or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Is the treatment of Taleban and al-Qaeda terror suspects counter-productive?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the treatment of Taleban and al-Qaeda terror suspects counter-productive? - Page 3

post #81 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Yeah, it's harsh. So are DG's posts. Where's your complaint against him?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.
[quote]So?<hr></blockquote>
So... just because Cutler wrote an article supporting the principle of tribunals doesn't mean the way they've been implemented by Bush is beyond criticism.
[quote]And I don't believe the order says there are no appeals, only that the military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction.<hr></blockquote>Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean? And read the next paragraph in the order:
[quote](2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.<hr></blockquote>
And I don't believe US citizenship is the key to judicial review - US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders, while non-citizens have had full legal rights.
post #82 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Israel has been trying to pound into our heads that the rest of the world is clueless.

[...]

Most countries are so ****ing clueless they wouldn't know common sense if it struck them between the eyes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is assisting Israel for political reasons to meet its own ends. The rest of the world isn't clueless, just uninterested in entering into a situation that's none of their business (or really a situation they'll get no return on).

I'd be very, very careful about blanket statements about the rest of the world being clueless. Whenever I'm in Europe, people there seem to have a much better understanding of the various situations in the Middle East, in Ireland, and most certainly in Afghanistan before September 11. Newspapers and TV news also cover these situations almost daily, which is most certainly not the case here in the US.

I understand the media have their reasons for reporting this stuff - usually it's down to tear-inducing melodrama - but it's reported nonetheless.

Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #83 of 155
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, not I. I know why many people hate us. Because of our freedom of worship, our right to bear arms, economic stability, our military might, better living here, our right to vote (or not vote), jealousy, abundance of food, we've been around as a country for over 225 years, etc. It's lonely at the top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will agree with these as reasons for the hatred of the US. But I also think that that hatred is compounded by the fact that we are arrogant about the above list and that we often don't recognize that there is a discrepency of consumption that makes possible that above list in many cases.

An example of conditions like this that might make people hate us: in many countries (like Jamaica) the governments are bound by IMF/World Bank loan agreements to allow tax free production of goods made for the US markets on their soil, and also, those agreements make it necessary that those countries accept no trade barriers and must therefore accept US government subsidized exports, that are much cheaper than local products because they are subsidized, that destroy local economies . . . .keeping people in poverty because they are unable to compete with subsidies from the worlds richest government.

In our eyes (and the IMFs) we are merely stimulating their economies by fostering competition and openning them to the world market. But to them, (and they can't help but feel this way when their once prosperous industries (albeit in a poor country) are forced to close down and the people are left with no work but pandering to tourists or sweat shops . . .sweat shops that export all of the profits and pay extrememly little and no local taxes) these people feel that this is slavery at a distance, under the name of 'economic exspansion'. From what I have seen that is what many people don't like . . .and especially when they feel this way --and very hungry too-- and are told that they are Only jealous and we didn't do anything else to warrant their anger.

They may be wrong and we don't deserve any dislike at all . . .but to them our refusal to even look at conditions, such as exist in Jamaica with the World Bank, to even acknowledge that there might be a forced discrepancy, is maybe also a source of dislike . . . besides Jealousy.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #84 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Member:
<strong>Do we now have the U.S. *and* the Free World? I thought we were all in it together.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Funny, I don't recall hearing about the rest of the Free World volunteering to house these prisoners...

I think it's a little early to start accusing the US of human rights violations. The goggles, mufflers, and masks from that article you posted were for the prisoner's protection. Military equipment is loud, as in, a person risks permanent hearing damage with prolonged, unprotected exposure. Cruel would have been to not give them any kind of protection. Small prison cells? Give me a break. If that's the best dirt the bbc can dig up, it must have been a slow news day.

I am wondering, though, what the long range plans are for these prisoners? Releasing them to their countries seems impractical, since I bet a lot of them would just end up back with Al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, and I don't like the idea of the US having to house them permanently.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #85 of 155
BRussell:

I consider statements like DocG made a personal attack on my intelligence.


Re: IMF/World Bank holding people down.

