AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[JMS]

The 12 year old was not fighting under any flag, he was fighting with insurants aka terrorists therefor he is not a POW.

Actually the Geneva convention says irregular militia who fight in a war zone are entitled to Convention protections. They also make special allowances for the treatment of children under the age of 14.

Again US Law.

Threatening the lives of children and executing terrorists are completely different. In the future I would advocate taking fewer prisoners because at this point we have people like you that put the feelings of these Muslim whack jobs in front of the lives of innocent Americans.

90% of which have no evidence against them and won't be charged for anything.

Pretty soon we are going to be required to put swimming pools and spas in prisons so the poor terrorists are comfortable.

Pretty soon we are going to be held acountable for international treaties we ratify and signinto law. Pretty soon we won't change 60 years of precident and law on the whims of our lowest common denominator legal opinions.

And idiots who think ultra harsh treatment of mostly innocent people somehow equates to military professionalism.

Your opinion comes across as very biased to me, but hey, thats what makes this country great.

I am biased. I'm biased in favor of the law, facts and precident. Which is better than being biased and relying on ignorance and misconception to inform ones opinion.

[JMS]

I said we should bring all that out and see it as opposed to this behind the scenes: You know they killed hundreds....

And the 183 was the amount of water.. he was waterboarded 5-8 times?

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

(1) we tried, convicted and executed (hung) Japanese soldiers who waterboarded our troops in WWII.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml

(2)

The Justice Department memo said the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53H0DG20090420?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known.

The release of the numbers is likely to become part of the debate about the morality and efficacy of interrogation methods that the Justice Department under the Bush administration declared legal even though the United States had historically treated them as torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html

From Aug 23 2009 - Aug 25th 2009 i heard the HIG has killed 4 detainees in Gitmo.

(man this is easy)

Yeah if your only news source is Fox news and you disregard law, history, reality, and every other news souce on the planet... Then it is easy.. Profesionals call that dilusional.

[DarkLadyRaven]

"Christian" Nation Bump

[Smoot Point Really]

Because the children should have armed themselves, before we threatened to kill them?

But Americans threatening other civilians, you're OK with that?

Your question is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the thread. It's a bit trollish for you to keep bringing up irrelevant questions when I've answered you already. I'll try to sum up everything that I've said, and then answer this question in a way that I hope will put the issue to bed for you.

1) I'm not fine with any Americans being threatened because I am an American. I would like to think you feel the same way.

2) Was the interrogator questioning an innocent child? From what I have heard, a terrorist was told that if another terrorist attack happens, his children would be killed/harmed. This could mean anything, really... it doesn't mean the American would actually pull the trigger... it could mean it would bring war to his country. The terrorist seemed fine with this. No children or civilians were directly threatened or harmed.

3) I'm fine with American soldiers using threats of this nature and testing interrogations methods on terrorist suspects. I just don't see why you feel that indirectly threatening the child of a terrorist is the same as directly threatening an innocent child. At least you seem to not be able to separate the two.

BTW, the Perry Mason routine has got to end... Why do you feel the need to badger people who disagree with you with crazy questions that always end in "AHA!" as if you've uncovered something? It's a bit tedious... predictable... boorish... It's like this in just about every thread.

[Bang]

Somehow a threat is as bad as the actual act, it seems.

It's no wonder the enemy thinks they can win. We will give them every reason to believe they can.

For those who try to equate this to how our police must follow our law when dealing with our citizens, for one thing they are completely allowed to lie, cajole, coerce, intimidate and outright frighten a suspect into confessing. I don't see where this is any different at all, except that these folks do not enjoy the rights of US citizens under the law. This is a military matter, not a police matter, and the rules for them are not the same as the rules for police.

In all honesty, I seriously think that some of you believe that simply asking a prisoner for the information will lead to success. Guess what. It won't.

And so long as all these guys are doing is threatening the families of the people we're at war with, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it. As I stated earlier. If anyone can prove we targeted the kids of these prisoners and followed through on a threat, then you've got something. But if it's just a threat used to coerce information, seriously, it's Standard Operating Procedure. Find a threat that works, and use it. Same as any cop in the US does to a suspect he's interrogating.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

We should just say please to them.

