I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
With respect, you do not and cannot know that all or even a majority of the people in this prison are guilty of the charges brought against them, and the world will never know, because unlike normal criminals, they don't have to be charged, face committal proceedings, etc. The US Army has to arrest them in order for them to be there. That's it. No explanation; no outside accountability.
Branding them all as "murderers and suspected terrorists" is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
I can go along with most of that, except these were not just shoplifters. These were violent and bad people.
I never said that they weren't bad people. Not that it makes any difference, really. Even a murderer doesn't deserve to get raped in prison.
Quote:
I agree heads should roll, the right heads, but as usual it has turned into a witch hunt.
As opposed to what? It's an orderly inquiry into the situation. The only other option is to just ignore it.
Quote:
I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
No. You're said to be OK with it when you imply that merely being in jail means you ought to expect to be raped and otherwise tortured. The stats I've seen are that a HUGE percentage of these people were there simply for not having paperwork on them when they were stopped at checkpoints. You're said to be OK with it when you argue, as you've just done here, that merely being suspected of being a terrorist means that you should expect to be raped and tortured.
Quote:
I am not convinced that the systematic label applies, yet.
I think you should read the Taguba report before you say something like that.
Quote:
I think that force was used many times without checks and balances to keep soldiers from going too far. That is a bit different than systematic torture.
Make sure you ignore the widely publicized reports that these guys were ordered to do this by MI and that Cambone had authorized these troops to operate under special rules.
Quote:
Come on, who would have thought that there would be an outcry over mistreatment of terrorists?
SUSPECTED terrorists. You simply DO NOT KNOW that they are terrorists. The outcry is over the mistreatment of PRISONERS at the hands of American soldiers. Hell, I don't care if they personally crucified Jesus. They were TORTURED. And you, RIGHT HERE, are saying that it's not that big of a deal.
Quote:
That is kind of an oxy-moron, no? Look at any action movie previous to 9/11 and you will see a systematic torture of terrorists and potential terrorists much to the delight of vast audiences. I feel this aside was not even considered.
You can tell the difference between movies and the real world, right? Right?
With respect, you do not and cannot know that all or even a majority of the people in this prison are guilty of the charges brought against them, and the world will never know, because unlike normal criminals, they don't have to be charged, face committal proceedings, etc. The US Army has to arrest them in order for them to be there. That's it. No explanation; no outside accountability.
Branding them all as "murderers and suspected terrorists" is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
Come on, what are they then?
Cupcake bakers and gardeners?
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
The last two weeks almost 800 people from the Abu Ghraib prison were released... small percentage my ass
Some or maybe even a lot of those will go back to attacking US soldiers or helping.
The move was to appease the politicians and all the knee jerkers here. It is a lose lose for the military people right now.
I think that this war is turning into another Vietnam. I may have to agree with some on that now. However the reason it is we may not agree on.
Numbers range in the 3000/4000. And maybe a lot of the people being released will attack or help.. and maybe it's because of what they endured in prison?
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Don't be ridiculous: of course I'm not suggesting that confectioners and market-gardeners are being picked up. There is, however, a big difference between being, say, a soldier and being someone with a real interest in committing acts of insurgency.
If you're trying to justify human rights violations on the part of the US Army by saying that the victims are guilty of some other crimes, it doesn't really do your case much good to admit that in all probability an unknown percentage the victims didn't in fact commit any crimes. Admitting that this is the case makes your acceptance of their total lack of accountability even more bizarre. It seems that you're willing to accept the perpetration of what even on your terms is gross injustice on a few individuals, for the sake of a "greater good" of torturing "real" terrorists. That's not on.
Why should we trust the US Army to take in real terrorists? As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent chance that they couldn't find their arse with both hands, given their recent glaring demonstrations of incompetence (desert wedding massacres anyone?) and cultural insensitivity (hmm, bullet holes in mosques will help us garner majority support! stories of shocking insults to the religion of prisoners will endear us to all and sundry!)
