JUSTICE

Obama’s 250 Tough Calls

He should not be stampeded into appeasing his global constituencies on Guantánamo Bay.

By Stuart Taylor Jr. | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 15, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: worldobserver @ 11/28/2008 9:43:50 PM

    comment: what does that exactly mean? are u an american citizen or are u trying to say that u are a better citizen if you continue torture?

  • Posted By: kimo177 @ 11/26/2008 10:56:03 PM

    Is the president elect a U.S citizen or not? If not, I do not want him as my president. He should tell us the truth now before the inauguration.

  • Posted By: Thisoneagain @ 11/25/2008 7:38:42 AM

    How about we use the money to ensure that our own system of jsutice is fair for our own citzens? People in jail are walking free everyday due to wrong convictions. Let's use that money to review and purse cases that have merit, rather than pick and choose.

  • Posted By: justasoldier001 @ 11/25/2008 6:02:01 AM

    The detainees at Guantanamo are not US citizens and trust me they do believe in the right to not be tortured. As someone who is currently in Iraq, I see what they do to each other on a daily basis. I work at a detainee holding area and there is no abuse here or from the coalition forces. Anyone that comes in abused was abused by other Iraqis. It is what they believe in here and it is part of their way of life. They torture each other. Who is anyone in the US to say its wrong if you haven't seen the way they treat each other for yourself?

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/24/2008 8:32:55 AM

    Drunk drivers kill far more people than terrorists. Every year the equivalent of 10 9/11's happen with automobile accidents, many are drunk driver related. Where's Homeland Security for that? The time of the Founding Fathers had Indian raids where people would burn your house down, scalp you, abduct your kids & the Founding Fathers didn't have the need for Homeland Security or "Patriot" Act (gotta laugh at THAT name--Thomas Jefferson was a patriot).

    Americans, whether they are Left or Right have devolved into a bunch of scared, BigBrother-co-dependent , overweight creampuffs. Biggest wuss for running away from terrorists was ironically a right-wing icon, Ronald Reagun... 200 Marines get killed in Beirut by a truck bomb and we run away from Lebanon with our tails tucked between our legs. Hot dang, that's heroic!

    I don't give a rats asz if Osama parachutes into my front yard. I don't need DHS to protect me; he'd die of "lead poisoining" from AR-15. Funny how after 7 years the current administration can't find a 6'6" Arab who is on dialysis. I bet if I dropped a quarter down a sewer drain, Bush, Cheney & his Haliburton friends would find it--they're real good at finding money.

    Atleast Haliburton won't need a bailot like AIG, they've already raped American taxpayers with Iraq & Katrina.

    What does it matter if torture is illegal or not? If you had a Jack Bauer-like dude torturing a suspect to find a nuke & he found a nuke as a result, I rather doubt anyone would vote "guilty" on him for torture--ever hear of "juror nullification"?

  • Posted By: halides1 @ 11/23/2008 9:14:51 PM

    Dear Mr. Taylor,

    Thank you for a thought-provoking article. However, I have some concerns. First, the fact that there is a legal distinction between ???cruel and inhumane??? treatment and torture may be a sign that the law needs to catch up with the psychology of prisoner treatment. This is what Alfred McCoy implied in ???A Question of Torture.??? Many practices, such as deprivation of sleep, hooding, etc. do not involve infliction of pain, but they are powerful ways to break a prisoner. In short, I believe that practices which bring prisoners to the point of saying in effect ???Do it to Julia,??? are torture, whether the practices produce intelligence or not. Moreover, there is already evidence that our policies produce false intelligence, and nothing in the public record that suggests that it works. Second, I am concerned that keeping detainees without charging them runs contrary to the principle of habeas corpus in international law. This principle is too central to human rights to be violated. Third, I am concerned that there will be a tendency to class detainees who have been tortured as too dangerous to release, whether they are or not, in order to cover up what would otherwise be an embarrassment to our government. Again, I am indebted to Professor McCoy for elucidating this general principle.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 10:28:58 PM

      Yet another hand wringer.

  • Posted By: Core values first @ 11/23/2008 3:17:46 PM

    Great!! Let's murder unborn children and have pitty on criminals. What a great leader this is going to be.

    Beware liberals beware

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 10:27:46 PM

      You just described the Democrat's entire domestic policy!

  • Posted By: midnight05 @ 11/18/2008 9:27:44 PM

    It is very simple. Bring them to the US and try them in the US courts. Give them access to lawyers. If some of the trials have to be without the press, let that happen. Eivdence obtained by torture is out. Those inmates who are too dangerous to be set free can be convicted and sentenced to places like Florence, CO supermax. Those that can be set free should be set free. It will tell the rest of the world who we are and what we are about -- the rule of law and not some kind of Inquisition or Star Chamber.

    • Posted By: Floridave @ 11/20/2008 5:08:53 PM

      It's simpler than that. Load the worst of them into one airplane and crash it into Castro's house. Ooops! Prove it wasn't an accident! It's a win-win. And since they are war criminals, nobody can sue us!
      I like this plan better all the time.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/18/2008 8:34:26 PM



    "jimbo": I just wonder what you ever-so-brave self-described-patriots who know-so-much-with-such-certainty-about-every-single-person-at-Gitmo would be spouting if Americans were the ones being held.

