Amen. How fascinating that this isn't the top story on every network and in every newspaper. You can bet that if a Republican had been idiotic enough to say such things they would have been crucified.

As an Illinois resident, I am beyond appalled and was, for the first time, moved to contact my state's senator and express my disgust and my determination to never vote a Democrat into office -- however qualified -- unless and until Durbin retracts, apologizes, and steps down.

How this is anything less than treason is beyond me. To place our Military in further danger, and to incite the hatred of those who already hate us even more is nothing more than an attempt to further his own political agenda.

If there has ever been an indication as to how biased the media is toward the left, this is it.

To say that this is gross and sick statement and that Durbin does not support our troops is hyperbole, not the statement itself. No one so far is denying that any of this is happening at Guantanamo Bay. Limbaugh today called Durbin a traitor, a term that seems to be used by conservative talkers to describe anyone that is even remotely critical of the military. In this case, the senator does not mention the troops at all, so no one can legitimately accuse him of being a traitor or hating the troops without looking incredibly bigoted themselves. But the senator was clearly wrong about one thing: when I heard his description or prisioner abuse, I didnt immidiately think of nazis or gulags... I thought of American prision guards at Guantanamo Bay.

It's a little disingenuous to say that Durbin was speaking about "US soldiers."

He was talking about treatment at Guantanamo Bay detention center, correct?

Why not just tell the truth?

The Bush administration, with help from the conservative noise machine, wants us to believe that there is no mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo. There's a nice public relations effort under way, and Rush and Sean and Joe are more than happy to amplify the Bush propaganda.

But Amnesty International thinks otherwise, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that they are correct in their assessment. Detainees as young as 14, allegedly being subjected to all sorts of humiliating acts and torture (and I'm not just talking about listening to Christina Aguilera non-stop). No ability to appeal, and the US not being forced to prove any connections to terror.

Consider the possibility that the Bush administration is not being truthful, just as it is not being truthful when it says that it has used the USA Patriot Act to make 400 terrorist arrests, and "convicted" about half -- implying that 200 terrorists have been convicted, when the actual number is 39 (and another bunch convicted of things having nothing to do with terrorism).

It's a lot oasier to tolerate abuse of detainees if you assume they are all guilty until proven innocent. But that's not the way it's supposed to work, is it?

When you say "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," who are the Americans Durbin is talking about? The average American citizen? No, he is talking about the American soldier.

Here is a prior article I wrote here on Blogcritics

Not only is this not the top story, this story is virtually impossible to find on Google News. I heard about it on a local radio show and luckily found this article so I could read the actual statements.

The comparisons Durbin made are offensive and outrageous, and the fact that he's being allowed to get away with it and there seems to be so little public outcry is, franky, bizarre.

Dave

I just don't get the left. How many times do we have to get attacked by these people? How many buildings have to come down? How many ships do they have to blow up? How many innocent Americans have to die before they stop defending terrorists and start defending America? Has anyone noticed what's happening in Spain as a result of the Spanish people's cave in to terrorist tacticts in their last election? You can't reason with or appease these fanatics. Any sign of weakness is an open invitation to them.

This read into the record by Durbin also. From a letter to him from Former Congressman Pete Peterson who was in the Air Force during Vietnam.

"From my 6 1⁄2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival. . . . This is one
reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us. . . . We need absolute
clarity that America will continue to
set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime."

This was his point. He's lambasting the POLICIES that have allowed this abuse to go on. It's in the interest of the welfare of OUR soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war that we treat the enemy we have in custody humanely.

He's not against the soldiers; that's knee jerk non-sense. Only in Neo-Con world could this be turned into "He's against the troops".

My sense of the quote in question was that his point was more about how we have strayed from humane treatment of prisoners, and thus such treatment would be expected from the Nazi's etc. and not from us.

Sure you could argue that the abuse cited does not rise to the level to which he alludes, but then you're simply missing the forest due to the trees. It's still abuse. Does he do his argument a disservice leaving this door open for you folks to jump through? Sure, but do so at your own intellectually dishonest peril.

You're missing or refusing to acknowledge the larger, relative point.

With this administration, when it comes to accountability, the buck stops with no one.

Read all of his comments for a little context. He refers to other administrations that were stopped in their tracks when they were perceived to be abusing their power.

No, BillB, the point is that he can't tell the difference between what's happened at GITMO and the Killing Fields in Cambodia.

