Today on Blogcritics
Home » U.S. Official Claims At Least One Gitmo Detainee Was Tortured

U.S. Official Claims At Least One Gitmo Detainee Was Tortured

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Bob Woodward has an interview in the Washington Post with the top U.S. official responsible for overseeing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Susan J. Crawford confirms to Woodward that 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani wasn't put on trial because he was tortured.

She says after reviewing the classified reports and interrogation logs she concluded that he was definitely tortured. As a result, war crimes charges against al-Qahtani were dropped, although he remains in U.S. custody pending a decision by the incoming Obama administration on what to do with him.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. … You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him.

She goes on to list some of the specific techniques used against al-Qahtani:

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

I actually downloaded the interrogation logs from Wikileaks and read them word for word. They were no doubt tough, but totally justified and not torture in my view. Even if it was torture, it doesn't matter because we had to get information out of him. We did in fact get the information out of him using these techniques, but Crawford decided she wouldn't allow it in court.

Crawford herself says even though he can't be tried in court because of the torture he's still a very dangerous man who no doubt intended to be a hijacker on 9/11.

"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. … He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "

I applaud the Bush administration for trying to do things the legal way and bring al-Qahtani back to Gitmo for a military tribunal, but in hindsight they should have done it differently. All high value detainees should have been taken to secret CIA facilities far from U.S. soil, interrogated vigorously, then simply shot. We could have said they died on the battlefield and no one would have been the wiser.

Although, these days it seems like no one is capable of keeping their mouth shut anymore so it probably would have leaked out sooner or later. But it was foolish to leave open the possibility that left-wingers could end up setting these guys free. Had we killed them after interrogation there would be no loose ends like this and the situation would have been "adjudicated" on the spot.

As I've said before, I don't care what happens to these guys. I don't buy into all the crap about "America losing its moral standing in the world" because we're the only country that has any moral standing to begin with. Since the rest of the world leaves it to America to take out the trash and do all the heavy lifting, they have no right to complain or pass judgments.

Secondly, you have to appreciate the irony of Europeans complaining about how we fight radical Islam when they've all but surrendered to it. All I care about is our intel guys getting the information they need. How they go about getting it is irrelevant and inconsequential.

The people who spend their time worrying about how we treat the people who want to kill us are at best misguided and at worst bad Americans. Like the Code Pinkos of the world who've never met a dictator they didn't love or a U.S. soldier they didn't loathe.

It blows my mind that any American would waste a second of his/her day fretting over our treatment of trained killers from another country. Our country is blessed to have had a leader like president Bush for the last eight years. He didn't care about political correctness or popularity, he only cared about keeping the country safe — by any means necessary.

I want to believe that any president would do the same if faced with unprecedented terror attacks, but with the likes of Eric Holder at the DOJ and Leon Panetta at CIA, I have my doubts about Barack Obama in this regard — but we shall see.

Powered by

About Chris Jones

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Good article, Chris. I fear that once they find it you’re going to take a bashing from our leftist compadres.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Shallow observations and flawed thinking, from a true patriot. Hope you won’t want to make any political changes in your lifetime. “Any means” may just become the norm to use against anyone who doesn’t agree with the government.

    I see–“bad” Americans, then, are those who see the world with meaning beyond being a cheering section for the home team.

    You might have had something similar to say to those who fought (against the established authority) to found this country.

    rubbish…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I’m sure Chris is a patriot, but at what cost? I guess there a different standards, even today, as to what it means to love America.

    “All I care about is our Intel guys getting the information they need. How they go about getting it is irrelevant and inconsequential.”

    Aren’t we forgetting here about some of the principles upon which this great nation was founded. It’s the same ole “ends justify the means” routine which even Macchiavelli took for a grain of salt.

    Also, I find it interesting that many articles on this and other sites are evaluated not on the basis of their merit, cogent or original thinking, a fresh perspective or insight, but simply in terms of whether we happen to agree. I believe all of us should try to raise our critical faculties a bit rather than merely re-articulating time and again our own views & positions as though they were written in stone.

