First off, I can’t help but notice your comments ends “even if you don’t want to believe the” I’m not sure what you are trying to say there.

Ok. We do have a disagreement. And that’s ok. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. Nor do I think of myself as always right and everyone else is always wrong. I happen to enjoy and believe that healthy debate is good for all involved. It helps you learn to think out your veiwpoints, and even sometimes change your view.

Having said this, while we probably do have a disagreement here, you seem to be confused over what we disagree on. Nowhere have I said that because the enemy beheads and mutilates our captives that we should do the same. I don’t believe that we should stoop to such barbaric levels. I don’t think we should be wasting time playing tit for tat. We should be dedicating our efforts to extracting the kind of intel that can prevent the slaughter of any more innocent Americans, as well as any innocent people of the whole world outside the barbaric mindset of the Islamo Facist terrorists.

I *have* called for more than chitchat over a cup of espresso to obtain this much needed intel from detainees.

After 9/11 I have adopted “Never Again!” as my motto, and I think it is in our best interest to head off any future atrocities by tough interrogation if needed. I believe we can do that without the need for brutal torture, which the US military does not suppport or do. This is not only because that is not the American way, but also, because it has been proven from experience that brutality doesn’t work. Under excrutiating pain a person will no doubt say whatever it takes to stop the torture. We need reliable intelligence not lip service.

As for my dismissal of the NPR story not making their claims untrue, it doesn’t make them true either.

I have a hard time believing the US military is so stupid and inept at identifying which captives are dangerous and which ones are of no consequence, yet NPR and you (?) somehow know the difference.

I will admit that I am not privy to what criteria the military is using but our military has been in the business of capturing enemy combatants and interrogating them for a long time, and I am confident in their abilities.

Our military is taking the higher moral ground regarding detainess they decide to release. I was listening to NPR this morning and they reported that the US is having problems releasing some of the detainees because the countries that they come from won’t accept them and we are having a hard time finding any other country to adopt them. Of course, it makes me wonder why we are considering releasing them in the first place when their own country doesn’t want them back. That in itself, supports the validity of their capture in the first place.

The NPR report went on to state that we also are careful not to return detainees to their countries if their lives would be in danger after their release. It cited a chinese muslim prisoner that we did not return to China for precisely this reason.

So, the left’s fears that we aren’t taking the higher moral ground just aren’t warranted. This coming from liberal slanted public radio!

If everyone is not an enemy combatant at Gitmo, I’m quite sure they are released as soon as that is determined. I find it ludicrous to paint our military, (which is equipped with some of our finest men and women, and the greatest military in the world), as being so ignorant that they are detaining people only based on the word of someone seeking reward money.

Come on Jon. Have a little more faith in the military that is guaranteeing your’s and my right to be having this discussion in the first place.

The general gist of our disagreement is that I simply believe that we as a country should be ABOVE inhumane treatment of others, even enemy combatants, whereas you seem to think that if they can do it than so should we. That’s not going to change, so I’m simply going to call it out and leave it there. I don’t know how anyone can listen to descriptions of torture and think “Yeah, it’s okay to do that to another person under pretty loosely defined circumstances,” but fortunately for me I can choose not to socialize with those people.

NPR being part of this “leftist media” doesn’t make the accusation less true, nor does your simply dismissing it as MAYBE being a former disgruntled military member. There have been repeated accusations that MANY of the people in Gitmo were not “scooped up off the battlefield”, but were in fact turned in for a reward from opportunists or people with a grudge, simply because they could. Indeed, the NPR bit interviews a man who was imprisoned for several years for telling a joke that someone else didn’t like.

But you didn’t answer my question, and I’ll ask it again in another form. I imagine you could agree that not EVERYONE in Gitmo is actually an enemy combatant, even if you don’t want to believe the

We signed the Geneva Convention which is an agreement between nations who signed it. The enemy we are fighting is not a national army, it is cells of non-uniformed terrorist enemy combatants. There is a big difference in all of that.