    Police and soldiers make mistakes everyday, many of them well-meaning. For you to exclude that possibility here, and instead of thinking you spew your ignorant 'certitude' and epithets on all who happen to have other viewpoints, only further confirms our embarrassment that you are, presumably, American.

    Rigid incapacity to see any point of view other than one's own, and to demean and denigrate all others is the "mental disorder" I see here.

    Your posts are not laughable, they are pathetic and shameful.

    A 40 year republican

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/19/2008 3:58:35 AM

      You really should stick to salacious posts with Pia, because you are better at that than talking politics. In the political realm, well, you use a lot of big words but don't make any sense; you just ramble.

      I stand by everything I have written below, mr 40 year rhino (Republican in name only).

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/18/2008 11:01:35 PM

      40YR-please go read my comments to that particular blogger on the Hillary article featured. I'm sorry if I have offended you. I am very sincere about things..

  • Posted By: qrky @ 11/18/2008 2:01:01 PM

    There is a certain sick irony about Gitmo. Its prisoners - er, excuse me, "detainees" may or may not have broken any laws. They're being held without due process. And the entire concept of Gitmo and what has taken place there, in point of fact the existence of Gitmo itself, is likely a violation of international law. What if every citizen of this country proceeded to flagrantly ignore and violate our laws? Or, as once was said, "All people are created equal, but some are more equal than others"...

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/18/2008 1:24:57 PM

    ouch

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/18/2008 10:52:09 AM

    Newsweek needs to grow a pair, and condemn Guantanamo unequivocally. It's NOT a tough call, and if Obama thinks it's a tough call, he's not the man I voted for. If Newsweek thinks it's a tough call, they should change their name to Pravda.

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/18/2008 10:36:57 AM

    Here is a quote from a true history book about a WWII double agent in England. The book is "Agent Zig-Zag". The quote describes the London camp the captured Nazi agent was taken to for interrogation. Mind you, this was while London was being bombed, while France was occupied and Germany was actively planning the invasion of England. Good intelligence was absolutely critical to England, and the populace was terrified. " Secluded, forbidding, and surrounded by double barbed wire fences, the interrogation center was code named Camp 020. Colonel (Robin) Stephens, ...terrified his underlings as much as the prisoners. ...He was a superb judge of character and situation, he never lost his temper with a prisoner, and he condemned the use of violence or torture against a prisoner as barbaric and counter-productive. Anyone using the "third degree" was banned from Camp 020....few disputed he was superb at his job: establishing the guilt of the spy, breaking down his resistance, extracting vital information, scaring him witless, and turning him over to Tar Robertson for use as a double agent." Note that Britain was actively at war with the Nazis, and their chief interrogator of spies and saboteurs used NO torture- partly because it was counter-productive. That means not is torture worth comdemning because it is brutal, but it also DOESN'T WORK. Do American interrogators read history?

  • Posted By: miesque @ 11/18/2008 6:26:04 AM

    To all those who oppose closing Guantanamo, why don't we keep Guantanamo open and rotate the prisioners every six years with a group of those who oppose closing Guantanamo. In "this" country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. That's the law in this country. These people were not capture in this country. They are not being held in this country. If they have committed a crime against this country, then let them be tried by the laws of this country. Otherwise, send them to whatever country they came from and let them be tried by that country. If these people are guilty of a crime, then why is the United States afraid to expose themselves and these prisoners to the light of truth, justice and the law?

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/21/2008 10:40:12 PM

      Is miesque short for "milquetoast'? Your post would indicate that it is.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 3:29:53 PM

        Pot/kettle/black. Jimbo, you're the one asskissing the government.

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/23/2008 10:26:09 PM

          Not hardly, douchebag. But this government has stopped terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11. But I'm sure that Anti-American lefties like you see no value in that whatsoever.

          • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/23/2008 11:14:21 PM

            Jimbo, the fact that this administration has stopped attacks on the US since 9/11 means nothing to the left. Why should it? It was no big deal when we were getting hit on a regular basis. If we bring it 9/11 today, we're told that we're living in fear. This point can't be made with these people.

  • Posted By: Lars-Johan @ 11/18/2008 4:33:43 AM

    The United States of America are opposed to freedom of thought and expression. If a foreigner feels hatred towards america he can be put in prison indefinately or done away with completely. Just as a chinese journalist can be summarily designated "enemy of the people" and not be heard from again, so can arabs or africans be called "terrorist" and be sent to guantanamo bay.

  • Posted By: Jt74 @ 11/18/2008 12:30:24 AM

    What an outrage of an article! If the government cannot prove in a court of law, clear evidence sufficient to prove probable cause that the defendant has committed a crime, then that person must be released. There is no controversy over this, there is no debate, that is the law of the land, and without the rule of law this country has absolutely lost its claim to be a civilized country. Everyone is entitled to habeus corpus, that includes suspected terrorists, that is the law and the law must be obeyed. I cannot believe that Newsweek would allow such an irresponsible and utterly contemptable argument to be put to print under its journalistic standards. Habeus Corpus is a basic standard for any civilized country. Guantanamo and ALL OF THE SECRET PRISONS MUST BE CLOSED, Habeus corpus must be respected, and torture and abuse and all cruel and unusual punishments are unconstitutional and unlawful and must be forbidden. It is a lasting shame that there is even a pretense that any alternative is worthy of discussion or respect under our Constitution and our nation's reputation as a land where law alone is king.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/20/2008 3:07:28 PM

      Again, another left-wing spewing self-rightous outrage while failing to grasp the most fundamental concept of the Constitution; that it applies to US citizens, not POW's, not enemy combatants, not illegal aliens. Get a grip.

