A Deadly Kindness

[outsider]

Show you? Show me they're innocent.

It's the same dilemma. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt, because it's their right? Nope, I'm not willing to. I don't believe them.


http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof


Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

[Gred]

Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt, because it's their right? Nope, I'm not willing to. I don't believe them.

yes! go with your gut! what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/

[Armedmadillo]

Sure, then on the Flip side I present the Nick Berg Beheading video.

[GoodCitizenDan]

Alot of arguing with you guys, but not much digging for information apparently...

The guy who wrote the article is a quack. Here's an excerpt from another article he wrote:

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Shit, just look at the first line in his wiki entry...

Richard Miniter is a author and neoconservative commentator

WOW, YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!! A neoconservative commentator is suggesting that we are too kind to our detainees? I never would have guessed that!

Hogwash...

[outsider]

Sure, then on the Flip side I present the Nick Berg Beheading video.

Are those guys at Gitmo? Oh right, a distraction....

[Armedmadillo]

A distracting truth none the less.

[outsider]

A separate and unrelated truth that has nothing to do with prisoners who have never been tried for any charges against them and treated totally in line with the dictionary definition of torture:

torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish (http://dict.die.net/anguish/), torment (http://dict.die.net/torment/)]
2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment (http://dict.die.net/torment/)]
3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical
pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
[syn: agony (http://dict.die.net/agony/), torment (http://dict.die.net/torment/)]
4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean
something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion (http://dict.die.net/distortion/),
overrefinement (http://dict.die.net/overrefinement/), straining (http://dict.die.net/straining/), twisting (http://dict.die.net/twisting/)]
5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural
torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing (http://dict.die.net/torturing/)]
v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment (http://dict.die.net/torment/), excruciate (http://dict.die.net/excruciate/),
rack (http://dict.die.net/rack/)]
2: subject to torture [syn: excruciate (http://dict.die.net/excruciate/), torment (http://dict.die.net/torment/)]

Or in other words, the Nick Berg video has nothing to do with this op-ed piece

[Armedmadillo]

Oh I was just talking about the Nick Berg videos to show the Room & Board we can expect to deserve if caught in the Middle East. Whether we torture them or not here isnt up to me, its just an action or response Id say to show them we dont fuck around either. If organizations(terrorist) in the middle east justify capturing contractors, workers, etc and kill/torture them even though they have nothing to do directly with the occupying force, then sure as shit America isnt the only one doing it. The world is a fucked up place.

[Armedmadillo]

You guys are entitled to say and think whatever you want, we can all still be friends after. I just don't want people thinking that the United States is the only "Bad Guy" doing this stuff. Im just going to refuse to side with the Terrorists perspective on it, b.c their basis is those 2 steps more fucked up than ours.

[outsider]

The thing is, and many people miss this on purpose, is that when you act in the same manner or when you use another's actions to justify your own poor actions you are no better than who you denounce. In fact you are the same.

I certainly hold myself to a higher standard than making excuses to piss people off. Certainly I'm more honest about it as well.

[TheZenMan]

yes! go with your gut! what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/


Shut yer yap. I'm not a fucking federal judge.

I'm in a position to use my gut, I'm drawing my own conclusion based on what I see.
Go convince someone else they're a victim.

I build computers, I don't interrogate detainees, hold court, or decide who lives or dies.
If you don't like my opinion, fine. You know I won't lose any sleep over it.

[HaloGuardian]

Show you? Show me they're innocent.

It's the same dilemma. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt, because it's their right? Nope, I'm not willing to. I don't believe them.

Uhh innocent until PROVEN GUILTY?

[HaloGuardian]

You guys are entitled to say and think whatever you want, we can all still be friends after. I just don't want people thinking that the United States is the only "Bad Guy" doing this stuff. Im just going to refuse to side with the Terrorists perspective on it, b.c their basis is those 2 steps more fucked up than ours.