Dave

Our Soldiers have only the chance at starring in the next beheading video if they are taken prisoner in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many Red Cross visits has SGT Matt Maupin had?

RE: Comment 7

Right on!

"It's in the interest of the welfare of OUR soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war that we treat the enemy we have in custody humanely.

Is that so hard to understand?

I find it strange to be agreeing with a Democrat -- but unfortunately the neo-cons cause me to do so.

SORRY I SERVED IN WW11 , KOREA AND VIET NAM WE WOUD NOT HAVE THESE PEOPLE CALLING OUR SERVICE PEOPLE NAZIS, AND THE REST . WE WOULD ALLREADY BE THEM.

BillB:

I understand we must treat prisoners of war well, even though the do not do the same to us. And we have been doing that.

I don't think you can equate the one abuse that Durbin cites (I have my doubts on the accuracy of Durbin's example) to millions of deaths. It is downright sickening.

RE Comment # 8 (and #12)
I don't know how you can make that assumption Dave. It seems to me he's saying this is the type of treatment you'd EXECT from the Nazi's et al and not from the US. I seriously doubt he'd say it's on par with what we know as being the worst of what those regimes have done.

RE Comment # 10

I'm an independent although due to the continued lack of any reasonable choices I almost always vote for Democrats. The lesser of the poisons, for me anyway.

Of course EXECT is supposed to be EXPECT. That's what happens when you rush your post and it's just about time to leave for work. Bye.

Re # 10
If you were referring to Durbin and not me, I get it now.

To say that Durbin has gone to the other side is obvious.

Durbin supports the enemies of America.

BillB - overall Dubin's comments are pretty reasonable, but throwing the odious comparisons in there negates a good portion of his message, because the way people in Guantanamo are being treated is NOT what you'd expect from the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge, because you're still alive at the end of the day.

I've written my full take on this and why it's a problem in my own article on this subject.

Dave

Let's see:

Terrorists in Gitmo get free medical treatment, free food, and new copies of the Koran.

Americans in Iraq who are taken hostage by "insurgents" are beaten, then beheaded.

Yet Durbin, in a speech, compares our military and its policies to Pol Pot, a genocidal communist lunatic, instead of demonizing our savage enemies...

The Dems have their priorities all screwed up...

Our troops are trained to kill with great efficiency. On top of this, the American society is churning out more individuals who wouldn't know self-restraint if they tripped over it. Combined, these qualities make for great soldiers but lousy social workers. Nevertheless, we need to treat all humans as we wish to be treated, and issues that are impetus for the exaggerations made by the Honorable Richard Durbin need to cease!

That being said, the Honorable Richard Durbin and MSMs have no clue as to what constitutes torture. A hot or cold room and rap music is not torture. A flushed or peed-on Koran is not torture. No mention or replay of 9/11 footage every time a MSM or lawyer thinks a non-cooperating Gitmo-detained information source gets a hangnail is torture for the whole US. We need to be reminded frequently about why we are in Iraq. MSMs need to show 9/11 footage daily. If it wasn't for Iraq, terrorists would be in our city streets blowing themselves up along with countless other people whose only concern is, "Who is going to be the next American Idle?" (sic intentional)

During WWII, we treated Japanese prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention -- even after Japan in its sneak attack bombed Pearl Harbor -- and we were attacked by the kamikaze which killed thousands of Americans in the battle of Okinawa -- and after the Japanese committed countless other atrocities all during the war -- (and don't forget the public beheading of B-25 pilots who bombed Tokyo in 1942...

During the Korean War (Sorry - "Police Action"), we treated North Korean prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention. In fact, we delayed the 1953 Armistice and left American POW's in North Korea longer than necessary because we refused to send back North Koreans who did not want to return...

In Vietnam -- outside of Lt Calley's little massacre -- there were few reported violations of the Geneva Convention.

Now -- we under the control of the neo-cons -- have resorted to what we had not resorted to before.

The question should be answered -- why?

On the surface -- it appears we have adopted the techniques of the enemy we are fighting... techniques which other countries in the Middle East do.,, (all of them).

So -- what are we to do?

Answer: Get out ass out of the Middle East -- buy their oil -- which they must sell anyway -- and totally stay out of their political and religious wars...

