Torture update from Gitmo

[exUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I understand the point that Gitmo is not the torture camp that people have said it is. I'm just saying that this is as far as that fact takes you. The fact that they are treated well is often trotted out and the intimation is, what do these guys really have to complain about. Perhaps I am responding more to that than what Tex was quoting, but I see that intimation in the quote.

BTW..........why OK to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art and the same people freak out if the Koran is dropped on the floor? Those people?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

How does one take a family there? They serve themselves food out of pots? Forget Maui, I'll go with Gitmo.

Seriiously, who here believes the current conditions at Gitmo don't have something to do with the laser beam of scrutiny it's received? Have prisoners there always struggled with whether to play basketball or soccer?

Please... Fox News viewers may be unable to see a whitewash, but I can.

encourages you to blow yourself up in their honor? Yeah!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

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

Do I have any substantive reason to believe her?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do I have any substantive reason to believe her?

Innocent until proven guilty?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Innocent until proven guilty?

Who's on trial?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who's on trial?

In the court of public opinion?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In the court of public opinion?

You think the "court" of public opinion operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do I have any substantive reason to believe her?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You think the "court" of public opinion operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

I haven't personally examined the book, but I can make a fair assumption that she probably provides at least some reference and/or documentation for her claims. I also find it a reasonable assumption that the publisher did fair due diligence on her claims before putting their company name on the book. These are just assumptions (not "proof"), but they are reasonable ones.

As a non-lawyer, I'm not professionally obligated to assume that anyone on the opposing side of an argument is automatically lying. In normal human relations, people are typically given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Moreover, you said "even if" her story was true, it wouldn't tell us about how the detainees are being treated; an odd assertion, given that detainee treatment is exactly what she's talking about. As I said before, if you were to accept her story as true, you'd really have nothing to argue about.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I haven't personally examined the book, but I can make a fair assumption that she probably provides at least some reference and/or documentation for her claims. I also find it a reasonable assumption that the publisher did fair due diligence on her claims before putting their company name on the book. These are just assumptions (not "proof"), but they are reasonable ones.

As a non-lawyer, I'm not professionally obligated to assume that anyone on the opposing side of an argument is automatically lying. In normal human relations, people are typically given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Moreover, you said "even if" her story was true, it wouldn't tell us about how the detainees are being treated; an odd assertion, given that detainee treatment is exactly what she's talking about. As I said before, if you were to accept her story as true, you'd really have nothing to argue about.

Surely you can do better than that. We are now operating on assumptions that she has proof of her claims and assumptions that book publishers require proof before publishing (and saying that such assumptions are reasonable) AND assuming that she has no ulterior motive in making her claims AND assuming that she isn't withholding additional information about detainee treatment that is more negative? THAT is what you are going with here? Um, okay.

She is a prosecuting attorney at Gitmo. That isn't exactly a statement from the Red Cross. And if I assume that what she says is true, I don't see how that proves that the detainees are being treated well. I find it amusing that you don't see why.

Assume the following (this is an analogy, and I know you struggle with these, but try to keep up):

A person is required to remain in a location against that person's will.
The location is actually a gigantic palace, and the person has access to personal servants who deliver delicious food and wine.
The palace has many forms of entertainment available to the person.

Should we assume that the person is living a great life and is treated well?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Surely you can do better than that. We are now operating on assumptions that she has proof of her claims and assumptions that book publishers require proof before publishing (and saying that such assumptions are reasonable) AND assuming that she has no ulterior motive in making her claims AND assuming that she isn't withholding additional information about detainee treatment that is more negative? THAT is what you are going with here? Um, okay.

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

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Should we assume that the person is living a great life and is treated well?

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

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