Bushites Split As Gitmo Abuses Continue

We must treat mass murderers and cold-blooded criminals with more respect. Why don't we just execute them to save them from additional possible humiliation? Nothing else is good enough for them. Please let them continue the hunger strike!

 

While we're executing people that haven't even been convicted of a crime why not go one better and execute their children too, after all we Americans know beyond a reasonable doubt they will all commit horrible acts just as soon as they're able to walk across the open borders.

 

If we really wanted to "humiliate" them, we would take away their taxpayer funded Qurans and prayer mats and read the Bible to them in Arabic over loudspeakers. It should also be mandatory for them to see the Jesus Film.

Maybe some of them would get saved.

I do not believe the "reports" of abuse towards Gitmo detainees. I do believe the reports of our young troops who are required to "guard" them. They are subject to "annointing" by these detainees - human waste and bodily fluids hurled at them, for one thing.

It is an insult to our soldiers to even insinuate they are abusing the detainees at Gitmo and it really makes me angry to hear these allegations - which have been proven to be false and is enemy propaganda.

Interview with Gitmo chaplain:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160213,00.html

 

One of my sons was a Marine during the Gulf War. My second son came of age at about that time.

When Clinton was elected, I urged my oldest to finish his tour and get out. I counceled my other young son against serving in the military while Clinton was president.

Why put your life on the line at the behest of a CIC that openly despised the military?

I honor you service. Especially at that time.

 

Brother, I appreciate your service to our country and respect your comments very much!

I agree with much of what you wrote but I wanted to echo the particular truth in the statement quoted. I could claim we were greatly "humiliated" in basic and advanced training much less in the duty that followed. What happened at Abu Ghriab and GITMO is NOT torture!

It's very difficult for those who haven't been there to relate to this. Some do understand but many have a very naive view of how things should be or how they really are. They never been faced with the violent confrontations of war much less an enemy like the terrorits who have no since of any law whatsoever.

The "whiz kids" that came to control our military during the Kennedy era introduced the concept of "limited war" and set new expectations that war could be "managed" like a business process. We're still suffering somewhat from that line of thinking. Now, on top of that, we have many who are trying to treat terrorism as a criminal problem. They seem often more concerned with the "rights" of these "criminals" that with attaining the absolute victory necessary to preserve the liberty and justice we've worked so hard and so long to attain.

 

The United States of America agreed to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The US laws promulgated to support this agreement, in full accordance with the agreement, clearly define torture to mean:

Note carefully what constitutes torture and recognize that anything less than what is defined is absolutely NOT torture.

Conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act are the type of charges made from the misbehavior of our troops at the Abu Ghraib prison. These things were wrong - that's why the military investigated, tried, and punished their own - but they were NOT torture. Maintaining proper discipline of our own conduct is very important. However, relative to the overall fight on our hands these incidents hae received far too much attention and the energy expended upon them detracts from the goal at hand. We need to stay focused on the mission.

The use of extraordinary interrogation tactics may be approved by proper authority but these tactics do NOT include torture. They also don't include physical beatings or sexual humiliation. They do, however, permit aggressive interrogation which isn't very comfortable for the person being interrogated. Some persons would like to expand the definition of humiliation to include these tactics. That would be a fatal mistake which would harm our ability to obtain valuable intelligence from detainees. Approval of the extraordinary tactics, which are completely legal, is required to provide just one more safeguard for the proper handling of detainees.

In the field, things - not the same misconduct as seen in Abu Ghraib - do happen. Frankly, if you haven't been there it's hard to understand. Errors are made from time to time but most of them are well intentioned. It might seem very easy in retrospect but it's not for the person on the line at the time. We need to understand this when we judge those incidents.

It is interesting to note that many countries have not agreed to the UN Convention. Iraq - Saddam's Iraq - was one of those. Terrorists, of course, not being a recognized state, could neither agree or disagree. I think we know where their cold hearted nature lies. America, on the other hand, has always been a leader in seeking and implementing improvements in the handling of prisoners of war and other detainees. We're not perfect and among us there are those who break the rules. However, we keep making improvements and we do investigate, prosecute, and punish infractions of the law.

 

We will give them a military trial just as FDR did to the German spies landed on American soil during WW II. After the trial in Washington DC, FDR executed them. And FDR was a liberal Democrat deluxe and even slept with his secretary.

 

Here a link to the Navy about some of the Germans landed on US soil during WW II:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-3.htm

 

Here is the FBI report, including pictures of the 8 malefactors, 6 of whom were executed by FDR; moral of the story--out of uniform, you are a spy and you die.

The eight were tried before a Military Commission, comprised of seven U.S. Army officers appointed by President Roosevelt, from July 8, to August 4, 1942. The trial was held in the Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. The prosecution was headed by Attorney General Frances Biddle and the Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Myron C. Cramer. Defense counsel included Colonel Kenneth C. Royall (later Secretary of War under President Truman) and Major Lausen H. Stone (son of Harlan Fiske Stone, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).

All eight were found guilty and sentenced to death. Attorney General Biddle and J. Edgar Hoover appealed to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. Dasch then received a 30-year sentence, and Burger received a life sentence, both to be served in a federal penitentiary. The remaining six were executed at the District of Columbia Jail on August 8, 1942.

Link:

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm

 

The fate of William Colepaugh and Erich Gimpel, who landed from a U-boat (Under-seas boat) in Maine in 1944.

