This week’s McClatchy investigative series in The Eagle about prisoner abuse and wrongful detention at Guantanamo and other facilities should shock and outrage Americans, we argued in Wednesday’s editorial.
As the articles amply document, many of these supposed “terrorists†and “worst of the worst†were nothing of the sort. They were low-level criminals, or Taliban foot soldiers, or innocent villagers swept up in the fog of war.
The beatings and harsh treatment many detainees faced in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and other sites produced little of intelligence value, say former intelligence officials, but they did succeed in turning many prisoners and their families into avowed enemies of America.
The series and editorial have sparked some predictable cries of “Why should we care about these people?â€
But if you care about the Constitution and living in a nation of laws — if you think this nation is better than its enemies — then you should care about the Bush administration’s cynical and secretive torture policies and end runs around the law.
Those responsible for these abusive policies, from the White House on down, should be held accountable.
123 Comments
From Gitmo, to Abu Ghraib, the crap that went on and still does is a little more than “letting off steam”, like the Grand Douche, Rush Limbaugh says. It’s a tad more than stacking naked men one atop the the other for a few good laughs. Put it on your “to do” list, to watch this, Taxi To The Dark Side. And stop watching “24″.
It’s time to bring back Army specialist Lynnde England to deflect more criticism from the higher ups who ultimately permitted the abuse.
Permitted?! You mean sanctioned?, authorized?, requested?, demanded? John Yoo says we can and should, at the President’s pleasure, torture children by applying, to their genitals, pliers in front of the parents…to get answers…to get answers…hahahaha. If that’s “alright” and “just” with anyone, they are some sick-f&%k’s. Good news is, all of those MP’s that are/were doing all of that crap are coming back here to “police” our streets! AWESOME!!!!
Perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/zejmm
Watch it if you have the balls.
I think the News Media are the ones who should be held accountable for their stupid actions in what appears to be terrorist support. These people are killers and should be treated as such. In fact they should be dead before they hit Cuba. Off with their head like they do ours. Now lets all play nice in war. I think the Eagle should drop this subject like a hot potato. If the tables were turned around we would get a trial by rifle or bayonnet.
If the media would stop supporting these terrorists and let the military do the job they are trained to do, we would have been done years ago. Let the military work and save lives. We don’t want history to repeat itself over and over because anyone thinks we are weak in spirit.
Come on Randy!
The incredibly left-wing biased stories and editorials like the ones on Gitmo by the McClatchy organization is why I don’t buy your damn paper anymore.
Many people like me get out news from sources that we can trust. If our sources are biased, at least they acknowledge their bias.
Maybe, just maybe your bias may be the reason the McClatchy organization is in financial trouble and your job is in jeopardy.
out=our
History is repeating itself, over and over…
And how is the media preventing the military from doing its job?
I’ve got my Chinese-slave labor made flag…and I’m a’wavin’ it!
AMERICA, F%&K YEAH!!!!
Dolts.
You must prefer the “incredibly-biased right-wing” media.
“— if you think this nation is better than its enemies —”
Oh I lost any illusions about that a long time ago.
Hank- What news sources do you trust , and why?
Just curious.
Well, gster,
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, NewsMax and various non-news magazines.
I check out Drudge a few times a day for breeaking news and links to my favorite columnists.
I mostly watch Fox News in the morning and try to catch Chris Matthews at night if I can stand him.
So basically Hank, you trust it if it comes from the mighty Rupert Murdoch? Not exactly diversified sourcing there.
Rupert Murdoch, bastion of right-wing thought…fundraiser for Hillary Clinton!
Snicker, snicker. Yeah, there’s a difference in Dems and Repubs.
Good morning Nicki!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Rupert’s byline on any news article I’ve read.
However, his newspapers seem to be doing a little better than McClatchy. The WSJ doesn’t seem to be in much trouble either. (just to get back to the point of my original post to Randy)
The Gen. that investigated abu graib for the military also investigated other aubses at different locations. Some of the pranks authorized and done by the military included hanging suspects from the ceilings, multiple beatings, sodomy, electric shocks, and sexual humiliation. He stated that higher ups caused war crimes to be committed, and the only question is will they be held accountable.
Hank- What would your reaction be if it was shown the Eagle- McClatchy article was correct in fact and conclusion?
What I’m wondering if you are discounting the messenger for the message itself?
“What I’m wondering is….
I believe that scumbags like you Randy should be held accountable for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Thanks for the valuable tip, Hank. Our family just re-started our Eagle subscription.
Did you read the series on Gitmo, Hank? I was wondering which parts you would dispute? And, based upon what sources?
“All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Paul Simon
HLP reminds me of bush, reads only what supports his point no matter the credibility of the article, or source.
“What I’m wondering if you are discounting the messenger for the message itself?”
No gster, basically, I’m discounting the message because of the messenger.
The McClatchy ‘investigation’ is little more than a biased rehatch of old (many discounted) claims.
