Gitmo deaths/suicides...

[1300 Class]

Prisoners' deaths 'a stunt'
From: Reuters

June 12, 2006


A senior US official has described the suicides of three inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as a "publicity stunt".
The US military said on Saturday that three Arabs at the camp - two Saudis and one Yemeni - had hanged themselves with clothes and bed sheets.

The three had taken part previously in extended hunger strikes and been force-fed. They all left suicide notes but no details were made public.

The deaths were the first at the prison since the United States began holding terrorism suspects there in 2002.

Colleen Graffy, US deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC World Service the suicides were a "good PR move to draw attention".

"It does sound that this is part of a strategy in that they don't value their own life and they certainly don't value ours and they use suicide bombings as a tactic to further their Jihadi cause," she said.

Advertisement:

She said the men had not needed to take their lives to protest their situation, as they had access to lawyers, mail and could write to their families.

The deaths have sparked renewed calls for the camp to be closed.

A Saudi lawyer said to be acting on behalf of the men said their families rejected the US version of the events leading to their deaths.

He said the families questioned how the men were able to hang themselves when the prison is under 24-hour surveillance.

A British man held for two and a half years at the camp said he was shocked that the men had hanged themselves but said treatment of prisoners there made suicide attempts inevitable.

Shafiq Rasul, who was held at the Guantanamo camp in Cuba after being arrested in Afghanistan, said that while he was there, inmates who were subjected to constant beatings and interrogations had attempted to take their own lives.

"There were numerous suicide attempts while I was there as well - it happened right in front of me," he told Sky Television.

Surely its outlived its use by now. Whatever information the prisoners had has either been retrieved or is out of date. I think the main point people have is, either charge them and get on with it, or close it, and disperse them to some other or release them. If they would get on with it, and stop pissing about then it might not look so bad.

[missaf]

Three less mouths to feed?

[1300 Class]

I'm sure budgetry concerns were the prime example of the death of these people. Oh well. At least the treasury will be happy.

[Paul Fannin]

There is not one wise purpose to close the Gitmo prison. The people there are emeny combatants plucked off the battlefields of terror. They should never be released. They are violent, vicious, and sworn enemies of the United States. To release THEM would be suicidal. They would, most certainly, resurface, and inflict casualties on Americans.

The riots and hunger strikes ARE publicity stunts. They know that such things make it to the American media and the anti-American peaceniks. They, like the so-called insurgents, are engaged in a war of wills, and in many quarters of this great nation, they are prevailing.

If I were running that prison and a prisoner threatened a hunger strike, believe me, I'd oblige him, and honor his request forever. Being a POW camp, I would instruct any riot or threat of riot be met with deadly force.

Their "rights" to have the Koran wrapped in a towel before it's handed to them or the absence of American servicemen of Jewish heritage to suit them wouldn't even be considered. They would be fed whatever's on the menu and if it didn't purport to their religious fanaticism, h*** with them!

[HappyFatChick]

Ah.... Club Gitmo. Good riddance infidels. They were probably disturbed by O'Reilly's visit and upcoming show tomorrow. Or maybe upset about Rush's lack of admiration.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html

[TraciJo67]

There is not one wise purpose to close the Gitmo prison. The people there are emeny combatants plucked off the battlefields of terror. They should never be released. They are violent, vicious, and sworn enemies of the United States. To release THEM would be suicidal. They would, most certainly, resurface, and inflict casualties on Americans.


These are people who have been held on SUSPICION of links to Al-Qaeda. There are nearly 500 prisoners there, and they have been held for years without being formally charged with any crime.

They need to be charged with whatever crimes we suspect them of. It is a serious and heinous abuse of power to categorize them as enemy combatants for the sole purpose of stripping them of their rights to due process.

Three men died. We're being told that they were mid to high-level Al-Qaeda operatives, but since this government will not release any information or allow those accused to defend themselves in a court of law, we really have no idea who they were or what they did. Maybe they hung themselves as a way of making a political statement. Maybe they were just overcome with despair at their circumstances. We'll probably never know.

[1300 Class]

Alright PF, if they are guilty, begin the legal process.

If they are Prisoners of War (which your government has decided they are not), are bound by the rules set out by the Geneva convention.

[Mini]

If they didn't want to be held indefinitely for no real reason, they shouldn't have been born lookin' like terrorists.

Why they can't grasp this is beyond me.

[fatlane]

There were some former Kabul cab drivers who were held in Guantanamo because they looked Arab and the US offered a $20,000 bounty for all al-Qaeda guys, no questions asked.

The real terrorists in there, and I'm sure there are some hardass types in there, would kill dozens, maybe hundreds, if released.

Meanwhile, the US is cutting deals with heroin dealers in Afghanistan who are killing dozens every day, if not hundreds every day, with their products. Moreover, the greatest danger to security in that part of the world isn't a resurgent Taliban, but an ever-stronger drugs trade.

There are innocent men and whack jobs in Guantanamo, but the even greater danger to the US and the world gets to have USG protection because they're national security "assets."

Moral of this story? If you kill a few people, you're locked away. Kill off thousands, and you're a friend of the US.

[Alicia Rose]

The 'battlefields of terror'?

snrk.. heh... hahaha... *cries*

Battlefields are physical.

Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a methodology.

I REALLY wish they'd get it through their heads... you can't have a war on an emotion! Or a methodology!

GAH!

=Divals

[snuggletiger]

I am gonna say it, I know its unpopular but I have to stand on the little soap box and ask 1 single question.

