Comments:President Bush defends U.S. interrogation tactics

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Funny, only the people who work at Guantanamo actually know what goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who left there lie about it, I mean, these are the people that actually STRAP BOBS TO THEIR CHESTS AND BLOW UP A CROWD OF PEOPLE, lying isn't exactly a stretch of ethics for them. But who knows. We will probably never actually know what goes on in there. People think just because of that one incident on tape that that means there is torture there, well guess what, those people were TRIED AND PUNISHED. Contralya 22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Key point. The people at Guantanamo have never been proven to be those people you mention as strapping bombs to their chests. There have though been many many reports and discussions about people that were just given to the US government and brought to GB basically because we were offering a bounty for "suspects", and many many reports from lawyers working for clients at GB that detail torture and other abuses. Also, which incident on tape are you mentioning? I don't recall one at GB... although I do recall one in Iraq itself. Lyellin 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are LAWYERS, they say anything to get sympathy for their clients! And I don't know if it was on tape, but there were pictures; it was were they had prisoners naked in a pile. It was an isolated incident and the people got tried and punished. You can never trust a lawyer, you wouldn't believe how many guilty go free on technicalities and sympathy; they say whatever will help their case. And what do you mean by proven? You think because there has never been a court case that they are innocent? Courts are so backed up as it is, it takes years for cases to be completed. Anyone who has been in a court case knows that it takes several months between sessions for the majority of cases. People have the delusion that terrorists are a myth, well I am sure some 3,000 families would beg to differ. Contralya 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of a lawyers job is to represent their candidates to the best of their ability. Alleging something they cannot prove does not serve a client - it delegitimizes their testimony and defense. And the point of the system is to ensure that EVERYONE receives a fair trial (GB detainees do not), and if sometimes people get free on "Technicalities and sympathy" that may not have supposed to have been free, so do many get sentenced to jail for things they do not do. That's our justice system - imperfect. I made no statement to terrorists being a myth - I am attacking the idea that the GB detainees are all terrorists. They are MANY, MANY cases of people just being held there for no reason. Go listen to NPR's This American Life for a couple.... if I can find the episode name I'll list it. I think because there has never been a court case they are being held illegally, and should receive a court case, especially in the cases where people have been held for years without any sort of charge, and even through interrogation, nothing is got from them. Lyellin 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode: 331: Habeas Schmabeas 2007, aired on 4/27/2007 and available on www.thislife.org Lyellin 01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is, you DON'T KNOW that they are innocent. You have no Idea, you aren't them. And look at that big O.J. Simpson trial a wile back, lawyers aren't as truthfull and honest as you make them out to be. Many (not all) just care about winning their cases, not necessarily the truth. Just because people say they were tortured, doesn't mean it is true. Just because N Vietnam said it released all of it's American prisoners, doesn't mean it's true. And just because that Mockme Imanutjob guy said there are no homosexuals in Iran and that they are cooperating with the U.N. doesn't mean it's true. Face it, the world is full of lies. Contralya 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To jump in the middle here, I don't know that you're not a terrorist either. I don't know that your dog isn't a terrorist as well. Does that mean we should lock you and your dog up? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because we think they might ahve something, no matter how small to do with terrorism, doesn't mean they do. My point exactly. That's why they need representation. Every statement you make there about lawyers assumes they are all corrupt evildoers - they aren't. They do their job - and they are BETTER served in doing said jobs when they have the truth on their side. Lyellin 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think American lawyers are evil or as corrupt as you say I do, I do think that they will say whatever it takes to win their case. Like make it look like an African was arrested just because he was African, resulting in a murderer going free. I have seen that 'Law and Order, Criminal Intent' show, and a number of court sessions. Lawyers want to win cases so they can advance their career. Sometimes at the expense of justice. And sometimes the rules themselves keep their from being justice, like accidentally forgetting to get a warrant, and a weapon with the victim's blood on it not being valid evidence. I have seen in real court cases, lawyers insisting on their client's innocence, and them being proved guilty beyond a doubt. So I am thinking the lawyers said that they were being tortured to win sympathy for their client (or just repeating what the client said to them). Contralya 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So because you've seen fictional tv shows, and seen instances of lawyers being wrong, or acting wrong (ignoring the fact that they must be in the minority - as there are countless trials going on all the time), you assume that torture is definetly not happening and that everyone in GB that says they are being tortured is lying. Also, those pictures of the pyramid? Those were in Iraq, not in GB. That entire trial of those officers was about a prison that was in Iraq, and the closest relation to GB was that some prisoners were sent to GB from that prison. Just to get the facts straight. :) Lyellin 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, when I heard about those prisoners, the news was always talking about Guantanamo, so, my mistake. But still, it is associated that if that can happen, there is likley torture in Guantanamo. And I didn't only see it in the T.V. show, it is just more apparent on the T.V. show as characters talk about it. I see similar things in some real trials, but without anyone talking about it. And I don't KNOW what really happens, I just don't like how everyone assumes that they are innocent and everyone assumes they are being tortured, including the U.N. Contralya 06:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally people tend to assume that unless proven otherwise. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is with criminals. Islamic terrorism is an act of war. Contralya 10:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, several points there. One - I'd hope you'd define any terrorism as an act of war. Two - we have the idea of innocent until proven guilty - and we have the Geneva Conventions to deal with situations of war. Three - How do you fight a war against a non-entity? If we can, then basically I can just claim I'm at war with "left handed people" and put them all in jail by saying they are left handed (and under GB rules - I wouldn't have to prove it!). Lyellin 14:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Now you are just saying that uncle sam is evil? I don't think so. Contralya 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No..... I'm saying they've broken the geneva convention (which they have, and left it even). The government is not evil...I just happen to feel this one is breaking the law. Lyellin 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence to base this claim on? The people from the prison could very easily be LYING. That is what people don't get, the news wants people to think that there is no chance in the world that those people are lying about being tortured. Contralya 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find you report after report of these people talking about it, about red cross officials being concerned, about people being brought there for no reason - I gave you one above. Can you show my any evidence as to why we have imprisoned thousands of people in GB and abroad and a very small minority have been charged with anything? Lyellin 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