“An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.”
What they fail to mention, to be fair and balanced’ is that most of the detainees have been released. Furthermore they fail to mention that over thirty of the detainees have returned to the battlefield and killed our soldiers.
Their ‘investigation’ is so biased it should be be classified as merely more left-wing, anti-war propaganda.
Good for you Steven!
Let me know nest time they use my picture on the front page!
“These people are killers and should be treated as such.”
Some are. Unfortunately far too many are not. THAT is where the problem lies.
bth
Posted June 19, 2008 at 10:04 am | Permalink
“These people are killers and should be treated as such.”
Some are. Unfortunately far too many are not. THAT is where the problem lies.
——————
Bth where the problem lies is in the fact that in an undeclared war that the terrorists launched on the US it is hard to know the enemy. A lazy newsman and his readers will shop for the story that matches what they want to believe and run with it.
Listen to the democrat congressmen and senators that have visited GITMO. What do they have to say? The cleanest prison they have ever seen, good food that is in keeping with their religious beliefs, ample exercise time, prayer rugs and Korans furnished, etc… Research it for yourself. Don’t believe everything you read just because it fits your narrow minded viewpoint.
War is hell. Prisoners are a necessary part of that process. Information is needed to protect American servicemen and womens lifes.
This is an old story brought back to try to influence a national election. Show them we voters demand better and move on to the real issues.
The “thirty” that returned to the battlefield, were most likely farmers that after having been released (after being wrongly detained), found the battlefield for the first time (after having been through the torture/terrorist creation camps)and started at that point to kill his new enemy, us.
I would trust what “Democratic” observers would say, if I didn’t know that they are no different from a “Republican” observer. Our ENTIRE government are criminals. Criminals are known to lie from time to time.
Pleefer please be as accommodating in the motives of the American soldiers. We were attacked unjustly. Unannounced. Bruttally. Without warning. We fought back finally.
When will the left stop blaming the right for creating terrorists.
OKOB:
It doesn’t matter how nice the facilities are at Gitmo. It’s confinement.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t seem to want to try them and find out if they were guilty or not.
If they are guilty, castrate them / kill them whatever. The point is that this administration hasn’t even bothered to find out if they are guilty or not.
Is it to get information for the war on terror?
What type of information can we get out of them today that will help the war on terror?
We are just supposed to trust those who confined them to Gitmo. The same types of people whom we trusted to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, find proof of Saddam connected to Al-Aqida, etc.
If nothing else, go or get off the toilet.
Is the theme of this thread “innocence” — and how justice cries out for those who are “wrongly accused”?
Very well, how about some mention of the “Haditha Marines”???
http://politicalvindication.com/?p=2059
American fighting forces have been wrongly accused, several times.
The accusations make the front page.
When charges are dropped?
Hardly a peep is heard from the left wing press!
llLLTVET
Posted June 19, 2008 at 10:52 am | Permalink
OKOB:
It doesn’t matter how nice the facilities are at Gitmo. It’s confinement.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t seem to want to try them and find out if they were guilty or not.
If they are guilty, castrate them / kill them whatever. The point is that this administration hasn’t even bothered to find out if they are guilty or not.
Is it to get information for the war on terror?
What type of information can we get out of them today that will help the war on terror?
We are just supposed to trust those who confined them to Gitmo. The same types of people whom we trusted to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, find proof of Saddam connected to Al-Aqida, etc.
If nothing else, go or get off the toilet.
———————-
Unlike you vet I choose to believe our own military. War is ugly. Many are detained or confined without reason simply because they were somewhere they shouldn’t have been, they were shooting at our military, they were caught burying land mines or because someone didn’t like them and what they stood for.
I say when we release them and they still have their heads attached then we have done our duty. That is more than our our prisoners received.
Franklin this was a prime example of the left wing media on a mission and the millions that chose to believe them. Senators and congressmen on the left rallied on the floor for their execution and then wonders of wonders they have been found not guilty.
You won’t hear from the left on that one. These marines were our soldiers and therefore guilty as charges without a trial. The left will remain silent on this because they are spineless appeasers who really don’t want justice. They only want to see American cast as the villans. The creators of terrorism.
What a sad day for Americans if this faction ever rules our great country undeterred.
Unlike you OKOB.
I am skeptical of our civilian leadership that is in the pentagon. I don’t hear, ..”we were wrong on WMD’s, wrong on the price of this war, wrong on al-qaida-saddam, but we are right this time” (even though we have said those same things all the way down the line)
I choose to watch them a little close since they can’t be trusted anymore.
Sorry, spelled that German city the wrong way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
The creed of the NonCommissioned Officer says (among other thing) “All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership” The leadership from the DOD Civilians of this administration has not been outstanding. It has been DISMAL.
So stop hiding behind the soldiers OKOB and make the civilian leaders provide them outstanding leadership for a change.
Randy, isnt it kind of hard to hold the “highest levels” accountable when pelosi took impeachment off the table so long ago?
