More Lies about Torture: Human Rights Watch Report

[Kyi Yo]

[quote]RIGHTS:
Jordan Acted as Hub for U.S. Renditions, Report Says
William Fisher
NEW YORK, 8 Apr (IPS) - Jordan, often described in the mainstream press as the most moderate country in the Arab Middle East, was the first to receive prisoners 'as a true proxy jailer for the CIA' and has received more victims of 'extraordinary rendition' than any other country in the world, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The report charges that U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, were aware that 'Jordan was already notorious for torturing security detainees' because the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 'already had a history of close relations' with Jordan's General Intelligence Department (GID).

HRW charges that 'Torture and cruel or inhuman treatment seems to have been systematically used' against most of the detainees rendered by the CIA to Jordan. 'Detainees claim they were threatened, beaten, insulted, deprived of sleep, and subjected to falaqa -- a form of torture in which the soles of the feet are beaten with an object,' HRW says.

The report claims that rendered prisoners were 'hidden whenever the International Committee of the Red Cross visited'.

It adds that the CIA's long-standing relationship with Jordanian security services may have given U.S. officials confidence that the Jordanians 'would be particularly good at keeping the fact of the detentions secret'.

Joanne Mariner, director of the Terrorism and Counterterrorism Programme for Human Rights Watch, told IPS, 'The rendition cases we've documented in Jordan show the unreality of the [George W.] Bush administration's claims that it did not hand people over to face torture.'

She added, 'Not only did the CIA illegally detain prisoners in its own prisons in the years after Sep. 11, it secretly outsourced the interrogation, detention, and torture of more than a dozen prisoners in Jordan.'

HRW says the precise number of people rendered to Jordan by the CIA is not known. But it asserts that rendered prisoners were taken to Jordan for one purpose only: to extract confessions of terrorist activities. 'It is clear that many of the detainees were returned to CIA custody immediately after intensive periods of abusive interrogation in Jordan,' the report says.

Some of these people were then returned to custody in their home countries while others were taken to the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some of them still remain. At least five men who are currently detained at Guantanamo were previously rendered to Jordan for some amount of time during the period of 2001 to 2004, HRW says.

In addition, at least two Yemeni prisoners who were later held in secret CIA prisons -- without being sent to Guantanamo -- were arrested in Jordan and held in the custody of the Jordanian security services for a few days or weeks prior to their transfer into U.S. custody.

HRW says 'Some of the detainees who arrived in Jordan in 2002 were held for more than a year,' leaving Jordanian custody in 2004. Some former prisoners told Human Rights Watch that 'for a while in 2002 and 2003 the detention facility was full of non-Jordanian prisoners who had been delivered by the CIA.'

The report says that after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, the CIA quickly began rendering suspected terrorists to Jordan for interrogation.

The number of detainees rendered by the CIA to Jordan may have declined over time because the CIA developed its own detention capacity, opening secret facilities in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland, and Romania, and had less need to rely on Jordan, the HRW report says.

The report concludes that U.S. government officials, including Rice, were well aware of the hollowness of the 'diplomatic assurances' it received from Jordan that it would not subject rendered prisoners to torture.

The report recalls that Rice, under pressure from European allies because of press revelations about CIA activities in Europe, offered a vigorous defence of U.S. rendition practices in December 2005.

Arguing that the practice of rendition was a 'vital tool in combating transnational terrorism', Rice insisted that the United States 'does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.' Instead, she explained that, where necessary, 'the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.'

However, HRW says, 'The systematic nature of the abuses suffered by prisoners rendered to Jordan contradicts Rice's bland reassurances. If the Jordanians did indeed promise the U.S. authorities that prisoners rendered there would not be tortured, it was a promise that neither the U.S. nor Jordan believed.'

The Jordan chapter of the U.S. State Department's 2001 human rights report states that prisoners in the custody of Jordanian police and security forces have alleged that 'methods of torture include sleep deprivation, beatings on the soles of the feet, prolonged suspension with ropes in contorted positions, and extended solitary confinement.'

The report notes that Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who claims to have initiated the terrorist rendition programme during the Bill Clinton administration (1993-2001), 'rightly dismisses these assurances as 'legal niceties' -- pledges meant to look good on paper, which provide no real protection.'

HRW reports that Pakistan, and in particular the city of Karachi, was the source of at least six detainees believed to have been rendered to Jordan from U.S. custody. 'The Pakistani authorities have made no secret of the fact that since September 2001 they have handed over several hundred terrorism suspects to the United States, boasting of the transfers as proof of Pakistan's cooperation in U.S. counterterrorism efforts,' HRW says.

