On the one hand, I'd be more inclined to believe an actual newspaper than an entertainment-based magazine like Rolling Stone. On the other hand, the tone of the Sun-Times article is so dismissive and flippant, not to mention much less detailed and with far fewer sources, that I honestly had to wonder if the columnist wasn't doing the "exaggerate to make a point" thing before I was even halfway through. If that was intended to be a serious article, the columnist could stand to be, well, a little more serious.
When I was serving as a Congressional intern, the Representative I worked for was probably one of the few Republicans upset about and opposed to our policies in Gitmo. He was in many ways a libertarian and considered the camp to be inhumane. "I keep my chickens better than we keep those prisoners." (He owned a farm.)
Then he actually toured the facility. This changed his opinion completely. He couldn't see the slightest hint of abuse or mistreatment, and never complained about it again.
Of course, it's possible that this was all an elaborate set-up and he was only shown what the PR people wanted him to see. It's always possible to work out a conspiracy theory. But given the size of the place (not very large) one would think it would be hard to conceal open abuse or at least prisoners who were openly abused. The congressman found neither of these.
No, a red herring would be mentioning that I have a cat picture almost identical to your icon. Which I do, but that's quite beside the point.
The article demonstrates--assuming it's an accurate report, which you can always deny--that the prisoners are far better fed than most jailed American criminals, and thus any claims of starvation is flat out ludicrous. (I can't remember offhand if the Rolling Stone article made any such claims, and I don't have the time or desire at the moment to wade through that dreck.) It also begs the question of why, if we are torturing or otherwise mistreating the inmates so much, we'd treat them to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences.
It also alludes to the fact the prisoners regularly attack the guards (with makeshift lethal weapons; see the bottom of the first page). Moreover, the strongest criticism it can make against the camp is "The conflicting accounts of prisoners' exercise time highlight a need for neutral monitors to examine conditions and report their findings, said Curt Goering of Amnesty International USA." And this is from a paper whose editorial position, I'm fairly sure, is strongly against the camp. (Again, I don't have time to check, so feel free to make me eat crow on this point if you can find a relevant editorial.) So you'll forgive me if I fail to find the Rolling Stone article convincing.
Or you won't. That may not be the most accurate phrase to end this conversation. Ah well.
Something that draws attention away from the central issue, as in, 'Talking about the new plant is a red herring to keep us from learning about downsizing plans.' The herring in this expression is red and strong-smelling from being preserved by smoking. The idiom alludes to dragging a smoked herring across a trail to cover up the scent and throw off tracking dogs. [Late 1800s]"
"red herring." The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Houghton Mifflin Company. 06 Oct. 2006.
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<dictionary.com>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
You, sir, are incorrect.
"red herring
Something that draws attention away from the central issue, as in, 'Talking about the new plant is a red herring to keep us from learning about downsizing plans.' The herring in this expression is red and strong-smelling from being preserved by smoking. The idiom alludes to dragging a smoked herring across a trail to cover up the scent and throw off tracking dogs. [Late 1800s]"
"red herring." The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Houghton Mifflin Company. 06 Oct. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/red herring>
Your inclusion of the article and subsequent argument subtly changes the focus of the topic introduced by your brother from questioning whether or not torture it occuring at Guantanamo Bay to questioning whether or not we're pampering the prisoners there. It's a subtle red herring, but one nonetheless. Your proposed example regarding similar kittty LJ icons would actually be a non sequitur.
Having chased the smell of your smoked fish, I'll now return to the central topic. Your argument regarding the article is fallacious. You're attempting to create a false transitive association. If our prisoners are gaining weight, then we're over-feeding or pampering them. If we're pampering our prisoners, then we're not torturing them. Therefore, since our prisoners are gaining weight, we're not torturing them. That's a lot of ifs you're using to dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity. It's our duty as Americans to be more stringent in our self-examination. If we can't look ourselves squarely in the mirror, how can we expect to remain a beacon to the world?
The second point, that the prisoners routinely attack their guards with makeshift weapons, directly undermines your first point. If we're treating our prisoners so well, as you infer from their weight, why are they attacking their captors? What do they hope to gain?