If the conditions at GITMO are so bad and people are committing suicide, How come the Prison system isn't modeled after GITMO?

[FreeThinker]

For What It's Worth...

Listening to the BBC news this morning, I heard that one of the three men was scheduled for release, but didn't know it. The Americans had not told him, as they didn't yet know to which country they would send him.

Hearing this, it seems to me that one wrongly-accused man killed himself.

[HappyFatChick]

You will only get liberal-slanted news out of the BBC. Why not just listen to Air America?:(

And to the "kill thousands" post: Nah! Kill thousands and you get captured in your hole and imprisoned/tried in the U.S. or get bombed while you cowardly hide in your hole.:D

[fatlane]

You will only get liberal-slanted news out of the BBC. Why not just listen to Air America?:(

And to the "kill thousands" post: Nah! Kill thousands and you get captured in your hole and imprisoned/tried in the U.S. or get bombed while you cowardly hide in your hole.:D

HFC, you're wrong. From 1979 on, the United States policy in Cambodia has been first, support of the Pol Pot regime, followed by obstruction or non-acknowledgement of criminal actions against former Khmer Rouges for crimes against humanity. The Khmer Rouge killed (estimated) 1.5 million - 2.5 million Cambodians.

One former Khmer Rouge is the president of Cambodia. Others, who opposed his faction when the party splintered, remain in luxurious house arrest in villas around Pnomh Penh - one or two of these foes are actually in prison, but more because of their oppostion to the current ruler than because of their atrocities. Still others retain high posts in Cambodian government. They're not hiding in any holes, nor are they motivated by cowardice. They're pretty brazen, when you get down to it.

That's just one example. I could touch on crooks in Laos, Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam that the US has supported and helped protect from justice being done. The entire Binh Xuyen gang was used by the US in the Vietnam War as an intelligence asset, even as they sold huge amounts of 95% pure heroin to US troops in Vietnam - that's just one more example. I could come up with dozens more without even leaving Southeast Asia. When I get to Central Asia, it gets even worse.

The US involvement with heroin dealers goes back to 1943 when the US used Lucky Luciano to assist in the Sicily campaign. He was taken out of a US prison and then turned loose on Sicily to revitalize the Mafia there in opposition to Mussolini. From that point to about 1972-1976, the Sicilian Mafia had been a dominant player in the US heroin trade, coupled with the Corsican crime families in Marseilles.

For homework, I assign everyone reading this board to read Alfred W. McCoy's The Politics of Heroin. There may even be an old version of the book online somewhere. I recommend the 2003 edition, however, as it is updated for the 1980's and Afghanistan.

[FreeThinker]

You will only get liberal-slanted news out of the BBC. Why not just listen to Air America?:(The BBC report was very sparse. It only said what the U.S. military told them.

As far as Air America goes, I've tried to listen to Steve Earle's show on there, but I can't get the link to work,or something.

Maybe it's a hardware problem. :confused:

I greatly admire Earle's writing. Here's a song of his from his album "The Revolution Starts...Now"

Rich Man's War

Jimmy joined the army 'cause he had no place to go
Ain't nobody hiring 'round here since all the jobs went down to Mexico
Reckoned that he'd learn himself a trade and maybe see the world
Move to the city someday, and marry a black-haired girl
Somebody somewhere had another plan
Now he's got a rifle in his hand
Rollin' into Baghdad, wonderin' how he got this far
Just another poor boy, off to fight a rich man's war

Bobby had an eagle and a flag tattooed on his arm
Red, white, and blue to the bone when he landed in Kandahar
Left behind a pretty young wife and a baby girl
And a stack of overdue bills, when he went off to save the world
It's been a year now, and he's still there
Chasin' ghosts in the thin, dry air
Meanwhile back at home, the finance company took his car
Just another poor boy, off to fight a rich man's war

When will we ever learn
When will we ever see
We stand up and take our turn
Keep tellin' ourselves we're free

Ali was the second son of a second son
Grew up in Gaza throwin' bottles and rocks when the tanks would come
Ain't nothin' else to do around here; It's just a game children play
Something 'bout living in fear all your life makes you hard that way
He answered when he got the call
Wrapped himself in death and he praised Allah
A fat man in a new Mercedes drove him to the door
He's just another poor boy, off to fight a rich man's war

___________________________________


Hmm...not bad, considering I typed that from memory.

(I actually do a cover version of that song)

I'd very much enjoy tuning into Air America to hear more of Earle's songs, and I'd be interested to find out what he has to say.

Peace!

-Free

[1300 Class]

You will only get liberal-slanted news out of the BBC.
What a load of ill-informed, niave rubbish.

[Anguisette]

Guantanamo Bay existed before 9/11 for a reason and will continue to exist for that reason. Prisoners of sensitive military nature don't BELONG in our stateside prisons and many of them, even if/when we release them, are not welcome anywhere in the world. Some of these folks are just stuck there because they are such low forms of life not a country on the globe will take them.

The Red Cross insisted on giving GB prisoners a "right to privacy" so that they could... what? Kill themselves? Suicide is a common and encouraged form of political protest for those who made the choice.

Well God bless em. We're all about giving people the freedom to make choices. Hey, if any of these guys want help, I'll fly down and kick the stool.

[1300 Class]

Gotmo has existed since the Spanish American war. The only other time its had any importance was during the Cuban missile crisis.