    Come on, guys & gals. We can do better. The world is watching.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Cindy,

    Any new government starts out as rebels committing murder. What the hell do you think the priest who ran his sword through a Jew sacrificing to an idol in Modi’im was called? He was called a rebel and a murderer! Only the victory of his forces justified his actions – and made possible the holiday of Hanukkah.

    But I happen to agree with Chris’ money line here.

    All high value detainees should have been taken to secret CIA facilities far from U.S. soil, interrogated vigorously, then simply shot. We could have said they died on the battlefield and no one would have been the wiser.

    That is how you deal with the enemy. When you fight a war, you are engaging in organized murder, and showing any mercy to an enemy is absolute foolishness.

    The Geneva Conventions are for lawyers who have nothing better to do but wag their fingers at the rest of us – who have to survive in a jungle. All tis garbage about “moral stances” is absolute rubbish. If you do not fight a war to win – you lose. More often than not, that means annihilating the enemy.

    It’s a nasty world out here, Cindy.

  • sean

    unfortunatly, when you defend torture, you defend terrorism… they are one and the same…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    I appreciate your sentiments, but political acts, such as assassinations, for instance, are not equated to murder neither in ordinary language nor in the court of law. These ARE distinctions with a difference. (I’m sorry I don’t have my OED on me to perhaps provide examples of usage.)

    Anyway, I just thought I’d throw in my two-cents for clarity’s sake. Shalom.

    Roger

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    when you defend torture, you defend terrorism… they are one and the same… Perhaps there are different types of “torture” and “terrorism.”

    A comment on another thread suggested that $1,000 worth of property damage (say graffiti) in MN makes you a terrorist. I don’t know whether this was in jest, but hope that it does not reflect a widespread perception. Torture has been said to include deprivation of holy texts and sleep. That does seem to reflect a widespread perception.

    There are differences in degree, and they can be very substantial. Using large aircraft full of people to destroy large buildings full of people, as happened on September 11, seems worse than painting graffiti. Castration of a live prisoner with a dull knife seems worse than sleep or holy text deprivation.

    To lump everything in with everything else, and then to refuse to distinguish the merely unfortunate or uncomfortable from the really and truly wicked and deadly, to me at least, makes no sense at all.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I don’t doubt that to some extent Chris is being deliberately provocative here, but he does illustrate the sort of attitude I was decrying on another thread and got harangued for: the attitude that says that if it’s not American, it’s automatically no good.

    I question his applause of the ‘officers’ who tortured al-Qahtani for one reason other than the obvious one. Since the 9/11 attack was over, all of his co-conspirators were dead, he was in custody and the immediate threat was past, there doesn’t seem to have been any obvious value in treating him thus. Other than petty revenge, of course.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    “I don’t doubt that to some extent Chris is being deliberately provocative here. . . ”

    I should hope so, Doc. But in that case, he only adds fuel to the (sometimes unreasonable) hatred of the Right. Is that the lasting impression he wants to create?

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Dr. D., Chris makes pretty clear in his article that he questions the application of the term torture to what was done to al-Qahtani, and I have to say that when I read about that case I found what was done to him to be well within the normal definitions of interrogation without torture.

    Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture. Nothing even close to that was done to al-Qahtani. The truth is that we’re not very good at drawing these lines when they become politicized, and the result is that people who ought to be punished go unpunished and people who ought to be left alone get their rights abused.

    This is why we need clear policies which we follow down the line and consistently.

    Otherwise, I think Chris’ attitude is understandable and he makes a good point about how unreasonable some of the complaints about American misbehavior are. Our misdeeds only look bad because we have relatively high standards. Worse abuses go on in virtually every other country every day. How can you take complaints about American abuses seriously when the countries making them do worse to their own citizens on a daily basis? We may have slipped a little, but we sure haven’t fallen.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    “…not torture in my view. Even if it was torture, it doesn’t matter because we had to get information out of him.”