Perhaps that is why anyone associated with bushco just thumbs their noses at congress anytime and investigation, er STRONGLY worded letter, is sent by congress?
Vet there is nothing wrong with being watchful but with that should come reason. Our own intelligence told us there were WMDs. The democrat members as well as the republicans accepted this. Bill Clinton said he was told the same thing. He said Sadam needed taken out. Armchair quarterbacking is good but in a national security setting it is just so much yammering.
The left has an axe to grind and Bush is a convenient place to do that but reason will tell you differently. I hope we are never put in that position again but I also hope we have a president at the helm with the courage to make an unpopular decision and not set and wait for the next shoe to drop.
We have not been attacked since 9/11. Conincidence or fear of retribution. Who knows.
Forgiven on WMD’s Observer.
But given that mistake (along with others), shouldn’t we be skeptical on this issue as well?
Shouldn’t we make these people PROVE that the
detainees belong there?
“okobserver” speaks from the last ditch –
“We have not been attacked since 9/11. Conincidence [sic] or fear of retribution. Who knows.”
4,100 Americans have been “attacked” and killed in Iraq since 9/11. Over a thousand more than died on 9/11. Is that your version of “victory” in Iraq?
What’s anybody’s definition of “victory in Iraq?”
Is it too much to ask what we are fighting for? Where is the goal line? How will we know when we’ve “won?” And what will have been “won?”
“low-level criminals, or Taliban foot soldiers, or innocent villagers swept up in the fog of war.”
I didn’t see any innocent villagers in those photos displayed by the Eagle. weasel words…
Besides low-level criminals or Taliban foot soldiers were exactly the tools of war Al Qaeda was utilizing.
Does the Eagle think that Osama Bin Laden and his deputies are the only ones that commit acts of terror?
What naive journalism.
If the Inspectors had been allowed to finish their jobs in March of 2003, there would have been proof that WMD and programs for same did not exist and there would have been no justification for the War.
Instead, they were forced to leave Iraq on the eve of the bombing to save their lives.
Remember, we had to go to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMD?
That was the “justification.”
Not “spreading Democracy.”
Not “a free and stable Iraq.”
WMD – there were none.
“I didn’t see any innocent villagers in those photos displayed by the Eagle. weasel words…”
You can tell if they are innocent by looking at their pictures?
What an amazing power to possess!
Bush has that power too, if they look guilty, no haebeus corpus!
In the entire history of the United States, no President has EVER been forced to give full Constitutional rights to our enemies.
The Attorney General of the United States is NOT the Secretary of Defense.
This is not a law enforcement matter, this is war.
(Even if the captured enemy do NOT qualify for POW status)
Those thirty, were a revengeful bunch weren’t they. If you had been held for years unjustly and tortured/humiliated, think you might have responded the same?
Now if your captors had treated you humanely and fairly, and you were initially brainwashed into thinking they were the enemy, might you have had a change of heart?
Finally justice for the accused marines:
———————-
IN THE MILITARY
Haditha Marine prepares to sue Murtha over smear
Congressman had accused soldiers of killing ‘in cold blood’
——————————————————————————–
Posted: June 18, 2008
6:14 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani
With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.
In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.
————
Where is a thread for this topic?
WS since I know from my short history this blog that to tell you that we were kicked out over and over again when we got close to WMDs didn’t mean that not finding their hiding place didn’t mean they didn’t exist. We know they did. The thousand of his own people he gassed in the streets testify to that fact.
Look at the real facts and not just those tattoed to the back of your eyelids. A whole nother world is waiting for you.
Monkey do you forget that throughout history we as a country have had to strike back to save our civilization.
Those who don’t learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Clinton had a take it attitude during his presidency. We took it and took it and took it until finally we struck back under Bush.
I say again we have not been attacked since 9/11. I think history will be much kinder to Bush than we have been unless the next president rolls over and plays dead.
“We know they did.”
Where are they? It been over five years and even Bush, military intelligence and the CIA say “no WMD.”
So if you know where they are, you should really speak up.
“The thousand of his own people he gassed in the streets testify to that fact.”
A Kurdish village, aligned with Iran during the Iraq/Iran War, with gas purchased from the US….. that does not make it right by any means, but WE did sell him the gas.
“A whole nother world is waiting for you.”
Thank God I choose to stay in the reality based world.
All I know is, can we face a real possibility that tactics we use there, will be used here? The definition of “terrorist” is so vague that just about anyone one of us could be “suspect”. How will they get that “information” out of us? I’m trying to figure that one out, the thought kind of scares me a little bit. But when you believe everything you hear and see, neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother doesn’t seem that far out of the realm.
Good choice of music, Steven. My favorite S&G song.
Now for other news and comments…
Bth where the problem lies is in the fact that in an undeclared war that the terrorists launched on the US it is hard to know the enemy.
And who launched an undeclared war on a sovereign country because they “thought” there were WMDs, but just couldn’t wait to learn they were wrong?