[FreeThinker]

Guantanamo Bay existed before 9/11 for a reason and will continue to exist for that reason. Prisoners of sensitive military nature don't BELONG in our stateside prisons and many of them, even if/when we release them, are not welcome anywhere in the world. Some of these folks are just stuck there because they are such low forms of life not a country on the globe will take them.

The Red Cross insisted on giving GB prisoners a "right to privacy" so that they could... what? Kill themselves? Suicide is a common and encouraged form of political protest for those who made the choice.

Well God bless em. We're all about giving people the freedom to make choices. Hey, if any of these guys want help, I'll fly down and kick the stool.That one of the suicides was committed by a man who was about to have been released suggests that choosing to end one's life may not have been an act of political protest, but one of desperation.

[Anguisette]

That one of the suicides was committed by a man who was about to have been released suggests that choosing to end one's life may not have been an act of political protest, but one of desperation.

This is directly, precisely incorrect. Flip it.

If your entire reason for existing has become martyrdom, you suffer for the cause until the last moment, then go out in a blaze of what you consider glory.

I don't know if the man who was due to be released was aware of this or not, but if he WAS, it would only hasten his act of self destruction for the greater glory of stupidity.

You can't approach the acts of a fanatic with only a suburban, colloquial sensibility.

[FreeThinker]

This is directly, precisely incorrect. Flip it.

If your entire reason for existing has become martyrdom, you suffer for the cause until the last moment, then go out in a blaze of what you consider glory.

I don't know if the man who was due to be released was aware of this or not, but if he WAS, it would only hasten his act of self destruction for the greater glory of stupidity.

You can't approach the acts of a fanatic with only a suburban, colloquial sensibility.He was not aware of his impending release. (please see post # 12 in this thread)

To restate:

The man was due for release (suggesting he was not considered a threat by the authorities).

Unaware that he was about to be released, he killed himself (suggesting that, after having been imprisoned for as long as he was, he thought his release would not be forthcoming--this is speculation on my part, but it seems the likeliest of scenarios).

It seems he was not a fanatic, then, but a blameless victim, for which I am not criticizing anybody. I was not posting to say that the prison or the U.S. government or military is wrong, or bad, or right, or good. I was just pointing out a tragedy. Apparently this particular man was mistakenly accused, and the U.S. government was going to do the right thing by setting him free. Unfortunately, he lost hope.

As I wrote that very last sentence, it occurred (sp?) to me that hope is indeed something that can keep a person alive.

I believe that if I were wrongfully imprisoned, my first thought would be "Of course they'll release me: I'm innocent."

As time wore on, however, I believe I would find it increasingly difficult to maintain such optimism.

[Anguisette]

He was not aware of his impending release. (please see post # 12 in this thread)

To restate:

The man was due for release (suggesting he was not considered a threat by the authorities).

Unaware that he was about to be released, he killed himself (suggesting that, after having been imprisoned for as long as he was, he thought his release would not be forthcoming--this is speculation on my part, but it seems the likeliest of scenarios).

It seems he was not a fanatic, then, but a blameless victim, for which I am not criticizing anybody. I was not posting to say that the prison or the U.S. government or military is wrong, or bad, or right, or good. I was just pointing out a tragedy. Apparently this particular man was mistakenly accused, and the U.S. government was going to do the right thing by setting him free. Unfortunately, he lost hope.

As I wrote that very last sentence, it occurred (sp?) to me that hope is indeed something that can keep a person alive.

I believe that if I were wrongfully imprisoned, my first thought would be "Of course they'll release me: I'm innocent."

As time wore on, however, I believe I would find it increasingly difficult to maintain such optimism.

Unfortunately, the fact that you read somewhere that he may not have been aware of his impending release does not, in fact, make it so. Which is why I addressed this theory as what it was and is-- possible, but not yet definite.

He was at Guantanamo Bay for, apparently, being a peaceful civilian? Man, that IS a bitch.

The problem is you keep insisting on thinking that any of these people approach life and death as you do. They don't. Which is why they were at GB to begin with. It's also why they took their lives, secure in the knowledge that virgins awaited, their families would be rewarded, and jackasses would pity them, sowing discontent.

Mission accomplished. Know what, though? They accomplished my mission, too.

Cull the herd, boys, cull the herd.

[Alicia Rose]

What about the people who are in Gitmo for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Case in point, I read an interview a couple months ago with an American army chaplain who was muslim and had been imprisoned in Gitmo for 'collaboration'. This isn't some radical psychopath, just a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

=Divals

[Kimberleigh]

You will only get liberal-slanted news out of the BBC. Why not just listen to Air America?:(

And to the "kill thousands" post: Nah! Kill thousands and you get captured in your hole and imprisoned/tried in the U.S. or get bombed while you cowardly hide in your hole.:D

So exactly where do you get unbiased news?
I think you say stuff like this just to get a rise out of people.
For your edification regarding the BBC, impartiality (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/)
May I suggest you should spend a bit of time learning about people and organizations before you attack them?

[TraciJo67]

You can't approach the acts of a fanatic with only a suburban, colloquial sensibility.

Then why are you attempting to? ?

[TraciJo67]

Unfortunately, the fact that you read somewhere that he may not have been aware of his impending release does not, in fact, make it so. Which is why I addressed this theory as what it was and is-- possible, but not yet definite.

He was at Guantanamo Bay for, apparently, being a peaceful civilian? Man, that IS a bitch.

