About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Returning from Guantánamo Bay, O'Reilly continued to downplay torture allegations

June 16, 2006 3:58 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: After a visit to the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Bill O'Reilly minimized the seriousness and credibility of allegations that abuses have taken place at the facility.

106 Comments

Returning from a visit to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in time for the June 12 editions of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly dedicated much of both programs to downplaying alleged abuses at the Pentagon's detention facility there, also known as Gitmo.

O'Reilly stated that "Guantánamo Bay is being run correctly" and "is necessary for the security of this nation," adding that based on his recent trip, "[t]here's absolutely no evidence that I've seen that says any abuse is taking place at Guantánamo Bay." He repeatedly rejected reported FBI observations of alleged detainee abuse, at one point stating that the FBI observations "don't mean anything" because "[t]he FBI agents have never been on" The O'Reilly Factor to discuss their allegations. Additionally, while purporting to "[i]nterrogat[e] the interrogators," O'Reilly never asked the Guantánamo interrogators about alleged abuses, instead preferring questions about whether the interrogators have ever "gotten a big score out of any of these guys" and "how that score translated into the safety for the country." O'Reilly also suggested that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) could have been partially responsible for the recent suicides of three Guantánamo detainees, stating that their desire to have "as much privacy for the prisoners as possible ... may have allowed the suicides."

Torture allegations

Throughout both programs, O'Reilly continued to downplay allegations of torture techniques being used during interrogations at the prison. In advance of his trip to Guantánamo, O'Reilly declared on the June 6 O'Reilly Factor that, according to "the far-left press," "[d]egrading treatment" could consist of "mocking the guy's turban" and "torture" could be merely "call[ing] a guy a name."

Upon returning from his trip, O'Reilly repeatedly claimed on the June 12 O'Reilly Factor that although torture allegations exist, "there is no proof of" torture "on the record." O'Reilly did acknowledge that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally authorized, in O'Reilly's words, "coerced interrogation" techniques that resulted in Saudi prisoner Mohamed al-Qahtani's being "treated harshly." However, O'Reilly continued to deny that torture techniques could have been used in Guantánamo, stating that based on his experience at Guantánamo, "[t]here's absolutely no evidence" that such abuse has taken place.

As Media Matters for America has noted, in December 2002, Rumsfeld approved the use of "counter-resistance techniques" by interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, including "use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours," "using detainees' individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress," and the use of an "isolation facility for up to 30 days." The United Nations and several human-rights groups have stated that such techniques violated Geneva Convention protections against torture and have also noted that the United States had previously declared such techniques to be tantamount to torture. Further, as an April 15 Boston Globe article noted, al-Qahtani, whose interrogation was monitored closely by Rumsfeld, "was subjected to sleep deprivation, stripped naked, forced to wear women's underwear on his head, denied bathroom access until he urinated on himself, threatened with snarling dogs, and forced to perform tricks on a dog leash, among other things."

O'Reilly repeatedly rejected reported FBI observations of alleged detainee abuse because "[t]he FBI agents have never been on the program" to discuss their allegations. O'Reilly claimed: "They won't step up. And until they do, they don't mean anything." Later, O'Reilly asserted that the observations made by "the supposed FBI guys," "never were proven on any level by anybody."

O'Reilly's claim that the FBI's allegations "never were proven" is misleading, at best. As Media Matters has noted, numerous FBI emails released to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) graphically detail many cases of abuse -- including interrogation methods described as "torture techniques" by an FBI agent in one email. Another email by deputy assistant FBI director for counterterrorism T.J. Harrington detailed several agents' accounts of abusive treatment, including one in which a female sergeant "grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backwards and indicated that she also grabbed his genitals." According to Harrington's email, a Marine told the agent who witnessed the incident that past interrogations by the female sergeant had left other "detainees curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain."

Further, As The Washington Post reported May 16, a subsequent investigation into the FBI agents' observations did not appear to dispute whether the interrogation techniques were used, just whether such techniques amounted to torture. From the Post:

An investigation by two generals into FBI allegations of abuse at the facility found that all the tactics taken together could be considered abusive and degrading but concluded that each tactic was individually "authorized" under the Army field manual's guidelines for the "pride and ego down" and "futility" approaches. Pentagon and U.S. Southern Command officials have told Congress and reporters that the approaches were consistent with the field manual.

Although the Post reported that Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, the head of the U.S. Southern Command, stated that the Qahtani interrogation "did not violate any U.S. law or policy," the Post also reported that other military officials disagreed with Craddock's claim that the techniques do not violate military law. According to the Post, "[t]he top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have told Congress that a number of aggressive techniques used by military interrogators on a detainee at the Guantánamo Bay prison were not consistent with the guidelines in the Army field manual on interrogations." Specifically referring to techniques used on al-Qahtani, the lawyers reportedly informed Congress that such techniques, in their view, were not consistent with Army policy and could violate Geneva Convention provisions on torture. Craddock -- head of the U.S. Southern Command, which investigated the FBI's allegations -- was a senior military assistant to Rumsfeld prior to being assigned to head the Southern Command.

Guantánamo prisoners' due-process entitlements

During the "Talking Points Memo" segment opening the program, O'Reilly asserted: "The Guantánamo controversy is easy to define. The Bush administration sees the 460 detainees as prisoners of war. The liberal press and some human-rights groups believe they are criminals entitled to due process." But, the Bush administration does not see "the 460 detainees as prisoners of war" and "[t]he liberal press and some human-rights groups" are hardly the only ones advocating that the Guantánamo detainees be charged with a crime and brought to trial. As noted by Human Rights Watch counterterrorism counsel Katherine Newell-Bierman, the Bush administration has classified most of those being held at Guantánamo as "enemy combatants," not "prisoners of war." As the Associated Press reported, according to the Bush administration, "[t]hat classification ... deprives the detainees of Geneva Convention prisoner-of-war protections and allows them to be held indefinitely without charges."

Additionally, contrary to O'Reilly's suggestion, several Republicans also object to the Bush administration's policy of indefinite detention without due-process rights. Most recently, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) criticized the status quo at Guantánamo during the June 11 edition of CNN's Late Edition. Specter argued that since "a great many" of the Guantánamo detainees were "rounded up" based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay," the lack of due process was a "grave problem." Specter said, "[w]here we have evidence they ought to be tried, and if convicted they ought to be sentenced."

In December 2003, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) sent a letter to Rumsfeld seeking information on Guantánamo detainees being held without charges. The letter requested that "in the very near term," the government "either ... formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action" According to a June 14, 2005, Inter Press Service (IPS) report, in advance of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into U.S. detention policies, McCain reiterated his concerns, stating: "I think the key to this is to move the judicial process forward so that these individuals will be brought to trial for any crime that they are accused of, rather than residing in (the) Guantanamo facility in perpetuity."

The same IPS report noted another Republican Senator voicing a similar sentiment. According to IPS, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska "also addressed the broader controversy of how the U.S. can indefinitely hold detainees essentially incommunicado and without charges or trial. 'This can't be a situation where we hold them forever and ever and ever until they die of old age,' he said."

