The bulls*** meter is on "tilt"

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Sometimes I wish this administration would just quit talking (even if through it's spokespeople) on anything pertaining to this war. This article on how Gitmo is a model prison contained the following tidbit:

Joint Task Force doctors have performed more than 370 surgeries, including restorative eye procedures, and a recent back surgery that restored movement and avoided possible paralysis for a detainee. Shortly after, that detainee sent me a note saying "Thank you, I have been wrong about Americans."

...which sounds great, until you read this:

That back surgery? The prisoner in question, Abdul Zahir, detainee number 75, who is represented by Professor Kermit Roosevelt and a team of law students at Penn Law School, required surgery because an IRF team cuffed his wrists to his ankles and jumped on his back after immobilizing him.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...creepiness.html

Damn, it's a good thing we don't torture.

Why put out some fluff piece about how magnanimous we are and not tell the truth about how the detainee got that way to begin with? I think I know the answer.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Sadly, this does not surprise me.

[Justin5 20]

Sickening.

Is it still too late to get a 'Don't blame me, I [NEVER] voted for Bush' bumper sticker?

[autigeremt 6,716]

Hate to hear that, esp. if this detainee didn't kill any of our soldiers or citizens. I believe the United States has to be an example, unless it's ONLY a matter of national security and protects the lives of the people. Then it's a situation to situation basis.

It makes no difference in the end. There has to be order even in a prison camp.

[autigeremt 6,716]

No judging here. I just think it's the proper way of handling these infidels until they are justy detained for the time decided.

Plus......I never questioned the soldier or marine. It's the policy. You are right, you never know what the prisoner did to create the situation. These people hate us, so anything is possible.

[CCTAU 3,350]

You people have the luxury of sleeping under a blanket of freedom and then questioning the manner in which it is provided.

While not condoning this incident or any other, we are only getting a snippet of the situation on which to judge it. The adrenaline that was probably coursing through the veins of the soldier who committed the act, the act of the "victim" (in your jaded eyes) immediately prior to the incident and any other number of factors could have played into the final results, which, while groustesque and unimaginable in your mind, probably was not quite as cut and dried as some people would like for us to believe.

Do prisoners deserve to have their backs broken? Probably not. But until you walk a tour in the shoes of the MP's who serve at Gitmo, I find it very difficult for anyone to judge what happens based on a one sentence statement.

The world is not a simple place where one snapshot can tell the whole story, unless it is to the very simpleminded. People blessed with self awareness understand that there is no beginning nor end to our lives and the world as we know it. Everything can't be wrapped up in a neat box. There are real world incidents that happen and people make mistakes.

Now, if you are simply criticizing the way the feel good story was presented, I would agree a little more.

However, your "torture" comment at the end indicated that you were disgusted because some detainee, prisoner, and terrorist had his back broken. Again, sleep well under that blanket tonight...

They can't understand. Every person is a victim in their eyes. If a suspect tries to fight back, you attempt to subdue. Even if you have that suspect cuffed, if he tries to cause issues, you subdue. And the way this was presented is as if the person doing the subduing jumped up and down until the back broke. Watch cops. Those guys have to get a body on the suspect even after they thin they have them subdued.

In the end, we did the wrong thing. There should have never been a GITMO. We should have shot them right between their freaking eyes on the battlefield.

We have soldiers today who get blasted for letting these guys die while waiting for a MEDIVAC (after they just tried to kill the soldier). And you pusses want to feel sorry for them. Why don't you feel bad for the soldiers watching their buddies get their effing bodies blown in half by pieces of s*** like you are worrying about. Every time one of you sanctimonious twats comment on something like this, you demean the very men and women who give you that right. I'll remind my kid the next time I get to talk to him that the bastard that he just caught on the battlefield is more important than his buddy who he just sent home in a box.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

You people have the luxury of sleeping under a blanket of freedom and then questioning the manner in which it is provided.

While not condoning this incident or any other, we are only getting a snippet of the situation on which to judge it. The adrenaline that was probably coursing through the veins of the soldier who committed the act, the act of the "victim" (in your jaded eyes) immediately prior to the incident and any other number of factors could have played into the final results, which, while groustesque and unimaginable in your mind, probably was not quite as cut and dried as some people would like for us to believe.

Do prisoners deserve to have their backs broken? Probably not. But until you walk a tour in the shoes of the MP's who serve at Gitmo, I find it very difficult for anyone to judge what happens based on a one sentence statement.

Not trying to be difficult here, but when you have a guy's wrists handcuffed to his ankles and he's immobilized, there's no excuse for jumping on his back, much less jumping on it to the point that a surgery to prevent paralysis was required. What threat was the guy at this point...that he could say mean things to you? Bite your ankles if you walked by?