People's opinions? I doubt there are actually thousands of people detained there. I am not saying I know all the details on what is going on, I have never been there, but my problem is that GB staff aren't given the benefit of a doubt by people. It seems like everyone assumes the people are being tortured and are innocent. A bunch of people's opinions aren't evidence, and the fact that the people there say they have been tortured doesn't mean it's true. To say that no-one there is a terrorist, is to deny that terrorism exists. If people from western governments weren't actively fighting terrorists like they have been, there would of been many more terrorist incidents. I don't like it how people think because there haven't been many attacks, there is no danger from terrorists. And that terrorists would magically disappear if they were ignored. Contralya 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, an apology. The thousands number is just plain wrong - I clearly misunderstood something I listened to and overreacted on that. The total number of detainees is listed at 755, with currently a bit over 300 being detained (WP has the exact number). People claiming torture include: Red Cross Inspectors, former detainees, current detainee lawyers, human rights groups, and amnesty international. So it's not just "people's opinions". Red Cross knows torture pretty well - they are who we send in to look at foreign countries and get medical aid to people.

Secondly, on the "benefit of the doubt" argument. The thing is, GB staff have been. For years. For years, since 2002 when it was created, there were virtually no questions. It's not till the past year or two that those questions have arisen - mostly since the government has started to release some detainees.

On the assumption of innocence - in our justice system, innocence IS assumed. It has to be. Innocent until prove guilty. As I said before - just because people are there doesn't mean they aren't being tortured either. Your argument that they could be lying works both ways.

On the idea that saying no one there is a terrorist is to deny terrorism exists. Ignoring the fact that I didn't say no one there was a terrorist, that's just a horrible argument. I don't deny terrorism exists, nor would anyone who can read the news. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but as far as I can tell, it's just a random statement with no logical backing.

That brings me to my final point, the "since we're fighting, there have been no attacks". This isn't a logically stable statement. That's like saying since I wore sandals today, the Red Sox won. There is no causal relationship between the "war on terror" and the "lack of terrorist attacks". Even more so, there HAVE been western terrorist attacks - in London, and and in Spain, since 9/11. You last two statements - well, they seem to be generalizations on how people think, and I do not know anyone who thinks that way, so I cannot comment. Lyellin 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my statement right. I didn't say there were NO attacks, I said that there were fewer than there would have been if no-one was fighting them!

And still, everyone assumes that they are tortured. The people who came out of there could EASILY be lying. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Red Cross saw self-inflicted wounds or were just repeating what the prisoners said. And these aren't criminals, these are prisoners of war, organized islamic terrorism isn't a crime, it is war. And I am not saying that I know for certain there is no torture, I know that it is possible they are torturing them. And about that stuff about 2002 and up, that is before the prisoners got out to possibly LIE ABOUT being tortured. What I am against, is people like you, who feel almost certain that they are being tortured. I don't trust what the prisoners say any more than I trust the guy who said there were no homo-sexuals in Iran. Media and many people don't give them the benefit of the doubt, they just assume they were tortured, without any ACTUAL evidence. I am done arguing with you here. I have better things to do than try to change the mind of a closed minded anti-American. Over and out. Contralya 06:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if you said (and you did), there have been less attacks then there would have been - that still is the same kind of statement. You have no way of supporting it. You cannot look into an alternate history and see how many there were - nor can you know if attacks have been stopped due to "the war" or to terrorists taking a break, or to waiting and planning, etc. You can't know the cause/effect relationship - there is no way to.

I really have no clue who this "everyone" is you are talking about. I know that the Red Cross has reported issues - the OAS and the EU has reported issues - and these are reputable people. Generally just not trusting anything at all, and making unfounded claims like "self-inflicted wounds" doesn't prove your point - it's just extra nonsense that you have no way of proving, that you are using in an attempt to cast aspersions on those groups.

If they are prisoners of war, they should fall under the Geneva convention. They don't, apparently, which is part of the concern. Organized Islamic terrorism is terrorism - by any classic definition of war, you can't actually fight a war with terrorism - there is nothing there "to fight". If you look at the research and the reports, many of these detainees can't be proven to be attached to organized Islamic terrorism as you call it (and some can, too). That does not give us the right to detain people without charge in poor conditions for years at a time.

Now, I am not convinced they are being tortured. But I know enough to look at the reports issued by reputable sources, to look at the results of the detentions, to look at the way it violates our laws, and to look at the statements made by detainees and their lawyers and evaluate. And every evaluation I do tells me that there is a good chance that these groups are right. The Media for years reported nothing of the event - and now they are starting to, and starting to look at it. And lo and behold, these reports of torture are coming out. Amazing how when the light is shined into the darkness, stuff is found.

Finally, on your last point, the random ad hominoum attack on me. You clearly do not know me, nor do you have any reason to call me anti-American, or close-minded. I am attempting to discuss this with as much logic as I can (and yes, emotion, I'm not perfect). But well, I'm an Eagle Scout, I grew up saluting the flag, I worked for a Iraqi war veteran in his run for congress, I've been involved in the American political process since before I could vote. I'm not an anti-American, and if you need to result to unfounded ad hominum attacks, you are failing at your job of convincing me that you are right.

I look forward to further discussions, either on this page or other ones. I look forward to them even more when you start providing examples of your claims. Lyellin 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)