Democrats keep putting their foot in their mouths

[LostInSpace]

Link

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate's No. 2 Democrat apologized Tuesday for remarks comparing the treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to methods used by the Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regimes.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said he "never intended any disrespect" to U.S. troops with his June 14 comments, for which the minority whip has endured a week of criticism from Republicans and some Democrats.

"In the end, I don't want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this great Senate," Durbin said in an emotional statement on the Senate floor.

"I offer my apologies to those that were offended by my words."

Human rights groups and the Red Cross have criticized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a U.S. Navy base where prisoners from the war on terrorism have been held since early 2002. The facility currently houses about 520 prisoners. (Full story)

In the June 14 floor speech, Durbin read from an FBI agent's account of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay being shackled to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures for up to 24 hours at a stretch.

Prisoners in those conditions sometimes urinated or defecated on themselves, the agent reported.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.

The White House, which insists prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, called Durbin's remarks "reprehensible." (Full story)

Republicans quickly called for Durbin to apologize -- a call he rejected Friday, saying his statement was "misused and misunderstood." (Full story)

But Durbin said Tuesday he had erred by invoking the specter of the Holocaust, which he called "the greatest moral tragedy of our time."

"Nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy," Durbin said. "I'm also sorry if anything I said, in any way, cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military."

He said he would "continue to speak out on the issues that I think are important to the people of Illinois and to the nation."

Sen. John McCain -- who was a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War -- said Sunday that Durbin should apologize. (Full story)

But the Arizona Republican also said reports of controversial interrogation techniques and allegations of abuse could endanger American POWs in a future conflict.

---

Guess it's the only way democrats can get any air time and be heard.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

The point is that no other western nation handles war prisonners like the US does in Guantanamo. (Yes, other western nations also hold war detainees, mainly from ex-Yugoslavia wars). Like it or not, Talebans, as scummy they may be (and they are in my opinion), were the regular army of the afghani regime. There isn't a week without revolting informations leaking, some even confirmed by the Pentagon.

The White House has gone to great lengths to redefine the dimension of the word "torture".

I find very low to focus more on futile political chatter than on the roots of the problem. You should'n forget that most of these detainees did'n even get the opportunity to consult a lawyer... Then arguing that Guantanamo isn't US soil and therefore US legal provisions don't apply is the highpoint of all this circus. If I understand correctly, in Guantanamo, US laws apply when they suit the administration, but not in the areas who don't...

A very simple question: if conservative US citizens view Guantanamo's conditions as legitime, would they accept equivalent conditions imposed upon US detainees abroad ? I doubt it.

And then you guys don't understand why 90% of the muslim world can't stand the US... Certain things have to be done in discretion. Not like this.

---

Nomad, the Muslims couldn't care less. They cut the heads off of their prisoners, we turn on and off the air conditioning, OH NO!!!

Please, get a grip on reality Nomad.....

[Guest]

Time ran out to edit...

These terrorists are NOT covered by the Geneva convention, they are enemy combatants, we could just shoot them in the field like we did the werewolves in WWII, but we don't.

We treat these prisoners better then our soldiers in the field are treated by us.

This whole issue is complete and totaly nonsense, it is a way for the Democrats to get their name in the press, and to attack Bush, like it is his fault.

Also, the constitution covers CITIZENS of the United States, and those that are LEGALLY here, anyone else, have NO US constitutional rights, yes, that ALSO includes ILLEGAL aliens. Although according to our politicians, they do have rights, for some odd reason, something about illegal votes or some such....

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

And then you guys don't understand why 90% of the muslim world can't stand the US... Certain things have to be done in discretion. Not like this.

---

Sorry but the problems with the muslims started a long time ago. It was called the Crusades perpetrated by europeans. Muslims consider us a european power and have lumped us in that catagory.

As for the leakage, I wonder who's doing the leaking. Some democrat in a military uniform with a democratic agenda most probably. As Jaguar said the Bay seems more like a day care center when you look at the conditions of middle-east prison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Although according to our politicians, they do have rights, for some odd reason, something about illegal votes or some such....

---

Hmmm, you bring up a good point. Not meaning to bring this topic off it's subject but you brought up a good thought. The politicians in their public rhetoric claim they want to stop the illegal immigration but behind their closed doors they are drooling and rubbing their hands thogether at the prospect of all the new voters they can try to persuade to vote for them.

[John Prezioso]

Man, I am getting so frickin' sick of hearing about how badly these damn terrorist-animals are being treated at Gitmo.

How well were the people on the 4 crashed 9/11 flights treated?

How well were the 2600 or so people who showed up to work at the WTC that morning treated?

How well were Nick Berg, Eugene Armstrong, Kenneth Bigley, Paul Johnson and all of the other beheaded hostages treated?

