In an article in the NY Times some blackly hilarious evil is described:-

Speaking before a combatant status review tribunal charged with determining whether he had been properly designated an enemy combatant, Mr. Nashiri said he had confessed to many terrorist activities under torture.

“From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me,” Mr. Nashiri said through a translator, according to the transcript. “It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way.”

The president of the tribunal, a Navy captain whose name was not disclosed, said, “Please describe the methods.”

The four-paragraph passage that followed in the transcript was redacted in six places, and the 36-page transcript, of a two-hour hearing, was redacted in many other places.

“They do so many things,” Mr. Nashiri said in one passage made public. “So many things.”-

This ‘hearing’ where the officers involved remain anonymous, where the trial transcript is blacked out by the prosecuting authority. Combined with yesterday’s blackmail gag order on David Hicks, Gitmo is a mockery of civilisation, that anyone can allow and even support this simply shows how easy it must of been for Hitler to rise to power, there’s always enough sheeple and bastards to let the cancer grow. Fuck me these Bushistas would probably support a bucket of dribly cum if they were told to (in fact they do with their rabid anti abortion base). Somewhat less funny is the clear lesson this teaches us, the human race has forgotten the lessons drawn from WWII within a lifetime. Everyday is a demonstration that the concept behind the name of this blog is deadly fucking accurate. Human fucking idiot race.

10 Responses to “GitMo-therfuckers”

  1. Mike Says:

    Before you go too one sided on Gitmo, you might want to learn a little more about how this terrorist prison evolved into a “mockery of civilisation”.

    One of the most interesting revelations is that the press/legal opposition to Gitmo is led by an OPEC bankrolled law firm:

    “So the party underwriting the litigation on behalf of the Kuwaiti 12–from which all of the detainees have benefited–is one of Shearman & Sterling’s most lucrative OPEC accounts.”

  2. RickB Says:

    Imprisonment without trial and torture are simply wrong, to attempt to obfuscate and justify these practices as that nonsense WSJ opinion piece does is to accept totalitarianism. There is no explanation or mitigation that makes it right and claiming the worst atrocities are PR lies is a pitiful rationalisation at best and ironically false PR at worst. I’m sorry her brother is dead and I am sorry that she chooses to deal with that by supporting barbarity.

  3. Mike Says:

    For starters, those in Gitmo were seized from the battlefield, not on their way home from work in their happy go lucky SUV’s, law abidingly paying taxes, hoping to catch the latest sports telecast.

    Calling this situation of seizing insurgents found with RPG’s in hand, imprisioning them, and in extreme cases, torturing them “totalitarianism” in the same way that Iran (Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and even in Russia) hall off peaceful protesters asking for human rights, women’s rights, true suffrage, etc. and then imprisoning and torturing them is to water down the very meaning of the word “totalitarianism” making a mole hill equal to a mountain.

    And, as you’ll most likely argue, that both are acts of totalitarianism, it’s the US that actually responds to outcries of injustice with allowing lawyers, photography, rights activists, etc. into Gitmo for their own inspections in an attempt at showing that they’re operating well within the governing military laws and precedents of the situation, while not applying Geneva Convention rules because it requires those who have been detained to actually wear a uniform identifying them as combatants instead of hiding amongst the population striking without warning.

    Such a request for a tour to inspect conditions in Iran will just get you sent to the adjoing cell in Evin Prison, Block 209 beside the prisoner you sought to interview in the first place.

    Toting the constant “human rights” angle in this manner is propagating an agenda without any idea of how to actually accomplish the intended goal.

    It’s this kind of logic that has created a world where Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. all have seats on the UN Human Rights Council when they’re the problem to begin with.

    You can continue screaming that the US has gone too far, but it’s the result of the world’s turning a blind eye and not going anywhere close to far enough that has produced such a situation.

    Despite all the Amnesty International Condemnations that have been filed over the last 29 years or so, doesn’t matter, Iran has still seen 120,000 executions (2nd to China which is saying a lot given that the land of the dragon sports a population 17 TIMES Iran’s size).

    You may not agree with the policy of force, but since you’ve failed to propose anything remotely pheasible to counter it, especially when it’s employed by oppressive governments like that of Iran on its own people, the stick will always prevail when the carrot is turned away.

    Without something to back it up “Peace for our time” spoken by your former PM Chamberlain, has no meaning and only leads to a worse situation that requires someone like the US to step in and put down once and for all those who seek to oppress the masses (and no, the fact that you’re able to be posting what you’re posting without being subject to filtering or even arrest does not qualify the UK, let alone the US as being one of these agents of mass oppression).

  4. RickB Says:

    Come into the light Mike, you know you want to. Stop being used, leave the cult.