    OMG! Is our Sacred Warrior Class succumbing to the liberal leftist commie sin of Moral Relativism?

    And I thought that the “20th hijacker” was some guy named ‘Mousawi’. Where did this ‘Qhatani’ come from?

    We better get this story straight.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    It isn’t now, Dave, but consider:

    “In 2007 it was reported that the CIA was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners. The United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure.[15][16] The revelation sparked a worldwide political scandal.” (Wikipedia)

    Sometimes it takes public exposure and outrage for the government to change its legal opinion or definitions. What once is considered acceptable can very quickly be disavowed under pressure. Why? Because the perpetrators have suddenly seen the light or had a change of heart? Hardly so. So our definitions keep on evolving as more and more dirt resurfaces. Which is all to the good, I’d say, especially if one believes in a open society.

    JFK had some first-class comments about transparency in government, I believe prior to his inauguration speech. I’ll look it up and post on this thread if they’re relevant to the issue at hand.

    Roger

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave,

    I agree that what appears in the transcript constitutes stern interrogation, not torture. It’s the cumulative amount of it that was causing concern – the question of whether a line was crossed.

    Also, there are some conspicuous gaps in the log of this supposedly relentless interrogation. One wonders what was happening during these periods of 15, 20 or in one instance 50 minutes. Presumably they weren’t playing bridge.

    And last time I checked Bob Woodward was an American, not a foreign, national and I think it’s safe to say that Susan Crawford is also.

    Finally, the ‘everybody else does it so don’t complain when we do’ attitude is almost as appalling as the ‘everything not American is bad’ one.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    One wonders what was happening during these periods of 15, 20 or in one instance 50 minutes. Presumably they weren’t playing bridge.

    hey, interrogators are entitled to coffee and lunch breaks too. hell, they probably even fed the prisoner.

    Finally, the ‘everybody else does it so don’t complain when we do’ attitude is almost as appalling as the ‘everything not American is bad’ one.

    That’s certainly not the attitude I was expressing. My point was that even with whatever small transgressions we’ve made, the only way to judge us negatively is by our own standards, and no one but us should have the right to do that. If the French judge us by French standards then they have no grounds for complaint, etc.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    From one patriot to another:

    JFK’s Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press.

    I’m sorry for the images, guys & gals. I’d rather the video did not contain them. But listen to the words.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave(#14):

    Part of the problem, Dave, seems to be that the rest of the world appears ready and eager to accept our standards. I’d say, that’s great news. So we can’t let them down now, can we?

    Roger

  • Cindy D

    Dan(Miller),

    I believe I am doing this right. These two statutes combine to create a situation where someone could be charged as a terrorist for graffiti that costs $1000 to clean up.

    609.714 CRIMES COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF TERRORISM. (Minnesota)

    Minnesota Criminal Property Damage Statute

    More info and pending federal legislation:
    It is also germane to note that the state of Minnesota has taken it upon itself to redefine what we mean by terrorist. They have broadened the meaning to include property damage exceeding as little as $1,000. So: If you spray-paint “Stop The War In Iraq” and a cleanup crew works a double-shift on a Sunday, you could be branded a terrorist. The Minnesota law is also a flag to pending federal legislation, Jane Harman’s (D-CA) overreaching “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” (HR 1955) which would empower Congress to create a commission with powers to arbitrarily decide which organizations constitute a “homegrown terrorist threat.”

  • Cindy D

    Rendell: Peaceful Protesters are now Terrorists:
    Governor Signs House Bill 213: the “Eco-Terrorism” bill

    The PA Gov. had apparently signed a bill that made protesters terrorists also. I may have been killed as I can’t find it anywhere. But, the idea itself is enough to concern me.

  • Cindy D

    Well, actually, I wasn’t killed. Hard to type when you’re dead. But, the bill may have been. :-)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Cindy, I agree that the ecoterrorism bill is over the top, and I bet it will be struck down by the courst. But your link is also incorrect in suggesting that damage to property is not terrorism. It absolutely is. Sabotage is a classic and very real form of highly effective terrorism, as serious as violence agaisnt people in many ways. Imagine if terrorists were to blow up enough stations on the power grid to black out the east coast. That would just be damage to property, but the results would be disastrous.

