This Story Was Suggested To Me By John K
On a recent airing of the Riz Kahn Show on al-JaQaeda International, ACLU lawyer, Steven Watt, stated that extraordinary rendition flights are just as bad as a beheading. Now, I had to actually look up what an extraordinary rendition flight was because I didn't know. It's the sending of terror suspects to another country to be held and interrogated. Really? That's just as bad as having your head lobbed off? Really?
Story
Categories:
ACLU,
Idiots,
Insanity,
Islam,
War On Terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Perhaps you should look up the history of extraordinary renditions. The US has flown innocent civilians out to be tortured for several months - because there aren't really any checks or balances on it. The CIA's allowed to do whatever it wants, and legally, anything they do can't be classed as torture unless the President says it is (international standards be damned!).
Beheading only happens once, and you don't have to live with the experience for the rest of your life.
So... I'd say they're probably as bad as each other.
BS! One does not compare with the other and should never be classified as equal.
Ask a terrorist which they would prefer?
BTW Indian Chris, I just tagged you. You need to check out my blog for the rules. Can't wait to read your list!
Thanks for that. By the way, that Snap link preview thing on your blog, is that a Wordpress plugin or can anyone install one of those? That's awesome.
Ask a terrorist which they would prefer?
Beheading probably. I know the Bali bombers requested beheading over firing squad because they felt it more humane. They didn't get it, but they asked for it.
"held and interrogated"
held and interrogated is putting an extremely mid spin on it. You can 'hold and interrogate' someone in the U.S., 'rendition', is for all the stuff you can't do, not behind closed doors, not in a high security base, not even when you are willing to bend the rules a little/look the other way.
This is when you want to do something that 'plausible deniability' will not save you from, nor will the seriousness of the situation justify it ('we might have slapped 'em around little, lives were at risk'). It's when you want to do something that can only be done if you send them somewhere 'where all normal rule don't apply'.
Ask yourself how much different a process does this need to be for the US gov to need fly someone to former easern-bloc countries to 'hold and interrogate' someone?
I'd rather take beheading with a sharp sword by a middle-eastern terrorist, than 5+ years of torture and deprivation without an end in sight from the US gov.
I can't compare the two, but I'd have no hesitation in choosing!
It's not a sharp sword. It's rather dull. And it's not done in one quick slice. It's like cutting through a piece of meat. Multiple sawing motions and you're aware of most of it until your brain stem is finally severed. The next time you eat a steak or a piece of chicken, imagine it's a human neck you're cutting through. Meat and flesh tearing off. Blood spurting everywhere. Bones breaking. I'd rather go a few days without sleep or be dunked under than die. Because that's the "torture" that's being done. They're not being beaten or starved. I know some like to think the U.S. government has authorized things like that, but they haven't.
All the torture allegation have never been proven. Thats why they are called "alegations". But if a person constantly associates with and peruses leftist blogs and news services; one would believe that torture was a proven quantity and normal proceedure of the US government. The only thing "proven"is the power of propoganda and those who will believe a lie if it is repeated often enough.
Torture allegations have alot in common with the Hoax that it 'Global Warming".
'a few days without sleep'
gee, you make it sound so friendly. You'd get a worse time than that being drunk and disorderly in a small town.
Sleep deprivation is something that you manage quite well at Guantanamo Bay..
Forget the leftists. Your own gov has acknowledged the practice of 'extraordinary rendition'. From there you just need to use some common sense about the idea of flying 'terror suspects' half-way around the planet to 'hold and interrogate', it's not like they think these people deserve a holiay to an exotic location. On the question of torture, the Bush administration has stated that it will do whatever is necessary.
Do you really think that having handed someone over to 'a less scrupulous third-party, on the other side of the planet' that they are just going to keep them awake? or dunking them in water?
I've had holidays worse than that...
It not a matter of what 'the US gov authorises', the whole idea is to hand the 'suspect' over, and look the other way.
You have to be daft to think that all that effort is gone to for something equivalent to a hazing prank?
You are missing the whole point of giving your 'suspects' to a third-party
Pardon us if we do not cry a river for a bunch of terrorist murderers, criminals and thugs (who coincidentally are Muslims); not getting the propper amount of sleep and having less than first class accomodations for a free plane ride to another country.
Next time maybe they should book through Travelocity and not "Jihad" Air.
John, Priceline's better. I mean, they have Shatner. Come on.