'A large number of these men ended up at Guantanamo; some ended up in secret CIA prisons, and others were rendered to Jordan and other countries.'

The U.S. practice of rendering terrorist suspects abroad -- transferring prisoners to foreign custody outside of normal legal proceedings -- predates the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. During the Clinton administration, the CIA rendered a number of Egyptian terrorist suspects from countries such as Albania and Croatia to Egypt, where some of them had previously been sentenced to death in absentia.

HRW notes that after September 2001, the CIA's rendition practices changed. 'Rather than returning people to their home countries to face 'justice' (albeit justice that included torture and grossly unfair trials), the CIA began handing people over to third countries apparently to facilitate abusive interrogations.'

Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush signed a classified presidential directive giving the CIA expanded authority to arrest, interrogate, detain, and render terrorist suspects arrested abroad. Since that time, the U.S. is believed to have rendered terrorism suspects to the custody of Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and Syria, in addition to Jordan.

The HRW report calls on the U.S. government to repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic, discontinue the CIA's rendition programme, and 'disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan.'
[quote]

[DamnYankee]

I think you pro terrorist anti American bleeding hearts out there are confusing harsh interrogation techniques with torture.

[Buck Laser]

I think you pro terrorist anti American bleeding hearts out there are confusing harsh interrogation techniques with torture.
I see. Opposing torture is equal to being a pro-terrorist anti-American bleeding heart. Is there any content in that sentence, or are you just repeating what your leaders have told you to say?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Damn Yankee said:
I think you pro terrorist anti American bleeding hearts out there are confusing harsh interrogation techniques with torture.

As many times as I read that statement you posted, I see nothing there that could pass for "non-biased", factual or reasonable.

Care to take another try?

[Moorington]

Why does everyone automatically read 'charge' and see 'guilty?'

This is just a sham by the ever so amusing, if slightly errant, liberal media, at trying to shame another US ally (or US official) into actually releasing something- until 'charge' becomes 'fact' and/or 'guilty before proven innocent' becomes our new judicial norm, this is all garbage and should be treated as such.

[Buck Laser]

Why does everyone automatically read 'charge' and see 'guilty?'

This is just a sham by the ever so amusing, if slightly errant, liberal media, at trying to shame another US ally (or US official) into actually releasing something- until 'charge' becomes 'fact' and/or 'guilty before proven innocent' becomes our new judicial norm, this is all garbage and should be treated as such.
Are you seriously claiming it's a liberal media that goes with "guilty until proven innocent?" I thought that was the province of AM talk media, which is definitely not liberal.

[Moorington]

Actually, it does, and often. Except, usually against high profile corporate targets- when it comes to actual people though, it usually limits it down to people like General Betray-Us, but I understand that though; he's about as bad as they can get: competent, patriotic, soft-spoken, honest. Ew!

[lily]

Why does everyone automatically read 'charge' and see 'guilty?'

This is just a sham by the ever so amusing, if slightly errant, liberal media, at trying to shame another US ally (or US official) into actually releasing something- until 'charge' becomes 'fact' and/or 'guilty before proven innocent' becomes our new judicial norm, this is all garbage and should be treated as such.

I think we finally agree on something!

Why does everyone automatically read terrorist and think they actually are one? Yep......it's all garbage.

[Kyi Yo]

The problem with "rendering" these prisoners to Jordan is that we KNOW they're being tortured and held without even being charged with anything.

Everyone wants George W. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al to be CHARGED with something before being found GUILTY of torture. That's how our legal system works, right?

If we have to apply the rule of law to the criminals at the top, then we need to apply it to the prisoners who are being held in jails EVERYWHERE.

They've not been charged with anything and yet are being tortured.

THAT's the issue. We either are a Nation who respects the rule of law and abides by it, or we're not. Apparently, we're not.

[micfranklin]

I think you pro terrorist anti American bleeding hearts out there are confusing harsh interrogation techniques with torture.

Harsh interrogation = torture.

No fancy word bullshit there.

[apdst]

As many times as I read that statement you posted, I see nothing there that could pass for "non-biased", factual or reasonable.

Care to take another try?

You could say that about the entire thread.

[DamnYankee]

Information gathering by whatever means has existed to one agree or another and has occurred worldwide for centuries.