The problem is you keep insisting on thinking that any of these people approach life and death as you do. They don't. Which is why they were at GB to begin with. It's also why they took their lives, secure in the knowledge that virgins awaited, their families would be rewarded, and jackasses would pity them, sowing discontent.

Mission accomplished. Know what, though? They accomplished my mission, too.

Cull the herd, boys, cull the herd.

What I find hateful about your argument is that you are lumping the group together collectively -- or assuming that our government is infallable and that there are no innocent bystanders. I suspect, based on the tone of your comments, that it is the former. And that disturbs me -- that otherwise reasonable people believe that their own version of hatred is somehow less fanatical than that of extremist Islamists.

[HappyFatChick]

Club Gitmo has no innocent prisoners. Yes they will use the media as long as
they can to call attention to their "plight." The prisoners are there because they have alQaida ties. They are not innocent cab drivers.

And to Kim- my news comes from 36+ sites including radio/tv/net/sources. It's part of my job to know what's really going on.

The orgs I trust most are: WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, FNC (FOX), Cybercast, Drudge, Forbes, Human Events Online, Media Research Center, New York Sun,
Town Hall, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, and select blogs.
The likes of BBC, NPR, and PBS slant way too far to the left for me.

[Anguisette]

Oh, there could absolutely be innocents at Gitmo. I have yet to encounter any. None of the people I know in the military know of any. But there can and could be.

The three guys who killed themselves weren't. They professed loyalty to radical jihadism repeatedly. You can't profess loyalty to radical jihadism repeatedly and be innocent. The two states are exclusive.

I do often hear stories (generally from the NYT) of possible innocents imprisoned there. Someday we may actually find out one of these stories is true. If that were the case I'd hope the detainee in question would be released and file suit.

And let's also consider how innocent one has to be if no country on earth will welcome you should you be released.

Disagreeing with misinformed people, or even informed people who have an agenda, doesn't make me a hate-monger. I often sit and ponder for hours at a time, discussing at great length, the refusal of so many men and women of apparent education and intellect to acknowledge the plight of oppressed people under the yoke of radical Islam. Islam is a beautiful religion. I am disgusted by anyone who corrupts something beautiful in the name of death and madness.

The man I love watched his grandparents slaughtered for the unforgivable crime of being Kurdish in Baghdad. His family fled Iraq on foot the year I was born. Most of the family and other loved ones left behind were lost to them, many tortured to death.

I know things about hate I hope you never learn. It's not hate I embrace with relish. It's justice.

[Miss Vickie]

Here's what I don't understand. I completely agree that we need to either charge these folks or release them. Holding them for years, without benefit of being charged, is against our way of life in this country, and not to mention against our rule of law. So why is this an exception? I dun get it.

But what I'm really not understanding is why the call for closing Gitmo? Why does it have to be black or white, leave it as is or close it? How about we follow the rules that we're supposed to, treat the criminals the way our own -- and the Geneva Convention -- say we should? Why not try them, find them guilty if guilty, innocent if innocent, and go from there? How is closing the place any benefit? It just seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to borrow a tired cliche.

I'm sure I must be missing something. I'd sure appreciate if you guys could give a politically naive girl a hand here in understanding this.

[Tina]

The what convention, Vick? Old, outdated rules not meant to be followed by this administration -- a group of cowboys who don't follow no stinkin' rules. Alberto Gonzales actually called the Geneva Convention rules "quaint."
A 1/25/02 memo written by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." The memo pushes to make al Qaeda and Taliban detainees exempt from the Geneva Conventions' provisions on the proper, legal treatment of prisoners. The administration has been adamant that prisoners at Guantanamo are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. (for references, including Gonzales' memo click here. (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536))
Evidently, "a federal judge ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try detainees as war criminals." You can read all of it here. (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536)

Alberto Gonzales has made sure that they are in the clear for torture, too:
An August 2002 Justice Department memo "was vetted by a larger number of officials, including...the White House counsel's office and Vice President Cheney's office." According to Newsweek, the memo "was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and [Cheney counsel] David Addington." The memo included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Further, the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture." The methods outlined in the memo "provoked concerns within the CIA about possible violation of the federal torture law [and] also raised concerns at the FBI, where some agents knew of the techniques being used" overseas on high-level al Qaeda officials. (for references click here. (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536)
He really is perfect for the Bush admin, as he has just as few morals as the rest of them.

[Alicia Rose]

Club Gitmo has no innocent prisoners. Yes they will use the media as long as
they can to call attention to their "plight." The prisoners are there because they have alQaida ties. They are not innocent cab drivers.


Wow, you're so smart! I mean, you must have proof that everyone in Gitmo is guilty, right? Because if a liberal says something without proof, you're one of the first to point that out, so it stands to reason that you wouldn't say anything unless you had proof of it.

I wish I were as smart as you, or at least had access to all the secrets you do. You amaze me! :wubu:

Pardon me while I kiss your boots.

=Divals

[TraciJo67]

Islam is a beautiful religion. I am disgusted by anyone who corrupts something beautiful in the name of death and madness.


I just wanted to say that I read something in your initial post that wasn't there, and I apologize for assuming that you were referring to Islam generally.

Your subsequent post was quite reasonable, and I do appreciate that you did not respond to my mistaken assumption with anger, indignation, or accusations of your own.

[NYEmtEsq]

How about we follow the rules that we're supposed to, treat the criminals the way our own -- and the Geneva Convention -- say we should? Why not try them, find them guilty if guilty, innocent if innocent, and go from there?

