Sunday, December 24, 2006

This is Happening

h/t Tom Tomorrow

After reading this, my suspicions of this administration only grow grimmer. Do you really believe they aren’t listening in on the telephone calls of other than suspected terrorists? Has there ever been another President in our nation’s history who cultivated such a disregard for basic human rights?

One night in mid-April, the steel door clanked shut on detainee No. 200343 at Camp Cropper, the United States military’s maximum-security detention site in Baghdad.

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.

The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

4 Swings of the bat:

Dad29 said...

How about a LOGICAL explanation..such as:

"An anonymous informant lied about Vance's activities in a phone call to military authorities. When asked for verification, the first informant told military authorities to inquire of a second informant.

"After some investigation, US authorities have now arrested both "informants" who were actually the weapons-traders named by Vance.

Although Ockham's Razor has some serious philosophical problems, the "consider the simplest answer first" suggestion is not without merit.

Vance had enemies who wanted him out of the way. That's simple.

"Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfield took turns listening to Vance's phone order to protect Halliburton's contracts in Iraq..." just a bit outlandish, no?

Other Side said...

Hi dad.

Your LOGICAL explanation admits to no guilt for this administration. In other words, it was perfectly okay for Vance (a U.S. citizen and Navy vet) to be treated as he was, because someone lied.

That same excuse is used for the false reasons for our entry into war with Iraq. When is this administration and its apologists ever going to take just a little responsibility for the mess we're in?

Dad29 said...

Look, OS, if I call the cops and tell them that you just nurdered my wife Iand she's dead, bullet-to-the-head) they're likely to bop over and take you into custody.

Under CIVIL law, (not MILITARY law) you have some rights--but they will interrogate you.

Now let's further assume that one of my chilluns corroborates my lie. Think that the cops are going to simply ask you "Did you do it?" and on your denial, say "So sorry!! Our Mistake!!" and let you wander off?

Think again.

And then there IS this little "military law" problem.

It is still a war zone. Shit happens. And OS, in the end, the guy was released, right? Unharmed, other than his "psychological damages," right?

Other Side said...

Yes, but 97 days!

The scariest thing is you are so quick to say "oops."

I wonder how you would feel if you had been the person stripped of your rights? It's easy when you ain't the one suffering.