    The real problem with laws like this is that terrorism should not be defined by WHO the terrorists target, but by what they do. If they engage in sabotage, intimidation, or other actions which are already criminal then they should be punished for those crimes. It’s exactly like the silly hate crimes legislation. A crime can’t be more criminal just because of the mental attitude of the person who commits it.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    In effect, those terrorism additions make thinking something a terrorist act. They also make civil disobedience a terrorist act.

    It effectively silences the people from taking even minimally effective action against what the government does.

    Combine that with the recent police tactics of arresting all kinds of peaceful people for felonies–it’s not good.

    Well, I have never been interested in taking out power grids or really wrecking anything at all. But, I do like to modify poster advertisements and give library books my own editorial perspective. Hopefully, when NJ gets that law, they won’t calculate the book value at replacement cost.

  • Clavos

    and give library books my own editorial perspective.

    Appalling.

    Not terrorism, but definitely destruction of others’ property.

  • Cindy D

    I call it enhancement of property which is also partly mine. You see, I never actually cross out anything. I just add some suggestions for further thought.

    I consider it part of what my +$10,000 in taxes goes toward. (it certainly isn’t going to fix my road).

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    hey, interrogators are entitled to coffee and lunch breaks too. hell, they probably even fed the prisoner.

    Dave, the log notates when breaks and meals were taken.

  • Clavos

    I call it enhancement of property which is also partly mine. You see, I never actually cross out anything. I just add some suggestions for further thought.

    Although you pay taxes, the book is not yours, it belongs to the library. Your taxes ensure there will be a library with books for you to use, they don’t give you the right to deface the books, no matter how you choose to describe it.

    The next reader, who also pays taxes, just as easily might not consider your notes an “enhancement.”

  • Cindy D

    It’s called civil disobedience for a reason Clav.

    If my small action were to be lawful, it would hardly be disobedience.

    It is a perfectly legitimate way of changing the world. And as an added benefit, it is peaceful and harms no one. But, may very well inspire thinking.

  • Daphine

    Chris,

    There are many Grand Canyon sized holes in your torture(d) logic.

    One of those holes is the fact that the torture of al Qahtani produced no information, as in zip, nada, goose egg etc.

    Having read the torture logs (which have been public for years) perhaps you can point your readers to what information (either from the torture log or outside it) his torturers got – you will discover none – do you still think the torture was justified?

    Also, al Qahtani was in custody approximately a year before his torture began so the sophistry of Dershowitz et al on the never occurring ticking time bomb scenario is not relevant.

    The data to date tells a much simpler story: George Bush, Richard Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jim Haynes simply decided, on their own, that America was going into the torture business. Their belief that al Qahtani was the “20th hijacker” likely played a role in their decision?

    When it all blew up and all five said were forced to explain their decision they initially cited low level lawyer Diane Beaver’s legal memo. Later, citing the three memos of John Yoo (1) and Jay Bybee (2) as lawyers who said they could torture. Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith subsequently withdrew two of the public memos. The third Bybee torture memo (to the CIA) is not yet public, as far as I know.

    The Guantanamo tortures used 15 of 18 of blessed “harsh techniques” on al Qahatani.

    If you plan on becoming an apologist for American torture you’ll need to do more homework and most of all demonstrate that torture benefits more than it burdens America.

    The al Qahtani torture and torture log helps your opponents, but at least you’ve read the torture log unlike many of your opponents.

    A more interesting question is can we try, at a minimum, George Bush, Richard Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Haynes, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee for violating Common Article Three and the Torture Convention?

  • pablo

    “A more interesting question is can we try, at a minimum, George Bush, Richard Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Haynes, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee for violating Common Article Three and the Torture Convention?”