I supposed the US military could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and just killed the detainees on the battlefield. Then again, you people would find another reason to whine about that too. Perhaps the detainees ought to be released to their country of origin, just to make you people happy?

You leftists with all your rage and anger towards your own country serves to embolden the enemies of the USA. If you people had your way, we would simply bend over and take it in the rear.

You people sit there bitching about how every politician from the prez on down need to go to jail, I presume without trial since you have them all convicted, and then demand the detainees have their rights. You people are out of your minds. And you don't realize it.

[micfranklin]

Information gathering by whatever means has existed to one agree or another and has occurred worldwide for centuries.

And?

I supposed the US military could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and just killed the detainees on the battlefield. Then again, you people would find another reason to whine about that too. Perhaps the detainees ought to be released to their country of origin, just to make you people happy?

No, just keeping 'em locked up would do nicely.

You leftists with all your rage and anger towards your own country serves to embolden the enemies of the USA. If you people had your way, we would simply bend over and take it in the rear.

Had no idea simply disagreeing with torture means you have hatred against your country.

You people sit there bitching about how every politician from the prez on down need to go to jail, I presume without trial since you have them all convicted, and then demand the detainees have their rights.

Not every politician, just the ones who helped dismantle most of the what the Constitution stood for, president and vice president included and with a trial too.

[lily]

Information gathering by whatever means has existed to one agree or another and has occurred worldwide for centuries.

No one is saying don't gather information......what we are saying is do it within the law.......and if you're not going to to that, at least have the decency not to lie continually about it.

I supposed the US military could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and just killed the detainees on the battlefield. Then again, you people would find another reason to whine about that too. Perhaps the detainees ought to be released to their country of origin, just to make you people happy?

You people seem perfectly fine with keeping them locked up.......we people would like to see trial held........and can't because then it would come out even more that we indeed do torture. Seems you people are the ones that are doing the whining.......we people want them to go to trial.

You leftists with all your rage and anger towards your own country serves to embolden the enemies of the USA. If you people had your way, we would simply bend over and take it in the rear.

Embolden the enemy.......man I haven't heard that one in a long time!:thumbsup:

You people are out of your minds. And you don't realize it.

[Go Fish]

An unbiased, neutral source would be more believable. If Human Rights Watch claims that 12 people were tortured, it means that they think one may have not been given his favorite food for lunch during his captivity.

[Elrathin]

An unbiased, neutral source would be more believable.

And what source would that be in your eyes Go Fish?

[Go Fish]

Sure as Hell not the pro-jihadist "Human Rights Watch". Just a few articles to help you familiarize yourself with the bums. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Watch#Funding
Scroll down to "Resources". My opinion of them is far worse than the outrages presented there.

[Go Fish]

A really, truly good read. Sean Hannity couldn't do to HRW what they do to themselves.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/041126143655

[Elrathin]

Sure as Hell not the pro-jihadist "Human Rights Watch".

That wasn't what I asked now was it? I asked what sources are neutral and credible to you?

[Tessy]

I think you pro terrorist anti American bleeding hearts out there are confusing harsh interrogation techniques with torture.

That would almost make sense if there were such things as terrorists.

[preservanation]

That would almost make sense if there were such things as terrorists.Hi, Tessy.
Love ya, but what?

Are we talking absolute relativism or redefining terms here?
Either way I'm confused.

[Tessy]

Well the definition WAS a "towel-head" with a grudge. The definition is NOW officially
you and I as soon as we say ANYTHING against the US government. I'm calling bullsh1t
on the whole thing. Sure sure whoever blew up the WTC buildings 1, 2, 7, the Pentagon,
and sent anthrax to the senate members is a terrorist. But the anthrax has been scientifically
proven to have come from the US Military stocks, and whoever blew up #7 weren't no
towel-head but probably a yank. We know 3 of the so called "terrorist hijackers" were
on CIA payroll and were cleared by the CIA for entry into the USA over the protests of
the Canadian government - and in the month of september in 2001 too.

So what the hell is a terrorist anyway? (rhetorical) Can any one point to one and say
for sure: "This man, standing right here, IS a terrorist!"? [I mean if you're not standing
next to and pointing at CIA officials or their bosses...] No. We have Bin Ladden but he
too is a well documented CIA operative. We even gave him special medical care and
shortly after the 9-11 event itself a special EXTREMELY high security detail flew (while
all other air traffic was grounded) a LARGE number of Bin Ladden's friends and relatives
out of the country.

