UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> United States does not torture?


12/27/06 6:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14103
What is with all the amateur psychology on this thread? Is no one capable of actually responding to my posts? It doesn't matter who I am. I could be a five year old kid, an angry vegetarian hippie, a 50-year old congressional staffer, it doesn't matter. Yes, that's it. No one is "capable" of responding to your posts. You've made such a stunningly original, completely unexpected argument that you've disabled people's ability to respond. Look, you acknowledge that your thread title is a direct reference to something that Bush said. You made the following statement:
The abuse of power that so many people, myself included, though COULD happen IS happening, and has been happening for some time.
Are you claiming that this sentence is not a direct reference to the perceived "abuse of power" on behalf of the Bush Administration? Or is it your claim that you were concerned about "abuse of power" even under Clinton? You think I'm not SERIOUS about the issue? No, I don't. I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you. If you were serious, you'd do your best to learn as much as possible about the issue, which you have not done. This insistence you have that I somehow prove myself worthy of having my message, rather than your assumption of what my politics are, responded to is not only patronizing, it's downright bizarre. If you don't think I'm worthy of being responded to then just go to another thread. Stop being so dramatic. I never said you have to "prove" anything-- I simply pointed out that your argument contained factual errors. Expecting an argument to be factually correct is now asking you to prove yourself? That makes me a bad guy now, or a partisan sniper? Are you satisfied yet that this is more that partisan sniping? Or are you going to continue to address the messenger rather than the message? This is borderline surreal. This is funny. You don't research the topic (or at least perform poor research), make errors in fact, and then proclaim we should focus on your message. Your message contained factual errors. I addressed the factual errors. Now your point is simply, "Torture is bad," right?
12/27/06 6:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5356
that you believe there no check upon the authority proof you unserious, Yougottawanna.
12/27/06 6:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14104
In this thread, that IS what I'm questioning. So then you're OK with torture as long as the person is "proven guilty"?
12/27/06 6:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5357
so the US, acting on *Canadian* intelligence that identified Arar as an extremist, sent him (holding a *Syrian* passport) home. and you blame not the Canadians for their handing off of responsibility, or the Syrians for their disregard of civil rights, but the US?? btw, since Maher Arar was freed, he's been thought to have visited Afghanistan to train at a jihad terrorist camp. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=099A65B3-96BC-4DA0-A601-6D2E1737FAEC
12/27/06 6:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06 07:01 PM
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20151
Yes, that's it. No one is "capable" of responding to your posts. You've made such a stunningly original, completely unexpected argument that you've disabled people's ability to respond. Look, you acknowledge that your thread title is a direct reference to something that Bush said. You made the following statement: The abuse of power that so many people, myself included, though COULD happen IS happening, and has been happening for some time. Are you claiming that this sentence is not a direct reference to the perceived "abuse of power" on behalf of the Bush Administration? Or is it your claim that you were concerned about "abuse of power" even under Clinton? I admit that during Clinton's administration I was not aware of this issue. During Clinton's administration I was in high school and I didn't know the OG existed. That's why you didn't see me making threads about it then. And I admit I didn't even know the extent of this until recently, and I still don't. And I admit that my knowledge about this subject is hardly encyclopedic. But as I have said, multiple times before this, whether this happened under other administrations or not has no bearing on my judgement of its ethics. No, I don't. I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you. Then I can only say to you what I said the Souljacker earlier: you're simply wrong. Your theory that I only "care" about torture because there is currently a Republican in the white house, and because I enjoy the feeling of being offended about something, is simply wrong (and insulting). If you think my irritation about your claims, which you make despite never having met me and knowing nothing about me personally, is an example of "dramatics," then fine. But I don't second-guess your motives for making posts, I respond to them. As for you not being "capable" or responding to my