"Interrogating the interrogators"

O'Reilly previewed his trip to Guantánamo as a chance for him to "[i]nterrogat[e] the interrogators." However, during his interview with two unidentified Guantánamo military interrogators, O'Reilly completely ignored allegations of abuse in his questioning, preferring to ask the interrogators such questions as whether bribing prisoners with "ice cream and pizza" is useful for gleaning information. Additionally, O'Reilly lobbed similar softballs during his June 13 interview with Col. Michael Bumgarner, commander of Guantánamo's Camp Delta, though the two did briefly discuss allegations involving the use of torture during interrogations:

  • "Is there a time when it's better to interrogate -- when they're tired, when they're distracted? Something like that?"
  • "So you catch them in a lie. They go, 'So I lied. So what?' Then what do you say?"
  • "So what is it, a macho thing if you catch them in a little lie?"
  • "Do they raise their voice to you? ... Say hateful things to you?"
  • "Why do they want to kill you? ... Just because you don't believe in Allah?"
  • "Have you gotten a big score out of any of these guys? ... Can you tell me how that score translated into the safety for the country?"
  • "So this story about these guys being just innocent bellboys is just a bunch of garbage?"
  • "Were you surprised these guys tried to kill your guys? ... You're nice to them. Why would they want to kill you? ... So they would kill you in a heartbeat?" (June 13 Bumgarner interview)

International Committee of the Red Cross

O'Reilly suggested that the ICRC could be responsible for the recent suicides at Guantánamo -- which occurred"[j]ust hours after" O'Reilly "left the prison." In his "Talking Points Memo," O'Reilly noted that "some of the detainees had covered the small windows that allowed guards to observe them," stating that the military allegedly informed him that the window coverings were present because the ICRC "wants as much privacy for the prisoners as possible." O'Reilly declared: "That privacy may have allowed the suicides."

Additionally, in his continual attempts to show that "Guantánamo Bay is being run correctly and that it is necessary for the security of this nation," O'Reilly claimed to have contacted the ICRC to see if the organization had "any complaints" about the treatment of Guantánamo detainees. According to O'Reilly, the "International Red Cross, left-leaning organization, human-rights organization" said "no." In fact, the ICRC has reportedly documented instances of alleged abuse. As The New York Times reported on November 30, 2004, confidential ICRC reports to the U.S. government apparently noted that a Red Cross inspection team in Guantánamo witnessed physical abuse "tantamount to torture," including temperature extremes, persistent noise, and "some beatings." The ICRC responded to the Times report, and while stating that "the organization was disturbed to see their reports made public," the ICRC did not dispute its contents. Instead, the statement reiterated the organization's policy of handling "concerns that arise during visits with prisoners" by "always discuss[ing] [the concerns] directly and confidentially with the detaining authorities only." Typically, the ICRC keeps its visits and opinions, with few exceptions, confidential.

Potentially innocent detainees

On the June 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly asserted that the claim that some innocent people are being held at Guantánamo "is another left-wing lie." He has repeatedly made similar assertions on previous shows. The following day on the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly interviewed Bumgarner and suggested that stories "about all these poor bakers and barbers who they rounded up and threw in" Guantánamo "for no reason" were baseless. However, during an interview with a Guantánamo interrogator that aired on O'Reilly's television and radio programs that day, O'Reilly asked about assertions that some innocents may be or have been held at Guantánamo Bay, specifically referring to a "barber" who "made a wrong turn at Kandahar," Afghanistan. The interrogator responded that while a "very, very high" percentage of Guantánamo detainees are being held legitimately, "[t]hat might be true for just a few of them" who are not. Further, contrary to O'Reilly's apparent suggestion that all detainees held at Guantánamo Bay are guilty, the military has not made such determinations, as no trials have been conducted by the United States to determine the guilt or innocence of the Guantánamo detainees. Only 10 out of 460 detainees have even been charged with a crime. Also, the U.S. government has declared at least 38 different Guantánamo detainees to be innocent of terrorist connections, and in some cases, has still held the individuals as prisoners even after they were cleared.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a military order establishing military commissions for the purpose of trying non-U.S. citizens detained during the course of the war on terror. According to Human Rights Watch, "normal rules of procedure in a court martial do not apply in the military commissions" because hearsay evidence is permissible; verdicts, with the exception of death penalties, are not required to be unanimous; and cases cannot be appealed to civilian courts.

But no trials have been conducted by such commissions, and no one has been tried in civilian court. The military commissions have been used for preliminary proceedings in at least 10 different instances, but stays have been issued in all, postponing proceedings indefinitely. Civilian courts have put trials on hold for at least three different defendants, and on June 10, Appointing Authority for Military Commissions John D. Altenburg Jr. issued a stay "until further notice" for "[a]ll sessions in all cases currently referred to trial by Military Commissions." The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of military commissions in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Further, the military has released some detainees after it determined them to be innocent and is currently detaining others at Guantánamo who the military admits are innocent. On May 5, five Chinese Muslims were released from Guantánamo Bay after being cleared of terrorism suspicions more than a year earlier. As ABC News reported on May 23:

Many of Guantánamo's prisoners proclaim they're innocent. What's different about these men, Muslims from China's Uighur minority, is that even American authorities said they were innocent, referring to them as "no longer enemy combatants" or "NLEC." Nevertheless, they remained imprisoned more than a year after their names were cleared -- after the U.S. government determined they did nothing wrong and posed no terrorist threat to America or Americans.

ABC reported that the reason the men were detained after a determination of innocence is that "no country -- including the United States -- would accept them." Sending the men back to China was deemed unacceptable for fear that they would be vulnerable to persecution by the Chinese government. Eventually, Albania agreed to admit the former detainees.

In addition, the Washington Post reported on May 20, that at least four other men still remain at Guantánamo Bay after being designated NLECs. The Post notes that at least 38 former Guantánamo detainees were eventually cleared of ties to terrorism and were reclassified as NLECs. With the exception of the remaining four, all have been released.

Finally, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, many news reports have indicated that several detainees at Guantánamo Bay are reportedly being held without evidence of having committed hostile acts against the United States, or of having ties to Al Qaeda.

From the June 12 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Inside Guantánamo Bay, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo" and most of the Factor.

Just hours after I left the prison at Gitmo last Friday, three detainees committed suicide, the first fatalities at the camp since it was set up shortly after 9-11.

The Joint Army/Navy Task Force granted the Factor almost total access to the prison. And ironically, I asked the colonel in charge of the cells why some of the detainees had covered the small windows that allowed guards to observe them.

The colonel replied that the International Red Cross wants as much privacy for the prisoners as possible. That privacy may have allowed the suicides.

The Guantánamo controversy is easy to define. The Bush administration sees the 460 detainees as prisoners of war. The liberal press and some human rights groups believe they are criminals entitled to due process.

The Joint Task Force in Gitmo, more than 1,000 military people, do not make policy. They institute it. So the bulk of my reporting tonight is not about the political controversy. It's about the prison itself.

Although some have called Gitmo a place where torture is practiced, there is no proof of that on the record. It is true that Mohamed al-Qahtani, thought to be directly involved with the 9-11 attack, was treated harshly. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered that Qahtani could be subjected to coerced interrogation, including loud noise, the presence of a dog, and sleep deprivation.

But outside of that, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated humanely, the military says. They have access to the International Red Cross and civilian lawyers.

[...]

O'REILLY: That prisoner screaming in Arabic. Obviously, the military showed us what they wanted us to see. But again, there's absolutely no evidence that I've seen that says any abuse is taking place at Guantánamo Bay.

Nevertheless, the left continues to call for the prison to be closed. People like Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi are adamant about it.

But where do we send these people? They'd be executed inside civilian prisons. And why shift them to a military prison inside the USA? There's no reason to do that.

[...]

So "Talking Points" is convinced Guantánamo Bay is being run correctly and that it is necessary for the security of this nation. And that's the "Memo."

[...]