The last point you make is probably the most valid. We need more neutral monitors and deeper scrutiny. I don't know what went on there any more than you do. Nor am I inclined to rush to judgement since we, as Americans, collectively bear responsibility. I don't believe that I'm exaggerating when I say that the honor and integrity of our nation is at stake. However, I'd rather face the truth, however ugly it may or may not be, than draw conclusions based on articles from either side containing little fact and much speculation.
You're forgiven for failing to find the Rolling Stone article convincing. I certainly don't. You'll have to forgive me for finding the Sun Times article provided by your brother, the Washington Post article you provided, and you, equally unconvincing.
First, the petty semantic stuff: You're correct that bringing up the cat issue is a non-sequitur. But it is also a "red herring" in the technical sense of the phrase: "something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting" (Oxford American Dictionary, emphasis added). Cat pictures are not misleading, but they are distracting, and mentioning cats can be "something that draws attention away from the central issue" to use your definition. (Particularly if the cats in question are cute.) You can commit multiple fallicies with the same statement.
In any case, your first response--"What on earth does that article have to do with anything?"--seemed to take the term non-sequitur and red herring to be interchangeable in this case as well. Your second response changes this impression, indicating that the article I posted was "subtle" in changing the subject--or at least my argumentation was. I suppose I should take this as a complement.
You are also correct that the article in question isn't by itself enough to "dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity." I never said it was, and I didn't initially cite it as such. I cited it as a throw-away comment attached to my main argument for why I didn't take the Rolling Stone article seriously. The argument was:
1) The congressman for whom I interned inspected the facility while I was interning and found nothing untoward.
2) The congressman in question was opposed to Guantanamo and related activities before his visit and was thus on alert for abuses. (As opposed, say, the a congressman who had supported detention for unlawful combatants from the start and wanted to keep a lid on any abuses to avoid embarrassment.)
3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that prisoners at Guantanamo were suffering abuses during the period while the congressman visited. (Experience + Motive for accurately reporting experience = Likely accurate report of experience.)
I have the qualifier "highly unlikely" because this proof can obviously be disputed: I discussed the possibility of him being deceived by a "Potemkin village"-style set-up and why I considered such a possibility unlikely. One could also mention the possibility that he was bribed, that he was deliberately concealing his support for Guantanamo before his visit so his stance after his visit would seem more convincing (if so, he was fooling even his legislative assistants), or that I am misrepresenting the congressman either inadvertently (faulty memory from an event three years ago) or maliciously. But, absent convoluted conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is that the when Jeff Tietz tells us that torture was routine in Guantanamo in 2002-2003 period, he was lying. (Or fooled, which is another possibility.) That was the point of the initial post. It also implies that such activities are not happening now, as representatives and senators are still informed of what happens at Guantanamo and media scrutiny has only intensified since then.
Now, it seems you don't actually find the Rolling Stone convincing. But you apparently don't consider the argument posed above convincing either. Is that for a reason I previously mentioned, or something else? I'm mildly curious.
I do have more to say about the food article. I'll post on that shortly.
Beginning with the "petty semantics", it appears you concede that my initial comment equating your inclusion of the Post article in your original post with a red herring was correct, provided that one agrees with my assessment of why the article was included in the first place. In other words, my usage of the term "red herring" was correct. It's your motivation for including the article that is under contention. Since you're the only person who can truly explain your own intent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that my interpretation of your motivation for including the "throw-away" argument was incorrect.
*sips cognac*
As for the cat pictures comment being both a "red herring" and a "non sequitur", I continue to disagree. In order for the cat comment to be a "red herring", it would have to have had something to do with the topic under discussion, namely conditions at Guantanomo Bay. It would not have. Instead, it would have been a reply that had no relevance to what preceded it; a non sequitur. However, since we're essentially arguing semantics over the hypothetical insertion of a comment used as an example, I suggest we agree to disagree and drop this point from discussion.