At any rate, this is beside the point, since the torture of prisoners is both unacceptable for moral and ethical reasons, and a really stupid political move.
. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
Actually, "Mr. Soldier Man, why the fucking hell did you just knock my door down and arrest me and my wife? I was in bed. I have nothing to do with any terrorists." Which is happening again and again and again and again.
They're arresting innocent people. Like the wives of suspects. Who are getting raped from time to time by your soldiers. This is according to Tagouba, so please feel free to take this up with that liar and commie, not me.
By the way, 'Excuse please' is normally the racist lingo for INDIAN people (aka 'wogs') not Iraqis (aka 'sand-niggers'). I know they all look the bloody same, but still.
No. You're said to be OK with it when you imply that merely being in jail means you ought to expect to be raped and otherwise tortured. The stats I've seen are that a HUGE percentage of these people were there simply for not having paperwork on them when they were stopped at checkpoints. You're said to be OK with it when you argue, as you've just done here, that merely being suspected of being a terrorist means that you should expect to be raped and tortured.
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
They don't have time to fool around with people for no reason. In case you don't remember they are working 24/7 to establish rule of law and security all while being in the sights of loonies.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
[BSUSPECTED terrorists. You simply DO NOT KNOW that they are terrorists. The outcry is over the mistreatment of PRISONERS at the hands of American soldiers. Hell, I don't care if they personally crucified Jesus. They were TORTURED. And you, RIGHT HERE, are saying that it's not that big of a deal. [/B]
IT IS A BIG DEAL. I have said that many times. It is just not as big a deal as some want to make it. That's all I am saying. Perspective seems to be what is missing. I am trying to add some perspective. Man?!
Don't be ridiculous: of course I'm not suggesting that confectioners and market-gardeners are being picked up. There is, however, a big difference between being, say, a soldier and being someone with a real interest in committing acts of insurgency.
If you're trying to justify human rights violations on the part of the US Army by saying that the victims are guilty of some other crimes, it doesn't really do your case much good to admit that in all probability an unknown percentage the victims didn't in fact commit any crimes. Admitting that this is the case makes your acceptance of their total lack of accountability even more bizarre. It seems that you're willing to accept the perpetration of what even on your terms is gross injustice on a few individuals, for the sake of a "greater good" of torturing "real" terrorists. That's not on.
Why should we trust the US Army to take in real terrorists? As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent chance that they couldn't find their arse with both hands, given their recent glaring demonstrations of incompetence (desert wedding massacres anyone?) and cultural insensitivity (hmm, bullet holes in mosques will help us garner majority support! stories of shocking insults to the religion of prisoners will endear us to all and sundry!)
At any rate, this is beside the point, since the torture of prisoners is both unacceptable for moral and ethical reasons, and a really stupid political move.
I agree totally with your last statement. Well said.
I am not trying to excuse anyone just trying to put it all into perspective.
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
IT IS A BIG DEAL.
Hmmm. Verifiable information, like say ... fingerprints? Fingerprints GOT THE BASTARD in America who helped out the Madrid bombers. His paws were all over one of the bomb bags!!!!!!!111!!!111
Oh dear. Sorry. This poor man was inside for 17 days because no-one in the States would double-check his fingerprints, despite the fact that the Spanish thought there was a screw up and asked the FBI to do so.
And that wasn't private guards or psycho MI loonies in Abu Ghraib.
"No, you're wrong. I have an alibi. Can I go home now please Mr. Granger?"
"My lord, you're absolutely write Mr. Bimji. Terribly sorry for the thing with the hood and the electrodes! Go straight home, and let's say no more about it."
You are totally out of touch with reality, may I just say that?
