlikely that it can ever be met.”
It is NOT “highly unlikely” that our government can ever stop sending innocent people to secret prisons and having them tortured! We as a country got along fine for a very long time without doing that at all. The only thing that makes the government unlikely to stop doing this is the uncritical acceptance of such immorality by you and other Americans.
You have for some reason internalized the notion that these extreme, totalitarian measures are crucial in the fight against terrorism…when in reality, the results just don’t show that.
“You don’t know whether they have been let off the hook or not.”
Last I checked GWB is on a pretty successful book tour…yeah, he’s got it rough.
“It is actually quite stupid, as long as a war is ongoing, to trumpet mistakes to the world.”
Mistakes are always made, that is understandable…but there are some that are so stupid that they simply should never have happened. Take El-Masri. I mean, come on, he had a similar name to a terrorist and that was all the government needed to lock him up and beat him savagely? Don’t you see how the kind of mentality that justifies this actually makes you less safe, not more?
I don’t expect perfection, Tina, but I do expect to not be as smart as our top military and government leaders. Incompetence such as this is unacceptable, and it’s important that we find about it and deal with it accordingly.
“The ACLU’s involvement with and treatment of these murdererous terrorists”
El-Masri and Arar don’t fall under the category of murderous terrorists, but nice try.
“Second your use of the word torture is just flat out wrong. (I knowyou disagree)”
Being stripped naked, beaten with shredded cables, and sodomized isn’t torture? That’s not an issue of disagreement, that’s an issue of you choosing to ignore the definition of a word because you don’t like it. I’m not going to play that game with you.
“And why does the world see us this way? Think about it!!! They see us this way because the left, including the left media,”
…has told the truth. I know you don’t like that. I know you’d rather that the stories of El-Masri and Arar had never come out. I wish they’d never happened. But they did, and we have a right to know. Perhaps the fact that these stories became public knowledge (though not as well-known as they should be) may have made the government more careful, thus preventing it from happening again. Did you ever think of that? Did you ever stop to think that the goal of the media’s treatment of such stories was not to make the government look bad, but to let citizens know about a threat to their liberty?
“Instead of supporting the effort to defeat these murderous thugs”
Why do you say “instead?” Just because we are critical of the administration doesn’t mean we don’t want to defeat terrorists.
“they choose instead to look for the few incidents where mistakes have been made and then blow them out of perportion”
El-Masri’s and Arar’s stories were not blown out of proportion. They were barely even discussed! A movie was even made based on these men, starring three major Hollywood stars, and it still didn’t garner much attention to what was done to them. You have no grounds to complain that the media payed too much attention to these “mistakes” when they have essentially let the government off the hook for these crimes.
“by harping on them as if they defined who we are.”
These incidents only define who we are if we let them. We have to stand against these atrocities with passion and conviction, to refuse to allow them to define us. You don’t want to do that; you want to sweep them under the rug.
“THEY ARE WRONG BUT THEY DON’T GIVE A RATS ASS!!! How many tinmes did GWB have to come to the microphone and say, “The US does not torture people!” He couldn’t have been more emphatic.”
It doesn’t matter how many times he said it or how “emphatic” he was; despite what you may have learned from the conservative blogosphere, saying something loudly over and over again doesn’t make one right. Yes, Bush said over and over again that the U.S. does not torture people; he was lying every time.
“But a few weenies that cannot get with the very difficult real world of war makes the US a bigger enemy than the terrorists!”
Please. No one says that the U.S. is a bigger enemy than the terrorists. If that is how you choose to interpret criticism of how the war on terrorism has been conducted, go right ahead. But it is not going to help you have a productive dialogue or an open, informed mind.
“You have no idea how I feel.”
That’s because you haven’t told me.
“My feelings about these men don’t make any difference.”
If you let those feelings inform your actions, they absolutely could make a difference. If enough people expressed enough outrage over the treatment of these innocent men, we could make a big difference in how our national security is handled. The Tea Party has made a huge impact on politics because of their revolutionary rhetoric and large numbers. Think about what good they could have done if they were actually fighting real tyranny. And yes, imprisoning innocent people without due process and beating them, no matter how compelling the reason, IS tyranny.
“My sympathies with the plight of the millions of people in the world who suffer every day won’t change their circumstances or the outcome in any way. Emotions are useless self indulgences when confronting problems of this size.”
It’s what you do with those emotions that matter, Tina.
“But as long as you bring it up…what about your consideration of the people who are charged with extracting information from people THEY BELIEVE are terrorists?”
So you’re asking me to sympathize with the torturer, even though you have refused to sympathize with the tortured. Interesting.