Or get out a feather duster and tickle their feet.

[Bang]

We should just say please to them.

Or get out a feather duster and tickle their feet.

Well, the foot tickling would definitely get my wife to talk.

~Bang

[Thiebear]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thiebear View Post

From Aug 23 2009 - Aug 25th 2009 i heard the HIG has killed 4 detainees in Gitmo.

(man this is easy)

JMS:

Yeah if your only news source is Fox news and you disregard law, history, reality, and every other news souce on the planet... Then it is easy.. Professionals call that delusional.

HEY: I made that up myself... i don't use the Fox Mainstream Media to form my delusions...

but didnt you use the same process in overdoing your numbers by 20-40x the real numbers?

[Larry]

1) I'm not fine with any Americans being threatened because I am an American. I would like to think you feel the same way.

But you are fine with other prople being threatened, by Americans. I've got it. I understand. It's OK for us to do something, it's not OK if somebody else does it to us.

2) Was the interrogator questioning an innocent child?

Was the interrogator threatening an innocent child?

Are you trying to claim that it's OK to threaten the life of a child, as long as the child isn't in the room?

3) I'm fine with American soldiers using threats of this nature and testing interrogations methods on terrorist suspects. I just don't see why you feel that indirectly threatening the child of a terrorist is the same as directly threatening an innocent child. At least you seem to not be able to separate the two.

Again, got it. It's OK for Americans to threaten the lives of children, it's not OK if anybody else does it. And somehow if the child isn't present in the room, that makes a difference, too.

BTW, the Perry Mason routine has got to end... Why do you feel the need to badger people who disagree with you with crazy questions that always end in "AHA!" as if you've uncovered something? It's a bit tedious... predictable... boorish... It's like this in just about every thread.

Whereas, the "when your position becomes impossible to defend rationally, then invent something fictional, claim the other guy said it, and announce how tired you are of these things you imagine" is a new, original, and refreshing form of debate.

[Larry]

Somehow a threat is as bad as the actual act, it seems.

50 bucks says you can't find a single poster who said that.

[helptheSKINS]

I really don't understand why so many people have an issue with enhanced interrogation. Using methods such as threatening a family or waterboarding is needed to get information about the enemy. It's been proven that it has worked but that get's tossed away as nonsense.

The people complaining about it appear to have no problem killing a terrorist in a fight but if one is captured we can't make verbal threats? How does that make sense? How does it make sense to do nothing more than ask nicely for information on future attacks? The CIA is trying to save American lives and we're worried about verbal threats.

I've made this argument before and NEVER got a good answer on this board. If a child of one of the posters here complaining about EI were to be kidnapped with his/her life in mortal danger, the same posters complaining about the CIA's techniques would do WHATEVER they had to do save their kids life. If they had someone whom they were pretty certain knew where their child was they would beat the hell out of the person until they got their answer. They wouldn't ask nicely and if they didn't get an answer continue to ask nicely and nothing else.

The CIA is doing everything they can to protect our soldiers and citizens. It's easy to complain about their techniques when you are not personally involved. I'd love to hear what techniques you would recommend to get information other than asking nicely. I'm not trying to be condescending, I truly do not understand how this line of thinking is logical.

[JMS]

I really don't understand why so many people have an issue with enhanced interrogation. Using methods such as threatening a family or waterboarding is needed to get information about the enemy. It's been proven that it has worked but that get's tossed away as nonsense.

Folks have a problem with it because it violates US law. It makes our soldiers less secure not more secure. And finally it doesn't work..

Give me a pliers and a few rusty nails and I can get you to confess to killing Abraham Lincoln.

Just like in the above NY Times Article we got three British Aid workers in Afghanistan to confess to being terrorists after years of torture and abuse. British intelligence proved they were innocent by proving they were in Britain when things they had confessed too had occured....

