Chefelf.com Night Life: David Hicks - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (9 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

David Hicks Or, "Why Australia should ditch Howard and bomb DC"

#1 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 June 2007 - 04:07 AM

This is an excerpt from page 7 of a much longer news story about the vice president's fetish for torturing people and keeping them indefinately imprisoned. There are good points where its shown that the vast majority of people in the US government are apauled by Cheney and his friends, but the people who stand up to him somehow just get pushed aside or ordered to stand down, and then his "lets torture people" legislation is passed anyhow.

But the part that I find might be of particular interest, and perhaps spur Barend into leveling the fucking whitehouse with the power of his post count, was this little gem:

QUOTE
Air Force Two touched down in Sydney this past Feb. 24. Cheney had come to discuss Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard brought the conversation around to an Australian citizen who had unexpectedly become a political threat. Under pressure at home, Howard said he told Cheney that there must be a trial "with no further delay" for David Hicks, 31, who was beginning his sixth year at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay. Five days later, Hicks was indicted as a war criminal. On March 26, he pleaded guilty to providing "material support" for terrorism. At every stage since his capture, in a taxi bound for the Afghan-Pakistan border, Hicks had crossed a legal landscape that Cheney did more than anyone to reshape. He was Detainee 002 at Guantanamo Bay, arriving on opening day at an asserted no man's land beyond the reach of sovereign law. Interrogators questioned him under guidelines that gave legal cover to the infliction of pain and fear -- and, according to an affidavit filed by British lawyer Steven Grosz, Hicks was subjected to beatings, sodomy with a foreign object, sensory deprivation, disorienting drugs and prolonged shackling in painful positions.

The U.S. government denied those claims, and before accepting Hicks's guilty plea it required him to affirm that he had "never been illegally treated." But the tribunal's rules, written under principles Cheney advanced, would have allowed the Australian's conviction with evidence obtained entirely by "cruel, inhuman or degrading" techniques.

Shortly after Cheney returned from Australia, the Hicks case died with a whimper. The U.S. government abruptly shifted its stance in plea negotiations, dropping the sentence it offered from 20 years in prison to nine months if Hicks would say that he was guilty.


I love how his lawyers file affidavits describing his interrogators sodomizing him, and then the government tells him to get released all he need do is admit to being a filthy terrorist and say that they never tortured him. What the fuck kind of doublespeak is that. If you torture someone enough that they'll admit guilt AND say you never tortured them, then the whole world can be fucking sure you tortured them. You're not covering your ass, you're admitting guilt to this man's countrymen and to your own.

To any Aussie on these forums I apologize on behalf of my idiotic and evil government, and I look forward to the day that Howard is removed from office and someone is put at the head of your government who has a very keen interest in capturing and holding members of this administration "under guidelines that gave legal cover to the infliction of pain and fear" And fucking lots of it.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 25 June 2007 - 04:10 AM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#2 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 June 2007 - 11:19 AM

On one hand if you take prisoners of war you cannot interrogate them properly because it is against the Geneva Convention to use any kind of torture, on the other hand you cannot execute prisoners of war because that it is also against the Geneva Convention. Kind of stupid really, I can see why no one follows it.
0

#3 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 June 2007 - 03:11 PM

Cobnat, your attempts at Machiavellian thought might actually be conceived as ruthless and efficient if it weren't for how completely stupid the idea is. Aside from the moral problems of kidnapping people from all over the world and randomly torturing them, there are other troubles as well.

When we went to Iraq it was partly because the government wanted Khaleid Sheikh Muhammed to say Iraq had WMD and links to Qaeda. So they tortured him til he said so. You don't get reliable information from torture, you get what you want to hear.

Also, you open up your own soldiers and citizens to whatever treatment any country wants to subject them to. And you have to look at it as a matter of what you have to lose. You torture a guy whose only crime was camping out with some Muslims like Hicks, you're going to learn about the time Al Zawahiri dropped his marshmellows in the fire. You torture a US soldier you learn about his base, his unit, supply lines, etc etc.

The US plan is far more rigid and far reaching than the cell based nature of the terrorists. They stand to gain more by torture than we do, and if they want to shove a cattle prod up someone's arse we have no excuse telling them not to after doing the same thing.

The other problem is that the majority of these people as has been shown time and again are innocent. One of them was an FBI agent. But if you torture them enough they're going to admit guilt, and then you bring it to trial, etc etc and it clogs up your legal system with bogus cases while making your country look evil to the rest of the world thus dropping such diverse elements as tourism and national cooperation in our plans.

The FBI has consistently found that building a rapport with detainees will not only produce better intelligence, but ties up fewer resources (like light bulbs and car batteries) and personnel. The reason this administration still wants torture allowed is because they live off in a fantasy world like 24 where every day there is an imminent terrorist thread (CODE ORANGE, HOLY FUCK!) and everyone we capture from Saddam Hussein to some grandmother in Afghanistan has operational knowledge of it, and therefore needs to be sodomized until they reveal it.

Even by purely Machiavellian views torture is unnacceptable. How long do you think Australia is going to help us butcher Iraqi kids after we've basically admitted that we like to beat and shackle their nationals for no good reason until they admit guilt?

