Senator Durbin, I respectfully submit,

[Malone LaVeigh]

This country being up till now a constitutional democratic republic, the military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian leadership. The main disgrace around here is that a bunch of PC thought police in the so-called "liberal media" have forced one of our representatives to recant his comments excoriating certain military personnel for practices which just happen to have been documented. He said that an outside person hearing what was done in Guantanamo might think such tactics belong to the Communists, Nazis, etc. How can anyone argue with that? Oh, yeah, by being a partisan, dittohead parrot.

I suppose next there will be a show trial.

Of course, our enemies are very aware about the Guantanamo abuses. They make us all look bad to the rest of the world. Now how do you think it looks for the one person in public life who has spoken out to have been disciplined by the thought police? And before some one jumps in with their know-nothing jingoistic, "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks, reflect on how this is making our troops jobs more difficult and endangering their lives.

Now, I don't know a thing about Durbins politics, but since he's a big-city Democrat, I suppose he's probably got a bad record re gun control. If so, feel free to nail him to the wall any way you can. But this witch hunt mentality does not speak very well for any of us.

 

[chaim]

And as a Jew, you should feel nothing but contempt for those who say, "We were just following orders..."

Who the heck do you think you are?!!

You have no right to tell me who I should and should not be upset with. You also have no right to even imply these US soldiers who are providing some discomfort to these prisoners somehow is analygous to the Nazi soldiers who contributed to the deaths of 6 million of my co-religionists (BTW- I know a few survivors, and I know many who are children of survivors and/or had family killed in the camps).

Second, I never once defended those few who are involved in some of these abuses. I think they should be tried and punished, no matter who they are. I also think these prisoners should be either treated as criminals (with all the rights that attend to that status) or as POWs (with all the rights that attend that status).

However, what we are doing, even in the few most extreme cases, is in no way comparable to the Nazis, the Gulags, or Pol Pot. We aren't killing millions of people who's religion or politics we disagree with. We aren't gassing or shooting people by the million. We aren't working and starving people to death.

To equate what we are doing with these atrocities strongly diminishes what those victims went through.

To equate what our soldiers are doing with the Nazis is a slap to the face to every survivor and family member of victims, and to every Jew in general. My rabbi's parents survived the war by hiding in a Ukrainian forest from the Nazis for several years. I know people who lost parents, cousins, brothers and sisters in the camps. I've met quite a few people with numbers tatooed on their arms. I know many people who will never meet their grandparents due to what the Nazis did. Again, 9 million people were systematically murdered by the Nazis, 6 million of them simply for being Jewish. Tell me again how forcing people into uncomfortable positions or making their cells' temperatures uncomfortable is somehow similar.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Where Was Dick Durbin--?

... and all his fellow Hate-America, conflict-averse, wimp-snit travellers on the Left and in the Media...

... when -- 35 to 40 years ago -- American POW's who fought the Vietnam War IN UNIFORM...

... were routinely subjected to years of physical and psychological torture that makes Git'mo and Abu Graihib look like Boy Scout camps?

Did Durbin et al publicly DEMAND that Hanoi and the Viet Cong clean up their act?

Did Durbin et al explicitly DENOUNCE them for their egregious breaches of the Geneva Accords re U.S. POW treatment?

Did Durbin et al go to ANY lengths to bring national AND international pressure on those communist miscreants (not the U.S.) to "play by the rules?"

(Note: measures to simply bash the U.S. gov't/military and undermine that (Vietnam) war effort to facilitate "bringing the troops home", " stop the bloodshed at any cost", etcetera, blah-blah-blah... DO NOT count.)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Durbin et al: Guilty as charged. Case closed. Say goodnight, Dick.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Of course, our enemies are very aware about the Guantanamo abuses.

What "abuses"? Or is it just the Goebbels/modern leftist tactic of 'repeat a big lie often enough until it becomes the truth'?

