CIA agent accused of raping Muslim woman

[Sherry]

I am sure you are right. I was not implying it personally to you or anyone, just my observation. But if you go back through the thread, the rapes seems to be a side issue. It became about Gitmo, Bush, and a personal thing between others.

As a woman, I have found this quite interesting and rather sad.

But hey it's more important to push your political opinion than worry about a little thing like rape.

[Tim Elston]

But hey it's more important to push your political opinion than worry about a little thing like rape.

One party has successfully politicized the killing of unborn infants. The other party has successfully politicized arbitrary incarceration and torture. At least all Americans can still see that rape involves the sanctity of human life and is something more than a political opinion.

[Sherry]

But hey it's more important to push your political opinion than worry about a little thing like rape.

One party has successfully politicized the killing of unborn infants. The other party has successfully politicized arbitrary incarceration and torture. At least all Americans can still see that rape involves the sanctity of human life and is something more than a political opinion.

If as you say

At least all Americans can still see that rape involves the sanctity of human life and is something more than a political opinion

then why did this post become about your personal agenda, again? Was it or was it not about the drugging & raping of at least two Muslim women? I'm just curious if this thread would have gone differently if the headline read men were raped.

[MacUser]

One party has successfully politicized the killing of unborn infants. The other party has successfully politicized arbitrary incarceration and torture

Correction. Some have attempted to define it all a mess my friend... but not all are so easily manipulated.

Most fully understand what happens in an Abortion Clinic and what happens while at Gitmo. One dies and one survives. On ORDERS from our new visionary President.. one gets full international support to continue the death toll of the truly innocent with our tax dollars and the terrorists / enemies on the battlefield get released.

Beam me up Scotty.

[Shellie]

tim wrote:

One party has successfully politicized the killing of unborn infants. The other party has successfully politicized arbitrary incarceration and torture.

Yeah, those are comparable.

[Tim Elston]

Yeah, those are comparable.

They have a common denominator: Their moral reprehensibility lies in the value and dignity of human life.

[Shellie]

They have a common denominator: Their moral reprehensibility lies in the value and dignity of human life.

Human life that is innocent and human life that isn't so innocent. We've just made the denominator less common.

[Tim Elston]

Human life that is innocent and human life that isn't so innocent. We've just made the denominator less common.

I'm talking about the innocent ones, which makes the denominator common indeed. And even the guilty should be dignified with charges, trials, and sentences. Our society dignifies itself by offering such basic rights.

[Full Quiver]

Tim, concerning GITMO and the "innocent" men that were detained there I ask you this. If they were innocent then how did we ever find out they were except they were proven so in some way, shape, or form?

How many AMERICANS have been incarcerated and later proven innocent? COUNTLESS! I don't hear you daily crying foul over this and it happens all the time. Innocent Americans are tailed, followed, and near harassed as detectives investigate crimes. Why are you not outraged by this?

In my opinion the worst thing Bush ever did, and I don't like him, was bring this scum to GITMO. He should have never breathed a word about having these people. They should have been held secretly and whatever needed to be done to get them to talk should have happened.

One more question. Do you think you could have personally done better? Could you have prosecuted this war and questioned all these men suitably, humanely, ethically, etc. to your own expectations of others and kept us safe?

I figured we'd see attack after attack here in the US but we didn't. Now Obama wants to meet with idiots abroad and talk. How do you talk rationally with insane people like Mahmoud? The only thing Obama will accomplish is to convince the enemy that we have become just as lax as Israel and things like rocket attacks into our neighborhoods are just fine. Israel has sat down and talked with these same thugs for decades now and to NO AVAIL. Now we are going to adopt the same stupid policy and open ourselves up to the same tragic ending.

[Tim Elston]

Tim, concerning GITMO and the "innocent" men that were detained there I ask you this. If they were innocent then how did we ever find out they were except they were proven so in some way, shape, or form?

Many of them were cleared through the military tribunals and sent home. Others became too politically charged to hold because of intense pressure by NGOs to allow visits and interviews with prisoners. Others more recently were released after the Supreme Court ruled that the executive was holding uncharged men illegally. Some are still being held and, because of this Supreme Court decision, will soon have their day in court.

How many AMERICANS have been incarcerated and later proven innocent? COUNTLESS! I don't hear you daily crying foul over this and it happens all the time. Innocent Americans are tailed, followed, and near harassed as detectives investigate crimes. Why are you not outraged by this?

You don't hear from me daily about Guantanamo, but you hear about it from me frequently, most often in response to quips and criticisms of people like me who care about it, or as a point of hypocrisy for those who care about unborn human life but don't care about born human life if that human life falls under the condemnation of prejudiced sentiment. I agree that justice is often a travesty in this country. What sets Guantanamo apart is that our executive branch went to lengths to define a zone under which human beings were held at the arbitrary discretion of the executive, apart from legal accountability and safeguards. I have raised the issue of police brutality, unjust imprisonment in America, and cautionary statements about the death penalty, but since those issues fall off of the media radar and are not as frontal lobed as presidential politics, I don't think about them as often, and they don't elicit as much controversy in the public domain. The issues you raise are important, and if you would raise them as concerns undoubtedly I would share your concerns more often than not. Unjust imprisonment is a travesty. But at least the president hasn't designated Washington D.C. as a law free zone where he incarcerates Americans arbitrarily without charge or legal representation. We need to fix our criminal justice system in ways that aren't on our radar very often, but at least there is a system for Americans to work on.

