This is the sort of thing which condemn the bush administration to history as a bad thing for the planet in general.

If the Bush administration is to be condemned for anything then it should be direct policy decisions, not the actions of individual soldiers. If they ordered torture then that is perhaps something to pursue in court.

However, if the soldiers down there were being abusive on their own (ie- not because of orders) then they should be the ones facing responsibility for it (and perhaps there direct supervisors). It's difficult to tell who was allowing what without being directly involved in the situation.

Woah! He doesn't look like his photo.

Apparently, the guards at Gitmo are much better fed than the prisoners.


On a serious note, I didn't hear anything that I was shocked about in this interview. Didn't hear any grosse injustice, but I'm still glad Obama is closing it.

>> ^Psychologic:
If the Bush administration is to be condemned for anything then it should be direct policy decisions, not the actions of individual soldiers. If they ordered torture then that is perhaps something to pursue in court.
However, if the soldiers down there were being abusive on their own (ie- not because of orders) then they should be the ones facing responsibility for it (and perhaps there direct supervisors). It's difficult to tell who was allowing what without being directly involved in the situation.



It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.

Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf


It's right there. It wasn't just individual soldiers. It was a policy that came from the top down. During Nuremberg, the Int'l courts decided that prosecuting every single German soldier who went against international conventions on treating detainess would just be ludicrous. That's why they only went after commanders.

^ >> ^volumptuous:
It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.
Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.


I understand that part, but that isn't what this guy is talking about. He wasn't describing interrogations (which is what the memo was aimed at), he was talking about the general treatment of detainees.

I doubt the medic was ordered to punch any detainee that refused to eat... he was probably just pissed off and figured he wouldn't get in trouble.

I hate that torture was prescribed as an interrogation technique and I wouldn't disagree with an investigation into the policies that the administration put into place, but I also can't blame Bush for every individual decision that each soldier there made.

^ I totally understand what you're saying. But I think the point here is that while "enhanced interrogation" was ordered from the very top, it was also stated again and again on television and elsewhere that the Geneva Convetion doesn't apply to "enemy combatants".

Many statements like that were tossed around from Gonzales on up to Bush himself. This created a systemic problem with detainee abuse, not just with interrogators, but at every level at GITMO.

This puzzle has many pieces of many different shapes and sizes.

see: Paradigm

Tackling and force feeding prisoners!

Yes indeed Brandon, the people have the right to know that Americans are some of the most honourable combatants in world history.

i was put in a similar situation. I was stationed at two different Enemy prisoner of war camps, or E.P.W's in military jargon. I was apart of an engineering batalion, and it was our job to build and maintain these camps. I witnessed brutality on wide sliding scale. From food deprevation, to not giving the prisoners any shade all day in the summer desert. To acts of physical brutality, it was a kind of sport, likened to dog fighting. The prisoners were placed in an area that was enclosed by a circle on consentina wire...or razor wire i think is similar. Soldiers would stand around the outside of the wire and taunt, beat, and humiliate these guys. It was all in the name of a good laugh..and they did laugh. They would try to instigate fights among prisoners in the circle by handing out lunch rations...the trick was that there would always be one ration short. Like musical chairs. I saw the prisoners fight each other for food but it seemed like a show, they're wasn't any brutal animosity..It was done out of nessesity, like a father spanking a child, they're was an emotionasl control that the priosoners maintained. If a prisoner was known to be a fighter he would get special treatment. Sticks were thrown into the ring, in the hopes that a more violent bloodshed would ensue, thankfully it never happened, while I was there anyway. I watched through binoculars with my section sergent, and a few others in my platoon. My sergent would get the same thrill out of watching as the men standing outside the wire...Sad days. I never spoke out while there, because honestly I felt like the only one who was upset by it. There was a mob mentality, that if you expressed any remorse for the prisoners that you were weak, or a fag. And even if I did report the acts to anyone with brass, they would'nt do a damn thing about it...after all they didn't want to risk looking like a fag to their higher-ups. In my opinion most commisioned officers are most concerned with getting promoted, getting to that next level of achievement, and they would sacrafice anything to get there, so long as they looked good to the big brass. Yeah I definitly think selifish attitudes were overriding any desire to help those poor bastards. Unlike the guy on the tape, talking about those incidents to peers has the opposite affect. It's best for me to bury those feelings and memories. When I do, I feel a little more normal, but once I start telling the stories, and friends/girlfriends get an idea of what its like they treat me differently. I just want to be like everyone else is all. I don't want be president of any chapters, I don't want to give lectures at universities. And when people don't know about the incidents I went through I feel a little more like a normnal person. not someone who needs to be coddled, or pittied, or given special treatment. I think anyone who wants to know the truth about what's going on out there, just has to open a book, or read the paper. I commend this guy, he's doing something about it, good for him. But i very very rarely open myself up like that where friends and family might see it.

