Dealing With the Torture Apologists: A Cheat Sheet

[B_VinylBoy]

Now that we have firsthand testimony that the torture is more severe under Obama than Bush, we go into VB deflection mode. Deflect anything and everything with silly jokes.

Where is all the wailing and vomiting about torture now that a legitimate source came out and pronounced that he was being tortured WAY more under the Obama admin?

Just wondering where VB, IS, WT and the gang are now that Barry is cracking the whip.

Here's the problem. I don't believe the statement about torture being more severe under Obama than Bush at all. That is, unless, you think he can somehow fit 6+ years of waterboarding in a 6 month time period. Then again, we've already established that you don't think. You just wait for something negative about our current administration to emerge from a pundit blog, editorial, or another conservative who tells half truths and you break out with a bunch of unnecessary Spartan cheers. Either that, or you'll dream one up.

Try again, kiddo.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Here's the problem. I don't believe the statement about torture being more severe under Obama than Bush at all. That is, unless, you think he can somehow fit 6+ years of waterboarding in a 6 month time period. Then again, we've already established that you don't think. You just wait for something negative about our current administration to emerge from a pundit blog, editorial, or another conservative who tells half truths and you break out with a bunch of unnecessary Spartan cheers. Either that, or you'll dream one up.

Try again, kiddo.

That's interesting, VB.

This didn't come from a pundit blog, editorial, or another conservative.

This came from a GITMO DETAINEE.

Any other questions?

You're boy is a fucking liar, prick, brainwasher, hypocrite, asshole.

Live with it.

Nite.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

That's interesting, VB.

This didn't come from a pundit blog, editorial, or another conservative.

This came from a GITMO DETAINEE.

Who cares? I still don't believe it.
I need more evidence than just the words from ONE PERSON even if he is a Gitmo Detainee.

Any other questions?

Yes. How stupid are you? How blind are you? How ignorant are you?

You're boy is a fucking liar, prick, brainwasher, hypocrite, asshole.

Live with it.

That's funny...
Considering how you overly generalize and quickly jump to conclusions based on your own ignorance, live your life by slanderous, discriminating stereotypes when it applies to minorities and the lower class, blindly accept any words of distaste towards the current administration as if it was the Holy words of the Koran, and start countless, meaningless threads of anti-liberalism ad nauseam, I could have SWORE that the "boy" you're referencing in that statement was YOURSELF.

And I don't want you. Not only am I not into conversion duty, but I prefer to fuck people's brains out. Not fuck people without brains.

Till next time, trollinfestor...

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

waterboarding, waterboarding, sis boom bah. is that it? that's it... I recall it being about allegedly flushing Korans down the toilet. there's more American outrage over waterboarding of known terrorists, vs. known beheadings of innocent civilians.

Dude, you so don't get the rule of law. Of course terrorists are the bad guys, but you have to prove it, and then sentence them accordingly in any sanctioned legal system. Pick one, military or civilian. Otherwise, if we are rely on here-say and circumstance, combined with indefinite detention we become a more sophisticated version of the Taliban. That's why the Supreme Court let Boumediene go. The critical phrasing is "to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence." You cannot suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, even for militant non-citizens, when under US detention. It's the law of the land, and the current conservative Court agrees.
Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want outrage, just consider the 90K+ dead Iraqi civilians are dead post our "entry" into their Iraq. Iraq Body Count

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Dude, you so don't get the rule of law.

No. They don't 'get' it.

Law, Constitution, treaty, tradition. All are situationally dependent for the outspoken conservative: Applicable only when expedient and otherwise overlooked.

 

[Cowabanga]

Is this the Twilight Zone?

 

[Trinity]

Dude, you so don't get the rule of law. Of course terrorists are the bad guys, but you have to prove it, and then sentence them accordingly in any sanctioned legal system. Pick one, military or civilian. Otherwise, if we are rely on here-say and circumstance, combined with indefinite detention we become a more sophisticated version of the Taliban. That's why the Supreme Court let Boumediene go. The critical phrasing is "to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence." You cannot suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, even for militant non-citizens, when under US detention. It's the law of the land, and the current conservative Court agrees.
Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want outrage, just consider the 90K+ dead Iraqi civilians are dead post our "entry" into their Iraq. Iraq Body Count

How we prosecute terrorists is being debated right now. Many who have years of experience don't have the answer, which is why Eric Holder and Obama have been caught in the own notable flip flops on this issue of rights and prosecution of detainees. One is the current Attorney General and the other was supposedly a Constitutional Professor not to mention President of the United States.