posts, that was the wrong wording. But for every one word you've written about the practice of rendition and torture itself on this thread, you've written five speculating about the partisan motives for me making this thread. If you were serious, you'd do your best to learn as much as possible about the issue, which you have not done. I AM trying to learn as much as possible about this issue. And I've learned some things in the process of making this thread. I didn't know everything when I made it, and I still don't. When will I know enough for you to believe that I'm "serious" about this issue? And by what authority do you declare yourself to be the arbiter of whether or not my knowledge is broad enough to qualify my views as valid? Stop being so dramatic. I never said you have to "prove" anything-- I simply pointed out that your argument contained factual errors. Expecting an argument to be factually correct is now asking you to prove yourself? That makes me a bad guy now, or a partisan sniper? I said this: "While extraordinary rendition was in use before the current administration, previously rendered suspects like Carlos the Jackal and Ramzi Yousef were rendered to the country that seized them, not sent to a third country to be detained." and you provided an example of this type of extraordinary rendition before the current administration. Since I wrote that, I have acknowledged the case of Saleh, and when it happened, numerous times. As soon as I found out the details of his case my very next post contained this: "So Ahmed Osman Saleh appears to be a rendered and tortured prisoner in 1998. My mistake." And yet you continue to claim that my motivation for this thread is nothing more than partisan, as you claimed in this sentence: "No, I don't. I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you." This is funny. You don't research the topic (or at least perform poor research), make errors in fact, and then proclaim we should focus on your message. Your message contained factual errors. I addressed the factual errors. My message contained one factual error, which you pointed out and I acknowledged several posts ago. If there are more, by all means point them out. What's more, you did not merely address factual errors. You have constantly speculated about my political motives for making this thread. Now your point is simply, "Torture is bad," right?" My point in this thread is the problem with a lack of oversight, and I've explained it more than once. I'll copy and paste an earlier explanation: "We assume they're doing it to try and help the country. And in this case you may be right, however misguided and negligent they were. However, one of the purposees of a legal system is to allow the accused to see and respond to the evidence and charges against him or her. This is to prevent abuse of power, and in this case and many others it's simply not happening. There is nothing stopping government agents from imprisoning and torturing completely innocent people based on their personal agenda or views but their own sense of restraint. And no matter how admirable or well-developed their sense of restraint is, this is simply not an acceptable check on their power. Even a cursory study of history tells us that when the potential for abuse of power without any kind of oversight or check is there, the actual abuse is inevitable. What seperates the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the US, which work for the public good, from those of a totalitarian country in which the "law enforcement"'s first job is to intimidate or dispose of rivals to the current politicians in power? The answer is checks, oversight, transparency, all the things that are being continuously chipped away at even as I type this."
12/27/06 6:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06 06:47 PM
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20152
that you believe there no check upon the authority proof you unserious, Yougottawanna. To what check are you referring? So then you're OK with torture as long as the person is "proven guilty"? In certain, very specific circumstances, yes I am "okay" with torture. But as I've already stated on this thread numerous times, my complaint on this thread concerns the process that determines whether or not torture is justified, and the fact that the process currently seems to be little more than the personal opinion of the people doing the torturing. so the US, acting on *Canadian* intelligence that identified Arar as an extremist, sent him (holding a *Syrian* passport) home. and you blame not the Canadians for their handing off of responsibility, or the Syrians for their disregard of civil rights, but the US?? Just because I haven't specifically blamed the Canadians or the Syrians on this thread doesn't mean I think they're blameless. Yes, they both acted inappropriately. But so did we. btw, since Maher Arar was freed, he's been thought to have visited Afghanistan to train at a jihad terrorist camp. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=099A65B3-96BC-4DA0-A601-6D2E1737FAEC The link you posted said the article is "no longer available."