*puffs cigar*
Your main argument was well phrased, which is why it failed to raise any red flags in my mind the way your "throw-away" comment did. In other words, your main argument was well stated and you offered some logical framework, so did not prompt a response from me. In contrast, your "throw-away" comment was unsupported by an argument and instead seemed to imply a number of possibilities without giving a stance on any of them. I selected the only possibility that I believed required a response from me, and did so accordingly.
I failed to find your main argument convincing for the following reasons:
1) It is essentially a hearsay argument, lacking credible, verifiable sources. Which congressman did you intern with? Can this internship be verified? During what period of time did he visit Guantanomo Bay? Where are the congressional records logging his official opposition/denunciation of the torture there? Where is the report of his visit to Guantanomo Bay and what he witnessed there? These are questions which would need to be answered before I even considered your argument on the same level as the ones posited in the Post, Sun Times, or Rolling Stone. I was trained to discount hearsay arguments unless they could be verified independantly.
2) As a result of your hearsay argument, using facts which you provided and only you can verify, you posit that Jeff Tietz was either lying or fooled. I'm sorry, but whatever your opinion of the media, Tietz is still held to a higher degree of accountability for the facts in his story than you are with your hearsay. In other words, he's a far more reliable source than you are. I must discount any argument or conclusion springing from your hearsay. Once again, there are too many ifs.
I think you're being somewhat unfair in how you represent my take on the Washington Post article. I'm not creating a "false transitive association" between "our prisoners are gaining weight" and "we're over-feeding ... them." The article just plain says that. That such food is offered is not in dispute. What is in dispute is: how much of the weight gain is caused by overeating and how much is caused by lack of exercise? Also: is such lack of exercise that exists caused by coercive management, or is it valid punishment for misbehavior?
Now, one of the reasons I brought the article up is because the Rolling Stone article alleges that borderline starvation is one of techniques employed at Guantanamo, so there's a blatant contradiction right there. However, you don't take the Tietz's article seriously, so this is something of a moot point.
It is also true, as you point out, that the mere fact the prisoners are, as I said, treated "to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences" does not prove that we aren't doing some torture on the side. (Keep in mind, however, that unless the Post is being played for a fool, it is a fact that they are getting such service.) The same can be said about the fact that detainees are given opportunities to pray, access to chaplains, and other necessities to practice their faith. We could be doing all of this and still beating them with rods at the end of the day. It just means that, if we are engaging in regular torture, we're being stupid about it.
The Rolling Stone article has many flaws, but one of the things it actually gets right is its depiction of SERE. Tietz explains (page four):
The most effective form of torture turned out to have two components. The first is pain and harm delivered in unpredictable, sometimes illusory environments -- an absolute denial of physical comfort and spatial-temporal orientation. The second is a removal of the inner comfort of identity -- achieved by artfully humiliating people and coercing them to commit offenses against their own religion, dignity and morality, until they become unrecognizable to and ashamed of themselves. ... In SERE theory, the techniques are be used in concert and continuously -- coercive interrogation should become a life experience.
Now, if we were seriously interested in breaking the detainees at Guantanamo in any systematic fashion, this is what we would be doing. What articles like the Post one demonstrate is that we are not, at least, employing the second method "advocated" by SERE. The identity of the detainees at Gitmo is still very much intact. This, ironically, is part of the problem.
You state, "that the prisoners routinely attack their guards with makeshift weapons, directly undermines your first point. If we're treating our prisoners so well … why are they attacking their captors? What do they hope to gain?"
There's a fairly obvious answer to this question. What they hope to gain is exactly what they hoped to gain when they joined their terrorist outfit of choice: dead and maimed Americans (and Israelis and Australians and Spaniards and Italians and etc., etc.--but only Americans are there). Only if we assume that a (large) majority of detainees are not in fact terrorists does that question even make sense. The proper phrasing of the question is: What do they have to lose by attacking the guards? Exercise privileges?
The "identity" of the Guantanamo detainees seems for the most part to be exactly the same as it was when they arrived. That is, they are still thugs devoted to a murderous ideology. And there's very little we can do about that, short of subjecting them to the sorts of tortures that SERE trains our servicemen to resist until we break them completely. But this hasn't happened, and it won't.
