Crowder Goes to Gitmo
BY: NCViking
The unofficial official comedian of The Great Illuminator has been conspicuously absent as of late, sorry for that. His latest installment is one where our favorite clown again spoofs the myths surrounding the prison on the military base in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) being a “dungeon of death and torture”. He has a lot of good points.
I have often railed against any use of torture as being unconservative and do not condone water boarding. I believe if we cannot hold true to the liberties we protect to get the info needed to protect us, then we should try that much harder to be better. Not doing so places us on quite a slippery slope. Short cuts at the expense of humanity are not acceptable. That being said, the experiment at Gitmo has been one with vastly more positives than negatives. It is an ideal place to house enemy combatants and terrorists in this new war without borders. For those who feel the War on Terror … sorry, “The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative” is just a law enforcement issue, I guess it makes sense to close the base and move these monsters to U.S. courts, even U.S. prisons. But it is not a law enforcement only issue. It is a unique war, not on just criminal activities like the war on drugs or the mob, but on soldiers in a borderless army bound to destroy America and other western countries and to kill as many westerners as possible in the process. Oh, and if anyone has forgotten, this army killed 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11; carnage Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union … no past enemy has equaled on our soil.
The military is squarely involved in this threat to America as well as intelligence and law enforcement. Gitmo is an excellent compromise to this unique situation that will only be truly understood for its brilliance by history after the veil of politics is lifted. Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to have a trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees in New York is rightfully stimulating controversy and uneasiness even within the administration. These efforts and games to marginalize the War on Terror could be quite dangerous for Americans and others around the world in the future. And if KSM gets off on legal technicalities? I shudder at the thought …
Here is the new Crowder video:
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
Awesome post! Keep up the excellent work!!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange???
Waterboarding and any other enhanced interrogation tactic is much better than the alternatives used by the enemy (you know, beatings, burnings, beheadings, and the such.)
I’ve got an idea, how ’bout let’s waterboard Eric Holder for ignoring the danger of these terrorist loons on American soil.
Crowder gets it wrong again!
It is clear to any reader that articles about enhanced interrogation techniques and America’s right to use it aren’t asking whether the sell ice cream in Cuba, as Crowder tries to tell us.
What they are asking is whether, in some cell somewhere around the world, maybe at gitmo itself, is or has the US tortured.
You will no doubt chafe at the word torture, so we can call it enhanced techniques, or as Jon Steward would call it, Freedom Tickle. Some authors on this blog have made two sets of arguments: (1) it was used in a few select cases (which is tantamount to admitting it is used), or (2) the enemy uses far worse techniques, so it’s all good.
I’ll tell you what I think:
- We are Americans
- We have (or should have) standards that are far greater than any one else on the planet
- We have an image to keep up; we tarnished it my lowering our standards to the level of torture
- Worse, torture is the greatest recruiting tool used to radicalize young men into becoming suicide bombers
I don’t care if you disagree. I care only about what that horrendous policy has done to damage America’s reputation. DO we have to stoop to the level of a country like Vietnam or Pakistan?
Yeah Crowder, ice cream in Cuba, so great video, not!
From the reports I have read and seen, waterboarding itself has been used three times. This is not torture, just another tactic to extract information. Personally I don’t care what the enemy does and I’m fine with whatever it takes to save American lives.
America is damaged much more by taking even a threat of interrogation off the table. Those radical young men would be recruited no matter what as they are taught to hate from an early age. Just look at the horrendous cartoons coming out of these sectors calling for young men to become martyrs for the cause by blowing themselves up and killing the infidels (that’s not only the Jews, but you and me.)
Gitmo has been the dog to be beaten because some on the left see it as a liability. The video shows that this is not a dark dank torture chamber but a detention facility for the worse of the worse that we don’t want in our country. I, on the other hand, see Gitmo as an asset. I believe having a place to house these
terrorists, sorry, enemy combatants, is essential. Besides, these guys are treated like kings, so to speak, in Cuba.I just can’t wait to see these wastes of oxygen in our wonderful socialist state of Illinois. Should be a great party!