O'REILLY: You've got 30 seconds.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: You've got FBI agents who witnessed detainees shackled in the fetal position for 18 to 24 hours, urinating and defecating on themselves. They were so crazed they had yanked out piles of their own hair. Let's talk about allegations which were substantiated.

O'REILLY: They have -- those are allegations, and that is all they are.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let's talk about -- those are allegations made by FBI agents. You don't trust your government to do that? I think there's a lot of controversy, and there needs to be a good investigation.

O'REILLY: I never, look -- the FBI agents have never been on this program. We've never seen them, counselor. They won't step up. And until they do, they don't mean anything. But I appreciate your point of view.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: How you can ask them to in this kind of circumstance?

O'REILLY: All right, I appreciate your point of view.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, here let's talk about this.

[...]

KIRSTEN POWERS [Fox News analyst]: Well, that's strange, because they did a report that made allegations about what they called was torture, basically.

O'REILLY: Not anymore.

POWERS: So I'm not sure why they're not saying that.

O'REILLY: Not anymore.

POWERS: And they had, they had -- and actually, I think it had been leaked to The New York Times. I don't know if they actually released the report.

O'REILLY: Oh, what a shock.

POWERS: But, yeah.

O"REILLY: Here's -- let me tell you what happened. These allegations -- and the captain referred to them in a segment before you guys -- these allegations never were proven, on any level, by anybody. So they basically drifted away. All of -- the imam that came back, the supposed FBI guys. Never could they document it.

So right now we have is, I think, a stable situation. Do you disagree?

POWERS: I think that there is a perception problem with Guantánamo and that they need to -- I agree with what the human-rights lawyer was saying, that there needs to be some sort of movement in terms of whether -- how these people are tried. Now, there's the problem of, are they tried by military commissions? Can they be.

O'REILLY: But that isn't a problem.

POWERS: Well, can they be?

O'REILLY: Of course they're going to be tried.

[...]

MICHELLE MALKIN [right-wing pundit]: Human rights, chicken civ, little civ --

O'REILLY: In the last two years, I think that --

MALKIN: Yeah.

O'REILLY: In the last two years, I think you're right. Before that, there were some guys who were roughed up, not to the extent of Abu Ghraib or anything like that, but they were.

But here's what tipped me over, Kirsten, on my, on my point of view. The International Red Cross has actually a little station on Guantánamo Bay, where they are most of the time, OK? So they can visit any detainee at any time at this prison. We called them today and said, 'Do you have any complaints, one complaint?" International Red Cross, left-leaning organization, human-rights organization. "No."

From the June 12 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

CALLER: I understand. If you're, if you're claiming they're enemy combatants, still sooner or later you're gonna have to show that you are correct in your assertation [sic] that they are indeed enemy combatants and not people that happened to be in the area at the time. Everybody over there carries weapons. Everybody carries weapons over there.

O'REILLY: All right, but look.

CALLER: But if they're carrying a weapon, does that make an enemy combatant?

O'REILLY: Is there any urgency on it? Um, they -- look, it takes a, it takes a lot of doing to get to Guantánamo Bay, a lot of doing. You gotta go through three uh, interrogations at the point of capture. Cause they're just not sending barbers over, which is another left-wing lie. Um, but anyway, military tribunals -- the way to go here. That's the way to go here.

[...]

O'REILLY: I had a human rights guy tell me on the Factor that a lot of these guys are barbers and they just made a wrong turn at Kandahar and they shouldn't be here at all.

INTERROGATOR: That might be true for just a few of them. Um, but the fact of the matter is uh, that's their story. And nine times out of 10, we have a tremendous amount of information, sometimes given to us by other detainees, that they weren't barbers. So --

O'REILLY: Is it 90 percent of the time?

INTERROGATORS: Um, I can't place a, an exact percentage on it, but it's very high, very high.

O'REILLY: So this story about these guys being just innocent bellboys is just a bunch of garbage?

Interrogator: Yes, sir.

From the June 13 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: They, they, they, they have a little Guantánamo Bay cell.

BUMGARNER: Absolutely. No doubt about it.

O'REILLY: But what about all these poor bakers and barbers who they rounded up and threw in here for no reason?

BUMGARNER: I'm looking for them, sir.

[laughter]

BUMGARNER: I'm looking for them. They're out there somewhere, I reckon.

O'REILLY: Because that's what the Human Rights Watch tells me.

BUMGARNER: Oh, I know, I know they tell you that. I wish -- you know, sir, again, those that come here see it, walk it --

O'REILLY: Yeah.

BUMGARNER: -- leave with a different opinion. These folks are not what folks paint in the media out there. Not at all. These are not good guys. I stake my reputation and my, my, my life as a career military policeman on this. No if, ands, or buts.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 4:13 pm ET)
         

      ok, so irrespective of whether these torture allegations will or will not be proven to be true, and so far they are as this headline states - only allegations. but considering this website seems to be complaining or ticked off that o'reilly is "downplaying the torture allegations", it stands to reason they would prefer that he ratchets them up, or maximizes them, or the opposite of downplay, or whatever?. great idea. let us do just that. incredible.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 4:19 pm ET)
           

        The opposite of downplaying may be exaggerating, but that's hardly what MMFA is advocating. What O'Reilly should have done in his coverage was to make an honest acknowledgment of the allegations. Instead he either ignored the allegations all together, or he simply lied about them.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 4:24 pm ET)
             

          mmfa appears to be advocating that downplaying speculation and allegations are wrong. i happen to think all the facts should be known and those allegations need to be proven. until then, downplaying them is not exploiting them for some political maneuvering. we are at war and restraint and care needs to be exerted when discussing this. i am not talking about a cover up, but to throw out allegations as provable facts is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 4:33 pm ET)
               

            Nobody is advocating throwing out allegations as proven facts, and there's no basis for your claim that MMFA is calling for that. You say that "downplaying them is not exploiting them for some political maneuvering," but that's exactly what O'Reilly has done, and MMFA has made the case rather plainly. I'm not sure whether or not you've actually read beyond the headline, but it's obvious from O'Reilly's interviews and statements that he is intentionally misrepresenting those allegations in order to paint a rosier picture of Gitmo.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by zerosumgame0005 (June 16, 2006 5:10 pm ET)
                 

              he or she reacts to the headline, works up to a hemorage of phoney outrage then takes the headline to task. tsk tsk tsk, just like dumbaya, he thinks he only needs a summary.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Left is Right (June 16, 2006 4:49 pm ET)
               

            The only relevant fact is this: we have imprisoned "suspected" terrorists and have locked them up indefinitely. They've been denied legal representation, haven't been charged or convicted of any crime, yet they remain incarcerated for years. If we have enough evidence to charge them with a crime, why don't we do just that and put them on trial? If we don't have substantial evidence, we have no grounds to imprison them. Then again, when you've got an omnipotent president, the Constitution has no authority.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by peet (June 16, 2006 6:53 pm ET)
                 

              This is the issue. Did anyone really expect Bill O'Reilly to do any sort of insightful journalism. No. The guy's a major boob and a shill for the GOP. But, the fact that our gov't thinks it is okay to detain these people indefinitely -- without even bringing charges up against them -- man, that's just plain wrong. No matter how you slice it.