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#4 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 08:17 AM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 25 2007, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Cobnat, your attempts at Machiavellian thought might actually be conceived as ruthless and efficient if it weren't for how completely stupid the idea is. Aside from the moral problems of kidnapping people from all over the world and randomly torturing them, there are other troubles as well.


You miss understood me Jimmy boy, I was merely making a point that you cant do anything reasonable with prisoners of war that would not constitute a war crime. I mean if I was in charge of the US army I would order soldiers to shoot “terrorists” on site if they surrendered, I would be an idiot if I start paying for food and clothes for the prisoners and not get any information in return.

All this prisoner taking has obviously been very bad for the US, I can only wonder how much their reputation has fallen and how little information they have gotten, since I doubt the Al Qaeda or Taliban high ranking officers tell their grunts anything important anyway.

And before you start calling me stupid or evil, ask yourself if you wouldn’t do the same if you were at war with Christians or Capitalists.
0

#5 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 June 2007 - 10:00 AM

The best argument against torture besides the obvious "it's really fucking evil" is that it rarely produces any truly useful information. As an actual intelligence gathering tool, its success rate is dismal. At the end of the day, it exists just to make someone suffer, so people trying to dress it up as something that actually serves a purpose are spewing total BS.
0

#6 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 June 2007 - 01:42 PM

Cobnat- Did you bother to read my post? You get better information by conforming to the Geneva conventions than you do by torturing people. I said it, the FBI says it, Geneva said it, and MPAoF said it. Taking no prisoners is nonsense. If you can't take someone prisoner you take their weapons and equipment and let them go, that's how guerilla warfare is waged except against certain groups: For instance in the Sierra campaign Castro would let any soldier he captured go except those wanted for war crimes, or land owners. They would be tried and then either executed or released.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#7 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:54 PM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 26 2007, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Cobnat- Did you bother to read my post? You get better information by conforming to the Geneva conventions than you do by torturing people. I said it, the FBI says it, Geneva said it, and MPAoF said it. Taking no prisoners is nonsense. If you can't take someone prisoner you take their weapons and equipment and let them go, that's how guerilla warfare is waged except against certain groups: For instance in the Sierra campaign Castro would let any soldier he captured go except those wanted for war crimes, or land owners. They would be tried and then either executed or released.


So unlike me you don’t agree with killing all combatants but you do agree with killing non-combatants… that is just plain wrong.

Oh and by land-owners I am sure you mean political opponents.

Che:

http://www.independe...l.asp?id=85#477

http://www.awkwardut...d-the-pop-icon/

http://www.frontpage...le.asp?ID=19823

Castro:

http://www.frontpage...le.asp?ID=18739

I have more links but I think 4 is enough.

I hear your argument now “The ends justify the means”.
0

#8 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 June 2007 - 09:24 PM

Cobnat: You're trying to shift the point, and its just not going to happen. Quote all the right wing crap you want. I love the title "Left wing monsters series" it just sounds so fair and unbiased, a perfect source.

The point is that even such a "monster: as President Castro did not imprison people indefinately without trial, torture prisoners or as you suggest "take no prisoners" Taking no prisoners is ill advised because it gives your enemy reason to fight. When you make it clear that your enemies can surrender without fear of murder or torture, they will give up very easily, especially in a guerilla war where those who arent guilty of war crimes will just be caught and released, and their weapons are well needed by the freedom fighters anyhow. If those soldiers think they'll die anyways they're going to fight to the last just in order to have a chance. Basic logic.

There was some fifteen year old kid fighting in Afghanistan. They bombed his position and then sent soldiers in, and rather than surrendering he detonated a hand grenade heroicly killing a few of them. You want to know why those men died? Because that kid would rather sacrifice the next forty or fifty years of his life than spend time in Guantanamo. If we had a decent human rights record and any kind of real trial system in place, those soldiers would probably still be alive. I think what he did was one hundred percent the right choice. If anyone ever comes into a situation of being captured by these pigs they owe it to human dignity to die free and take as many of them along as possible.

You try to sound like some kind of hard ass, much like Cheney does, but you don't have the basic understanding of how warfare works on the ground and you don't seem to realize that these supposedly bad ass policies will just end up working against you.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 26 June 2007 - 09:34 PM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#9 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 10:00 PM

I am not going to argue about Castro’s strategies with you since it is already stated in the articles that he did not take prisoners. Nor am I going to comment on the inability to find a non-bias website on the web.

I am going to say this: I have just realised that my idea “kill all prisoners” and your idea “convert all prisoners” are both utterly stupid. The greatest strategy ever was done by the one and only: Genghis Khan Temujin, in which when he came in contact with an army or city he would give them a choice to surrender, if they did he would take some resources and move on but if they didn’t he would slaughtered all the army and towns folk, sure its not “humane” but it is effective (as history shows) and according to you that makes it ok.
0

#10 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 June 2007 - 10:16 PM

Ok, Cobnat. When you're looking for factual sources, make sure the fucking article isn't titled "Che Guevara, Part Time Child Molester" or whatever these right wing nut wads call their spiehls. How do you even consider that these are effectual sources when the title of the article makes it very clear that they want to prove a pre determined and fairly passionately held belief? These OPINIONS are the basis for debate, not information to add to an existing debate, which I might add has nothing to do with Dr. Guevara or President Castro, except that it's happening on their nation's rightful territory. I will not even address the nonsense you posted or your attempts to steer the debate off course by once again involving President Castro. You did it in the Kosovo article and it was vaguely topical, but it's not happening here too.