This blog entry, and the one on Hasan, shows the stark conflict of cultures. There is horrible misunderstandings on both sides. On one side there are predators. On the other, their fiercest weapons: suicide bombers who bring terror to the streets of Iraq or Israel. In some places going out to the market is dangerous.
A reasonable question is how do we end the cycle of violence and mistrust? Do we bomb them until they see the virtues of Christianity? Do we bomb everyone and anyone on the theory that 96 innocent deaths and 4 jihadist deaths will surely bring peace and stability?
We are creating more jihadists, not less. Crowder’s video shows nothing about Gitmo, absolutely nothing. To draw the closest parallel, it would be like showing the mess hall at Abu Ghraib for the soldiers. It does not show the reality: nude, exposed prisoners with electric wires connected to a nearby battery. No one would be fooled by the Abu Gharib; no one is fooled by the reality of Gitmo.
You think closing Gitmo is all about abandoning the war on terror. It is instead strategic and thoughtful decision. Why continue to fester a sore point when you can keep these guys in jail and win the PR battle.
I am really surprised, other than your continual infatuation with the left-is-doing-this-and-that, that you chose to not understand the strategic significance.
It reminds me of the US problem with the recognition of China. Any talk by anyone on reaching out to China was like touching the third rail of international politics. Until, that is, Nixon/Kissinger – conservative credentials in hand – achieved through secret negotiations what was otherwise impossible in American politics.
The strategic significance of the China card led to the evolution of China from the backwater to prominence.
We can discuss how this war can be won, and it can be. But covering up a festering with joyful noises of ice cream and baseball only play to the converted. This video, and this blog entry plays only to the true believers. It is like talking to the mirror, if that’s what you like to do.
Although I can not see the video from my desk here at work (I will await to enjoy it at home), I feel compelled to weigh in a bit.
First, the dirty little secret about waterboarding is that it worked. Being better than the rest of the world did not change because three individuals spilled the beans faster than others did.
Second, waterboarding leaves no temporary or permanent damage (fingers are not broken, skin is not singed, limbs are not severed, etc.), unless you consider the shame of giving up information on your terrorist friends a bad thing.
Each case was approved at the highest levels, so it is not used indiscriminately either. It was not used for pleasure or revenge, but used judiciously on individuals who did not give up information utilizing other methods.
It is easy to sit in our comfortable living rooms typing on our laptops while watching one of many shows on TV, and then complain that those on the front lines protecting us from those who would cut off our heads and pour boiling oil down our necks are “torturing”.
Next, before the first person was waterboarded, before the first American stepped foot into Abu Gharib, before Bush was even in office, Americans were targeted for death. The attack on 9/11 was in motion before Clinton even left office, before the US invaded Iraq under Bush II, and before Guantanamo Bay was known as Gitmo. Are we making more terrorists? That is an assertion without any evidence to back it up. It is anecdotal to its very core.
Windy, so is closing Gitmo strategic or not?
We can have a discussion on whether closing the prison at Gitmo is strategic, or we can have a completely different discussion on torture limits. The two are entirely different subjects.
I’d rather you stayed on topic: if it is not strategic and advantageous then describe why not.
Obama’s decision to close Gitmo was a strategy, but not strategic. What does that have to do with the price of soup in Dallas?
Hey man, you brought up the “creation of more jihadists” and all of that, utilizing reasons for why it happened. I responded to you.
Now you are coming on board! Obama’s decision to close gitmo was strategic. Even if you want to begrudgingly call it strategy instead of strategic, there is not one without the other. Admission is such a cleansing experience.
And what does it have to do with anything? Unless you are dense, it doesn’t take a lot of smarts to see how Obama has both retained the prisoners and yet won the PR battle over the taint of gitmo.
He essentially can have his cake, and eat it to, to quote an expression.