Just how many of you would stand around with your thumbs up your–um, in your pockets, while an army the size of the U.S.’s invaded your country? And what if they kept telling you and your “chosen” leaders exactly how they wanted your country run?
How many of you would stand by while soldiers invaded your home in the middle of the night, screamed obscenities at your family, dragged some of your family away, never to be seen again, and killed others?
A show of hands? Anybody?
Or is the Golden Rule just a bunch of words nobody cares about?
“I think history will be much kinder to Bush than we have.”
Yes, history will show that Bush was ACTUALLY the second worst president in our history, behind William Henry Harrison.
WS a news flash for you – you can’t write history in the present. When people look back at the results of Bush’s presidency I think it will be shown that he did the best he could with the cards he was dealt. He kept the terrorists from further attacking our homeland, our carriers, our military barracks, etc.. Now you might not agree but even someone as smart as you see yourself as being can predict what the history books will show.
#
WSClark
Posted June 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
“I think history will be much kinder to Bush than we have.”
Yes, history will show that Bush was ACTUALLY the second worst president in our history, behind William Henry Harrison.
——————————-
Naw, the history will show that the Democratic Party was filled with the biggest whiners that ever slithered on planet earth.
Pre
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” by any stretch of the imagination.
Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and Iraq had then lost a war that liberated Kuwait.
That war NEVER, legally, ended.
The United Nations STILL had sanctions against Iraq.
The United States Government recognizes that we have been in a Congressionally Authorized conflict with Iraq since the Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Iraq agreed to a “cease fire” which limited the sovereign powers of Iraq.
Iraq was NOT a free, sovereign power. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, as defined by President Clinton’s State Department.
Iraq was allowed to survive, under Saddam, if and only if Iraq followed UN sanctions and, if and only if, Iraq followed the provisions of its cease fire agreeement with the United States.
Iraq, under Saddam, violated all of those sanctions and cease fire provisions, on several occassions.
“Those who don’t learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”
You mean the McGovern run for President?
Franklin well said. The evidence speaks for itself to anyone interested enough to research it.
Fleetwood that would be right.
A valid argument Franklin. Those facts about Iraq are true. I would have fully supported the Iraq war and this president under 3 conditions:
1. He finished the business in Afghanistand FIRST.
2. He would have went to war on those VERIFIED FACTS rather than WMD speculation.
3. I could have even forgiven the WMD mistake, if he had just shown us that he would hold himself to a much higher degree of accountability afterwards.
If he would have said something to the effect of: The buck stops with me, so I made the mistake about the war, from now on, I will prove to the american people that what I decide is right. (within reasonable classification, of course)
As it stands right now, he just wants more authority and NO QUESTIONS ASKED. That doesn’t sit well with me.
So, Rossell, given your statements regarding Saddam and his actions in the Eighties and early Nineties, why didn’t George the Smarter take out Hussein in 1991?
And why did Regan and Bush I support Iraq during the Iraq/Iran War during the Eighties?
“I would have fully supported the Iraq war and this president under 3 conditions:”
No, you wouldn’t have. But if it makes you feel like less of a defeatist, go for it.
“I think it will be shown that he did the best he could with the cards he was dealt.”
George WMD Bush WAS the dealer and he dealt from the bottom of the deck.
“why didn’t George the Smarter take out Hussein in 1991?”
You people. I think your memory is shorter than your d1ck
“You people.”
Explain – how did the Democrats STOP George HW Bush from taking out Hussein.
And, at least I have one……………..
Fleetwood the mindreader. You know what I would have and wouldn’t have supported. Why am I not surprised?
Gen. Taguba: Bush Administration Committed War Crimes
The Army general who first investigated the abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes. Retired Major General Antonio Taguba made the comment in a new report about US torture practices. Taguba wrote, “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture.” Taguba went on to say, “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/19/headlines
Senate Joint Resolution 2 was approved in the United States Senate on January 12, 1991 by a vote of 52 to 47.
Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution:
House Vote Approved: 250-183 at 3:51 PM EST on Saturday, January 12, 1991.
Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
Play it off any way you want, for those of us listening to bush, we know that he has the gift of the third eye, and can look through the windows into a man’s soul!
The good ole USA has never been very good at gathering intelligence remember when these guys were going to over run the country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shwzJNQlubo
warning course language
“Explain – how did the Democrats STOP George HW Bush from taking out Hussein.”
It wasn’t in the mandate. Don’t you remember?
“It wasn’t in the mandate. Don’t you remember?”
It was not REQUIRED, but was permissible.
So how is it that it is the Democrat’s fault?
Come on, you brought it up, now answer.
Come on, you brought it up, now answer.
No, that would be the answer that Clark wants to hear.
He’ll keep repeating his mantra over and over until you say something he wants to hear.
Until then, it’s “la la la la la la la.”
WS
You can NOT have it both ways.