Naw, it's just a scare tactic they're using to justify an unjustifiable war and an excuse to
gain martial-law type controls over the US and UK peoples. I think there's a better
chance that the tooth fairy exists or that monkeys will fly out of my a$$ anytime soon.

[Buck Laser]

Hi, Tessy.
Love ya, but what?

Are we talking absolute relativism or redefining terms here?
Either way I'm confused.
Is it relativism to recognize that one person's terrorist is another's patriot? The first generation of leadership in Israel had certainly been terrorists against the Palestinians. Or doesn't that count?

One could even argue that the "Indians" at the Boston Tea Party were terrorists, too.

As to your confusion, I've noticed that on a fairly regular basis, Preserv. I think you're smart enough to do something about that. But I doubt that you will.

[AlanC]

Is it relativism to recognize that one person's terrorist is another's patriot? The first generation of leadership in Israel had certainly been terrorists against the Palestinians. Or doesn't that count?

One could even argue that the "Indians" at the Boston Tea Party were terrorists, too.

As to your confusion, I've noticed that on a fairly regular basis, Preserv. I think you're smart enough to do something about that. But I doubt that you will.

That is a bunch of moral relativism at its finest Buck. Blowing up a busfull of kids for no other reason than to make a political statement is an act of terroism. I don't care what the motivation was. Hijacking a civilian airliner and killing everyone on board to make a political statement is an act of terrorism.

If you are unable to wrap your mind around that simple concept and condemn it for what it is, I feel sorry for you.

[Tessy]

That's an excellent point too Buck. Calling any Iraqi at all that puts up resistance against
a foreign occupation of his home land (and a land considered by them to actually be holy
ground), a terrorist is just ludicrous! They're "combatants" whether you think they're right
or wrong but "terrorists" they are not!

[Elrathin]

The problem is that some conservatives think that anyone fighting the U.S. is a terrorist. There are insurgents in Iraq and not all of them are terrorists.

Yes, there are terrorists, but not everyone fighting the U.S. is a terrorist is all I'm saying.

[Buck Laser]

That is a bunch of moral relativism at its finest Buck. Blowing up a busfull of kids for no other reason than to make a political statement is an act of terroism. I don't care what the motivation was. Hijacking a civilian airliner and killing everyone on board to make a political statement is an act of terrorism.

If you are unable to wrap your mind around that simple concept and condemn it for what it is, I feel sorry for you.

So the Boston Tea Party WAS terrorism, then?

[Tessy]

You missed his point completely!

Hijacking a civilian airliner and killing everyone on board to make a political statement is an act of terrorism.


Agreed!

Now, point to one JUST ONE person we killed in Iraq (or probably Afghanistan)
that has done either of those two things. :sadly:

[AlanC]

So the Boston Tea Party WAS terrorism, then?

Only if you equate destroying tea with murdering innocents.

Since we have labled those that blow up ski lodges as eco-terrorists, I suppose you can call the Boston tea party an act of economic terrorism.

[AlanC]

You missed his point completely!



Agreed!

Now, point to one JUST ONE person we killed in Iraq (or probably Afghanistan)
that has done either of those two things. :sadly:

How about the ones that have several times set off car bombs because US troops were handing out candy to childern and they deliberately killed as many of the children as they could.. I find that to be an act of pure terrorism. I suppose you don't?

[Buck Laser]

Only if you equate destroying tea with murdering innocents.

Since we have labled those that blow up ski lodges as eco-terrorists, I suppose you can call the Boston tea party an act of economic terrorism.
I hate to keep pushing you, but you're accusing me of moral relativism in order to make your point in a thread about torture. Or did you forget what this thread is about?

Is torture OK if we can claim that the guy we're torturing is a terrorist?

Is it fair to call those early Israeli leaders terrorists? Or do you just apply that term to people you can't stand?

What would you have said about the French resistance fighters during WW2? Were they freedom fighters or terrorists? What about the English who sent people and weapons to them?

You seem to think you can just parrot your right wing bullshit and get a free walk, but I'm not buying it. All of you guys have been so wrapped up in your own moral superiority that you can't see past the ends of your own noses.

None of us is denying that there are terrorists in the ME. No one. But you guys start making TRAITOROUS claims like that thinking you'll somehow blow us off with strong talk.