I've made this argument before and NEVER got a good answer on this board. If a child of one of the posters here complaining about EI were to be kidnapped with his/her life in mortal danger, the same posters complaining about the CIA's techniques would do WHATEVER they had to do save their kids life. If they had someone whom they were pretty certain knew where their child was they would beat the hell out of the person until they got their answer. They wouldn't ask nicely and if they didn't get an answer continue to ask nicely and nothing else.

So you are arguing we should make decisions on what is reasonalbe and just for unconvicted detanees most who we eventually released because we had no evidence against them, by asking what a desparate parent would do?

Not asking what is legal. Not asking what 60-70 years of precident says. What would the most desparate person you could think of do.. Let's do that!

The CIA is doing everything they can to protect our soldiers and citizens. It's easy to complain about their techniques when you are not personally involved. I'd love to hear what techniques you would recommend to get information other than asking nicely. I'm not trying to be condescending, I truly do not understand how this line of thinking is logical.

Again I've said it before and I'll say it again.... Your position is not the informed position of professionals. Your position is not the position of the US Military....

Every living member of the Joint Cheifs of staff both those appointed by Republicans and Democrates other than the guys appointed by George W. Bush signed a petition saying Bush's policies of weakening the Geneva Convention and torturing detainees was a mistake which made our troops and our country less safe not more safe.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf...ry-let-ca3.pdf

As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense,

we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act

of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would

redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the

Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat

to American service-members, now and in future wars.

1. Collin Powell
   
2. John Shalikashvili,
   
3. William Crowe,
   
4. John Vessey
   
5. Henry `Hugh" Shelton,
   

[JMS]

HEY: I made that up myself... i don't use the Fox Mainstream Media to form my delusions...

but didnt you use the same process in overdoing your numbers by 20-40x the real numbers?

Not sure, I seem to be using delusional a lot. I think I used it in another thread to someone quoting from the Herritage foundation that we needed to "shore up our national defense"..... It is a delusional position....

We currently outspend the next 100 greatest nations combined (520 billion roughly 2009 defense spending) and we need to borrow even more money from the Chinese to secure us from the massive Chinese defense budget of rougly less than 15% of ours (70 billion)?

As for Overdoing my numbers on deaths in us Custody, I said That more than 100 detanees have died in US custody from 2003-2005, and 43 of them were homicides? bellow is my source.

Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan From 2002 to 2005

Scott A. Allen, MD; Josiah D. Rich, MD, MPH; Robert C. Bux, MD; Bassina Farbenblum; Matthew Berns; Leonard Rubenstein

In light of the large number of detainees who continue to be taken and held in US custody in settings with limited judicial or public oversight, deaths of detainees warrant scrutiny. We have undertaken the task of reviewing all known detainee deaths between 2002 and early 2005 based on reports available in the public domain. Using documents obtained from the Department of Defense through a Freedom of Information Act request, combined with a review of anecdotal published press accounts, 112 cases of death of detainees in United States custody (105 in Iraq, 7 in Afghanistan) during the period from 2002 to early 2005 were identified. Homicide accounted for the largest number of deaths (43) followed by enemy mortar attacks against the detention facility (36). Deaths attributed to natural causes numbered 20. Nine were listed as unknown cause of death, and 4 were reported as accidental or natural. A clustering of 8 deaths ascribed to natural causes in Iraq in August 2003 raises questions about the adequacy and availability of medical care, as well as other conditions of confinement that may have had an impact on the mortality rate.

http://journal.medscape.com/viewarticle/547787

if that link doesn't work because you don't have a password, you google on [ deaths in us custody ]

then pick the third link.

Again this source ends 2005, I've seen more recent sources which put the actual number of deaths in US custody close to 180.

[Kilmer17]

"Was the interrogator threatening an innocent child?"

No he was threatening the parent. HUGE difference.

[helptheSKINS]

Folks have a problem with it because it violates US law. It makes our soldiers less secure not more secure. And finally it doesn't work..

Give me a pliers and a few rusty nails and I can get you to confess to killing Abraham Lincoln.

Just like in the above NY Times Article we got three British Aid workers in Afghanistan to confess to being terrorists after years of torture and abuse. British intelligence proved they were innocent by proving they were in Britain when things they had confessed too had occured....