How well are all of the innocent Iraqi children being blow into pieces in front of their families by suicide bombers being treated?

My god-forsaken cushy NAVY BOOTCAMP was 100 times tougher than what these so called "abused" detainees get at Gitmo. Man, there are so many whiney little weaklings in this world, it makes me want to blow a frickin' gasket! Abuse! HAH!

[jamotto]

KATHLEEN PARKER: DON'T USE WOMEN TO HUMILIATE PRISONERS

quote:

---

By now we can concede that America's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not a torture-driven gulag and that Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is at risk of implosion by hyperbole.

And we can thank insurgents for providing that perspective.

The discovery a few days ago of a torture house in Iraq that included electrical wires, a noose, handcuffs and four badly beaten Iraqis provided a timely reminder of what torture is -- physical brutality toward a human being. And what it is not -- bad manners toward a book. Even a sacred one.

As for Durbin's comparison of Guantanamo to Stalin's gulags, Hitler's concentration camps and Pol Pot's human-skull pyramids, one can only surmise that the Illinois senator suffered a temporary fugue or a bout of Tourette's.

Durbin tried again to apologize Tuesday. But what he should have said was: "I deeply regret giving aid to the enemy and insulting the millions who suffered and died at the hands of history's most brutal tyrants," instead of offering another belated clarification.

The problem with Durbin's rhetorical excess, meanwhile, is that he makes it easy -- and wrong -- to dismiss any and all concerns about prisoner treatment at Gitmo and elsewhere. Just because we're not Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot doesn't mean our civil rights record couldn't use some burnishing.

What we know about Abu Ghraib, thanks to the home boys' and girls' photo-journaling, makes decent people cringe, while some reports from Guantanamo should leave conscionable Americans ashamed.

FBI reports from Guantanamo, for instance, record numerous incidents of physical abuse that don't square with the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether Gitmo inmates qualify under the conventions -- as "enemy combatants," they're not technically entitled to those protections -- their treatment at least should be consistent with Americans' "fundamental nature," as former President Bill Clinton put it in a recent Financial Times interview.

In the same interview, Clinton urged that the United States either close Gitmo or clean house.

Remove the women

While there are plenty of good reasons to keep Gitmo open -- we need some place to hold suspected terrorists, after all -- cleaning house seems an excellent idea. Let's begin by getting rid of the women.

As an act of self-respect, as well as diplomacy, we should get women out of male prisons and interrogation centers and put an end to this ignorant, politically correct (forgive the redundancy), morally subversive, counterproductive policy of using women to sexually humiliate men as a means of breaking them down for questioning. From under exactly what rock did the perpetrators of these filthy methods crawl?

Various reports out of Gitmo suggest a consistent pattern of X-rated behavior by women toward men. (For a list taken from documents recently released to the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act, go to aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/.)

Even if such behavior weren't offensive to the Muslim world we're trying to charm with our democratic ways, it should be condemned by us. Instead, it is apparently a policy, if unspoken, to use women in ways we never would condone in civilian life and that certainly would get men punished if roles were reversed. The MO even has a name: the "sex-up" approach. Pithy.

In one particularly loathsome example related by a former U.S. Army linguist, Sgt. Erik Saar, during an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes," a female interrogator put her hands in her pants, where she had hidden red ink.

She then wiped her reddened hands on the detainee's face, telling him it was menstrual blood. Again, this clearly doesn't qualify as "torture" compared with electric shock and beatings, but it's still wrong as ballet boots.

The war on terror, which is also a battle of perception, is daunting enough without our handing ammo to the enemy.

Women have a legitimate role in the military and the war on terror, but playing the man-baiting whore is surely a sin of miscasting. And Gitmo, while not the killing camps of Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler, is not America either.

---

[Guest]

quote:

---

In one particularly loathsome example related by a former U.S. Army linguist, Sgt. Erik Saar, during an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes," a female interrogator put her hands in her pants, where she had hidden red ink.

She then wiped her reddened hands on the detainee's face, telling him it was menstrual blood. Again, this clearly doesn't qualify as "torture" compared with electric shock and beatings, but it's still wrong as ballet boots.

---

When you know an enemies weakness, EXPLOIT it!!

HELLO!!!

If a Muslim is freaked out by Menstrual blood, USE IT!!! If it will save the lives of the people that the terrorist is trying to kill, then so be it!!

She didn't BEAT him, she didn't torture him, she used his own cultural bias's against him.

If we were fighting WWII right now, we would LOSE!!

Bunch of pantywaists as far as I am concerned.

Read some fricking Sun Tzu, the ART OF WAR.

It is as relevant today, as it was then...

[jamotto]

quote:

---

If it will save the lives of the people that the terrorist is trying to kill, then so be it!!

---

ah, but that is a big IF!

