So your vote goes to torture detainees if that means we can subdue, or even prevent future attacks? I highly doubt it, and history proves over, and over, and oh so boringly over, violence begets violence. So yes, sue me, I'm using what Department of Justice (what a misnomer these days) would kindly refer to as “liberal crack pot ideology with a bit of reluctance thrown in for a good measure.” I say go fuck yourself. You can rewrite and criticize history akin to a bedtime story full of malcontents, but then again see what happened to Germany. Look at the Cold War, now that one was just a silly “I got more nukes than you” game, right? I rest my case, and you can definitely find my case among the hard facts: United States, (up until the election where Al Gore (((almost))) became a president), used to harshly prosecute people involved in any kind of torture techniques. What is waterboarding? It's just a nice word that some White House PR idiot came up with. As in “no, we can't say drown those fuckers... let's just say, waterboarding. Brings a nice image of a beach, like a sport of sorts, maybe hmm, let's say in Cuba? Cuba's nice, right?” If you don't believe, just sift through the rulings of the United States federal judges in the past decade.
Now that Supreme Court's allowed habeas corpus for all inmates “relaxing” in Cuba, these detainees have been allowed, no, given a chance to have a federal court hearing based, and I quote here “on the reasonableness of their detentions.” (see Judicial Review and Administrative Detention by Amos Guiora)
Oh wait I have more to substantiate my “washed out liberal anti-governemnt speech”: this Saturday, Washington Post reported that:
The government also relied on Hatim's interrogations and his testimony at military hearings, during which he is said to have admitted to training at an al-Qaeda military camp. Judges have been skeptical of such statements unless the government provides evidence that the men were not seriously mistreated. In Hatim's case, the Justice Department did not dispute his contention that he was tortured in U.S. custody and that he made those admissions to avoid further mistreatment.
So let me get this straight, Hatim here admitted to molesting Santa Claus and starting all kinds of weird shit “to avoid further mistreatment?” I imagine if you were tortured, you'd admit to pretty much everything. You would probably sign any piece of paper passed on to you, just to avoid having your already beat up head submerged in a bucket of fetid water for hours at a time. You have to love these ubiquitous statement by the Justice Department. I swear, I do, just don't torture me. See, that was easy. Oh wait there's more (as if you didn't see that coming):
Musa'ab al-Madhwani had admitted to interrogators and testified before military hearings that he had trained at an al-Qaeda camp and traveled with its members in Afghanistan and Pakistan, records show. But the detainees' attorneys argued that the statements were tainted because their client was brutally tortured while in U.S. custody before his arrival in Cuba. He confessed only to prevent further mistreatment, they argued. The government did not contest Madhwani's claims.
Still more, hold on to those boards you lucky champs:
Binyam Mohamed...provided the government its most sensational allegation: He told interrogators that the Algerian trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. Kessler wrote that she could not credit Mohamed's allegations because he had been mistreated in foreign and U.S. custody. The government did not dispute his well-publicized accounts of torture.
As of the date of this article, Federal Court ruled in favor of detaining 9 cases, and maybe, maybe releasing some 30, given that language of the ruling is so convoluted, that it appears favoring White House decision of continuous silence and commitment to torture while denying it at the same time. (That's a straight (or so) line from Mr. Shearer, who, by the way, is the biggest man on the block whom I wholeheartedly admire. Please don't sue me). Really? So why then Department of Justice “did not dispute his contention that he was tortured in U.S. custody and that he made those admissions to avoid further mistreatment?” So who's stupid now? Raise your hand kids, it's all for the American good, and in the end, it's only water, right? How bad can that be?
No comments:
Post a Comment