BTW -- why in hell are we there engaging in their little wars???

i equate the current republican party with terrorists and some of these posts back up my point. they claim since terrorists do bad things we should stoop to their level. that is the most unamerican thing i have ever heard. go join osama bin laden neo cons, that is what you want to be anyway. just get out of my country where we respect american values.

hey, billy, the thing that makes us laugh out loud at you, is you think that playing loud music, or turning up the heat some (on people who would murder you mother or child and hang their entrails from a bridge at the drop of a dime) is equivalent to beheading someone alive (when you say we have "stooped to their level"), or exterminating an entire peoples, dude. see????????????? if you are so unable or unwilling to actually make logical thoughtful moral judgements and evaluations that a normal human being has to make every day, you are an object of pity and ridicule (in our weaker moments), and your self-righteous tone that accompanies the ramblings just makes it more humorous. now, the more logical of us realize you are blinded by hate, strong emotions will do that to reason, sanity and logic, so we give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to belive that you can't really truly inside believe the things you say; for your sake. we dont want to stop your freedom of speach, we want to heal you, and make think clearer. but sometimes we just cant help laughing; i am sorry for that. peace, my brother.

RE: Comment 20 posted by PseudoErsatz

"If it wasn't for Iraq, terrorists would be in our city streets blowing themselves up along with countless other people..."

That's a real stretch...

Little Pop Quiz...

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 1990... _______

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 1995... _______

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 2002... _______

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 2003... _______

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 2004... _______

Number of terrorists wanting to kill Americans in 2005... _______

Enlightening -- isn't it?

P.S. It appears there is no confidence that all the security changes made since 2001 could have prevented what is alluded to happening in our city streets...

Um, the answers are all blank there, Patriot. Not done counting the terrorists yet?

Dave

Dave-- are you dense or dumb?

If you don't get a point -- be quiet...

Oh sorry, I thought you were TAKING the quiz, Patriot. My mistake.

Dave

I saw an Islamic scholar on CNN just the
other night. He said that the USA has
lost a lot of face in the Mid-East by
not abusing or harming prisoners but by
not coming down harder on them. He went
on to explain that Islamic culture has,
does and will always respect force over
all else. In other words they think we
are a buncha wussies for not kicking in
their asses straight from the get go. He
went on to say that if we had set some
kind of precedent when we first rolled
into Iraq and not let them loot,pillage
and plunder to their hearts content that
we would've stopped a large part of the
insurgency. They would've seen that they
could not run wild without taking some
serious ass whoopin' and would have not
had the chance to set themselves up as
much as they did. A lot of the profits
from the early looting went directly to
the coffers of common criminals and all
of Saddams Fedayeen thugs. Any thoughts
on this anyone?

We adhere to the Geneva Convention which reads in part --

Article 3 - 1. ... the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever...

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

The passing of sentences... without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Now the best reason to adhere to the Geneva Convention is that it is intended to protect Americans who are held prisoners by others...

It is not unexpected that whatever violations occurred -- were done with the approval of the neo-cons -- who did their best to avoid military service -- and if not avoided totally -- then at least did their best to avoid military service in a combat zone...

Odd, didn't I just read this same silliness. Go read my response on the other post.

Dave

Is Secretary of Defense Schlesinger a traitor for saying that the blame for Abu Ghraib went all the way up the chain of command, and comparing what happened at Abu Ghraib to the Stanford Prison Experiment? (http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/dod/abughraibrpt.pdf)

Is Ret. Major General Fay a traitor for his honest review of what happened at Abu Ghraib?
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nationi/documents/fay_report_8-25-04.pdf)

In the wishy-washy world of neocon logic, it is hard to know where the line will be drawn. Do any facts ever count as facts, or is it just the commentary that matters to you?

Dave -- In case you missed it on the other post...

According to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva...

There is no mention of "uniformed military personnel"...

There is no mention of "regular soldier"...

And no mention of "soldier" either...

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," who are the Americans Durbin is talking about? The average American citizen? No, he is talking about the American soldier."

This is false logic. If Durbin talked about the US attacking a country under false pretense, would you say he was attacking the soldiers who performed the attack? Or would he be talking about the leaders who put those soldiers into that dishonorable position. If you support the soldiers, don't let the administration put them into these positions.

Abuse and torture was the long term strategy of the USSR, if it was so successful, why isn't the USSR still here? Why are we borrowing the strategy of "dissapearing" people and locking them away forever without trials from those loser Soviets? Didn't we win the cold war WITH a value system that supports human rights?

