tvashtarkatena Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) There's an excellent article in the Feb 23 issue of the New Yorker on the detention and torture of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, who is currently being held in a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston. LINKY TO THE ARTICLE Mr. Al-Marri, who has maintained in innocence regarding any involvement in the 911 attack through even the most gruesome torture (in contrast with the 5 detainees at Gitmo on trial who brag about theirs), has been held since 2001 without being charged with any crime. The sum total of the government's 'evidence' against Al-Marri regarding 911 consists of a mention of his name by another Al Qaeda operative who was being tortured at the time. The most touching part of the article, I thought, was this passage: "In 2005, Savage (Al-Marri's defense attorney) discovered that the head of security at the brig, Air Force Major Chris Ferry, "would stay all night with Marri. He'd go down to the brig and sit with him, and tell him to hold on. Chris was there at 3:00 in the morning on the darkest nights" again, from the article: It was the political appointees in Washington, at the Pentagon, and at the Department of Justice who wanted Al-Marri to be held in prolonged isolation. The isolation was eased when it became clear that Al-Marri was showing clear signs of psychosis. The article describes how Al-Marri was slammed against concrete walls, isolated for months at a time in a cold concrete cell with no light, nothing to do, no shoes or socks, no mattress or pillow, and only a stiff blanket (so that it cannot be made into a noose). He was put in coffin-like boxes with towels over the seems to simulate being buried alive and suffocated for prolonged periods. After years of such treatment, he was allowed two phone calls a year to his family of a wife and five children. Mr. Al-Marri asks only to tried. Apparently, some here still believe this is what our country should stand for. I don't. Edited March 17, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 is it loathing your wife to notice she's got a big fat zit on her face? that her breath stinks in the morning? or are you actually capable of making honest observations like those and still loving her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) There's an excellent article in the Feb 23 issue of the New Yorker on the detention and torture of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, who is currently being held in a U.S. Navy brig in Charleston. Mr. Al-Marri, who has maintained in innocence regarding any involvement in the 911 attack through even the most gruesome torture (in contrast with the 5 detainees at Gitmo on trial who brag about theirs), has been held since 2001 without being charged with any crime. The sum total of the government's 'evidence' against Al-Marri regarding 911 consists of a mention of his name by another Al Qaeda operative who was being tortured at the time. The most touching part of the article, I thought, was this passage: "In 2005, Savage (Al-Marri's defense attorney) discovered that the head of security at the brig, Air Force Major Chris Ferry, "would stay all night with Marri. He'd go down to the brig and sit with him, and tell him to hold on. Chris was there at 3:00 in the morning on the darkest nights" again, from the article: It was the political appointees in Washington, at the Pentagon, and at the Department of Justice who wanted Al-Marri to be held in prolonged isolation. The isolation was eased when it became clear that Al-Marri was showing clear signs of psychosis. The article describes how Al-Marri was slammed against concrete walls, isolated for months at a time in a cold concrete cell with no light, nothing to do, no shoes or socks, no mattress or pillow, and only a stiff blanket (so that it cannot be made into a noose). He was put in coffin-like boxes with towels over the seems to simulate being buried alive and suffocated for prolonged periods. After years of such treatment, he was allowed two phone calls a year to his family of a wife and five children. Mr. Al-Marri asks only to tried. Apparently, some here still believe this is what our country should stand for. I don't. Where was he picked up? Was he snatched out of his home? His office? I mean, I'm sure he's just as innocent as can be 'n all, but, by any chance, was he firing on American troops around the time he was captured? Your story is a little short on the details that would help a reader form a clearer picture. Do you have a link? Anyway, he's on U.S. soil now, so yes, the constitution applies. Edited March 17, 2009 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) From the article: "On Sep 10, 2001, Marri, a citizen of Qatar, who is now 43, came to America with his family. He had a student visa, and his ostensible purpose was to study computer programming at a small university in Peoria, ILL. That Dec, he was arrested as a material witness in an investigation of the 911 attacks. However, when Marri was on the verge of standing trail in June (FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE: for credit card theft, bank fraud, identity theft, and lying to a federal agent...no one in the article argues that Marri has been an entirely good boy) President Bush ordered the military to seize and hold him indefinitely." In short, he was arrested on American soil while he was a legal resident of the US. LINKY TO THE ARTICLE I didn't provide it sooner cuz I wasn't aware the New Yorker had started posting most of its articles online. It didn't before. Edited March 17, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 is it loathing your wife to notice she's got a big fat zit on her face? that her breath stinks in the morning? or are you actually capable of making honest observations like those and still loving her? i note you did not answer the question - to your mind, is there room to criticize the land you live in w/o being a self-loathing liberal idiot? as to your # of questions for tvash's article - i agree - all good questions - and the need to ask and answer them all exactly why basic rights like habeaus corpus have existed since before the dawn of the modern state how magnaniamus though that you're willing to grant this man a boon of constitutional protection by virtue of where he was standing when we black-bagged him - but again, why should you have rights that 90% of the rest of the world shouldn't? what was it that was unclear about the founding-assertion that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men...(have the right) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" did jefferson, locke, rousseau, montesquie or any of those cum-gargling knee-jerk liberal-pansy fucks say those rights should just exist for englishmen or frenchmen? that they should go away if the state was in danger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'm not qualified to comment.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The Red Cross calls Gitmo treatment torture and you guys who talk about how liberals hate America refuse to acknowledge that there is anything even remotely embarrassing about this. Meanwhile, you still have not tried to argue exactly or even vaguely WHY this was a good idea. In this discussion, where Serenity says he set out to "troll" those who are against Gitmo, any defense of what we did there would be welcome. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Red Cross calls Gitmo treatement torture and you guys who talk about how liberals hate America still have not tried to argue exactly or even vaguely WHY this was a good idea. it made the evil-doers respect our right to shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Again, that's why they called it a "constitution" - it implies one has one - as in the ability to 'hold' one's values when under stress, also often described as "having a sound constitution"... The Constitution isn't supposed to be a flag of convenience flown only when times are good. The men who wrote ours would have been the first to have spoken out against Bush administration policies and treason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) Actually, the head of our own military commissions has admitted that we've tortured just recently. I think the 'is it torture?' question has long been laid to rest, officially and unofficially. No halfway serious person has asserted that the U.S. doesn't torture people in quite a while. Now, the argument is "Sure we torture, but these people deserve it." In a truly free and humane society, does anyone 'deserve' to be treated like a lab rat? Remember Room 101? Where the worst thing in the world is? It's now one of our 'tools' for 'fighting terrorism'. We're monsters. And, because we didn't defend the values we hold most dear and profess most often in troubled times, we're also physical and moral cowards, as well as liars. Edited March 17, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 We're funnier than shit about it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 why does tvash hate himself and his country, god, why? we are funny about it though - funny in that we do it, while a good % of us shriek about it - anyone just see will ferrell's "you're welcome america?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 close gitmo? fuck, why stop there? give it back to Cuba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Beautiful beach front property like that? No way. Hire a bunch of Jamaicans to run it as a resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 close gitmo? fuck, why stop there? give it back to Cuba. That, would be an excellent thing to do once Raul steps down. It would also help insure we won't do anything this stupid again - at least not with the ease gitmo provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I really don't think that anything I have read was really torture. Sure the Red Cross calls it torture, but if those things are torture, well holy shit man, I have been tortured too. To be honest, I think Gitmo is a stupid idea though. Problem is, we have the problem; we must now deal with it safely and correctly. It is very similar in my eyes to the Middle East. As some of you have ascerted, our foreign policy has contributed to animosity that generates attacks like 911. Now, 20/20 hindsight says "we messed up." That doesn't mean we just act like some bitches and sit on our thumbs. No matter what happened in the past, you must always do the right thing. What exactly is the right thing for Gitmo? Fuck, I don't have a crystal ball, but I am sure it is not to just let these fuckers roam with US green cards and a bus pass to the local CENEX. Same holds true in the Middle East. We may have conrtibuted to Saddam's attrocities, This doesn't mean that we shouldn't take him out. It means we had to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Actually, the head of our own military commissions has admitted that we've tortured just recently. I think the 'is it torture?' question has long been laid to rest, officially and unofficially. No halfway serious person has asserted that the U.S. doesn't torture people in quite a while. Now, the argument is "Sure we torture, but these people deserve it." In a truly free and humane society, does anyone 'deserve' to be treated like a lab rat? Remember Room 101? Where the worst thing in the world is? It's now one of our 'tools' for 'fighting terrorism'. We're monsters. And, because we didn't defend the values we hold most dear and profess most often in troubled times, we're also physical and moral cowards, as well as liars. You're so brave Peter-Son! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Again, that's why they called it a "constitution" - I just had my morning constitution, and now I'm going to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) close gitmo? fuck, why stop there? give it back to Cuba. That, would be an excellent thing to do once Raul steps down. It would also help insure we won't do anything this stupid again - at least not with the ease gitmo provided. If only that were true. The 5 Gitmo detainees currently on trial were tortured in various CIA sites around the world for 3 years before they ever got to Gitmo. Obama has ordered those secret prisons closed, but its only a matter of time before a new admininstration comes along that thinks they're a good idea. Edited March 17, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 There are a number of people in the intelligence community who have stated that building a rapport and changing the status of detainees from combatant to non-combatant would have been a wise thing to do previously. This does not change the fact that closing detention facilities is not a wise move. Changing what happens in those prisons and from a legal standpoint is. This lean towards a law enforcement solution is a poor idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 There are a number of people in the intelligence community who have stated that building a rapport and changing the status of detainees from combatant to non-combatant would have been a wise thing to do previously. This does not change the fact that closing detention facilities is not a wise move. Changing what happens in those prisons and from a legal standpoint is. This lean towards a law enforcement solution is a poor idea. so you believe its possible to have a secret prison and NOT torture people in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Are you fucking kidding? You can't piss out a forest fire homes. Your shitty diplomacy, fucked up economy and your lack of law enforcement (crippled by liberals) is the reason that there is a forest fire. Better drink up bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 There are a number of people in the intelligence community who have stated that building a rapport and changing the status of detainees from combatant to non-combatant would have been a wise thing to do previously. This does not change the fact that closing detention facilities is not a wise move. Changing what happens in those prisons and from a legal standpoint is. This lean towards a law enforcement solution is a poor idea. so you believe its possible to have a secret prison and NOT torture people in it? Yeah, Gitmo is such a SECRET! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.