The world is not a simple place where one snapshot can tell the whole story, unless it is to the very simpleminded. People blessed with self awareness understand that there is no beginning nor end to our lives and the world as we know it. Everything can't be wrapped up in a neat box. There are real world incidents that happen and people make mistakes.

Now, if you are simply criticizing the way the feel good story was presented, I would agree a little more.

Primarily, the propaganda mode, dishonest manner in which it was presented was the main point of me posting the article. You don't give yourself accolades for free surgery on detainees when the surgery was only needed because some guy couldn't keep his temper under control and you pounded on a guy that was already rendered immobile and not a threat anymore.

However, your "torture" comment at the end indicated that you were disgusted because some detainee, prisoner, and terrorist had his back broken. Again, sleep well under that blanket tonight...

I do take moral exception to torture and I believe I must do so because of what Scripture teaches. However, even I can see things in degrees. If a detainee had his back broken in the course of subduing him or someone trying to capture him or defend themselves, then that's his problem. When you have the guy under control and he can't even move, to jump on his back is asinine and cannot be excused by "people make mistakes."

[autigeremt 6,716]

Interesting the different views on this.

[Justin5 20]

Amazing that CCTAU still defends this. I mean...REALLY?!?!

Here we are not talking about anything except the article. CCTAU, do you defend the actions in question in this article?

Just this. Not some broad sweeping generalization of POW's or our treatment in the midst of battle. This article. I will wait for your response.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Amazing that CCTAU still defends this. I mean...REALLY?!?!

Here we are not talking about anything except the article. CCTAU, do you defend the actions in question in this article?

Just this. Not some broad sweeping generalization of POW's or our treatment in the midst of battle. This article. I will wait for your response.

The actions in this article are being portrayed as the poor little muslim terrorist got beat up by the big ole bad soldier. We do not know that as fact. We do know that he sustained injuries due to being subdued. Hell Rodney King got the same thing. Were you in the camp that he did nothing wrong. I have a son in Afghanistan right now having to deal with the fallout of folks like you who take articles like this and automatically blame the soldiers. He has to deal with his buddies getting killed by these monsters and if they capture one, they have to do everything they can to keep them alive. If the little s*** dies, the soldier gets blamed for his death. All of this due to the reactions of people like you on how captives are treated. So see, this isn't just about this article and GITMO. It has far reaching implications that could cause my kid to think about the consequences of how to treat a captive in battle, causing him to make a mistake.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If it's shown that Sullivan's comments about how the back was broken are wrong and it was in the course of subduing him, I'll take back the comment. But Andrew Sullivan isn't exactly a left-wing wag and isn't in the habit of just making things up out of thin air, especially something that accusatory. Just a wild guess, but if he knows the detainee in question's name and number, I think he's got some insight here.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm not going to weep over some detainees condition. Sorry, knowing who these folks are, it's probably better than he deserves.

[AUesquire 1]

Definitely gotta' agree with the Major here. While I agree that torture, abuse etc. are not justified, this little snippet does nothing to indicate that to be the case. Where is the rest of the story? Who is this quote or information from, the Penn professor and team of law students representing him? And why does this prisoner say he was wrong about Americans if he was actually tortured or abused? Anyone care to discuss the 300 plus procedures performed on these detainees and the good that did? Do these detainees get that kind of medical care in their homeland or are they just forced to strap bombs around their waists?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

They can't understand. Every person is a victim in their eyes. If a suspect tries to fight back, you attempt to subdue. Even if you have that suspect cuffed, if he tries to cause issues, you subdue. And the way this was presented is as if the person doing the subduing jumped up and down until the back broke. Watch cops. Those guys have to get a body on the suspect even after they thin they have them subdued.

Going on what we know from the original post, it's inexcusable. They didn't just have him cuffed like you see with cops (hand behind back). They had his wrists cuffed to his ankles and was immobilized. What issues can he cause other than being a loudmouth? Stick him in a room for a few minutes and let him scream his fool head off. Don't jump on his back to the point it requires back surgery to prevent paralysis.

We have soldiers today who get blasted for letting these guys die while waiting for a MEDIVAC (after they just tried to kill the soldier). And you pusses want to feel sorry for them. Why don't you feel bad for the soldiers watching their buddies get their effing bodies blown in half by pieces of s*** like you are worrying about. Every time one of you sanctimonious twats comment on something like this, you demean the very men and women who give you that right. I'll remind my kid the next time I get to talk to him that the bastard that he just caught on the battlefield is more important than his buddy who he just sent home in a box.

