Guantanamo Bay or Tehran

Politics International Politics
21

I’m trying to understand the wacky world of liberals here. If a country which goes against supposable everything liberalism stands for but is Muslim it’s okay then right? If they hostilely take foreign soldiers that were not in their territory they are defending themselves eh? If they parade them around on a carefully choreographed film and show them shaking hands with their shit eating grin crack pot dictator they are the humane ones?

Liberals are a perplexing creature. It’s like they are battling self-loafing and inability to logically access situations while parading as the moral right at all times.

22

Raphy -
IMO, this whole thread is an excursion into masturbatory troll-bait land. Looks like some mental dis-order manifesting.
But thats just my opinion.

23

To put it simply:

In recent times we have two incidents (or examples) of the treatment of people captured during wartime. One, the Iranian example shows mild abuse and violations of the GC. Two, the American examples of Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo show egregious violations that involved waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold cells, beatings, deaths, plays upon phobias and cultural taboos, isolation for months at a time, incarceration for years at a time without trial, extraordinary rendition, etc.

Now without doubt the Iranian government is an evil one, something I would not say of even the Bush admin. That they are reckless, foolish, indecent, overreaching, and grossly immoral in places, yes, but not evil.

However, in modern times, when people think of torture they now think of America. When you hear waterboarding you no longer think Spanish Inquisition or Khmer Rouge but Guantanamo. When you hear prisoner abuse you don’t think the Gulag but Abu Ghraib. That things have come to this is outrageous but it is not the fault of liberals or anti-war mongers. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the president.

I don’t know the OP’s intentions but I believe he was not trying to make a logical argument but a rhetorical one. Namely that the US has lost the moral highground it once held because of the approved abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. To some of you this is nonsenses but then you have to remember that one’s reputation is held by others. Dignity may be personal but reputation is public. There’s no question the US has lost a lot by deliberately engaging in torture. If you disagree you are smply asserting your wishes on reality.

24

The essence of that statement is pretty accurate, however blanketly flung.

That said, it’s high time for an indignant rebuttal of the term ‘liberal’ bandied about as if it something to be ashamed of. Granted, many parties in many places have misappropriated the term, using the middle ground as a shady tool to outmanouever their rhetoric-laden opponents on both the left & right flanks.

These delusioned hacks, so-called conservatives & socialists, bring equal odius odium on their own nomenclature, history and general tenets. Skuls of thUdt, indeed… Any old Greek or Roman would have hacked them to pieces, intellectually…

How many classical liberals have been rewritten as icons of either the weft or the wight…?
Thomas Hobbes vs Eric Blair…
That would be me fav matchup…

Why, yes, I’m a liberal. It’s a french word, i know so difficult for the saxons to get a grip on. I think it’s got something to do with a latin root word meaning ‘free’. AS in free from skools of thud/thought…

I thought that was what we’ve been fighting for all along.
It doesn’t work all the time.
Ebb & Flow.
Positive & Negative.

Simply put, bad shit is going to happen behind the lines. On both sides In the ranks of the REMFs, esp. anything to do with a branch of military intelligence/security. It’s pernicious elements, if not well led, will always find a way to relieve their own inner boredom.

My previous facetious remarks notwithstanding, TC is right. It’s absurd to compare Gitmo with anyone held in a foreign country for 2 weeks. It’s like comparing an impregnated watermelon with a flaccid grape.

25

The antics of todays ‘liberals’ have rendered the word into a pejorative.
The term in its classical meaning has little relevance to what it has morphed into in todays political realm. In its classical political meaning, being referred to as a “Liberal” was not something insulting. And mores the pity for that.

Can we also spank the bottoms of those who use “neo-con” in their attempt at faux intellectualism?

MM -
Nice try. Once again your weird hatred of US President Bush has clouded your ability to see beyond itself.
To equate the fleeting happenings at Abu Ghraib with 3 decades of systematic murder and torture that has existed under the fundamentalist Mohammedan regime in Iran is agenda driven blindness. Abu Ghraib was flaw that should not have happened, did happen, was found and those responsible have and are being punished for their actions.
Torture, murder and abuse under the current Iranian regime is state sanctioned. There is a difference.