Alan, I used to think you were just a little smarter than the usual run of right wing posters here, but I'm having to change my mind. Just once--just once--I'd like to see you act like someone who cares to debate, not a verbal terrorist like the rest of the usual suspects.

[Kyi Yo]

I've been called a domestic terrorist and have a file on record with the FBI and probably others (I have a "mole" inside who told me so). Why?

I'm an activist, a pretty successful one. I've been able to stop a lot of corporations, domestically and abroad, from mining, drilling, logging, researching and patenting DNA of Indigenous plants, animals, people, land and water.

In those battles, I've actively spoken out against US government policy both domestic and foreign.

According to the "Patriot Act" and the subsequent laws which stripped powers and rights from American people by this administration, that classifies me as a "terrorist".

For a while, five years, I wasn't allowed out of the country. Mainly because it's easier to kill an American abroad then it is in situ. My family was afraid for my safety.

I'm in good company. By the laws in place today, all of my ancestors would be domestic terrorists too.

[Tessy]

The problem is that some conservatives think that anyone fighting the U.S. is a terrorist. There are insurgents in Iraq and not all of them are terrorists.

Yes, there are terrorists, but not everyone fighting the U.S. is a terrorist is all I'm saying.

Yeah, There probably are a dozen or so people that actually classify as what
you and I would call "terrorists" in this world of ours and probably a few that
are lost Muslims too. (No real Muslims though!) But is that a reason to lock
down a nation like the USA, search cars, and set up check points all across
the nation like they have done recently? Is that a rational justification for
invading a defenseless nation and seising their resources? And these "justifiers"
in the executive and military branches of the US federal government keep
saying "the terrorists" like they're trying to convince us that Iraq is a land
filled with them or that there are even enough of these "terrorist" people to
do anything besides the sunday laundry.

"Terrorists" as defined by Hollywood and placed into the "public consciousness"
by US officials are just NOT a reality any one needs to worry about. Some
people recognize that this is so contrived and based on fantasy and the idea
of which is being used for such great political leverage that they are predicting
that the US government itself will attack itself (again?) just to keep the myth
and fear alive.

[Tessy]

I've been called a domestic terrorist and have a file on record with the FBI and probably others (I have a "mole" inside who told me so).

Just to mention; There's a form on-line that uses the freedom of information
act whereby you can request your FBI file. I got mine in 2005 and it had
nothing remarkable in it. Some people's are just terrible though and they're
good decent folk.

[AlanC]

I hate to keep pushing you, but you're accusing me of moral relativism in order to make your point in a thread about torture. Or did you forget what this thread is about?

Is torture OK if we can claim that the guy we're torturing is a terrorist?

Is it fair to call those early Israeli leaders terrorists? Or do you just apply that term to people you can't stand?

What would you have said about the French resistance fighters during WW2? Were they freedom fighters or terrorists? What about the English who sent people and weapons to them?

You seem to think you can just parrot your right wing bullshit and get a free walk, but I'm not buying it. All of you guys have been so wrapped up in your own moral superiority that you can't see past the ends of your own noses.

None of us is denying that there are terrorists in the ME. No one. But you guys start making TRAITOROUS claims like that thinking you'll somehow blow us off with strong talk.

Alan, I used to think you were just a little smarter than the usual run of right wing posters here, but I'm having to change my mind. Just once--just once--I'd like to see you act like someone who cares to debate, not a verbal terrorist like the rest of the usual suspects.

Buck I would be happy to debate the whole subject with you. But it was YOU that wanted to drag the Boston Tea Party into it.

So since you have so conveniently dodged what was a pretty stratight forward definition of terrorism, I will try it again. Anyone who kills innocent civilians for the sole purpose of making a political statement is a terroist. If we catch one, I have no problem with him being tortured if we have to in order to find and stop any other terrorists he might know of. If we can stop one bomb in one school or one bus or one pizza shop, yes, its worth it.

Those who fight for whatever it is they fight for, including freedom, muslim supremecy, communist dictators...whatever, if they direct their efforts against armies and soldiers I will allow that they are combatants, not terrorists.

Does that mean I don't want our troops safe or them killed? No, but at least they are risking their lives against those that can shoot back. Kids don't shoot back. People going to work don't shoot back. The deliberate targeting of civilian populations in the hope that the horror and the loss can bring about political change is terrorism. Those organizations who plan and set into motion such attacks are terrorist organizations.

IF torture can be used EFFECTIVELY to save innocent civilian life, then yes, I support its use. IF torture can be shown to EFFECTIVELY save the lives of US soldiers, then yes, I support its use.

