According to the NYT:
In other related news, the Associated Press apparently uncovered extensive abuse at Gitmo…by the detainees against the guards. Of course that’s happily characterized as “defiance”:
Tortured-to-death taxi driver brought back to life by good food at Gitmo
OMFG THIS IS ALL LIBERAL PROPAGANDA FROM HYPERLIBERAL NY TIMES
In other news, social worker stops by home where parents have been repeatedly accused of abusing their children by almost all their neighbors, sees nothing wrong, and leaves after lauding the treatment of the children by these shining examples of parental care.
I guess the senators must have missed this news item from last week: US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan
"Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity."
“They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,” the Committee member told AFP, adding that the US described the incidents as “isolated acts” carried out by low-ranking members of the military who were being punished.""
I’m not sure how the torture of detainees turns into laudable treatment. Then again, I’m not a US Senator. </shrug>
It seems to me that Guantanamo Bay prisoners get it a hell of a sight easier than many other prisoners. If I had a choice between a federal prison in the US and a stay at Guantanamo, I think I’d choose the latter as the lesser of two poor choices. It’s not the few cases of torture that is the issue with Guantanamo Bay, however, it’s the fact that a democratic nation has been holding prisoners for years without charge. That is what should outrage people, and it is a shame that it needs stories of torture to get people upset enough to complain.
What Tim said.
Republicans or Democrats can spin all they want about the quality of Gitmo right now, but that dodges the issue of whether our country should be holding people for years on end without anything resembling due process. I wonder if Gitmo will be looked back on with the same shame reserved for the Japanese internment camps in WWII.
I like when desslock gets desperate.
Today gitmo is bad because a democrat said it was good, the other day all the prisons were good because democrats were questioning them. Good stuff, kinda like letting your mom dress you…
Of course desslock will say he is not saying they are bad, but a democrat doesn’t agree that they are bad, so that proves something, no idea what, but IT PROVES IT!!!
Chet
Chet, it proves that the assertions of a “gulag” are ridiculous. I agree almost exactly with Tim Partlett and Steve on this one – as Tim wrote: "I had a choice between a federal prison in the US and a stay at Guantanamo, I think I’d choose the latter as the lesser of two poor choices.
It’s the question of holding people for years without trial (I think the supreme court did set out a “due process” which is being adhered to, but it’s less than a trial standard) that is disconcerting – if that’s not accurate, then it’s a perception that has become dangerously widespread, and if it is accurate with justification (in the same way that POWs in a more traditional war obviously weren’t given “trials”) then there has to be a clearer understanding of when/how these people are ever going to subject to a more traditional judicial process or have the opportunity to be released.
He’ll never leave if we keep feeding him, Desslock.
How can the New York Times prove this, when you routinely decry it as biased? Based on your comments in another thread, this would make it useless as a source of anything.
if that’s not accurate, then it’s a perception that has become dangerously widespread, and if it is accurate with justification (in the same way that POWs in a more traditional war obviously weren’t given “trials”) then there has to be a clearer understanding of when/how these people are ever going to subject to a more traditional judicial process or have the opportunity to be released.
You’d think that if they’re getting amazing intelligence or that if the detainees were obviously guilty of something, they’d want to use that for PR.
How can the New York Times prove this, when you routinely decry it as biased? Based on your comments in another thread, this would make it useless as a source of anything.[/quote]
I think you misunderstand what “biased” means, at least in the context that I used it – it does not mean the reporting is inaccurate (there’s no doubt that the NYT is one of the best papers in the world, and sources its stories as well as any media) – it means that it is more likely to report, in frequency and prominence, stories that are consistent with its political leanings and/or to lack tonal objectivity when reporting.
You’d think that if they’re getting amazing intelligence or that if the detainees were obviously guilty of something, they’d want to use that for PR.
Well, there’s obvious reasons why you wouldn’t want to describe the intelligence you’re getting, and ascribing “guilt” and giving a stage to someone firing at troops isn’t really a PR gain either. But there’s definitely a PR problem, that’s for sure.
Hmm, when NYT prints something Desslock doesn’t like = it’s a rag that has a liberal taint to every article found on its pages.
When NYT prints something Desslock likes/agrees with = one of the best papers in the world.
So what makes you believe this article isn’t biased in some manner? How could you accept its findings 100% at face value?
Well, there’s obvious reasons why you wouldn’t want to describe the intelligence you’re getting, and ascribing “guilt” and giving a stage to someone firing at troops isn’t really a PR gain either. But there’s definitely a PR problem, that’s for sure.
If someone led them to an investigation that was complete, or one that led them to some cell working in the US, I’d think the government would want to at least take some credit. Even if it was in the most vague terms, though admittedly, everyone would probably say, “Yeah, right.”
Man, you’ve lost it. Is this the same paper where you insist every story has a strong left-wing bias, the same paper you’ve repeatedly dismissed as partisan media? Because in your previous vehemence to discount them as a source, you’ve never bothered to mention that they’re also one of the best papers in the world.
At least you seem to have reluctantly conceded that the Administration’s policy on holding people without charging them might not be a good idea. Maybe there’s hope you’ll eventually come around to understanding how the Administration’s invasion of Iraq has hopelessly bungled the neoconservative ideals you so desperately wish would work.
-Tom