So you are arguing we should make decisions on what is reasonalbe and just for unconvicted detanees most who we eventually released because we had no evidence against them, by asking what a desparate parent would do?

Not asking what is legal. Not asking what 60-70 years of precident says. What would the most desparate person you could think of do.. Let's do that!

Again I've said it before and I'll say it again.... Your position is not the informed position of professionals. Your position is not the position of the US Military....

Every living member of the Joint Cheifs of staff both those appointed by Republicans and Democrates other than the guys appointed by George W. Bush signed a petition saying Bush's policies of weakening the Geneva Convention and torturing detainees was a mistake which made our troops and our country less safe not more safe.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf...ry-let-ca3.pdf

1. Collin Powell
   
2. John Shalikashvili,
   
3. William Crowe,
   
4. John Vessey
   
5. Henry `Hugh" Shelton,
   

The problem with your argument is you don't mention the cases in which enhanced interrogation has directly lead to foiled terrorist attacks. It's odd that you and others dismiss that information but cut and paste articles supporting your argument. You also mention that we let them go because we have no evidence. Not every detainee was subjected to enhanced interrogation, those with deep, proven ties were. In fact, very few are.

You tried sliding by my "desperate parent" example because you know you can't answer it without contradicting your argument. A parent is responsible for keeping his child from predators, the CIA/Military is responsible for keeping US citizens safe from predators.

Here's an easier one for you: A terrorist plot that will take place within days has been outed and the CIA has one person in custody that likely knows the details (time and place).

Option A: You have asked the terrorist to give up the info but he won't budge. Time is getting short. Time to threaten his family, fake killing another terrorist, waterboard in order to get an answer. Knowing the information may not be accurate but doing nothing will definitely lead to Americans dying.

Option B: Continue to ask the terrorist to give up the information and nothing more.

Are you Jack Bauer or Nancy Pelosi?

[JMS]

The problem with your argument is you don't mention the cases in which enhanced interrogation has directly lead to foiled terrorist attacks.

Yes that's because the head of the FBI and Scottland yard says these cases don't exist....

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware' date=' have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: [b']“I don’t believe that has been the case.”[/b]

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4

At the F.B.I., says a seasoned counterterrorist agent, following false leads generated through torture has caused waste and exhaustion. “At least 30 percent of the F.B.I.’s time, maybe 50 percent, in counterterrorism has been spent chasing leads that were bull****.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4

But Dick Cheney has claimed they exist.

I'll leave it up to you to determine which is the more reliable source.

It's odd that you and others (FBI DIRECTOR MEULLER and Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard’s Anti-terrorist Branch) dismiss that information but cut and paste articles supporting your argument. You also mention that we let them go because we have no evidence. Not every detainee was subjected to enhanced interrogation, those with deep, proven ties were. In fact, very few are.

In fact we know one of the two guys (Abu Zubaydah) who were waterboarded 87 times over a month was himself mistakenly thought to be an Al Quada leader. Turned out he was a mentally ill foot soldier who gave up nothing in interogation cause he didn't know anything to give up. Not the #3 in charge of Al Quada the Administration presented him as when they captured him.

You tried sliding by my "desperate parent" example because you know you can't answer it without contradicting your argument.

Because it's a silly example which requires the most extreme distress of an individual to draw support for your position. I reject your premise that extreme distress somehow fosters more rational thought.

Here's an easier one for you: A terrorist plot that will take place within days has been outed and the CIA has one person in custody that likely knows the details (time and place).

Option A: You have asked the terrorist to give up the info but he won't budge. Time is getting short. Time to threaten his family, fake killing another terrorist, waterboard in order to get an answer. Knowing the information may not be accurate but doing nothing will definitely lead to Americans dying.

Option B: Continue to ask the terrorist to give up the information and nothing more.

Are you Jack Bauer or Nancy Pelosi?

Rather than drawing from fiction lets draw an example from reality..... You've paid the bounty of 5-10 years of an average afghanis salary in exchange for assitance in indiscrimnently rounding up all foreign nationals in Afghanistan. You capture three british nationals who claim to be aid workers in your net.