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
They don't have time to fool around with people for no reason. In case you don't remember they are working 24/7 to establish rule of law and security all while being in the sights of loonies.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
Seriously, take a step back from this statement, and have a look at what you're proposing:
? the US Army picks you up on suspicion of terrorism: they clearly believe for some reason or other that you (or someone whose description you fit) is implicated;
? on first principles, this isn't likely to happen when you expect it to;
? in the lack of any better evidence of your intentions, personal background, and connections, and given that they may have just dragged you from your bed in the middle of the night, in light of the fact that the Army already thinks you're guilty it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to prove your innocence in any reasonable way, especially because the US Army does not need to demonstrate to anybody that they have good evidence that you are involved.
I suspect that once you're in the hands of the Army, you're basically pretty much f**ked. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good demonstration of the ability of the US to hold people more-or-less indefinitely without really explaining why.
Hmmm. Verifiable information, like say ... fingerprints? Fingerprints GOT THE BASTARD in America who helped out the Madrid bombers. His paws were all over one of the bomb bags!!!!!!!111!!!111
Oh dear. Sorry. This poor man was inside for 17 days because no-one in the States would double-check his fingerprints, despite the fact that the Spanish thought there was a screw up and asked the FBI to do so.
And that wasn't private guards or psycho MI loonies in Abu Ghraib.
"No, you're wrong. I have an alibi. Can I go home now please Mr. Granger?"
"My lord, you're absolutely write Mr. Bimji. Terribly sorry for the thing with the hood and the electrodes! Go straight home, and let's say no more about it."
You are totally out of touch with reality, may I just say that?
Um. 1 guy 17 days. And the result?
he was found to be innocent and let go. His experience was bad, sure. Was it proof that the US is holding people for no reason, I thing it proves just the opposite. I could be wrong, of course.
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
I don't know if you are being specific to Iraq or if you are also including America too.
Sorry I don't have a credible link to this...but what about that Italian immigrant who was taken and detained for 4-6 months...just because he had been arrested years ago (and did jail time for) for a cocaine possession charge? The US authorities believed he was a suspected terrorist because of his past crime (and because of the Patriot Act).
I remember the footage of his release...the crying man was greeted members of his family and much of the community because he was an honest, good and decent member of the community. He yelled, "Why would a country like this do this to me?!"
If a person in this country can be carried off into detention...I can see how much slack a soldier has in grabbing any Iraqi that looks at him the wrong way.
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
Maybe in fantasy land.
Back here in real world america people are imprisoned all the time for crimes they didn't commit.
As for iraq, pfflam already cited the red cross report, to which you responded
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, OK but your own government thinks differently, namely those in charge over there in Iraq.
Except that you apparently haven't actually read the red cross report because the figures come from military intelligence officers, not red cross workers.
And my "own government" doesn't think differently. Governments don't "think" and on most issues there are widely differing opinions.
Finally, no one should have to explain to you the problems that have come out of giving soldiers policing duties.
Seriously, take a step back from this statement, and have a look at what you're proposing:
? the US Army picks you up on suspicion of terrorism: they clearly believe for some reason or other that you (or someone whose description you fit) is implicated;
? on first principles, this isn't likely to happen when you expect it to;
? in the lack of any better evidence of your intentions, personal background, and connections, and given that they may have just dragged you from your bed in the middle of the night, in light of the fact that the Army already thinks you're guilty it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to prove your innocence in any reasonable way, especially because the US Army does not need to demonstrate to anybody that they have good evidence that you are involved.
I suspect that once you're in the hands of the Army, you're basically pretty much f**ked. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good demonstration of the ability of the US to hold people more-or-less indefinitely without really explaining why.
You and I and just about anyone would cooperate fully. This is the thing you are missing. Cooperation is key if you ever find yourself in custody of an army or police organization. Cooperation or lack of, does not necessarily prove guilt or innocence but it will expedite the process.
You and I and just about anyone would cooperate fully. This is the thing you are missing. Cooperation is key if you ever find yourself in custody of an army or police organization. Cooperation or lack of, does not necessarily prove guilt or innocence but it will expedite the process.
I don't know if you are being specific to Iraq or if you are also including America too.
