As if the Bush administration could not go any lower...

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Not much more can be said here, folks. But let's forget about everything that is wrong with this and pretend that George Bush still gives a fuck about freedom and democracy and all that good stuff. This administration is the worst in every sense of the word. There's going to be some serious housecleaning come January, 2009.

I swear that Bush is what the creators of Idiocracy had in mind when they made that movie.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/....muslims.ap/index.html

Release Chinese from Gitmo, U.S. lawmakers urge

Lawmakers chastised the Bush administration on Wednesday for allowing the Chinese government to interrogate Chinese Muslim detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and demanded that they be freed in the United States.

The two lawmakers, Reps. Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts, and Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, said the Uighurs -- members of a Chinese ethnic group -- should be compensated and apologized to for any abuse they may have suffered while held in the detention center at U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Uighurs fled their homeland in western China and settled in Afghanistan and Pakistan, only to be swept up in the U.S.-led dragnet for terrorists after the September 11 attacks.

A federal judge has called their imprisonment unlawful, but the Bush administration opposes releasing them unless they can go to a country other than the United States.

At a House Foreign Affairs hearing on interrogation methods at Guantanamo, Delahunt asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to confirm that Chinese officials were let into the prison.

"We were informed that the Chinese government sent people to interview and interrogate the Uighurs," Fine said.

Additionally, Fine said, FBI officials reported that U.S. military personnel woke Uighurs every 15 minutes in a sleep-depravation interrogation tactic known as "the frequent flyer program" before the Chinese interrogators arrived.

"Did they draw the conclusion that this was, that we had American military personnel collaborating, doing this to, if you will, soften up the Uighurs for examination by Chinese communist agents?" Delahunt asked.

Fine answered: "They reported this was the technique that was used, what they call the frequent flyer program, to put the Uighurs in a position to be interrogated by the Chinese government."

Rohrabacher called the military's involvement "ridiculous." He said the Uighurs should be freed in the U.S.

"And we will call on the government to do so forthwith," Rohrabacher said. "And if it indeed looks like they've been unjustly treated that we offer some compensation as well as an apology."

Both lawmakers agreed to push the Bush administration to release the Uighurs in the U.S., although Delahunt predicted that Rohrabacher, a Republican, "will have more access to the powers that be than I will."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the issue, and a spokesman for the State Department did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Under U.S. law, the Uighur men cannot be sent back to China because they are likely to face persecution and torture. The administration has been seeking refuge for them in other nations, and five were sent to Albania in 2006. As of two months ago, 17 Uighurs remained at Guantanamo, awaiting countries to take them.

In March, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. has "no desire to be the world's jailer, and we look forward to the day Guantanamo is shut down. And part of that solution is working with other countries to take people back under the right circumstances."

A report by the human rights group Center for Constitutional Rights indicates that officials from at least 17 countries have been allowed to interrogate their citizens being held at Guantanamo. The report accuses interrogators from six nations -- China, Uzbekistan, Libya, Jordan, Tajikistan and Tunisia -- of abusing Guantanamo detainees with the consent of U.S. officials.

The group has for the past seven years sought access to U.S. courts for detainees at Guantanamo.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Strangely the only reference to torture in that article is the fact that we can't send this guys back to China because they may be tortured there.

However, no one is claiming that we or the Chinese tortured these guys...
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Strangely the only reference to torture in that article is the fact that we can't send this guys back to China because they may be tortured there.

However, no one is claiming that we or the Chinese tortured these guys...

These are Chinese communist agents. If they aint torturing, they aint doing doing their job. Of course, the United States doesn't torture either...

But, considering you've been whoring for this administration, I thought you already knew that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Strangely the only reference to torture in that article is the fact that we can't send this guys back to China because they may be tortured there.

However, no one is claiming that we or the Chinese tortured these guys...

The sleep-deprivation abuse was mentioned.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
As if the Bush administration could not go any lower...

that sounds like a challenge that they'll be sure to take you up on between now and January.

I have no doubt that they have surprises up their sleeves.
 

Grunt03

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2000
3,131
0
0
I wonder if we could find a country to take Bush and Dick and while we are at it the Clintons to:roll:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Strangely the only reference to torture in that article is the fact that we can't send this guys back to China because they may be tortured there.

However, no one is claiming that we or the Chinese tortured these guys...

Why do you continue to defend this administration? Even if they weren't tortured - and they probably were - they were unlawfully detained.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Robor
they were unlawfully detained.

What law would that be?