    What do ya think Chris Jones? You up for that? My hunch is that you would far prefer that the above creeps get humanitarian awards. Your article is typical right wing fascism, as are most of your friends on facebook, which by the way is owned and operated by the CIA.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Dave – In comment #20 you said, A crime can’t be more criminal just because of the mental attitude of the person who commits it.

    Consider this…If a person is driving a car and kills someone while doing so, accidentally, isn’t that something like involuntary manslaughter? As opposed to say, someone that purposely ran another person down with a car? Same act, just different intentions…no?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Cindy – I looked it up, your particular tax money…the check even has your name on it, comes directly to me, every month, in the form of a military retirement check. That’s why your roads still suck. Thank you very much!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    The one thing I haven’t seen commented on here is the fact that Obama said he was gonna close Gitmo down immediately before he became pres-elect and now, since he’s been properly briefed, he seems to have backed off that position. One of those “things that make you go, hmmmm.”. No?

    For those of you that have never been to Guantanamo Bay I’m here to tell you that even if you’re not living in a little cage, the place really sucks….ever seen a banana rat? They’re bigger than cats!

    Just remember what Jack Nicholson said about Gitmo…”You can’t handle the truth!”

  • Cindy D

    lol Andy,

    One of those “things that make you go, hmmmm.”. No?

    Indeed, it does.

  • Arch Conservative

    “U.S. Official Claims At Least One Gitmo Detainee Was Tortured”

    So?

    I don’t need to know how sausages and hot dogs are made to enjoy them at a barbecue in August.

    But then again I don’t live in that bullshit theoretical world some of you do where everyone at gitmo is completely innocent and never had a single thought to harm America much less acted on such thoughts and where treating Al Queda and other assorted islamic terrorist scumbags with human decency when we capture them will somehow result in their fellow scumbags treating our soldiers with the same decency if they become captured.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Dave, the log notates when breaks and meals were taken.

    Ok, but why assume that if there is time when nothing is noted it means that something secret is happening. It could be time when he’s just being left in his cell to contemplate his situation. Why assume the worst?

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Consider this…If a person is driving a car and kills someone while doing so, accidentally, isn’t that something like involuntary manslaughter? As opposed to say, someone that purposely ran another person down with a car? Same act, just different intentions…no?

    There’s a significant difference between intent and motivation. Intent pertains directly to action. It is what you plan to do, and is traditionally considered part of the crime. Motivation is largely irrelevant. It matters how you plan to act, but does it matter why you take that action? Not traditionally in how crime is treated under common law.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    If my small action were to be lawful, it would hardly be disobedience.

    I wasn’t talking legality, Cindy, merely civility.

    Defacing books that are not yours is uncivil, rude, and selfish.

  • Cindy D

    Clav,

    Yes, well, it can hardly be helped though. Thoreau was one of the first authors that attracted me.

    I sort of find it strange that your value of a book is as a piece of property rather than a means of communication. In your view it’s value is as nothing but an object or possession. The salient factor is who owns the property.

    If its value is to communicate ideas (as is my contention), how can adding more relevant ideas make it anything but more valuable?

  • Clavos

    Thoreau is an excellent example, and an individual whose ideas I admire as well. The thing about Mr. Thoreau is that, to communicate his ideas, he wrote his own books, not in someone else’s.

    You should emulate him, even more than you already do.

  • Cindy D

    Come to think of it, some of the best reading I’ve done happened when I bought a used book, which had someone else’s notes in the margins.

  • Cindy D

    “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.”

  • Cindy D

    You admire his ideas. I use his ideas.

    Ideas aren’t dangerous as long as we keep them in our heads.

  • Clavos

    Ideas aren’t dangerous, period…

  • Cindy D

    Yes, I think that’s what I said.

  • Cindy D

    Well, maybe it’s just what I meant.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Thoreau was a self-indulgent twit and a poser whose protest against the poll tax consisted of staying in jail for 2 hours before his aunts came and bailed him out and then writing a pompous poem about his noble sacrifice.

    Dave

  • pablo

    A very typical Nallism in the above post. Thanks Davey.

