FBI F*cks America

[blzrul]

Report

 

Hmmm. Now if there is a riot you all will probably demand that the media outlets (I am sure CNN isn't the only one that is carying this report) will all retract, shut down, or only cover human interest stories about how George Bush rides bikes and goes to church.

[Ghost of BiB]

Report

 

Hmmm.  Now if there is a riot you all will probably demand that the media outlets (I am sure CNN isn't the only one that is carying this report) will all retract, shut down, or only cover human interest stories about how George Bush rides bikes and goes to church.

344803[/snapback]

 

You got something filmy and sheer on? I know you're not wearing heels. At least not this week.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Report

 

Hmmm.  Now if there is a riot you all will probably demand that the media outlets (I am sure CNN isn't the only one that is carying this report) will all retract, shut down, or only cover human interest stories about how George Bush rides bikes and goes to church.

344803[/snapback]

 

detainees told FBI agents about alleged beatings, planned suicides, hunger strikes and sexual assaults.

 

"The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody,"

 

The US is abusing detainees with hunger strikes and suicidal ideation? How the hell do you inflict suicidal planning on someone as a form of abuse?

[TheMadCap]

Report

 

Hmmm.  Now if there is a riot you all will probably demand that the media outlets (I am sure CNN isn't the only one that is carying this report) will all retract, shut down, or only cover human interest stories about how George Bush rides bikes and goes to church.

344803[/snapback]

 

The article says that detainees CLAIM abuse. That's a new one, haven't heard that before. Where is the FBI report that alleges Iraq is sunny and sandy???

[blzrul]

You got something filmy and sheer on? I know you're not wearing heels. At least not this week.

344805[/snapback]

I'm at work silly - all bidness. Back into heels tho.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm at work silly - all bidness.  Back into heels tho.

344811[/snapback]

 

Please tell me black stockings...

[erynthered]

I'm gonna be sick

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm gonna be sick

344835[/snapback]

 

You ever meet Debbie? She's really hot.

[gmac17]

I wouldn't be surprised if a few pages of a Koran went down the toilet. Newsweek shouldn't have printed anything unless they had enough info on it though.

 

The real problem isn't flushing a book down the toilet, it is that this world is full of crazy f*ing idiots who will kill each other because of it. These animals will kill you if you are found with a Bible in Mecca, and kill each other because a page of a book went down the toilet, but "the right wing whackos" in America get a bad name for protesting when tax dollars are spent on putting a crucifix in a jar of urine.

[Ghost of BiB]

I wouldn't be surprised if a few pages of a Koran went down the toilet. Newsweek shouldn't have printed anything unless they had enough info on it though.

 

The real problem isn't flushing a book down the toilet, it is that this world is full of crazy f*ing idiots who will kill each other because of it. These animals will kill you if you are found with a Bible in Mecca, and kill each other because a page of a book went down the toilet, but "the right wing whackos" in America get a bad name for protesting when tax dollars are spent on putting a crucifix in a jar of urine.

344890[/snapback]

 

People will kill you for your wallet. It goes on, everyday. What's important?

 

According to this country, who knows? I damn sure don't.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Report

 

Hmmm.  Now if there is a riot you all will probably demand that the media outlets (I am sure CNN isn't the only one that is carying this report) will all retract, shut down, or only cover human interest stories about how George Bush rides bikes and goes to church.

344803[/snapback]

 

Again, my issue wasn't with the content of the story. My issue was that running an unverified single-sourced story isn't journalism, it's rumor-mongering.

[Ghost of BiB]

So, have you changed into something lacy and black yet? Debbie? sorry to blow your cover, but....

 

(I don't even want to to have the mental image of Tom, Darin, Eyrn or Bill wearing something lacy)

[Campy]

My issue was that running an unverified single-sourced story isn't journalism, it's rumor-mongering.

344895[/snapback]

Was Deepthroats lurking in the shadows of the Watergate Hotel?

[Tux of Borg]

To show there are no hard feelings, the USO should put on a show for the detainees. Gallagher could show up with his sledgeomatic and a case of pork products.

[SilverNRed]

According to the documents, a detainee interviewed in August 2002 said guards had flushed a copy of the Quran in a toilet.

Allegations??? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

Others reported the Quran being kicked, withheld as punishment and thrown on the floor.