And Murph, like John, I'm not going to shed too many tears for people who were captured trying to kill American soldiers.
'allegedly' tried killing americans.
see that's where it becomes a problem, America is so proud of it's legal system (which has plenty of flaws anyhow), but won't extend the basic concept to 'alleged' terrorists.
"Captured trying to kill american", in reality plenty of people were 'rounded-up'. Some such people were released without charges to answer after years of this 'hopitality' which you have no problem with.
If there was a shadow of a doubt about some of these people, there'd be a lynching (sorry, 'military tribunal'), but they were released without so much as 'we are sorry'.
('American justice' isn't worth a pinch of shit unless it is extended to all without fear/favour/prejudice. Sorry, it fails miserable on that count)
If there terrorists being detained, I would feel far more comfortable knowing that the right people are detained, and are not at liberty, and that innocent people don't take their place. That is what is forfeited when torture and make-it-up-as-you-go-along laws are used in place of solid legal process
I see you two (Chris and John) are determined to believe that 'torture' American-style is just a bit of sleep deprivation, which from limited available accounts is routine at Guantanamo Bay.
Can you answer this: Why does the American gov/military need to fly prisioners great distances (at great expense), for 'processing' that could be done at the place of detention?
(c'mon, it's cos they want to say 'we didn't f*ck-anyone-up ' (we got someone else to do it), isn't it?)
I love the way you (Chris) and John automatically assume they must be guilty.
There are many cases where it's proven not the case. Look up Maher Arar, Khalid El-Masri or Laid Saidi. In particular, look at the reasons why these individuals were imprisoned.
Extraordinary renditions are for untried criminal suspects, suspected terrorists or alleged supporters of groups which the US Government considers to be terrorist organizations - not people who have been caught killing US soldiers. That's something different again.
And no, it's not just sleep deprivation. CIA practices include: extended forced maintenance of "stress positions" such as standing or squatting; psychological tricks and "mind games"; sensory deprivation; exposure to loud music and noises; extended exposure to flashing lights; prolonged solitary confinement; withholding of food, drink, or medical care; withholding of hygienic care or toilet facilities; prolonged hooding; forced injections of unknown substances; sleep deprivation; magneto-cranial stimulation resulting in mental confusion; threats of bodily harm; threats of rape or sodomy; threats of harm to family members; threats of imminent execution; prolonged constraint in contorted positions; facial smearing of real or simulated feces, urine, menstrual blood, or semen; sexual humiliation; beatings, often requiring surgery or resulting in permanent physical or mental disability; release or threat of release to attack dogs, both muzzled or un-muzzled; near-suffocation or asphyxiation via multiple detainment hoods, plastic bags, water-soaked towels or blankets, duct tape, or ligatures; gassing and chemical spraying resulting in unconsciousness; confinement in small chambers too small to fully stand or recline; prolonged underwater immersion just short of drowning (I recall the Bush administration trying to pass that one off as no worse than a "college prank"); and extended exposure to extreme temperatures below freezing or above 120°F.
The only current legal constraints on the CIA's use of such tactics are a) that they can't do anything the President defines as torture, and b) they can't tell anyone that they're doing it. So effectively, there is no oversight.
Ok you two. What part of "I do not care about what happens to Criminals and Murderers"; do you not understand?
And nice job of thread-jacking as usual.(Bait and switch taught in Liberalism 101)
I guess we are not going to discuss the proposed equivelency stated in the article?
"I guess we are not going to discuss the proposed equivelency stated in the article"
I've already said, for me it's no contest, I'll take the beheading (save 5 years of torture).
.. you keep missing the 'alleged' in 'criminals and murders', which is a fundamental component of most enlightened legal systems, 'the notion of innocent until proven guilty'.
The problem the American legal system faces with the majority of those they have detained is that THEY HAVEN'T BROKEN ANY LAWS. The thing that America hopes to demonstrate is that they were 'enemy combatants'. America can make laws to say that it is a crime for it's citizens/persons on it's soil, but to abduct people (many in their homeland), detain and torture, and charge with American laws, make legal structures ('tribunals') as they go.... can't directly compare that with beheading. Unless, of course they are killed as result, or part of process.
What's the chance of that? America pave a bizarre 'leagl' road that ends in the death sentence? I can see that...
Faced with that prospect, I'd be asking 'save me the 5-6 years of violence and pretence, and behead me now.