Sorry I don't have a credible link to this...but what about that Italian immigrant who was taken and detained for 4-6 months...just because he had been arrested years ago (and did jail time for) for a cocaine possession charge? The US authorities believed he was a suspected terrorist because of his past crime (and because of the Patriot Act).
I remember the footage of his release...the crying man was greeted members of his family and much of the community because he was an honest, good and decent member of the community. He yelled, "Why would a country like this do this to me?!"
If a person in this country can be carried off into detention...I can see how much slack a soldier has in grabbing any Iraqi that looks at him the wrong way.
Anyone remember this story?
My point.
/removesflameretardentclothing...
I hear what you are saying.
let me ask this question:
How many people do you think are picked up and interrogated and finally released?
I would guess that it is more than actual criminals are picked up. Such is the nature of investigations and such.
You are picking 1 person here or there out of how many stories around the world?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
With respect, you do not and cannot know that all or even a majority of the people in this prison are guilty of the charges brought against them, and the world will never know, because unlike normal criminals, they don't have to be charged, face committal proceedings, etc. The US Army has to arrest them in order for them to be there. That's it. No explanation; no outside accountability.
Branding them all as "murderers and suspected terrorists" is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I can go along with most of that, except these were not just shoplifters. These were violent and bad people.
I never said that they weren't bad people. Not that it makes any difference, really. Even a murderer doesn't deserve to get raped in prison.
I agree heads should roll, the right heads, but as usual it has turned into a witch hunt.
As opposed to what? It's an orderly inquiry into the situation. The only other option is to just ignore it.
I am one example: I point out that these were murderers and suspected terrorists, and I am said to be OK with torture and murder and am no better than the terrorists or the abusers. I am a witch, according some here.
No. You're said to be OK with it when you imply that merely being in jail means you ought to expect to be raped and otherwise tortured. The stats I've seen are that a HUGE percentage of these people were there simply for not having paperwork on them when they were stopped at checkpoints. You're said to be OK with it when you argue, as you've just done here, that merely being suspected of being a terrorist means that you should expect to be raped and tortured.
I am not convinced that the systematic label applies, yet.
I think you should read the Taguba report before you say something like that.
I think that force was used many times without checks and balances to keep soldiers from going too far. That is a bit different than systematic torture.
Make sure you ignore the widely publicized reports that these guys were ordered to do this by MI and that Cambone had authorized these troops to operate under special rules.
Come on, who would have thought that there would be an outcry over mistreatment of terrorists?
SUSPECTED terrorists. You simply DO NOT KNOW that they are terrorists. The outcry is over the mistreatment of PRISONERS at the hands of American soldiers. Hell, I don't care if they personally crucified Jesus. They were TORTURED. And you, RIGHT HERE, are saying that it's not that big of a deal.
That is kind of an oxy-moron, no? Look at any action movie previous to 9/11 and you will see a systematic torture of terrorists and potential terrorists much to the delight of vast audiences. I feel this aside was not even considered.
You can tell the difference between movies and the real world, right? Right?
Originally posted by staphbaby
With respect, you do not and cannot know that all or even a majority of the people in this prison are guilty of the charges brought against them, and the world will never know, because unlike normal criminals, they don't have to be charged, face committal proceedings, etc. The US Army has to arrest them in order for them to be there. That's it. No explanation; no outside accountability.
Branding them all as "murderers and suspected terrorists" is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
Come on, what are they then?
Cupcake bakers and gardeners?
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on, what are they then?
Cupcake bakers and gardeners?
Yeah, the military drove through a Norman Rockwell neighborhood in Iraq and randomly picked peaceful people to fill the jails. There isn't enough bad people to pick from, I guess.
This conversation is stupid because some of you want to believe that 90% of the prisoners are just victims of circumstance. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
The last two weeks almost 800 people from the Abu Ghraib prison were released... small percentage my ass
Originally posted by ericg
The last two weeks almost 800 people from the Abu Ghraib prison were released... small percentage my ass
How many people were in that prison?
Some or maybe even a lot of those will go back to attacking US soldiers or helping.