In fact, in my opinion, the whole stunt now has done more harm than good.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamotto:

quote:

---

If it will save the lives of the people that the terrorist is trying to kill, then so be it!!

---

ah, but that is a big IF!

In fact, in my opinion, the whole stunt now has done more harm than good.

---

When it comes to saving lives, the If's DON'T matter.....

He is a terrorist, caught on the battlefield trying to KILL our troops, that makes him an ENEMY combatant, NOT covered by the Geneva convention.

What? You think that by treating these guys with kid gloves THEY will stop chopping off heads, and hating us?

You're dreaming, we can't make them hate us any more then they already do, they are going to try and kill us even if we get on our knees and beg them, please Mr terrorist, leave us alone.. and if you do, he will chop off your head.

This is not a political thing, THIS is a religious thing, this a war between democracy and fundamentalis Muslim terrorists.

We cannot MAKE them hate us any more then they already do, we cannot treat them nicely and expect the SAME in return.

All of you that spout this nonsense have a suicide wish as far as I am concerned.

We either kill them, or they kill us, it is JUST that simple....

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Well, this came out just today...

U.N. experts blast U.S. on Guantanamo Bay

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/un.gu...namo/index.html

---

Then the UN can blast China, and Russia etc on how they treat their prisoners.

Gitmo is a fricking COUNTRY club compared to those prisons.

So they need to get a grip on reality, just as you do...

[Eclipse]

Well how about a literal look at the thing.

Here's what I pulled up on Wikipedia on the 3rd Geneva Convention. So as you read through these do the insurgents in Iraq and the taliban in Afghanistan meet the criteria?

* "Members of the armed forces"

* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"

* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"

* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"

now yes/ no can the organized resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan be considered legal combatants based on the criteria set in the convention?

if no then anything we give them is better than they deserve.

If yes, then does what we are doing GENUINLY violate the HUMANE treatment of POW's?

[Soback]

Nomad, why don't you go campaign Russian government and complain about their prisoners treatment. Focus on that instead. What are you trying to achieve axactly? You turn your eye from the worst abuse and focus on the "abuse" that is even debatable. Why? You are not man enough to look at the REAL torture (in Russia), point it out and confront it, so you have to point to "torture" that is in Guantanamo. Are you doing this because you feel bad for the prisoners? Then who do you feel worse for, the ones who are kept in Guantanamo or the ones that are kept in Russian jails? It shows exactly the type of a person you and your like are, the free Tibet types. Scream loud, but no action types. Like I said, if you really care, then do what you can to help the ones who are abused the worse, not the ones where you can be heard the loudest.

[John Prezioso]

Same old crap. You liberals masquerade behind the "Gitmo is a torture camp!" mantra, but the truth is, your agenda blinds you to reason.

Someone here cited a UN expert. A UN EXPERT!!! The same UN that was responsible for allowing 800,000 innocent Tutsi's to hacked to death while it idly stood by and did nothing. The same UN that allowed innocent Kurds to be slaughtered while holding the US to some ridiculous set of unilateral rules to not step foot into Bahgdad in the first Gulf War. The same UN that allowed Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at 18 resolutions threatening action if he did not comply, and never did a thing while the Rape houses and Torture Rooms went on with business as usual. The same UN that allows a country like Saudi Arabia to sit on its HUMAN RIGHTS council. The only thing Saudi Arabia knows about human rights is how do completely circumvent them. The same UN replete with dirty scumbags at the highest levels profiting from the horrible plights of millions in the world's poorest nations. Oil for food, anyone? The same UN that gives equal voting power to the U.S. , Great Britain and half a dozen known rogue terrorist nations.

I don't really care if in the course of questioning a terrorist, harsh language is used, and psychological stress is inflicted upon the detainee. If the information given saves the lives of innocent people and OUR Soldiers, then it was for a good cause. This is what is done when interrogating a prisoner. Deal with it. You don't live in Strawberry Shortcake land. Grow the hell up, and grow a spine. These are not Boy Scouts. These are not innocent bystanders. These are thugs and cutthroats. Killers. Murderers. We are in a war for survival. Is this really as tough as you can be?

You know, I don't judge someone solely by their political leanings, or treat them with any less respect just because they don't agree with me. But the utterly asinine arguments I've seen put forth by misinformed, hate-blinded liberals here and elsewhere is enough to get my ire up. Do you think we rational Americans don't recognize that you have set your sights on disgracing the Bush administration at every turn, regardless of the truth? You liberals have become so transparent it is sickening. So you hate George Bush. I don't care. You hate Cheney. Fine. You hate the idea of conservatives running the country. Well, have a better turn out at the next election. None of this is of any concern to me. But when you start throwing your lot in with organizations like the utterly corrupt UN and Amnesty International , the American-hating cesspool organization that it is, I begin to wonder, how far are you willing to go to bring discredit to an administration you don't like. I begin to wonder, whose side are you really on?