You can NOT, reasonbly, claim that the current Bush should NOT have removed Saddam, and then claim that Bush 1 SHOULD have removed Saddam!
Also, our ALLIES did not sign on to remove Saddam, at that time, our allies only agreed to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
annie
The Black Panther Party was brutal, they killed people by soaking them in gasoline and setting them on fire.
The Black Panther Party had Marxist sympathies.
They WERE dangerous —
And you, Annie, are naive.
There are evil people in the world.
It is the job of our government to protect us from such people.
“So how is it that it is the Democrat’s fault?”
Didn’t you read the vote totals I posted?
You people were (as usual) against it. “50,000 body bags!!”
The real Americans voted to go help Kuwait.
If we would have gone into Baghdad, you people would have clarked your Depends.
“and then claim that Bush 1 SHOULD have removed Saddam!”
Nathan would be very unhappy with your reading comprehension, Rossell.
I did not CLAIM that Bush I SHOULD have removed Saddam – I asked, given your scenarios, why he didn’t?
And why did we support Hussein during the Iraq/Iran War?
“You people were (as usual) against it.”
So, the incredibly powerful Democratic Party stopped George the Smarter, despite the majority vote in Congress?
How does that work?
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” by any stretch of the imagination.
and then…
Iraq agreed to a “cease fire” which limited the sovereign powers of Iraq.
When you make up your mind, let me know.
1.a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4. a gold coin of the united kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.
Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and Iraq had then lost a war that liberated Kuwait.
Um, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was siphoning Iraq’s oil, so WE (the U.S.) basically gave them the nod to do whatever, then WE went in and knocked them out. Cool. We should be so proud. Who’s next? After Iran, I mean.
Iraq was NOT a free, sovereign power. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, as defined by President Clinton’s State Department.
Gee, we can make a break sovereignty with a declaration. Does the rest of the world know this? Just think what we could do!
The United States Government recognizes that we have been in a Congressionally Authorized conflict with Iraq since the Saddam invaded Kuwait.
An invasion WE encouraged.
The United Nations STILL had sanctions against Iraq.
And Israel has even more sanctions, so what’s your point?
“He’ll keep repeating his mantra over and over until you say something he wants to hear.”
The Cons on this Blog are NOTORIOUS for making statements without foundation and then failing to back them up with logic or fact.
Yes, Franklin, you can have it both ways. The situation/support was entirely different between the two decades. In one we had world support for the invasion both militarilly and monetarilly. In the other we had a coalition of One with the U.S. taxpayer picking up the lions share of the tab.
“So, the incredibly powerful Democratic Party stopped George the Smarter, despite the majority vote in Congress?”
Repeat after me.
It-wasn’t-in-the-UN-mandate.
“In the other we had a coalition of One with the U.S. taxpayer picking up the lions share of the tab.”
A coalition of one? I thought the Cons were the Notorious ones.
“The Cons on this Blog are NOTORIOUS for making statements without foundation and then failing to back them up with logic or fact.”
Hmmm, that’s weird.
“It-wasn’t-in-the-UN-mandate.”
Repeat after me – it was not REQUIRED but it was permissible.
Pseudo Observor, pseudo intellectualism is refreshing as opposed to pseudo sock puppets.
Franklin,
I used the google to search for black panthers soak people in gasoline and set them on fire hmmmm no linkies. I remember the msm painted them as the evil black devils that were going swoop down upon us, rape our daughters, sons, dogs and cats.
At the same time we had the domino theory going on in southeast asia. Remember the evil commie devils who going to swoop down upon us steal our freedoms rape our daughters, sons, dogs and cats.
Now we have Muslim hordes who are evil islamofascists jihadists who are going to swoop down upon us and and. You call me naive hahahahahahahahahhahahah
No, Iraq was NOT sovereign.
Is a convict, in Levenworth, a “free citizen of the United States with full constitutional rights”??
Of course not!
Likewise, Iraq was a criminal, outlaw state under UN Santions and a Cease Fire Agreement.
Iraq was NOT free to do things which violated the cease fire agreement.
No, Iraq was NOT sovereign.
Is a convict, in Leavenworth, a “free citizen of the United States with full constitutional rights”??
Of course not!
Likewise, Iraq was a criminal, outlaw state under UN Santions and a Cease Fire Agreement.
Iraq was NOT free to do things which violated the cease fire agreement.
Iraq was NOT sovereign.
Is a convict, in Leavenworth, a “free citizen of the United States with full constitutional rights”??
Of course not! —
Likewise, Iraq was a criminal, outlaw state under UN Santions and a Cease Fire Agreement.
Iraq was NOT free to do things which violated the cease fire agreement.
Annie
Snopes is just about as liberal and Snopes is just about as pro-Black Panther, as any present day organization that you can find.
Snopes defends Hillary Clinton, against the charge that Hillary helped brutal Black Panther murderers get off the hook.