    On the subject of AlCiada, an excellent video series is to be found here, which is a bit more germane to the subject at hand.

  • pablo

    And on the typical Nallism, it is not known exactly who paid the tax for Thoreau, it is assumed by many that it was his Aunt, but thats is quite a bit different than stating it as fact, but as Nalle frequently likes to create his own version of history he states it as a fact, along with most of the rest of his fictionalized versions of history.

    Thanks Davey for once again showing your true colors, buddy.

  • Clavos

    Oh. sweet irony!

    Pablo takes Nalle to task for liking “to create his own version of history.”

    Ah, Pablo, you are a truly great comic…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D,

    The Minnesota statute you provided and cite for the proposition that $1,000 worth of property damage (say graffiti) in MN makes you a terrorist states,

    609.714 CRIMES COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF TERRORISM.

    Subdivision 1.Definition.

    As used in this section, a crime is committed to “further terrorism” if the crime is a felony and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to:

    (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and

    (2) significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly.

    Subd. 2.Furtherance of terrorism; crime described; penalty. A person who commits a felony crime to further terrorism is guilty of a crime. The statutory maximum for the crime is 50 percent longer than the statutory maximum for the underlying crime.

    A person who commits a felony crime to further terrorism is guilty of a crime. The statutory maximum for the crime is 50 percent longer than the statutory maximum for the underlying crime.(emphasis added)

    I think that this requires quite a lot more than merely, e.g., spray painting $1,000 worth of graffiti on someone else’s property to the effect that the war in Iraq should end, that God is dead, or anything else which does not meet the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2). It would be a really big stretch to find that such expressions are intended to “terrorize, intimidate or coerce” lots of people in addition to the owner of the property and that they are also intended to disrupt any of the specified activities.

    The other statute cited, 609.595 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, does not deal with “terrorism.” It covers property damage broadly defined to include racial slurs and the like. The cited Huffington Post article does not appear to take into account the definitions of terrorism contained in the Minnesota statute.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Next Pablo is going to claim that it wasn’t Thoreau’s aunts who brought him picnic baskets while he was living at Walden Pond, but instead some sort of international conspiracy of space aliens or somesuch.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Dan(Miller),

    The second statute was offered to demonstrate what level of property damage is considered criminal, and therefore a felony. …to “further terrorism” if the crime is a felony…. It’s $1000, unless you’ve been previously convicted, blah blah, then it’s $500.

    The terrorism statute requires the commission of a felony. That’s why I needed the damage statute. Yes?

    Thanks, Dan(Miller). They are doing some pretty weird things to protesters these days. Dancing was considered a felony to incite a riot (where no riot occurred). I hope you are right!

  • Fresh Meat

    As a former soldier I have only one comment. Would you be happy with these acts being commited against our soldiers when they become POW’s? If you are not then you need to re-check your hypocrisy, as you are provinding the enemey with justifications they already don’t need to also ignore the Geneva Conventions.

    These conventions are largely ignored today, but by ignoring them you begin to cutoff support from one’s allies and isolate yourself. Whilst currently the US is in a position to not care about alliances, will that be the case in 50 years?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D, some property damage is a felony and some is not. Section 609.595, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, illuminates what property damage is a felony and what is not. Some property damage is a felony, and some is not.

    Far fewer than all felonies constitute terrorism under the other statute you cited.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    Dan(Miller),

    Yes, but you have to have a felony to begin the terrorism act from a property damage angle, right?

    So, you have to have $1K damage to property to have the initial felony.

    For instance, if you have $375 damage to property you can not be charged under the terrorism statute based on damage to property.

    Just from the property damage angle I’m talking about.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D,

    Yes, but even if you have ten million dollars in property damage and multiple felonies, the Minnesota terrorism statute to which you provided a link still comes into play only under the stated circumstances. There are lots and lots of felonies — bank robbery, murder, burglary, rape etc., and unless they meet the statutory definition of terrorism they still do not fall under the terrorism statute. The felony has to be intended to:

    (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and

    (2) significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly.(emphasis added)

    Few bank robberies, murders, burglaries, rapes, malicious property damage or other felonies are intended to, or do, “terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act.” Those committed without the specified intent to do so do not come under the Minnesota terrorism statute — even if they are so heinous as to be condemned universally* as warranting life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death, even by being staked out over a gigantic mound of fire ants.