As regards the last point: It remains to be seen what the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will do as far as oversight is concerned. If nothing else, it provides some hard and fast guidelines about what is and is not torture or otherwise banned.
As a point of clarification, I find the Rolling Stone article compelling, but not convincing. It is obvious that Tietz has done a lot of legwork in researching this piece. However, the evidence he's using to support the allegations of torture and the specifics behind them, which he is presenting as fact, fall short of what is needed to convince me that he is correct. His article blurs the lines between speculation, hearsay, and fact.
In regards to the transitive assertion, the Post article does not "just plain say that". I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out the flaws in your interpretation of the article. In addition, you're using an article describing Guantanamo feeding conditions in 2006 to counter an article describing torture allegation at Guantanamo from 2002-2005, the worst of which appeared to occur during the 2002-2003 period. The two articles do not refer to the same point in time, and therefore one can not be used to refute the veracity of the other. Furthermore, the Post article is as full of holes as the Rolling Stone article. For example, the name of the 410 lbs inmate and his medical records were not released, which means that neither his existence nor the context of his weight gain can be verified.
In my reply to your brother's post, I allowed for the possibility that torture had been used in the past, but is no longer being used now that Guantanamo is under higher scrutiny. Therefore, both articles could, in fact, be accurate, since they cover different periods of time. This possibility is far more likely than the possibility that the torture has been ongoing and that now "we're being stupid about it". In your argument, you do not allow for the possibility of past torture. Rather the essence of your argument is that since we're treating them so well now (under contention) than we must have always treated them this well, and therefore no torture ever occured. That I find this argument simple is an understatement.
As a side note, there are a number of effective torture tactics can incorporate feeding prisoners well. For example, feeding them well and telling them that we're keeping them healthy and strong so they can be tortured for longer. We can't infer that just because they're being fed well, they're not being abused on other levels.
I do not consider it a "problem" that the prisoners at Guantanamo still retain their identities. Given the type of psychological torment require to deconstruct a person's sense of self, I would not even make a joke of it. The fact that the prisoners routinely attack their guards actually supports Tietz's article. To answer your question of what they have to lose, the answer is their lives. Either they're still attempting to become martyrs, or they see no way out other than death. The civilian term for it is police-assisted suicide. Why might they be driven to this? Because, as Tietz states in his article, there are no clearly defined exit criteria that would end their incarceration. Thus, to answer my own question of what they have to gain, religious salvation or freedom from crushing uncertainty and despair.
Few Guantanamo detainees have been proven to have more than the most tenuous connections to terrorist organizations. While their commitment to the destruction of the West prior to their incarceration is uncertain, their incarceration has undoubtedly strengthened their hatred for the West. I could not even begin to posit a solution for this situation. However, without evidence, we can't fairly prosecute them. Without fair prosecution and defense, there can be no justice. If we deal with these men unjustly, than that thin line that separates the terrorists from us becomes that much more faint. We can't change the rules just because we don't like the outcome.
I have some hopes for the Military Commissions Act in terms of prevention. However, I also strongly feel that the US needs to definitively investigate the conditions at Guantanamo during the 2001-2004 period. We need to shine the harsh light of truth on the murky history of this prison and face the vindication or damnation that will be revealed. Only then can we move on as a nation and only then can we regain some of the international and domestic credibility we've lost over this situation. If a stain on our national honor is revealed, then we must also atone as a nation. The semblance or rhetoric of righteouness isn't enough. We need to be righteous in order to shine.
I hope you weren't considering that I "made a joke" about decontructing the identities of the detainees. I don't consider such methods acceptable either, nor do I believe the administration does, which is why I stated my belief that we haven't and won't use such techniques. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that point.
I stated in my above post that "Only if we assume that a (large) majority of detainees are not in fact terrorists does that question [What do they have to gain?] even make sense." I wasn't expecting that you actually do assume this. Ah well.