Durbin's whiney crying 'non-apology' was as shameful as his original tirade, which had little to do with Guantanamo prisoners and everything to do with undermining the current administration at whatever cost.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

Senator Dick Turban has never been to a college campus when young men and women are pledging to fraternities and sororities. Those pranks are far tougher than the lightweight stuff (Ooh-ooh, the evil ventilation system spritzed water on my sacred Koran!) these terrorist sissies ever experienced in the Gitmo prison.

Jihad, my left foot! Those limp-wristed pansies couldn't overthrow a kindergarten class with all their crying and bellyaching about loud music and bland food.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

What "abuses"? Or is it just the Goebbels/modern leftist tactic of 'repeat a big lie often enough until it becomes the truth'?

The ones documented by the FBI, maybe? As was already pointed out above.

Now, I'm totally willing to believe that the FBI can lie. But what would be the purpose here?

 

[R.H. Lee]

That's old news. There were some indictments, trials, convictions and prison sentences. The military justice system worked. What's the beef?

 

[Onmilo]

You all may notice that in not one instance did I make any reference to a persons religious conviction.

Enemy Combatants fight for a cause they suppose to be condoned by their religion.
Soldiers fight for the political convictions they swear to support.

Perhaps that definition will help the confused to understand the difference.

A persons religion makes no difference to me.
If religious conviction gives one a sense of peace then I have no issue with a persons faith, no matter what that faith may be.
When people use a religious conviction to justify murder in cold blood they defile that religion and all those who truely stand by the faith of that religion.

There is no justification for murder in cold blood, religious or otherwise, and again I ask where the proof lies that murder in cold blood has been perpetrated or condoned by the Officers and Guards at Guantanamo Bay?

Again I ask where Mr. Durbin found sources to condone the statements he made that the detention center in Guantanamo is the same sort that the Nazi Regime, Stalin, or Pol Pot set up for the purpose of murdering innocent, in most cases non-combatant civilians, enmasse?

 

[RealGun]

Again I ask where Mr. Durbin found sources to condone the statements he made that the detention center in Guantanamo is the same sort that the Nazi Regime, Stalin, or Pol Pot set up for the purpose of murdering innocent, in most cases non-combatant civilians, enmasse? - onmilo

You made it about "murder". Durbin didn't. He is asking for accountability, using poor taste and judgment in the process, which defeated his point. The assumption of partisanship doesn't help either.

 

[BenW]

Of course, our enemies are very aware about the Guantanamo abuses.

Perhaps some of our members who have been in combat can respond, but from what I've been told by people at work that went through SERE school, what the aggressors do to students for training is worse than most of the stuff reported out of Gauntanamo.

Our enemies do far worse to their own people in the name of justice (e.g., cutting off hands, stoning, Saddam's playrooms). Our enemy's awareness is not the awareness of abuses. It's the awareness of political clout they're getting from delicate people of the West over incidents that wouldn't even qualify as light punishment in most of the Middle East.

edit: spelin

 

[RevDisk]

These enemy combatants will never be "charged, found guilty, and shot" Although prisoners have been executed in the past, I really don't think the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay Detention Center will ever be "found guilty and shot".

But you are correct that they certainly can be punished. So what's all the complaining about?

Accountability. In American prisons (civilian or military), prisoners are allowed to have access to a lawyer. They are listed. (This is so none can 'disappear', NKVD style.) Without oversight, any branch of the government turns bad. Absolute power corrupts, that simple.

That's what this whole mess is over. If these prisoners are guilty of something, put them on trial and sentence them appropriately. If prisoners are dumped in a black hole and forgotten indefinitely, without trial, we're well down a dark path. If you think it won't start applying to regular American citizens, ask Padilla. When the government says "He's guilty, but we have no evidence so just trust us..." Heh, sorry, that don't fly here in America. Or shouldn't.

Perhaps some of our members who have been in combat can respond, but from what I've been told by people at work that went through SEER school, what the aggressors do to students for training is worse than most of the stuff reported out of Gauntanamo.

SERE school is voluntary. I'm only familiar with the US Army SERE school, but you also had the option of quitting.