While you gents can only think of ice cream, Obama is busy fixing the problems created in the last 8 years.
It could be a strategy to shoot oneself in the foot over and over again.
Nice try, but the only problem that Obama is fixing is how to make everything all about him.
What on earth does that response mean? It doesn’t even make sense. Suddenly, according to you, and only you, closing gitmo is about Obama?
Makes no sense whatsoever.
My fault, I was answering multiple questions in a single response and was not clear.
First, just because someone has a strategy, does not mean they are being wise or strategic. I think closing Gitmo does have a lot more to do with domestic politics than it does with a strategy in the
WOTOCP.Second, the problems Obama is “fixing” has to do with your comment about fixing stuff over the last eight years, to which my reply is that Obama makes every problem all about him. That is not all me, but most people see him as a self-centered narcisist.
But you bring up a good point, Obama does see that the closing of Gitmo is about him: his post-American Presidency, his anti-Bush policies. Now he gets to conduct his show trial where he can put the Bush Administration in the defendent’s seat. Look at me, I am not Bush!
It is quite interesting the inherent logical contradiction in your reply. It is a comment that is used across all conservative talking heads. I’ll explain below.
By the way, I have no idea what WOT OCP means.
I think we all fully understand that the US has a PR problem with Gitmo and with secret CIA jails. Conservatives in Western nations, want to minimize the issue (“KSM was only water boarded 3 times, water boarding isn’t torture (it’s fun), and plus it worked”). Let’s assume you are 100% correct. Muslims exaggerate the facts, claiming they are all tortured all the time.
In the middle are people like me who are uncomfortable with America’s slide into torture and snooping.
The fact remains that there is a PR problem. America has two choices: ignore the problem, or move past it.
You choose. If you choose to ignore the problem (we ain’t moving Gitmo for nothing), then you are choosing the course of action which is the exact opposite of General Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations. His recommendation is to create a Muslim friendly outreach to separate mainstream Muslim’s from radicals.
So the decision to close Gitmo comes from a long (very long) line of expert thinking that combines elements of outreach with resolving the PR problem, while at the same time keeping the worst of the worse in prison, for a very long time.
It is a very wise decision and one that fits well with General Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations.
None of this has anything to do with being narcissist. Even the trials.
We are digressing from the original topic, going into trials, but you’ve raised it. If Bush is on trial then America is on trial. I don’t believe for one minute, despite some assertions by right wing media, that Obama hates America. He is American, and he wants America strengthened. His point of view is solution oriented, as we have seen with the Gitmo closing, than right wing talking heads.
You can view the trial as a trial of Muslim extremists. Evidence will show how brutal they are, how they kidnap and brainwash children, and how they planned mass murder. It will shine a light on AQ in the world stage.
Finally, the contradiction. Your view, as expressed in your reply, is defend Bush. It has turned into a cult of personalities: can’t touch Bush, can’t put Bush on trial, can’t damage the Bush reputation. And you call Obama narcissist?
We need to move forward. We cannot move forward by placing Bush on trial, or keeping Gitmo as an international sore spot. We just need to move forward.
My conclusion is that you guys can’t seem to see the strategic value in the gitmo closing. And ice cream at Guantanamo is laughable.
Just a quick chime in on a very busy work day …
The WOT is a military, intelligence and law enforcement effort. I do agree with Mike on the issue of waterboarding and torture. This was unacceptable, in my conservative opinion, and should not be repeated. That being said, Gitmo was a brilliant strategic decision by the Bush administration. It is basically a cross between a prisoner of war camp and a prison. It is not on American soil, but on a military base. These individuals, many picked up on the battlefield, do not belong on American soil and should not be afforded the American judicial system. Hybrid military tribunals are what are appropriate. The previous administration went to great lengths to figure this out for a very, very unique historical threat.