Do I support torture for the fun of it? No. Do I support torture as a means of punishment? No, I do not. Do I support torture for anyother reason than the immediate saving of life? No, I don't.

The next time YOU want to say I am making traiterous claims, have some thing to back it up or you can continue talking to yourself. I thought it was you that hated that word being bandied about.

Your question is it okay to torture someone just because they are a terrorist. No, it is not.

[apdst]

According to the "Patriot Act" and the subsequent laws which stripped powers and rights from American people by this administration, that classifies me as a "terrorist".

I guess it would all depend on what you were doing to prevent the mining, drilling and logging.

I don't do anything different thatn I did before The Patriot Act and I'm not on anyone's watch list.

[Buck Laser]

Buck I would be happy to debate the whole subject with you. But it was YOU that wanted to drag the Boston Tea Party into it.

Your question is it okay to torture someone just because they are a terrorist. No, it is not.
All I want to do is get you to define what you understand terrorism to be. You seem to want to limit it to current days only. I want to know if you're proceeding by gut instinct only, or if you have some principle or definition behind your idea of "terrorist."

As for "traitorous," I just figured that if so many people were slinging the term around like it was just another insult, that I would too. My complaints about free and easy use of the term have already been registered here. But in a way, I see it as tit-for-tat in response to your calling me a moral relativist. Chew on that for awhile.

[AlanC]

All I want to do is get you to define what you understand terrorism to be. You seem to want to limit it to current days only. I want to know if you're proceeding by gut instinct only, or if you have some principle or definition behind your idea of "terrorist."

As for "traitorous," I just figured that if so many people were slinging the term around like it was just another insult, that I would too. My complaints about free and easy use of the term have already been registered here. But in a way, I see it as tit-for-tat in response to your calling me a moral relativist. Chew on that for awhile.

If you would have looked above, you would have seen a clear and recognizable definition of a terrorist that can easily be applied to any people of any time period. That you ignore it, must mean you chose to. I guess the means you don't really want to debate, you would rather rant and call people names. Fine suit yourself.

This is the third time. Read the part that is in bold. That is my definition of terrorism and a terrorist. It is also my statement of when I would be okay with torture. You know, as you pointed out, the topic of this thread.

So since you have so conveniently dodged what was a pretty stratight forward definition of terrorism, I will try it again. Anyone who kills innocent civilians for the sole purpose of making a political statement is a terroist. If we catch one, I have no problem with him being tortured if we have to in order to find and stop any other terrorists he might know of. If we can stop one bomb in one school or one bus or one pizza shop, yes, its worth it.


As to how this applies to other situations, peoples, wars, or history, I wrote this as well.

Those who fight for whatever it is they fight for, including freedom, muslim supremecy, communist dictators...whatever, if they direct their efforts against armies and soldiers I will allow that they are combatants, not terrorists.

When you made the statement about one person's terrorist being someone else's patriot, you were engaging in an attempt at moral relativism in equating say a bus bomber with a French resistance fighter in WWII.

So again, Buck,.... if I made a comment that can be seen to be traitorous, please identify it. If I didn't, you can apologize ... or not. I don't really care. As I have said before, I will lose no sleep over your opinon anyway. And don't flatter yourself, there are alot of Liberals on this board capable of intelligent discussion and debate. I'm disappointed to see that you are proving that you are not one of them.

[micfranklin]

Let's just make it easy and stop labelling everyone who doesn't agree with torture a terrorist or someone anti-American.

[apdst]

Let's just make it easy and stop labelling everyone who doesn't agree with torture a terrorist or someone anti-American.

That would be great. At the same time we can stop labeling everyone that doesn't call our troops criminals, undermine the war, or oppose the GWOT war mongers, un-patriotic, sheep, brainwashed, propaganda tools, etc.

Sounds fair to me.

[AlanC]

Let's just make it easy and stop labelling everyone who doesn't agree with torture a terrorist or someone anti-American.

I haven't called anyone here a terrorist, but I am getting a bit tired of being called a traitor.

[Kyi Yo]

Just to mention; There's a form on-line that uses the freedom of information
act whereby you can request your FBI file. I got mine in 2005 and it had
nothing remarkable in it. Some people's are just terrible though and they're
good decent folk.