QUOTE
and your idea “convert all prisoners”


I don't believe I ever said that. You dont have to turn someone to your side just to talk to their captors and give information.

QUOTE
and according to you that makes it ok.


And according to you, you have a big butt, and your butt smells, and you like to smell your own butt. See, it's really fun to attribute statements to someone.

Anyhow, I never engendered myself to such utilitarian theorem. What I was stressing was that torture neither works in a moral way or in a purely pragmatic way.

There are indeed cases where torture could be used. If a bomb was about to go off in a major city and we needed to know which one it was, then I could forgive agents of the government for BREAKING THE LAW and doing something to make a detainee talk. That's not how it is anymore though. This situation is no longer the exception, but the rule. It's now legal to torture people. How long is it before this concept and logic is applied to civil law as well as international? It's already been done to American citizens.

How long is it before Bush points out that if some crazy kidnapped a girl, and we had to find out where she was before she died, we should torture him, and therefore torture is legal in all situations?

It doesn't make sense. As I said, that extremely hypothetical situation would be an exception, and a judge or law enforcement authorities could decide not to press charges against anyone going a bit overboard on the suspect if it did indeed save a life. But to make that exception the rule means that it isn't just going to be the terrorist with knowledge of an imminent strike, or the man holding a child captive somewhere inches from her doom. It's anyone, anywhere.

And you think it 's just peachy for a government as corrupt and I believe I can freely use the word evil, you believe it's ok for a regime like this that treats America more as a kingdom than a democracy, to have the power to kidnap, torture, and indefinately imprison people? How long is it before lettre de cachets start popping up for other people stateside?

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#11 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 31 July 2007 - 10:29 PM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 27 2007, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And you think it 's just peachy for a government as corrupt and I believe I can freely use the word evil, you believe it's ok for a regime like this that treats America more as a kingdom than a democracy, to have the power to kidnap, torture, and indefinately imprison people? How long is it before lettre de cachets start popping up for other people stateside?


[sarcasm]
Because obviously I have blindly advocated the actions of the United States Government.
[/sarcasm]

I want you to think for a second, just for a second: If you were out in a battlefield and you lost several of your friends to the enemy and you have also witnessed the aftermath of enemy atrocities against civilian populations, would you really take prisoners?

Although here is not much point in asking since I doubt you have actually been through war.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 31 July 2007 - 10:31 PM

0

#12 User is offline   Bond Icon

  • Agent 007
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Limited Members
  • Posts: 295
  • Joined: 13-July 07
  • Location:Her Majesty's Secret Service
  • Interests:James Bond, Star Wars, Harry Potter
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2007 - 10:34 PM

All right, calm down, everyone; this is getting out of hand... sad.gif
IPB Image

You only live twice:
Once when you're born
And once when you look death in the face.

--Ian Fleming
0

#13 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2007 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE
I want you to think for a second, just for a second: If you were out in a battlefield and you lost several of your friends to the enemy and you have also witnessed the aftermath of enemy atrocities against civilian populations, would you really take prisoners?

Although here is not much point in asking since I doubt you have actually been through war.


BLABLABLA When you stick your hand in a puddle of goo that used to be your best friend BLABLABLA and drink the blood of the communist on the end of your bayonnet BLABLABLA You dont know what horror is BLABLABLA

Did you suddenly become a grizzled former POW from the Vietnam war or something?

Wait, don't answer that, I don't care.

Whatever all that was, it didn't answer my question. Do you believe that a regime like this should be allowed the power to indefinately detain people or torture them?

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#14 User is offline   Bond Icon

  • Agent 007
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Limited Members
  • Posts: 295
  • Joined: 13-July 07
  • Location:Her Majesty's Secret Service
  • Interests:James Bond, Star Wars, Harry Potter
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2007 - 11:51 PM

J m HofMarN, you seem so eager to do so that I'd like to pose you this: If you had the ability to take out Cheney and not get caught, would you? mellow.gif
IPB Image

You only live twice:
Once when you're born
And once when you look death in the face.

--Ian Fleming
0

#15 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 01 August 2007 - 12:46 AM

If Bush and his goon squad were swept from power, and somehow I ended up prosecuting the mountainous case against them, not only would I seek the death penalty, but I'd merrily lead the firing squad.

As for just walking up and shooting him, I'm going to have to say it would probably be a pass. Assassination is generally frowned upon by revolutionaries because the ruling class are all interchangeable. Knock off a Rumsfeld or a Cheney and there are two more power hungry rich white men waiting to fill the gap.

However, real leaders don't pop up that often. That's why the forces of oppression are more than happy to expend resources to murder people like X, Ahmed Yassin, Lumumba, Guevara, Allende, etc.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

  • (9 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size