12/27/06 6:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5365
Dozens of Canadians join Jihad terror camps There has been a slow but steady procession of Canadian Muslims to jihad over the past decade, many of them via the terror training bases of eastern Afghanistan, where recruits were indoctrinated into radical anti-Western ideology and taught how to make explosives and chemical weapons. Among them: Amr Mohamed Hamed, a British Columbia man killed at a training camp in Afghanistan in 1998; Mohammed Jabarah, a Catholic school graduate from St. Catharines, Ont., who oversaw an al-Qaeda bombing conspiracy in Southeast Asia; and Abderaouf Jdey, a Montreal man whose suicide note, in which he pledged to die a martyr, was found in Kabul. A classified RCMP intelligence report warns that recruiting will likely continue in Canada. "Terrorists and organized crime groups may exploit flaws in migration controls to blend into and recruit from immigrant communities and also to move associates into Canada," it says. "In Canada, over 17% of the population is foreign born, making Canada more vulnerable to these tendencies than are other developed nations," says the April 30, 2003, report, released under the Access to Information Act. "By contrast, only 9% of the U.S. population is foreign born." *** Since Maher Arar was released from a Syrian jail after a year in custody, reports have claimed that in 1993, the Ottawa engineer also made the trek to Afghanistan. In a brief interview this week with the Post, he declined to discuss the accusation. "I can't really answer any questions right now," he said. His family insists he has no links to terrorism. *** While they make up only a tiny minority of the Muslim population, Canadian jihadis have nonetheless caused significant damage. They have attacked allied soldiers, participated in plots to kill hundreds of civilians and sullied Canada's international reputation along the way. None of them has ever faced any criminal charges in Canada for terrorist activities. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8674&only
12/27/06 6:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06 06:58 PM
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20153
Since Maher Arar was released from a Syrian jail after a year in custody, reports have claimed that in 1993, the Ottawa engineer also made the trek to Afghanistan. In a brief interview this week with the Post, he declined to discuss the accusation. "I can't really answer any questions right now," he said. His family insists he has no links to terrorism. Do you have any additional details about the report alluded to in the article? I ask because according to O'Connor, the head of the commission on his case, Arar has been the subject of a smear campaign. I will quote O'Connor: "Unnamed" government officials who sought to smear him before his story had embarrassed them leaked accusations against him to the press. Even before Arar's return, one "anonymous" Canadian official described him as a "very bad guy," and said he had undergone trainning with al-Qaeda - a claim he denies and for which no evidence has been produced . . . Some of the leaks, O'Connor concluded, "were purposefully misleading in a way that was calculated to do him harm."
12/27/06 7:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14105
But as I have said, multiple times before this, whether this happened under other administrations or not has no bearing on my judgement of its ethics. Put this tired horse to rest. No one has yet said that it affects the ethical standing of such a practice. What is being said is you don't have the information necessary to make such a determination. How can you make a definitive judgement on something such as this without knowing all of the facts? Then I can only say to you what I said the Souljacker earlier: you're simply wrong. Your theory that I only "care" about torture because there is currently a Republican in the white house, and because I enjoy the feeling of being offended about something, is simply wrong (and insulting). Not necessarily a Republican-- just Bush. But for every one word you've written about the practice of rendition and torture itself on this thread, you've written five speculating about the partisan motives for me making this thread. I AM trying to learn as much as possible about this issue. And I've learned some things in the process of making this thread. I didn't know everything when I made it, and I still don't. Then I ask again-- how can you make a definitive judgement about the practice if you admit you are not well versed in it? When will I know enough for you to believe that I'm "serious" about this issue? And by what authority do you declare yourself to be the arbiter of whether or not my knowledge is broad enough to qualify my views as valid? When I believe you'll be "serious"-- when you actually do something besides make OG posts. My authority-- I have none. However, you're the one who objects to my viewpoint, so obviously there is some sort of perceived authority.
12/27/06 7:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06 07:18 PM
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20154
Put this tired horse to rest. No one has yet said that it affects the ethical standing of such a practice. What is being said is you don't have the information necessary to make such a determination. How can you make a definitive judgement on something such as this without knowing all of the facts? What further information do I need? A man was arrested without a charge or a warrant, taken to a third-world country, and held without trial for ten months, during which time he was tortured. To me, this reveals a flaw in our system, a huge one. What information am I lacking that will reveal my above judgement to be incorrect? Not necessarily a Republican-- just Bush. Then you're wrong about that too. You're asking me to prove that I DIDN'T make this thread to bash Bush? Well I can't prove that, I can't prove a negative. Then I ask again-- how can you make a definitive judgement about the practice if you admit you are not well versed in it? You're holding to me to an unreasonable standard of expertise. No one person can know everything about this issue, not in the least because the vast majority of the cases of extraordinary rendition are still classified. And yet you set a standard of knowledge as the minimum for which you will even entertain the possibility that I might have a point that trancends whatever you think my politics are, but offer no specifics as to what I have to do to meet that standard. I have told you what I know - which in the case of my first post was the details of the Maher Arar case - and what my objections to that case were. When I believe you'll be "serious"-- when you actually do something besides make OG posts. This is extraordinarily weak, isn't it? How do you know what I have or haven't done about this issue besides make OG posts? Have you hired a detective to shadow me? What should I do in addition to making OG posts to satisfy you? When I believe you'll be "serious"-- when you actually do something besides make OG posts. My authority-- I have none. However, you're the one who objects to my viewpoint, so obviously there is some sort of perceived authority. So you have no authority, and if I read this post right, you have no objection to my viewpoint either. In that case, hopefully the discussion of my motives and personal politics is over and the thread can continue with the discussion of extraordinary rendition.