How exactly is making our soldiers enforce Soviet style justice SUPPORTING them?

"Prisoners of War
The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, ... provided that such militias or volunteer corps ... fulfil the following conditions:

...
That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
..."

I believe a uniform fulfills the requirement. The Taliban wore no distincitve symbol or uniform, Al Qaeda has no known distinctive sign or uniform either.

Maybe we could open a few more threads on this topic, that way each person can have their own, it will be abot as productive as what we have now.

"...rap music is not torture."

Uh, it is in Shark's Universe.

==========

SKI: "...Maybe we could open a few more threads on this topic..."

Definitely!

We need a few more reasons to hate those pussyfied, america-hating, traitorous democrats.

=========

Hey, Patriot, yer quiz left off:

"Number of Liberal Americans Who Support the Terrorists Simply Because They Oppose The War and Don't Want Their Military Stooping to Barbaric Levels to Fight the Fucking Barbarians: __________"

BTW: Any "essay" that begins with:

"I first heard this on the Rush Limbaugh show..."

-- should probably be placed on the Permanent Ignore list.

In my opinion, the war on terrorism will never be won only because Democratic politicians and moderate Republicans (this is not the time for moderation) maintain their congressional support for Al Kaida. What is it going to take to get the balls to call for sedition hearings for Reed, Palosi, Boxer, Biden, Durbin, Kennedy et al... In conclusion: I hope that I am not around when the Islamic Maniacs inflitrate our country (and they will with the help of the Socialists) use nukes and other forms of lethal devices and anniliate our cities. The war is over folks. The US Government falls and they win.... Come on Limbaugh, Bortz and Hannity stop teaching and start preaching!

My point about making more threads about the same topic was that people were already talking past each other in one thread, why open another so they can cross post between 2 as well as continue to talk past each other.

RE: Comment 37 posted by F5man

In my opinion, the war on terrorism will never be won -- because terrorism is a tactic -- and how do you win a war against a tactic?

Perhaps the enemy is fighting us based on nationalism -- and that might be worthwhile addressing...

Patriot made an excellent point re the "war on terror" in Comment 39.

In my view, a military solution in Iraq is possible only if all of the parties engage in open conventional warfare. That won't happen because the insurgents, whoever they are, know they'd lose a conventionally prosecuted war. So, the conflict is a test of will, a la Viet Nam. Who blinks first?

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Perle, and the rest of you deep thinkers at the Pentagon and White House!

Who will blink first?

I already see some eyes blinking in America.

1. Keep in mind that the other side is fighting to preserve their way of life, their religion, their culture, their national aspirations, etc.

2. And keep in mind that we keep fighting simply to preserve the "honor" of Bush, Rumsfeld, and the other neocons...

But #2 will change -- either by the Republican Congress waking up before the next election -- or when the Democrats take over..

And #1 is unlikely to change at least for a generation or two...

P.S. I sent George Bush an e-mail two years ago -- giving him the above admonition... (but when his mind is made up -- facts don't influence him)...

Just so that Leftists understand:

The point of a WAR is to WIN.

If by winning, you have to play really loud rap music in the ears of those who are sowrn to kill you, then you DO IT.

If you sometimes give the enemy a half-serving of rice pilaf, and yell at them, then you DO IT.

War is all about winning. Anything else is bullshit, when you consider that we have millions of American lives at stake...

Sounds like we should just up and throw all the "Leftists" in jail and be done with it.

Yeah..... now there's an idea...

Sounds like YOUR idea, EB...no one else offered such a scenario...

Yeah, and then after that we could force all the chickenhawk "Rightists" to enlist...

I wonder if MCH is actually capable of making an on-topic comment.

Dave

4/26/2006

I just heard Dick Durbin on FOX NEWS and his mindless attack on George Bush for the high gasoline prices. He offers no reasonable suggestions to lower the price of oil. He doesn't want any increased oil exploration in the U.S. or the Gulf of Mexico. He doesn't want the taxes on gasoline to be lowered. He doesn't even realize how important the high price of gasoline is to the average American motorist (voter). Instead, he chooses to blame SUVs and the Bush administration. Senator Durbin makes Chuck Shumer sound like Solomon. I hope he is defeated soundly in his next election because he is a true obstructionist and a pseudo-environmentalist.