              The rules have changed. In fact, there are no rules any more. This fascist regime does whatever it wants, whenever it wants and merely says it's okay -- in the name of 'fighting terror'. What a convenient foil for the neocon agenda. Any guesses when this purported 'war' will end? How about never.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:09 am ET)
                 

              " They've been denied legal representation, haven't been charged or convicted of any crime, yet they remain incarcerated for years.... Then again, when you've got an omnipotent president, the Constitution has no authority. "

              You seem to think he is bypassing the constitution. But, have you read it lately? Section 9: " The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

              I do believe this is a case of "invasion" and "the public safety" is requiring them to be held. You want it stopped? Change the constitution.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:19 am ET)
                   

                Please maintain minimum levels of coherence and connection to reality.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:23 am ET)
                     

                  There's no clarifier that differentiates between whether we are "invaded" or we "invade" someone else, so it still applies. Besides, wasn't 9/11 an invasion?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:55 am ET)
                       

                    Didnt suspend Habeous Corpus when we invaded Germany? Korea? Vietnam? The Dominican Republic? Haiti? Grenada? Your argument is not only specious but ludicrous. Of course 9/11 was not an invasion. It was a vile terrorist attack. Did anyone claim Japan invaded the US becaue of Pearl Harbor? Tell me are you more than 10 years old? Are all wingnuts as cognitivly challenged as you are?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 11:33 am ET)
                         

                      " Did anyone claim Japan invaded the US becaue of Pearl Harbor? "

                      Uhh, yeah...everyone did!

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by peet (June 18, 2006 3:04 pm ET)
                           

                        ...to justify this President's illegal actions by parcing words ... however, none of these detainees have been shown to have had anything to do with 9/11 or even terrorism for that matter. What about the camps set up for Japanese immigrants? Was that a good idea? Did that help the cause?

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 7:05 pm ET)
                           

                        Attacked is not a synonym for invaded. Rent a dictionary

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (June 18, 2006 9:21 am ET)
                   

                I could be wrong but I don't think Constitutional Protections apply to foreign nationals in a foreign country.

                "I do believe this is a case of "invasion" and "the public safety" is requiring them to be held"

                The above means invasion of our country by others, not invasion of another country by us.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:26 am ET)
                     

                  When we fought WWII, did we bring all the German POW's here to the US? And/or did we only have German POW's who were captured on US soil? I guess the same question for Vietnam, Korea and every other war we have fought on foreign soil.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:58 am ET)
                       

                    AS POWs according to the Geneva Convention for the most part. So you have no point.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 11:11 am ET)
                         

                      And, so it is true for those in Gitmo....for the most part.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 7:07 pm ET)
                           

                        Concerns what were aknowledged as war crimes committed mostly by the South Vietnamese. Those Germans treated as POWs were not subjected to such warcrimes and WERE treated as POWs as per the Geneva Convention. Your arguments are childlike and spurious

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by LL-TIME (June 19, 2006 9:14 am ET)
                             

                          Quick off topic question for you Solon, do you ever have a discussion without calling the other person a name or deriding their ability to think? Would it be possible in the future to have you just argue your point and leave the name calling out?

                          " maintain minimum levels of coherence and connection to reality ", " Are all wingnuts as cognitivly challenged as you are? " , " Rent a dictionary " , " So you have no point. " , " Your arguments are childlike and spurious " , " stop pretending there is nothing more than speculation. " , " Its the height of stupidity ", " is in FACT the height of stupidity " , " Demonizing them, .... is ignorant. " , " you have no point " , " Oh, nothing whatsoever? Imagine my suprise. ", " because YOU with NO cause have decided " , " wasting our time with your repititions of baseless assertions ", " Conservative traitors "

                          Now, back to the subject at hand, I don't understand how are the prisoners being treated differently than any POW during any war we've had? They are allowed freedom to walk around, given religious needs fed, bathed and protected. The gaurds are bending out of their way to appease the "needs" of these terrorists. An isolated case does not mean all are being mistreated. Just as you have an isolated case of mistreatment in any jail or prison, doesn't mean all are being mistreated. So, it is my opinion that there isn't enough mistreatment in gitmo to warrant further actions. Your opinion may differ and that's fine. I'm stating my opinion of, not arguement for/against.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (June 19, 2006 10:06 am ET)
                               

                            I will try for as long as you abstain from characterizing liberals perjoratively. I find you very frustrating. This for instance. The wholePROBLEM I have been talking about is they do NOT have POW status which carries with it several priveleges not afforded these prisoners. For instance when questioned a POW does NOT have to answer with anything other than name rank and serial number that is straight out of the Geneva convention. It was POLICY, that these prisoners were not only badly abused but questioned for long periods of time in harsh conditions. YOU are again making an assumption. That the abuse was some isolated case and not policy. This is NOT what the FBI agent said in the link I provided which the ACLU got from the freedom of information act. It specifically said that these techniques which he called torture techniques were a point of contention between the defense Dept and the FBI which did not think them good strategy. He also complained that while committing these abuses the DOD was identifiying themselves as FBI agents and he was afraid the FBI would be accused of these abuses. See that is fairly good evidence that the abuse was NOT isolated but policy. Probably some of the WORST abuses were not widespread but no coercion of any sort is allowed when questioning POWs. That is only one such privelege there is also mail priveleges, they can get packages from home. They are monitered by the Red Cross, none of this is being provided the Gitmo prisoners.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by LL-TIME (June 19, 2006 3:35 pm ET)
                                 

                              Ok, so I what I gather from you stance is that if the "detainees" in gitmo are treated like POW's then you would have no problem with their detention until the war is over. Is that correct? Since there is no way of knowing who was a terrorist and who wasn't, when they were picked up, then would you also say that holding the other 'non combatants' is ok also?

                              The problem I have with this situation is that the terrorists have no "name,rank, serial number". If they want to dress as civilians and kill our troops then I can't hold our troops responsible for capturing the wrong person. We shouldn't just let people loose just because they had a "normal" job. How do we know they weren't moonlighting as terrorists when their shift ended? In my opinion, the terrorists put themselves in this position by not being militarily organized. If they fought a conventional war then it would be easier to know who is and who is not the enemy as opposed to an innocent civilian.

                              Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (June 16, 2006 5:08 pm ET)
               

            And ignoring allegations or trivializing them is just as irresponsible and dangerous.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:16 pm ET)
                 

              convicting one without proper proof is infinitely more irresponsible and dangerous.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:20 pm ET)
                   

                that's correct but totally irrelevant in this particular debate.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:29 pm ET)
                     

                  you don't want anything or any information covered in a prudent manner, or downplayed for reasons even you can understand. rather, you want them played to the hilt even before they are proven. allegations are good enough for you, that's it. don't need to no more.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:35 pm ET)
                       

                    FYi, I gather information, I am skeptical and I check it out. I don't take anybody's word for it and I don't look for reasons to dislike what I dislike. You don't know liberals, you don't me and how I process information. Don't pretend you do. You may think this way because it bolsters your ideology and world view. That doesn't make it accurate. Here's the dif between left and right. Left looks at information with an open mind and weighs it then comes to a better understanding or conclusion. The right looks for information, twisting if nec. to fit their ideology.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by thedevilsadvocate (June 16, 2006 6:22 pm ET)
                         

                      This "difference" between the left and the right crap is just that.. crap. They both do it. One is not more "intelligent" than the other in this respect. I was agreeing with everything you said up until you said that. To me, that pretty much negated everything you said above.

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 16, 2006 6:42 pm ET)
                       

                    [link to www.cbsnews.com]

                    Sean Baker has seizures an average of four times a week. 60 Minutes Wednesday went to see him a few weeks ago in a New York hospital.

                    Baker, a National Guardsman, was working last year as a military policeman in the Guantanamo Bay prison when other MPs injured him during a training drill. It was a drill during which Baker was only obeying orders.

                    "I was assaulted by these individuals," says Baker. "Pure and simple."