In my opinion the worst thing Bush ever did, and I don't like him, was bring this scum to GITMO. He should have never breathed a word about having these people. They should have been held secretly and whatever needed to be done to get them to talk should have happened.

You seem to be presuming that everyone who was held at Guantanamo was a terrorist. In actuality only a minority were terrorists. Some were innocent and were sold to pad the pockets of bounty hunters. Some were merely defending their country from an invasion by another country and had never had anything to do with terrorism. Others were terrorists, and whether we like it or not, we owe it to ourselves even to grant the greatest criminals with a trial. That's the American way, and it is the right way.

One more question. Do you think you could have personally done better? Could you have prosecuted this war and questioned all these men suitably, humanely, ethically, etc. to your own expectations of others and kept us safe?

As far as I know, and I think that it is safe to presume, neither President Bush, nor Dick Cheney, nor Donald Rumsfeld ever interrogated a Guantanamo detainee. Leading the war as the Defense Secretary and Commander in Chief is completely separate from interrogation operations. With that in mind, on a leadership level, yes, I believe that an executive decision not to re-define torture to be anything short of death would have been better. Not to have promoted an ethos of prisoner mistreatment and torture that led to homicides would have been better. Not to withhold POW status to Afghans caught in war would have been better. Not to establish a law free zone to hold prisoners under no national or international legal standards would have been better. Not to have diverted money and the military to a strategic war against a nation that was not responsible for 9/11 at a time when all of our resources should have been allocated to the war against those who had attacked us would have been better. Not to have engaged in a campaign of falsifying intelligence to sell the Iraq war to the American public would have been better. Not to have stonewalled the Army generals' assessment that more, not less, troops were needed to succeed in Iraq would have been better. Not to have been disingenuous in pre-Iraq-war diplomacy would have been better. Not to have done any of these things would have been better, and I, and probably you, would not have done them.

[TC]

You avoided my question; What heappens in YOUR MIND if it were to be proven (I would say WHEN it will be proven) they are NOT innocent before and return to their evil ways???

That's why we have due process: to determine guilt or innocence. All men should be tried. Guilty men should be sentenced. Innocent men should be let go. If through due process a man were to be determined by evidence to be guilty, then he should be sentenced. Difficult concept for some people, apparently.

I am not sure why you are saying WE have due process, because most of those held are not part of WE, they are do not play by our rules, so why should we apply our rules to protect them?

I think WE (the US) should apply the same laws to others that they use. I would love for US to treat those from Iran as they treat those NOT from Iran, how about the US apply the same immigration laws mexico applies to those wanting into mexico? As a US citizen you do not have those same rights when you go to other nations, Why should we give US rights (those rights our men and women fought to get for all of us)to people who are not citizens.

The saying goes, "freedom is not Free" Well I guess we need to change it to Freedom is not free, unless you are NOT from the US.

[Full Quiver]

Full Quiver wrote:
Tim, concerning GITMO and the "innocent" men that were detained there I ask you this. If they were innocent then how did we ever find out they were except they were proven so in some way, shape, or form?


Many of them were cleared through the military tribunals and sent home. Others became too politically charged to hold because of intense pressure by NGOs to allow visits and interviews with prisoners. Others more recently were released after the Supreme Court ruled that the executive was holding uncharged men illegally. Some are still being held and, because of this Supreme Court decision, will soon have their day in court.

Thank you for proving to us that they were held for a purpose, to determine whether they were innocent or guilty, and that they were not just being "held" but that they were being questioned which lead to the discovery of either innocence or guilt.

Quote:
How many AMERICANS have been incarcerated and later proven innocent? COUNTLESS! I don't hear you daily crying foul over this and it happens all the time. Innocent Americans are tailed, followed, and near harassed as detectives investigate crimes. Why are you not outraged by this?


You don't hear from me daily about Guantanamo, but you hear about it from me frequently, most often in response to quips and criticisms of people like me who care about it, or as a point of hypocrisy for those who care about unborn human life but don't care about born human life if that human life falls under the condemnation of prejudiced sentiment. I agree that justice is often a travesty in this country. What sets Guantanamo apart is that our executive branch went to lengths to define a zone under which human beings were held at the arbitrary discretion of the executive, apart from legal accountability and safeguards. I have raised the issue of police brutality, unjust imprisonment in America, and cautionary statements about the death penalty, but since those issues fall off of the media radar and are not as frontal lobed as presidential politics, I don't think about them as often, and they don't elicit as much controversy in the public domain. The issues you raise are important, and if you would raise them as concerns undoubtedly I would share your concerns more often than not. Unjust imprisonment is a travesty. But at least the president hasn't designated Washington D.C. as a law free zone where he incarcerates Americans arbitrarily without charge or legal representation. We need to fix our criminal justice system in ways that aren't on our radar very often, but at least there is a system for Americans to work on.