(a.) You torture them for four years until you get them to confess?

(b.) You pick up the telephone and call their aid organizatoin and throughly check out their story?

Are you George W. Bush or are you Rational?

[Bang]

50 bucks says you can't find a single poster who said that.

That would be why I included the phrase "it seems".

It certainly SEEMS as if people are as upset over this threat as if it were the actual act.

Fifty bucks says you know the difference between stating an impression and a statement of absolute fact.

Further, I think to argue against a threat to a prisoner like this is rather moronic, considering the entire act of war is to either kill or threaten to kill enough of the enemy and his people to make them capitulate.

~Bang

[JMS]

Further, I think to argue against a threat to a prisoner like this is rather moronic, considering the entire act of war is to either kill or threaten to kill enough of the enemy and his people to make them capitulate.

~Bang

Then Bang wouldn't you also propose taking Prisoners of War captive as "moronic" since you think the entire act of war is to kill or threaten to kill the enemy?

How about the Geneva Convention all together... Is that too rather "moronic" because it's tennants run contrary to your rather limited and misguided interpretation of what war is all about?

How about the entire US legal system, after all if you can indiscriminantly dismiss the parts of it you don't like as "Moronic", what good is it.

And Bang, The reason ( stand by for religious refference) you don't destroys the fruit trees of your enemies in war, is because some day they won't be your enemy. Some day you will want to live in peace with them again. And even in a times of war their is a chance to sow the seeds of a future peace..

Torah or Old Testement of the Bible

Deuteronomy 20: Verses 19-20

[helptheSKINS]

Yes that's because the head of the FBI and Scottland yard says these cases don't exist....

But Dick Cheney has claimed they exist.

I'll leave it up to you to determine which is the more reliable source.

In fact we know one of the two guys (Abu Zubaydah) who were waterboarded 87 times over a month was himself mistakenly thought to be an Al Quada leader. Turned out he was a mentally ill foot soldier who gave up nothing in interogation cause he didn't know anything to give up. Not the #3 in charge of Al Quada the Administration presented him as when they captured him.

Because it's a silly example which requires the most extreme distress of an individual to draw support for your position. I reject your premise that extreme distress somehow fosters more rational thought.

Rather than drawing from fiction lets draw an example from reality..... You've paid the bounty of 5-10 years of an average afghanis salary in exchange for assitance in indiscrimnently rounding up all foreign nationals in Afghanistan. You capture three british nationals who claim to be aid workers in your net.

(a.) You torture them for four years until you get them to confess?

(b.) You pick up the telephone and call their aid organizatoin and throughly check out their story?

Are you George W. Bush or are you Rational?

JMS, you've now skirted two scenarios. I think what we can draw from that is while you are able to judge the actions of others and only consider the opinions of those that agree with you, you are unable to take make the difficult decision yourself (online).

[JMS]

JMS, you've now skirted two scenarios. I think what we can draw from that is while you are able to judge the actions of others and only consider the opinions of those that agree with you, you are unable to take make the difficult decision yourself (online).

I din't skirt your "scenario" at all. I reject it. You want to imagine the most extreme situation, and then use ones distressed values in that situation to rationalize your position. Like rational thought is enhanced in extreme distress. I reject your premise.

Such an argument is an argument against all rational thought, or common shared responsibility. It's an argument to always pander to ones basest self.

[Larry]

"Was the interrogator threatening an innocent child?"

No he was threatening the parent. HUGE difference.

"If you don't do what I want, your child will die" isn't a threat to a child?

Would you also claim that if al Qaeda delivers a tape to a US soldier that says "If the US military doesn't release all the prisoners at GTMO, then an American school will blow up", they aren't threatening an American school? (Thay're threatening the US military)?

"If you don't get me a plane to Cuba, I'll kill this hostage" isn't a threat to the hostage?

[helptheSKINS]

I din't skirt your "scenario" at all. I reject it. You want to imagine the most extreme situation, and then use ones distressed values in that situation to rationalize your position. Like rational thought is enhanced in extreme distress. I reject your premise.