>> ^highdileeho:
I never spoke out while there, because honestly I felt like the only one who was upset by it. There was a mob mentality, that if you expressed any remorse for the prisoners that you were weak, or a fag.


Yea, it's hard to convince people in such a situation that they shouldn't treat people like that, even when there is a good chance that those prisoners were likely responsible for american deaths.

Both sides see the other in simplistic terms and feel that they can force their opponents to be less aggressive. I don't know what the answer is, but treating prisoners terribly only serves to make people hate us more.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America; nothing new there.

Boy, I was expecting graphic stories of beatings, starvation, etc. Instead I see Corporal Twinkie here talking about one head punch and some scrape-ups, due to cruel soldiers attempting to UNLOCK handcuffs on one prisoner and FEED another.

It's really telling that the captive in the first story thought he was going to be executed. If the poor guy got his news of the West from the New York Slimes I wouldn't blame him.

Regardless of how much the ACLU whines to the contrary, Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them. The ones that have been released quickly rejoin--that's REjoin--their jihad. So fk' em, feed 'em fish heads. I'm more ashamed of Obama's end-runs around the Constitution to nationalize everything and the liberal media's refusal to do their job.

Ya know what QM? You will never be a highdileeho.

He put his life on the line for his country, and will never have the same bloodthirst that you spout here.

I have nothing more to say to people like you. Just read what highdileeho said, that should be enough.

I thought BillO left.

anyway. highdileeho, you are just a man. you did what you had to do.

you hit the nail on the head: selifish attitudes overriding any desire to help poor bastards.

"Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them."

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

More reading material - http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_2110.jsp and http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/detainees.documents/index.html

A bit off topic, but Maddow is not better than O'Reilly. I can't stand the snidely way "news" is reported today. Somewhere, in the late 80's/early 90's, a decision was made, for whatever reason, that news had to be more entertaining. Shows like A Current Affair, etc. has had an incredible impact on the sanctity of journalism and have really destroyed credibility and impartiality.

In other words, this is "news" for lazy people, who either refuse to, or can't, think for themselves. And while Fox is still the worst at it, this shit isn't far behind.

Alright, off my soapbox.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America; nothing new there.
Boy, I was expecting graphic stories of beatings, starvation, etc. Instead I see Corporal Twinkie here talking about one head punch and some scrape-ups, due to cruel soldiers attempting to UNLOCK handcuffs on one prisoner and FEED another.
It's really telling that the captive in the first story thought he was going to be executed. If the poor guy got his news of the West from the New York Slimes I wouldn't blame him.
Regardless of how much the ACLU whines to the contrary, Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them. The ones that have been released quickly rejoin--that's REjoin--their jihad. So fk' em, feed 'em fish heads. I'm more ashamed of Obama's end-runs around the Constitution to nationalize everything and the liberal media's refusal to do their job.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
A bit off topic, but Maddow is not better than O'Reilly. I can't stand the snidely way "news" is reported today. Somewhere, in the late 80's/early 90's, a decision was made, for whatever reason, that news had to be more entertaining. Shows like A Current Affair, etc. has had an incredible impact on the sanctity of journalism and have really destroyed credibility and impartiality.
In other words, this is "news" for lazy people, who either refuse to, or can't, think for themselves. And while Fox is still the worst at it, this shit isn't far behind.
Alright, off my soapbox.


I think Olbermann described the situation well. By the time shows like his or O'Reilly's come on everyone already knows what happened during the day. Hardly anyone waits until 8pm or later to see what is going on.

Early in the day you see news "reporting", but in the evening it is more news "analyzing". Maddow does lean a bit to the left, and she's less likely to agree with anything a Republican says, but I can't get mad about it. Her show is opinion more than news, and as long as you go into it with that mindset then it is a little less disagreeable.

Ya know what QM? You will never be a highdileeho.

My karma is different from his. I respect his decision to serve and he has to live with his life decisions like everyone else. Same with Corporal Twinkie, who is doing his brothers and sisters a grave disservice, even if he is sincere. If any of you think the war against this SCUM is anywhere near over, guess again. Jihadists don't give up until they're dead. Or you're dead. Or both.

