And me without my armbands....

It should be pointed out that very recently information came out that there were a few dozen Chinese Muslims in Gitmo. It was found they were not terrorists at all. However, instead of being freed, they were held in Gitmo for over a year beyond the point where their innocence was found. The excuse was that the US could not find a location to ship these individuals. Eventually, Norway, or another similar country, decided to take them in. I don't remember the exact destination they ended up because is was a few months ago when the story came out.

So, while you look at this and, knowing A_QB and L.M.'s limited capacity for corrolation, might say "Who cars?" What you miss is that these people were innocent and yet still imprisoned for several years before being released. If you think they are the only ones that were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are fooling only yourself.

This is America. We are supposed to be able to walk around with our heads held high proclaiming to the world our ability to be fair to anyone and everyone. We are supposed to be the light that provides the rest of the world a goal to become.

Throwing whomever you want into a secret prison for whatever reason you want isn't American.

 

JR - Amnesty International? Didn't they recently admit that they focus on the US abuses because it helps with fund raising?

This gives you a perspective on Amesty International these days.

 

The French Resistance fighters were not shot "as spies," Lou.
They were shot, actually, as "terrorists," or as traitors to the Reich. The members of the IRA who fought in plainclothes were shot for largely the same reasons. Now, before the odd synapses begin to fire, I am not comparing either group to the people who are blowing up Iraq at the moment, or to the irregular fighters in Afghanistan. I'm just saying that the "in the uniform of their country" standard is historically ambiguous -- even if we weren't jailing uniformed Taliban soldiers as well, which we are.
That comment from the State Department flack seems interesting. "Amnesty documented human-rights abuses under Saddam for 24 years, a period during most of which the United States was helping to arm him and ignoring everything AI was saying about him, but they're not cheering as loudly at his trial as we want them to." Forgive me if I wait for coherence before I comment.

And bias by category regarding Human Rights Watch? Boy, they're busted.
Perhaps the United States is a big enough influence in the world to be cited individually?
I knew this was coming. Ask for evidence and, when it's provided, by organizations that the US used to rely on before the current administration came in, attack the organizations themselves.

 

No, that's some flack from the State Department's perspective.  And not worth very much I might add.

He's either in denial or lying through his teeth. But, of course, instead of addressing and/or facing up to AI's report, bring out the traditional right wing red herring.

 

Fenian - if you are not comparing the French Resistance or the IRA to the prisoners at Guantanamo - why bring them up at all?

And I love how you expect people to take you sources at face value. Classic Fenian.

 

Geez, I think I explained why I brought the Resistance and the IRA up.
And I don't expect people to take things at "face value." What I would like though is that, if you're going to debunk what HRW says about Gitmo, that you do it on the merits, with some substance to it, and not by yelling "anti-American!" and citing the structure of the blogroll at their site.

 

JR - more on AI (though knowing you I expect your opinion of AI is set in stone)

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/vol4no9/May2006_digest.html#amnesty

Fenian - just so I understand your logic. What you are saying is that you don't care how biased a source is - it is up to me to disprove what they assert - otherwise we have to take what they say as gospel? HRW is very biased against the US and Israel (especially against Israel) - sorry if I'm skeptical because they have cried wolf so many times.

 

The clown show will excuse ANYTHING. Their precious boys can't POSSIBLY be wrong.

:

Tools.

 

No, if you read carefully, and what a cockeyed optimist I am for saying that, I suggested that "They're anti-American" is not a sufficient rebuttal to what HRW said about our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. You say we're not torturing people. They say we are. Their evidence is online. Where's yours?
Oh, and just to play on your field for a second, here's a little more about the Capital Research Center.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=48

 

I'm thinking that if I was going to put my faith behind an organization, I'd pick one that's been around for 45 years, has won a Nobel Prize, fought for the rights of political prisoners in the Soviet Union before Reagan "liberated" it , was instrumental in the release of dissidents such as  Natan Sharansky over a Washington  based advocacy group that looks for "leftists" and "liberals" under every bed.

But that's just me. 

 

Hippie.

 

Typical copy desk puke. Argues for 45 minutes about the placement of a comma, but doesn't get the meaning of the story.

Let me put it in simple terms for you before you head back to the rim.

This means you could be arrested if anyone else suggested you were involved in terroristic activities, or just because someone wanted you out of the way. With no due process. No right to face your accuser. Nothing.

Simple enough?