The move was to appease the politicians and all the knee jerkers here. It is a lose lose for the military people right now.
I think that this war is turning into another Vietnam. I may have to agree with some on that now. However the reason it is we may not agree on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
How many people were in that prison?
Some or maybe even a lot of those will go back to attacking US soldiers or helping.
The move was to appease the politicians and all the knee jerkers here. It is a lose lose for the military people right now.
I think that this war is turning into another Vietnam. I may have to agree with some on that now. However the reason it is we may not agree on.
Numbers range in the 3000/4000. And maybe a lot of the people being released will attack or help.. and maybe it's because of what they endured in prison?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on, what are they then?
Cupcake bakers and gardeners?
<snippage>
I do believe there may be a small percentage that are there wrongly, but that is true anywhere.
Don't be ridiculous: of course I'm not suggesting that confectioners and market-gardeners are being picked up. There is, however, a big difference between being, say, a soldier and being someone with a real interest in committing acts of insurgency.
If you're trying to justify human rights violations on the part of the US Army by saying that the victims are guilty of some other crimes, it doesn't really do your case much good to admit that in all probability an unknown percentage the victims didn't in fact commit any crimes. Admitting that this is the case makes your acceptance of their total lack of accountability even more bizarre. It seems that you're willing to accept the perpetration of what even on your terms is gross injustice on a few individuals, for the sake of a "greater good" of torturing "real" terrorists. That's not on.
Why should we trust the US Army to take in real terrorists? As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent chance that they couldn't find their arse with both hands, given their recent glaring demonstrations of incompetence (desert wedding massacres anyone?) and cultural insensitivity (hmm, bullet holes in mosques will help us garner majority support! stories of shocking insults to the religion of prisoners will endear us to all and sundry!)
At any rate, this is beside the point, since the torture of prisoners is both unacceptable for moral and ethical reasons, and a really stupid political move.
Originally posted by NaplesX
. "Mr. soldier man, I don't know how that rocket launcher landed in my hand and accidently went off and hit your Hummer. Excuse please." What a hoot.
Actually, "Mr. Soldier Man, why the fucking hell did you just knock my door down and arrest me and my wife? I was in bed. I have nothing to do with any terrorists." Which is happening again and again and again and again.
They're arresting innocent people. Like the wives of suspects. Who are getting raped from time to time by your soldiers. This is according to Tagouba, so please feel free to take this up with that liar and commie, not me.
By the way, 'Excuse please' is normally the racist lingo for INDIAN people (aka 'wogs') not Iraqis (aka 'sand-niggers'). I know they all look the bloody same, but still.
Originally posted by midwinter
No. You're said to be OK with it when you imply that merely being in jail means you ought to expect to be raped and otherwise tortured. The stats I've seen are that a HUGE percentage of these people were there simply for not having paperwork on them when they were stopped at checkpoints. You're said to be OK with it when you argue, as you've just done here, that merely being suspected of being a terrorist means that you should expect to be raped and tortured.
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
They don't have time to fool around with people for no reason. In case you don't remember they are working 24/7 to establish rule of law and security all while being in the sights of loonies.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
Originally posted by midwinter
[BSUSPECTED terrorists. You simply DO NOT KNOW that they are terrorists. The outcry is over the mistreatment of PRISONERS at the hands of American soldiers. Hell, I don't care if they personally crucified Jesus. They were TORTURED. And you, RIGHT HERE, are saying that it's not that big of a deal. [/B]
IT IS A BIG DEAL. I have said that many times. It is just not as big a deal as some want to make it. That's all I am saying. Perspective seems to be what is missing. I am trying to add some perspective. Man?!
Originally posted by staphbaby
Don't be ridiculous: of course I'm not suggesting that confectioners and market-gardeners are being picked up. There is, however, a big difference between being, say, a soldier and being someone with a real interest in committing acts of insurgency.