Bull. s***. You're ranting about something no one here has said a damn thing about. I'm talking about a clear situation where you have a guy under control and not a threat to hurt anyone or cause any mischief and you keep pounding on him. That's inexcusable. On top of that, to put out some puff piece about how great you are to Gitmo detainees that you give them surgeries to prevent paralysis, while not pointing out that your unwarranted actions caused the threat of paralysis to begin with just goes beyond the pale. And the administration wonders why people don't believe them anymore. How dense do you have to be to not understand why?

[stoic-one 1,549]

You people have the luxury of sleeping under a blanket of freedom and then questioning the manner in which it is provided.

Yo Col Jessup, grab a rifle and stand a post

It certainly sounds like a lot of misinformation about what actually happened here, let alone just plain missing information...

I've seen some guys that were awfully under control put up a pretty fight, just saying.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Stoic, I'm sure you've seen a lot of things. The account says "immobilized." I tend to think based on the description, it would be accurate. I mean, imagine for a second that you have your wrists handcuffed to your ankles. What kind of fight are you going to be able to put up in that position? Maybe you could but I have a hard time imagining that I could do a lot of damage unless someone got their ankle too close where I could maybe bite it.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

They can't understand. Every person is a victim in their eyes. If a suspect tries to fight back, you attempt to subdue. Even if you have that suspect cuffed, if he tries to cause issues, you subdue. And the way this was presented is as if the person doing the subduing jumped up and down until the back broke. Watch cops. Those guys have to get a body on the suspect even after they thin they have them subdued.

Going on what we know from the original post, it's inexcusable. They didn't just have him cuffed like you see with cops (hand behind back). They had his wrists cuffed to his ankles and was immobilized. What issues can he cause other than being a loudmouth? Stick him in a room for a few minutes and let him scream his fool head off. Don't jump on his back to the point it requires back surgery to prevent paralysis.

We have soldiers today who get blasted for letting these guys die while waiting for a MEDIVAC (after they just tried to kill the soldier). And you pusses want to feel sorry for them. Why don't you feel bad for the soldiers watching their buddies get their effing bodies blown in half by pieces of s*** like you are worrying about. Every time one of you sanctimonious twats comment on something like this, you demean the very men and women who give you that right. I'll remind my kid the next time I get to talk to him that the bastard that he just caught on the battlefield is more important than his buddy who he just sent home in a box.

Bull. s***. You're ranting about something no one here has said a damn thing about. I'm talking about a clear situation where you have a guy under control and not a threat to hurt anyone or cause any mischief and you keep pounding on him. That's inexcusable. On top of that, to put out some puff piece about how great you are to Gitmo detainees that you give them surgeries to prevent paralysis, while not pointing out that your unwarranted actions caused the threat of paralysis to begin with just goes beyond the pale. And the administration wonders why people don't believe them anymore. How dense do you have to be to not understand why?

There's not enough information from Sullivan's assertion to tell exactly what happened. Titan -- did it ever occur to you question why the detainee needed to be cuffed hands to ankles? That's not a normal restraining procedure. Maybe the guy was resisting the whole time and the MPs accidentally fell on him injuring his back in the process. Who knows? But to automatically react as if the MPs do this all the time is cause for me to think you should get your orthopedist to check out that knee-jerk of yours. Even after the detainee was injured he received life-changing extraordinary surgery. Name another country that would go to those lengths for a POS terrorist.

[stoic-one 1,549]

Stoic, I'm sure you've seen a lot of things. The account says "immobilized." I tend to think based on the description, it would be accurate. I mean, imagine for a second that you have your wrists handcuffed to your ankles. What kind of fight are you going to be able to put up in that position? Maybe you could but I have a hard time imagining that I could do a lot of damage unless someone got their ankle too close where I could maybe bite it.

I understand what you are saying, my contention is that there is much that is subject to interpretation here. Were they handcuffed as it states, or shackled, which is a far more common technique under these circumstances. I've seen those terms used interchangeably a few times when they are two distinctly different methods of restraint. The reason I bring that up is because handcuffing ones wrists to their ankles is a non-standard technique I have personally never seen used. Handcuffs don't lend themselves well to the task of tying 4 points together. I'm trying to visualize how it would be accomplished, and am coming up a little bewildered to be honest. It would take 3 pairs of handcuffs to truly effectively accomplish this as I see it, or 2 pairs criss-crossing (weird). Quick ties perhaps?? How many guards does it take to accomplish this task??

Just an observation, and something to think about...

For the record, you can put up a pretty good fight in shackles... Depending on how loosely they are configured.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

There's not enough information from Sullivan's assertion to tell exactly what happened. Titan -- did it ever occur to you question why the detainee needed to be cuffed hands to ankles? That's not a normal restraining procedure. Maybe the guy was resisting the whole time and the MPs accidentally fell on him injuring his back in the process. Who knows?

I'm going by the account given which isn't that someone fell on him. The word was "jumped" on him "AFTER" he was cuffed this way and immobilized. I realize it's not a normal procedure for cuffing and I already said if the injury was sustained AS they were subduing him. But that's not what is being said here.

But to automatically react as if the MPs do this all the time is cause for me to think you should get your orthopedist to check out that knee-jerk of yours.

Please quote the portion where I even suggested such. I think you need your own knee-jerk checked. It's causing you to hallucinate words people haven't typed.

Even after the detainee was injured he received life-changing extraordinary surgery. Name another country that would go to those lengths for a POS terrorist.

And while that's great, my issue with that aspect is that we're putting this story out there as if it were some incredible act of kindness on our part when he wouldn't have needed the surgery in the first place if someone hadn't decided to jump on a guy who was subdued, cuffed into a position that he couldn't do anything and immobilized. That was a stupid move. It's great that we decided to fix something we wrongly caused to begin with, but I certainly wouldn't put it in a puff piece in the WSJ to pat ourselves on the back.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Stoic, I'm sure you've seen a lot of things. The account says "immobilized." I tend to think based on the description, it would be accurate. I mean, imagine for a second that you have your wrists handcuffed to your ankles. What kind of fight are you going to be able to put up in that position? Maybe you could but I have a hard time imagining that I could do a lot of damage unless someone got their ankle too close where I could maybe bite it.

I understand what you are saying, my contention is that there is much that is subject to interpretation here. Were they handcuffed as it states, or shackled, which is a far more common technique under these circumstances. I've seen those terms used interchangeably a few times when they are two distinctly different methods of restraint. The reason I bring that up is because handcuffing ones wrists to their ankles is a non-standard technique I have personally never seen used. Handcuffs don't lend themselves well to the task of tying 4 points together. I'm trying to visualize how it would be accomplished, and am coming up a little bewildered to be honest. It would take 3 pairs of handcuffs to truly effectively accomplish this as I see it, or 2 pairs criss-crossing (weird). Quick ties perhaps?? How many guards does it take to accomplish this task??

Just an observation, and something to think about...

For the record, you can put up a pretty good fight in shackles... Depending on how loosely they are configured.

That's a good point. If it were shackles that had more play in them, perhaps he could put up more of a fight. However, the account also says "immobilized" which still gives me the impression it was something much more restrictive.

As far as handcuffing if they took one pair of cuffs and cuffed a wrist to one ankle, then another pair and cuffed the other wrist to the other ankle, that's just two pair. I imagine they get quite creative to keep these crazies restrained.

I'll repeat, if it turns out that he wasn't immobilized as the article indicates or the "jumping" was more of a "falling" or "pouncing on him to hold him down while others restrained him", I take it back. But going on what we have now, it looks like it was out of line on the soldier's part and monumentally stupid on the administration's part to trumpet this as an example of our compassion and care for our enemies.

[tiger88 934]

Why put out some fluff piece about how magnanimous we are and not tell the truth about how the detainee got that way to begin with? I think I know the answer.

If you knew half of what you thought you know you'd be dangerous. God forbid that you wait until you know more about what went on here before you open fire on those serving our country.

I am a firm believer in allowing anyone who wants to jump on their high horse about this sort of thing immediately be given the opportunity to go show them how it should be done live and in person.

No wait, lets just jump to the worst possible conclusion to satisfy our need to push an agenda.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Dang everyone knows if Andrew Sullivan wrote it, it is absolutely the truth, the whole truth and no embellishments what so ever.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Why put out some fluff piece about how magnanimous we are and not tell the truth about how the detainee got that way to begin with? I think I know the answer.

If you knew half of what you thought you know you'd be dangerous. God forbid that you wait until you know more about what went on here before you open fire on those serving our country.

I am a firm believer in allowing anyone who wants to jump on their high horse about this sort of thing immediately be given the opportunity to go show them how it should be done live and in person.

No wait, lets just jump to the worst possible conclusion to satisfy our need to push an agenda.

I don't have an agenda, so lose your canned responses. Unless by "agenda", you mean, "sick to death of the administration's spin on this stuff." Then yeah, I have an agenda.

Second, neither I nor you have to be able to step in and do something "better" ourselves to be able to point out when something is wrong.