26

You may be right regarding the far left self-loathing part of the left spectrum. This is all fine and well as long as you only face that fringe minority opposing a particular U.S. policy.

Once it reaches a dimension like the current lack of support for U.S. policies in the Middle East you may have to look a bit further than just at this lame old Dworkin-Moore-Chompsky strawman to explain the different standards the U.S. and the Saddam government are held to.

Did you consider that plain and ordinary folks … i.e. not the Chompsky clones you refer to … are a lot more concerened how their own government acts than whatever Saddam, Mobutu, insert-dictator-of-choice does with the society and people that spawned them?

Saddam gasses several 1,000 Kurds.
Reaction: “Bad boy - good that I don’t live there. Not that I actually care, mind me.”

Badly supervised U.S. thugs abuse several dozen detainees.
Reaction: “Wait a minute … ain’t those guys working for MY government!? This is what my taxes are spent on?”

Sure it is a double standard. U.S. citizens seem to hold the U.S. to higher standards than the regime in Teheran. Mostl likely because they do not live in Iran (doh!). Anything to complain about that though? Or do you prefer to see the U.S. and Iran regimes at eye-to-eye level playing in the same league and thus conforming to the same standards? Iran and the US at comparable levels … are you sure it isn’t you who expresses a lot of self-loathing there?

If you like though you of course may portray the entire issue as just “these Iranians only get a free pass because dem liberuls are all multi-culti Muslims luvers”.

27

Somewhat off-topic, but doesn’t the reaction of the Brits who were captured seem a little too co-operative?

I’m not saying it was a “name, rank and serial number” situation, or that they should have resisted a fate worse than death, but how about…“how do I know where we were, I just do what I’m told…”

Never having faced torture or death in a cell myself, (though I did get a nasty smack up side the head from a guard in a Greek jail) I don’t want to come on all wingnut here, but what are the standards in a situation like this?

28

Don’t get me wrong I like liberalism I just don’t like the liberals :slight_smile:

Seriously there is only a segment that really what I was describing. They hail from places like San Francesco, Vancouver…well Europe. They go on about how much more enlightened and sophisticated they are but their great their debating skills usually consist of 3 to 4 word catch phrases and easy picture telling stories :smiley: It usually gives them some kind of Guardian/BBS-esc type comfort to think of Americans as 100% white gun toting rednecks. They love to extremely exaggerate the level religion plays in Americans life’s and how silly/insane it is but then turn around and defend Islamic Fundamentalist regimes to the death. But probably the biggest difference I see (in real life) is if you have a difference in opinion not only are you wrong but it will then begin to start to get personal.

29

Fred is from San Francisco? I never knew.

30

[quote=“MikeN”]Somewhat off-topic, but doesn’t the reaction of the Brits who were captured seem a little too co-operative?

[/quote]

They did what they had to do to get out. Unfortunately, the U.K. doesn’t have access to Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone or the A-Team, all of whom, I have no doubt would have rescued any U.S. servicemen who found themselves in a similar situation.

Thank fuck that during this episode, Tony Blair managed to shut Bush up for the most part otherwise they would still be there.

Nifty gift bags for the servicemen though.

BroonAbleseaman

31

The Iranians capture British Sailors and Marines; they surrender first and apologize later. A week later they get dressed up in some JC Penny suits and party with their captures. After which the Iranians send them on home (with some nifty going away prizes) as a “gift” to the British people. But this was part of the British Governments cool tactical diplomacy right? Good thing they put America in their place otherwise they would have been humiliated.

32

Ralphy -
You’re just too subtle and sublime for your clothes…:wink:

What has emerged is that the Iranians were playing the same hostage games as always. Mock ‘executions’, a bit of a punch-up, isolation tactics and using the willing media toadies to get their propaganda out to their lap-dog piriquaco left-wingers.