I know, my file is a couple of decades old. My mole notified me when I first came to the attention of the FBI and keeps me informed when new information shows up. The domestic terrorist thing is something we're really watching closely though. All those in the activist circles are very aware of how the current administration is using their new powers to intimidate, threaten, and suppress our voices and spy on us. It seems their particular targets for the moment are the "green groups".

I haven't been working on mining, timber or oil issues out of the country since four of our close knit activist community were killed for working for two groups of Indigenous Peoples in Mexico and South America on protecting their forests. I got my wings cut the day after my friend was executed in her office in Mexico City. I had just returned from working with her the day before. She was an attorney and an awesome woman with a beautiful heart. She was watching out for us, we won. We won in south america too.

[AlanC]

Well I'm sure there are many ways to get your very own government file. Now the question is, within a barely functioning bureauocracy, can anyone find it?

[AlanC]

I know this is redundant, but I'm reposting it to give Buck the opportunity to respond to it. I wouldn't have thought that he would be the type to just duck a legitmate response, but then you never know.


All I want to do is get you to define what you understand terrorism to be. You seem to want to limit it to current days only. I want to know if you're proceeding by gut instinct only, or if you have some principle or definition behind your idea of "terrorist."

As for "traitorous," I just figured that if so many people were slinging the term around like it was just another insult, that I would too. My complaints about free and easy use of the term have already been registered here. But in a way, I see it as tit-for-tat in response to your calling me a moral relativist. Chew on that for awhile.

If you would have looked above, you would have seen a clear and recognizable definition of a terrorist that can easily be applied to any people of any time period. That you ignore it, must mean you chose to. I guess the means you don't really want to debate, you would rather rant and call people names. Fine suit yourself.

This is the third time. Read the part that is in bold. That is my definition of terrorism and a terrorist. It is also my statement of when I would be okay with torture. You know, as you pointed out, the topic of this thread.

So since you have so conveniently dodged what was a pretty stratight forward definition of terrorism, I will try it again. Anyone who kills innocent civilians for the sole purpose of making a political statement is a terroist. If we catch one, I have no problem with him being tortured if we have to in order to find and stop any other terrorists he might know of. If we can stop one bomb in one school or one bus or one pizza shop, yes, its worth it.


As to how this applies to other situations, peoples, wars, or history, I wrote this as well.

Those who fight for whatever it is they fight for, including freedom, muslim supremecy, communist dictators...whatever, if they direct their efforts against armies and soldiers I will allow that they are combatants, not terrorists.

When you made the statement about one person's terrorist being someone else's patriot, you were engaging in an attempt at moral relativism in equating say a bus bomber with a French resistance fighter in WWII.

So again, Buck,.... if I made a comment that can be seen to be traitorous, please identify it. If I didn't, you can apologize ... or not. I don't really care. As I have said before, I will lose no sleep over your opinon anyway. And don't flatter yourself, there are alot of Liberals on this board capable of intelligent discussion and debate. I'm disappointed to see that you are proving that you are not one of them.

[Buck Laser]

AlanC, I get a little annoyed by the "challenge' words you sprinkle through
All I want to do is get you to define what you understand terrorism to be. You seem to want to limit it to current days only. I want to know if you're proceeding by gut instinct only, or if you have some principle or definition behind your idea of "terrorist."

As for "traitorous," I just figured that if so many people were slinging the term around like it was just another insult, that I would too. My complaints about free and easy use of the term have already been registered here. But in a way, I see it as tit-for-tat in response to your calling me a moral relativist. Chew on that for awhile.[/quote[
I probably shouldn't have included that, since it was a remnant from an old argument, but I was pissed when you called me a moral relativist with no justification
[quote=AlanC]If you would have looked above, you would have seen a clear and recognizable definition of a terrorist that can easily be applied to any people of any time period. That you ignore it, must mean you chose to. I guess the means you don't really want to debate, you would rather rant and call people names. Fine suit yourself.

This is the third time. Read the part that is in bold. That is my definition of terrorism and a terrorist. It is also my statement of when I would be okay with torture. You know, as you pointed out, the topic of this thread.

So since you have so conveniently dodged what was a pretty stratight forward definition of terrorism, I will try it again. Anyone who kills innocent civilians for the sole purpose of making a political statement is a terroist. If we catch one, I have no problem with him being tortured if we have to in order to find and stop any other terrorists he might know of. If we can stop one bomb in one school or one bus or one pizza shop, yes, its worth it.

As to how this applies to other situations, peoples, wars, or history, I wrote this as well.