12/27/06 7:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14106
What further information do I need? If this wasn't the OG I'd actually be concerned. Nowhere else does someone admit to a profound lack of knowledge about a topic and then proclaim that they need no further information to make a definitive judgement. I mean...are you seriously making this argument? That because you found the details concerning this one case you can make an informed judgement about the program as a whole? That's completely (and I choose this word carefully) stupid. What information am I lacking that will reveal my above judgement to be incorrect? You are conflating two separate, albeit related, topics. One is how Arar was treated, and the other is whether the system itself is flawed. If you want to use the Arar case as a testament that the system is flawed, fine. But don't pretend as if the argument has centered around whether Arar was treated correctly or not. The information you lack concerns the program as a whole, not specifically about what happened to Arar. Your attempt to deflect the argument is cheap and transparent. Then you're wrong about that too. You're asking me to prove that I DIDN'T make this thread to bash Bush? Well I can't prove that, I can't prove a negative. No, I'm not wrong. I've already demonstrated how your thread title and initial post showed a specific intent to bash the Bush Administration. You can either come up with an adequate explanation as to why you targeted the Bush Administration instead of the practice itself or you can admit that your opposition is motivated primarily by a desire to question the Adminstration. You're holding to me to an unreasonable standard of expertise. No one person can know everything about this issue, not in the least because the vast majority of the cases of extraordinary rendition are still classified. Expecting you to know the BASICS (such as when the program was started and how it was carried out) is unreasonable? There is enough information on this practice to choke a horse, including two recently published books that I know of...not to mention all of the information on the internet. It took approximately two minutes worth of reading to reveal the fact that individuals rendered under Clinton were sent to places such as Egypt. Expecting you to spend those two minutes reading up on the topic instead of simply posting on the OG is not unreasonable. Again, this appeal to ignorance is absolutely stupid. I have told you what I know - which in the case of my first post was the details of the Maher Arar case - and what my objections to that case were. Just so I have this straight... You are now admitting that your stance on extraordinary rendition is based solely on what happened in the Arar case? LOL That is utterly, absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. This is extraordinarily weak, isn't it? How do you know what I have or haven't done about this issue besides make OG posts? Have you hired a detective to shadow me? What should I do in addition to making OG posts to satisfy you? How do I know? How about the fact that you do not have the slightest grasp on the history of the program? Or the fact that you just admitted your entire stance is based off of one specific case? Someone who is involved in the issue outside of the OG certainly wouldn't fall prey to either of those pitfalls. So you have no authority, and if I read this post right, you have no objection to my viewpoint either. Your viewpoint is based on scant evidence, is poorly formed and betrays your bias. So you are reading my post incorrectly. I do object to your viewpoint.
12/27/06 7:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tidbits
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3109
"If that were what this is about, then you wouldn't be questioning the practice of torture-- only the practice of torture as it is used on those who have not been proven "guilty". Or are you OK with torture for those that are proven "guilty"? Of course you aren't. So please, answer my question-- what would you do if your son was involved in a plot to murder innocent people? " Answer mine first - would you want or allow any member of your family subjected to any of the "acceptable" tecniques or unacceptable ones for that matter? Just to show you, if my son were involved he should be subject to the full extent of this country's LAWS! Read what I said before, the end NEVER justifies the means. Torture is wrong now matter who, U.S. citizen, non citizen I don't care. It's morally and societally wrong. Period. No discussion. As for speaking for those people who have fought and died for this country, but I can say that the principles and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded do not include torture of any person.