However, Snopes even states, clearly, that there is no denying the brutality of the murder of Alex Rackey, who was, among other things, tortured with scalding hot water:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp
The Black Panthers were heavily involved with Arson and murder by Arson, again, a rather sympathetic link:
http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/black.htm
Methinks clark is gonna blow.
Annie
Another rather sympathetic link which states, clearly, that the Black Panther Party had a great deal to do with the formation of the Crips street gang, in LA.
Then, of course, the Bloods formed, because the Crips were killing so many Blacks that did not want to be Crips!:
http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html
The Crips and the Bloods, together, have murdered far more Black people than the KKK!
And, the Crips and Bloods BOTH started as a direct result of the Black Panther Party!
“Methinks clark is gonna blow.”
That is your specialty, isn’t it, Fleet?
Personally, I am a carpet licker.
WS
READ would you?
You are a bit more lazy than usual, you big blow hard.
I NEVER said that I was among the group that attacked Hillary over the Black Panther/Rackley murder issue.
What I said was that even Snopes, in defending Hillary, and even Snopes, in being sympathetic to the Black Panthers — EVEN SNOPES SAYS THAT THE BLACK PANTHERS WERE BRUTAL!
Franklin,
From your own linkie:
The murder of Martin Luther King Jr. marks one of the largest riots America has seen. “The assination of Martin Luther King Jr. was an act of war,” riots swept 168 ghettos after his death. “Sheer rage set off the worst outburst of arson and looting in the nation’s history, resulting in 46 deaths and 21,000 injuries. 24,000 federal troops and 35,000 National Guardsmen were deployed. 711 fires were recorded
Says nothing about The Black Panthers setting fires per say. Seems like they were upholding their second amendment rights. Were you alive back then?
A General’s comments abuot our treatment of prisoners:
“General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes.
WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/41514.html
““Sheer rage set off the worst outburst of arson and looting in the nation’s history,…”
I know when I’m pissed, I go and steal stuff.
Represent, brother!
Annie
Two wrongs do NOT make a right, correct?
So, how does it help Black people for the Black Panthers to murder one of their own, a “suspected FBI informant”??
How does it help Black People for the Black Panther Party to torture another Black man with boiling water?
I fully understand that there exist, today, many people who want to excuse the Marxist, brutal, violent Black Panther Party for its torture and murder and riots.
You have not done any research at all, on this subject.
It is obvious from the complete ignorance of your posts.
I am only making the point, with my posts, that even OTHER liberals, who HAVE done their “homework” admit that the Black Panthers were dangerous and violent criminals.
“EVEN SNOPES SAYS THAT THE BLACK PANTHERS WERE BRUTAL!”
How do you go from that…………. to this…………..
“Snopes defends Hillary Clinton, against the charge that Hillary helped brutal Black Panther murderers get off the hook.”
Unless you mean by “defend” that they presented “facts” something that you apparently do not recognize.
Annie
Back to the original point, or at least, back to your original post of the Black Panther video:
Would Americans be safer today, if our government had ignored the threat of Communism?
Would Americans be safer today, if out government had ignored the threat of the Black Panther Party?
In your childish, naive mind, victory over our enemies is, somehow, “proof” that our enemies were never really very dangerous, to begin with.
In your twisted, simplistic mind, only when we actually lose a war against an enemy, foreign or domestic, will you, MAYBE think that war might have been justified.
Communism has murdered far more people than Hitler.
The Crips and the Bloods have murdered far more people than the KKK.
But, liberals want us to rememember the brutality of Nazis and forget the brutality of Communists.
Liberals want us to remember the brutality of the KKK and other racists, but forget the brutality of the Crips, the Bloods and the Black Panther Party.
Evil must be fought.
Our past victories over evil, in the past, are proof that victory over evil IS possible.
Franklin,
Question were they a threat to national security? That was the point of the post. Faulty intelligence gathering then, same as now. Which was the tie in to gitmo.
I never said they were nice people. Their biggest crime as a group was dissent. Don’t agree? At least your allowed to dissent.
WS
YOU are a MORON!
I used the Snopes piece to support my argument, to Annie, that the Black Panthers were brutal, murdering, Marxist thugs.
I do not think that Hillary had much to do with the actual criminal defense of the Black Panthers involved in this particular murder.
She was not even an attorney, at the time.
I never accused Hillary Clinton of ANYTHING in this regard.
I simply used a source, SNOPES, that you libs usually respect, in order to make a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT!!
Again, you are a MORON.
Learn to read and learn to reason and learn how to argue a bit better.
You have become a real bore, way too easy.
Not even a challenge anymore.
“Their biggest crime as a group was dissent.”
Do what? The Black Panther’s biggest crime was dissent?
“I do not think that Hillary had much to do with the actual criminal defense of the Black Panthers involved in this particular murder.”
She wasn’t even a god damned lawyer – she was NOT employed by the defense.
“I simply used a source, SNOPES, that you libs usually respect, in order to make a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT!!”