Such an argument is an argument against all rational thought, or common shared responsibility. It's an argument to always pander to ones basest self.

What do you think terrorists are being interrogated about if not "most extreme"? I simply asked what you would do. You are skirting it because you didn't answer. You are judging the interrogators but you cannot answer the simple question.

[Larry]

The problem with your argument is you don't mention the cases in which enhanced interrogation has directly lead to foiled terrorist attacks.

Uh, at least from what I've seen of what's been released, that's because it never has.

I know that lots of sound bites like to point at the interrogation of KSM. But from what I've read, the actual claim is that what years of waterboarding got out of KSM was . . . a name.

That's it. A name.

Now that name allowed us to go pick up another person. And interrogate that person. And that person gave us . . . another name.

And that person turned out to be part of a cell which was planning an attack in, I think, Los Angeles.

Which then allows the supporters to leave out the middle part of the chain and announce "we interrogated KSM, and we stopped something".

And it's a true statement.

Just as it's also, equally true, that we waterboarded someone, what, 300 times? to get . . . a name.

A name can be really useful. (Especially if you didn't have any names, before.) Just about any piece of information might be useful.

But is "he might know something that might be useful" a good enough reason to waterboard someone 300 times?

And is this really the one, shining example of success, that you want to point at as justification for everything? "Look! We got a name. Once."

[JMS]

What do you think terrorists are being interrogated about if not "most extreme"?

I don't think the majority of the folks being held or "interrogated" are terrorists. Like in Abu Ghraib, we caste our nets wide and we didn't have a very good system to sort out the wheat from the chaff...

Cheney says otherwise, but we know Cheney is a liar. When you look for independent verification even on what Cheney has said about the detainee's, his points don't line up.

I think we likely have 90-95% innocent guys, gals, and children, some being "detained" and tortured for half a decade or more. You want to go into the abstract and make an extremist case where I would harm innocent folks, because your "scenario" pre suposes them to be guilty..... I want to return to reality and talk about what's really going on.

[GoSkins561]

Actually the Geneva convention says irregular militia who fight in a war zone are entitled to Convention protections. They also make special allowances for the treatment of children under the age of 14.

Again US Law..

AQ and any one fighting along side of them or the Taliban is now a irreguar Militia? :laugh:

We don't know the age of kids when they are firing weapons at us, how in the hell are we suppose to give them special allownces? :laugh:

I can see it now.

Army Ranger: (while in the middle of a fire fight with unknown fighter that looks young), pulls out a whistle and calls a time out.

Army Ranger: stands up and asks for an ID and say's in order for us to continue to engage you in this fire fight, we need to know if you are under the age of 14, so we can make some special allowances, so please show me some ID, otherwise I won't be able to shoot you continue this battle.

:laugh:

90% of which have no evidence against them and won't be charged for anything.

Pretty soon we are going to be held acountable for international treaties we ratify and signinto law. Pretty soon we won't change 60 years of precident and law on the whims of our lowest common denominator legal opinions.

And idiots who think ultra harsh treatment of mostly innocent people somehow equates to military professionalism..

Did you see the special on Nat Geo about Gitmo?

These people are treated very nicely and with a lot of respect. That is by far the cleanest prison I have watched on any special on the various prisons around our world. They cuss at, spit on and disgrace our soldiers every single, and for the most part get treated with kindness in return. I would have a hard time not giving some serious beat downs if some dude spit on me. The way they treat our female soldiers is enough to make you sick, all because of thier screwed up religon.

These people have committed acts of violence against OUR while not in uniform, while fighting next to people in groups such as AQ and The Taliban. They are not in custody because they were throwing rocks, they are in custody because they had weapons such as RPG's, hand grenades, AK-47's and they were using them against OUR troops.

I am biased. I'm biased in favor of the law, facts and precident. Which is better than being biased and relying on ignorance and misconception to inform ones opinion.

That's the only reason why you appear to be biased when it comes to Muslim Terrorists / Combatants?