Maybe it's time to decide if you are on the side of the U.S., in its effort to rid the world of brutal terrorists who are willing to kill people like YOUR mother, YOUR father, YOUR children... or if you would rather worry about whether some guy who wouldn't think twice about cutting your father's head off in front of you is getting enough prayer beads and KORAN time.

I see through you. Many others do too. Think about it. WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

[Cc]

Yep...whatever you say.

Everyone should believe just like you do,just because 'you are right'.

quote:

---

Maybe it's time to decide if you are on the side of the U.S., in its effort to rid the world of brutal terrorists who are willing to kill people like YOUR mother, YOUR father, YOUR children...

---

That's the problem...our present polices won't do that.They just generate more hatred.It's an endless cycle.Unless you want to exterminate half the of the people on this planet,this policy won't work.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Yep...whatever you say.

Everyone should believe just like you do,just because 'you are right'.

---

Not exactly a rebuttal, is it? What do you have to counter my FACTS?

[Cc]

I'm not sure your facts are 'facts'.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

That's the problem...our present polices won't do that.They just generate more hatred.It's an endless cycle.Unless you want to exterminate half the of the people on this planet,this policy won't work.

---

hmmm..Obviously so blinded by your own agenda that you haven't been keeping up with current events. Let's do a quick rundown:

Afghanistan - freed from terrorist rule and moving toward free elections.

Iraq- 25 million people freed from the tyranny of an insane despot, and 70% turned out to vote in the first free election of their lives.

Syria- pulled its troops out of a weaker country that it had been bullying for years.

Libya- came clean about its nuclear program, and abandoned it in its entirety.

Iran- softening to the idea of talks with the U.S. When was the last time that happened?

Nope you're right. No progress made at all. It's just all doom and gloom. (while a republican is in the White House, anyway)

Gimme a break.

[John Prezioso]

I'm sorry if I sound combative, but this topic is REALLY starting to get on my nerves. Everyone wants to criticize, but no one EVER offers a better solution. I wonder, what would YOU do if you were the President? It is not the easiest of jobs. I'm getting kind of sick of all of the U.S. bashing.

Again, apologies if I offend, but this is how I feel, and I am NOT going to change.

[LostInSpace]

No need to appologize. There is a segment of the U.S. population that loves nothing better to do than bash the U.S. itself. Even when attacked, they'd rather find a peacful solution. That's more the reason why a good portion of the Muslim community are they way they are towards the U.S.. They see us as weak minded fools and they know in time the wishy washies will win out over public opinion. Above all else, they respect strength and a strong will.

[Cc]

I wouldn't be invading countries on false pretense.

Bush was going to invade Iraq the minute he stepped into the White House.

You want a better solution?

Take the billions we are spending on the military and make our country secure.

Make it secure with better border patrol and security.

Make it secure by inspecting every cargo container.

It wont be secure by invading every Muslim country on the face of the planet.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

They see us as weak minded fools above all else they respect strength and a strong will.

---

I could not have said it any better myself. THIS is a smart man.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cc:

I wouldn't be invading countries on false pretense.

---

We are only concluding what should have been done in the first Gulf war. Don't forget Iraq invaded it's neighbor and inflicted grevious harm and damage and what did the world do just give Iraq a bloody nose and a slap on the wrist. Ten years of sanctions did nothing either because certain segments of each and every government including members of the U.N. sought fit to back stab the sanction process with the oil-for-food program scam which gave Iraq the courage to thumb it's nose up at everyone. In the end, I don't consider it "under false pretenses"

[Cc]

Oh......we had the 'Right' to invade Iraq because we didn't finish the job first time around.

Oh.....OK......sure.....whatever you say.

Hey, the UN inspectors had Iraq locked up tighter than a drum.

Bush invaded Iraq simple 'because he could'.

The neoconservatives told Bush what to do.

Edit: I'm not the only person in the contry to think this way.

Bush is loosing numbers for a reason.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Bush invaded Iraq simple 'because he could'.

The neoconservatives told Bush what to do.

Edit: I'm not the only person in the contry to think this way.

Bush is loosing numbers for a reason.

---

Like I said, blinded by hate. Thanks for proving my point. Never anything constructive. All doom and gloom, all the time. Never had anything to say when your hero Clinton lobbed a couple of hundred Tomahawks into Iraq on 3 different occasions, I would bet.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cc:

1: Bush is loosing numbers for a reason.

2: Hey, the UN inspectors had Iraq locked up tighter than a drum

---

1: Like I said the wishy washies are winning the public opinion.

2: Ya think? Then if that's the case, every U.N. inspector knew about the oil-for-food scam. What other things did they miss.