John doesn't need a court/legitimate legal process to determine the innocence or guilt (since their is no law or jurisdiction that America can subject foreign nations abducted from foreign lands to) of detainees, why does America pretend they are going get a fair trial, they should have executed their prisoners, the result's the same minus 5+ years of deprivation and 'renditions'
I personally feel that battlefield captures are not subject to The United States legal system. That system is only for Americans. It is not right to apply "rights" in American Law to foreigners.
The treetment they are recieveing no matter how unjust YOU two foriegners feel they are recieveing; is far and above better than what those foriegners own legal or tribal system would afford them if captured on the same battlefield. So why all the pissing and moaning?
Should not these jihadist bear some responsibility for their actions? Maybe next time they decide to fight in a war; they should try and not get captured.
But I can see why they would not mind getting captured; now they are living the country club lifestyle in Gitmo not found in their normal life in the cespool that is the Middle East.
"So why all the pissing and moaning?"
... because America holds itself up as a shining beacon of morality, fighting ('good against evil' was it John?)
... yet can't manage to do the right thing with those it 'abducts', and takes to it's own territory. The Australian Attorney General was told that these 'military tribunals' are based on American law, and that you'd be trying an Australian citizen captured in Pakistan? under a cut-down variation of American law, in Cuba!
It would be easy if they were 'battlefield captives', the Geneva Convention would apply, but America is doing all it can to avoid acknowledging international law (again).
Give them international law, or failing that full America law (less than ideal), but to just make-up a new set of laws outside the America or international legal system (that looks more like a lynching than a court).
That's not the behaviour of of a nation fighting 'Good verses Evil'
((... because America holds itself up as a shining beacon of morality, fighting ('good against evil' was it John?))--
Yes..but from now on; since no matter what my country does for the good of others; we will take it in the chops because things do not go perfect as planned; we shall from this point forward; consider the shining beacon of hope and freedom as "Folly" Just from this point forward consider us like the rest of the world. Evil and corrupt; just ;like you always say we are. Then we won't have to be held to your "Holier than Thou" standards that you LOVE to throw back into our faces like dirty rubbish.
Deal? or No Deal?
((It would be easy if they were 'battlefield captives', the Geneva Convention would apply,))--
Wrong. You need to disect the rules. Since the enemy of this war for the United States does not pledge allegance to a Nation(Just Islam); nor wear a particular uniform; the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The closest definition that they can possibly fit in the current wording of the conventions is "enemy combatant". The rules for such are fast and loose because this kind of warfare was not really considered feasable in the time the Geneva Conventions was written.
I do prefer a "Lynching" to any court proceedings. The lesson I wish to pass on to future enemy combatants being: You play, You pay. In one shape, fashion or form; you will pay.
As I said "IT WOULD" be easy if they were 'battlefield captives' (I hate shouting, but you've missed the most important part), they aren't 'battlefield captives' (in a physical sense) as in many cases, were just rounded-up at the Pakistan border... guilty of fleeing the Taliban, you, John (and your country) have judged people guilty for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. America is using the fact that they didn't capture people 'on a battlefield in a literal sense' to avoid legal obligations, making out that the law isn't 'black and white', when it is.
Any right America has to capture/abduct foreign nationals is on the basis of that 'they took up arms'. If that is the case they are covered by section 4 and 5 of Geneva convention, 12 august 1949.
Article 4 describes various classes of combatants, article 5, states that they enjoy the benefit of any doubt about whether they fit in any category of Article 4.
The law is very clear on this matter. Either they are protected as 'prisoners of war' or you let them go, there is no 'outside the box' definitions. If a person is captured, they are protected under the convention. No 'if's', no 'but's', read the convention (here's the link)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
"The rules for such are fast and loose because this kind of warfare was not really considered feasable in the time the Geneva Conventions was written."
Not so, Article 5 is written with the single purpose to protect all new category of 'combatant' as they arise, anticipating this exact situation.
"The lesson I wish to pass on to future enemy combatants being: You play, You pay."
The only lesson here is if you stay you get shot, if you flee, you're guilty. It's bit like dunking witches, if they drown they are innocent (whoops), if they live they are a witch, and subject to burning. What's the lesson here John, don't be born in a future war-zone?
What part of "I do not care about what happens to Criminals and Murderers"; do you not understand?
The part where they're not criminals or murderers - they're suspects.