 

Prisoners also complained about "non-believers" touching the book, according to the documents.

Death to the non-believers!!!!!!!

 

Pentagon officials said this month they had not been unable to corroborate detainee allegations of Quran abuse by U.S. troops at the military prison.

 

FBI officials said the documents released Wednesday merely reflect allegations made by individuals interviewed by the FBI.

Yeah, but it's not like terrorist nutjobs who kill in the name of 'Allah' are going to lie, right?

 

Where is the thread about the official Saudi policy of confiscating and destroying the Bible? Isn't that about a million times worse than the 'allegations' against our military that nozzlenut loves so much?

[billsfanone]

I'm going to buy a copy and wipe my ass with it.

[SilverNRed]

I'm going to buy a copy and wipe my ass with it.

345030[/snapback]

[Thurman's Helmet]

Here's a crazy idea, stay with me;

 

Maybe that when these fine fellows go through their training as insurgents errrrr militants errrrr freedom fighters errrrr resistance fighters errrrrr TERRORISTS that part of their training is to immediately claim mistreatment if they are released as they realize the media is a powerful tool that if manipulated correctly can achieve their goals for them.

 

Perhaps I need a tin foil hat....

[SilverNRed]

Here's a crazy idea, stay with me;

 

Maybe that when these fine fellows go through their training as insurgents errrrr militants errrrr freedom fighters errrrr resistance fighters errrrrr TERRORISTS that part of their training is to immediately claim mistreatment if they are released as they realize the media is a powerful tool that if manipulated correctly can achieve their goals for them. 

 

Perhaps I need a tin foil hat....

345047[/snapback]

Actually we already have proof that they are trained to do just that thanks to materials seized in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere as part of GWOT.

 

If you think about it, all this stuff about the Koran is just proof that terrorists are the biggest pussies in the entire world. These guys cry and crap their pants if they see something happen to a book. That's pretty mild considering they also get off on videotaping themselves sawing people's heads off.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Newsweek Story

[Ghost of BiB]

Meanwhile...

 

And, I'm pretty certain that there are several people who will say that THIS is an out and out lie.

[Alaska Darin]

Meanwhile...

 

And, I'm pretty certain that there are several people who will say that THIS is an out and out lie.

345812[/snapback]

He only did that because they threatened to fill him full of pig entrails. Mean ol' Pentagon officials.

[Ghost of BiB]

He only did that because they threatened to fill him full of pig entrails.  Mean ol' Pentagon officials.

345814[/snapback]

 

Maybe he was afraid of being hit with another nerf ball.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, my issue wasn't with the content of the story.  My issue was that running an unverified single-sourced story isn't journalism, it's rumor-mongering.

344895[/snapback]

Not necessarily. It's a practice that should always be attempted, even three or four or more sources, obviously. But you cannot just automatically assume something is false because there is only one source. Who the two sources are may be a lot more important than the one source. Who the reporter is may be twice as important than the two sources. I am not excusing the Newsweek piece, but frankly, I would believe Michael Isikoff and his one anonymous source than the majority of the Newsweek staff and their two sources. One wouldn't discount one eyewtiness report of a shooting or a traffic accident in a trial just because it isn't double sourced, would they? Sometimes one source is all one can get.

[Ghost of BiB]

My problem is STILL that it didn't need to be published, true or not. They supposedly have smart people working at places like Newsweek. They should act like it.

 

But, why worry about a paycheck 15 years from now? Today is today.

[Campy]

My problem is STILL that it didn't need to be published

345871[/snapback]

I for one wish they'd explain how under current law the detainees are being denied due process, afterall, not all of them are terrorists, or at least they weren't when they went in. There's no telling how much animosity toward the US an innocent man would have if he were illegally detained for 3,4,5 or however many years it'll be. If he didn't maintain enough animosity to be a terrorist beforehand, he very well may after.

[Ghost of BiB]

I for one wish they'd explain how under current law the detainees are being denied due process, afterall, not all of them are terrorists, or at least they weren't when they went in.  There's no telling how much animosity toward the US an innocent man would have if he were illegally detained for 3,4,5 or however many years it'll be. If he didn't maintain enough animosity to be a terrorist beforehand, he very well may after.