12/27/06 8:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14107
Answer mine first - would you want or allow any member of your family subjected to any of the "acceptable" tecniques or unacceptable ones for that matter? I've already answered that, actually. In fact, you responded to it on page 3 of the thread. I'll type it again: As it stands, however, if my son were part of plot to murder innocent people, as much as it pained me I would support whatever measure it would take to prevent the attack. Read what I said before, the end NEVER justifies the means. Torture is wrong now matter who, U.S. citizen, non citizen I don't care. It's morally and societally wrong. Period. No discussion. No discussion? Sure, Tidbits. As for speaking for those people who have fought and died for this country, but I can say that the principles and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded do not include torture of any person. You take the liberty of not only defining what torture is, but also who would and would be against it. What you would consider to be "torture" nowadays (such as sleep deprivation, exposure to the cold, etc.) would be considered par for the course for POWs in the wars of our founding fathers. Do you honestly believe that Revolutionary War interrogations resembled anything like what we have today?
12/27/06 8:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5366
Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies p. 143-144
12/27/06 9:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06 10:30 PM
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20156
If this wasn't the OG I'd actually be concerned. Nowhere else does someone admit to a profound lack of knowledge about a topic and then proclaim that they need no further information to make a definitive judgement. I mean...are you seriously making this argument? That because you found the details concerning this one case you can make an informed judgement about the program as a whole? That's completely (and I choose this word carefully) stupid. You didn't answer my question, did you? To review, my question was "what further evidence do I need?" That is NOT the same thing as saying "I have no further evidence," by the why. I told you upon what information I've made my judgement, and why. You've claimed that I don't have enough information to make that judgement, but you won't elaborate on what more I need. You simply allude to a vast store of information that I don't have, that I assume you think invalidates my position. Then you called my opinion stupid. Here is my claim: that under the current system, a person can be arrested, imprisoned, and tortured without being charged with a crime, and I provided an example. If you want me to provide additional examples, fine: Binyam Mohammed (who [edited] was eventually charged, three years after his arrest and imprisonment) and Mahoud Habib, taken to Morocco and Egypt, respectively. But for you apparently this example is not enough, you declare that I have to research further before my claim can be taken seriously. IF my claim is flawed because I haven't done enough research, point out how! I made a claim and provided evidence. Why should I have to meet your arbitrary, undefined standard of scholarship before you'll even give my opinion the honor of a response? No, I'm not wrong. I've already demonstrated how your thread title and initial post showed a specific intent to bash the Bush Administration. You're not merely claiming that this thread contains a criticism of Bush. You're claiming that my motives for making this thread are completely dishonest and partisan: "I think you want to be upset about something (as witnessed by your dramatics about me leaving the thread and people not being "capable" of answering your posts) and this is the issue of the moment for you." You can either come up with an adequate explanation as to why you targeted the Bush Administration instead of the practice itself or you can admit that your opposition is motivated primarily by a desire to question the Adminstration I DID target the practice itself. Nowhere in my first post did I mention Bush by name. Yes, the title alludes to something he said. Yes, there IS a criticism of Bush in the thread. However, your claim is that the thread exclusively exists for the SOLE reason of criticizing Bush, and that I wouldn't even care if Bush weren't in office, and that's what I'm contesting. Your reduction of the options to "either explain why there is an implicit criticism of Bush" OR (your words: )"admit that your opposition is motivated primarily by a desire to question the Adminstration" is a false choice and you know it. Expecting you to know the BASICS (such as when the program was started and how it was carried out) is unreasonable? There is enough information on this practice to choke a horse, including two recently published books that I know of...not to mention all of the information on the internet. It took approximately two minutes worth of reading to reveal the fact that individuals rendered under Clinton were sent to places such as Egypt. Expecting you to spend those two minutes reading up on the topic instead of simply posting on the OG is not unreasonable. Again, this appeal to ignorance is absolutely stupid. First of all, I have not listed the entirety of my knowledge about this subject on this thread just so you can review it to see if it meets your standards. I've brought in the examples I consider relevant. If you think they're irrelevant or incomplete, then tell us how. You have never elaborated on what these "basics" are, or in what part of my knowledge I am deficient according to your standards. You've simply alluded to knowledge you think I should have but I don't, but you won't illustrate the flaw in my claim. Though you did call it stupid again. Again, here is my claim, copy and pasted from above: "Here is my claim: that under the current system, a person can be arrested, imprisoned, and