No Abuse at Gulag Gitmo? Total Shocker!
Democrats Report No Abuse At Gitmo
Interesting read. Two Democrat senators and two Republican senators, AFTER ACTUALLY HAVING GONE THERE, agree about Gitmo. Hmmm, I wonder if the real facts are starting to come in. If this keeps up, we may have to alter the generalization made by Amnesty, Durbin, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al, won't we? I mean, being true to the method of induction, one would have to alter the conclusion. It is the truth we seek, right?
But, if we hate Bush really really bad, it won't matter, will it?
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:30 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
First, quoting the Wasington Times is akin to me quoting Mother Jones, not exactly bastions of unbiased journalism.
Second did Senators Wyden and Bunning really believe that interogaters would abuse prisoners in front of them? Reminds me of George Romney being "brainwashed" in Viet Nam.
About half the allegations of abuse have come from Marines who actually served there. Give me a few hours alone in a bar with a couple of marines, and then I'll find out the truth about Gitmo!
1. Good use of the "fallacy of poisoning the well" with the "Times." Strike one.
2. There were two more senators as well. Are you saying that all four were idiots?
3. I'm sure as long as you're buying, the Marines will keep talking. Are you willing to put credibility in beer talk?
Colorful comments, Bear!
Another 16 members of the Armed Services Commitee went to Gitmo on June 25th. For more info. use the following URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/25/international/i081212D02.DTL
You may like this one, Bear, for it's an AP article. Is this okay?
AP is much better, but i still like my luck with beer best!
ps.. there is almost nothing more credable than beer talk! The looser the lips, the faster the ship sinks!
Yup. I've seen it happen too.
Underground,
To be completely impartial: this article is only saying that they didn't see abuse at that time.
Yup. And the conditions of the Gulag? Unsanitary? And the protocols in place, dehumanizing? How about human experiments? Putrid living conditions? The torture chambers, any peculiar or vile devices? ANYTHING that would give credance to Amnesty's "gulag" description?
Underground,
Here the role of Devil's Advocate will be played by Saurkraut
Oh, I'll give you the fact that it was pristine when they arrived. But let's face it - anything could have been changed between the time of the initial allegations till now.
We now resume Saurkraut's normal personna
However, I personally don't believe the atrocities were sanctioned or common there at any time. I think the 'abuses' were a minority of cases performed by a minority of players.
Yes, one would have to catch the torturors in the act, and a contingent of Congressmen or Senators could hardly "sneak" up and surprise them. Yet what were the clues that inspired Amnesty International? The testimony of the inmates? The testimony of some unnamed Marines?
If there is actual evidence, let's deal with it! If it is based on the enemy combatants complaints, let's not be naive!
An addendum to my last comment: Be sure that the atmosphere at Gitmo was similar what Amnesty Int. saw to what the Congressmen saw. Do you think that the "torturers" would allow Amnesty International to see their underhanded practices?
"What...Amnesty International is here? Hey, guys, let's put Mohammet on the rack and show these watchdogs what were doing here!"
If it was occuring, these prison officials would do the same CYA as they would with the Congressmen. So the question is what evidence did Amnesty see that the congressmen didn't? Or did Amnesty base their claim on the testimony of the prisoners and a few written testimonials of former guards? This is a question of the inductive method...what are the particulars, and how credible and accurate are they?
That's ok, Amnesty, were old enough and smart enough to take it. You can tell us. We're smart enough to draw our own conclusions.
Post a Comment
<< Home