I suppose if you're going to consider the official military reports an inherently untrustworthy or at least unreliable source--even when reported by national newspapers who presumably have fact-checking resources--nothing is going to convince you short of a full independent audit. Since I obviously can't provide that, we'll just have to wait for the history books. Until then, I think this conversation has hit a bit of an impasse.
Man, this is one of those issues where you wish there really WAS fair and balanced coverage, and not just people who say that they have it. :/
(Kneejerk reaction to the first article: Man, I'm so sick of hearing "The Dems are going to vote Hillary in the next election!", especially when it's not relevant to the current topic. Like that article.
Either way, I'm pissed off that my tax dollars are paying for it.
On the other hand, given the legal manuverings by the administration over the past four years about what precisely constitutes torture, whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the Gitmo detainees, and whether or not President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other key administrative and military personnel can be charged with war crimes, I'm inclined to believe that something out of the ordinary is occuring there. That much ass-covering can't just be preventative/pre-emptive.
So what do I believe?
Well, I don't believe either of those stories. I do believe that: 1) Activities not normally sanctioned by the Geneva conventions and possibly falling under the definition of torture occured there in the past and may still be occuring. 2) That these activities may have occured with the knowledge and approval of key personnel within the Bush administration. 3) That the administration's legal manuverings over the issue have been to shield President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and/or additional high-ranking staffers from their involvement in these activities, regardless of whether or not they instigated or approved of these activities at the time they were initiated. 4) That the full details of what transpired, and who authorized or approved of what, will never be known. 5) Bad shit did and is still going down in Gitmo.
Something is rotten in the heart of our republic, and may have been for a very long time. It's time for Americans to start voting their conscience instead of sitting on their keysters during election night because they figure someone else will else will represent their views.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
YEah.
no subject
Then he actually toured the facility. This changed his opinion completely. He couldn't see the slightest hint of abuse or mistreatment, and never complained about it again.
Of course, it's possible that this was all an elaborate set-up and he was only shown what the PR people wanted him to see. It's always possible to work out a conspiracy theory. But given the size of the place (not very large) one would think it would be hard to conceal open abuse or at least prisoners who were openly abused. The congressman found neither of these.
In other news, the prisoners are getting fat. Make of this as you will.
no subject
Mmm... Pickled Red Herring. Now if I only had a bagel and a bit of shmear.
no subject
The article demonstrates--assuming it's an accurate report, which you can always deny--that the prisoners are far better fed than most jailed American criminals, and thus any claims of starvation is flat out ludicrous. (I can't remember offhand if the Rolling Stone article made any such claims, and I don't have the time or desire at the moment to wade through that dreck.) It also begs the question of why, if we are torturing or otherwise mistreating the inmates so much, we'd treat them to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences.
It also alludes to the fact the prisoners regularly attack the guards (with makeshift lethal weapons; see the bottom of the first page). Moreover, the strongest criticism it can make against the camp is "The conflicting accounts of prisoners' exercise time highlight a need for neutral monitors to examine conditions and report their findings, said Curt Goering of Amnesty International USA." And this is from a paper whose editorial position, I'm fairly sure, is strongly against the camp. (Again, I don't have time to check, so feel free to make me eat crow on this point if you can find a relevant editorial.) So you'll forgive me if I fail to find the Rolling Stone article convincing.
Or you won't. That may not be the most accurate phrase to end this conversation. Ah well.
no subject
"red herring
Something that draws attention away from the central issue, as in, 'Talking about the new plant is a red herring to keep us from learning about downsizing plans.' The herring in this expression is red and strong-smelling from being preserved by smoking. The idiom alludes to dragging a smoked herring across a trail to cover up the scent and throw off tracking dogs. [Late 1800s]"
"red herring." The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Houghton Mifflin Company. 06 Oct. 2006.