Tim to lump the life and rights of an innocent unborn child in with the rights of a grown human who has made awful choices throughout their life including destroying the lives and rights of others is absurd. To even suggest the notion is disgusting.

Quote:
In my opinion the worst thing Bush ever did, and I don't like him, was bring this scum to GITMO. He should have never breathed a word about having these people. They should have been held secretly and whatever needed to be done to get them to talk should have happened.


You seem to be presuming that everyone who was held at Guantanamo was a terrorist. In actuality only a minority were terrorists. Some were innocent and were sold to pad the pockets of bounty hunters. Some were merely defending their country from an invasion by another country and had never had anything to do with terrorism. Others were terrorists, and whether we like it or not, we owe it to ourselves even to grant the greatest criminals with a trial. That's the American way, and it is the right way.

Funny how you say some were merely defending their country from the invasion of another (the US) but those same people DID NOT merely defend their country from the invasion of Al Quaida and the Taliban nor did they defend against Saddam and his Bathe party. I am not buying that they were innocent civilians that took up arms against an oppressive, imperial regime (the US) and will go back to living normal, quiet lives once the regime leaves. They weren't taking up arms against the existing regimes that the WORLD deemed evil not just the US.

Quote:
One more question. Do you think you could have personally done better? Could you have prosecuted this war and questioned all these men suitably, humanely, ethically, etc. to your own expectations of others and kept us safe?


As far as I know, and I think that it is safe to presume, neither President Bush, nor Dick Cheney, nor Donald Rumsfeld ever interrogated a Guantanamo detainee. Leading the war as the Defense Secretary and Commander in Chief is completely separate from interrogation operations. With that in mind, on a leadership level, yes, I believe that an executive decision not to re-define torture to be anything short of death would have been better. Not to have promoted an ethos of prisoner mistreatment and torture that led to homicides would have been better. Not to withhold POW status to Afghans caught in war would have been better. Not to establish a law free zone to hold prisoners under no national or international legal standards would have been better. Not to have diverted money and the military to a strategic war against a nation that was not responsible for 9/11 at a time when all of our resources should have been allocated to the war against those who had attacked us would have been better. Not to have engaged in a campaign of falsifying intelligence to sell the Iraq war to the American public would have been better. Not to have stonewalled the Army generals' assessment that more, not less, troops were needed to succeed in Iraq would have been better. Not to have been disingenuous in pre-Iraq-war diplomacy would have been better. Not to have done any of these things would have been better, and I, and probably you, would not have done them.

Tim, do you really believe that the CIA and all other "black ops" wings of the US military, etc. does everything by the book? Do you ever speed? Have you ever broken the law when it served your best interest? Could your decision to speed have injured or killed a fellow American? Did your decision to serve your self interest and thus law breaking ever serve as a bad example to others?

The president and Congress for that matter can make all the rules they want but as they say about Vegas, what goes on there stays there and I'd be willing to say that the CIA and the Special Forces are more than capable to do what ever is necessary to get info out of a "detainee" and we nor the president ever know how they did it. Shoot, if I were the CIA my knew line would be, well Mr. President, since we stopped "torturing" these guys they have began to fully cooperate and sing like canaries, wink, wink!

[Tim Elston]

Thank you for proving to us that they were held for a purpose, to determine whether they were innocent or guilty, and that they were not just being "held" but that they were being questioned which lead to the discovery of either innocence or guilt.

Full Quiver, how much have you read about Guantanamo? Anything? I'm not asking to be snide; I'm asking to try to get a baseline on your knowledge about it. I haven't read enough myself. I have not read any books about it; and books are usually the best well-rounded source.

But from the online and magazine articles I have read, my understanding is that there are still over two hundred detainees who have not been granted a military tribunal, and of those detainees only about sixty are awaiting a scheduled tribunal. That's why there are detainees who are getting their first hearing now, seven years after capture, and being found held without charge and without evidence. In some cases even, the tribunals had shown the detainees to be not guilty but the government refused to release them for years, until the federal court ordered them to be released.

All this is why it's called arbitrary incarceration. These men were not granted prisoner of war status. They were detained within a lawless zone at the arbitrary discretion of the President. They included Americans and at least one Canadian. And had the Supreme Court not ordered the executive to grant habeas corpus, the remaining innocent would still have no guarantee and little hope of a hearing, even after so many years.

[Full Quiver]

Tim, Please point to me where these men, picked up on the battlefield waging war against the US and our allies, have ANY rights under our constitution OR the Geneva Convention?

Show me that, then we can talk.

[Tim Elston]

Tim, Please point to me where these men, picked up on the battlefield waging war against the US and our allies, have ANY rights under our constitution OR the Geneva Convention?

Tim Shelton (dolfan) has a post in this thread that explains their Constitutional rights.

But I'm confused about your question regarding the Geneva Convention. It is all about the rights of prisoners of war, so I can only assume that you are implying that they do not have rights under the Geneva Convention because they are not prisoners of war. Yet, you describe them as though they were prisoners of war: "picked up on the battlefield waging war".

Geneva Convention, Article 3.1.d says, "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," is but one of many rights granted by the Geneva Conventions.