« That Awkward Stage | Main | Fifty-Three Hours »

June 20, 2005



Just so I am clear, and to repeat the warning I gave to a mutual friend of ours, does this mean you approve of all actions taken at Guantanamo?

If yes, expect a full response from me.

If not, please explain what behaviors you find acceptable and what behaviors you find unacceptable in the treatement of the prisoners there.

Remember in your response, much is said of a society in how they treat those within their power, those with no recourse to any appeal.

Also remember in your response your outrage at how our own were treated, and how a nation of honor and men of honor behave.

I await your thoughtful reply.

Swamp Rat

I have family members who died at the hands of Nazis in their concentration camps. If there is a petition requesting Sen Dick "Head" Durbin resign, I'm going to be looking for it. I'm a serviceman, and I now consign myself to destroying the Democratic party by whatever legal means available. Piss on this turd.

Also, Any idiot comparing the prisoners at Guatanamo and the Gulags and concentration camps should be whacked upside the head with a tomahawk. Maybe I'm crazy, but Diseases like Typhus, Cholera, and dysentary are unknown at Camp X-Ray. Food is plentiful, Orange Chicken, Rice Pilaf, and fresh bread! By contrast, our troops eat MRE's. Try eating MRE's for a week and see what the true meaning of constipation is. Camp X-Ray prisoners are released often having gained weight. Contrast this with the skeletons at Dachau, Aushwitz, and Belzac, and more.

Jay G

One very simple point that I have rarely seen addressed re: comparisons of Nazi camps, Soviet gulags, et al and Gitmo is this:

The REAL gulags were filled with innocents; at best they were political prisoners, at worst they were simply the wrong religion/ethnicity/background/etc.

Gitmo is filled with murderous Islamofascist terrorists who have been captured on a field of battle while actively trying to kill US troops or interests.

That ALONE is a huge freakin' difference, folks. One we'd do quite well to remember.

Even if the prisoners at Gitmo *WERE* treated the same as the prisoners of the Nazis, it's at least a couple orders of magnitude less shocking and degrading.

Let's not forget that under the Geneva Convention, "unlawful combatants" (which the prisoners at Gitmo most certainly are) CAN BE SHOT ON SIGHT.


And it's complete and unmitigated BULLSHIT to say that opposing what Durbin says means you're 100% supportive of what's going on at Gitmo.

For the record, I am VERY opposed to what's going on at Gitmo. We're feeding and housing these bastards better than our own troops. We're bending over backwards to appease people who would MUCH rather be sawing our heads off and playing the video on Al Jazeera.

I'd MUCH rather see us handing the prisoners over to the good folks in the Mossad for "questioning" and then shot at sunrise as target practice for Marines.


Jack, I love you my brother, but I have to call a bit of B.S. on this one.

First, Swamp Rat and Jay G pretty much have nailed what would have been my response. Second, Durbin (in a mealy-mouthed, diverionary fashion), semi-apologized, admitting that he was wrong in comparing our soldier's conduct to anything having to do with the gulags, nazis or pol pot.

These men are not even legitamite P.O.W.s. They wore no uniform, nor fought under any flag. Check your Geneva and Hauge accords. They're not even "partisans", being foreign fighters on soil not of their homes. They are merely terrorists, mercenaries at best, period.

Many still assault their guards whenever possible. Our troops are jailing Satan himself, and you decry their history-making restraint, when all that's properly deserved after interrogation is a firing squad?

No, I don't believe in torture, either as an interrogation techinque nor as punishment.

But mark these words. The worst of what has happened at Gitmo falls far short of the definition of torture.

And Durbin's "memo" falls far short of proof.

Abu Grahib is a different story. Note that the Military had already been prosecuting those idiots, long before the media got it's slimy paws on the story.

Durbin remains guilty in my book of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He cannot undo his words, and ought to resign at once.

Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX



Jack, it's also bad form, and rude, to refer me to a "warning" you gave another blogger*, and then to use that threat to attempt to extort a reply from me.

Bad form, and rude....could it be you've been around to many Frenchmen? [/snark]

Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

* didn't even give a URL to point to the blogpost you'd mentioned?

(and yes, I edited my comment after I'd first posted it, to moderate it's intemperate tone)


Jay G - I couldn't have said it any better. You hit the nail on the head...and HARD. Talk about driving a point. ;)


Thoughtful reply? Who the hell needs to put any more thought into this topic? Who are the barbarians and why shoud we treat them with any pleasant rhetoric?


I'm sorry you felt it was bad form. You had no obligation to respond, and if you didn't (and you had not by the time I got so busy that I was unable to check for a few days) then I would NOT post my response. Obviously, I did not post a response because I had not heard from you, so where is the "blackmail"?

My question was to ensure I understood your meaning before I posted a response, because I did not want to put up an ill-tempered response if I had misunderstood your meaning.

As I said in my earlier comment, the honor of a person or a nation is shown by how that person or nation treats those in its power. The *reason* we have courts and other checks and balances is because our founders felt it was important to make a nation of laws, not a nation ruled by the arbitraty whims of men.

As I have said repeatedly on my weblog, setting up an extra-legal prison that is not open to easy inspection at all times, is contrary to those principles of rule of law, and as a consequence sets up a situation where abuses can occur and where accusations of abuses have credibility that they do not merit and would not have if the prison did not have such a "something is rotten in Denmark" air by being made extra-legal.

So, my question was, and is: is that what you want to defend?

Because that is what the other blogger you referred to defended in your original posts, and it is what it sounds like you defend.

In other words, "It's OK if we do whatever to those whom we capture, even it it's an innocent taxi driver in the wrong place at the wrong time."

In other words, as long as they are not an American citizen, we can treat the rest of the world however we want.

Not only "enemy combatants" have been kept in Guantanamo. Recall those who were released to the UK, and the UK did not hold them because there was no evidence against those men.

Are you saying that this is OK?

Are you saying that our nation of laws that proclaims we want to spread freedom throughout the world finds it acceptable to build a prison outside the reach of law with no system to review why those we hold there are held?

I am not saying release them all, what I am saying is that the situation as it is now is completely contrary to what we claim to believe in, what we claim to be defending.

If you and the "other blogger" you mention support this prison unquestioningly, as it appears you do, then I must wonder what principles you believe we are defending. The rule of law is fundamental, and just because the terrorists act outside the rule of law does NOT mean we must treat them outside the rule of law.

Otherwise, we have adopted the lawless attitude held by the terrorists. Adhering to some form of the rule of law with some form of review is absolutely necessary.

If you feel differently, then I am very sorry.

Swamp Rat

The only legalities required under the Geneva Convention that the left insist we adhere to while we fight armed insurrectionists with under no sovreign power, no recognized uniform, and no problem with murdering people, is a Military tribunal followed by execution. We did just this after the end of WWII to the SS Wolf Brigades still fighting years after. This was endorsed by the same party and liberal traitor scum who soil their panties when an air conditioner is left on, Rice Pilaf and chicken is served to these...sub-humans. Contrast this with the enemy we fight, who saw off their prisoners heads off with a knife. But what's the big deal?

There is no honor in war. War is hell. Famous warriors from Hannibal to Franks, people who know what the face of war is, have said this over and over again.

Whenever someone counsels restraint, honor, and that BS towards an enemy like the one I've described, makes me think that someone talking out of their ass nowadays is passed of as rightousness.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

The Armada

  • Light & dark blog design

  • Copyright SmokeontheWater, 2003/2004/2005
Blog powered by Typepad