I didn’t listen to anything there, just read what was on the page, so I didn’t catch that the Army admitted that only 5% being held were enemy combatants. But, considering the source of all of this, I’m not inclined to give that much crediblity. After all, this is coming from National Public Radio, a part of the leftist media, and there is such a thing as disgruntled military members who, particularily when they are out of the service, are liable to take pot shots at the military when it is safe to do so.

You may believe that habeus courpus may not, on the broader scope, be just the benefit of citizens, but, the site you refered me to opened up stressing that it was a time honored US right for this country. Therefore, I don’t see the worth of your generalized platitiude since it still doesn’t show just how the US right of habeus corpus extends beyond the US to whole wide world.

What do you want next Jon, the reading of the Miranda Act on the battle field?

There were two items I was hoping you’d take away from that.

1) The fact that the terrorists haven’t signed the Geneva Convention doesn’t change the fact that WE HAVE, and we should abide by it as a humane and civilized society, and

2) Doesn’t it bother you that by the army’s own admission, less than 5% of the detainees being held and tortured at Gitmo are actually even enemy combatants? What’s your answer to the 95+% that are estimated to be innocent?

I’m not sure what you are getting at. How would I get a kick out of putting this on in the background at work?

The opening remarks in this public radio excerpt are problematic:

“The right of habeas corpus has been a part of this country’s legal tradition longer than we’ve actually been a country. It means the government has to explain why it’s holding a person in custody. But now, the war on terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental.”

I have no problem with habeus corpus has being a right of this country.

But, where this piece loses me is when it tries to extend that right to prisoners of war being held outside the U.S., who aren’t even US citizens and it’s insinuation that somehow the Bush administration is undermining the American right of habeus corpus by denying it to those detainees at Gitmo.

This kind of wrong-headed thinking is similar to the idiotic notion that we should extend Geneva Convention rights to these terrorists who aren’t signatories of the Geneva Convention, as well as give them the same US Constitutional rights that US citizens have.

That is a load of poppycock that, perhaps, is good for a prelimenary chuckle, but then should be summarily dismissed.

I was listening to some This American Life clips this morning and thought of you. Thought you might get a kick out of putting this on in the background at work.

http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/06/310.html

Cheers,
Jon

You said:

“Wow, you’re really bad at this.”

Tsk tsk tsk. Now, now Jon. Just because you don’t like my position doesn’t make me “bad at this”.

More arrogance from you:

“You absolutely do owe me source of proof if you want to make a valid point that can withstand criticism. In a debate class, they’d call that burden of proof, but SOMEHOW I doubt you’ve ever taken one of those. But here, I’m going to go ahead and start with a few links on the so-called efficacy of torture.”

Burden of proof? What are you some college professor handing out assignments? It’s funny how you don’t respond to my earlier comments to you regarding reading all of the Army Manuel and not just stopping with one technique. Your silence is telling. Unless, its because you are arrogant enough to presume that you know better than the experts on interrogation and anything beyond just polite conversation is patently useless.

You said:

“Since your side is so clearly and obviously right, you should have no problem coming up with some counter-links to how awesome and effective torture is.”

Jon, I’m not advocating torture. And once again, read the WHOLE Army Manuel.

More arrogant claptrap from you:

“The argument that asking them for intel over tea doesn’t work is NOT in fact an argument FOR torture.”

Sorry, you are half right. I’m not making an argument for torture, and you know it. Please try and be honest. But, it IS an effective argument for more intense interrogation methods.

You babbled:

“That’s like having an argument over whether or not it’s okay to pull a facemask in football, and your response is “Well, dressing like an Oompa Loompa on the sideline doesn’t win the game!”

Ok. You got me there. I have no idea how to respond to such a poor attempt at using analogies. How do you respond to such utter nonsense? One wonders.

You said:

“(By the by, it’s espresso, not expresso. You should probably stop pronouncing it that way out loud, too.)”

Jon, it’s called a typo you oaf. What, you don’t type your own comments? Is there someone else typing in talking points for you?

You said:

“Second, lack of evidence doesn’t constitute evidence in and of itself. A lack of further attacks doesn’t mean that this is all clearly because of the handy intel work we’re doing.”