From the article in the OP:

A federal judge has called their imprisonment unlawful, but the Bush administration opposes releasing them unless they can go to a country other than the United States.

1. Read the article
2. Ask the judge who made the ruling
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Strangely the only reference to torture in that article is the fact that we can't send this guys back to China because they may be tortured there.

However, no one is claiming that we or the Chinese tortured these guys...

The sleep-deprivation abuse was mentioned.

I was going to mention that also.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/25/usa.alqaida

At a hearing last September of the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cofer Black, then head of the CIA counterterrorist centre, said of the treatment of suspects: "This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know is there was a 'before 9/11', and there was an 'after 9/11'. After 9/11 the gloves come off."

One official, who has supervised the capture and transfer of prisoners, told the Washington Post last year: "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job. I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA."

The report suggested that CIA interrogators at Bagram air base in Afghanistan kept al-Qaida members standing or kneeling for hours in painful positions, and deprived them of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of light.

This practice comes under the general interrogation heading of "stress and duress". "Our guys may kick them around a little bit in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath," said one official.

Other prisoners have been taken to Diego Garcia - the Indian ocean island leased from Britain - where interrogators have impersonated nationals of countries known to use torture, in an effort to loosen the tongues of captives.

"It is as American as apple pie," William Goodman, legal director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, said of the claims that such techniques had been used. "Dershowitz is not a lone voice. He speaks for a segment of the population, and there is clearly some thought being given to this." Mr Goodman said that the law clearly prohibited the use of torture.

The LA-based constitutional lawyer Stephen Rohde said that the US was already violating the Geneva convention by its interrogation of prisoners: "Donald Rumsfeld has been boasting about the information [from prisoners] as a valid reason for holding them indefinitely without lawyers and without charging them. We are violating the Geneva convention by interrogating them."
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Robor
they were unlawfully detained.

What law would that be?

From the article in the OP:

A federal judge has called their imprisonment unlawful, but the Bush administration opposes releasing them unless they can go to a country other than the United States.

1. Read the article
2. Ask the judge who made the ruling

Activist judges FTL
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,476
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Robor
they were unlawfully detained.

What law would that be?

From the article in the OP:

A federal judge has called their imprisonment unlawful, but the Bush administration opposes releasing them unless they can go to a country other than the United States.

1. Read the article
2. Ask the judge who made the ruling

Activist judges FTL

Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: loki8481
As if the Bush administration could not go any lower...

that sounds like a challenge that they'll be sure to take you up on between now and January.

I have no doubt that they have surprises up their sleeves.

We should have given him bed and breakfast and maybe some golf later instead.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Activist judges FTL
Yeah, how dare those judges determine that indefinite detention without charges is illegal!

Bonus: Can't spell "elitist" FTL!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,476
136
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Corbett
Activist judges FTL
Yeah, how dare those judges determine that indefinite detention without charges is illegal!

Bonus: Can't spell "elitist" FTL!

Habeas Corpus is one of those evil commie liberal lies that activist judges like to use before they legalize drive through abortion and mandatory gay sex on eight year olds.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".


It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,476
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".


It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.

So? It was the highest court to review the case. How many judges need to say something is illegal until it actually is?
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".


It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.

So? It was the highest court to review the case. How many judges need to say something is illegal until it actually is?

Point being, I dont see anything about a "ruling" on this one, only a judge "calling" it illegal. Therefore, who gives a crap what the judge thinks, show me the ruling. Not to mention the fact that detanees at Guantanamo do not have the same rights as Americans.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Please explain how this is an example of judicial activism. Please note that the term "judicial activism" does not mean "ruling I don't like".


It seems only ONE judge has "called" their imprisonment unlawful.

So? It was the highest court to review the case. How many judges need to say something is illegal until it actually is?

Point being, I dont see anything about a "ruling" on this one, only a judge "calling" it illegal. Therefore, who gives a crap what the judge thinks, show me the ruling. Not to mention the fact that detanees at Guantanamo do not have the same rights as Americans.

As people they do. We scooped them up then let the Chinese (who have an abysmal human rights record) at them.

It's a disgrace and the best justification is that they aren't in America so they haven't American rights. A remarkably amoral position.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
There are actually several people in Gitmo who we can't set free because they have no place to go.

It is against or policy to release people to countries that will torture them. Because of this quite a few people are 'stuck' in Gitmo.

BTW we could fly them to Miami and set them 'free' and then have INS pick them up for being illegals and then we can detain them lawfully :)