Sentenced to hang but spared by the death of FDR and the end of the war:

"Eventually President Harry S. Truman computed their death sentences to life in prison but ultimately even that was reduced. Colepaugh, an American defector, served 15 years in Leavenworth. Gimpel served 10 years in Attica prison and then was deported to Brazil.

Unlike six earlier captured WWII German spies sentenced to death, Colepaugh and Gimpel had survived. The earlier six were executed after the U.S. Supreme Court -- in an opinion delivered for the court by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) -- upheld the FDR-established military commission process by which they were tried, convicted and sentenced. It was in this opinion that, as cited earlier in this web presentation, the case of Confederate spy John Y. Beall, executed on Governors Island, was so succinctly summarized. Interest in the Stone court decision of 1942 regarding military commissions trying spies and saboteurs has heightened in the wake of 9/11."


http://www.correctionhistory.org/civilwar/governorsisland/frame_main5.html

 

You cannot spin yourself out of what humiliation is
as some frat prank...or hazing that is harmless
humiliation is what it is.. humiliation.

Humiliation is a distinctly valuable interrogation tool.

We as Christians should
guarantee we should never humiliate and to a
nation on that slippery slope we should be a light
to show them the way out and head for higher ground.

Complete nonsense, and treasonous in that it would cost American lives. Humiliation, when applied properly is good.

We as Christian who rightly divide the word know
Jesus was humiliated by the Romans ...yet he was
innocent and kept his word and was submissive to
the Father. We should never plant seeds in this
country that humiliation has degrees to it ..that
is a lie and we should not allow the seeds to
even germinate and bear its rotten fruit which
I think is Eds Salient point.

Who are you accusing of "Rightly dividing?" Certainly not the baptists on here, unless I'm mistaken. All manner of vile things are not only effective war tools but are proper and necessary. The logic you vent about this would lead to only one inescapable alternative, and that is to take no prisoners, and that would be wrong.
Perhaps we forget the heart of the enemy in this confrontation, ya think maybe?

We should repent
from it 1. because it is wrong 2. It doesn't seem
to work 3. Only creates more bad will and potential hatred that may manifest itself in
revenge and vengeance.

Repent from milktoast attitudes like this. It is not wrong, would work very effectivly, if left to the military without public interference. They already have a full measure of hatred, and no more perceived bad will, will add to it. A tougher stand will only increase their unwillingness to confront.

It does not mean turning over ..it does mean
good interrogation...with holding freedom...out
smarting them...using our technology...alliances
with peace loving Muslims who reject violent
Islam. It means hunting down Islamic killers
and killing them in a surgical way ..which we
have high capabilities and sometimes without
a finger print.

Keep the diplomacy for the "peace loving Muslims" seperate from the war making efforts against the radicals. Remember some of these "peace loving Muslim's send their children to Israel with explosive vests on. (OK fire away)

I think these radicals know that to further enrage GWB would be great folly. They already know that he will destroy them on a far greater scale than they ever imagined. That is not to say they wouldn't perpetrate another attack if it seemed worthy of the price they would be forced to pay. I think they will save their greatest wrath for the next POTUS.

 

We will give them a military trial just as FDR did to the German spies landed on American soil during WW II. After the trial in Washington DC, FDR executed them. And FDR was a liberal Democrat deluxe and even slept with his secretary. </font>[/QUOTE]Then try them, convict them and hang them preferably in public. That's what people that are guilty of this type of crime should expect and receive. But the way some folks talk around here everyone is guilty and should be executed before any trial even takes place. Reminds me of the western lynch mobs.

 

AMEN, Brohter ASLANSPAL -- Preach it!!

 

Thank you for the definition of 'torture' Brother
Dragoon68. I see no difference between a torturer
and a terrorist. I dare say the peaceful majority
of citizens of the world see no difference either.

Torture and humiliation are NOT American
family values.

 

Then try them, convict them and hang them preferably in public. That's what people that are guilty of this type of crime should expect and receive. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No. That gratifies their wish for martyrdom.

Instead, take them at an unannounced time to an unannounced place and execute them. Then bury them in unmarked graves or at sea. And never look back.

 

No, do it in public! On television use pigs blood on the ropes and in the grave, maybe even a large injection of it before the hanging but do it in public so they can see first hand what happens to guilty terrorists and the American people can see justice done.

 

That's right, Carpro! What would ultra-liberal, womanizing FDR do? Answer, FDR would hang them just as FDR ordered hanged the German spies that landed at Long Island, New York, Jacksonville, Florida, and Frenchman's Bay, Maine. It is a great idea that you have, Carpro, to bury them at sea, maybe in Cuban waters!

 

Good observation, Ed Edwards! Torture is, indeed, a tool of terrorism. Terrorists have no hesitation in using it.

Be glad that America does NOT use torture and that the misbehavior at Abu Ghraib was NOT torture. Be glad that American is good enough to correct its mistakes and disciple its own when, as individuals, they step outside what is lawful conduct in war.

Perhaps, now you see the difference between torture and humiliation?

Next: Authorized interrogation tactics are NOT humiliation in the context detractors want to use it.

 

No such unlawful theatrics should be pursued. Justice - and war is the ulitmate execution of justice - is very different than vengence. The difference rests in the motives and attitudes. Justice is solemn but very firm. It will be upheld in history. Vengence is uncontrolled and wild. It will be regretted soon afterwards. All we need to do is put captured terrorists before a military tribal, convict them where guilty, and execute them humanly in accordance with the law of war.