apparently now A-0K to the new regime in DC.
'
Posted on 01/14/2009 1:18:12 AM PST by gondramB
A Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo Bay says the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Washington Post reported.
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," Susan J. Crawford told the Post. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
Crawford is the first senior Bush administration official who investigates Guantanamo dealings to publicly say a detainee was tortured.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The liberal bleeding hearts protest the possibility of returning subhuman feces like this prisoner back to his HOME in Saudi Arabia. Instead, they want them in the USA, of course not where they happen to live. The ultimate placement of these monsters will be interesting to watch unfold.
Poor President Bush. He chose the metaphor of "war" without being prepared, and without preparing the People, to fight one.
FDR had the German terrorists arrested, interrogated to confession, tried, appealed, reviewed by the Supreme Court, and electrocuted in six weeks from the time they got their feet wet at Amagansett.
If you're interested in what taking the nation to war means, study FDR's first month of executive orders from 12/8/41-1/7/42. Total peace to total war in a can, so to speak.
I personally don't care what happens to the enemy at Gitmo (that's just me, I know it's an issue, I just can't muster any interest in it).
But to send them there with no plan - to, in essence, surrender to the cowardly view that if they were brought to US territory that lawyers and courts could be allowed supremacy over the War Power of the People of the United States, and then to have no plan to kill them once their usefulness to us was finished - that was the act of a bumbling adolescent, not a Commander-in-Chief.
This absurdity of some girl lawyer kicking him in the ass as he goes out the door follows from what went before.
...torture is cruel as defined by the Constitution.
What Constitution?
Our 8th Amendment does ban “cruel and unusual punishments”, but at the time such punishments as cutting off an ear, branding with a hot iron, stocks and pillories were common and accepted. People accepted these as necessary - something had to be done to law breakers. Note: our Constitution only speaks to punishment, not interrogations.
Jails were used to hold suspects until trial, not for long term detention. Our first prison wasn’t established until 1790 in Philadelphia. Prisons were still rare and it wasn’t until the 19th century that more were added.
War sucks. War is when laws are no longer being followed, therefore rules of what is torture and what isn’t should be best left to the discretion of those in the field, who need the information the most.
Gitanamo is an example of America’s humanity toward human beings. We are a kind people. Most of these vermin would have had a bullet in the head in on the battlefield if they didn’t want to talk, not simply detained and sent to Club Gitmo.
I say torture, as this is a war. This is not a law and order issue. This is a do-what-it-takes to win. I hate it, too, but it must be done.
He was and is a non uniformed combatant and therefore should have been executed. How’s that for torture, Susan?
There is a difference between killing the enemy and torturing the enemy. You are either intentionally confusing them or are (as you admitted) not intelligent enough to differentiate.
One is a necessary action in defense of one’s own life.
The other is a sadistic practice proven to have little or no use other than to fulfill the desire for vengeance on the part of those aggrieved and the sexual deviant perversions of the torturer. It also degrades the entire people who the torturer represents to the level of the enemy.
Supreme Court Sides With Gitmo Detainees
Bush Unhappy With 5-4 Ruling That Foreign Terror Suspects Can Challenge Detention
(CBS/ AP) In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Take no prisoners. End of story.
I don't understand that phrase. What is she talking about?
'
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.
— George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
“Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”
And then the formation of some helium.
Cheers!
He still has his head , right ?
By this definition, a wife's nagging could be called torture. Where's the UN when you need them?
On a serious note, I would point out that water boarding a 21 year old terrorist in good health would have a different effect than water boarding a 50 year old with asthma. Who gets to make that distinction?
“ ...(chortle)”
It should be against the law (and it is)......
....And then those who are entrusted to protect our nation should go ahead and do it anyway if the situation warrants (potential or actual imminent danger).
....And if they are tried they should be exonerated.
Well, you and I agree that this is a war - but, in the legal sense of the term, it appears that the People of the United States, through their Representatives in Congress assembled and their Electoral College, do not.
It is my view that the failure to engage the War Power of the People of the United States is entirely George W. Bush's fault, and that it is due in part to his Christian socialist internationalism and in part to his incompetence.
Do you believe that the War Power of the People of the United States and the military prerogatives of the Commander-in-Chief are subordinate to the Supreme Court?
What is your evidence for that belief, if you hold it?
Hey, that sounds like My first winter semester at a Michigan public university.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.