    Dan(Miller)

    *including but not by way of limitation all member states of the United Nations and his Holiness the Pope.

  • Cindy D

    Dan(Miller),

    The LAW says. $1000 in property damage is a criminal act (a felony).

    The LAW says, “As used in this section, a crime is committed to ‘further terrorism’ if the crime is a felony [my note $1000 of property damage] and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to: significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly.”

    What that tells me is this: If you write a message that can be interpreted in any way as interfering with the above stated…you can be arrested as a terrorist! And further, let the court decide.

    How about:

    GO AWAY YOU FUCKING CAPITALIST PIGS!

    …when written outside a place that is designed for the gathering of people for a political function.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    I don’t see how graffiti alone can disrupt the function of something.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dan/Cindy,

    # 55 & 56:

    Well, one of the consequences of broadening the definition of “terrorism” – whatever the legal reasoning or justification – apart from trivializing it, is self-defeating. It only adds fuel to the fire, making a “terrorist” an honorific term. I would have thought it would be in the best interest of Federal, State, and Local governmental agencies to keep “terrorism” a dirty word. But it looks as though the State is prepared to wage an all-out war against any and all acts of civil disobedience – serious or trivial. That’s the makings of a police state, don’t you think? Is that what we’ve got to look forward to?

    I would think that under the circumstances, it would be more prudent to suspend legal reasoning (and recourse to legal reasoning) for a while in the interest of the future.

    Roger

  • Cindy D

    TY Dan(Miller) for looking that over.

    Let me say, people have been arrested for less. People have been arrested for much less. On felony charges.

    So, if you want to protest, do what I tell my nephew to do (when he wants to protest), hang up a poster, instead of graffiti.

    Put a sticker with an idea on something. Whatever you think. Don’t stop. Don’t get arrested.

    Keep going. But don’t get arrested.

  • pablo

    post50

    This is the quintessential Nallism. When corrrected by me of his historical inaccuracy, that being that it was fact that Thoreau’s Aunt bailed him out of jail, instead of a widely held assumption, Nalle comes back with sarcasm and smear. Instead of admitting that he was incorrect in his assertion, like a man would do, he hides behind ridicule. This is why it is so typical of Nalle’s style, and why I am bringing it again to the attention of readers. And of course along comes his hand holding sidekick Clavy baby to back him up, as he invariably does.

    google search on Throreau Aunt AND tax

    Such is the life of the esteemed Dave Nalle political editor of this site, who’s main tools of choice in debate are historical revisionism, smear, and condescension. You quite a character Nalle, it is no wonder that your political acumen is so lame, as well as your opinions on politics buddy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Pablo,

    I’m not going to get into this conversation, because I just promised Dave to be more tactful and respectful in my comments; so I’ll let you to do the dirty work for a while. But I DO like your writing style.

  • pablo

    Well thank you Roger, it is indeed my pleasure to bring to everyone’s attention Nalle’s basic debating style, and historical inaccuracies. One of the latest ones that I did was Nalle’s assertion the Ollie North did time in prison for his Iran-Contra shenanigans, which was completely untrue, and if he did not know it, he is even more politically inept than I give him credit for.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    So do you think we can turn him around? Is there even a remote possibility?

  • pablo

    Roger,

    I highly doubt it. My experience with people such as Dave (right wing narrow minded folks) is that minds only function properly when open. Nalle is so busy defending the status quo and the people that are busy looting the American Citizenry of not only their Constitutional guarantees, but now their money, property, and jobs, that he will never change. I also suspect being the coinspracist that I am that Nalle is employed as a shill more than likely by the CIA, which he freely admits has been his family’s employer for decades.