Quote:
Those who fight for whatever it is they fight for, including freedom, muslim supremecy, communist dictators...whatever, if they direct their efforts against armies and soldiers I will allow that they are combatants, not terrorists.
When you made the statement about one person's terrorist being someone else's patriot, you were engaging in an attempt at moral relativism in equating say a bus bomber with a French resistance fighter in WWII.[quote]
Alan, all you're doing here is displaying some ignorance about what the French resistance did during the war. If they were caught by the Wehrmacht, they were treated as terrorists. Most were executed summarily. Resistance workers did blow up trains, schools, buses, if they theought they could hinder the Germans. I think you've assumed moral relativism, not me.
[quote=AlanC]
So again, Buck,.... if I made a comment that can be seen to be traitorous, please identify it. If I didn't, you can apologize ... or not. I don't really care. As I have said before, I will lose no sleep over your opinon anyway. And don't flatter yourself, there are a lot of Liberals on this board capable of intelligent discussion and debate. I'm disappointed to see that you are proving that you are not one of them.
Alan, I told you why I used the words traitor and traitorous: I despise those words, but several posters have been throwng them around at presidents, and I've complained bitterly about it, only go have Boog make smartass remarks about definitions go totally off the mark.

I've stated time and time again my unalterable opposition to torture as a means of extracting information from prisoners. I've charged the administration with serial lying about torture. What do hear? I hear loud whines and injured dignity--"that's not what I meant" stuff. At the end of the day, you don't want to give it up.

So you tell ME, Alan, who's the disengenuous one?

PS: the structure of V-Bulletin SUCKS at enabling continuing dialogue.

[Tessy]

How about the ones that have several times set off car bombs because US
troops were handing out candy to childern and they deliberately killed as
many of the children as they could.. I find that to be an act of pure terrorism.
I suppose you don't?

OK, show me them. Or even one of them. Admittedly we caught some white
American guys driving around with explosives in their cars more than a few
times - and each time they're set free by the "higher-ups". Twice such persons
were implicated in "market bombings" and in one case there was what seemed
like very direct and concrete evidence. I guess in all cases they were CIA folks.

But show me an Iraqi that did that - just one.

Now, road-side bombs set off by cell-phones have been directly connected
to Iraqis and more than a few Iraqis were arrested and/or shot as a result.
"The perps were ID'd and served" so to speak. I personally consider that a
legitimate form of combat and one I'd probably use myself in the same
circumstances (maybe). We can catch them... why not these others you
say blow up their neighbor's kids? Something smells like fish to me.

[Tessy]

Well I'm sure there are many ways to get your very own government file. Now
the question is, within a barely functioning bureauocracy, can anyone find it?

Barely functioning my red rump-cheeks! Barely functioning for you and I
maybe... Not for the boys on the other side you can bet your bippy! There
are auto generated profiles on everyone connected to the internet which are
cross-referenced with the computer's order information, and utilities connected
to the same address as the net connection, all of those people's financial, school,
any cell phones (owners) records that have ever come in or out of that residence,
and all voice and text communications - not some, but ALL. It's been like that since
the the very beginning of the internet. And additionally all other referenced connections
personal, private, business, and government. All they need is the interest to look into
you're particular information with a pair of eyes and it's all there for them to see if
you didn't make sure you were completely outside the system from just about day
one. Meaning no birth certificate, no real name used in public schools or home
schooled, and etc. etc. right on down the line. I know quite a large number of
families who have done just that. Anyway, my father designs defense satellites,
I am formal master in Computer Science, and my brother in-law is an NSA lifer so
for me at least there is little or no doubt about these things. The USA really does have
technological superiority over all other nations even though you wouldn't think so by
our consumer markets, academic publications, and what we're told about current
governmental operations and systems. I know, I know, I'm a "conspiracy nut"
right? :madlaugh:

In any case if they have an interest in looking at your information or a reason to enter
any of it into your "official" files it's all there for them to do so. There are currently a
shortage of humans in the loop which I suppose is an advantage for freedom lovers
though! :D We're at work remedying that though if you look at the field enrollment
information across the nation's current academia.

.

[Tessy]

Alan, I told you why I used the words traitor and traitorous: I despise those words, but several posters have been throwng them around at presidents, and I've complained bitterly about it, only go have Boog make smartass remarks about definitions go totally off the mark.


Dear Mr. Buck Laser,
Are you suggesting that under any definition of those words that our current
and past several presidents are NOT traitors? Please explain.