Obama himself forwarded indefinite prolonged detention - holding detainees indefinitely without trial:

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some

He (Obama) could hold detainees under a law-of-war theory that they are combatants or, more radically, create a national security court under domestic legislation to back such a detention system. The Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees are entitled to a judicial review of their detention. By Peter Finn, Washington Post
​

Which brings us to the this point: the battlefield/terrorists/terrorism often does not provide the type of evidence necessary for conviction in a civil trial. (Here is a great article that presents alot of points)

Guantanamo: What's Next for Detainees?

Col. Lawrence Morris, Chief Prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions, argued that the military commissions at Guantanamo already serve as a form of a "national security court" to adjudicate crimes that are more than conventional crimes. The perpetrators are accused of intentionally murdering civilians as a political statement against the United States.

/Can Article III courts achieve justice if certain evidence is precluded? For example, statements that are taken in a non-coercive manner from detained individuals who have not been read their Miranda rights would be inadmissible in civilian Article III courts. Further, physical evidence may be precluded due to lack of chain of custody or because the evidence was obtained without a search warrant. Even evidence seized overseas without a search warrant would be excluded. He believes that the appropriate standard for evidence admissibility to prosecute combatants should require the government to show that the evidence is reliable and trust-worthy, such as within the totality of the circumstances.

Morris also pointed out the risks of evidence disclosure. The United States may not want another country knowing that information was acquired in that country. Equally, cooperating countries may not want the United States to reveal their role or the methods and means used by those countries. - Inside Justice, by Renee Dopplick

​

Military Commissions were supported by Obama in 2006 and now as President. As President, Obama changed some of Bush's tactics:

President Obama to Reinstate Revamped Military Tribunals

The greater protections afforded detainees in the Obama administration's military tribunals will include banning evidence obtained through "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" interrogation techniques; adding additional restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay evidence; allowing defendants greater leeway in choosing military counsel; protecting detainees from "adverse inference" if they do not testify at trial; and eliminating the effect of the combatant status review tribunal for purposes of jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act. - Jake Tapper, ABCnews
​

On the one hand, Obama protects and strengthens the rights of detainees under Military Tribunals, but on the other hand Obama supports and maintains indefinite detention without trial. It is more than a problem left over from the Bush Administration. It appears that Obama's indefinite detention is widespread:

The debate over indefinite detention often wrongly focuses on Guantanamo Bay. The current practice is considerably more widespread, and any limitations on indefinite detention would have correspondingly wide implications. The U.S. military indefinitely detains enemy combatants, including members and supporters of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, on a wide scale in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo, and press reports indicate that U.S. officials work closely with our allies to detain al Qaeda members in other countries.
“Prolonged” detention is thus not something proposed for the future, for just a small subset of Guantanamo detainees. It is, instead, a practice that this Administration is already conducting on a widespread scale, will continue to pursue, and has already defended repeatedly in federal court. No matter how Guantanamo detainees are handled, this Administration will continue, directly or indirectly, to detain hundreds if not thousands of enemy combatants indefinitely in many places for many years to come. - Richard Klinger
​

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

There is a distinction between how interrogation techniques were practiced prior to '05, when the Detainee Treatment Act was passed, and how they are practiced now. Ironically this Act removed the right of habeas corpus from any Camp X-Ray prisoners, which is the basis for Boumediene's trial and release. Before '06, when Boumediene had already been held for 3+ years at then Camp X-Ray, our "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture, as defined by Geneva Convention 3, and denied as evidence in Bush constituted Military Commissions, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional use of executive authority. The procedures Boumediene was subject to for the few months, before his subsequent release, by the Obama Admin. were not. He may indeed still consider it torture, but his definition, is not the law of the land, which we are required to follow.