If you're trying to justify human rights violations on the part of the US Army by saying that the victims are guilty of some other crimes, it doesn't really do your case much good to admit that in all probability an unknown percentage the victims didn't in fact commit any crimes. Admitting that this is the case makes your acceptance of their total lack of accountability even more bizarre. It seems that you're willing to accept the perpetration of what even on your terms is gross injustice on a few individuals, for the sake of a "greater good" of torturing "real" terrorists. That's not on.
Why should we trust the US Army to take in real terrorists? As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent chance that they couldn't find their arse with both hands, given their recent glaring demonstrations of incompetence (desert wedding massacres anyone?) and cultural insensitivity (hmm, bullet holes in mosques will help us garner majority support! stories of shocking insults to the religion of prisoners will endear us to all and sundry!)
At any rate, this is beside the point, since the torture of prisoners is both unacceptable for moral and ethical reasons, and a really stupid political move.
I agree totally with your last statement. Well said.
I am not trying to excuse anyone just trying to put it all into perspective.
Originally posted by NaplesX
half whit
half what?
half-wit
1: a person of subnormal intelligence [syn: idiot, imbecile, cretin, moron, changeling, retard]
2: (informal) a stupid incompetent person [syn: dimwit, nitwit, doofus]
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
half what?
half-wit
1: a person of subnormal intelligence [syn: idiot, imbecile, cretin, moron, changeling, retard]
2: (informal) a stupid incompetent person [syn: dimwit, nitwit, doofus]
You think I should go back and correct that typo?
Does it so detract from the meaning of the post?
Originally posted by NaplesX
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
IT IS A BIG DEAL.
Hmmm. Verifiable information, like say ... fingerprints? Fingerprints GOT THE BASTARD in America who helped out the Madrid bombers. His paws were all over one of the bomb bags!!!!!!!111!!!111
Oh dear. Sorry. This poor man was inside for 17 days because no-one in the States would double-check his fingerprints, despite the fact that the Spanish thought there was a screw up and asked the FBI to do so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/
And that wasn't private guards or psycho MI loonies in Abu Ghraib.
"No, you're wrong. I have an alibi. Can I go home now please Mr. Granger?"
"My lord, you're absolutely write Mr. Bimji. Terribly sorry for the thing with the hood and the electrodes! Go straight home, and let's say no more about it."
You are totally out of touch with reality, may I just say that?
Originally posted by NaplesX
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
They don't have time to fool around with people for no reason. In case you don't remember they are working 24/7 to establish rule of law and security all while being in the sights of loonies.
Verifying who you are is very critical in a time of war. If you don't have verification, you could be anybody. Any half whit knows that you will get hassled if you don't have the proper ID.
Seriously, take a step back from this statement, and have a look at what you're proposing:
? the US Army picks you up on suspicion of terrorism: they clearly believe for some reason or other that you (or someone whose description you fit) is implicated;
? on first principles, this isn't likely to happen when you expect it to;
? in the lack of any better evidence of your intentions, personal background, and connections, and given that they may have just dragged you from your bed in the middle of the night, in light of the fact that the Army already thinks you're guilty it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to prove your innocence in any reasonable way, especially because the US Army does not need to demonstrate to anybody that they have good evidence that you are involved.
I suspect that once you're in the hands of the Army, you're basically pretty much f**ked. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good demonstration of the ability of the US to hold people more-or-less indefinitely without really explaining why.
Originally posted by Harald
Hmmm. Verifiable information, like say ... fingerprints? Fingerprints GOT THE BASTARD in America who helped out the Madrid bombers. His paws were all over one of the bomb bags!!!!!!!111!!!111
Oh dear. Sorry. This poor man was inside for 17 days because no-one in the States would double-check his fingerprints, despite the fact that the Spanish thought there was a screw up and asked the FBI to do so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/
And that wasn't private guards or psycho MI loonies in Abu Ghraib.
"No, you're wrong. I have an alibi. Can I go home now please Mr. Granger?"
"My lord, you're absolutely write Mr. Bimji. Terribly sorry for the thing with the hood and the electrodes! Go straight home, and let's say no more about it."
