Abu Graib Trial: Charles Graner

[UncleVinny]

The defense rests in the Charles Graner prison abuse trial.

My question: If Graner is found guilty, does that by implication mean that the people who gave him the orders are also responsible, namely Rumfeld, Bush, and the Gonzalez fellow who re-wrote the book on torture?

[Ian]

If Granger is found guilty, it will mean that his accusations that his actions were ordered by "higher-ups" is false, thus the quick answer to your question is no. Think things through before you take up valuable bandwidth on this wonderful site. Thanks.

[UncleVinny]

Quoting Graner:

" He said he initially resisted pressure to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib."

And do any of you still cling to the illusion that Bush and Rumsfeld are not war criminals??

[groucho]

UncleVinny said:

Quoting Graner:

" He said he initially resisted pressure to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib."

And do any of you still cling to the illusion that Bush and Rumsfeld are not war criminals??

Just because this happened on President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld's watch is hardly the "smoking gun" needed to PROVE this tiredly ridiculous fable.

I know - you can get Dashing Dan Rather to concoct another "authentic" document, (complete with forged signatures), and have him miraculously "find" it as he's cleaning out his desk at CBS; yeah, THAT will make this lie WORK!!! And with this being fairly recent, old DD won't have to worry about that pesky "they didn't have that kind of word processing equipment 30 years ago" detail; his flunkeys can be as sloppy as they want, and nobody'll be the wiser......

PATHETIC is, as LIBERAL does!!!

(Geez - I HATE long goodbyes:-/ - wasn't this mess "outta here" several threads ago? )

[GregoryA]

It is about time the liberals wake up! They are more concerned over an American putting panties on a prisoners head or taunting prisoners to harvest intelligence information to save our troops' lives than the multiple beheadings of Westerners or the burning of the bodies and hanging from bridges of our brave soldiers.

We need to start demanding unsenstitivity training in this great nation. For if we continue to put sensitivity above the security of our nation and culture we will be a great nation no longer.

[UncleVinny]

"Unsensitivity training"!!
You saw it here first, folks!
Conservative "de-evolution" at it's best!
Well, if that's the kind of planet you want to live on . . .

Just can't figure how that translates into the bible bangin' "compassionate conservatism" Musta missed that section of the bible.

Talk about waking up . . .

Last week we heard that Bush way paying journalists and newpaper columnists to push the Bush agenda and make it look like news. Kind of dishonest use of taxpayer funds.

Now, in today's newspaper (Feb.11) we see a report where Bush secured press credentials for an arch-concervative writer, made him look like a reporter, then planted him and his loaded question at a White House news conference, so he could smear the Democrats and make it look like a legitimate news story.
I find that manipulative and deceptive, and a near-criminal contamination of the free press. When I see such massive public relations style deception, it makes me wonder if we have been duped by this fellow in the past, in such important subject areas as weapons of mass destruction and the need to invade Iraq! Thank God there are news watchdogs and organizations like the ACLU to keep these crooks more honest.

[Ian]

Good idea Vinny, let's all sing Kumbya and have a tea party while the N. Koreans sell nuke to Hamas.

Thank God there are news watchdogs and organizations like the ACLU to keep these crooks more honest.

And keep homeless people out of the shelters of that bastion of intolerance the Salvation Army during Christmas, and protect child-killing terrorists...

[GregoryA]

UncleVinny said:

"Unsensitivity training"!!
You saw it here first, folks!
Conservative "de-evolution" at it's best!
Well, if that's the kind of planet you want to live on . . .

Just can't figure how that translates into the bible bangin' "compassionate conservatism" Musta missed that section of the bible.

Talk about waking up . . .

Last week we heard that Bush way paying journalists and newpaper columnists to push the Bush agenda and make it look like news. Kind of dishonest use of taxpayer funds.

Now, in today's newspaper (Feb.11) we see a report where Bush secured press credentials for an arch-concervative writer, made him look like a reporter, then planted him and his loaded question at a White House news conference, so he could smear the Democrats and make it look like a legitimate news story.
I find that manipulative and deceptive, and a near-criminal contamination of the free press. When I see such massive public relations style deception, it makes me wonder if we have been duped by this fellow in the past, in such important subject areas as weapons of mass destruction and the need to invade Iraq! Thank God there are news watchdogs and organizations like the ACLU to keep these crooks more honest.