"red herring
Something that draws attention away from the central issue, as in, 'Talking about the new plant is a red herring to keep us from learning about downsizing plans.' The herring in this expression is red and strong-smelling from being preserved by smoking. The idiom alludes to dragging a smoked herring across a trail to cover up the scent and throw off tracking dogs. [Late 1800s]"
"red herring." The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Houghton Mifflin Company. 06 Oct. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/red herring>
Your inclusion of the article and subsequent argument subtly changes the focus of the topic introduced by your brother from questioning whether or not torture it occuring at Guantanamo Bay to questioning whether or not we're pampering the prisoners there. It's a subtle red herring, but one nonetheless. Your proposed example regarding similar kittty LJ icons would actually be a non sequitur.
Having chased the smell of your smoked fish, I'll now return to the central topic. Your argument regarding the article is fallacious. You're attempting to create a false transitive association. If our prisoners are gaining weight, then we're over-feeding or pampering them. If we're pampering our prisoners, then we're not torturing them. Therefore, since our prisoners are gaining weight, we're not torturing them. That's a lot of ifs you're using to dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity. It's our duty as Americans to be more stringent in our self-examination. If we can't look ourselves squarely in the mirror, how can we expect to remain a beacon to the world?
The second point, that the prisoners routinely attack their guards with makeshift weapons, directly undermines your first point. If we're treating our prisoners so well, as you infer from their weight, why are they attacking their captors? What do they hope to gain?
The last point you make is probably the most valid. We need more neutral monitors and deeper scrutiny. I don't know what went on there any more than you do. Nor am I inclined to rush to judgement since we, as Americans, collectively bear responsibility. I don't believe that I'm exaggerating when I say that the honor and integrity of our nation is at stake. However, I'd rather face the truth, however ugly it may or may not be, than draw conclusions based on articles from either side containing little fact and much speculation.
You're forgiven for failing to find the Rolling Stone article convincing. I certainly don't. You'll have to forgive me for finding the Sun Times article provided by your brother, the Washington Post article you provided, and you, equally unconvincing.
no subject
In any case, your first response--"What on earth does that article have to do with anything?"--seemed to take the term non-sequitur and red herring to be interchangeable in this case as well. Your second response changes this impression, indicating that the article I posted was "subtle" in changing the subject--or at least my argumentation was. I suppose I should take this as a complement.
You are also correct that the article in question isn't by itself enough to "dismiss an allegation that, if true, tarnishes our collective honor and integrity." I never said it was, and I didn't initially cite it as such. I cited it as a throw-away comment attached to my main argument for why I didn't take the Rolling Stone article seriously. The argument was:
1) The congressman for whom I interned inspected the facility while I was interning and found nothing untoward.
2) The congressman in question was opposed to Guantanamo and related activities before his visit and was thus on alert for abuses. (As opposed, say, the a congressman who had supported detention for unlawful combatants from the start and wanted to keep a lid on any abuses to avoid embarrassment.)
3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that prisoners at Guantanamo were suffering abuses during the period while the congressman visited. (Experience + Motive for accurately reporting experience = Likely accurate report of experience.)
I have the qualifier "highly unlikely" because this proof can obviously be disputed: I discussed the possibility of him being deceived by a "Potemkin village"-style set-up and why I considered such a possibility unlikely. One could also mention the possibility that he was bribed, that he was deliberately concealing his support for Guantanamo before his visit so his stance after his visit would seem more convincing (if so, he was fooling even his legislative assistants), or that I am misrepresenting the congressman either inadvertently (faulty memory from an event three years ago) or maliciously. But, absent convoluted conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is that the when Jeff Tietz tells us that torture was routine in Guantanamo in 2002-2003 period, he was lying. (Or fooled, which is another possibility.) That was the point of the initial post. It also implies that such activities are not happening now, as representatives and senators are still informed of what happens at Guantanamo and media scrutiny has only intensified since then.
Now, it seems you don't actually find the Rolling Stone convincing. But you apparently don't consider the argument posed above convincing either. Is that for a reason I previously mentioned, or something else? I'm mildly curious.
