Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Hater Depot]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article6869291.ece

[djsmnc]

Kill them and hide the body?

[nathanrutledge]

Call his wife for a date.

[ddeubel]

I think you guys with the snide comments are much like the guy in LOGS

Innocent dolts is another term that applies to those who don't see what could be coming. I'd also quote Niemoller's "First they came for..." but the reference would be lost.

What is horrendous is that Obama still isn't cleaning up this garden of evil. It is a sad chapter in America's great book. Shame comes right to mind.

DD
http://eflclassroom.com[/url]

[Steelrails]

(Donning realpolitik hat- setting aside 'morals' hat.)

1)Bribe them through third-party channels. If they refuse make it clear that they must accept and leave it alone or they risk 'uncomfortable situations' in the future.

2)Accidents.

3)Go public and spin it so that somehow you come across as the good guy. "We're taking a stand against torture, even in our own ranks." Torturer is classified as a lone nut. Form some sort of International Anti-Torture Commission. Lose 3 seats in the Senate in the Purple States as you are labeled a pro-terrorist.

4)Go public and spin it so that people were incompetent/negligent (works especially well when blaming previous administration). "We're sorry but what happened was a clerical error- we thought he was KSM. Oh and that torturer soldier was a lone nut. Even better- "This is exactly why I was elected- to bring a measure of accountability that was lacking in the previous administration." Then hold no one accountable.

5)Go public and come across as the bad guy. This is for when you're wanting to appear more evil than you actually are/are facing difficult mid-term elections in the Purple states. "Yes we tortured, we were defending America." Defy historical trends and pick up 3 seats in the Senate during the mid-terms.

6)Outsource blame- claim it was done under the supervision of the Qatarians or the Croatians, or some other country that most Americans would struggle to find on a map.

7)Break the story but immediately have some other story like Michael Jackson's death take place to blow it off the front pages.

8)Ignore the story. Pray that it gets lost in the news cycle. So a few Salon.com readers know about it, big deal.

(Takes off realpolitik hat, puts back on morals hat)

Admit you're profoundly sorry and try and do everything to prevent torture in the future. Lose in many ways, possibly in re-election. Maintain some level of moral credibility. After your one-term you can go be U.N. Secretary General.

[djsmnc]

[Steelrails]

Oh I forgot- be the lawyer who represents the torture victim, revive your sagging legal career, write a book about it, then cash in on the book royalties 5 years later when it's made made into a movie staring George Clooney.

[nathanrutledge]

You want a non-snide comment? Fine. I don't think that the United States did anything wrong. A reading of the Geneva Conventions shows that the Bush administration argument that they do not apply to terrorist combatants is very plausible. Also, because the Army Field Manual is based ON the Geneva Convention, its rules didn't apply either. Hence, at the time everything was occurring, it was legal.

Now, I agree, if innocent people were imprisoned and, for lack of a better word, tortured, that's terrible. But let's look at the situation. 3000 people were murdered as they worked, the United States told the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over or face the consequences. Anyone who thought "well gosh, now's the perfect time for a trip to Afghanistan" is just asking for trouble, especially when that someone is a male from the middle east. Tortured or not, the fact remains that he did go to Afghanistan and he did meet with Bin Laden on 4 separate occasions. Considering how Bin Laden and his people operate, there is no hard and fast rule on determining who is and who isn't a terrorist, so a Kuwaiti who traveled to Afghanistan, gave money to groups within Afghanistan, and met with Bin Laden is a perfect candidate for terrorist ties.

Finally, I think the article you decided to base this on is crap. It's not a news story, it's an opinion piece. Read the actual court order. It's full of redacted sections that make it impossible to know how accurate the governments information truly was. You can't come out and say that we aren't China/Iran and have an independent judiciary, and then say "see, look, we tortured an innocent man" when the ONLY thing the court did was order his release. There was no compensation (which, it was a civil case, could have been imposed), there was no order of investigation, there is no way to know the full extent of the truth. Considering that he was originally held under the military tribunals scheme and then finally brought before the civilian federal court, any and all evidence obtained that was admissible before was inadmissible then.

Also, on a snide note, I didn't realize that he was in his 40's and overweight. I probably wouldn't call his wife.

[Reggie]

nathanrutledge,

That is one of the best avatars of all time on this website. I chuckle every time I see it in a thread. Did you take the photos yourself and make the avatar? If so, very well done.

[nathanrutledge]

[zipper]

The question is who is responsible? Who calls the shots? Where is culpability? Saddam Hussein was tried at a Tribunal on crimes against humanity; yet he wasn�t tortured; unlike Al-Rabiah who is an innocent victim. The US�s Bureaucracy and government are so vast and convoluted that making any individual in government responsible is nearly impossible.

The presumption of innocent until proven guilty was something that disappeared when Bush and his cohorts suspended Habeas Corpus for terrorist suspects and detainees as if that would justify gross human rights violations. I guess that the Statue of Liberty only points to Europe.

What�s disturbing is that Al-Rabiah�s interrogators doubted his confessions, and even intelligence analysts didn�t think that he should have been detained. So why didn�t they let him go? The justice department. They wanted to proceed with their case against Al-Rabiah despite the obvious Geneva Convention violations and sadistic methods of torture. There is some culpability with the US justice department.

The US isn�t as bad as other countries where groups of people are violently oppressed and suppressed, but it looks as though it is no better when it comes to the treatment of individuals. Shame on the U.S; torture is immoral. The Bush administration encouraged torture to extract confessions in order to enhance its war on terror doctrine as well as Bush�s political authority. Victims subjected to the methods of torture described in that article would almost confess to anything the torturer wanted just to escape the mental and physical pain. So the confessional results of both the innocent and guilty would be identical in most cases, thus making such confessions useless.

And to hear that Obama�s administration is perpetuating his predecessor�s policies is worse than shameful.

[nathanrutledge]

[zipper]

Yeah, you�re right. The Iraqi High Tribunal was like feeding a wolf to a den of lions. I labeled it �Tribunal�, because that�s what it was called; even though it had no relationship to the UN Tribunals.

The US declared war on terrorism, and since the prisoners that were subjected to torture were terrorist combatants, then I surmised that the prisoners captured during a military conflict would be afforded basic rights and treatment; regardless who were the victors and losers. �They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof�� Geneva Convention.

I understand your point about the Army Field Manual and the Bush Administration�s point of view, but hundreds were captured by the US military, and since the Bush Administration did declare �War� on terrorism then why wouldn�t the Geneva rules apply to enemy terrorist combatants?

I admit that I have based my opinion regarding Al-Rabiah�s case from what I read in that article. But I have trouble with the definition that the Bush Administration argued on what an enemy combatant is, since the victor, as you rightfully pointed out, was and still is calling the shots.

[nathanrutledge]

[zipper]