When people use a religious conviction to justify murder in cold blood they defile that religion and all those who truely stand by the faith of that religion.

For once, Onmilo, we are in perfect agreement. Now if only more religions would get that concept, the world would be a better place. And that is why I keep a loaded 12 guage at home and CCW everywhere I go.

If they did not fight in a "Saddam Era" Iraqi unit why should they be considered POW's? If they were not sanctioned by any army, just a band of rebels, why do they deserve the same rights as an actual soldier?

Because we declared war on them? (Sorta) I'm confused to how the Iraqi liberation/occupation is connected to the "War on Terrorism". But if they are actually terrorists, then we did declare war on them. Again, sorta. If they're insurgents, that falls under a different catagory. Domestic insurrection or whatnot.

If what I have said is the case, I would hope they are tried, and if found guilty of crimes against the US, or murder of a US soldier, they would be shot. End of story.

If given a relatively fair trial, sure. I'd have no problem with that. Nor would most people. I wouldn't exactly care whether they were shot, hung or just ordered to turn big rocks into small rocks for the rest of their life.

 

[Art Eatman]

In the FWIW department, from today's (June 23) Limbaugh show: Of the roughly 200 prisoners released from Gitmo and returned to their country of origin, twelve have been re-captured after they were caught shooting at our troops.

I don't care whether or not Congress has "Declared War!" We're at war, per the actions of OBL's folks on 9/11 and thereafter. How it's waged is as much our choice as OBL's and his allies of whatever sort. Just because a war is unconventional does not mean it's not a war. Yeah, we could quit and come home, but that won't keep Americans from being killed...

And I note that German POWs were interned in camps in the US for several years, until the end of hostilities. I have no sympathy as regards the length of time hostiles are held at Gitmo.

Edit add: As far as those captured following some sort of combat, I don't see why they should be treated differently from German or Japanese soldiers of WW II. In this sort of war, uniforms don't seem to be at all expected of those fighting against us. I don't see it as criminal that they fight us.

Insofar as the FBI guy's observations: What were the antecedent conditions? Was the shackling ordinary procedure, "just for the heck of it"? Or was it as a punishment? And, if it were a punishment, how many previous events had occurred, if any? Without some background, I don't know if this were casual brutality or if it were harsh punishment for repeated infractions.

Art

 

[Delmar]

"And I note that German POWs were interned in camps in the US for several years"

Thank you, Art. I was born a few years after WWII, so I was not there. I do have questions, however.

Was congress yelling for an exit strategy during WWII?

Were the POW's locked up for the duration of the war, and was congress demanding a determination of said duration?

Did they have some sniveling, whiny group of senators more worried about POW's and their meals than the crap our soldiers had to eat?

Edited to add: I have no issues with the government shutting down the Gitmo prison. I think they should, and send them all to Angola prison.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

In the FWIW department, from today's (June 23) Limbaugh show: Of the roughly 200 prisoners released from Gitmo and returned to their country of origin, twelve have been re-captured after they were caught shooting at our troops.

First, I need a credible source. Next, what does how some prisoners were treated have to do with what some prisoners did after release? If there's a causal relationship here, it's probably not favorable toward torturing and then releasing.

Either those prisoners were guilty of something or they weren't. If they were, they should have been dealt with appropriately. Not released. If they weren't guilty, then releasing them was appropriate. Either way, we don't know anything about their treatment, unless you're saying all prisoners are tortured.

I don't care whether or not Congress has "Declared War!" We're at war, per the actions of OBL's folks on 9/11 and thereafter. How it's waged is as much our choice as OBL's and his allies of whatever sort.

Are you always for disregarding the Constitution, or just when it's inconvenient?

And regardless of whether we at war or not, that can't be used as justification for doing anything we want. I leave it to you to consider what that could mean.

Our leaders have decided to wage it by attacking a country that had nothing to do with the "actions of OBL's folks on 9/11." When does it end?

And I note that German POWs were interned in camps in the US for several years, until the end of hostilities. I have no sympathy as regards the length of time hostiles are held at Gitmo.