      In Dick Morris's recent book, he details 50 examples of prisoners released from Gitmo that ended up back on the battlefield killing US troops. So where is your outrage over that?

      Gitmo should be expanded and all detainees held until the global war on terror is won.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 6:02:20 PM

        No, Jimbo, due process, as worded in the constitution, applies to anyone in US custody.

        Just because you're frightened out of your wits by Arabs doesn't change that.

    • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/18/2008 10:47:09 AM

      Of course, all logical arguments against torture or indefinite imprisonment aside, Jt74 has the real argument succinctly put. We are, or we are not, a nation of laws. I cannot support a Government which does not follow its own laws. Bush and Cheney wanted to turn us into a totalitarian state, without law. Period.

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 11/17/2008 10:37:17 PM

    No I don't think it's easy. But it's not SUPPOSED to be easy. It's also not supposed to be something you whine continuously about and NEVER solve.

    The fact that you all are invoking Joe the Plumber and Dick Cheney (Chris S.) only shows just HOW desperate and stupid you are.

    Either you DO or you DON'T believe we're better than this. Period. It's put up or shut up time.

    EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle with HALF a brain, and virtually EVERYONE who's served in the military has told you this thing is an unmitigated, freakin DISASTER.

    The military never wanted this and they never asked for it. It was people like Cheney (as long as you're deriding "arm chair warriors" that coward got FIVE draft deferments in the middle of the Vietnam War) who came up with this THING.

    Those who DID serve are always the FIRST to try and preserve rights.

    America is BETTER than this. Got it? Whether you losers want to admit this or not, we ARE!

    Do you really have any question which way the Founding Fathers would have went on this thing? George Washington?

    You want to talk about people who served? Colin Powell's against it, every Republican Secretary of State you can NAME is against it, Brent Scowcroft's against it, Tommy Franks, who is a well-known Republican who has supported just about everything Bush has done, has never said ANYTHING positive about this.

    NO ONE other than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld things this is a good idea. It's an embarassment, it's causing us damage in the world, it accomplishes NOTHING and it's stupid.

    You can't NAME a major American figure, military, civilian or governmental with HALF a brain who's for this. It's basically Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld and that's IT. Oh yeah and you morons. Great company to be in.

    This is NOT what America stands for. CLOSE IT! Yesterday.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/18/2008 2:34:17 AM

      Spare us both your niavete and your false moral outrage. One of the posters suggested that the detainees all come live with you, since you are such a do-gooder, I noticed you didn't address that in your long-winded rant.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 6:04:00 PM

        "Spare us both your niavete and your false moral outrage. "

        Spare us your jingoism and your false patriotism.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/18/2008 3:11:33 PM

        Don't you see that Bush's policies on torture were almost Hitler-like? Detaining people simply for their country of origin or ethnicity? After SIX YEARS they still haven't been charged? That would never happen in the US yet it's ok for foreigners? What if the police busted down your door and threw you in prison for 6 years simply because you, for instance, rode in a cab with a suspected terrorist for a driver? Of course, you had no connection to this guy and didn't know him from Steve, yet the police can just let you rot for 6 years. How does that sound? Because things like that are going on under this regime.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 6:04:53 PM

          "Don't you see that Bush's policies on torture were almost Hitler-like? "

          Of course he sees it. If this were 1933 Munich, Jimbo would be first in line for a snappy black uniform.

          • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/20/2008 6:33:09 PM

            Your ignorance is boundless, and you prove it with this idiocy. Hitler and his henceman perpetrated real torture on innocent people; a far cry from a Gitmo detainee not getting a new prayer rug before Ramadan starts, or whatever bizzare definition you are using for torture these days. When you make statements like the above, you insult all of those poor unfortunates who suffered at the hands of real torture.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:57:30 AM

              Waterboarding is torture. Plain and simple.

              • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/21/2008 6:45:39 PM

                Has anyone died from waterboarding? Has anyone even been injured from waterboarding? Is there even any real evidence that waterboarding has been done at Gitmo? Answers: no, no, and no.
                Kind of like what your wife says to you every night.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 11:33:42 AM

                  It's still torture. We convicted Japanese officers of using it in WWII. Why is it okay now?

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/18/2008 7:38:13 PM

          1. No one is being "detained simply for their country of origin or ethnicity" They are being detained for participating in terrorist activities and/or combat actions directed against Americans.
          2. No one is going to throw me in jail without charges, Summer, because unlike the combatants in item #1, I am protected by the US constitution, something that comes with citizenship. The terrorists are not, nor should they be.
          3. These people would happily kill both of us, just for being Americans. Yet you and your like-minded ilk simply can't give them full constitutional protections fast enough, can you? Which leads me to point #4, which is:
          4. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

          I become more convinced of #4 with each of your laughable posts.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 6:06:19 PM

            " No one is going to throw me in jail without charges, Summer, because unlike the combatants in item #1, I am protected by the US constitution, something that comes with citizenship."