What the Obama Admin. is now attempting to do is triage a disaster situation in Gitmo and elsewhere foreign detainees are held. Since there are so many prisoners from so many different countries, there has to be a system to sort through their status based upon nationality, charges, evidence, etc.. The fact that we are finally getting to this point 8 years into the War on Terror is pretty weak, given how proudly we trumpet to the world that our society is based upon the rule of law.

Because it is going to take time for Obama's Admin. to sort through these 240 cases, they have no choice but to continue to use indefinite detention, in order to gain the time necessary to asses the case against each detainee. Some will be either released to their home countries, if the DOJ/DOS rules that country to have a sufficiently strong legal and penal system, or referred to a neighboring country, as we saw today with 20 Yemenis being released to Saudi Arabia. Some released outright. Others detained as dangerous, but without sufficient evidence (or tainted) to convict, and others tried in one of the following court systems: military commissions with modifications, Article III (Federal) civilian courts. Each system with it's own benefits, and detractions. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees are entitled to a judicial review of their detention, Obama said any preventive detainees (new term) "must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.", with "Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al-Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans,"

Overall, I think there is a very big difference over how the Obama Admin is handling this. The reason it's such a big fight is because, the Republicans want to avoid further legal rebukes (already being 0-4 in the Supreme Court), or prosecution.

 

[Trinity]

There is a distinction between how interrogation techniques were practiced prior to '05, when the Detainee Treatment Act was passed, and how they are practiced now. Ironically this Act removed the right of habeas corpus from any Camp X-Ray prisoners, which is the basis for Boumediene's trial and release. Before '06, when Boumediene had already been held for 3+ years at then Camp X-Ray, our "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture, as defined by Geneva Convention 3, and denied as evidence in Bush constituted Military Commissions, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional use of executive authority.

What is ironic is that the current Obama Attorney General Eric Holder shared the belief with Pres. Bush that detainees did not come under the Geneva Conventions and that they should be interrogated without possessing those rights:

So, the Supreme Court also overruled AG Holder on his shared belief with Bush. Obama's DOJ also shares Bush's assertion on denial of habeas corpus to detainees. And despite Obama's nice speeches to the contrary, Barack Obama is holding detainees indefinitely, blantantly denying them the right to habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court struck down Bush's Military Tribunals however, Pres. Obama has been and remains in favor of their use with detainees. Obama has alot of criticism out in public discussion on his decision to reestablish Military Tribunals even with changes.

Obama Sharply Criticized For Reviving Bush-Era Military Commissions
Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"
Rights Groups Angry Over Obama's Military Tribunals Decision

The procedures Boumediene was subject to for the few months, before his subsequent release, by the Obama Admin. were not. He may indeed still consider it torture, but his definition, is not the law of the land, which we are required to follow.

Based on Boumediene's statement where he says:

"Lie, Lie, Lie...Nothing change in Guantanamo. Nothing," "The same rules. They torture me in the Obama time more than Bush." - Lakhdar Boumediene
​

It is not clear whatsoever that the torture Boumediene allegedly suffered under Obama's administration was not a violation of law, treaty or Geneva. Boumediene clearly states nothing changed and the same rules applied. The distinction made by his lawyer and Rather is that "the more" torture under Obama time was not during interrogation. It is not specified that he did not experience the some of the same experiences under Obama. All we have to go on are Boumediene's words...and they clearly state that it was the same experience.

What the Obama Admin. is now attempting to do is triage a disaster situation in Gitmo and elsewhere foreign detainees are held. Since there are so many prisoners from so many different countries, there has to be a system to sort through their status based upon nationality, charges, evidence, etc.. The fact that we are finally getting to this point 8 years into the War on Terror is pretty weak, given how proudly we trumpet to the world that our society is based upon the rule of law.

My prior post points out and you acknowledge that this issue is not Gitmo isolated, there are detainees being held and taken in elsewhere. Obama isn't just triaging Bush's disaster.

Because it is going to take time for Obama's Admin. to sort through these 240 cases, they have no choice but to continue to use indefinite detention, in order to gain the time necessary to asses the case against each detainee.