Suspects are taken into custody while facts are gathered toward guilt or innocense. But once again; we are speaking of non-americans. They do NOT have the rights afforded Americans in America. So stop assigning them rights they have no claim to. I support my government snatching and holding and extracting information in any way it see's fit anywhere and anytime. Including the instance of taking YOU Za; right out of your bed tonight; whisking you bound with duct tape to some TURD world country and beating the living hell out of you until you admit you are a Marxist/traitor to western ideas and values.
Ahem.. Then they can either release you to your mommie(either one of them; so she can change your crap filled diaper.
"my government snatching... YOU Za; right out of your bed tonight ...beating the living hell out of you until you admit you are a Marxist/traitor to western ideas and values"
...wow, and I thought that 'thought crime' was a fictional concept envisaged by Orwell, as characterising the decline of western civilisation into a corrupt totalitarian state, but here it is, alive and well in JohnK's America.
Let's just pray he doesn't obtain an office of significance, or anyone of influence adopting this foreign policy... What? they are already doing it? It's what 1 half of this thread is about... but that would point to a corrupt totalitarian state
"beating the living hell out of you until you admit you are a Marxist"
... there's that famous 'freedom of belief/expression' that Americans bullshit on about as though they supported/valued/believed it... it's all fine until someone wants to disagree.
Well, it would explain all the 'America is the best posts'.. too afraid that you'll 'disappear' if you say anything else
LMAO...
"LMAO..."
...just aiming to please!
(although I don't think it's a laughing matter)
They do NOT have the rights afforded Americans in America.
They get afforded all the rights under the Constitution, at least according to the Bush administration itself.
But I love your double-standard. Americans get to live better off than anyone else, because they're American. Everyone else can die for all you care, right John?
Including the instance of taking YOU Za; right out of your bed tonight; whisking you bound with duct tape to some TURD world country and beating the living hell out of you until you admit you are a Marxist/traitor to western ideas and values.
Ah, there's those Christian values you proclaim so strongly.
Not perfect just saved. Unlike yourself. I cannot justify my hatred but you however are perfectly justifyed in yours?
And yes; American rights for Americans. The rest of the world can kiss the fattest part of my American Christian ass. Opps! Did I say that? Ah yes I did..
there ya go; buttwipe.
I cannot justify my hatred but you however are perfectly justifyed in yours?
I don't hate Christianity. I go to an Anglican church, get on well with the arch-bishop of the diocese, my parents are both trinitarians, and I have a great respect for many Christians.
I don't hate the West like you proclaim either. I just feel that it has a lot of work to do in cleaning up its act.
You like to make things up about people so that way you can justify treating them like crap.
You know what I'd like to see most? I'd like to see America at peace. Not a crater. That's why I disagree with you so much - because that's where you'd end up if you followed the ideas you espouse.
You don't hate Christianity but you just hate anything to do with Christians believing in Christ? Ok; please dont make me go to the archives and retrieve your hate-spewing rants about Christians and religion and America. Heck I could go to your blog and get anything I wanted there just about anytime day or night. Not a real challenge there. Actually I will just let it be. Your hatred and words that many readers who have been here over the last few years; know very well. I need not go there. Your feeble attempts to change your persona by making a simple statement of "I don't hate Christianity" is such bullocks and everyone knows it. Whether or not Anglicans are even Christians is also debatable since they worship Mary; a human woman who died and is still dead. Think she is hearing your prayers Eh? LMAO!
That is almost as bad as the Muslims worshipping that huge black meteorite inside that cube in Mecca!!!
Your hatred is obvious to everyone except yourself.
"I cannot justify my hatred"
I got the idea that Jesus wasn't big on hatred.
... and for me, the universal compassion/forgiveness is the best part of his message, it is a way forward for the world out of it's present problems.
This is true but not possible because of the sin nature of mankind.
You don't hate Christianity but you just hate anything to do with Christians believing in Christ?
Nope. This is you making stuff up again.
please dont make me go to the archives and retrieve your hate-spewing rants about Christians and religion and America.
Go right ahead. You'll find that I only point out when Christians are being hypocrites, I'm not against anything to do with Christians believing in Christ.
Heck I could go to your blog and get anything I wanted there just about anytime day or night.
Do it then!
Actually I will just let it be.
Not surprised.
Your hatred and words that many readers who have been here over the last few years; know very well.
Which is why you yourself still can't figure out my political inclinations?
Whether or not Anglicans are even Christians is also debatable since they worship Mary
Uh, no, they don't. That's Catholics.
You can tell the difference because one has a pope and the other doesn't.
Post a Comment