As POWs, they had rights that were encoded in treaties to which we were bound. They were allowed visits by the Red Cross. See a difference there?

As far as those captured following some sort of combat, I don't see why they should be treated differently from German or Japanese soldiers of WW II.

Exactly. As POW's the German and Japanese prisoners were accounted for and their treatment was at least somewhat monitored.

 

[R.H. Lee]

As POW's the German and Japanese prisoners were accounted for and their treatment was at least somewhat monitored.

Bad comparison. No equivalence. German and Japanese soldiers wore uniforms, many fought valiantly for their countries (in other words, they didn't blow up innocent women and children on a routine basis), and they came from identifiable geographical locations.

Our leaders have decided to wage it by attacking a country that had nothing to do with the "actions of OBL's folks on 9/11." When does it end?

By my reckoning, it will end on January 20, 2009.

 

[Delmar]

From what I can gather at this time-Durbin has based his tirade on a single, unverified report and went half cocked to the podium to grand stand as if he is the "one in the know".

Whether the charges are true or false has not been verified. It does make Durbin look foolish to proclaim the sky is falling, based on a single, unverified year old report. One would think that he has the horsepower to gather additional facts regarding his position before he slams the report down on the Senate floor like he is Perry Mason.

 

[LoneStranger]

"From a credible source!" I have seen this silly line spouted by many. My question to those who use it is what is a "Credible Source"? And no the "New York Times" of Jayson Blair fame is not credible. My thoughts are that the "Weekly World News" is just as credible.

"What are they GUILTY of" This would presupose that we are talking of a criminal proceeding. If we are engaged in a War then there are not criminal proceedings on the whole. While certain individuals might conduct criminal activities these are not the main objective of the combat. These detainee's are not being held for criminal processing, they are being detained for their participation in combat activities against the US. As such, the detainee's would not fall into any criminal jurisprudence activity

If the detainee's are combatants then their stay in Gitmo will be as long as we, US, are engaged in combat with Terrorist Groups. This is why POW's are not sent home after a set amount of time in a war, but only after cessation of hostilities and the conclusion of terms of cessation.

As Enemy Combatants they would have no reason to have recourse to the courts of this country and the desire of some to try to make them other than "Enemy Combatants" leaves me with questions.

"They are being Tortured!!" I would really like to hear someone explain exactly when does being interrorgated become torture? For those who make statement about being in the eye of the beholder, I'm sorry but in my eyes they are not being tortured. If you question that statement then you must explain away what has happened to those captured and interroragated by the various Terrorist groups and why that is good and right.

Whether Iraq was the correct place to take the fight to Terrorism is subject to debate and I'm sure the numerous Monday Morning Quarterbacks of the MSM and the Liberal Left will have a lot to say on Tuesday Morning. The reality is that we are in a fight that we cannot lose or walk away from. If the various people who selfproclaim their righteous belief in Peace have some solution that does not require being on knees and placing oral organs on either front or back of Terrorist I would like to hear it.

As for the war being about OIL, remember we can drill through glass and the participation of the local populace is not required. The fact that we have not adopted that policy speaks loads of the better quality of our governing system as compared to those based on feudal-socialist concepts.

 

[Art Eatman]

Malone, no, you don't *need* a "credible" source. You're free to *want* whatever you wish. I didn't offer the comment as an absolute; I just made a casual comment about Gitmo alumni.

People get way too focussed on legal semantics and go to dancing through the rose bushes--which is a bit sticky. The deal is simple: There is at least one highly-organized, well-funded group that hates the US as its primary enemy. Al Qaida. Per their own statements, they're not at all pleased with any western secularism, anywhere, but We're #1 on the hate list.

It is, for Al Qaida, a religious war. Since no one country is involved as a traditional nation-state foe of the US, talky-talk types can't deal with it--as is obvious from all this worrying about terminology.

The Gitmo Guys are being treated, generally, as good as or better than our WW II prisoners. Again, I won't accept the accusations of the FBI guy until the antecedent conditions are known. I want to know WHY the prisoner was shackled, etc. I don't see that as unreasonable as a basis for judgement. (Unless, of course, any government person's action is taken as guilty until proven otherwise.)