Oh, that's not true. Obama's Administration already established the status of the 240 cases and they should either be building cases or...making the tough decision on them. If time was the issue, there is a process for requesting more time on a case without denying habeas corpus. How much time? Years? Months? Obama says Indefinitely.

Obama is now moving beyond Gitmo, beyond 240 detainees to new detainees detained under the Obama Administration and they may face indefinite detention with no charges or trial. Obama is hiding behind a Bush mess...but if that is a mess, Obama is a mess:

Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.

“This is a question about accountability for torture and abuse. It’s a disgrace to have a U.S. court stating that Guantánamo detainees are not persons. It would be a shame to have our new President supporting such a position in the Supreme Court. It was bad enough for the Obama Administration to take this position at this stage. We hope that they reconsider,” stated Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

“Boumediene acknowledged that the fundamental rights we take for granted apply to persons in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. This decision runs directly counter to that principle.”
- Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights
​

Some will be either released to their home countries, if the DOJ/DOS rules that country to have a sufficiently strong legal and penal system, or referred to a neighboring country, as we saw today with 20 Yemenis being released to Saudi Arabia. Some released outright. Others detained as dangerous, but without sufficient evidence (or tainted) to convict,

Obama holding detainees indefinitely without charging them and without trial because there isn't sufficient evidence to convict is the same as Bush doing that. Obama's use of indefinite detention is wider than 240 detainees in Gitmo and not restricted to detainees who were harshly interrogated and who may have tainted evidence.

and others tried in one of the following court systems: military commissions with modifications, Article III (Federal) civilian courts. Each system with it's own benefits, and detractions. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees are entitled to a judicial review of their detention, Obama said any preventive detainees (new term) "must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

hmm...

As Judge Bates noted, the prisoners shipped to Bagram actually have even fewer rights than the Guantanamo detainees did prior to Boudemiene, because at least the latter were given a sham Pentagon review (the CSRT tribunal), whereas the U.S. Government -- under both Bush and Obama -- maintain that Bagram prisoners have no rights of any kind.

In the wake of Judge Bates' ruling that foreign detainees shipped to Bagram at least have the right to a hearing to determine their guilt, what is the Obama DOJ doing? This:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . . - NYT
Glenn Greenwald, CommonDreams.org, Salon.com
​

Overall, I think there is a very big difference over how the Obama Admin is handling this. The reason it's such a big fight is because, the Republicans want to avoid further legal rebukes (already being 0-4 in the Supreme Court), or prosecution.

No. Obama isn't handling this differently. And Republican fear has absolutely nothing to do with this fight:

Obama and Habeas Corpus -- Then and Now

So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Amerians generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconsed in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that. -Glenn Greenwald, CommonDreams.org, Salon.com
​

 

[B_Stronzo]

this conversation is over....

why do the pillow biters all of a sudden care about torture...

no it's not

Uncle Buddie? What's a 'pillow biter'?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Obama is better than Bush with regards to terrorist detainees if for only one reason, he is trying to find a way to deal with them. Bush could not be bothered. It's only a matter of time before Bush and others in his Administration are indicted for their manipulations.

 

[HazelGod]

It's only a matter of time before Bush and others in his Administration are indicted for their manipulations.

I sincerely hope someone in this government finds the sack to make this happen. Senator Leahy has been pushing hard, but I don't believe he's accumulating the support necessary.

 

[Trinity]

Obama is better than Bush with regards to terrorist detainees if for only one reason, he is trying to find a way to deal with them. Bush could not be bothered. It's only a matter of time before Bush and others in his Administration are indicted for their manipulations.

Another detainee says Gitmo is worse under Obama:

Guantanamo worse since Obama election: ex-detainee

Far from improving, Mohamed said conditions at Guantanamo have worsened since Obama was elected in November.


The US president had promised during his campaign to shut down the Guantanamo prison and two days after taking office announced it would close this year.
"Since the election it's got harsher," Mohamed told the newspaper. "The guards would say, 'yes, this place is going to close down,' but it was like they wanted to take their last revenge."
​

Obama is dealing with detainees in much the same way as Bush. Obama is only triaging Guantanamo Bay because he said he would and now is trapped and trying to keep up a fascade.