Uncle Vinny:

You are stereotyping all conservatives as "Bible Bangers". Some of us may be Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Jews, Buddhists etc. I thought liberals (if you are one) were against labeling others.

Also I stand behind my call for unsensitivity training. We need this to counteract three decades of overempahisizing political correctness, multi-culuralism, and sensitivity training that has been brainwashing our people. This has caused this de-evolution of our nation's cullture and strength.

I am an American nationalist. I state that proudly. And as an American nationalist I believe we must start thinking about our nation's welll being and not the well being of others who would slit our throats in a Baghdad minute.

[UncleVinny]

Good for you.
And if you were born in another country, say France or something, wouldn't you be just as proud?
So does that make the French enemies?
An enlighted person, be it socially, spiritually, or intellectually enlightened, would realize and appreciate the value of all people in all countries.

This extreme nationalism is worrisome as it's creeping steadily toward intolerance, divisiveness, militarism, and mindless slogans VERY much resembling FASCISM.
Better look up the definition of fascism:

www.veteransforpeace.org/The_14_characteristics_030303.htm

[GregoryA]

Here we go...the liberal's stock strategy: you cannot use logic so you pull out the "F" word (Fascism that is).

To attempt to equalte Nationalism with Fascism is a sign of intellectual laziness.

A Nationalist is someone who whish to preserve their nations heritage and cuture. As far as I know, our nation has never stood for the primacy of the state over the individual (however I do see some traces of such thinking in contempory liberalism and socialism).

In terms of militarism, yes I believe in a strong military to defend our national interests and to do only that as prescribed by the United States Constitution. That is why I differ with many of my conservative bretheren over the war in Iraq. However I want our military personel who are currently serving to be able to defend themselves with all that available to them. Also they are there to fight not to be social workers.

Also I live in the US. Why would want to be a French nationalist? If a Frenchman is a nationalist, great. And just because I love my country does not mean I despise all others. I only despise those that wish to inflict harm on my nation and my nation's people.

[UncleVinny]

Better keep your eyes open.

Sac Bee today (Saturday Feb 26) has an editorial condemning Bush's use of surrugate nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to do the torturing for them.

A federal judge refused to dismiss a case brought by a torture victim against the US. Seems the "lasting impression" of "American Values" are etched in scars on this fellows' back!

Sure, we have to fight terrorism, but sometimes the anger of the 9/11 attacks can blind us to the importance of the ideals America was founded on - innocent until proven guilty, rule of law, Geneva Conventions.
And by the way, that's a LOVE for America and its' values.

[GregoryA]

UncleVinny said:

Better keep your eyes open.

Sac Bee today (Saturday Feb 26) has an editorial condemning Bush's use of surrugate nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to do the torturing for them.

A federal judge refused to dismiss a case brought by a torture victim against the US. Seems the "lasting impression" of "American Values" are etched in scars on this fellows' back!

Sure, we have to fight terrorism, but sometimes the anger of the 9/11 attacks can blind us to the importance of the ideals America was founded on - innocent until proven guilty, rule of law, Geneva Conventions.
And by the way, that's a LOVE for America and its' values.

How would you extract information from a terrorist in an effeort to save the lives of potential innocent victims?

[moonotmo]

GregoryA said:

How would you extract information from a terrorist in an effeort to save the lives of potential innocent victims?

Okay, here's a brilliant idea. How about, asking them?

The simple fact is, information extracted from "terrorists" by other means is completely unreliable. If you're torturing someone, repeatedly telling them to confess else receive more torture, it's pretty clear to any brain-dead dolt that there's going to be one of two results:
1. The victim denies the accusations, in which case the torturing just continues. And continues. And continues a little bit more.
2. The victim confesses to it, just to end the torture. Even if it means a greater punishment. But hey, the torturer, in this case the US, is more than happy - they got what they wanted to hear. The accuracy of the information isn't the slightest bit important (hint: look at Al Qaeda-Iraq connections, boasted about by Bush before the war, yet in reality proved completely false and bought about by torture).

Let's look at examples of where evidence extracted through torture has saved lives of innocent people.
Ok, I'm done.