            1. Again, you are incorrect. Due process applies to anyone in US custody.

            2. How would you prove you are a citizen? You wouldn't have counsel, or even a day in court.

            • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/20/2008 6:37:26 PM

              Here's a radical idea on how I will avoid Gitmo; I'll start by not attacking US troops in the field, and I'll double my chances for success by not participating in terrorist plots agains US targets. What a couple of ideas!

              You accuse me of being afraid of Arabs, but that sounds a whole lot more rational than your evident fear of someone knocking on your door in the middle of the night and hauling you off to Gitmo.

              Are you a college professor? Because that would explain a lot....

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:59:31 AM

                "Are you a college professor? Because that would explain a lot...."

                No, I'm not. But thanks for revealing yourself as the standard-brand, Palin-esque hick.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:58:27 AM

                "Here's a radical idea on how I will avoid Gitmo; I'll start by not attacking US troops in the field, and I'll double my chances for success by not participating in terrorist plots agains US targets. What a couple of ideas!"

                And if you get grabbed up anyway, how will you prove you've done nothing wrong?

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/19/2008 11:44:10 AM

            First of all, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. After 6 years! 6 years!!! Ask McCain what he thinks about that, having been a POW for 5! And although you inanely use the word "liberal" like it's a dirty word, I'm not one. I have conservative and liberal views. I'm a registered independent that votes after thoroughly checking out each candidate. Have you honestly looked into why those prisoners are there? If so, you'll know that some of them are there simply because they were driving a cab that a terrorist was in, or neighbors, or the cousin of a friend of a brother of a guy down the street. (Ok, maybe not the last one, but some of the associations border on "the 6 seperations of Osama"...) So yes, YOU could be arrested and throw in jail under the current regime. If they're not gonna abide by the international rules of the Geneva Convention, what makes you think they'll abide by the Constitution? Wiretapping? Spying on citizens? Come on.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:10:12 AM

            "4. Liberalism is a mental disorder. "

            I see. So Jefferson and Madison were nuts? Nice one, moron.

            • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/19/2008 3:39:23 PM

              You are right, I should have said Modern Day Liberalism, the kind that puts the "rights" of foreign born killers ahead of the safety and security of US citizens. Does that clarify it for you, douchebag?

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:44:29 PM

                No, because the language Madison and Jefferson used made no exceptions on due process.

                Have you actually ever read the constitution, Jimbo?

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:09:06 AM

            " No one is being "detained simply for their country of origin or ethnicity" They are being detained for participating in terrorist activities and/or combat actions directed against Americans. "

            Even Bush admits the Uighers kept there have done nothing.

            • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/19/2008 3:37:34 PM

              Felix Uigher? Are he and Oscar Madison detained at Gitmo? This is a revelation,

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:46:24 PM

                Did you mean "Unger"?

                It seems you have no idea about what's actually going on...you're just another know-nothing dittohead with a big mouth. I should have guessed that earlier.

                • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/20/2008 12:53:52 PM

                  Evidently you are too stupid to know when I am making fun of you, douchebag.

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 1:29:12 PM

                    No, I know you're just a troll. It doesn't cost me anything to humor a moron.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:38:23 PM

        Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't. You obviously don't.

  • Posted By: Junggai @ 11/17/2008 6:33:50 PM

    Closing Gitmo a tough call? In what parallel universe are we living, where following international human rights' standards for prisoners of war is a tough call?

    Extraordinary rendition may be edgy on TV dramas produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, but in real life it is a morally atrocious practice for a country which gets to be the arbiter of worldwide human rights. This article is evidence of how far the cancer has set into the American soul as it poses the question "what shall we do with these prisoners who are not guilty of any crime, but MIGHT be dangerous?"

  • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 11/17/2008 5:52:40 PM

    Let me get this straight. By the reckoning of this article, at least 75 of the detainees could not be convicted of a crime and are not even considered dangerous. Why not at least start with releasing those 75? No reason was given as to why we should continue to keep them in Gitmo.

  • Posted By: tuckercook @ 11/17/2008 5:38:05 PM

    Last month, I visited with an old Dewey Republican. At the end of Second World War, he served in constabulary, more accurately as a prosecutor in the Military Governor???s Office in Germany, where he hunted down former Nazi officials among his duties. And, he explained to me how very disturbed he was with the wholesale activities that took place in Gauntanamo and Abu Graib Prisons. We were talking about the presidency of George W. Bush, when he said to me:

    ???Don???t waist your time comparing Bush [the 43rd] to a list of our worst presidents. He is the worst of all of them. Expand the field, he ought to be compared [in terms of infamy] to the most diabolical American whosever lived!???

    He got me thinking about John Wilkes Booth, and then I thought about what Bush and his circle of advisors did to John McCain???s campaign.

    One wonders how McCain might advise Obama, once the Bush/Cheney administation is out of office?


    • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 6:15:00 PM

      It is retarded to compare Bush to Booth and I would have your old friend admitted for senility. The history of Bush has not even started to be writen. No one knows how it will turn out. Truman is loved by democrats and republicans. Both try to claim him and he seems to have inspired every candidate since Nixon yet he had a lower approval rating than GWB when he left office and people thought he was the worst president ever. Eisenhower was one of the most popular when he left office but now his presidency is generally considered a failure. History will have its turn at GWB. We shall all see in due course.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:40:03 PM

        " It is retarded to compare Bush to Booth and I would have your old friend admitted for senility."

        Okay, so you approve of detention without due process, torture, and having anyone who disagrees with you committed.

        Nice. When did you start hating America, and start loving communist China?

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:10:56 PM

    And while we're thinking about it, remember the poor schlubs who have to do the torturing. They are being degraded, and ultimately turned into psychopaths by the very work that is being expected of them. Do you want a professional torturer coming home to marry your duaghter, or your son? "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" The repercussions of this kind of immoral behavior go way beyond politics. We're getting into the very essence of what it means to be a spiritual person- the very nature of what is right and what is wrong, and how we want our children to be, what we want for our future generations. I personally want our future generations to be honorable people, living in peace, not black-hooded villians.

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:01:37 PM

    If Soggy and a few other readers would think back to high school required reading, you might recall a few books about politics which pertain to the current topic. As I recall, Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" were meant as dire warnings of a grim future to come- not as how-to manuals for the Bush administration. You might want to throw in Clockwork Orange and Player Piano, while you're considering 1960's required reading about fictional grim futures which seem familiar, but I digress. The point is, that it may well seem like a good idea to be cruel to genuine enemies in retaliation for their crimes against us. But what happens twenty years from now when your same laws are used against YOU? Before WWII Europeans watched passively while brutal laws were enacted by opressive regimes, all thinking, "Good for them. The bastards deserve it." Then they, too, fell under the boot, and they regretted their previous opinions. Brutality is not patriotic, and is not acceptable for any reason. Our core beliefs should not become corrupted by a few cowards who think that torture will protect them from their base nightmares of sullied racial purity or Communist invasion. Civilization will not fall because our government behaves honorably. Quite the opposite. Even the most patriotic German came to realize that Hitler was not worth defending. Anyone who defends torture is a simpering weakling, huddling against stupid fears. Man up! Show some character! Grow an honorable bone in your crotch!

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:00:32 PM

    If Soggy and a few other readers would think back to high school required reading, you might recall a few books about politics which pertain to the current topic. As I recall, Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" were meant as dire warnings of a grim future to come- not as how-to manuals for the Bush administration. You might want to throw in Clockwork Orange and Player Piano, while you're considering 1960's required reading about fictional grim futures which seem familiar, but I digress. The point is, that it may well seem like a good idea to be cruel to genuine enemies in retaliation for their crimes against us. But what happens twenty years from now when your same laws are used against YOU? Before WWII Europeans watched passively while brutal laws were enacted by opressive regimes, all thinking, "Good for them. The bastards deserve it." Then they, too, fell under the boot, and they regretted their previous opinions. Brutality is not patriotic, and is not acceptable for any reason. Our core beliefs should not become corrupted by a few cowards who think that torture will protect them from their base nightmares of sullied racial purity or Communist invasion. Civilization will not fall because our government behaves honorably. Quite the opposite. Even the most patriotic German came to realize that Hitler was not worth defending. Anyone who defends torture is a simpering weakling, huddling against stupid fears. Man up! Show some character! Grow an honorable bone in your crotch!

  • Posted By: LVUONG @ 11/17/2008 4:58:59 PM

    What do you think as American people, Mr. Obama used his rhetoric putting everyone down, and tearing people apart, during primary and general elections, and criticizing the sitting president, to get elected, because he himself had no records of his own to show us, but now is turning to everyone else with experience, knowledge and tested leadership skill... for help? He is calling it "bipartisanship," or is it his own inability, or lack of confidence, or inferiority complex?? Only time can tell.

  • Posted By: GrogInOhio @ 11/17/2008 3:16:03 PM

    BS... there's nothing at all "tough" about deciding that the president and his surrogates should OBEY THE LAW. It's really quite simple and liberating.

  • Posted By: tet.soulo @ 11/17/2008 2:20:14 PM

    thanks for your ideas and proposals. At least they show that there are wise americans who want really to turn the page of a dark violent experience and treat courageously historical crimes and mistakes committed by "Bush's system of thinking". Only five remarks to make:
    1. more pressure should be put upon governments and selfish rulers from where those "dangerouns detainees "came. They are responsible for the deviation of their citizens.
    2. Stop those silly shoking provocative behaviours like tearing the Holy Coran in front of the prisonners.
    3. Let the detainees express themselves in order to distinguish between them. 44 who oppose their freedom will shake.
    4. Give yourselves an opportunity to show them the real face of USA. In their eyes you are mercenary bllood-shedding people who are eager to dominate,violate and destroy.

  • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 1:57:15 PM

    We should just line them up and shoot them. In the most humane manner as possible of course. I dont want the world to accuse us of torture. Lets just shoot them and be done with it. I have no doubt that our army has learned from its mistake and is shooting these low lifes out in the field rather than taking them prisoner where they can be used as poltical weapons by europe's socialist democracies and our democrats. Consider it a lesson learned and lets be done already.

    • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/17/2008 8:27:20 PM

      Nothing quite like a brave "arm chair warrior." It's all very well and good until they come for you. Then you would probably be the first to scream for your "rights". So cavalier and superior of you to speak of others as low lifes. Sounds earily something like our American hero, Joe the plumber has said. Cheny, another hero, would be proud. A fine way to show the rest of the world what a great, humane and christian country we are. At first, I actually thought you were being sarcastic. Silly me! May I ask what " what are you using for brains"?

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 2:12:48 PM

      "We should just line them up and shoot them."

      Remember the good old days, when we used to have trials before we executed people?

      • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 2:38:14 PM

        No I guess I dont remember the good old days. In the old days that I remember prisoners of war were not used by either polcitcal party to bludgeon the other. People recognized that those who declare war on us and then take to the battlefield against our troops did not have a right to freedom or to a trial. They had to wait until their side surrendered. Thats how I remember the old days. I suspect all this call for trials and poltical jockeying has caused both combatants and civilians to die. Once the army learned that taking prisoners in the field gave opponents of the war political ammunition dont you think they were smart enough to just stop taking prisoners.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:10:40 PM

          What POWs? Bush has stated that they do not have that status. He called them "detainees". Now all of a sudden they are POWs?

          You can't have it both ways.

          So, if they're illegal combatants, they are accused criminals and should be tried. If guilty, they can and should be shot. If not, they should be released. I fail to see the problem with this.

          • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 3:35:04 PM

            You say something silly and then use your own silly comment to justify your first silly comment. It is the most circular reasoning I have ever seen. I dont know why, aside from the pure fun of it, I am compelled to respond. Just because you and George Bush call them detainees or illegal combatants or wuzzels does not change the facts. I appreciate your desire to defer to the intellect of GWB on these matters but I am disinclined to do so. Especially since he was just looking for a loophole in the Geneva Convention. The facts are quite simple really. Al Quieda declared war on the USA. Then they bombed the WTC (x 2), two embassies, the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole etc.. Apparently they were serious about the whole war thing. Therefore when our boys capture one of more of them they can and should be held until Al Quieda issues an unconditional surrender. I know it would be good fun to haul these folks out for a big public trial in hopes of finding some poor guy who was driving the wrong camel at the wrong time. Then it could be proven for all time that GWB was a horrible person, teh worst president ever, who imprsioned innocent people. After all in the history of war no one has ever been wrongly held by democrats. Well there was that nastly little FDR episone but thats hardly worth mentioning. It was only a couple hundred thousand American citizens of japenese decent who were denied their constitutional rights, had their property taken and deprived their freedom. I wonder if people think FDR is the worst president in history for such abuses. Probably not.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:40:49 PM

              "Just because you and George Bush call them detainees or illegal combatants or wuzzels does not change the facts. "

              Are they given the rights granted POWs under the Geneva Convention? No, they are not. They are not POWs.

              The rest of your post was infantile appeal to ridicule crap. You can do better than that.

  • Posted By: valwayne @ 11/17/2008 12:14:38 PM

    Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made their position perfectly clear. They've accused Bush of being a torturer and violator of civil rights. Now lets see what they do. It looks to me like they are committed to closing Guantanomo Bay and giving all these terrorist O.J. like trials or releasing them. I expect instead of spending millions possibly billions they will release most of these terrorists who will then go on about thier business of killing Americans. George Bush chose to keep the American people safe and individual Americans alive. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will prove to us that they have other more pressing concerns than the lives of a few dozen or thousands of Americans!

    • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:48:13 PM

      A lot of those guys don't even have charges pending against them. Others have insufficient evidence to convict, and that's why they're not being tried. This is UnAmerican activity- illegal, immoral, dishonest, and I guarantee if you were in prison instead of them, you'd be squealing for your constutional rights, too. Grow up.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 1:00:02 PM

      "Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made their position perfectly clear. They've accused Bush of being a torturer and violator of civil rights."

      And they are correct.

  • Posted By: daplane @ 11/17/2008 12:12:11 PM

    There's no tough decision here, there has never been. Charge those who you have some evidence against and let the others go.

    How can a position that holds that people who commited no crimes but are "potentially dangerous" should be held without charge for years (and subjected to "moderately coercive interrogation techniques") be described as moderate? What would the extreme position be?

    Yes, some of them might go on to commit terrorist attacks, possibly even kill people. That's the price of living in a country with rule of law and innocence until proven guilty.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/17/2008 12:00:18 PM

    check this out....

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=5938

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 11:02:05 AM

    The point of establishing international rules for the wartime treatment of prisoners is to protect our own troops from reprisal. No doubt the brutal treatment of captured Americans abroad reflects our own poor reputation. Remember that the Islamic fighters still refer to us as Crusaders and are still ticked off at Richard the Lionheart's massacre of 3000 imprisoned Saladin's soldiers by beheading and the slitting of throats before the year 1200. They do not forget. Americans are supposed to set the international standard for excellence on all fronts. If we are as we profess a Christian nation, we should be setting a standard for Christian behavior. I don't think Jesus, who was tortured with the whip and then tortured to death on the cross, would approve of torture. I don't have any inside information on that, but I'm just saying...The Prince of Peace and all that...I dunno. Consult The Serman on the Mount. Is there a verse in there on waterboarding?