That's an agreement they made. They can hate the United States for their own ignorance if they like, but I'll be damned if I worry about it.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #86 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

The difference is that his was a political position, yours was a personal attack against another board member.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, that's why I went to the trouble of quoting Lloyd Cutler.

Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack. But let's talk instead about what I really did. I attacked his political position. I attacked his tactics and I asked a question - which has yet to be answered. Yes, it was a very pointed question but it isn't the question, but his unwillingness or inability to answer it, that is damning. He could have easily (well, maybe not easily) thrown it right back in my face if he'd produced an even vaguely substantive argument. Hasn't happened yet.

[quote]So... just because Cutler wrote an article supporting the principle of tribunals doesn't mean the way they've been implemented by Bush is beyond criticism.<hr></blockquote>

You know damn well that DG's dismissal of the military tribunals as kangaroo courts goes well beyond simple criticism. Besides, how is Bush's order at odds with what Mr. Cutler would support?

[quote]Then what does "exclusive" jurisdiction mean?<hr></blockquote>

What do you think it means? Any appeal will be to the military court. Perhaps a different 3 judge panel - I don't know. Maybe you have a problem with this, I'd understand that. If you do, then I guess the court that tried Slobodan Milosevic is a kangaroo court too. The same rule applies. The same rule also applies to that International Criminal Court that so many liberals think is such a great idea.

[quote]... US citizens have been lawfully shot on the battlefield by their commanders...<hr></blockquote>

Which is why I also asked DG about his position on military tribunals before 9-11. (Your example goes to the broader category of military justice.)

[quote]... while non-citizens have had full legal rights...<hr></blockquote>

And where is that in the Constitution? I know. I know. We're talking about the "evolving" Constitution. Even so, just because some judge or judges have expanded the rights of non-citizens that doesn't mean there's some Constitutional flaw in trying these defendants before a military tribunal. Remember? - That was my question: Where's the Constitutional conflict?

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #87 of 155
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Yes, member, I mean that bit.</strong><hr></blockquote>Oh, I see.

So, have you ever travelled outside the U.S., like maybe across "The Big Water", groverat, with travel broadening the mind and all that?
post #88 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>An example of conditions like this that might make people hate us: in many countries (like Jamaica) the governments are bound by IMF/World Bank loan agreements to allow tax free production of goods made for the US markets on their soil, and also, those agreements make it necessary that those countries accept no trade barriers and must therefore accept US government subsidized exports...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not looking to get into a debate about the IMF/World Bank. I'm not very fond of many of it's policies too. I'm just wondering: what are these exports you are talking about? I'm not saying these subsidies don't exist. They do. I'm just not at all clear about those that would compete with Jamaican (to use your example) goods.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #89 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I've searched my heart and my head for sympathy and compassion for these people, but both said "let the f**kers rot".

I know people say "If we treat these people like animals that makes us no better than them". To those people I say let's rewind the clock two years and we'll ship all of you out to Afghanistan to teach the Taleban compassion.

Whether the individuals in the camp on Cuba committed atrocities, or merely sanctioned them by being fully paid-up members of an organization which condones such behavior, they deserve treatment an awful lot worse than they're currently receiving.

My aggression has nothing to do with September 11, but their treatment of men, women, children, and even animals in Afghanistan. They're destructive, humanity-hating, evil f**ks with no respect for the lives of others.

'Scuse my language.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Marry me, Belle

The coolest post you've ever written.
post #90 of 155
And what should time spent across the big water bring me, member?

A revelation that maybe the U.S. should let the EU dictate domestic policy?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #91 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>

Marry me, Belle

The coolest post you've ever written.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You heard it here first, pscates proposed!!! Belle?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #92 of 155
Subsidized food exports: chicken, corn, chiquita bananas(not grown in the US but owned) and grains and milk, all of which were produced locally in Jamaica before.

As for why one would travel "accross the great water"? just to see that America is a country --sure, a powerful and somewhat unique country with lots and lots of great stuff and people and history -- but still it is just a country amoung a bunch of other countries on a twirling rock with water.