That some of the Black Panthers were not friendly neighbors – jeez – that is a shock.
“Learn to read and learn to reason and learn how to argue a bit better.”
Every time you show up on the blog, Rossell, I kick your ass because you make statements without foundation and then you lie, like a typical Republican, to try to cover your tracks.
Debating a barking dog is more of a challenge than debating you, Frankie.
WS
Again, you dig your “moron hole” deeper!
Are you a complete narcissist? Do you understand that their are other conversations, on this Blog?
Do you read at all, or just attack as soon as you see something that ticks you off?
If you look, upthread, you will see that you and I have said almost EXACTLY the same thing, on a couple of points, yet you STILL argue and attack as if you are saying something new?
My post (prior to your post):
“She was not even an attorney, at the time.”
Your post (after my post):
WS “She wasn’t even a god damned lawyer – she was NOT employed by the defense.”
And yes, making the point, to Annie, that the Panthers were brutal murderers was important. She obviously did not know that important fact.
Just because YOU, perhaps, did know does not mean that others can not have a conversation, on this Blog, about that point.
judge for yourselves bloggers:
http://www.blackpanther.org/legacynew.htm
“Are you a complete narcissist?”
Yes, and I am damned good at it.
“Do you understand that their are other conversations, on this Blog?”
No, why would there be if they didn’t include me?
“If you look, upthread, you will see that you and I have said almost EXACTLY the same thing”
That is not possible – I have a functioning brain, you are a Republican (by definition, one that does not have a functioning brain.)
“Again, you dig your “moron hole” deeper!”
I don’t have a shovel, can I borrow yours?
“Do you read at all, or just attack as soon as you see something that ticks you off?”
Yes.
Annie
YES, in answer to your question, a radical organization, whose motto is “by any means necessary” — wish is allied with our enemies, the Communists, IS, by DEFINITION, a “National Security Threat” —
Why is that hard to understand?
judge for yourselves, bloggers:
http://www.murderingthugs.com
Frankie, is your personal hero Joseph McCarthy?
Sorry Franklin can’t see any reason to call them my enemy. If the group wanted to set up soup kitchens and other socialist enterprises they had the right. I believe the Catholic Church does the same thing. Are they a terrorist organization too?
Gotta go kisses xoxoxo
Wow. I was going to comment on Mr Scholfield’s contribution to the propaganda, but some of you people… well, one, really, seem to be about to stroke out. Besides that, you guys are off into Black Panthers and Hillary Clinton now. Neither of which interest me in the least.
God, what a lot of garbage.
Some of the biggest nonsense here is on the source of the stories. McClatchy is made out to be like Mother Jones. Nonsense. In fact, my conclusions from and listening to sources that I trust the most in media, because I suspect a lack of agenda, left or right in them, have led me to believe that the Haditha verdict was correct, and that Murtha definitely owes the marines who were charged in this an apology. It was a horrible tragedy, but that’s what it was. Oh yes, the media sources of the investigation that I base these conclusions on? NPR and the BBC.
Coalition conservatives, and Hank based on his own words seems to fall into this category, seem to fall into the fallacy of “not us” or “not in agreement with us” equals “liberal” and “liberal bias”. Sometimes, reality has a “liberal bias”, because reality, being what it is, is not beholden to political bias. Sometimes, reality has a “conservative bias”, because reality, being what it is, is not beholden to politcal bias.
I thought Heckler’s little drive by post also deserves a response. The beheadings were horrible, but to try to use those to “put things in perspective is a complete red herring. To arrest people who were simply in the wrong place in the wrong time, and transport them half way across the world, and then to torture them, or even hold them without charges, is bad. It is bad not just because it is wrong, it is bad because the unjustly kidnapped and imprisoned person, and their family, now has a reason to, to put it mildly, be skeptical of the good intentions of the United States. The difference is, we have a free society and media that allows us to learn about injustices like this and hold those who are perpetrators of these acts, in our name, responsible.
And Franklin, your claim that Snopes are liberals and Black Panther sympathizers is a perfect example of the kind of reflexive, knee jerk bullsh*t for which you are so justly famous. Please inform us as to the basis for your conclusion regarding Snopes. My suspicion is: You “liberal” opponents have used Snopes to nail you. But the reason why you are nailed is not because you are a conservative, it is because you are a bullsh*tter who does not seem to distinguish (or really care) about reality. What you think is what is the truth. “Liberal” bullsh*t is just as vulnerable to sources like Snopes and Factcheck as “conservative” bullsh*t. If there is more “conservative” than “liberal” bullsh*t being shot down, it is more likely due either to the amount or the prevalence of the bullsh*t being purveyed by “conservatives” and “liberals”, not because of the political bias of the site pointing out the bullsh*t.
I heard an NPR interview with the McClatchy editor and writers–seems they actually worked on the story for many months, and traveled far and wide, talking to anyone and everyone they could to verify the detainees’ stories. One was even an Afghanistan government official. Several were cases of mistaken identity.