The Gitmo Guys from Afghanistan or Iraq are not criminals in the usual sense. There is nothing for which to try them in any criminal court, IMO. They have functioned as enemy soldiers, and you hold POWs (regardless of label) until hostilities cease. At least, that's what history tells us has been the norm.

Anybody who doesn't think there is a religious war being waged by militant Islamic jihadists hasn't been reading even the New York Times, much less any conservative rag.

Art

 

[RevDisk]

Of the roughly 200 prisoners released from Gitmo and returned to their country of origin, twelve have been re-captured after they were caught shooting at our troops.

Assuming correct numbers, 6%, eh? Granted, I'd prefer it to be 0%. Out of mere curiousity, I hope said re-captures are grilled for why they took up arms (again). Might be very educating.

I don't care whether or not Congress has "Declared War!" We're at war, per the actions of OBL's folks on 9/11 and thereafter. How it's waged is as much our choice as OBL's and his allies of whatever sort. Just because a war is unconventional does not mean it's not a war. Yeah, we could quit and come home, but that won't keep Americans from being killed...

Ah... I believe the current politically correct stance is that we are liberating Iraq because Saddam was a bad person. Thus, nothing to do with the War on Terrorism and nothing to do with OBL. (The ISG has confirmed that Iraq had no WMD, and no active links to OBL.) I think you're confusing your wars.

And I note that German POWs were interned in camps in the US for several years, until the end of hostilities. I have no sympathy as regards the length of time hostiles are held at Gitmo.

Nor I. But the German POW's were accorded rights under various treaties and such. They were acknowledged, accounted and inspected by neutral organizations such as the Red Cross. If they were thought guilty of crimes, they were given fair trials and sentenced appropriately. (Nuremburg and such)

Edit add: As far as those captured following some sort of combat, I don't see why they should be treated differently from German or Japanese soldiers of WW II. In this sort of war, uniforms don't seem to be at all expected of those fighting against us. I don't see it as criminal that they fight us.

Exactly my point.

 

[Art Eatman]

RevDisk, was not the majority of those imprisoned at Gitmo taken in Afghanistan?

I don't see how Nuremburg applies; I don't think the POWs of WW II were involved in "war crimes"; they were regular military.

What I have objected to insofar as holding people at Gitmo has to do with the value of any intelligence any of the Taliban types may have or have had. Generally, after some length of time whatever they know is no longer useful. Assuming they wouldn't re-takeup shooting at us, I'd cut'em loose, re-patriate...

Art

 

[ravinraven]

I hope you choke on your turban, Durban.

Hey. I like it. Spelling and all.

rr

 

[RevDisk]

RevDisk, was not the majority of those imprisoned at Gitmo taken in Afghanistan?

Unknown. That information is probably classified, but I'm sure with a Google search one could find out anyways.

I don't see how Nuremburg applies; I don't think the POWs of WW II were involved in "war crimes"; they were regular military.

Most were not involved in war crimes and were cut loose at the end of hostilities. Still, those POW's were held accountable for their actions. If any violated the 'laws' of war, they were punished.

What I have objected to insofar as holding people at Gitmo has to do with the value of any intelligence any of the Taliban types may have or have had. Generally, after some length of time whatever they know is no longer useful. Assuming they wouldn't re-takeup shooting at us, I'd cut'em loose, re-patriate...

We very much agree. Hence, trial. There is nothing wrong with holding prisoners for a prolonged period of time if there is even half a decent reason to hold them. Nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.

 

[Onmilo]

As a follow-up, Senator Durbin again apologized at a VFW Convention in the City of Peoria Illinois on Friday, 24 June, 2005.
50-50 split with the vets in attendance, some forgave him, some felt he was doing nothing but blowing smoke up their keisters.

Senator Durbin made no mention of any desire or need to step down for a statement of accusation that could be considered treasonous,,,,,,,,,