Al Queda is wrong when they think that they are doing G-ds will, and so are we . . .we are not chosen among nations, we are a nation among nations that happens to be powerfull, and, in many cases, our ideas are based on an notion of law where the law is supposed to be objectively reasonable --that's fine --it doesn't make us divine or chosen,

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #93 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Interesting how you distilled my post down to nothing more than a personal attack.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I say your whole post was nothing more than a personal attack? I was referring to just that part of it that was... the personal attack.
[quote]"while non-citizens have had full legal rights"

And where is that in the Constitution?<hr></blockquote>
Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights? The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.

If a non-citizen came before a court, the court couldn't just throw out all the rules. The limits on the court's power would still apply. They might have other options, like deportation or extradition, but if the non-citizen was tried in a criminal court, the court couldn't say "you don't get this right or that right because you're not a citizen." These military tribunals aren't inherently limited to non-citizens - just Bush's specific implementation of them. Their legal status wouldn't be any different if he had included citizens in the order.
[quote]Any appeal will be to the military court.<hr></blockquote>
OK - that's possible. As I understand it, the president or sec. of defense have final say, so you could even call that an appeal. I was talking about appeals to the US courts.
post #94 of 155
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>And what should time spent across the big water bring me, member?

A revelation that maybe the U.S. should let the EU dictate domestic policy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reply to 1st question: No, but you might get a broader view of the world around you, groverat.

Reply to 2nd question: There are of course other countries apart from the 15 that are in the EU. You could always go and see how people live and think there.

[edit: typo]

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Member ]</p>
post #95 of 155
Belle:
Until September 11, the US was a hugely insular and inward looking nation. The only reason it's looking outward now is because it was affected directly on that date.


Thats ridiculous. We are the worlds' policemen and have been since the end of WWII. An insular country wouldn't be getting involved in everyones problems. Of course, then Europeans would complain that we didn't care about anyone but ourselves........
post #96 of 155
If we mind our own business the Europeans accuse us of being introverted. If we take part in external conflicts we are seen as bullies. There is no winning with them.
post #97 of 155
Member:
Come live in Texas for 20 years. That will also give you a different view of the world. Get locked up in a supermax prison for 40 years, that will give you a different view of the world. Live as a prostitute on the streets of Guatemala for 4 years, that will give you a different...

What's the point?
What magical revelation will the advanced people of the EU give me that I don't already have?

Should foreign nations dictate the domestic policies of another nation?

--

[quote]Where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens don't have rights?<hr></blockquote>

It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied...

The power in the Constitution is given *by* the people of the United States. If you aren't one of those people the Constitution has nothing to do with you.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #98 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>The only rights of non-citizens that are explicitly limited in the Constitution are the right to vote and hold office, AFAIK.</strong><hr></blockquote>

from <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october01/civil2.html" target="_blank">the NewsHour</a>:

Douglas Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University School of Law; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Loretta Lynch, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York discuss SECURITY VS CIVIL RIGHTS?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #99 of 155
I wonder if they shaved the hair of the detainees like they did to John Walker...

post #100 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>It doesn't say that gang-raping yaks in the Canadian wilderness is bad in the Bible... yet somehow I think it's implied... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that's covered in Leviticus. You have to stone the yaks to death - unless they're menstruating female yaks, in which case you bathe them first.
post #101 of 155
[quote]Actually, that's covered in Leviticus. You have to stone the yaks to death - unless they're menstruating female yaks, in which case you bathe them first.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Damn that tricky Bible!

I think John looks better with a shaved head. He should be thanking them. [stolen from = The Onion]It was tacky for him to be walking around in blackface like that.[/The Onion]
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #102 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Thats ridiculous. We are the worlds' policemen and have been since the end of WWII. An insular country wouldn't be getting involved in everyones problems. Of course, then Europeans would complain that we didn't care about anyone but ourselves........</strong><hr></blockquote>
What rubbish. Our government is hiding behind the guise of "the worlds' police" when it enters situations overseas to meet its own political ends.

The US as a nation is hugely ignorant of what goes on overseas. Did you know what was going on in Somalia until our government sent troops in? Did you know anything about the situation in Afghanistan before September 11? If you did, then well done. Try asking some of your friends.