Obama: Gitmo Prisoners Aren't 'Persons'

As for indictments of the Bush Administration, as of right now the Obama Administration DOJ is not trying to do that - in fact just the opposite.

I sincerely hope someone in this government finds the sack to make this happen. Senator Leahy has been pushing hard, but I don't believe he's accumulating the support necessary.

Sen. Leahy pushed for a truth commission with immunity for all, but Pres. Obama wanted no truth commission. Pelosi didn't want the immunity for all so that was out. Then Pelosi and the Democrats became ensnared in their own torture trap and the torture fervor died down.

The Obama DOJ is arguing in court for immunity for the previous administration:

Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.

“This is a question about accountability for torture and abuse. It’s a disgrace to have a U.S. court stating that Guantánamo detainees are not persons. It would be a shame to have our new President supporting such a position in the Supreme Court. It was bad enough for the Obama Administration to take this position at this stage. We hope that they reconsider,” stated Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

“Boumediene acknowledged that the fundamental rights we take for granted apply to persons in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. This decision runs directly counter to that principle.”
- Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights
​

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Funny how all of a sudden, the people who found it necessary to torture detainees, even ones that were not guilty or charged for anything, now all of a sudden want to listen to them when it comes to their treatment under administrations.

Survey says... BULLSHIT.

 

[Trinity]

Funny how all of a sudden, the people who found it necessary to torture detainees, even ones that were not guilty or charged for anything, now all of a sudden want to listen to them when it comes to their treatment under administrations.

Survey says... BULLSHIT.

Wrong. The only b.s. is people putting up the statements of detainees to shame the previous administration but when the same detainees previously validated shame the Obama administration with their statements then certain folks want to cry:

BULLSHIT.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There you go answering rhetorical questions in binary again. You'll never learn that none of these "questions" or "issues" you present are neither a 1 or a 0. However, your assessment towards it and your rabid desire to disagree with anyone who disagrees with you definitely amounts to a zero on this board.

And besides, you're one of the few people on this board that felt as if torture was necessary to protect our nation. Which proves that you didn't give a shit about how these detainees were treated in the first place. So let's not even pretend that you care for them now just because two of them claim to be treated more unfairly under the current administration. Especially when dozens more were getting waterboard treatments and other various "enhanced interrogation techniques" over the previous 7 years and there wasn't a single mention of unfairness from you.

That's the REAL bullshit in a nutshell. Keep your "wrongs" to yourself next time, hypocrite.

 

[Trinity]

There you go answering rhetorical questions in binary again. You'll never learn that none of these "questions" or "issues" you present are neither a 1 or a 0. However, your assessment towards it and your rabid desire to disagree with anyone who disagrees with you definitely amounts to a zero on this board.

Whether you agree with me or not, this one is a no brainer. The story from a detainee was presented more than once to shame the previous administration but when that detainee and another detainee ended up shaming the Obama administration you and your cronies couldn't handle it. Get a clue.

And besides, you're one of the few people on this board that felt as if torture was necessary to protect our nation. Which proves that you didn't give a shit about how these detainees were treated in the first place. So let's not even pretend that you care for them now just because two of them claim to be treated more unfairly under the current administration. Especially when dozens more were getting waterboard treatments and other various "enhanced interrogation techniques" over the previous 7 years and there wasn't a single mention of unfairness from you.

That's the REAL bullshit in a nutshell. Keep your "wrongs" to yourself next time, hypocrite.

This isn't about how I feel about detainee treatment. This is about how you and your cronies truly feel about detainee treatment. You guys need to quit being hypocrits. The more you point fingers the more silly you look. If a detainee ridicules Bush for torture you want it written in the sky, but if a detainee shames the Obama Administration, you cry foul and attempt to deflect by going on about my ethics on torture. LOL. Ridiculous. If you are so against torture what do you and your cronies have to say about two detainees claiming worse and increased torture under Obama?

That's right nothing.

 

[dreamer20]

Uncle Buddie? What's a 'pillow biter'?