I do have more to say about the food article. I'll post on that shortly.
no subject
*sips cognac*
As for the cat pictures comment being both a "red herring" and a "non sequitur", I continue to disagree. In order for the cat comment to be a "red herring", it would have to have had something to do with the topic under discussion, namely conditions at Guantanomo Bay. It would not have. Instead, it would have been a reply that had no relevance to what preceded it; a non sequitur. However, since we're essentially arguing semantics over the hypothetical insertion of a comment used as an example, I suggest we agree to disagree and drop this point from discussion.
*puffs cigar*
Your main argument was well phrased, which is why it failed to raise any red flags in my mind the way your "throw-away" comment did. In other words, your main argument was well stated and you offered some logical framework, so did not prompt a response from me. In contrast, your "throw-away" comment was unsupported by an argument and instead seemed to imply a number of possibilities without giving a stance on any of them. I selected the only possibility that I believed required a response from me, and did so accordingly.
I failed to find your main argument convincing for the following reasons:
1) It is essentially a hearsay argument, lacking credible, verifiable sources. Which congressman did you intern with? Can this internship be verified? During what period of time did he visit Guantanomo Bay? Where are the congressional records logging his official opposition/denunciation of the torture there? Where is the report of his visit to Guantanomo Bay and what he witnessed there? These are questions which would need to be answered before I even considered your argument on the same level as the ones posited in the Post, Sun Times, or Rolling Stone. I was trained to discount hearsay arguments unless they could be verified independantly.
2) As a result of your hearsay argument, using facts which you provided and only you can verify, you posit that Jeff Tietz was either lying or fooled. I'm sorry, but whatever your opinion of the media, Tietz is still held to a higher degree of accountability for the facts in his story than you are with your hearsay. In other words, he's a far more reliable source than you are. I must discount any argument or conclusion springing from your hearsay. Once again, there are too many ifs.
no subject
Now, one of the reasons I brought the article up is because the Rolling Stone article alleges that borderline starvation is one of techniques employed at Guantanamo, so there's a blatant contradiction right there. However, you don't take the Tietz's article seriously, so this is something of a moot point.
It is also true, as you point out, that the mere fact the prisoners are, as I said, treated "to a quality buffet tailored to their dietary preferences" does not prove that we aren't doing some torture on the side. (Keep in mind, however, that unless the Post is being played for a fool, it is a fact that they are getting such service.) The same can be said about the fact that detainees are given opportunities to pray, access to chaplains, and other necessities to practice their faith. We could be doing all of this and still beating them with rods at the end of the day. It just means that, if we are engaging in regular torture, we're being stupid about it.
The Rolling Stone article has many flaws, but one of the things it actually gets right is its depiction of SERE. Tietz explains (page four):
Now, if we were seriously interested in breaking the detainees at Guantanamo in any systematic fashion, this is what we would be doing. What articles like the Post one demonstrate is that we are not, at least, employing the second method "advocated" by SERE. The identity of the detainees at Gitmo is still very much intact. This, ironically, is part of the problem.
You state, "that the prisoners routinely attack their guards with makeshift weapons, directly undermines your first point. If we're treating our prisoners so well … why are they attacking their captors? What do they hope to gain?"
There's a fairly obvious answer to this question. What they hope to gain is exactly what they hoped to gain when they joined their terrorist outfit of choice: dead and maimed Americans (and Israelis and Australians and Spaniards and Italians and etc., etc.--but only Americans are there). Only if we assume that a (large) majority of detainees are not in fact terrorists does that question even make sense. The proper phrasing of the question is: What do they have to lose by attacking the guards? Exercise privileges?
The "identity" of the Guantanamo detainees seems for the most part to be exactly the same as it was when they arrived. That is, they are still thugs devoted to a murderous ideology. And there's very little we can do about that, short of subjecting them to the sorts of tortures that SERE trains our servicemen to resist until we break them completely. But this hasn't happened, and it won't.