345882[/snapback]

 

Well...just have to kill him then. Maybe, he just might lead us to a few buds as well. People in that part of the world are "illegally detained" all the time. And, many have American Lawyers who have taught them the ropes. Damn, Chris-figure it out.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not necessarily. It's a practice that should always be attempted, even three or four or more sources, obviously. But you cannot just automatically assume something is false because there is only one source. Who the two sources are may be a lot more important than the one source. Who the reporter is may be twice as important than the two sources. I am not excusing the Newsweek piece, but frankly, I would believe Michael Isikoff and his one anonymous source than the majority of the Newsweek staff and their two sources. One wouldn't discount one eyewtiness report of a shooting or a traffic accident in a trial just because it isn't double sourced, would they? Sometimes one source is all one can get.

345838[/snapback]

 

Neither can you automatically assume something is true because it's single-sourced and a hot topic. Although I may be bitching about the lack of confirmation, I realize the real issue is always that a balance must be struck between the type of story, the ability of the reporter, and the amount of confirmation required (and the rush to scoop other outlets; I may hate the commercial aspect of the press, but I can't deny its effects are important). I would not suggest that a single eyewitness report on, say, a car accident is irresponsible necessarily (sometimes it would be)...but on a story as inflammatory and important as the one we're discussing doesn't it make more sense to hold off publication pending an independent confirmation? Hell, I wouldn't even buy a sandwich on a single recommendation from a coworker...but it's okay if Newsweek irrepairably damages national security on an equivalent basis?

 

And if it IS okay for Newsweek to damage national security on the basis of a single-sourced unconfirmed story (i.e. "rumor")...why is it anathema when the US Government does it? I'm sensing a double-standard here...

[Campy]

People in that part of the world are "illegally detained" all the time.

345888[/snapback]

Oh, well OK then. We'll just use the governments of the Mid-East and Asia as the the measuring stick. Constitution shmonstituion

 

One of things that makes us different than them is that the US does have due process, in fact it is one of the major reasons that the American colonies entered in a revolution against England.

 

And, many have American Lawyers who have taught them the ropes. Damn Chris, figure it out

Damn Paul, you're not even close. They have not been allowed contact with the outside world. Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel.

[Alaska Darin]

Damn Paul, you're not even close.  They have not been allowed contact with the outside world.  Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel.

345914[/snapback]

You totally missed his point on that one.

[Ghost of BiB]

Oh, well OK then.  We'll just use the governments of the Mid-East and Asia as the the measuring stick.  Constitution shmonstituion

 

One of things that makes us different than them is that the US does have due process, in fact it is one of the major reasons that the American colonies entered in a revolution against England.

 

Damn Paul, you're not even close.  They have not been allowed contacted with the outside world.  Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel.

345914[/snapback]

 

Uh...yes, many of them have. Not on CNN? That wouldn't fit the story line.

 

I thought due process was a right given to citizens? where, in the Constitution does it guarantee due process to undeclared enemy combatants? You think we are that stupid? Yeah, there might be a handful here and there caught up, but we wouldn't be holding any old Joe Snuffy just for kicks. No way to convince you, I know-but this is war.

[Kelly the Dog]

Neither can you automatically assume something is true because it's single-sourced and a hot topic.  Although I may be bitching about the lack of confirmation, I realize the real issue is always that a balance must be struck between the type of story, the ability of the reporter, and the amount of confirmation required (and the rush to scoop other outlets; I may hate the commercial aspect of the press, but I can't deny its effects are important).  I would not suggest that a single eyewitness report on, say, a car accident is irresponsible necessarily (sometimes it would be)...but on a story as inflammatory and important as the one we're discussing doesn't it make more sense to hold off publication pending an independent confirmation?  Hell, I wouldn't even buy a sandwich on a single recommendation from a coworker...but it's okay if Newsweek irrepairably damages national security on an equivalent basis?

 

And if it IS okay for Newsweek to damage national security on the basis of a single-sourced unconfirmed story (i.e. "rumor")...why is it anathema when the US Government does it?  I'm sensing a double-standard here...

345906[/snapback]

That is why I said I am not excusing the Newsweek story. I am just bitching at you.

 

As far as the Newsweek story goes, I think one source, if all that a reporter like Isikoff can get, would be enough to print the story depending on all of the other reporting he had done. If he thinks it is legitimate, and he himself is legitimate, then run the story. BUT... not THIS story.

 

I agree with you, this particular story probably should not have been run, or at least the telling or re-telling of the flushing the Quran should not have been mentioned. It's too inflammatory. I don't have the answer for what to do, and how far a reporter can or cannot go, but a person well educated in that part of the world would likely have been able to forecast the backlash. So I believe Isikoff should not have written that story the way he did, and Newsweek should not have run that story the way they did, whether he had one or two or three sources.

 

But then again, our always-thinking administration sees nothing wrong with doing and saying equally offensive things to Muslims that incite equally dangerous and deadly responses.

[Ghost of BiB]

You totally missed his point on that one.

345920[/snapback]

 

Yeah, that too. What a Machiavellian world it can be.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But then again, our always-thinking administration sees nothing wrong with doing and saying equally offensive things to Muslims that incite equally dangerous and deadly responses. 

345924[/snapback]

 

Like "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time..."

 

Still, I percieve a difference between the media's (not just Newsweek's) "We heard a rumor, let's run with it!" attitude and a "Holy sh--, did Howdy Doody just say that out loud?" White House moment. Our Commander-in-Chief can't change who he is, but the media can and I think should strive to place the "investigative" back in "investigative reporting".

[Campy]

Uh...yes, many of them have. Not on CNN? That wouldn't fit the story line.

Fit the storyline? You mean like storyline in the "World According to the Pentagon" or "Desperate Rumsfelds?" Yeah, they always tell the truth.

 

I thought due process was a right given to citizens? where, in the Constitution does it guarantee due process to undeclared enemy combatants?

Uhmm... The whole Fourteenth Ammendment thingy which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas.

 

You think we are that stupid?

We? You hearing voices in your head again?

 

Yeah, there might be a handful here and there caught up, but we wouldn't be holding any old Joe Snuffy just for kicks.

Again, detaining innocents (much less beating them to death) goes against the very ideals of our Republic.

 

No way to convince you, I know

Wrong. Several times I've changed my opinion based upon new information or new perspectives. The problem in this case is that I wll not take a perspective where we selectively grant rights, and I have yet to see information strong enough to make me abandon (or even suspend) our country's ideals.

 

but this is war.

345922[/snapback]

No, it's not. It's a military action, but war hasn'y been declared. If it was a declared war, I wouldn't have a problem with the detainees at Gitmo because they'd be POWs. But Congress hasn't made a Declaration of War in 64 years. That's the last time we were at war. I know, it sounds like a matter of semantics, but it's not. We are a nation of laws, and I'm not comfortable with the government arbitrarily suspending individual's rights when it's convenient or easy. With a Declaration of War, mechanisms are in place to do what they're doing now, but without a Declaration of War, the government is breaking the law.

 

I mean, if we're willing to suspend the 14th Ammendment at the whim of the leaders of this country, what's to stop them from doing the same with the First Ammendment? Or the Second Ammendment? Or any of the Ammendments?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas.

345939[/snapback]

 

Where? I never heard that. Can you cite a case.

 

Seriously, I'm not asking because I disagree, I'm asking because I don't know.

[Ghost of BiB]

Fit the storyline?  You mean like storyline in the "World According to the Pentagon" or "Desperate Rumsfelds?"  Yeah, they always tell the truth.

 

Uhmm... The whole Fourteenth Ammendment thingy which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas.

 

We?  You hearing voices in your head again?

 

Again, detaining innocents (much less beating them to death) goes against the very ideals of our Republic.

 

Wrong.  Several times I've changed my opinion based upon new information or new perspectives.  The problem in this case is that I wll not take a perspective where we selectively grant rights, and I have yet to see information strong enough to make me abandon (or even suspend) our country's ideals.

No, it's not.  It's a military action, but war hasn'y been declared.  If it was a declared war, I wouldn't have a problem with the detainees at Gitmo because they'd be POWs.  But Congress hasn't made a Declaration of War in 64 years.  That's the last time we were at war.  I know, it sounds like a matter of semantics, but it's not.  We are a nation of laws, and I'm not comfortable with the government arbitrarily suspending individual's rights when it's convenient or easy.  With a Declaration of War, mechanisms are in place to do what they're doing now, but without a Declaration of War, the government is breaking the law.

 

I mean, if we're willing to suspend the 14th Ammendment at the whim of the leaders of this country, what's to stop them from doing the same with the First Ammendment?  Or the Second Ammendment?  Or any of the Ammendments?

345939[/snapback]

 

Oh crap. You are grabbing. This is fun. Let's see you defend second ammendment rights this hard based on your interpretation of rights and jurisdictions (You DID bring it up, though...good shot). and, let's not forget the fact that "war" hasn't been declared. A nation of laws? That ended about 64 years ago too. We're rolling the dice, in a way Campy. Thanks to the way the world is, and how it got to be that way, we don't have much choice. We're down by ten with 5 minutes on the clock. And we don't have the ball.

[Kelly the Dog]

Like "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time..." 

 

Still, I percieve a difference between the media's (not just Newsweek's) "We heard a rumor, let's run with it!" attitude and a "Holy sh--, did Howdy Doody just say that out loud?" White House moment.      Our Commander-in-Chief can't change who he is, but the media can and I think should strive to place the "investigative" back in "investigative reporting".

345938[/snapback]

Apparently, the media has really learned a thing or two recently.

 

Five cases of Quran mishandling substantiated

5/26/2005 7:43 PM

By: Associated Press

 

(PENTAGON) – U.S. officials say they've substantiated five cases in which military guards or interrogators at Guantanamo Bay mishandled the Quran.

 

But the prison's commander says there's "no credible evidence" that the Muslim holy book was flushed down a toilet.

 

Brigadier General Jay Hood says a prisoner reportedly complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet.

 

But Hood says the prisoner told his investigators that he's never seen the Quran desecrated at Guantanamo.

 

Hood says investigators had identified 13 incidents in which Guantanamo guards or interrogators allegedly mishandled the Quran.

 

Hood says five of those incidents were substantiated and three appear to have been deliberate.

 

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said at the news conference that at this point it should be clear that any mishandling of the Quran was largely accidental.

 

 

Copyright 2005 Associated Press, All rights reserved.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

 

Does "no credible evidence" really mean "incredible evidence"? I especially like the part about the prisoner who saw the Quran thrown in the toilet, but told his investigators that he's never seen the Quran desecrated. Ummm... doesn't desecrated mean treated with contempt, or shown a lack of respect specifically with something religious? I suppose taking the crap in the toilet isn't the bad part, it is the flushing. Well, if anyone should know, it would be a crap throwing monkey.

 

I also really liked the last paragraph, for its comic value. Apparently, it should be clear that any mishandling was largely accidental. That's good stuff.

 

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=69831&SecID=2

[Campy]

Where?  I never heard that.  Can you cite a case.

 

Seriously, I'm not asking because I disagree, I'm asking because I don't know.

345942[/snapback]

Sorry for taking so long to respond - I was looking for the video Hammer mentioned http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=24648&st=0. And I couldn't even find it, or at least not the version he talked about.

 

 

Anyway, I wasn't 100% spot-on on attributing it to the 14th, but it has virtually the same effect and that must've been where I drew the parallel in my mind. Either way, the 14th as it's written is still the crux of it to me.

 

Rasul et al v Bush et al.

 

To summarize, it states that the Gitmo detainees possess the same rights as any other person (not citizen, but person) held against their will. In this case, the specific right is Habeus Corpus. They also quoted a 1953 opinion by Justice Robert Jackson:

"Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

[Ghost of BiB]

Sorry for taking so long to respond - I was looking for the video Hammer mentioned http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=24648&st=0.  And I couldn't even find it, or at least not the version he talked about.

Anyway, I wasn't 100% spot-on on attributing it to the 14th, but it has virtually the same effect and that must've been where I drew the parallel in my mind.  Either way, the 14th as it's written is still the crux of it to me.

 

Rasul et al v Bush et al.

 

To summarize, it states that the Gitmo detainees possess the same rights as any other person (not citizen, but person) held against their will.  In this case, the specific right is Habeus Corpus.  They also quoted a 1953 opinion by Justice Robert Jackson:

"Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." 

345982[/snapback]

 

Well, you worry about their rights. I'll see what I can do to keep an airliner off the top of your head. Fair trade?