Urban Dictionary: pillow biters



He so loves that term:

25

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Whether you agree with me or not, this one is a no brainer. The story from a detainee was presented more than once to shame the previous administration but when that detainee and another detainee ended up shaming the Obama administration you and your cronies couldn't handle it. Get a clue.

So sayeth the troll entity who endorses torture, which means you don't really give a damn about how a detainee is REALLY treated at all. And you dare try to sound empathetic to their needs NOW? Pull your pants up, your hypocrisy is showing.

This isn't about how I feel about detainee treatment. This is about how you and your cronies truly feel about detainee treatment. You guys need to quit being hypocrits. The more you point fingers the more silly you look. If a detainee ridicules Bush for torture you want it written in the sky, but if a detainee shames the Obama Administration, you cry foul and attempt to deflect by going on about my ethics on torture. LOL. Ridiculous. If you are so against torture what do you and your cronies have to say about two detainees claiming worse and increased torture under Obama?

That's right nothing.

It feels good to know I can give you a dose of your own medicine once in a while....

WRONG!!

For starters, I'm against torture in any shape or form. The problem I have with this story is that it's being trumpeted by ignorant hypocrites like yourself who never cared about their treatment to begin with. People like you also never cared about their rights and for the most part never even listened to the ones that were guilty of no crime (or ever charged for one). You simply didn't give a fuck. But of course, now that two detainees are bashing the current administration you decided to stop acting like G.I. Jezebel and pretend to be some kind of humanitarian who actually cares about them.

Perhaps if this story and this rhetric was coming from someone more trustworthy and not as smarmy, I would be willing to consider the validity of it. However, we are talking about YOU. And NOBODY trusts you or anything you have to say on matters. Well, someone did but he's no longer with us.

You can stop the act now. We all know you're a fuckin' phony.

 

[Trinity]

So sayeth the troll entity who endorses torture, which means you don't really give a damn about how a detainee is REALLY treated at all. And you dare try to sound empathetic to their needs NOW? Pull your pants up, your hypocrisy is showing.

It feels good to know I can give you a dose of your own medicine once in a while....WRONG!!
For starters, I'm against torture in any shape or form. The problem I have with this story is that it's being trumpeted by ignorant hypocrites like yourself who never cared about their treatment to begin with. People like you also never cared about their rights and for the most part never even listened to the ones that were guilty of no crime (or ever charged for one). You simply didn't give a fuck. But of course, now that two detainees are bashing the current administration you decided to stop acting like G.I. Jezebel and pretend to be some kind of humanitarian who actually cares about them.

Perhaps if this story and this rhetric was coming from someone more trustworthy and not as smarmy, I would be willing to consider the validity of it. However, we are talking about YOU. And NOBODY trusts you or anything you have to say on matters. Well, someone did but he's no longer with us.

You can stop the act now. We all know you're a fuckin' phony.

The only phony is you. Stick to the issues...if you can. Everything else is merely deflection. Obama on detainees...of course you have nothing to say about it and your excuse is trifling:

Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.

“This is a question about accountability for torture and abuse. It’s a disgrace to have a U.S. court stating that Guantánamo detainees are not persons. It would be a shame to have our new President supporting such a position in the Supreme Court. It was bad enough for the Obama Administration to take this position at this stage. We hope that they reconsider,” stated Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

“Boumediene acknowledged that the fundamental rights we take for granted apply to persons in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. This decision runs directly counter to that principle.”
- Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights
​

As Judge Bates noted, the prisoners shipped to Bagram actually have even fewer rights than the Guantanamo detainees did prior to Boudemiene, because at least the latter were given a sham Pentagon review (the CSRT tribunal), whereas the U.S. Government -- under both Bush and Obama -- maintain that Bagram prisoners have no rights of any kind.

In the wake of Judge Bates' ruling that foreign detainees shipped to Bagram at least have the right to a hearing to determine their guilt, what is the Obama DOJ doing? This:

​

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . . - NYT
Glenn Greenwald, CommonDreams.org, Salon.com
​

Obama and Habeas Corpus -- Then and Now

So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Amerians generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconsed in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that. -Glenn Greenwald, CommonDreams.org, Salon.com
​