I’m glad the Brits were released and are safe. Now their story is coming out.
I always find it humorous how some wack-nuts use episodes such as this to vent their bilious venom at those who would oppose such murderous enemies of freedom as the Iranians…it just amazes me.

33

TC – Seriously aren’t half of their people out of work over there? They couldn’t find a decent tailor? Also, what the hell was up with that press conference? It looked like it was in an abandoned warehouse with a backdrop that was left behind from an 80’s Def Leppard concert :unamused: The 3rd time around this happens have both governments hire Disney and it’ll at least have the appearance it was put on professionally.

34

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The antics of todays ‘liberals’ have rendered the word into a pejorative.
The term in its classical meaning has little relevance to what it has morphed into in todays political realm. In its classical political meaning, being referred to as a “Liberal” was not something insulting. And mores the pity for that.

Can we also spank the bottoms of those who use “neo-con” in their attempt at faux intellectualism?

MM -
Nice try. Once again your weird hatred of US President Bush has clouded your ability to see beyond itself.
To equate the fleeting happenings at Abu Ghraib with 3 decades of systematic murder and torture that has existed under the fundamentalist Mohammedan regime in Iran is agenda driven blindness. Abu Ghraib was flaw that should not have happened, did happen, was found and those responsible have and are being punished for their actions.
Torture, murder and abuse under the current Iranian regime is state sanctioned. There is a difference.[/quote]

I have no weird hatred for President Bush. I have grown to despise him over the years for fecklessness, and sheer incompetence but I argued vehemently in favor of many of his policies in the beginning. You cheerleaders on the right want to paint all critics as appeasers and anti-war dupes and simply don’t know what to do with someone like me who supported the war and supoort America despite disliking the people running it. The nice try award goes to you.

But in any case, why is you simply cannot distinguish between someone explaining a position and expousing it? I make no equation between the US and Iran over the past thirty years (and said repeatedy in my post what I think of Iran). I explain how the US has lost so much in the propaganda war by what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. I make pretty much undeniable statements that because of what has happened the US example has replaced truly vile regimes when many people think of torture. Do you think this is not true? Of course it’s true. And that should make you very angry.

But it doesn’t. Why? Because like a few holdouts against reality you still think that what happened at AB and Gitmo was isolated. No, it was policy and even the first reports by the army said that the problem went way up the chain of command. And no one in any position of power has been held accountable. (Karpinski doesn’t count.)

Over the years we have seen credible report after credible report arguing that this was policy. We have the so-called torture memos and transcripts of Al Qantani’s months of torture. We have seen the president refuse to disvow torture methods in interviews. We have seen how hard he fought against the McCain bill. We know from soldier’s reports that torture and abuse was widespread and completely condoned by higher ups. We have the reports of doctor. We have the AMA now rewritign its medical ethics codes to disallow doctors assisting in torture. We have a credible narrative going from the office of legal council advise to the president regarding his authority during wartime to authorize torture, to memos authorizing torture, to torture reports coming from all corners.

I have reality on my side, and a mountain of evidence that says your government has sanctioned torture. I have no agenda to push since I have always expressed a great fondness for the US and supported the war. But I’ve never thought wanting something to succeed meant giving carte blanche to those in charge. You seem to think differently.

Your position regarding me makes no sense. I believe what I believe because all the evidence points to it not because of any hatred for Bush. Do you believe what you believe because you simply don’t want to face a disturbing truth?

It’s quite ironic but the right has sure benefitted the most from liberal self-esteem education policies over the past thirty years. It doesn’t matter what America does, she will always be good. :unamused:

35

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
To equate the fleeting happenings at Abu Ghraib with 3 decades of systematic murder and torture that has existed under the fundamentalist Mohammedan regime in Iran is agenda driven blindness. Abu Ghraib was flaw that should not have happened, did happen, was found and those responsible have and are being punished for their actions.
Torture, murder and abuse under the current Iranian regime is state sanctioned. There is a difference.[/quote]