Obama is playing politics, so are Democrats and some Republicans in congress. Gitmo’s PR is only an issue with liberals and Euro-snobs. Al Qaeda and their ilk killed westerners en masse before it and will do so after Obama dismantles it. No matter what, they use anything to spin their hate-web up to and including making things up. Can’t stop this. They can easily say that the United States is now scattering and burying Muslims in America in order to torture them, drink their blood and harvest their organs outside of the view of international observers. Any garbage about Gitmo being a hell-hole (which Crowder dismisses with humor) or the alternative is equally BS. Obama’s decision to close it and his/Holder’s decision to selectively move trials to the U.S. judicial system was ignorant. We need to walk the walk and talk the talk of American liberty, freedom and exceptionalism, not apologize for it or make decisions just to somehow make us look good. Doing what is right, just and in the best interests of the American people is what’s most important, not politics. Especially when dealing with a threat that has the capacity to murder thousands of Americans here at home in the name of war.
I can agree with Viking that gitmo was brilliant – military base, outside the US. It is important to note that German war prisoners were kept in the US as military POWs without any legal trouble.
That said, the question of closing gitmo comes down to a stark choice. From your point of view, closing gitmo is playing politics. The only reason to keep it is to play politics with the issue, just on the defense side.
To close it, it follows the strategic thinking of many that say we don’t need more PR issues. It also happens to meet General Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations.
You dismissed it by ignoring it, but how do you pacify Afghanistan when gitmo is a PR problem?
Bottom line, who cares if gitmo is closed. A lot of bits are being used over a decision that ultimately doesn’t matter: the worst-of-the-worst aren’t being released. Why then keep the pr sore point?
And I’ll answer those who answer these points.
I am sure Afghans are not being recruited by AQ because of the existence of Gitmo. Gitmo isn’t an internment camp for Afghan citizens, it’s a prison for the worst of the worst terrorists around the globe. You are comparing apples to oranges. McChrystal wants to work with the Afghan people on the ground, stifle corruption that is alienating citizens and shift the strategy to protecting the populous.
Everyone cares about Gitmo closing. Congresspeople that had called for its closing for political reasons balk when those horrible people are considered for prisons in their state or district. Not in my backyard. Leave Gitmo as it is.
Viking,
Gitmo has had many innocent Afghans imprisoned, many of whom have been sent back. So long as gitmo makes the US look as it is in a war on Islam it will be a recruitment tool for AQ.
As for McChrystal, the Afghans that he wants to work with do not live in total isolation. Gitmo, and torture, are part of news shared across the world.
It is a congressman’s job to use politics (see definition of congressmen) but that does not add or remove from the strategic importance of closing Gitmo.
I’ve given you several reasons why closing gitmo is strategic. Your reply: other people are playing politics. According to you, that is the sole reason to keep it as is – just because Bush did it — as a testament to a federal program that must now exist as it was for ever.
You can’t come up with a single reason to keep gitmo other than Bush, brilliant, 8 years ago. According to you, no one can ever move forward, no matter how much it hurts America.
Yeah, right.
What are you talking about? Selective reading. Quote: “The WOT is a military, intelligence and law enforcement effort. [Gitmo] is basically a cross between a prisoner of war camp and a prison. It is not on American soil, but on a military base. These individuals, many picked up on the battlefield, do not belong on American soil and should not be afforded the American judicial system. Hybrid military tribunals are what are appropriate.” This is why Gitmo makes sense, ‘Folsom Prison‘ does not, though it is a great song.
As for closing Gitmo for PR reasons – it’s a cop out. Doing so will not win over any Afghans.
I know what WOT is, and it isn’t infinite war. It isn’t an infinite commitment to spend US dollars. It should have been wrapped up long before we spent $3T dollars.
You say that WOT requires Gitmo – never mind the consequences to the military, to foreign policy, to our efforts in Afghanistan. The end of Gitmo as a WOT prison is coming, just as the end of Abu Gharib. I gave you the reasons why it is strategic.
You will never, no matter the reasons given, agree with General McChrystal or me. You just want to defend Bush/Cheney’s policies. Playing politics lately?
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 32 minutes, 25 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags