Thursday, July 17, 2008

 

Just How Thin are the 'Facts' Behind the Torture Slander

Here and here are two stories about the alleged mistreatment of the illegal combatants (Hamden and Omar Khadr) we have captured. One was a tape of a detainee in Gitmo taken secretly through the grating of the air duct. The second was testimony of the alleged bad treatment. And there is no torture---none. NONE. Not even close.

Here is the whole of the 'torture' Omar's mouthpiece describes.



He was deprived of sleep by being removed from his cell and to another cell every three hours on a 24-hour basis for three weeks solid, followed by three weeks of deep solitary confinement," Mr Edney told the BBC.

Oh no, not the deep solitary confinement. Those Nazi thugs!

Here is what he claims about his medical treatment. Doesn't actually add to his credibility.


Mr Khadr says: "No I'm not. You're not here... I lost my eyes. I lost my feet. Everything!" in reference to how his vision and physical health were affected. "No, you still have your eyes and your feet are still at the end of your legs, you know," a man says.


The total lack of anything approaching the routine treatment the Jihadists give those they kidnap doesn't stop the shameless Canadian attorneys from making unethical appeals for release or the seditious lawyers for bin Laden's driver from making groundless and frivolous arguments about compelled testimony. (The well known trick of using a woman to ask the questions. And she gets close to him. And she touched him. Gently.) Can you imagine?

Here is the whole of the reported testimony of the mistreatment in Hamden's hearing:


Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who is accused in a terrorism conspiracy, told a military court that during questioning in 2002, a female interrogator "came close to me, she came very close, with her whole body towards me. I couldn't do anything. I was afraid of the soldiers."

"Did she touch your thigh?" asked Hamdan's attorney Charles Swift.

"Yes. . . . I said to her, 'What do you want?' " Hamdan said at a pretrial hearing. "She said, 'I want you to answer all of my questions.' "

"Did you answer all of her questions after that?" Swift asked. Hamdan said he did.

Hamdan's attorneys are seeking to persuade a judge to throw out incriminating statements he allegedly made to interrogators at the U.S. military prison here, arguing that they were obtained through coercive tactics.
(Emphasis added, incredulously).

Wait, there's more:


In his testimony, Hamdan said he was repeatedly held in solitary confinement and sometimes deprived of sleep by guards who banged on his cell door every few minutes. He acknowledged, however, that he also took naps of up to three hours on some afternoons.

What pansy asses these terrorists are. I'm beginning to think we can beat these fragile flowers.

Labels: ,


Comments:
Rog,

This is tangential, but go to NPR.org and listen to a piece by Jamie Tarabay called "What does Jihad really mean." I begins by advising that the Bush administration is rethinking its use of the word and I think that perhaps we should also.

Basically, calling a Muslim a jihadist is paying him or her a compliment, but the word "jihad" itself has connotations other than the one in which you used in your comment. I have known this for a while b/c I have a resident (resident in name only) religion major.

I will e-mail you th epage from NPR. The substance is in th ebeginnning, the "Kumbaya" portion is at the end.

T
 
Hypocrisy of the "Repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada" Movement

As soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada. This wave is reminiscent of a Soviet campaign to free Luis Corvalán from the "fascist regime" of Augusto Pinochet thirty five years ago. The scenario is strikingly similar. A "victim" held by "fascist regimes" this time run by Bush and Harper, and a public outcry for justice. Except for the fact that Luis Corvalán didn't kill anyone and didn't fight for a terrorist group that wants to impose Sharia.

The "repatriate Khadr" crowd describes him as "a child", "a kid", "a boy", and even "a torture victim", with no facts to substantiate the torture claims notwithstanding. They complain about Khadr being mistreated, again, without anything to back up their claims. Some of them are outraged about "child abuse." And they all scream for justice.

They want justice? OK, let's talk about JUSTICE. What about justice for Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was (according to an eyewitness) murdered by this "child"? What about justice for Tabitha Speer, who is a widow because of this "kid"? What about justice for Taryn and Tanner Speer, who are left without a father by this "a boy"? And what about all those Afghani civilians and NATO troops who are a little bit safer because this "torture victim" is behind bars? How many of these "repatriate Khadr" hypocrites concern themselves with justice for real victims? In literally hundreds of posts, we couldn't find a single one.

One would ask, what is the reason for this idiocy? The answer is simple. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance. Let's forget for a second that Omar Khadr killed Christopher Speer. Let's forget that Khadr's father was an al Qaeda financier. Let's forget that Khadr's family is known for it being al Qaeda sympathizers. Let's just remember what this "child" was fighting for in Afghanistan.

This is what Taliban-imposed Sharia looks like in real life: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2000/07/hypocrisy-of-repatriate-omar-khadr-to.html

Why don't all of you, bleeding heart demagogues go to Afghanistan and spend a day in a Taliban-controlled territory? And let's talk about Khadr when you get back. If you get back.
 
Good point, T, but it's got to be short. I'm open to replacement names. Good point from American Muslim as well. Showy, stupid, hypocrisy. (but I have to admit that I was troubled by the war crime charges for throwing a grenade. We usually don't think of that as war crime. The circumstances must make it so, like him being out of uniform or having surrendered or the like.) I'm going to put your site in my favorites, so keep up the good work.
 
"I was troubled by the war crime charges for throwing a grenade."

How about the war crime charges for throwing a grenade at a medic with distinct insignia (white armband, red cross)?
 
As I said, it had to be the circumstances.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?