Third, I didn't "open fire" on anyone. Stop exaggerating what I said to make your response look better.

Dang everyone knows if Andrew Sullivan wrote it, it is absolutely the truth, the whole truth and no embellishments what so ever.

If the implication is that Sullivan is some left-wing wag, you're wrong.

[tiger88 934]

Why put out some fluff piece about how magnanimous we are and not tell the truth about how the detainee got that way to begin with? I think I know the answer.

If you knew half of what you thought you know you'd be dangerous. God forbid that you wait until you know more about what went on here before you open fire on those serving our country.

I am a firm believer in allowing anyone who wants to jump on their high horse about this sort of thing immediately be given the opportunity to go show them how it should be done live and in person.

No wait, lets just jump to the worst possible conclusion to satisfy our need to push an agenda.

I don't have an agenda, so lose your canned responses. Unless by "agenda", you mean, "sick to death of the administration's spin on this stuff." Then yeah, I have an agenda.

Second, neither I nor you have to be able to step in and do something "better" ourselves to be able to point out when something is wrong.

Third, I didn't "open fire" on anyone. Stop exaggerating what I said to make your response look better.

Canned response? Please!, you have been like a broken record lately with your griping about the war and attacks on Bush. That is an agenda. Pretty much everyone on here has one and you are welcome to yours. You avoid discussing the fact that you quickly jumped to the worst possible conclusion to support your agenda by quibbling over the word agenda. Whatever.

You don't even know if something was wrong here. If the original note is legitimate (And I don't give a rats a$$ whether it is or not) then it doesn't seem like detainee #75 feels too unfairly treated. Maybe he knows he did something to deserve the treatment he received? Who knows? The blurb on sullivan's site is quoted here in its entirety so I think it is safe to say that not much is known about what happened by those who wrote it.

So, you jump to the conclusion that our guys basically jumped on a defenseless prisoner and broke his back. If they did, I would quickly forgive them. Why? Because the stresses that this sort of service puts people under can lead to lapses in judgement that to me are very forgivable. I am just glad that I have never had to perform such duties as many of our soldiers have. Until I know for a fact what happened I will reserve judgment.

I'm damn sure not going to jump on my high horse with some smart a$$ remark about torturing prisoners with a rolling eyes emoticon after it. To me it is opening fire. You can quibble that it is not opening fire if you must. Anyone can see that it is a pointed attack. Trounce the guys serving our country in your rush to lob another rock at the admin. Whatever floats your boat.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Why put out some fluff piece about how magnanimous we are and not tell the truth about how the detainee got that way to begin with? I think I know the answer.

If you knew half of what you thought you know you'd be dangerous. God forbid that you wait until you know more about what went on here before you open fire on those serving our country.

I am a firm believer in allowing anyone who wants to jump on their high horse about this sort of thing immediately be given the opportunity to go show them how it should be done live and in person.

No wait, lets just jump to the worst possible conclusion to satisfy our need to push an agenda.

I don't have an agenda, so lose your canned responses. Unless by "agenda", you mean, "sick to death of the administration's spin on this stuff." Then yeah, I have an agenda.

Second, neither I nor you have to be able to step in and do something "better" ourselves to be able to point out when something is wrong.

Third, I didn't "open fire" on anyone. Stop exaggerating what I said to make your response look better.

Canned response? Please!, you have been like a broken record lately with your griping about the war and attacks on Bush. That is an agenda. Pretty much everyone on here has one and you are welcome to yours. You avoid discussing the fact that you quickly jumped to the worst possible conclusion to support your agenda by quibbling over the word agenda. Whatever.

You don't even know if something was wrong here. If the original note is legitimate (And I don't give a rats a$$ whether it is or not) then it doesn't seem like detainee #75 feels too unfairly treated. Maybe he knows he did something to deserve the treatment he received? Who knows? The blurb on sullivan's site is quoted here in its entirety so I think it is safe to say that not much is known about what happened by those who wrote it.

So, you jump to the conclusion that our guys basically jumped on a defenseless prisoner and broke his back. If they did, I would quickly forgive them. Why? Because the stresses that this sort of service puts people under can lead to lapses in judgement that to me are very forgivable. I am just glad that I have never had to perform such duties as many of our soldiers have. Until I know for a fact what happened I will reserve judgment.

I'm damn sure not going to jump on my high horse with some smart a$$ remark about torturing prisoners with a rolling eyes emoticon after it. To me it is opening fire. You can quibble that it is not opening fire if you must. Anyone can see that it is a pointed attack. Trounce the guys serving our country in your rush to lob another rock at the admin. Whatever floats your boat.

AMEN.