As regards the last point: It remains to be seen what the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will do as far as oversight is concerned. If nothing else, it provides some hard and fast guidelines about what is and is not torture or otherwise banned.
no subject
In regards to the transitive assertion, the Post article does not "just plain say that". I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out the flaws in your interpretation of the article. In addition, you're using an article describing Guantanamo feeding conditions in 2006 to counter an article describing torture allegation at Guantanamo from 2002-2005, the worst of which appeared to occur during the 2002-2003 period. The two articles do not refer to the same point in time, and therefore one can not be used to refute the veracity of the other. Furthermore, the Post article is as full of holes as the Rolling Stone article. For example, the name of the 410 lbs inmate and his medical records were not released, which means that neither his existence nor the context of his weight gain can be verified.
In my reply to your brother's post, I allowed for the possibility that torture had been used in the past, but is no longer being used now that Guantanamo is under higher scrutiny. Therefore, both articles could, in fact, be accurate, since they cover different periods of time. This possibility is far more likely than the possibility that the torture has been ongoing and that now "we're being stupid about it". In your argument, you do not allow for the possibility of past torture. Rather the essence of your argument is that since we're treating them so well now (under contention) than we must have always treated them this well, and therefore no torture ever occured. That I find this argument simple is an understatement.
As a side note, there are a number of effective torture tactics can incorporate feeding prisoners well. For example, feeding them well and telling them that we're keeping them healthy and strong so they can be tortured for longer. We can't infer that just because they're being fed well, they're not being abused on other levels.
no subject
Few Guantanamo detainees have been proven to have more than the most tenuous connections to terrorist organizations. While their commitment to the destruction of the West prior to their incarceration is uncertain, their incarceration has undoubtedly strengthened their hatred for the West. I could not even begin to posit a solution for this situation. However, without evidence, we can't fairly prosecute them. Without fair prosecution and defense, there can be no justice. If we deal with these men unjustly, than that thin line that separates the terrorists from us becomes that much more faint. We can't change the rules just because we don't like the outcome.
I have some hopes for the Military Commissions Act in terms of prevention. However, I also strongly feel that the US needs to definitively investigate the conditions at Guantanamo during the 2001-2004 period. We need to shine the harsh light of truth on the murky history of this prison and face the vindication or damnation that will be revealed. Only then can we move on as a nation and only then can we regain some of the international and domestic credibility we've lost over this situation. If a stain on our national honor is revealed, then we must also atone as a nation. The semblance or rhetoric of righteouness isn't enough. We need to be righteous in order to shine.
no subject
I stated in my above post that "Only if we assume that a (large) majority of detainees are not in fact terrorists does that question [What do they have to gain?] even make sense." I wasn't expecting that you actually do assume this. Ah well.
I suppose if you're going to consider the official military reports an inherently untrustworthy or at least unreliable source--even when reported by national newspapers who presumably have fact-checking resources--nothing is going to convince you short of a full independent audit. Since I obviously can't provide that, we'll just have to wait for the history books. Until then, I think this conversation has hit a bit of an impasse.
no subject
no subject
(Kneejerk reaction to the first article: Man, I'm so sick of hearing "The Dems are going to vote Hillary in the next election!", especially when it's not relevant to the current topic. Like that article.
...Though I'm a registered independent. ;P)
no subject
On the other hand, given the legal manuverings by the administration over the past four years about what precisely constitutes torture, whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the Gitmo detainees, and whether or not President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other key administrative and military personnel can be charged with war crimes, I'm inclined to believe that something out of the ordinary is occuring there. That much ass-covering can't just be preventative/pre-emptive.
So what do I believe?
Well, I don't believe either of those stories. I do believe that:
1) Activities not normally sanctioned by the Geneva conventions and possibly falling under the definition of torture occured there in the past and may still be occuring.
2) That these activities may have occured with the knowledge and approval of key personnel within the Bush administration.
3) That the administration's legal manuverings over the issue have been to shield President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and/or additional high-ranking staffers from their involvement in these activities, regardless of whether or not they instigated or approved of these activities at the time they were initiated.
4) That the full details of what transpired, and who authorized or approved of what, will never be known.
5) Bad shit did and is still going down in Gitmo.
Something is rotten in the heart of our republic, and may have been for a very long time. It's time for Americans to start voting their conscience instead of sitting on their keysters during election night because they figure someone else will else will represent their views.