I will never defend another country or denounce another countries government because I DO NOT live there. I don't vote there, I don't visit there, I have no say over what they do. I live in the United States, I vote in the United States, therefore I feel it is my duty have strong opinions over what the government (who taxes me/has a say in anything I do/own) does. If they are doing something I feel is right, I will say so, if they aren't I will say so as well. The article posted really had no information in it except saying we need to be tougher to detainees and we shouldn't bitch about it, from what I read EVER. Seriously this guy doesn't give a shit about what happens to the detainees and it shows from his writing. These guys are not treated fairly plain and simple. Yay prison is great isn't it?!?!?! It's still prison, you are locked up, you can't leave. Many have never been convicted of any real crime! (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm)

Don't listen to me. Read it and research it for yourself. If you think it is OK to lock people up who aren't proven guilty of anything that is your decision, but don't claim I'm "PC" because I oppose it...

[HaloGuardian]

Oh I was just talking about the Nick Berg videos to show the Room & Board we can expect to deserve if caught in the Middle East. Whether we torture them or not here isnt up to me, its just an action or response Id say to show them we dont fuck around either. If organizations(terrorist) in the middle east justify capturing contractors, workers, etc and kill/torture them even though they have nothing to do directly with the occupying force, then sure as shit America isnt the only one doing it. The world is a fucked up place.

What does this have to do with anyone at Gitmo? And I agree with your last sentance...

[TheZenMan]

Uhh innocent until PROVEN GUILTY?


If that works for you, so be it.
But simply saying so, doesn't make it true.

Like I said, I'm not a judge or a lawyer, and I don't care about suspected terrorist's "rights".

I don't believe them when they say "I didn't do it." That's not good enough for me.
But I'm also not trying to prove anyone is guilty of anything, this is just my personal opinion.

You don't have to like it.

[outsider]

You make your decisions based on what you see.... only you purposefully filter what you see. You're a blind fool claiming to have perspective.

[Armedmadillo]

But it's the same way for you guys. You Filter everything to see the exact opposite of what we see. That in no way makes your side the "right side", it's only right in your perspective.

[Tex]

But it's the same way for you guys. You Filter everything to see the exact opposite of what we see. That in no way makes your side the "right side", it's only right in your perspective.

Well said. That's the way I view this issue. I choose to believe they're held because they're guilty of something. For people claiming they're innocent, a bunch were let go. So, that would lead a logical person to believe the ones still held are held for a reason. I don't think that's rushing to judgment on their guilt, but the fact they weren't released when countless others were does say something about this issue and leads to the assumption they might be a threat.

I have no reason to believe the government would keep these people locked up, devote military manpower to this operation, just because they like busting these Muslims' balls.

Why people choose to side with these people is beyond me, knowing a lot were released, which meant they weren't a threat, but to each his own. If none were released, I could see the other sides' point. But from where I'm sitting it's pretty moronic knowing what we've seen so far as it relates to the Muslims at Gitmo.

[Tex]

yes! go with your gut! what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/

On that note:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

"Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight
By John MintzWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

Another returned captive is an Afghan teenager who had spent two years at a special compound for young detainees at the military prison in Cuba, where he learned English, played sports and watched videos, informed sources said. U.S. officials believed they had persuaded him to abandon his life with the Taliban, but recently the young man, now 18, was recaptured with other Taliban fighters near Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to the sources, who asked for anonymity because they were discussing sensitive military information.

The cases demonstrate the difficulty Washington faces in deciding when alleged al Qaeda and Taliban detainees should be freed, amid pressure from foreign governments and human rights groups that have denounced U.S. officials for detaining the Guantanamo Bay captives for years without due-process rights, military officials said.

"Reports that former detainees have rejoined al Qaeda and the Taliban are evidence that these individuals are fanatical and particularly deceptive," said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico. "From the beginning, we have recognized that there are inherent risks in determining when an individual detainee no longer had to be held at Guantanamo Bay."

The latest case emerged two weeks ago when two Chinese engineers working on a dam project in Pakistan's lawless Waziristan region were kidnapped. The commander of a tribal militant group, Abdullah Mehsud, 29, told reporters by satellite phone that his followers were responsible for the abductions.