  5. Mike Says:

    “Come into the light”

    That’s a very interesting quote. Especially considering that I’m a hemp clothing wearing, vegetarian, non-linked to any specific religion individual (I’ve never been a fan of the whole “group” thing).

    It’s not that anything you’re writing here is of any originality to me, since at one point I’ve already thought it up on my own (years ago of course), not to mention the answers to all of the various off the beaten track queries, such as if Bush and Co. are really behind the whole 9/11 New World Order Conspiracy, it is simply a marriage of convenience, because their are some pretty wacked out fanatics in the Middle East that have posed and continue to pose a serious threat to civilization (some of my Iranian friends growing up weren’t forced to flee in the night or be murdered by a newly imposed regime of Quakers).

    Another funny observation is that the only difference here in the US between the right or the left claiming New World Order Conspiracy depends on if the President is Clinton or Bush. Many of the stories are virtual reruns with just a simple change of name. Just like how they say the only difference between Christian Rock and Soft Rock is that you put in “Jesus” instead of “Baby” in the lyrics if you want to make it religious.

    My own experiences, travel, studying of history, different peoples I’ve met over time (especially from the Middle East) have actually shown me the light as far as I’m concerned.

    Anyways, I’m not really interested in playing out the status quo blogosphere tit-for-tat right vs. left comment battle.

    I had the idea that there is obviously some common ground that both our extreme positions co-occupy that are on our mutual wish list for change as far as the ME goes.

    The problem of the region is that even if you do nothing, despots just grow bolder and try to create problems and if you kick out them out, say Assad from Syria or Mubarak from Egypt, the more fanatical elements take over such as the Muslim Brotherhood formerly with it’s violent offspring of Al Qaeda, etc. wreaking covert and overt havoc throughout the land.

    The native people are screwed either way. Neither appeasement (left) or concentrated force (right-unless you’ve got the stomach for the body bags) seems to be very successful.

    I’m assuming we both hold to the need and essential right of women in the region (and the rest of the world) to be allowed to live freely and more than simply mute 2nd class citizens or even baby factory concubines.

    It’s the absence of an actual “presence” of women in the ME that has made it so chaotic, in my opinion. The US’s Wild West of the 19th century had tons of religion but didn’t see a pacifivity occur until the women began crossing the Mississippi from the East to offset the 90% male population that roamed the American Frontier.

    I speak merely in the theoretical, tendering a hypothetical idea, of course, but wouldn’t a greater good be created by combining the right and left blogosphere’s total energy on what amounts to a common goal with beneficial results for each of our sides than to continue to squander our time in cyber space hurling insults and news clips at one another?

    The advantages for the left would be:

    1) A campaign (when successful at full steem) that would provide an alternative to the west’s perceived war machine, since the bombs that are dropped also kill women as they do fanatical jihadi men.

    This would allow countries like Iran and Syria to under go a smooth internal reform instead of a violent foreign regime change. This allows also for a maintenance of ethnic identity instead of a Anglo-Saxon imposed one. India seems to be doing fine maintaining it’s cultures despite being a democracy.

    2) A weakening of traditionally Western backed government’s such as the House of Saud, Egypt and Jordan’s ruling parties because, they too, are guilty of such grave violations as Tehran.

    3) As pressure mounts, general human rights will be put in place on the road to full women’s rights in attempts to pacify the people but keep women from gaining full citizenship rights (e.g. “We’ll stop stoning, but we can’t let women’s testimony be equal to that of a man’s in court”, and they’ll continue caving in until full rights are restored to all).

    The advantages for the right would be:

    1) A liberalized female populations means the opportunity for casual sex which the current ban on such norms fanatics use to redirect all that “energy” towards hate and murder promising that despite not being able to get laid now, they can get dozens of naked chicks in the here after granted that they don’t mind shooting up some amphetines and driving an explosives wired car into a crowded market place.

    A madrassa is far less likely to turn out high caliber suicide bombers if it’s co-ed.

    2) A lack of violence leads to economic growth through tourism, manufacturing (although China’s really got this one nailed down), etc. since right wingers love to make a buck.

    And it’s good for the local populations who endure unemployment rates that range from 20-50% depending on the country.

    3) The West overall enjoys being happy and we would much rather spend our time living our own lives instead of worrying about getting dragged into centuries old conflicts that bear to close a resemblance to our own Protestant Catholic religious wars of hundreds of years ago.

    Your side can still be “Pinko-Commies” and you can still refer to us as “Capitalist Pigs”

    But, ultimately, would it not be a greater gesture to work together and accomplish some of our mutual core objectives?

    Eternal back and forth bickering about “Sissy Bush Hating Hippies” and “Heartless War Mongoring Child Killers” doesn’t help those women continually being forced to endure female circumcisions and arranged marriages in the darkest depths of Middle Eastern society.

    Just a thought.

