"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:X8SdnYweyb6_AwLfRVn-gg@io.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1117747602.3dd481f591db928789fbf19e838d5c0f@teranews...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:SsOdnVUuhuiD9wLfRVn-pQ@io.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1117734806.2b4ca3c32ce34b9a1fb28756c0e7f8eb@teranews...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:HuednXi7UJLloQLfRVn-hQ@io.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1117729893.62785a5892b21b4746f309f0c99fee67@teranews...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:htedndWtFZ8SggLfRVn-sA@io.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1117711058.ba01843036032c33e5869687b7fea541@teranews...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:f-GdnbFh6JJfAQPfRVn-3A@io.com:

"Frankly, I was offended by it," Cheney said in the
videotaped interview. "For Amnesty International to suggest
that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights,
I frankly just don't take them seriously."

"Frankly," it's hard to imagine a more meaningless statement.
You can't use the premise "The US does not violate human
rights" in an argument that asks, "Does the US violate human
rights?"

Since he wasn't presenting a logical argument in a formal
debate, your objection is out of order.

I'm offended by the charge, but not at Amnesty International.

You *should* be offended at Amnesty International, if you hold
any respect for the institution at all. They have abandoned
their pose of impartiality and completely perverted any notion
of a single standard of human rights.

Ok, please establish this with an argument.

1. The recent report that equated Guantanamo to the Soviet
gulags.

And it's unwarrented because...?

You need to ask? Have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago?" Do you
have the slightest idea of what conditions were like in the Soviet
labor/prison camps? The *worst* of the allegations made about Gitmo
don't even come *close*.

Ah, the "We suck less" defense.

The "Let me point out that the USSR *approved* of the way the
prisoners were treated in the gulag. It was official policy. The US
does *not* approve of abuse of the detainees at Gitmo." defense.

I'm sure the prisoners are reassured.

Regardless they're held without charge.

Ah, the old shallow liberal single-track mind. Too bad you can't handle
complex arguments that involve more than one variable.

And note, the report said Guantanamo was the "Gulag of our times".
The word "equated" was not used.

The equation was made nonetheless.

No. The phrase "the (X) of our times" does not mean equals. The phrase
draws a comparison, but does not claim equality. That's common usage.

You are probably correct, the conditions at Guantanamo may not be as
bad as the conditions in the Gulag. But the holding of prisoners
without charges for an indefinite period is exactly what happens at
both places, is it not?

No, as a matter of fact, it is not. The detainees aren't criminals.
They're military detainees.

Ah, yes, this is an example of the republican ability to change
reality by calling it something else.

It's a fact.

Are they prisoners? Yes.
Are held without charges? Yes.
Is there a time limit on how long they can be held? No.

So basically the "No" at the start of your response is a big fat lie.

It's irrelevant what you call the prisoners, they're still prisoners.

No, it's quite relevant that they aren't being treated as criminals.

And being held without charges for an indefinite length of time IS
what happens in both places.

The comparison stands.

Your shallow comparison fails as soon as you look beneath the surface.

These are violations of what we call human
rights, are they not? And Mr. Cheney was just talking about human
rights, was he not?

Illegal combatants do not have the right to be treated as prisoners
under the Geneva Conventions.

Who said anything about the Geneva Conventions? We don't have to
follow the Geneva Conventions anyway, because we never declared war.

That's another deliberate tactic of our government. Like it?

Brilliant. Of course that isn't the reason why they're not eligible for
POW treatment under the Conventions, but never mind, you're too shallow
to understand.

The Geneva Conventions are irrelevant anyway. Holding people for an
indefinite lenth of time without charges is a violation of human
rights.

We'll be glad to give them back to whatever country wants to claim to
harbor al Queda terrorists.

2. AI's claims that the US violates human rights when in fact we
investigate allegations and prosecute when those allegations are
found to be substantiated.

"Investigate allegations" means those in charge will scramble for
a scape-goat when the ***** hits the front page?

No, it means that the allegations will be investigated *long
before* anything hits the news. But the news will treat it as a
revelation of some deep dark secret without acknowledging that they
got it from the military's own press releases on the subject.

Would we have heard about it if the press hadn't got hold of the
story? Would we have the photos?

In fact the army had made a press release about it in the preceding
January. The media ignored it because they didn't have the nice lurid
pictures to smear the US military with.

And the Liberal Media didn't run with it?

They didn't have those nice lurid pictures to smear the military with.

And of course the media doesn't publish the statements by former
detainees who say that they were treated well. There *are* such
statements out there. Feel free to look them up yourself. You might
learn something.

Yes, fear of reprisal.

Oh, baloney.

Let's see, would I say something bad about a government that HAS
arbitrarily arrested me and thrown me in prison without reason?

Hmmm...

So you get to have it both ways. The ones who make allegations are
telling the truth in spite of their fear of reprisals and the ones who
claim they were treated well are lying out of fear of reprisal.

That just fills me with confidence.

I will try very hard not to call you a gullible idiot.

Are you seriously suggesting that the problems at places like Abu
Gharib were not "allegated", and ignored, before the photos hit
the news?

Yes, I will seriously suggest that. You know better. At least you
should know better. You should be ashamed of yourself if you
*don't* know better.

You do know the story, don't you? I mean, you can't possibly have
followed all the ins and outs without catching on to what was
happening.

The investigations about Abu Ghraib began *months* before the
pictures hit the news. In fact, those pictures were only leaked to
the media when the investigators were ready to bring charges
against the people involved.

The people involved? Really? Those 6 acted all on their own, did
they?

That seems to be the case. They've all confessed to acting on their
own.

Like this?
Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn
statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman,
one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep
detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box
with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, "MI
wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick's job to do
things for MI and OGA to get these people to
talk."

Gosh, one gets the impression that these people were following orders.

And of course they couldn't *possibly* be lying to save their own skins.
No, it's the *investigators* who checked their stories who are lying.

Then some grandstanding congresscritters decided to hold their own
media events (whoops, I meant "investigations") in order to
sensationalize a few memos that were never actually published as
policy while ignoring what *was* actually published policy.

Actions speak louder than published policy.

Indeed, the investigations and punishments should speak louder than
the claims of former detainees. But you'll ignore all that because
you "support the troops" while calling them all liars and torturers.

If I'm not with Fred Stone, I'm against America.

No, you're just a gullible fool of a liberal.