tortured without being charged with a crime, and I provided an example." Never on this thread have you contested it, you've just told me, on the basis of an authority you admit you don't even have ("My authority --none.") that I'm not qualified to make it. DEMONSTRATE HOW. No more vague references to the "the basics" or "the history" or all the books you say you can rattle off of the top of your head. Just so I have this straight... You are now admitting that your stance on extraordinary rendition is based solely on what happened in the Arar case? LOL That is utterly, absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. When did I say my views were based SOLELY on the Arar case? That is your baseless embellishment, not my admission. I brought up the Arar case because it's an example, an example you've made no attempt to address. Apparently my views are "ridiculous" in addition to stupid now however. How do I know? How about the fact that you do not have the slightest grasp on the history of the program? Or the fact that you just admitted your entire stance is based off of one specific case? Someone who is involved in the issue outside of the OG certainly wouldn't fall prey to either of those pitfalls. So you know that I haven't done anything besides post on the OG, not that it would even matter, because you say I don't have the slightest grasp on the history of the program? How? You have an amazing ability to extrapolate the (irrelevant) details of my personal life based on what I post on here. Your viewpoint is based on scant evidence, is poorly formed and betrays your bias. So you are reading my post incorrectly. I do object to your viewpoint. Where is my evidence deficient? What additional evidence shows that my viewpoint, which I repeated above, to be wrong? And if you DON'T object to my viewpoint, what did you mean when you said "you're the one who objects to my viewpoint, so obviously there is some sort of perceived authority."?
12/27/06 9:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20157
You are conflating two separate, albeit related, topics. One is how Arar was treated, and the other is whether the system itself is flawed. If you want to use the Arar case as a testament that the system is flawed, fine. But don't pretend as if the argument has centered around whether Arar was treated correctly or not. The information you lack concerns the program as a whole, not specifically about what happened to Arar. Your attempt to deflect the argument is cheap and transparent. So presumbably you have some reasoning illustrating how Arar's case was an exception, and that usually there are catches involved to prevent it? "If you want to use the Arar case as a testament that the system is flawed, fine." - That IS what I'm doing! It's what I've been doing all along.
12/27/06 9:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18222
" btw, since Maher Arar was freed, he's been thought to have visited Afghanistan to train at a jihad terrorist camp. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=099A65B3-96BC-4DA0-A601-6D2E1737FAEC" Story no longer available However, the Canadian commission enquiry has established beyond all shadow of a doubt that Mr Arar never set foot in Afghanistan. But he must have been guilty of something, he's still listed as persona non grata in the US, although Madame Rice has not been able to tell the Canadian press why this is so, she has promised to get back to us on that.
12/27/06 9:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 10925
I wonder how the US scores on Human rights
12/27/06 9:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18223
I'm not sure the US constitution recognizes universal human rights per se. Citizenship rights yes, but rights to all humans regardless of citizenship? Not sure. Maybe a constitutional expert can shed light on this.
12/27/06 9:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18224
"Terrorists fourfit there rights when they declared war on the US." Arar was not a terrorist, he was a Canadian citizen, a country that you may not know is actually an ally of the US and that country's biggest trade partner. But our Conservative (even more so than the Liberals) are basically the Republican's bum boys, so it won't mean much. If Arar had been arrested under Clinton, there might be more fuss. As it is, just polite enquiries.
12/27/06 9:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18225
"Who says Candains cant be terrorists? A bunch of them got arrested this year who were going to blow up Canadain congress." Nobody, but in Arar's case he was both a non-terrorist AND a Canadian citizen. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
12/27/06 9:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18226
I personally blame our politicians and police (glad the top cop resigned over this). Either they were wilfully stupid and assumed the US would treat Arar like a regular person, or they were in fact biased against Arar because he was a Muslim which was enough to make him suspect in their minds. Throw the bums out, I say.
12/27/06 10:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18227
"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29
12/27/06 10:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18228
from the wikipedia article above: Allegation of torture during imprisonment In the criminal case, legal brief filed on behalf of Padilla alleges that during his imprisonment he has been subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[6]
12/27/06 10:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Yougottawanna
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Dec-06
Member Since: 09/21/2001
Posts: 20159
"Yeah much worse than having your head slowly hacked off while you are concious." The fact that terrorists do very brutal things doesn't make it acceptable for the US to do things that are slightly less brutal.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.