                    [link to www.aclu.org]

                    Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee.

                    "The methods that the Defense Department has adopted are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive,"

                    I think there is enough information out there to stop pretending there is nothing more than speculation.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 8:42 am ET)
                         

                      CBS news and the ACLU....yeah, two dependable sources for gathering information that is "fair and balanced". What do you think are the chances they word their questions and answers to fit their agenda? I wouldn't believe those sources any more than you would believe BOR and Fox news.

                      If a question was asked to the gaurds; "is there any abuse going on in the past present or future?" and Fox reports a "no" answer and Cbs reports a "yes" answer, who do you think is telling the truth? But, if Cbs had reported a "no" answer and Fox reported a "yes" answer, who do you believe then?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 6:44 am ET)
                           

                        The ACLU site is reprinting memos they got from the Freedom of information act written by an FBI agent, are you calling him a liar???? Or are you saying the ACLU made the whole story up, wait, the fight over those memos was big news I guess FOX propaganda network missed it so you didnt know about it. CBS is reporting a verified brain injury to a US soldier google it and find other sources, in fact here is four others

                        [link to www.sfgate.com]

                        [link to en.wikipedia.org]

                        [link to en.wikipedia.org]

                        [link to news.bbc.co.uk]

                        [link to www.baltimoresun.com]

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by HistoryGeek (June 18, 2006 4:47 pm ET)
                           

                        The American Civil Liberties Union's sole purpose is to protect the rights of individuals and preserve the Constitution. Perhaps you recognize this quote: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Arguing against the ACLU is often arguing in favor of some censorship. Censorship is virtually always related to fear.

                        Nobody would argue that the ACLU is a Nazi organization, but they fought on behalf of the Nazis to allow them their Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech when they wanted to March in Schaumburg, IL about 25 years ago; they actually lost membership but the fact is that the Nazis had the right to march, no matter how repugnant and evil their message is. Free speech is as much a symbol of our country as the flag; if it wasn't then MMFA wouldn't exist.

                        Trashing the ACLU reveals more about the person doing the trashing than about any related topic.

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (June 16, 2006 5:33 pm ET)
                   

                The administration and the right wing who support them will not accept the fact that when our prisoners are treated badly, it loses the war for us. Wars against insurgencies are won and lost by winning the hearts and minds of the people. There is no other way.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Left is Right (June 16, 2006 6:07 pm ET)
                   

                but imprisoning them for years and years without enough evidence to convict them is an abomination. It violates and contradicts everything a free nation stands for.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 16, 2006 6:36 pm ET)
                   

                If any specific person were being accused, they arent, you have no point

                Report Abuse
              • Author by redking75687 (June 17, 2006 3:19 am ET)
                   

                of illegal detentions and tortures and plain out-right sadism, with no end in sight. If you still can't see what's going on down there, I have to ask what planet you're on.

                You know many ended up in Guantanamo? The US military was handing out $5000 to any Afghan who ratted out his neighbour, no questions asked, no proof needed. Want to make a small fortune from the moron Yankees? Point out the nearest stranger and scream "Taliban!"...they'll hand you a small fortune in your dirt-poor country, no evidence required. Family feuds and pure greed putting innocent men into tropical dog kennels to be brutally "interrogated" by racist guards.

                There's the reality...stop denying it.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by dougsomers (June 18, 2006 4:26 am ET)
                   

                how about convicting the Terrorist Prisoners, without any legal representation or charges? Is this Ok?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 10:00 am ET)
                   

                And Punished you would have a point. That is EXCEPT the prisoners at GITMO who ARE being punished without ANY offering of evidence much less proof.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 16, 2006 6:35 pm ET)
               

            We have an FBI agent on record with his first hand accounts. We know an American got a brain injury while posing as an Arab there. I think that goes a pretty far ways down the road from speculation

            Report Abuse
        • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 8:22 am ET)
             

          " What O'Reilly should have done in his coverage was to make an honest acknowledgment of the allegations. "

          And just how do you KNOW he didn't do that? What makes you think he lied, just because MMFA thinks so? Maybe, just maybe there isn't any truth to the rumors of abuse as told about in e-mails. What allegations have been proven, at any level?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (June 17, 2006 3:34 pm ET)
               

            Let me just point out one example for you, in case you couldn't be bothered to read the entire article before commenting. O'Reilly asks a Gitmo interrogator if there was any truth to the claims that innocent people have been detained. (Never mind for the moment that this is already a proven fact seeing as how the U.S. government has actually declared at least 38 detainees innocent, so the question is really a lie from the start.) Anyway, the interrogator responded, "That might be true for just a few of them," adding that "nine times out of 10" they have "have a tremendous amount of information" corroborating the detainees' guilt. It "might be true" and "nine times out of 10." Got that?

            So what's B.O.'s response? "So this story about these guys being just innocent bellboys is just a bunch of garbage?" No, it's not just a bunch of garbage. It has been true in some cases. I don't know why Bill chose bellboys as his hypothetical, but his dismissal not only flies in the face of what the interrogator told him, but it also contradicts the fact that there have already been detainees cleared of the allegations.

            If you want to explain to me how that is making an honest acknowledgment of the allegations, then I'd love to hear it.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 16, 2006 6:33 pm ET)
           

        Like torture people. You atone. If you have a shred of decency,you aknowlege it was wrong, you appologize, and you commit to not do it again. THAT is probably what MMFA is advocating, it certainly is what I advocate. We have an FBI agent on record as calling what he witnessed first hand as torture techniques. This may not have been proven in a court of law but I find THAT compelling enough to stop with the weasel wording and admit the torture has taken place. An AMERICAN got a verified brain injury while posing as an Arab at Guantanamo in a drill. Its pretty clear bad things have happened there as I said the first part of atonement is aknowlegement. That is why in court guilty pleas are accompanied by admissions

        Report Abuse
      • Author by grep (June 16, 2006 7:07 pm ET)
           

        "ticked off that o'reilly is "downplaying the torture allegations", it stands to reason they would prefer that he ratchets them up, or maximizes them, or the opposite of downplay, or whatever?"

        This is a perfect example of the Excluded Middle logical fallacy.

        It does not stand to reason that someone arguing against downplaying is advocating racheting it up. You are excluding the middle option- which is give it the attention and seriousness it deserves.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 8:32 am ET)
             

          " You are excluding the middle option- which is give it the attention and seriousness it deserves. "

          But that's all it is....an option. The truth of the matter is that MMFA isn't here to "give it the attention....it deserves", they are here to provide "correcting conservative misinformation". Which insinuates that they are not interested in the "middle option", only to disprove the right. And that by itself give credibility to what 'right on' brought to light. Your "excluded middle" does not apply in this situation and could be considered another ploy by the left to excuse misreprsentations by a leftist organization.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by grep (June 17, 2006 2:05 pm ET)
               

            But that's all it is....an option. The truth of the matter is that MMFA isn't here to "give it the attention....it deserves", "

            I did not talk about MMFA's motive - I was talking about Right On's argument, which is based on False Logic.

            You don't get to say - If it's not this extreme (downplay) then it must be that extreme (racthet up).