You are totally out of touch with reality, may I just say that?
Um. 1 guy 17 days. And the result?
he was found to be innocent and let go. His experience was bad, sure. Was it proof that the US is holding people for no reason, I thing it proves just the opposite. I could be wrong, of course.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
I don't know if you are being specific to Iraq or if you are also including America too.
Sorry I don't have a credible link to this...but what about that Italian immigrant who was taken and detained for 4-6 months...just because he had been arrested years ago (and did jail time for) for a cocaine possession charge? The US authorities believed he was a suspected terrorist because of his past crime (and because of the Patriot Act).
I remember the footage of his release...the crying man was greeted members of his family and much of the community because he was an honest, good and decent member of the community. He yelled, "Why would a country like this do this to me?!"
If a person in this country can be carried off into detention...I can see how much slack a soldier has in grabbing any Iraqi that looks at him the wrong way.
Anyone remember this story?
My point.
/removesflameretardentclothing...
Originally posted by NaplesX
If the government picked you up off the street and said you were a suspected terrorist. The easiest way of getting out of US custody is cooperation and honesty. Provide some verifiable information and bam, no reason to hold you. I know that is oversimplifying, but that is how it works with any suspected criminal.
Maybe in fantasy land.
Back here in real world america people are imprisoned all the time for crimes they didn't commit.
As for iraq, pfflam already cited the red cross report, to which you responded
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, OK but your own government thinks differently, namely those in charge over there in Iraq.
Except that you apparently haven't actually read the red cross report because the figures come from military intelligence officers, not red cross workers.
And my "own government" doesn't think differently. Governments don't "think" and on most issues there are widely differing opinions.
Finally, no one should have to explain to you the problems that have come out of giving soldiers policing duties.
Originally posted by NaplesX
half whit
Originally posted by staphbaby
Seriously, take a step back from this statement, and have a look at what you're proposing:
? the US Army picks you up on suspicion of terrorism: they clearly believe for some reason or other that you (or someone whose description you fit) is implicated;
? on first principles, this isn't likely to happen when you expect it to;
? in the lack of any better evidence of your intentions, personal background, and connections, and given that they may have just dragged you from your bed in the middle of the night, in light of the fact that the Army already thinks you're guilty it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to prove your innocence in any reasonable way, especially because the US Army does not need to demonstrate to anybody that they have good evidence that you are involved.
I suspect that once you're in the hands of the Army, you're basically pretty much f**ked. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good demonstration of the ability of the US to hold people more-or-less indefinitely without really explaining why.
You and I and just about anyone would cooperate fully. This is the thing you are missing. Cooperation is key if you ever find yourself in custody of an army or police organization. Cooperation or lack of, does not necessarily prove guilt or innocence but it will expedite the process.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You and I and just about anyone would cooperate fully. This is the thing you are missing. Cooperation is key if you ever find yourself in custody of an army or police organization. Cooperation or lack of, does not necessarily prove guilt or innocence but it will expedite the process.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
I don't know if you are being specific to Iraq or if you are also including America too.
Sorry I don't have a credible link to this...but what about that Italian immigrant who was taken and detained for 4-6 months...just because he had been arrested years ago (and did jail time for) for a cocaine possession charge? The US authorities believed he was a suspected terrorist because of his past crime (and because of the Patriot Act).
I remember the footage of his release...the crying man was greeted members of his family and much of the community because he was an honest, good and decent member of the community. He yelled, "Why would a country like this do this to me?!"
If a person in this country can be carried off into detention...I can see how much slack a soldier has in grabbing any Iraqi that looks at him the wrong way.
Anyone remember this story?
My point.
/removesflameretardentclothing...
I hear what you are saying.
let me ask this question:
How many people do you think are picked up and interrogated and finally released?
I would guess that it is more than actual criminals are picked up. Such is the nature of investigations and such.
You are picking 1 person here or there out of how many stories around the world?