And the fact that they were simply released–after years in torture and limbo–speaks powerfully of injustice, whatever else might think,
A mere handful have received the so-called combatant status trials. Hundreds have been released–after years in a black hole of torture–with no apologies.
And many more still sit in their cells, without having had the slightest attempt at a fair hearing.
How can anyone defend this?
I thought Heckler’s little drive by post also deserves a response.
Thanks for enduring Heckler’s link, Ksag. So I didn’t have to. So shocking people into reacting rather than thinking is regarded as a valid argument by him. How typical.
KSAg
HUH?
Again, it is clear to anyone who reads the Snopes bit that I posted, that Snopes is sympathetic to the Black Panthers.
This very sympathy is WHY I used that particular link: Because even Snopes was honest about the brutality of the Black Panthers.
Also, KsAg, Annie was obviously unaware of the brutality and thugishness of the Panthers. This is clear in her earlier posts.
I figured that a Snopes article, defending Hillary, on the charge that Hillary was sympathetic to the Black Panthers who tortured and murdered one of their own, would make the point that the Black Panthers were not, exactly, a positive social movement, like some kind of “Neighborhood Watch” committee.
It seems that Dennis Rader should have run a soup kitchen, in Annie’s world. Then Annie would forgive just about anything!
“Again, it is clear to anyone who reads the Snopes bit that I posted, that Snopes is sympathetic to the Black Panthers.”
Jeez, Rossell, shouldn’t you issue waders to all of us so we can wade through the knee deep (or higher) bullshit that you are spewing?
Damn, you make Karl Rove look like Scouts.
“KSAg
“HUH?
“Again, it is clear to anyone who reads the Snopes bit that I posted, that Snopes is sympathetic to the Black Panthers.”
I read it. Thoroughly. I saw now expressions of sympathy to the Black Panthers. What I saw was discussion of different viewpoints of the Black Panther party. What I saw was a recitation of facts. That you think that it is “clear” (i.e., self evident) that Snopes is sympathetic to the Black Panthers says volumes about you and how with you, belief equals reality. You appear to have no inner skeptic with regards to your beliefs.
“This very sympathy is WHY I used that particular link: Because even Snopes was honest about the brutality of the Black Panthers.”
Snopes’ business is being honest. That is what they exist for.
“Also, KsAg, Annie was obviously unaware of the brutality and thugishness of the Panthers. This is clear in her earlier posts.”
I think “Annie” puts the brutality of some of the Panthers in context with the total movement, and this poster’s original point was that the “threat” that they posed was considerably exaggerated. It should be noted for my point of view that my opinion of the Black Pather is probably, based on what you and “Annie” have posted, somewhere between the two of you, but probably leans more towards yours (although I think the “threat” that they posed was considerably exaggerated, they were largely violent and pretty extreme-on the other hand, they did actually provide some stabilizing influences to some of the neighborhoods they were active in, and there were believe it or not groups even more extreme that the Panthers. It truly was a different time. Still, I think overall the Panthers were a movement with a very high potential for vigilante and reactive violence that was sometimes realized, and that is never, ever good.
“I figured that a Snopes article, defending Hillary, on the charge that Hillary was sympathetic to the Black Panthers who tortured and murdered one of their own, would make the point that the Black Panthers were not, exactly, a positive social movement, like some kind of “Neighborhood Watch” committee.”
The writers and investigators of Snopes endeavoer to portray, as accurately as possible, the way things are, and also just what conclusions and statements made in chain e-mails have any sort of evidentiary support. They have no liberal agenda to portray the history of the Black Panthers as anything other than what it was. The conclusion that Hillary Clinton’s role in the trials was considerably exaggerated reflects the reality of the situation, not the political bias of Snopes. You know, some people really are concerned with accuracy, rather than being politically correct with regards to any sort of political orthodoxy, “left” or “right”. And the failure of accurate reporting or investigation or assessment to support “right” or “left” talking points is by no means an indication that the organization relaying the information is itself “left” or “right” leaning.
“I saw now expressions of sympathy to the Black Panthers.”
Should be
“I saw no expressions of sympathy to the Black Panthers.”
Taliban was a strong group started in the early 1980s before we even got involved in the Soviet – Afghanisan conflict. Also, the United Nations has for several decades quietly promoted Nazism and USA-hatred among the Arabs, so what’s new?
“Taliban was a strong group started in the early 1980s before we even got involved in the Soviet – Afghanisan conflict.”
Right. And our support of the Taliban fighters against the Soviets had nothing to do with their being able to position themselves for a takeover of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.
“Also, the United Nations has for several decades quietly promoted Nazism and USA-hatred among the Arabs, so what’s new?”
There are so many absurd claims within that single statement that I don’t even know where to begin.
If you haven’t read Randy’s excellent editorial in today’s paper, take time to do so. It’s well written, well thought out and adds much to this discussion.
http://www.kansas.com/203/story/440211.html