Mehsud said he spent two years at Guantanamo Bay after being captured in 2002 in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At the time he was carrying a false Afghan identity card, and while in custody he maintained the fiction that he was an innocent Afghan tribesman, he said. U.S. officials never realized he was a Pakistani with deep ties to militants in both countries, he added.

"I managed to keep my Pakistani identity hidden all these years," he told Gulf News in a recent interview. Since his return to Pakistan in March, Pakistani newspapers have written lengthy accounts of Mehsud's hair and looks, and the powerful appeal to militants of his fiery denunciations of the United States. "We would fight America and its allies," he said in one interview, "until the very end."

Last week Pakistani commandos freed one of the abducted Chinese engineers in a raid on a mud-walled compound in which five militants and the other hostage were killed.

The 10 or more returning militants are but a fraction of the 202 Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been returned to their homelands. Of that group, 146 were freed outright, and 56 were transferred to the custody of their home governments. Many of those men have since been freed.

Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy in the Defense Department who now teaches at Ohio State University, estimated that as many as 25 former detainees have taken up arms again. "You can't trust them when they say they're not terrorists," he said.

A U.S. defense official who helps oversee the prisoners added: "We could have said we'll accept no risks and refused to release anyone. But we've regarded that option as not humane, and not practical, and one that makes the U.S. government appear unreasonable."

Another former Guantanamo Bay prisoner was killed in southern Afghanistan last month after a shootout with Afghan forces. Maulvi Ghafar was a senior Taliban commander when he was captured in late 2001. No information has emerged about what he told interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, but in several cases U.S. officials have released detainees they knew to have served with the Taliban if they swore off violence in written agreements.

Returned to Afghanistan in February, Ghafar resumed his post as a top Taliban commander, and his forces ambushed and killed a U.N. engineer and three Afghan soldiers, Afghan officials said, according to news accounts.

A third released Taliban commander died in an ambush this summer. Mullah Shahzada, who apparently convinced U.S. officials that he had sworn off violence, rejoined the Taliban as soon as he was freed in mid-2003, sources with knowledge of his situation said.

The Afghan teenager who was recaptured recently had been kidnapped and possibly abused by the Taliban before he was apprehended the first time in 2001. After almost three years living with other young detainees in a seaside house at Guantanamo Bay, he was returned in January of this year to his country, where he was to be monitored by Afghan officials and private contractors. But the program failed and he fell back in with the Taliban, one source said.

"Someone dropped the ball in Afghanistan," the source said.
One former detainee who has not yet been able to take up arms is Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, a Dane who also signed a promise to renounce violence. But in recent months he has told Danish media that he considers the written oath "toilet paper," stated his plans to join the war in Chechnya and said Denmark's prime minister is a valid target for terrorists.

Human rights activists said the cases of unrepentant militants do not undercut their assertions that the United States is violating the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

"This doesn't alter the injustice, or support the administration's argument that setting aside their rights is justified," said Alistair Hodgett, a spokesman for Amnesty International."

So, 202 were released, and some have returned to being terrorists. My "gut" would tell me that since the government didn't see them as a threat, some have turned out to be, that just maybe the ones still being detained do pose a threat to our country. That's not jumping far outside the realm of logic.

What is taking a leap in logic, though, is thinking these are all just innocent Muslims being persecuted by the United States. :eyeroll:

[HaloGuardian]

Well said. That's the way I view this issue. I choose to believe they're held because they're guilty of something. For people claiming they're innocent, a bunch were let go. So, that would lead a logical person to believe the ones still held are held for a reason. I don't think that's rushing to judgment on their guilt, but the fact they weren't released when countless others were does say something about this issue and leads to the assumption they might be a threat.

I have no reason to believe the government would keep these people locked up, devote military manpower to this operation, just because they like busting these Muslims' balls.

Why people choose to side with these people is beyond me, knowing a lot were released, which meant they weren't a threat, but to each his own. If none were released, I could see the other sides' point. But from where I'm sitting it's pretty moronic knowing what we've seen so far as it relates to the Muslims at Gitmo.

So you think the government can detain anyone who they think is guilty of a crime?

Doesn't that seem a bit extreme?