Not that this is impossible. I liked Sayid on “Lost” well enough. But seriously, I have considered this before. I believe I’ve even posted my thoughts on how the torturers themselves are being harmed on this very website. I believe the United States has done it’s soldiers a huge disservice, to say the least, by making torturers out of them. I suspect most of these men will be haunted by their actions for the rest of their life. Of course this is true to some extent for many soldiers already…but more so for those who do more than kill in self-defense. Those who cross the line into sadism are usually scarred more.
As for their “belief” that the people they are torturing are terrorists…well, there’s a reason we have a court system which requires a thing called evidence. To prevent things like this from happening.
I know, I know…what if there’s a bomb about to go off and the information must be extracted within one minute…but there is no evidence that anything like this has ever happened outside of the movies and television.
“America should have a sterling reputation around the world and we would were it not for people on the left and the lef media making mountains out of a few incidents while at the same time taking every chance to denegrate America. ”
I’m sorry, but that’s bullsh#t. “The left media” did not create these stories. It merely reported on them. It did not put a gun to Bush’s head and tell him to authorize torture (but not to call it torture, no, because Americans are apparently too stupid to understand what it is as long as you call it something else). If you want to point fingers at those who have made America look bad, place the responsibility where it belongs: on those who made these decisions, not the ones who merely told us about them. But I guess shooting the messenger is easier.
“Frankly it is this that makes me so sick I find it difficult to express whatever regret or sympathy I might have for the innocent victims of war.”
So you don’t feel bad for the victims because the media has pointed out their victimhood to you and tried to get you to feel bad for them. Mmm, logical pretzels: now with 100% less sense!
I think another reason you won’t acknowledge the suffering of El-Masri and Arar is because doing so makes your argument harder to sustain.
On a more cynical day I might also suspect that racism plays a role as well, but it’s Thanksgiving, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
“Let’s get real. The bad guys, the ones we should be holding accountable for all of this, are generally left out of these discussions. Why is that?”
What is there to discuss about them, other than strategy? The actions of the enemy are irrelevant to what was done to these two innocent men.
“You might want to ask why America is held to an impossibly high standard while the enemy is not held to any standard at all.”
I might, if the answer weren’t glaringly obvious.
“Transparency has no place in war.”
If everyone believed this incidents like El-Masri’s and Arar’s would be happening with much greater frequency.
“It is enough that those who are in positions of leadership know and hold accountable those under them that make mistakes.”
What if the mistakes are made right at the top? Who holds them accountable?
The answer is the people. But you don’t want the people to know…so…the answer for you, is nobody.
“A. This may have happened while he was held by our allies in their countries. We are not their rulers and we don’t get to tell them how to interrogate.”
Please, what a cop-out. The entire reason people are turned over to governments like Syria is because the U.S. knows they can do things that we won’t. The U.S. is still complicit.
“B. Some of this may be a lie or an exageration after being lawyered up and coached.
C. Amazingly you are inclined to give them the complete benefit of the doubt but do not afford your own military and administration the same consideration.”
After the Abu Ghraib photos, no, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt from me. If they get it from you, you are pretty naive.
“Would that you have only half as much passion for winnign as you bdo for condemning your country for it’s few mistakes.”
I do have passion for winning…another reason why I don’t believe in torture. It doesn’t work. Neither, apparently, do military tribunals for terrorists, when compared to civilian trials.
As for your hatred of the ACLU…they have done more to protect the Constitution then the Tea Party ever has or ever will, so I don’t understand your problem with them.
“El-Masri and Arar have not received any acknowledgment of responsibility, regret, or remedy for their situation from the government.”
I have no way of knowing what has gone on and what more might transpire in the case of these two men. In El-Masri’s case we know the following: “German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the US acknowledged making a mistake with el-Masri.” We also know that the war continues and a President is often limited in what he can reveal or say in public in the midst of war.
“It is NOT “highly unlikely” that our government can ever stop sending innocent people to secret prisons and having them tortured!”
You cannot be this stupid or naive! You have to be living in a fantasy world where war never happens and mistakes are never made and everyone always can be identified. You have toassume that a central planner can pull the strings on every puppet involved.
“We as a country got along fine for a very long time without doing that at all.”
And you know this for certain because you’ve read all of the top secret information and war history, right?
“You have for some reason internalized the notion that these extreme, totalitarian measures are crucial in the fight against terrorism…when in reality, the results just don’t show that.”
That’s a matter of opinion…just like the definition of torture is a matter of opinion. According to the people in charge, information…LIFE SAVING INFORMATION…has been acquired through the use of these interrogation techniques.