He put his life on the line for his country, and will never have the same bloodthirst that you spout here.

My "bloodthirst" is mostly limited to jihadist fktards who want to kill Americans and other civilized peoples. That's the price I gladly pay for not being a moral relativist: recognizing there is real evil in the world, and that this world has real consequences for appeasement stupidity.

I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

Well, guess what, the dumbshts in the legal system have been wrong plenty of times before. They tried this bullsht with captured Nazi spies, that is, attempting to give them Constitutional rights, but the country was more sane in the 1940s and instead they were dealt with properly.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

Ah, so that's acceptable to you, those "small" numbers? How many a-holes did it take to bring about 9-11? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count, because the 9-11 jihadist scum were from Country X and not Country Z. Brilliant reasoning, libs.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

Well, given the choice of calling this a real war against a real enemy or "Bush's Game" I'll gladly err on the side of real war. Let the animals run wild and free over some "clever" legal ACLU wrangling and before long you won't have a society to defend.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

LOOKIT ME EVERYONE!...I'M TALKIN' TOUGH...ON THE INTERNETS. I CALL YOU NAME!

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

I understand the "feelings" of Gitmo detainees and nothing they do surprises me. Go to any prison in America and you'll find plenty of the same resentment, since every one of those guys is ALSO not guilty! They'll tell you so! They were set up!

Why do liberals act surprised that there is real hatred towards jihadist animals sawing off heads, homicide bombing, beating women, honor killing, etc.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America first and "the oppressed" last. They just don't see this, the way a fish can't see the water. Maybe they're too fking far gone to notice, who knows. NYC could be suitcase nuked tomorrow and they'd use Gitmo to justify it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.


LOL, sorry I missed this. What? Now you are a "veteran"? WTF, bullsh-t. You would have claimed this in the past if there was any truth. Do you mean you were in ROTC at Liberty Community College and then dropped out before you signed the papers your third year?

You mean you served in the US military? (that does not mean Utah state militia)

is this the start of a new 'here we go again'?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Bagram-Is-there-much-difference

I am a veteran of the Gulf War and I traveled extensively inside Iraq and Kuwait while I was active. My experience is that it is not the "horrors of war" that are mind boggling, but the fact that the horrors are so quickly forgotten and then made normal. This constantly ups the possibility of abuse, and ethics are thrown out the window. In fact it is true "freedom" from ethics, in a very scary sense. People become what they truly are, and it is usually not pretty.

While in Iraq, we played cards with dead Iraqis laying just a few meters away, guys placed water bottles on bodies where their heads used to be (just to be funny), and some even shot dogs for fun. I heard first hand stories of guys using 50 cals on surrendering, white flag waving, Iraqis. We saw little children with their legs blown off from cluster-bombs (note: children where all over the battlefield). Extreme stuff by any standard, but normal during a war. Even after seeing the "Highway of Death" (google it) the most scaring thing for me was the fact that so much effort could go towards pure destruction. Travel to Mars, eliminate world hunger, cure cancer, NO. Destroy the people and infrastructure of a captive nation. YES!

WAR = TERROR!

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.


Says it all really.

Serve your country, warm an armchair.

Transferring my comment from the dupe:

I'm not saying torture hasn't happened there. But let me get this guy's story straight. The big confession .. the revelation of torture that lands him on Rachel Maddow ..

A prisoner (alleged terrorist) was ordered several times through an interpreter to stop moving, and he did, but when your partner goes to unlock his cuffs the prisoner lunges at you and you face plant him. That's torture? I'd call that healthy human instinct. Who here wouldn't do that? What would you do? Let the prisoner lunge at you and hope for the best? He had some some scratches and bruises the next day? Well, that's to be expected when you lunge at a guard and get tackled to the ground.

Let's move on to the other "torture". A medic was making his rounds to provide care and feed Ensure to the prisoners who were malnourished. Of course this is a travesty and not in keeping with the usual rusty blade to saw off your head treatment and then the dragging of your dead body through town that our guys get .. but hey .. that's the U.S.A. for ya.

So the medic is trying to feed this ungrateful prick but instead it winds up spilling everywhere because this scumbag won't drink it. So he "struck him one time in the side of face". Wow. Well that is just awful.
Was it wrong? Sure .. but not quite "torture".

Maybe if he was water boarded with Ensure there would be something to talk about.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.