The prisoners at Gitmo were taking up arms while disguised as civilians. I'm not naive enough to believe that this has never been done before.....the Nazis (the real kind, not the label given by some to conservative talk radio hosts) made very efficient use of a Fifth Column in the Ardenne Forest right before the Battle of the Bulge to help the Wehrmacht give us one last kick in the ass.....before General Patton returned it threefold.

Keep in mind, however, that if caught taking up arms in civilian clothing, the Geneva Convention does not apply and summary trials (and executions) are permitted by the rules of war. The fact that the United States, as a civilized nation, has decided not to stoop to the savages' level and instead chooses to exile these non-traditional combatants in Castro's communist paradise should not intimate that they are entitled to any of the panoply of rights that we Americans enjoy under our Constitution.

[Fuzzy]

Good Point. The Bush Administration could've put cement shoes on all of them and dropped them into the ocean for none to see.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Club Gitmo has no innocent prisoners. Yes they will use the media as long as
they can to call attention to their "plight." The prisoners are there because they have alQaida ties. They are not innocent cab drivers.

And to Kim- my news comes from 36+ sites including radio/tv/net/sources. It's part of my job to know what's really going on.

The orgs I trust most are: WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, FNC (FOX), Cybercast, Drudge, Forbes, Human Events Online, Media Research Center, New York Sun,
Town Hall, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, and select blogs.
The likes of BBC, NPR, and PBS slant way too far to the left for me.
How can you say there are no innocent people imprisoned at Gitmo, when they HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING YET? Many people there (including some children as young as 13) were sent there simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And let's take a good look at your list of sources you trust the most, shall we?

World Net Daily - Extreme Conservative. Runs many stories without sources or with dubious sources that cannot be verified; never retracts any misinformation once they're proven wrong. Many other far-right sites use them as a source, so they are responsible for many of the right-wing lies being spread across the Internet.

Newsmax - Extreme Conservative - same description as World Net Daily.

FNC (FOX) - Conservative, but does run many AP stories unedited. Their poll questions are designed to generate pro-conservative results, and these poll results are then quoted elsewhere across the Internet. (BTW, when I ran Spell Check on this message, it wanted to change "FNC" to "FINK", which I though was rather appropriate.) :)

Cybercast - Extreme Conservative. They used to call themselves the "Conservative News Service", but changed their name to make it look like they were legitimate. But they changed nothing about their
far-right content.

Drudge - Conservative. Matt Drudge hand-picks stories that advance his agenda. Rumors abound across the Internet that Drudge is a closeted gay man who has not come to terms with his sexuality. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I wonder how many conservatives would abandon Drudge if he ever came out....)

Forbes - Conservative. Publisher Steve Forbes is a leader of the "flat tax" movement that would mainly benefit billionaires like himself.

Human Events Online - Conservative. When you Google "human events online" like I did to find out about them, the first entry that comes up says "HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books". When you go to their site, the banner at the top identifies them as
"The National Conservative Weekly". 'Nuff said.

Media Research Center - Conservative. This organization was started by a group of young conservatives out to prove liberal bias in the media - even where it doesn't exist. Very biased and slanted to the right.

New York Sun - Conservative. Yellow journalism at its finest. This paper was started because someone thought that Rupert Murdoch's "New York Post" wasn't conservative enough...

Town Hall - Conservative through and through.

Washington Times - Conservative. Owned by Rev. Sun Yung Moon of the Unification Church; often called the "Moonie Times" on left-wing web sites. Moon also owns UPI now, so UPI stories are now just as suspect as anything that appears in the Washington Times.

Weekly Standard - Conservative. Founded by William Kristal, a man who leans so far to the right it's a miracle he can walk upright.

Select Blogs - Bases on the fact that all of your sources so far are either right-wing or far right-wing, I'm sure that's the criteria you used for selecting these blogs.

And now let's look at the ones you claim are slanted too far to the left:

BBC - Moderate. Considered an excellent source of unbiased news worldwide, along with sources such as Reuters and The Guardian.

NPR - Moderate. America's equivalent to the BBC. Tries to present a balanced perspective on the issues, and covers many stories that don't get much coverage on other news outlets.

PBS - Moderate. Their main news program (The News Hour with Jim Lehrer) is very balanced, and devotes more time to a story than most other TV news shows. Over the years, PBS has presented liberal programs (such as "NOW with Bill Moyers"), and conservative ones (such as "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley, and "The McLaughlin Group").

Based on your choice of sources, HFC, it's obvious that you only want to see, hear, and read things that agree with your personal agenda. You say that "it's part of my job to know what's really going on", but you'll never learn the truth by going to so many biased sources - you'll only learn what those on the right WANT you to learn.

It reminds me of a study done in the Early '90s that Al Franken referenced in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (and other observations)". I found a reference to that study in the Wikipedia listing for Rush Limbaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh):

On the other hand, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, the Limbaugh audience isn't always the most informed on certain issues:

We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.

Commenting on the study, political satirist and author Al Franken explains:

How is such a thing even measured? Well, like all the other people studied, talk radio listeners were asked questions of "objective fact" such as: "Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc.) are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to
give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare.

In short, HFC, you cannot be expected to know all the facts on any issue, because you have chosen to only hear one side of the story. And that will continue to work to your disadvantage.