    I do however enjoy immensely exposing Nalle for what he is, and will continue doing so for the indefinite future. Any moment his sidekick Clavy will come along and offer one of his smarmy remarks, I often wonder about the true nature of their relationship, and suspect is it far more intimate than most realize.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Roger, you haven’t been here long enough to know what you’re dealing with, but Pablo is a narcissistic, delusional, conspiracy nut.

    His so-called disproof of my off-hand comment about Thoreau was an assertion that there was no proof that it was his aunt who paid his poll tax to get him out of jail. Never mind that the aunt theory has been a common and accepted part of the Thoreau folklore for more than a century, he declares it invalid purely on his own assertion. The fact is that the tax was paid anonymously, but that everyone who has studied the case who is at all knowledgeable on Thoreau believes Maria Thoreau paid it. She never denied having done so, and no one else ever came forward as having paid it. So unless Pablo has some secret knowledge – perhaps having been Thoreau in a past life – I’m sticking with the accepted belief that she paid his poll tax. Pablo certainly can’t prove otherwise.

    I will admit that I made a misstatement about Ollie North a while back, mistakenly assuming that his conviction had yielded some jail time – but that time was taken up by appeals which kept him out of prison. Pablo corrected me and I acknowledged the mistake. Big deal. Pablo focuses on trivia because he’s unable to debate any issue based on substance.

    I also suspect being the coinspracist that I am that Nalle is employed as a shill more than likely by the CIA, which he freely admits has been his family’s employer for decades.

    And this shit Pablo just made up out of the paranoia which shapes his twisted view of reality. I’ve only ever said that one of my relatives worked for the CIA and that only for relatively brief period. The rest, down the decades, have been journalists, industrialists, military officers, diplomats and other very un-covert and easily documented things.

    Dave

  • pablo

    A big yawn for Davey.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy D, you say

    The LAW says, “As used in this section, a crime is committed to ‘further terrorism’ if the crime is a felony [my note $1000 of property damage] and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to: significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly.”

    What that tells me is this: If you write a message that can be interpreted in any way as interfering with the above stated…you can be arrested as a terrorist! And further, let the court decide.

    The LAW does not say that. If you will read the cited sections of the Minnesota law, you will find that you referred only to part (2) and neglected to refer to part (1), which states

    The felony has to be intended to:

    (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and (emphasis added)

    also to do what you said. Parts (1) and (2) are expressively in the conjunctive, not in the disjunctive. “And” is used, not “or.” Gotta do both. I doubt very seriously that the statement GO AWAY YOU FUCKING CAPITALIST PIGS!

    …when written outside a place that is designed for the gathering of people for a political function. . . . could be construed as intended to “terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act . . . .” Even if written in plain sight of attendees at a meeting of the Minnesota Paranoid Conspiracy Society convened to discuss the evils of Communism, it probably wouldn’t have that effect.

    The world has enough problems, legal and otherwise, without creating new ones by omitting half of the essential definition of a specific crime to find a new crime.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    Re # 65: I’m not taking any sides here, except to say that his expression of his view is (as I see it) just as internally-consistent as is yours; and that’s good. I also think that a lot of people subscribe to Pablo’s views, although not in such an eloquent and articulated manner. By hope is that some day we might bridge at least some of the gap separating the extreme Right and Left, find a common ground on which to build; otherwise, these are just voices in the wind. And I’m certain that Pablo is a patriot, just as you are. You just have entirely different visions of (and for) America.

    Roger

  • Cindy D

    TY you Dan(Miller) for both the feedback on the law and the great grafitto idea!

    Seriously though, that was helpful.

  • Patriot

    Torture is not American, in any way, shape, or form! Read the constitution, for goodness sake. But lets put the moral evil of torture aside for a moment.
    Those tortured men were not tried and found guilty in a court of law; therefore they are only “suspected” terrorists. Can you live with your conscience if even just ONE innocent man was tortured? What if it was your wife or child? Didn’t think so.