            Report Abuse
            • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 8:22 pm ET)
                 

              " You are excluding the middle option- which is give it the attention and seriousness it deserves. "

              Whether you say it or MMFA says it, what makes you think he didn't give it the "attention and seriousness it deserves"? I think he gave it all the attention it deserved considering who they (detainees) are and what they intend to do as soon as they are released.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 6:54 am ET)
                   

                What they have done and what they plan to do if released comes from what again? Your amazing mind reading powers? And your evidence evidence about what they have done and what they plan to do when releases is WHAT???? Oh, nothing whatsoever? Imagine my suprise.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:21 am ET)
                     

                  Solon, you answered "no" when asked if you would release them, earlier in this thread. Why would YOU not release them? Could it be because you fear what they may do? Act surprised if you want, but I don't need "amazing mind reading powers" to be able to figure out what a terrorist will do if he is released back into the general public! DO YOU???

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:40 am ET)
                       

                    The question was not should we release them. The question was if they were soldiers and we were still at war would I release them. You calling them terrorists does not make them terrorists nor is there any claim that they ARE all terrorists. If you have evidence they are cough it up otherwise that was just another baseless assertion to create a strawman argument.You do know that some of them are Uigers that were just caught up in a sweep and even the Pentagon admits they were not combatants much less terrorists. Your arguments would shame a reasonably bright ten year old. IF we have evidence they are terrorists we should bring them to trial if you DONT have such evidence, and I asked for it and didnt see you produce any then I guess you WOULD need amazing mind reading powers to know the things you are claiming about them. Since we both know you DONT have EITHER amazing mind reading powers NOR evidence your posts so far have been object lessons in propagandistic baseless assertions and mindless propaganda parrot regurgitations. I am saying EITHER we treat them like POWs or we bring them to a fair trial. What is unacceptable to any nation that wants to claim even a minimum level of morality is to just lock them up with no recourse to either. We cannot pretend to be a just country if we ignore law as a cornerstone of our treatement of ALL people. If they are to be treated as criminals or as you so baselessly asserted terrorists we have an obligation to prove it. If that is NOT our claim we should treat them like POWs. Instead we have a Kafkaesque situation. Guantanamo has become a black hole where the law doesnt apply, that wont do. They are human beings and SHOULD have human rights those dont go away because YOU with NO cause have decided they are terrorists.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 11:07 pm ET)
                       

                    Boil down to a demand that YOU can define reality. That the people being held in Gitmo should be treated as terrorists for no other reason than you have decided they are. NO proof, heck no evidence or any such problematic thing. Human rights mean nothing. Our principles of law mean nothing just that YOU and Bush get to treat people like terrorists by CALLING them terrorists. No finding of fact no trial, heck even Bush, even the Pentagon isnt claiming they are all terrorists but YOU think if you keep saying it then it will magically become true, reality itself will change by your will alone. You are sad, you have NO POINT. And you never have any idea what you are talking about. You are wasting our time with your repititions of baseless assertions.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:26 am ET)
               

            Making a statement that is a logical fallacy, like the false dichotmy being discussed (or excluded middle either way) IS misinformation.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:40 pm ET)
         

      that you can't post for too long without a blantant personal attack, i was right. we are done. enjoy the discussion.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 5:42 pm ET)
         

      He was referring to the hearts and minds of the people we hope would lend support to the war, such as the Iraqi people. He wasn't referring to the insurgents themselves. You really need to just bow out of this argument now, so we don't have to waste anymore time responding to your blatant misreading of the article and the posted responses.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (June 16, 2006 6:02 pm ET)
           

        I had to re-read my post to see if I wasn't clear. But you understood exactly what I was getting at. I hope that Right-On is prepared for his or her grand children to be fighting this war.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 6:12 pm ET)
             

          "Hearts and minds of the people..."

          And this is an argument that the Right generally refuses to hear and/or acknowledge, so Right On's intentional(?) misreading isn't really much of a surprise. The same argument extends to events like Haditha, as John Murtha has repeatedly attempted to point out. Yet I've not seen a single conservative commentator actually address the issue. It's easier for them just to shout, "Traitor!"

          Report Abuse
        • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 8:51 am ET)
             

          "I hope that Right-On is prepared for his or her grand children to be fighting this war. "

          But I thought the dems plan on winning the white house and senate and HOR this next election season? And, when they do, how could anyones grandchildren be fighting a war that the dems, in all their infinite wisdom, could allow to continue that long??

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:23 am ET)
           

        All people by right of international law have a RIGHT to armed opposition to foriegn invaders. Its the height of stupidity to go to a country kill the people then snivel they are killing us back.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:33 am ET)
             

          " Its the height of stupidity to go to a country kill the people then snivel they are killing us back. "

          You are very right on that one, Solon. The terrorists that live in Iraq have every right to defend their country. Does that mean that there is a conection between al queda and Saddam in Iraq, now? How do the "imported" terrorists rights fit into that statement? Are we allowed to snivel that they are killing us back when they don't belong there and aren't defending "their" country?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 10:05 am ET)
               

            I guess you havent kept up with current events. Either that or you keep conflating the man with the country. No, it doesnt work that way. The French sent soldiers here to help us fight our revolutionary war , and WE sent people to Spain to fight against the Fascist Franco in the 30's, they are considered legitimate fighters, but you have a moving target for an argument. You get blown out of the water and change the argument. Bottom line insurrgency in this instance IS legal by international law. Calling them heartless and mindless when any decent American would be doing the same to foriegn invaders is in FACT the height of stupidity

            Report Abuse
            • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 4:28 pm ET)
                 

              But, aren't the "invaders" actually the "imported terrorists"? They are the ones who are fighting AGAINST the Iraqi government, not us. We are helping the Iraqi government get back control of their country. Perhaps I'm not the only one who needs to read up on the news.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 7:13 pm ET)
                   

                more than 80% of the Iraqis strongly oppose coalition occupation. Its ludicrous to argue we are helping you no matter whether you want us to or not. This is another distraction from the point. Insurrgency itself is LEGAL by international law. Whether those who are fighting it are native Iraqis or foriegners or both as it seems to be. Those who are committing crimes are another matter entirely. Your attempt to pretend that everyone who is an insurrgent is among those committing terrorist acts is a smokescreen from the point. The insurrency is legal by international law. Demonizing them, snivelling that we are in their country killing them but its tacky for them to kill us back is ignorant.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by LL-TIME (June 18, 2006 9:02 pm ET)
                     

                  " Your attempt to pretend that everyone who is an insurrgent is among those committing terrorist acts is a smokescreen from the point. "

                  Your belief that those we are fighting are not terrorists is why you don't support our reason for being there. It seems obvious that you don't think fighting back after being attacked is a good thing for a country to do. Al queda attacked us. The UN sends troops into Iraq to remove Saddam, we have al queda fighting the UN coalition. Now you say 80% of Iraqis wanted us to leave Saddam in power. I say that's ludacris. I don't know where you get your data, but there ain't no way in leftyland that is even near correct.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 11:01 pm ET)
                       

                    1) I dont support our being there because there is no reasonable moral justification for the invasion. Iraq did NOT attack nor threaten us. There were no WMDs so we were led there with lies and deception.

                    2)Of course I didnt say any such thing as 82% WANTED Saddam back in power. Only that they strongly support the presence of coalition troops. Where did I get my information? I can read. Try it some time.

                    [link to en.wikipedia.org]

                    A later 2005 poll by British intelligence said that 45% of Iraqis support attacks against coalition forces, rising to 65% in some areas, and that 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign troops.

                    Of course I am correct and again of course YOU, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about. What a suprise.

                    You even call the occupying forces UN forces. I guess you missed the largest story in the world where the UN refused to support the invasion. NO its a US coalition NOT a UN coalition. One more indication you have no idea what you are talking about.In fact do you EVER know what you are talking about?

                    Bottom line Al Queda attacked us. Bush decided to leave off the fight against real terrorists to fight a more profit friendly war in Iraq who DIDNT attack us. In the 2002 threat assesment from the CIA they listed 60 countries Al Queda was active in guess who WASNT on that list? Thats right IRAQ. You dont seem to know ANYTHING, you just repeat the propaganda parrot talking points ad nasuem as IF they made sense. The Iraqis dont want us there as EVERY poll WE have taken shows.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (June 19, 2006 4:56 am ET)
                         

                      82% stronly OPPOSE the presence of coalition troops

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by LL-TIME (June 19, 2006 9:11 am ET)
                           

                        90% of stats are made up to support any given position.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (June 19, 2006 10:11 am ET)
                             

                          WHY the British defense dept would make up a stat to support the position that they were unwanted in Iraq? I realize you just threw out a weak baseless assertion (in the form of a dumb joke) because you were shredded on that one but to be funny it really needs some basis in reality. Since this poll was taken by the Brits, its not grounded in reality.

                          Report Abuse
    • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 4:14 pm ET)
         

      ...he had one guest (Newell-Bierman) who attempted to correct his lies, but of course he simply dismissed her with a wave of his hand. If any additional proof were needed of O'Reilly's inflated sense of entitlement and importance it's his comment that the FBI agents who reported torture "don't mean anything" because they haven't been on the Factor. That's pretty much all anyone needs to know about O'Reilly, right there in a nutshell. He simply dismisses any facts that get in the way of his agenda. This Gitmo visit was pure propaganda.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (June 16, 2006 4:19 pm ET)
         

      If someone doesn't go on O'Reilly's show and make their claim, then any claim anyone makes about anything doesn't mean anything. In order for there to be any truth in the world, it has to pass through Bill. He is setting himself up as the final arbiter of truth. Could O'Reilly be on his way to becoming a god? He reminds me of The Emperor Caligula, but without the sense of humor.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (June 16, 2006 4:48 pm ET)
           

        You can ask my wife - on many, many occasions, I've bowed my head and knelt down in front of my TV in humble acknowledgement of BO's divinity.

        Even more often, I've shouted the words "Jesus Christ!" - only I add another word between the two.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 4:59 pm ET)
         

      Only believe what you want to, disregard the rest. Hey Right On, torture happened in our name. You can say "alleged" all you want but it happened. The world knows this and the American press has been reluctant to report the full scope of these atrocities but the world press has. Couple that fact with Bush's well known attitude for the Geneva conventions and his signing statement giving him the green light to allow torture to go on in our name. This treasonous act puts are troops at greater risk and Bill O'Reilly's head in the sand attitude aids our enemies as a recruitment tool. I'm kind of tired of you "alleged" people and your ignorance.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:12 pm ET)
           

        damn that nasty, inconvenient word "allegations". it's so pesky and, darnit, it just gets in the way all the time. i realize if these allegations turn out to be true it would be like chocolate cake to you. our head is not in the sand, we just prefer to wait for irrefutable proof before convicting our service men and women.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (June 16, 2006 5:45 pm ET)
             

          ...point out who it is exactly that's "convicting" them? No? I didn't think so. So now can you please stop posting that empty argument over and over again? Thank you.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by LL-TIME (June 17, 2006 9:00 am ET)
               

            " ...point out who it is exactly that's "convicting" them? No? I didn't think so. "

            I'm no expert, but it sounds to me like he is saying bigbingtheory is convicting them. Seems pretty obvious, to me, that he has convicted them and is meerly waiting for the hangman to tie the knot. He's just having a hard time figureing out whether to hang em all or just a few.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (June 17, 2006 3:41 pm ET)
                 

              As somebody else already pointed out, the repeated use of the word "convict" is a lot of bluster only meant to inflame the right. There can be no "conviction" if nobody has actually been charged with anything. There have been a lot of credible reports about torture and abuse in Gitmo, coming from the FBI agents, former guards and other sources, but nobody is charging any specific guards or interrogators with anything.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by nasarius (June 16, 2006 6:31 pm ET)
             

          Those prisoners at Abu Ghraib probably just sodomized themselves!

          [link to en.wikipedia.org]

          Our exalted "service men and women" are just like the rest of us. Some good, most okay, and some sick f***ks.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (June 17, 2006 3:26 am ET)
             

          Three years of proof. Three years of blatant evidence. Three years of stark reality.

          Only ones saying "allegations" are those trying to cover it all up with a smokescreen of empty words. We see thru you. Right thru you. Like laser beams.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by ellie717 (June 16, 2006 5:10 pm ET)
         

      Doesn't everyone know that we tortured people at Guantanamo?

      I didn't think it was still up for discussion!

      Foolish me. I thought that the fact that we admitted that our soldiers participated in behaviours that are considered torture would have painted them at torturers.

      What kind of Orwellian world are these people living in that torture isn't called torture? We clearly tortured prisoners.

      When I use 'we', I mean a few Americans.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:19 pm ET)
         

      Don't assume that because I acknowledge a problem that I condone it or desire it to happen. I am pissed off because torture happened in my name. Torture has happened, it has been documented and proven and it is very unfortunate. Until you righties can face the ugly truth you'll continue to hide behind allegations. And I don't blame our service men and women. I blame the commander in chief. It's you righties who blame it on the grunts. You would be laughable if your wilfull ignorance wasn't so dangerous. Do you have to have a pillow case tossed over your head, a bumpy plane ride to nowhere and a small cell before you are convinced?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (June 17, 2006 3:31 am ET)
           

        "Just following orders" don't work as a defence. It appears many soldiers, both enlisted and officers, are enjoying the moral laxity and complete disregard for rules of conduct that the Bush regime is allowing, even encouraging.

        I no longer "support the troops"...except those who obey their oath and refuse to participate in these war crimes. They are the only real heros in all this...the rest are just mercenaries or monsters.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:26 pm ET)
         

      some liberals are nothing if not inconsistent. if these were allegations against a beloved ex-president for sexual indiscretions, these same liberals would be stomping up and down demanding that all the facts be known and proof be crystal clear before any more of these right wing conspirators say a word. but to give our soldiers and interragators the benefit of due process, forget it. but it's not about them anyway, is it?, it's about bush. we all know that.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:29 pm ET)
           

        wrong on just about all counts. But I will say, sex with an intern indefensible; torture, abuse of the military, lying to congress, treasonous. Try to stay on topic and will you finally realize it's impossible to pigeon hole liberals into one particular mind set. Don't you have any desire to learn, anything? The imagination you'll use to paint liberals as being evil is staggering.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:34 pm ET)
             

          you missed the analogy so maybe it needs to be clarified for you. allegations that are not proven are worthless until they are proven. innocent until proven guilty. so to downplay them in some media report by a cable news host is appropriate and in the context of war, even more so.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:36 pm ET)
               

            that's the point, it's no longer allegations. You get it?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:39 pm ET)
                 

              proof.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:41 pm ET)
                   

                the internet. You have access to all kinds of information including from our Federal Government. Do your homework Jack. I have.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 18, 2006 9:49 am ET)
               

            It is worthless and should not be even spoken of. That is unless it is useful to invade a country or attack an Ambassador that says bad things about Bush. Not even a good try. The evidence is ample enough to go far beyond speculation which is what you keep calling it.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:31 pm ET)
           

        Clinton was hardly liberal and most liberals I know don't care for his policies. See Michael Moore who called him America's best Republican president. That was not intended as a compliment.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 16, 2006 5:38 pm ET)
             

          i liked clinton so i won't argue with you there. but if you want to win in 06 and 08 a far left liberal isn't the ticket. just a little unsolicited advice.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bigbingtheory (June 16, 2006 5:45 pm ET)
               

            judging by your posts, your advice isn't worth much.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (June 16, 2006 7:50 pm ET)
           

        That can be discussed without bringing up a certain former president? That has to be the lamest use of the old Clinton dodge that I've ever seen. Why stop there? I want to bring up Chester A. Arthur. Do you realize what he did when he was president back in 1882.