On the other hand, are there situations when evidence extracted through torture has been complete bullshit?
1. Well here's a classic one. www.ccadp.org/alexandermitchell.htm www.ottawalynx.com/CNEWS/World/2003/08/08/156441-cp.html
Despite all evidence pointing in the direction of some bombings being performed by extremists, the Saudis decide to pick up a couple of British guys, and torture them until they get the confession they want. Yet in the Real World™, the confession wasn't accurate. At one point, they had condemned themselves to death by beheading. They were completely innocent.
2. A good portion of the bullshit "intelligence" leading to the Iraq war.
Actually, I'll just leave it at that. Two quite well known cock-ups of torture-extracted intelligence. Now think of all the smaller situations of this happening. All the people in Guantanamo Bay, or Belmarsh prison - the British version of Guantanamo. Despite there being very little evidence that these people are even "terrorists" anyway, they are then tortured based on the assumption that they are guilty. If the prisoners confess to their "guilt," they are given a lawyer to defend them in a pathetic attempt of a court, but if they do not confess, they don't even get that - just more torture.

It don't help that a fair proportion of these "terrorists" aren't anything like terrorists, either. The US paying groups (if I remember this figure correctly) $5,000 for each "terrorist" they turn over may be a good way to imprison plenty of people, but you'd have to have cotton wool in your head to believe that good people aren't being captured just for money. It's bad enough holding innocent people without trial, it's worse when they are being continuously tortured under the assumption they are guilty, and they should be tortured until they either somehow prove otherwise (not really a possible thing to achieve), or confess. Then, as people go ahead and confess to the bullshit they're accused of, it becomes a case of luck whether their situation can be disproved or not. I saw one example earlier on TV, but sadly didn't note down any names or anything so it may not be completely accurate: there was one man who confessed to an accusation, only for it to later become apparent that the only way the accusation could have been true is if he had met Osama Bin Laden whilst shopping at a DIY shop in London, to buy nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. That story impressed even me; I'll see if I can find online information for this one later, even if only to correct any errors I made in remembering the situation.


The biggest threat to nations today is not Al Qaeda. It is not terrorists. There have been far more dangerous enemies in the past that were on a far, far greater scale than this terrorism lark, yet they were overcome. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and terrorism in general will be overcome also. The greatest threat of nations today is the idea that detention of people without trial, or at least without a fair trial, (or a shred of accurate evidence for that matter,) and the idea that torture being used to get this bullshit evidence, is at all justified. It is not at all reliable or accurate, it is everything the terrorists want, and it goes against everything the US stands for.

[Patriot]

She's back again with a long, overblown rant to subterfuge the masses. It must be that time of the month for Moon Woman. ;D

Suffice it to say, no Brit has the slightest clue as to what the greatest danger is to the US. Although, Moon is right that it's not terrorism. The biggest threat is a weakening from the inside. It's all unravelling, folks. Rome survived for 900 years. We're not even into our third century and our culture cannot even be called singular nowadays.

Why did Rome survive? Why did Sparta survive? Why were they remembered? Because they were comprised of Romans and Spartans who knew what duty to the State meant. Not "Scandanavian Homosexual Immigrants" and a horde of local city-state drifters who made their way across the borders in search of a better life.

I ask, where are the Americans? Condemn me for my outlandish and unforgivable bias but what good is America if not to be run by those for whom it exists? We're not on the road to perdition. We're on the road to null and void.

[moonotmo]

Horray, it's Patriot again! I always enjoy a good chat with you, for some reason.

Anyway, I see your point, and it seems that you're saying the biggest threat to the American christian culture is diversity, insisting that it is a bad thing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Assuming I understood, why do you think that cultural diversity is a danger to the US? I can only see it as a good thing. For the country claiming to be the "land of the free," I can only see diverse and colourful culture as a benefit to the country and that title, and for what you claim to be the greatest danger to the US, I see it as being one of it's greatest areas of potential improvement in the future.

Patriot said:

Suffice it to say, no Brit has the slightest clue as to what the greatest danger is to the US.

That's one hell of a generalization. I'm sure some Brits do have a clue what the greatest danger to the US is, just like there are some who indeed do not have a clue. But I'm confident that my views are not all that differing from a good proportion of Americans' own, whether or not they include yours.

You know, after our last debate, I'm questioning whether or not it's even worth debating with you again. Last time it became clear out views were completely polar-opposite, and we just disagreed on very fundamental issues that were way too pointless and useless to debate. Wonder how long this will last...