No, there is no difference…Iran practices State sanctioned torture and so does America…perhaps you consider American torture more humane!!!..I started this thread to highlight just how much credibilty America has lost from advocating torture…66% of Forumosans would prefer to be imprisoned by the Brutal dictatorship in Iran rather than by the USA… a sad state of affairs…I’m sure you will agree…
…Those responsible for Abu Ghraib are still in the White House…

Fleeting happenings? Your assessment lacks historical context. The CIA has been perfecting the torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay for more than 50 years. Abu Ghraib was not a flaw, it was the result of billions of dollars of research…a systemic American policy of torture that dates back to the 1950s and has been put in to practice across the world, from Honduras to Viet Nam to Iraq…now that’s global terror… It is no exaggeration to say America wrote the book on Torture….get your copy here…… www.americantorture.com
(American torture?..sounds so natural…)

Interrogation of Suspects Under Arrest
Declassified 1958article from the CIA journal, Studies In Intelligence. Written by Don Compos, this article can be read as an early blueprint for the interrogation system employed by the CIA and US armed forces in the war on terror - a regime engineered to elicit debility, dependence and dread.
americantorture.com/document … red_00.pdf

[b]Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual /b
Declassified CIA interrogation training manual intended for Latin American officers written after a Honduran training session in early 1983 (Coercive Techniques Section). Hand-edited changes made by the agency in the mid-1980s did little to conceal the true lessons, and intent, of the original document.
americantorture.com/document … war/07.pdf

Interrogation Log: Detainee 063
Incredible minute-by-minute account of the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani (Detainee 063). Describes an array of coercive SERE techniques that took place between November 22, 2002 and January 11, 2003.
americantorture.com/document … red_02.pdf

In 2001, the use of the American flag as a symbol of distress was codified in law. U.S. Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8(a) reads as follows:

The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
truthout.org/docs_03/040403A.shtml

America’s continued development and rampant use of torture endangers every American. It is therefore appropriate to fly the National flag upside down.

36

Okay, this is getting into Area 54 and 911 was an inside job, so I am out of here.

jw, the difference between a conspiracy and the truth is that the truth always comes out in a fairly timely manner because good people step up as whisteblowers. Good, credible people who’s honor and reputation is never called into question. With Abu Ghraib (which has nothing to do with the CIA) we have the credible reports of doctors, reporters, Red Cross workers, and even the army’s own investigators. Capt Ian Fishbank was one of the first soldiers to step up to the plate and through his persistence got McCain to listen up and later introduce an anti-torture bill. Fishbank is still serving in Iraq and no one has ever to my knowledge even tried to argue directly against what he said.

In other words, real people believed torture was happening and took real steps to halt it. You also had other real people (the president and vice-president) making public efforts to protect themselves (such as with the Detainee Act that grants immunity from prosecution) and acting agressively and defensively when questioned.

If past presidents were authorizing torture they were doing it knowing they could well be prosecuted under US law. Why did they make no efforts to protect themselves? Where is the John Yoo of 50 years ago?

37

Ohhh, TC looks like you got a secret admirer :flowers: You lucky dog you.

38

Thought that this was a nice summary:

[quote]I have this rule of thumb, which I recommend to everyone:
if Solzhenitsyn recounts some practice as one employed in coercive interrogations at Lubyanka, it’s torture. So, false execution: definitely torture. Also torture: long-time standing; exposure to extremes of heat and cold; forcing prisoners to kneel or stand in painful positions; putting prisoners in cells so small they cannot stand or lie down; keeping them awake for days at a time. These practices were the meat and drink of the NKVD, who preferred them to fingernail extraction for the same reason certain American torture advocates do: they can be made to seem as if they are not torture, even though they are, in fact, actually torture. FYI.[/quote]

crookedtimber.org/2007/04/09/nukes-now/

39

The US has no official policy proposing the US of torture. In fact, it has come out quite clearly stating that it is against torture. NO PROOF of torture has ever emerged from Guantanamo. Al Qaeda operatives are issued with manuals however that specifically suggest that they allege torture at every opportunity because they understand our media and “concerned” leftists better than anyone.