“Last I checked GWB is on a pretty successful book tour…yeah, he’s got it rough.”
I was going to let this slide but after a second thought I cannot let it pass…you’re just a punk assed kid who’s still wet behind the ears. I hope you never find yourself in a position where you have to make the types of decisions that GWB (and now Obama) had to make. You don’t have any idea the level of responsibility and you sure as hell have no idea about the burdens you would have to carry….NO IDEA…yet you talk trash as if you did. A**hole is too nice a word.
“Take El-Masri. I mean, come on, he had a similar name to a terrorist and that was all the government needed to lock him up and beat him savagely? ”
This isn’t as simple as picking one person out of a lineup of ten. It’s about many people with that name. It’s about many people who lie about who they are and what they are up to, using fake ID’s and passports. It’s about several government agencies having differing opinions and intelligence. It’s about varying levels of trust between agencies. Its about individuals within the agencies using, or abusing, power.
“Don’t you see how the kind of mentality that justifies this actually makes you less safe, not more?”
I think that people who are in this business know better about what it takes than does Chris Mathews, the HuffPo journalists, or any of the civil liberties lawyers who sit in their pristine offices all day deciding such things. Let them face the savage killers themselves first hand before making such cavalier statements about what it takes to fight this enemy. Smug doesn’t fly with me…sorry…that’s how they come across and I don’t buy the talking point for a single minute!
“Incompetence such as this is unacceptable, and it’s important that we find about it and deal with it accordingly.”
Smug…arrogant…inexperienced youth. How the hell would you know what it takes to acquire intelligence…and how do you know what disciplinary measures and changes have been made sinhce this happenhed? You don’t know! What you know is a case has been made by antiwar, anti-conservative liberals. (They don’t seem to have the same fervor and fire now that Obama has taken on the job…the most they have mustered so far is mild disappointment in him!)
“El-Masri and Arar don’t fall under the category of murderous terrorists, but nice try.”
You brought these two innocent men into a conversation about a specific trial and the murderous terrorists in general and the ACLU is literally teaching them how to use our laws against us. They are, or are very close to, aiding and abbetting the enemy IMHO.
Being stripped naked, beaten with shredded cables, and sodomized isn’t torture? That’s not an issue of disagreement, that’s an issue of you choosing to ignore the definition of a word because you don’t like it.
Do you know who did this to these men…what proof we have that it happened as described…who ordered it…and what, if anything was done about it after the mistake was discovered?
No you don’t!
See I have a feeling that a lot goes on internally that we never hear about because of security reasons. Transparency would mean taking a terrible wrong and piling several more wrongs on top of it. I’m talking about innocent military and other personel being placed in harms way or innocent (brave) civilians in other countries who are helping us being compromised and murdered or their families tortured becasue YOU need to know. SORRY …it isn’t worth it for those who actually take the risks! And that means GWB gets to look like a jerk to the world…it’s a burden he gets to carry in silence because he can’t tell what he knows!
They see us this way because the left, including the left media,
…has told the truth. I know you don’t like that. I know you’d rather that the stories of El-Masri and Arar had never come out. I wish they’d never happened. But they did, and we have a right to know.”
This war is much larger than these two men or your right to know. The left media does not support this country or the men and women who serve. Sorry but I know how the media behaved during WWII and how they have changed since then. And you dont have a right to know what is kept top secret for the sake of the survival of our citizens and the defense of the nation. (You do have an obligation to wise up in my opinion but Im not holding my breath!)
Perhaps the fact that these stories became public knowledge (though not as well-known as they should be) may have made the government more careful, thus preventing it from happening again.
Did you ever consider that measures have been taken to correct mistakes and the media hasnt bothered to investigate or tell the public about it? You should!
Did you ever stop to think that the goal of the media’s treatment of such stories was not to make the government look bad, but to let citizens know about a threat to their liberty?
What threat to liberty would that be?
The goal of the media was to get GWB. The goal of the media was to discredit him in any way they could. What do you know of his successes in this war? What decisions that he made were trumpeted as positive and good. What operations completed by our soldiers were held up as sterling accomplishments? How often did you hear about the progress our boys were making over there? Bahhhhh! Theres no talking to some young people (or old hippies) on this point.
Just because we are critical of the administration doesn’t mean we don’t want to defeat terrorists.
Somehow it just doesnt come through all the negative, and often quite nasty, noise.
You have no grounds to complain that the media payed too much attention to these “mistakes” when they have essentially let the government off the hook for these crimes.
I have plenty of grounds to complain about the media in general on their coverage of the war and that is what I intended in my remarks.