[1300 Class]

The Guardian is hardly quality journalism.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

The Guardian is hardly quality journalism.
Maybe not, but it DOES provide information that's not subjected to the pro-administration filters being imposed by many US corporate-controlled media outlets. If I want to find out what's REALLY happening in Iraq, for instance, I look to the BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian.

[Anguisette]

If I want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq I ask an Iraqi. Or read one of their newspapers. The Kurdish media, in fact, is pretty varied and very broad-reaching in coverage.

I don't always agree with every source, but I try to read them daily:

http://www.kurdistanobserver.com
http://www.kurdishdaily.com
http://www.kurdmedia.com
http://www.iraqupdates.com

[mwb200]

The detainees were muslims, our enemy, who cares ...

[1300 Class]

The detainers are still bound by either the criminal codes of the US or the Genvea Convention.

[Tina]

Not if they say they're not, AL. :rolleyes:

[1300 Class]

Oh yes, how silly of me.:rolleyes:

[ssbbwlover2]

The detainees were muslims, our enemy, who cares ...


So we should go after all muslims then, right?

[ssbbwlover2]

[QUOTE=NYEmtEsq]The prisoners at Gitmo were taking up arms while disguised as civilians.



Are you also aware, that there were people who were turned into the authorities in Afghanistan as being terrorists, just for the dollars that were available. Innocent people were taken into custody. There were people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Gitmo is a nightmare because there are no charges pending for most of the detainees. You can't hold people indefinitely without charges of any kind.
The Military tribunal is a farce. If you read what experts say about the evidentiary standards and the methology being used, you can see that the tribunal has been set up to convict.

Also, if these were so dangerous people, why did our administration release 100s of them and is now releasing even more to the home countries?

[CleverBomb]

I"ve got to go with the Fafblog (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/610-changed-everything-run-for-your.html) take on this one...

Run for your lives - America is under attack! Just days ago three prisoners at Guantanamo Bay committed suicide in a savage assault on America's freedom to not care about prisoner suicides! Oh sure, the "Blame Atrocities First" crowd will tell you these prisoners were "driven to despair," that they "had no rights," that they were "held and tortured without due process or judicial oversight in a nightmarish mockery of justice." But what they won't tell you is that they only committed suicide as part of a diabolical ruse to trick the world into thinking our secret torture camp is the kind of secret torture camp that drives its prisoners to commit suicide! This fiendish attempt to slander the great American institution of the gulag is nothing less than an act of asymmetrical warfare against the United States - a noose is just a suicide bomb with a very small blast radius, people! - and when faced with a terrorist attack, America must respond. Giblets demands immediate retaliatory airstrikes on depressed Muslim torture victims throughout the mideast!

(embedded links in source text lost during cut/paste)

-Rusty

[Anguisette]

Every Al Qeada training manual and process instructs members who are imprisoned to claim they were tortured, and to commit suicide if possible for the glory of Allah and to spread dischord.

Wonder if they read their pamphlets? Maybe they thought there was going to be a Pop Quiz.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Every Al Qeada training manual and process instructs members who are imprisoned to claim they were tortured, and to commit suicide if possible for the glory of Allah and to spread dischord.

Wonder if they read their pamphlets? Maybe they thought there was going to be a Pop Quiz.
Have you actually SEEN the Al Qeada trainign manuals? Or is this just another talking point?

Don't you think it's possible that they may be claiming they were tortured because they were BEING TORTURED????

[HappyFatChick]

Throwing underwear on an alQaeda terrorist is not torture.
Sawing off an American's head is.:(

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Throwing underwear on an alQaeda terrorist is not torture.
Sawing off an American's head is.:(
Actually, HFC, both sides have done some pretty bad things. Atrocities from one side do not justify atrocities from the other, IMHO.

[Anguisette]

Have you actually SEEN the Al Qeada trainign manuals? Or is this just another talking point?

Yes. My brother-in-law handed me one, in fact. I'm sure you weren't expecting that response, but I'm actually not full of crap. :)


Don't you think it's possible that they may be claiming they were tortured because they were BEING TORTURED????

I've said it perhaps a dozen times, now, but I'm smart enough to never rule out any possibility, however slim. I just never make assumptions without very good evidence. I know a lot of you LOVE talking about the phantom innocents, but I prefer to deal in what I know, what I see, and what seems most probable judging by every single shred of evidence.

I'm funny that way.:D

[ssbbwlover2]

Where is that shred of evidence coming from? We do not know the source. The only information available is from what our government allows to be released. Is there any possibility that we are not getting the full picture?
If it took the government for ever to acknowledge the names of those detained and their country origin, I think it is plausible that we do not have all the information. Furthermore, any information from detainees' attorneys or organizations like Center for Constitutional Rights is thought be tainted because of their ulterior motives. So, where is that we can get independent, verifiable information about the facts regarding what is going on at GB and who has in fact been detained?

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Yes. My brother-in-law handed me one, in fact. I'm sure you weren't expecting that response, but I'm actually not full of crap. :)



I've said it perhaps a dozen times, now, but I'm smart enough to never rule out any possibility, however slim. I just never make assumptions without very good evidence. I know a lot of you LOVE talking about the phantom innocents, but I prefer to deal in what I know, what I see, and what seems most probable judging by every single shred of evidence.

I'm funny that way.:D
Question: was that manual in English or the original language? There have been instances of translations done in error - either unintentionally (due to differences in language syntax) or on purpose to generate more anti-Muslim sentiment. Kinda like Rick Santorum's web site - the English and Spanish pages present completely different descriptions of the Senator's positions on immigration.