The only nation in the West to have engaged in a national debate about the use of torture is Germany. That debate occurred for nearly five years. Many of its top leaders are ON RECORD as stating that they support use of torture.

The incidents in Abu Ghraib were isolated. The perpetrators were punished. Why IF these incidents were NATIONAL policy have there not been far more allegations and specific incidents of abuse that have arisen? Note. I use the word abuse. Most of the victims of Abu Ghraib were victims of abuse not torture. And why only in that one area if it were national policy? That one section of cells? That one group late at night?

While the usual lovers of conspiracy theory have flocked here, as usual, they are wrong. And the sad thing is that their irrational nonsense and excessive concern over these allegations detracts from the fact that REAL VERIFIABLE torture is taking place each and every day in Iran and it is that government’s NATIONAL policy. This is why the left has become a laughing stock when it comes to its reprehensible moral relativism. I wouldn’t let these idiots run with scissors (but I would love to have the opportunity to enable them to do so!) much less have a serious impact on national policy formation. Idiots. Contemptible buffoons.

40

Bush has never, even when asked directly, disavowed waterboarding or other extreme techniques reportedly used by the CIA. Only a child would say there is nothing behind these repeated refusals to make a clear statement on the matter.

You really are out to fucking lunch. Al Qatani’s interrogation records have been released. They show months of sleep deprivation and cold celling. The doctors involved with this have confirmed what happened.

What is happening now with regard to the prosecution of inmates at Gitmo? The Wall Street Journal ran an article a few days ago about Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a top military lawyer, who refused to prosecute Mohamedou Ould Slahi because he believed evidence against him has been extracted by torture. Everyone involved closely with Gitmo seems to believe torture was taking place and that it was approved. And again, these are all credible, patriotic men. I mentioned General Counsel Mora months ago. Another long serving, highly respected member of the armed forces who released memos pertaining to torture at Gitmo because he knew the government was lying about it.
pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf040107.htm

Allegations of torture are not coming from lefties but from reputable men in the military. That’s where they started and that’s where they continue to come from. Address the allegations of reputable men, not the loonies on Forumosa if you want to be taken seriously.

[quote]
The only nation in the West to have engaged in a national debate about the use of torture is Germany. [/quote]

Yes, the debate took place behind closed doors with the Office of Legal Council providing the legal justification. Those who found out and objected, like Mora, were put on a bogus alternate commitee whose recommendations and objections went nowhere.

[quote]
The incidents in Abu Ghraib were isolated. The perpetrators were punished. Why IF these incidents were NATIONAL policy have there not been far more allegations and specific incidents of abuse that have arisen? [/quote]

Hundreds upon hundreds of allegations and documented cases have arisen. You’ve never reads a single bit of source material have you? But does it really matter if there were dozens or hundreds?

[quote]
Note. I use the word abuse. Most of the victims of Abu Ghraib were victims of abuse not torture. And why only in that one area if it were national policy? That one section of cells? That one group late at night?[/quote]

It was not only Abu Ghraib but at many prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, your ignorence on this matter continues to astound me. Ian Fishbank, the captain who brough the issue of torture to McCain’s ears said this:

[quote]
Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]

No one has ever tried to discredit the man, nor argued that what he said was not true. And his is just one of many voices, that range from soldiers, red cross workers, journalists and so on regarding the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners in the war on terror.

[quote]
While the usual lovers of conspiracy theory have flocked here[/quote]

General Counsel Mora, Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, West Point grad Ian Fishbank, John McCain?

Assertions are not arguments.

Wrong again. Yes, these things are taking place but you have lost the moral highground to criticize them. I am able to make a distinction between the horrendous evil of Iran and the stupidity and moral cowardice that led the Bush admin to authorize torture after 911. One is far worse than the other in terms of the sheer harm it inflicts, but the US example is very harmful in the long term because the west loses it’s greatest edge in winning over Muslims to out side: our dedication to rule of law, equal treatment before the law, and our disdain for barbarism.

So you won’t be voting for McCain I take it if he is the Republican candidate? Obama will be happy to get your vote.