        Give it a rest.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by azapache (June 16, 2006 9:36 pm ET)
           

        The strawman statement "some liberals are nothing... " is bogus. The only people having a heart attack that President Clinton was having an "indiscretion" were the Republicans and Hillary Clinton. You see, we lefties, progressives. Do I dare say the word? Liberals. Do give the "benefit of doubt", the "due process", the "innocent until proven guilty". However Republicans, had no problem accepting Clinton as guilty from day one. Guess what, it is not about Bush. It is about a corupt White House, Senate and House.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (June 16, 2006 10:39 pm ET)
           

        >>but to give our soldiers and interragators the benefit of due process, forget it. but it's not about them anyway, is it?

        Do you even know how our law works? You don't give the benefit of the doubt to the interrogator or the police or the courts--you give it to the defendant! Do you even realize how wrong your argument is?

        All's we want is fair trials. Is that so much to ask? We want to assume the people in Gunatamo are innocent until proven guilty.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 17, 2006 3:20 am ET)
             

          did you get my clarification/apology a while back?

          My badly written sarcasm came off like an attack on you,meant to agree- I think you left the thread.Cheers.

          Anyway, good point(which I missed)--benefit of the doubt re: the interrogator-not the way it's designed, thanx.

          righton is lotsa fun.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 17, 2006 3:13 am ET)
           

        I think even the righty talk show hosts(OK, maybe not Hannity, "special" even by repub standards)realize that bringing up the Lewinsky, in 2006, as analogous to human rights and constitutional violations, is throwing up a metaphorical white flag.

        Aside from the fact that the Presidents sex life is of no concern to anyone with a sex life of their own,I don't recall anyone, left or right, calling for withholding judgement until a full investigation of the blue dress hade been completed.

        I recall Repubs screaming for a hanging, and normal humans not giving a flying funk.Not because they were morally bankrupt and approved of cheating on ones wife, but because the country was in pretty good shape, and we had better things to do than butt into a domestic problem.

        Now if Bush was just getting spanked or waterboarded by Dick Cheney in their office, you would have a point.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by RMGB (June 16, 2006 5:43 pm ET)
         

      Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered that Qahtani could be subjected to coerced interrogation, including loud noise, the presence of a dog, and sleep deprivation.

      "Coerced interrogation"... such a lovely euphemism.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by froggyreader (June 16, 2006 6:01 pm ET)
         

      "Why do they want to kill you? ... Just because you don't believe in Allah?" I wonder if O'Reilly is ignorant or if this statement is some kind of voluntary misinformation. The Muslims believe in God : Allah is on the translation of God in arabic. Will you ask to a spanish christian "Do you believe in Dios" or to a french jew "Do you believe in Dieu" ? The muslims believe that there is no other god than God, just like the christians and the jews, and that Mahomet is His Prophet. I see very often in a lot of news outlets, here in Colombia where I live, in France where I come from and in the US, partial translations of arabic speeches like "...we will kill ...in the name of Allah" instead of "...in the name of God". I wonder if this mistake has a purpose.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by The Truth Seeker (June 16, 2006 11:51 pm ET)
         

      These conservatives keep shouting about "innocent until proven guily" when these types of charges are revealed. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Why shouldn't this be reported by the press? O'Reilly claims that he hasn't seen any evidence of abuse. What an idiot! I guess he never heard of Sean Baker who was beaten by his fellow soldiers who thought he was a prisoner during a training exercise. They conveniently lost the tape of the incident.

      The conservatives had no problem calling that kid from Aruba guilty, even though the only evidence they had is that he made inconsistent statements. They had no problem claiming that Michael Schiavo beat his wife even though there was absolutely no proof. It is comical how they have the audacity to claim innocent until proven guilty when it supports their position.

      They did the same thing with Rove, as if simply being unethical isn't enough to lose your job in the Bush Administration. You must be convicted of a crime to be fired.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by starwheel (June 17, 2006 1:35 am ET)
         

      He's Jane Fonda

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pick of the litter (June 17, 2006 1:38 pm ET)
         

      "The FBI memos originally were released in 2004 under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a lawsuit by the ACLU, but were largely censored. The latest batch contained extensive information that had been blocked out originally.

      According to the memos, the FBI favored a law-enforcement approach geared toward collecting evidence that could be used later in prosecutions, while military officials preferred a more psychologically and physically aggressive approach derived from counterinterrogation methods taught at the Army's survival school.

      In one e-mail, an FBI agent, whose name was blocked out, described observing interrogation that used pornography and strobe lights. The agent wrote, "We've heard that DHS (defense human intelligence service, part of the Defense Intelligence Agency) interrogators routinely identify themselves as FBI agents and then interrogate a detainee for 16-18 hours using tactics as described above and others (wrapping in Israeli flag, constant loud music, cranking the A/C down, etc). The next time a real agent tries to talk to that guy, you can imagine the result."

      Military interrogators "were being encouraged at times to use aggressive interrogation tactics in GTMO (Guantánamo), which are of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation," said a separate e-mail, dated May 30, 2003. "Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by US law enforcement agencies in the United States but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes."

      Military interrogators "are adamant that their interrogation strategies are the best ones to use despite a lack of evidence of their success," it said.

      The same e-mail complained that the military officer overseeing interrogations, a lieutenant colonel whose name was blocked out, "blatantly misled the Pentagon into believing that the (FBI's behavioral-analysis team) had endorsed the (military's) aggressive and controversial interrogation plan" during a teleconference with Pentagon officials.

      That misrepresentation led the FBI agent in charge to take up the interrogation issue with Miller. The agent explained why his team's approach should be used, but Miller remained "biased" in favor of the military's way, the memo said.

      Another e-mail, dated May 5, 2004, said detainees were hooded, threatened with violence and humiliated, and that Defense Department employees had portrayed themselves as FBI agents. "

      from:

      "FBI Memos Reveal Allegations of Abusive Interrogation Techniques", By Drew Brown, Knight Ridder,

      Friday 24 February 2006

      [link to www.truthout.org]

      and see [link to www.truthout.org]

      "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantánamo Bay", By Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times,

      Sunday 01 May 2005

      ------------------------------------------------

      The world is calling for GITMO to be shut down, so the wingnuts do everything they can to minimize the bad publicity. Rather than demand accountability by our gov't to abide by the Geneva Conventions, the wingnut media want to give them a free pass.

      I'd like all the proponents of torture as an intelligence-gathering tool, to ask John McCain what he thinks about that? Don't you think his captors thought of him as an animal when they had his ass caged?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HistoryGeek (June 18, 2006 4:37 pm ET)
         

      Does anyone beyond the 30% or so hard right-wingers pay attention to O'Reilly? He's disingenuous again, who's surprised?

      Has anyone done any kind of psych analyis of O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, or Limbaugh a la "Bush on the Couch?" Anybody know?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (June 19, 2006 6:42 am ET)
         

      What makes them "left-leaning"? I guess to Bill, anyone that dares criticize the US must be left-leaning.

      And it's both scary and sad how rightwingers have started to use "human rights" as some sort of derogatory term. But they're just laying the groundwork, I guess...

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.