    • Posted By: soggy @ 11/17/2008 2:49:45 PM

      What a great post. I nearly laughed myself silly. I printed it so I could share it with my friends and family. In tough economic times it is helpful to have a little humor to brighten the day. It was priceless when you suggest that Muslims were stll bummed about Richard the Lion Hearted. Wow that was great. Like you could find five muslims on the planet who could have pulled that one out of their bum. Beautiful!! Of course they dont hate America because the Quoran teaches that only governments that impose Shia law shall be allowed to survive or that we are infidels who deserve death. Heck not its memories of mean uncle Rich that have them bummed out. I love it!! I thought the way you worked in waterboarding was artistic and funny. Dont mention of course that we waterboard every navy seal as part of their training. I suppose our seals are so much tougher than muslim terrorists that scaring those poor little guys into thinking they might drown would be torture. It is also torture then to not let them have a night light and a fuzzy bear to sleep with. Being scared is no fun and now its torture. Great job.

      • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 5:43:15 PM

        Don't underestimate the memory of atrocities. There are Americans who are still debating Custer's Last Stand. Wounded Knee is still very much an issue. In the Middle East there is a cult of revenge, and they are still fighting the battle of the sucession of power after the death of Mohammed. That's the Shia vs Sunni fight. The Iran- Iraq war cost over a million lives- all Muslim on Muslim, still fighting a 1400 year old war. Don't think they don't remember the Crusades. Read history- not just tabloid opinions, wudja?

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:12:59 PM

        So you think torture is funny? Why am I not surprised?

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 11/18/2008 5:57:17 PM

          oh really so how about i wake you up every day with a beating and water boarding, i'm sure youd feel great about that

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:28:41 PM

          The underlying problem is, of course, that liberals like yourself have taken it upon yourself to redefine "torture", so that if a detainee doesn't get a Quaran, a prayer rug, and a specific diet, they are being "tortured". Liberals and their ilk have a long history of this, of course, starting with corporal punishment of schoolchildren (now classfied as 'assault"), punishing an uruly child (now "child abuse") and an unkind word to your wife is now "mental anguish", etc, etc. The liberals have started down this slippery slope, starting with Dr. Spock and the disasterous results are all around us to see - like you, for example.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:42:39 PM

            "and the disasterous results are all around us to see - like you, for example."

            HAR HAR! If an un-American, knuckle-dragging torture freak like you approved of me, I'd re-examine the way I live my life.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:41:21 PM

            "The underlying problem is, of course, that liberals like yourself have taken it upon yourself to redefine "torture""

            Actually, we tried Japanese officers for waterboarding people. So it's the right wingnuts who have redefined it.

  • Posted By: neoconx @ 11/17/2008 10:44:51 AM

    what a load of phony "blue ribbon" nonsense. BUT, at least if they're in power, the democrats will not be able to treat the country as the enemy and try to destroy us from within, like they've been doing for the last eight years

  • Posted By: Soldier's Mom @ 11/17/2008 2:03:09 AM

    to Gommy Goomy re: "These guys CAN NOT BE TRUSTED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. PERIOD. "

    Well, ta-ta G-G. You all are jest gonna hafta trust US now. & We-all are gonna do everything above board, in front of God & everybody. It's called transparency, & it's the next thing.
    Get with the times.
    Lose the Cold War attitude.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:29:43 PM

      It's also called "stupid", and "giving the enemy the upper hand".

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:43:37 PM

        "It's also called "stupid", and "giving the enemy the upper hand". "

        And "adhering to the principles America was founded on".

        Stop hating America.

  • Posted By: Soldier's Mom @ 11/17/2008 1:48:28 AM

    Re: "The hardest decision will be whether to release the scores of apparently dangerous detainees who cannot be convicted of crimes???or to continue holding them without charges in American lockups. "

    What happened to Prisoner of War status? It is an internationally recognized status with defined rights. If G.W. Bush can be a "War President" these folks can darn well be "Prisoners of War."

  • Posted By: OnlyCure=Truth @ 11/17/2008 1:29:29 AM

    According to Devvy Kidd, "Why A Bankrupt America?" The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S. government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets... collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will. End the FED

  • Posted By: fred.huff @ 11/17/2008 12:59:43 AM

    Gitmo should not be closed. I agree that the prisoners should be released but not to its closure. Its a perfect place to hold the members of the Bush team as they awiat their trials for war crimes.

    • Posted By: Davidebert @ 11/17/2008 11:10:40 AM

      Good idea...but no, that would be as wrong as they are. Just keep them in a nice privatized "for profit" state prison where they serve gorp at every meal.

  • Posted By: Leanderthal @ 11/16/2008 10:31:59 PM

    Obama isn't likely to be stampeded into anything, nor guilty of appeasing many, judging from his behavior during the campaign. Guantanamo must be closed simply because it is an affront to our constitution, and our systems of justice. Comparing the 250 to inmates in our prison system is an affront to our intelligence. Those in our prisons have been at least charged with a crime, and in most cases found guilty. Many of the 250 can't be charged with a crime because it's been revealed that they did nothing wrong, but just are considered dangerous., and might do something wrong. If that be the standard we should all be locked up. That's what tyrants do to their subjects. That's what Cheney/Bush did.