No, the lack of any futher attacks isn’t soley based on intel we have gathered from interrogations, and I don’t remember ever claiming that. (Please lose the disengenous trick, it’s boring and telling), but it is helping or else, prisoner interrogation would not be pursued.

(then you comment on your theory of the origons of terrorist, which, is totaly irrelevant to the debate at hand)

You said:

“If the thwarting of liquid bombs isn’t representative, then what is? It’s fairly convenient that the US can’t tell us about all of the stuff they’ve stopped. Why can’t they tell us that, again? If the intel is coming from these detainees that they’ve nabbed, why is that a source that can’t be revealed? Is there a reason they can’t say “We caught Bob, and Bob told us about this attack on a lemonade stand, and we stopped it. Go us!”? Help reason me through that one, please.”

Jon, surely, you don’t need much help in reasoning there? Interrogation methods, persons being interrogated and what was learned is classified. I doubt you have a security clearance that give you the “need to know” this sort of information.

Let’s just put it this way. There’s no need to tip off the enemy on what methods are being used successfully and who is squealing.

Wow, you’re really bad at this.

You absolutely do owe me source of proof if you want to make a valid point that can withstand criticism. In a debate class, they’d call that burden of proof, but SOMEHOW I doubt you’ve ever taken one of those. But here, I’m going to go ahead and start with a few links on the so-called efficacy of torture. Since your side is so clearly and obviously right, you should have no problem coming up with some counter-links to how awesome and effective torture is.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Torture_.shtml
http://moroncowboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-experience-with-efficacy-of-torture.html

That should be enough to get you started (if you bother to read them).

The argument that asking them for intel over tea doesn’t work is NOT in fact an argument FOR torture. That’s like having an argument over whether or not it’s okay to pull a facemask in football, and your response is “Well, dressing like an Oompa Loompa on the sideline doesn’t win the game!” They don’t have that kind of direct relationship. (By the by, it’s espresso, not expresso. You should probably stop pronouncing it that way out loud, too.)

Second, lack of evidence doesn’t constitute evidence in and of itself. A lack of further attacks doesn’t mean that this is all clearly because of the handy intel work we’re doing. There’s a number of reasons why there might not be further attacks in the US, not the least of which is that to accomplish their goals, more attacks aren’t currently needed. Another poster commented quite nicely on that whole “liquid gel” nonsense.

You’re really missing the whole point on the “pushing the center” argument, and it just goes to show that you really haven’t put any thought into how someone grows up to be a terrorist, anyway. It’s not like daddy didn’t hug him enough when he was growing up, and then one day he woke up and thought “Man, I hate America’s freedoms! I’m going to strap on a bomb and walk into a marketplace!” What we’re doing here is creating an environment so poor for this region (via international policies that support brutal regimes that oppress their people, occupying territory, setting up governments that don’t aren’t effective and don’t take into account the history or beliefs of the people, etc.) that the nutty things the terrorists say actually start to make sense, especially when the suicide bombers/hijackers/etc. are reassured that they will be martyrs and their families looked after, etc. The people at the top of the structure may be bloodthirsty and insane, but for the grunt foot soldiers who are detonating themselves, it’s probably more an act of desperation than anything else. If you’d like to read more on the subject from a 25+ year expert on Middle Eastern and Muslim affairs, check out Imperial Hubris.

If the thwarting of liquid bombs isn’t representative, then what is? It’s fairly convenient that the US can’t tell us about all of the stuff they’ve stopped. Why can’t they tell us that, again? If the intel is coming from these detainees that they’ve nabbed, why is that a source that can’t be revealed? Is there a reason they can’t say “We caught Bob, and Bob told us about this attack on a lemonade stand, and we stopped it. Go us!”? Help reason me through that one, please.

Kerwin,
I’ve read the report on the “breaking” of KSM, but breaking just means that he begged and pleaded for it to stop. It doesn’t mean that he told the truth, and if you read the links I provided above, experts and people who have undergone torture alike (innocent people abducted by our government, by the by) explain pretty clearly that you become like an animal so quickly that you’ll say anything to get the pain to stop. So if you’ve got a link on just how super effective this treatment is, I’d still like to see it.