Just saying....

[missaf]

That said chaplain was smuggling documents in and out of Gitmo, designs, blueprints, troop rosters, things a chaplain would never have on them if they were innocent.

What about the people who are in Gitmo for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Case in point, I read an interview a couple months ago with an American army chaplain who was muslim and had been imprisoned in Gitmo for 'collaboration'. This isn't some radical psychopath, just a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

=Divals

[missaf]

I prefer to talk to soldiers and volunteers who have been there, rather than reading propoganda from either side of the aisle. I find first hand reports far more informative than hearing things through filters of modern media outlets.


If I want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq I ask an Iraqi. Or read one of their newspapers. The Kurdish media, in fact, is pretty varied and very broad-reaching in coverage.

I don't always agree with every source, but I try to read them daily:

http://www.kurdistanobserver.com
http://www.kurdishdaily.com
http://www.kurdmedia.com
http://www.iraqupdates.com

[ssbbwlover2]

That said chaplain was smuggling documents in and out of Gitmo, designs, blueprints, troop rosters, things a chaplain would never have on them if they were innocent.

The charges originally against him were based on terrorism related issues. However, in the end, he was not convicted of those terrorism related offenses because the military did not have any evidence against him but merely sullied his name and reputation in the process.

[CleverBomb]

That said chaplain was smuggling documents in and out of Gitmo, designs, blueprints, troop rosters, things a chaplain would never have on them if they were innocent.
I wonder... what was really in those files?
Maybe they dropped the charges because they didn't want to have to admit what the files really were?
For example, some of the Abu Gharib pics were pretty graphic -- and classified at the time.
That can't be the case, though, since classification is not supposed to cover up embarrassing information, just matters of national security.

-Rusty

[Anguisette]

Question: was that manual in English or the original language? Just saying....

What you are "just saying" is you are a hypocrite. You WANT to sling accusations, then smirk when the person at whom you are slinging can't back up her claims. When she can, you refuse to admit you were incorrect.

One was in Farsi, and another was in Kurdish. I speak Kurdish and I'm only passable in Farsi, but I'm learning. (I also have people around me who are fluent in both, as well as Arabic). In fact, the reason he showed them to me was to illistrate something he felt I would find relevant in that process.

My husband and I often sit watching translators on CNN with a series of chuckles as they creatively reinterpret the language. I'm not an idiot. You only wish I was. It would help you make invalid points.

[Anguisette]

I prefer to talk to soldiers and volunteers who have been there, rather than reading propoganda from either side of the aisle. I find first hand reports far more informative than hearing things through filters of modern media outlets.

Being from a military family, I hear from those people, as well. The Kurds, btw, were the first to HELP. We screwed them a few times in the past few decades, but they were the first into the alliance.

I would be careful with the word "propaganda." It doesn't apply here. These resources are not Al Jazeera. Some of them lean toward KPU or PKU, but they aren't propagandist publications.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

What you are "just saying" is you are a hypocrite. You WANT to sling accusations, then smirk when the person at whom you are slinging can't back up her claims. When she can, you refuse to admit you were incorrect.

One was in Farsi, and another was in Kurdish. I speak Kurdish and I'm only passable in Farsi, but I'm learning. (I also have people around me who are fluent in both, as well as Arabic). In fact, the reason he showed them to me was to illistrate something he felt I would find relevant in that process.

My husband and I often sit watching translators on CNN with a series of chuckles as they creatively reinterpret the language. I'm not an idiot. You only wish I was. It would help you make invalid points.
You missunderstood me completely, Anguisette.

When I asked you if you had seen the actual documents, it's because there are a lot of web sites out there where people CLAIM that documents such as Al-Queda training materials say one thing, but in fact they really say another. Since you have seen actual documents in their native (untranslated) form, I have no reason to doubt that what you say is in them is true.

I have no trouble admitting I was wrong - and in this case (since translation was not a factor), I was. You have to realize that a lot of things that have been presented on this board lately as "facts" are unsubstantiated stories posted on right-wing web sites like World Nut Daily and Newsmax. The information you provided is in a far differenct class than what others have been posting as "facts" lately.

And I don't think or wish you were an idiot, as you stated above. I was merely looking for clarification, because this entire "war on terrorism" has been shrouded with so much deceit and misinformation. And a lot of that deceit and information has come from official sources.

[Anguisette]

I always use those little smiley faces when I'm being contrite.

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I do find it interesting that I rarely participate in political issue discussions on this forum for the simple reason that I generally don't come down strongly on one side or the other, and am in fact a moderate.

Yet I have twice been accused of extremism (once the word "hate" was gleefully employed) in this one thread.

I genuinely believe that most of the people who join in the fight are joining it because they love to fight. I only do it if the issue is very important and I am very informed. Otherwise I have nothing to contribute.

[TraciJo67]

I always use those little smiley faces when I'm being contrite.

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I do find it interesting that I rarely participate in political issue discussions on this forum for the simple reason that I generally don't come down strongly on one side or the other, and am in fact a moderate.

Yet I have twice been accused of extremism (once the word "hate" was gleefully employed) in this one thread.

I genuinely believe that most of the people who join in the fight are joining it because they love to fight. I only do it if the issue is very important and I am very informed. Otherwise I have nothing to contribute.