    • Posted By: ctruskey @ 11/17/2008 2:20:56 AM

      Wow what a stupid arguement to release these people, they did nothing wrong but may do something wrong. I see you have had nothing to do with dealing with the terror threat and what it means. If someone is conducting surveillance of an American Embassy in Africa and he is arrested by the local police and during their investagation it is found he has ties to a terrorist group and he is handed over the Americans what do you think America should do with him? Just let him go because he did nothing wrong yet because the embassy wasn't attacked yet? See you know nothing how the enemy works.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 9:25:51 AM

        We should detain you because you might cheat on your taxes.

        Sound fair?

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:21:41 PM

          Why do you refuse to draw a distinction between US citizens and terrorist killers that are caught on the battlefield? The first gets constitutional protections, the second does not and should not. How tough is this?

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:12:18 AM

            Actually, they do have a right to due process, both by the constitution and by treaty, unless you declare them POWs. Bush has specifically stated that they do not have POW status.

            Why must you constantly lie?

          • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/17/2008 7:10:39 PM

            Howl spins like no other here.... s/he will divert any subject to another.... WTH does taxes have to do with Gitmo?

            Quit howling, howl.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:13:18 AM

              Sorry you can't handle a simple metaphor, Vypurr. You should work on that.

              • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/19/2008 9:36:20 PM

                Oh I can handle them, as long as they're in the same ballpark. Yours aren't even in the same galaxy.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/16/2008 4:20:43 PM

    This is a country of laws. We have a constitution. Follow our constitution and follow our laws. This whole episode has fallen to the depths of a lynching, orchestrated by an administration that should have known better. But, they didn't, much to the disgrace of a country that previously argued for democracies governed by constitutions and the laws emanating therefrom.
    If the Guantanamo episode represents democracy, then we should not be trying to spread it around the globe like a deadly flu virus.

    • Posted By: ctruskey @ 11/17/2008 2:23:24 AM

      You may be older but you aren't wiser and you surely don't know what a lynching is.

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 11/16/2008 3:31:59 PM

    I have an idea Floridadave. Better yet let's just continue to whine about how hard it is to do anything, leave them there despite the fact EVERY former Secretary of State including Henry Kissinger and James Baker TELLS YOU it's a disaster and do nothing.

    Sort of like the Bush years.

    Problems are TOUGH. They're supposed to be. That's why they're problems. Complaining about P.C. wussies (who want to send them to their OWN country to get TORTURED which ain't a picninc) isn't solivng ANYTHING.

    The problem with people like you, and Bush, is you're chickenhawks. You like to strut big, whine about how everything's tough and screw up.

    Why in God's name would I listen to anyone who's been wrong about EVERYTHING for the past 8 years tell me Guantanamo has to stay open when EVERYONE from both sides with a brain (Kissinger, Powell, Scowcrfot, Baker) agrees the thing has to be SHUT DOWN.

    So here's an idea either come up with a new idea or shut up. But being snarky, stupid, stubborn and rude is what got us into this mess in the first place.

    So if you don't want to send them home, with an express understanding that their governments either handle them or we hold their governments responsible, come up with a SOLUTION of your own. And leaving them where they are just ain't one.

    I'm sorry but we're better than this. We used to SOLVE problems. It's time to start doing that again. Guantanamo is the PROBLEM not the SOLUTION. Try again.

    • Posted By: ctruskey @ 11/17/2008 2:26:38 AM

      My solution is put all the prisoners at Gitmo in a jail in your hometown and you and your fellow citizens of that town can pay for them to be there. I'm all for closing Gitmo if the prisoners are moved to the home towns of people like you but keep them out of my hometown as I would rather have them at Gitmo.

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/17/2008 6:19:05 PM

        Well said and spot on!

        If this sort of nonsense is what is being taught in college, then we are doomed.

  • Posted By: gommy goomy @ 11/16/2008 9:18:44 AM

    Yes, yes Stuart. You are so right. As all you effeminate P.C. wusses are. They should not only let these SCUMBAGS, who would slit you're throat, after GUTTING your children in front of your eyes, but they should all be given nice parting gifts, and the name of a good Jewish Lawyer. And not only should we do away with all naughty ways of getting information, we should stop asking these wonderfull guys anything, in the first place. After all....A Gentleman never tells. Besides, it's none of our business. When is EVERYONE going to learn? These guys CAN NOT BE TRUSTED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. PERIOD.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 2:15:17 PM

      So, what's it like to live in constant fear?

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/17/2008 7:14:23 PM

        No one here is living in constant fear. But unlike you, who has completely forgotten the ass kicking we got on 9/11 and who thinks all is well and that terrorists just don't seem to want to bother us, we actually have some common sense.

        Get some, DA.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:14:28 AM

          "No one here is living in constant fear. But unlike you, who has completely forgotten the ass kicking we got on 9/11 and who thinks all is well and that terrorists just don't seem to want to bother us, we actually have some common sense."

          So 911 scared you so badly that you're willing to throw away 220 years of American principles?