  6. RickB Says:

    I appreciate your exhaustive ‘just a thought’ (at least a leaflet edging towards a short novel!) and I share your thoughts of how women create a civilising force. But what I have learned communicating with Iranians via the blogapalooza is that we don’t have the copyright on culture or civilisation and that many of the people that the US claim to be concerned about do not trust the US or want its ‘help’. They have seen the results, they know the realities of oil wars, they see who the west supports and who it attacks and how human rights have played no part in those decisions. Perhaps the fundamental split is in the perception of western hegemony, as a power for the general good or as just another series of imperial adventures that history is full of (or some combination, case by case of both). But regardless of that debate we are at a very particular time when a highly radical neo-conservative movement allied with Big Oil (and using fundamentalist christians for votes) have taken over the USA. It is not business as usual in the west, it is fascistic (in the original meaning as coined by Mussolini, govt. and corporations joined in authoritarian rule). Then maybe that is the split, how we see our states and their motives, if you type in the search box on this blog; Adam Curtis, you’ll get posts with links to free downloads of his work. If you’ve not seen his films then I would urge you too, it’s as good a place as any to establish a common ground for discussion (and the difference between christian and soft rock was very funny!).

  7. Mike Says:

    Yes, I have a tendency to go on at length, often following the train of thought a few too many stops beyond the intended destination.

    Aside from my actually living in the US (having traveled to all 50 states) I actually find it to be quite the opposite of a religious haven, seeing it as far more atheistic.

    But besides that difference, you’re descriptions of the cause of the majority of the problems in the present are very similar, it is the face of this monster that we stand in direct disagreement on (The Christian Bush Monster vs. The Islamic Ahmadi Nejhad Beast).

    I’m not interested in the blame game of which side closer resembles this golem, but rather on the universal cure for this universal poison.

    The cure for one should work just as effectively as the other since the concern is how to stop the fanatical zealot with his hand on the trigger.

    Of course the Middle East, as all other countries should hold skepticism in regards to the US’s desire for follow through, and that’s why I’m not interested in a US government initiative but rather a global blogosphere movement without particular borders, but rather focus on the goal of women’s rights, not only because it is a deserved goal, but also for it’s strategic advantages in calming problems of the moment.

    I’m not particularly focused on Tehran overall, since a loss in radical Shia power only leads to a boost in radical Sunni, which is responded to with more Western bombs that does not bode well in the current climate.

    Developing the concepts behind effective online campaigns, programs, etc. (if only in the theoretical for the time being) to yield a boost in the conditions of women in this wide region which would in turn lead to a decline in the violence (both by insurgent and western soldier) proportionately.

    Times running out for the next upswing in violence in the quickly approaching summer, mainly in the Syria, Lebanon, Israel triangle according to news reports (formal and/or blog) from all of these three countries.

    Women’s rights seems to be a universal elixir that can cut equally and effectively into the governments and the war machines of both “Axis of Evil” and “US friendly” regimes in the region.

    Since your perspective (and that of your side of the spectrum) is both the opposite and ultimately the same on the core of this issue, it would seem a dialogue in common pursuit would be the most efficient as far as developing concrete ideas as opposed to if it were composed completely within the confines of our own ideologies.

    The first idea, beyond actually broadening the base of support of such a movement, would be the implementation of effective communications amongst those inside countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that face a great deal of government overview, especially online.

    The formation of a coded system that allows for prolonged posting of women’s rights rallies that are typically screened and removed shortly after posting.

    One idea is to embed the messages in the form of image files since metacrawlers aren’t capable of deciphering anything beyond the typed text of the image file name.

    Another would be that the images themselves hide the clues to the dates of the events and other relevant information for example 3 easter eggs and a yellow basket on a blue lawn as code for “3:00pm at Entrance to the Parliament”

  8. Mike Says:

    BTW the soft rock and christian music joke was actually done by the Simpsons and later South Park

  9. RickB Says:

    Why not start at home, stop US backing of the Saudi regime.

  10. Mike Says:

    Better yet, I’d say drill Alaska (our own Saudi Arabia), the 60 years worth of natural gas off the coast of Virginia, and the other stockpiles of crude surrounding the shores of Florida until we make the full conversion over to electric cars powered by solar, wind, nuclear, etc.

    The problem is, with or without, US support of Saudi Arabia (similar to Europe’s continued and actually increased financial support of Iran following the loss of the good thing they had going with “oil for food” prior to the ’03 Iraq Invasion, the Saudi’s are still pumping out jihadis on intentionally and unintentionally with their less than cultural norms.

    The House of Saud has shipped its young for years to Pakistan for madrassa radicalization, but Afghanistan has never enjoyed such ties or access to oil wealth (the opium revenues are large, but not nationalized) and still have been breeding grounds for jihadists.

    Time to see what the future holds.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: