Torture update from Gitmo

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, like any reasonable person would do. You are not that person.



Another bad analogy. You're arguing that imprisonment itself is de facto poor treatment, which is a separate discussion that you insist on conflating with this one. I'll help you out and start a new thread where you can pontificate on that topic.

As to this one, a reasonable person would evaluate how the detainees are being treated compared to (1) what is considered humane generally, and (2) what is typical for an enemy combatant. All the evidence, from this woman and from others, points to the conclusion that the US is exceeding the standard on both counts.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort (where are you even getting that from)? Please answer the question posed in my analogy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not assuming anything of the sort (where are you even getting that from)? Please answer the question posed in my analogy.

Why not just say what you are getting at.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Why not just say what you are getting at.

Why not just answer the question?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why not just answer the question?

Listen, I'm not willing to go another 50 posts doing this dance with you. I've already wasted enough time. Let me sum up:

By any reasonable standard of prisoner treatment, the reports out of Gitmo are good. This is not the only one, just the latest. Reasonable people acknowledge that while they may have disagreements on who should be there and/or what their rights are, they are not being abused. The allegations that Gitmo is a place where prisoners are being abused are overstated and in some cases, outright false.

That's all I was getting at by posting the comments about this woman's book.

Cheers.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Listen, I'm not willing to go another 50 posts doing this dance with you. I've already wasted enough time. Let me sum up:

By any reasonable standard of prisoner treatment, the reports out of Gitmo are good. This is not the only one, just the latest. Reasonable people acknowledge that while they may have disagreements on who should be there and/or what their rights are, they are not being abused. The allegations that Gitmo is a place where prisoners are being abused are overstated and in some cases, outright false.

That's all I was getting at by posting the comments about this woman's book.

Cheers.

lol! You won't answer the question because you know it exposes the stupidity of your argument.

You want to argue that because the detainees have bball courts and soccer fields and nice weather that they must be being treated well. That just isn't the case.

In the analogy I provided with the person who lives in a lovely palace and is fed the best foods available, the person was a prisoner to Uday Hussein. She was raped frequently and was eventually fed to wild pigs while still alive.

Clearly the US is not raping the detainees or feeding them to pigs, but to leap to the conclusion that all is well and good based on the presence of nice amenities is foolish.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The woman's occupation is fair game in considering her motives, as far as I'm concerned. The public is obviously welcome when weighing her stories to take her perspective and slant into account.

That said, do you have any substantive reason to doubt her?

So, do you believe everything a lawyer says?

I know enough about lawyers and prosecutors to doubt that a prosecutor is going to say anything that makes her client/boss (i.e., the government) look bad. And in fact, will be an advocate for her client/boss (i.e., the government).

So, I don't really give a whole lot of credence to what she says about the conditions at Gitmo.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

lol! You won't answer the question because you know it exposes the stupidity of your argument.

You want to argue that because the detainees have bball courts and soccer fields and nice weather that they must be being treated well. That just isn't the case.

In the analogy I provided with the person who lives in a lovely palace and is fed the best foods available, the person was a prisoner to Uday Hussein. She was raped frequently and was eventually fed to wild pigs while still alive.

Clearly the US is not raping the detainees or feeding them to pigs, but to leap to the conclusion that all is well and good based on the presence of nice amenities is foolish.

By your logic, if we don't know they are being treated well, we certainly don't know that they aren't being raped.

Which is why one needs to be reasonable in making their evaluations.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So, do you believe everything a lawyer says?

I know enough about lawyers and prosecutors to doubt that a prosecutor is going to say anything that makes her client/boss (i.e., the government) look bad. And in fact, will be an advocate for her client/boss (i.e., the government).

So, I don't really give a whole lot of credence to what she says about the conditions at Gitmo.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. Lawyers run the honesty spectrum, though given examples like Cali Coug, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a disproportionate share of liars.

Thus evaluating her statements based solely on her profession and no other data strikes me as a little unfair. It seems more like you're trying to cling to your worldview on Gitmo, rather than giving contrary evidence a fair hearing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

By your logic, if we don't know they are being treated well, we certainly don't know that they aren't being raped.

Which is why one needs to be reasonable in making their evaluations.

Why is it reasonable to assume that the prosecutor is telling the truth and that the detainees are living in a veritable wonderland?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. Lawyers run the honesty spectrum, though given examples like Cali Coug, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a disproportionate share of liars.

Thus evaluating her statements based solely on her profession and no other data strikes me as a little unfair. It seems more like you're trying to cling to your worldview on Gitmo, rather than giving contrary evidence a fair hearing.

You haven't provided any other data. Her statements are so clearly slanted, and her position is one that suggests her views are so clearly tainted, that there aren't many reasons to take them at face value. I would suggest that it seems more like you're trying to cling to your worldview on Gitmo, rather than giving contrary evidence a fair hearing.