These incidents only define who we are if we let them. We have to stand against these atrocities with passion and conviction, to refuse to allow them to define us.
These incidents were made into movies and are pushed through the courts by people who dont believe we should defend ourselves. Thats the bottom line. They started this crap in Vietnam (some say Korea but I was too young to be aware of it then) and it continues. We dont have to make international spectacles to make corrections. International spectacles are made for only one purposeTO MAKE AMERICA LOOK BAD! Since these incidents are as grains of sand when compared to all of the good America has done in this world, not to mention the human rights values we stand for, this creates a grossly inaccurate and unfair image. They are show trials and smear (propaganda) movies. Appropriate measures must and should be taken but in times of war they should not include showcasing our errors.
You don’t want to do that; you want to sweep them under the rug.
No! I expect my government to discipline those who make the mistakesas they did with the people who messed up at Abu Graib (another incident that the media ran with unnecessarily and failed to report on responsibly)
Yes, Bush said over and over again that the U.S. does not torture people; he was lying every time.
According to the left blogosphere and the left media! Bush asked for a legal definition so that he would know what he could and could not order. He was given one. He made decisions based on what he was told was legal! He was not present when decisions by underlings were made in the case of these two mistaken identity persons and he is constrained from telling us what measures may have been taken to correct procedures and/or discipline those underlings. He stands accused and cannot speak in his own defense. The left lawyers KNOW THIS! So do the media with any experience under their belts! And yet they continue to attack him. (On second thought, I do hope you do find yourself in this position one daythat smug know it all attitude will change to humility in a heartbeat.)
No one says that the U.S. is a bigger enemy than the terrorists.
Of course not! They are much more covert and underhanded than that. They deliver their poison with a smile or better yet a furrowed brow to show their deep concern!
If that is how you choose to interpret criticism of how the war on terrorism has been conducted, go right ahead. But it is not going to help you have a productive dialogue or an open, informed mind.
Please dont preach to me about openness or being informed. You live in a leftist bubble and youre barely two years old, in terms of maturity and experience. And dont try to sell me a load of crap about the war being covered well. Wars have not been covered well by the media since WWII. If you want a lesson in journalism try studying how that war was covered. Then take a look at the propaganda from the Nazis and the soviets after the war and compare that to coverage since Vietnam and you will see our media has fallen into a deep abyss. (And you would also have a better idea about waht it takes to win a war…hint…the will of the people!)
If enough people expressed enough outrage over the treatment of these innocent men, we could make a big difference in how our national security is handled.
(interesting this is what I just said is needed to win a war) This opinion begins with the notion that your government set out to grab people off the streets indiscriminately. So much for how well journalists have covered the war!
Think about what good they could have done if they were actually fighting real tyranny.
And you think the media has done its job well in covering this war! (I’ve seen real tyranny and it is not the USA)
It’s what you do with those emotions that matter, Tina.
Yes it is! And if you let emotions determine every decision in a war you will fail every single time. Without clear headed reason, logic, and the ability, or willingness, to choose between two or three terrible options, fighting a war is impossible. These are life and death decisions that have to be made when there are no gentle alternatives.
So you’re asking me to sympathize with the torturer, even though you have refused to sympathize with the tortured. Interesting.
So were back to being smug again! I have said I sympathize with these menhell, more than sympathizewords cannot describe how horrible I think this error was for them and their families. Painting our government, and in particular GWB, Republican President, out to be someone who would intentionally order this for these two men is terribly irresponsible and harmful.
You have actually engaged in furthering this attitude toward our government by bringing these two men into a conversation about a completely different case. I wonder what motivated you to do this?
I believe the United States has done it’s soldiers a huge disservice, to say the least, by making torturers out of them.
And you think the media has done its job well in covering this war!
what if there’s a bomb about to go off and the information must be extracted within one minute…but there is no evidence that anything like this has ever happened
What we have is information that was extracted that prevented attacks in England and Los Angeles! It saved livesabsolutely! What we also have is information that cannot be revealed for security reasons.
So much for the sterling job the media has done in covering this war!
So you don’t feel bad for the victims because the media has pointed out their victimhood to you and tried to get you to feel bad for them.
Smug crap again. Noit makes me sick that our media is so tainted with politics that they fail every single day to do the job they are charged with doing. They arent covering the war in terms of who, what, when, where, and how. They cover it in terms of gotcha!
I think another reason you won’t acknowledge the suffering of El-Masri and Arar is because doing so makes your argument harder to sustain. ** On a more cynical day I might also suspect that racism plays a role as well, but it’s Thanksgiving, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
More smug, PC crap!
Maybe this whole argument stems from the fact that you dont really want to acknowledge the enemy or his ruthlessness. That is the reason you take refuge in these two innocentsand because I explain the portions of the story that you, and the left medai, conveniently leave out you fall back on the old racism attack(and even on Thanksgiving!)
What is there to discuss about them, other than strategy?
Cold! Miserable excuse for a citizen!
Just how many acts of individual courage and sacrifice do you think deserve (in the very least) as much attention as you are willing to give to these two extremely regrettable incidents?
The actions of the enemy are irrelevant to what was done to these two innocent men.
And what was done to these two men has nothing to do with the trial of Ghailanibut here we are.
“You might want to ask why America is held to an impossibly high standard while the enemy is not held to any standard at all. ** I might, if the answer weren’t glaringly obvious.
Nice dodge! The remark was snide, however, there is a legitimate question in it.
If everyone believed this incidents like El-Masri’s and Arar’s would be happening with much greater frequency.
And you believe our media is doing its job adequately!
What if the mistakes are made right at the top? Who holds them accountable?
The peopleas we have just seen in the last election and will hopefully see in the next.
The answer is the people. But you don’t want the people to know…so…the answer for you, is nobody.
WRONG! What I want is for the people to be informed responsibly! The media has taken an adversarial roll in reporting. That is not journalismthat is activism!!!!!!!!!
Please, what a cop-out. The entire reason people are turned over to governments like Syria is because the U.S. knows they can do things that we won’t. The U.S. is still complicit.
OK. That doesnt change the fact that this is more complicated than you will acknowledge and, being a condition of war, more unpleasant as well. This is the thing that the left will not acknowledge. The people we are fighting and the people we are allied with have every different values and methods than we do. You are making judgments based on your own little (perfect) textbook worldand that is fantasy! That world doesnt exist in regular life much less during times of war.
After the Abu Ghraib photos, no, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt from me. If they get it from you, you are pretty naive.
So, you do judge the entire military apparatus and the administration by the actions of these few soldiers (and the rumors, distortions and accusations of the left blogosphere) My, how all of that righteous talk about doing what is right goes out the window when another opportunity to smear your own military presents itself. You dont give a damn about knowing the entire truth of this matter or any other. This is bigotry, and prejudice, plain and simple.
I do have passion for winning
Knock me over with a feather!
…another reason why I don’t believe in torture.
Nor does GWB which is why he asked for a precise legal description! Nor does your country! Nor do I.
I do believe in using extreme techniques when there is credible evidence to suggest a person knows something that if we knew it we could save lives. And yes it worksas the evidence that the media and left blogosphere ignores clearly shows!
Neither, apparently, do military tribunals for terrorists, when compared to civilian trials.
Sadly, leftist talking points do not contain complete thoughts. The low level military trials used as comparisons to promote civil trials would likely have resulted in the same decision had they been held in civilian courts. The reasons for holding military trials have nothing to do with outcomes. Both courts are competent. The compelling reasons for military trials have to do with natioanl security! There is no similar compelling reason to hold these trials in civilian courts in most cases.
As for your hatred of the ACLU…they have done more to protect the Constitution then the Tea Party ever has or ever will, so I don’t understand your problem with them.
For one thing, I am not the Tea party!
The ACLU was founded by communists and has spent a good deal of energy and time bringing suits that undermine liberties and force a leftist agenda. It is an activist organization that seeks to make law through the court system thereby completely bypassing the legislative branch.
I happen to like the system as it was formed by the founders.
Tina, I was going to leave a lengthy reply, but then I saw that you still apparently think the Vietnam War was justified, and I just don’t have time to get into that hot mess of nonsense right now. I’ll try to get back to you soon.
There’s more to know than what you’ve been taught in class. Try reading some background and history first:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/duped_in_north_korea_from_obam.html
Tina, I’m certain that there’s more to learn about history than what I’ve been taught in class. I’m equally certain that I am not going to get an accurate, unbiased account of history from The American Thinker. I’ve read articles there before and they are almost always filled with whoppers that even I can spot right offhand. If you have a more objective source to link to, I’ll be interested in reading it.
Chris it’s important that our readers have the opportunity to decide for themselves how valuable it might be to read The American Thinker so I have chosen to respond by letting them know how cheeky, and wrong, you are.
I dont know what your deal is…fear? Stubborness? Pride?
The following is a partial list of the distinguished writers at The American Thinker:
You dont have to agree with their opinions but the facts they present are indisputable and can only add to ones education. The article I suggested does contain a lot of information. Your loss.