I assume that you are referring to me. Actually, I said that I found your argument hateful - and I did. My concern is that people use generalizations to justify their hatred for that which they cannot/will not understand (in this case, Islam). You *did* use some generalizations; however, in a subsequent clarification I could see that you do appear to be quite reasonable. I still do not agree with much of what you've said, but you certainly have the right to your opinion, as I do mine.

I did not "quite gleefully" employ use of the word hate. In fact, this whole discussion just saddens me.

Finally, I did apologize for misunderstanding you. There was nothing "gleeful" about that, either. It was sincere.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

I always use those little smiley faces when I'm being contrite.

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I do find it interesting that I rarely participate in political issue discussions on this forum for the simple reason that I generally don't come down strongly on one side or the other, and am in fact a moderate.

Yet I have twice been accused of extremism (once the word "hate" was gleefully employed) in this one thread.

I genuinely believe that most of the people who join in the fight are joining it because they love to fight. I only do it if the issue is very important and I am very informed. Otherwise I have nothing to contribute.
No problem, Anguisette. You've provided some valuable information in these topics - especially those links to Kurdish media outlets. I've always found it helps to get as much info as you can from a vcarietry of sources, rather than hand-picking only those sources that support your personal agenda. That's why I go to CNN, BBC, Reuters, AND Fox on a regular basis. I think it gives me a better perspective on things.

[Sandie S-R]

HFC, you're wrong. From 1979 on, the United States policy in Cambodia has been first, support of the Pol Pot regime, followed by obstruction or non-acknowledgement of criminal actions against former Khmer Rouges for crimes against humanity. The Khmer Rouge killed (estimated) 1.5 million - 2.5 million Cambodians.

One former Khmer Rouge is the president of Cambodia. Others, who opposed his faction when the party splintered, remain in luxurious house arrest in villas around Pnomh Penh - one or two of these foes are actually in prison, but more because of their oppostion to the current ruler than because of their atrocities. Still others retain high posts in Cambodian government. They're not hiding in any holes, nor are they motivated by cowardice. They're pretty brazen, when you get down to it.

That's just one example. I could touch on crooks in Laos, Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam that the US has supported and helped protect from justice being done. The entire Binh Xuyen gang was used by the US in the Vietnam War as an intelligence asset, even as they sold huge amounts of 95% pure heroin to US troops in Vietnam - that's just one more example. I could come up with dozens more without even leaving Southeast Asia. When I get to Central Asia, it gets even worse.

The US involvement with heroin dealers goes back to 1943 when the US used Lucky Luciano to assist in the Sicily campaign. He was taken out of a US prison and then turned loose on Sicily to revitalize the Mafia there in opposition to Mussolini. From that point to about 1972-1976, the Sicilian Mafia had been a dominant player in the US heroin trade, coupled with the Corsican crime families in Marseilles.

For homework, I assign everyone reading this board to read Alfred W. McCoy's The Politics of Heroin. There may even be an old version of the book online somewhere. I recommend the 2003 edition, however, as it is updated for the 1980's and Afghanistan.


Thank you Professor Fatlane!

Will there be a test?

;)

(Seriously, good post dude!)

[TraciJo67]

Speaking of GITMO suicides ....

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/TraciJo67/christo.gif

[Wagimawr]

I go to CNN, BBC, Reuters, AND Fox on a regular basis. I think it gives me a better perspective on things.
Smart. You'll still get biased news but you'll get ALL the biases instead of just a few. :p

[Anguisette]

Emotions run high on some issues. I do find I personally like 90% of the members here, but often see complete brutality coming out of some of those I like in political discussions, which is why I avoid them.

Can't we all just get along? (ducking)

[Jack Skellington]

Can't we all just get along? (ducking)

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. The left hates the right. The right hates the left and when you are moderate you tend to piss of both sides. ;)

[1300 Class]

moderate you tend to piss of both sides.
+1 Quoted for lol factor.

[Anguisette]

Some of my best friends are liberals. I have them in my home and everything.

I don't let them have shrimp or use the bathrooms or anything, but still...

[HappyFatChick]

I don't hate the left. I just disagree with most of their stances. I have many friends who are liberal/democrat. I just pray for them. As I do for my conservative/Republican friends.

[TraciJo67]

I don't hate the left. I just disagree with most of their stances. I have many friends who are liberal/democrat. I just pray for them. As I do for my conservative/Republican friends.

How very patronizing of you.

What I'd like to know, HFC, is who you are. You began posting a few months ago - right around the time that Hyde Park was introduced. You didn't introduce yourself at all, and your first few posts are quite ... uh, familiar ... to say the least. You immediately acted as if you knew people here.

Have you ever posted under another name? Like, for example, Mindy? Or MickeyB?

[Wayne_Zitkus]

I don't hate the left. I just disagree with most of their stances. I have many friends who are liberal/democrat. I just pray for them. As I do for my conservative/Republican friends.
And I don't hate the right. That being said, I hate what the right in general (and Bush in particular) has done to my country.

[1300 Class]

I don't hate the left. I just disagree with most of their stances. I have many friends who are liberal/democrat. I just pray for them. As I do for my conservative/Republican friends.

I certainly hope not that they change their stance.:(

[Miss Vickie]

I don't hate the left. I just disagree with most of their stances. I have many friends who are liberal/democrat. I just pray for them. As I do for my conservative/Republican friends.

Are you more respectful of them and their points of view than you are with us here? Do you take every opportunity to belittle their choices, to make grand generalizations about their beliefs and their morals?