Would our government have done anything about the Taleban if members of al-Qaeda hadn't hijacked four planes and used them to kill US citizens? Did CNN often report the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan for the last several years before September 11?

The US doesn't "care" about these places. It only enters into these situations for political reasons.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #103 of 155
Does any other government really 'care'? Maybe the people do ... but that goes for the people in the US too. We 'care' but how much?
post #104 of 155
&lt;What rubbish. Our government is hiding behind the guise of "the worlds' police" when it enters situations overseas to meet its own political ends.
The US as a nation is hugely ignorant of what goes on overseas. Did you know what was going on in Somalia until our government sent troops in? Did you know anything about the situation in Afghanistan before September 11? If you did, then well done. Try asking some of your friends.&lt;

Yes, I knew about all of that-I read the paper every day, Newsweek every week, and the news everyday. Are you saying that some people don't follow the news and don't know whats going on? Of course-I'm sure there are plenty of Europeans who don't follow the news either. Our government knows darn well whats going on.


&gt;Would our government have done anything about the Taleban if members of al-Qaeda hadn't hijacked four planes and used them to kill US citizens? Did CNN often report the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan for the last several years before September 11?&lt;

If the US went into Afghanistan and wiped out the Taliban and Al Qaeda before the attacks can you imagine the outcry? Most countries don't believe in preemptive action. We do, but we allow world opinion to sway our decisions even though we may be right and the rest of the world wrong. I'm sure Israel would support our actions and maybe Australia and possibly Britain. Hell, there are liberal pussies right now whining that the terrorists aren't lodging in a Ramada Inn.


&gt;The US doesn't "care" about these places. It only enters into these situations for political reasons.&lt;

We do what we have to do when we need to and when it serves our purposes. Pretty much like every other country on earth except we actually follow through on our words with action. When Europe can extract its collective head out of the sand we would welcome the help. I'm not holding my breath...........
post #105 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:

<strong>The US doesn't "care" about these places. It only enters into these situations for political reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I sure as hell hope so. Go see "Blackhawk Down" for a painful lesson in what happens when we get into situations for the wrong reasons.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #106 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Yes, I knew about all of that-I read the paper every day, Newsweek every week, and the news everyday. Are you saying that some people don't follow the news and don't know whats going on? Of course-I'm sure there are plenty of Europeans who don't follow the news either. Our government knows darn well whats going on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm saying that the media doesn't report a lot of what's going on internationally because there's little interest amongst the population, or at least that was the case before September 11. Unless you were a regular news channel viewer, you wouldn't pick up any of the reports about these places on news broadcasts unless by that time the US military had landed on foreign soil. Glad to hear you read the papers, though. Makes these discussions much more interesting.

I never argued that the government doesn't know what's going on.

[quote]<strong>If the US went into Afghanistan and wiped out the Taliban and Al Qaeda before the attacks can you imagine the outcry? Most countries don't believe in preemptive action. We do, but we allow world opinion to sway our decisions even though we may be right and the rest of the world wrong. I'm sure Israel would support our actions and maybe Australia and possibly Britain. Hell, there are liberal pussies right now whining that the terrorists aren't lodging in a Ramada Inn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Woah there! I never suggested for one second that the US should have taken preemptive action, or any military action whatsoever. I was thinking more along the lines of political measures, and perhaps aid. The Taleban were committing awful atrocities in Afghanistan, people in some areas were homeless and starving, and yet for the six years before September 11 the US government did *nothing*.

Then all of a sudden we need access to Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden, so we say "Hey, let us come in, and while we're there we'll rid you of that awful Taleban government because they're evil scum". Meanwhile we're also thinking "This makes us look good. We're helping these poor Afghanis". And I'm sure the Afghanis are thrilled, but they'd have been more thrilled if we'd helped a few years ago.

So why didn't we help earlier? Because we don't "care". We're only helping now because we're looking for Osama.
[quote]<strong>We do what we have to do when we need to and when it serves our purposes. Pretty much like every other country on earth except we actually follow through on our words with action. When Europe can extract its collective head out of the sand we would welcome the help. I'm not holding my breath...........</strong><hr></blockquote>
The first bit - absolutely correct.

The second bit - I think you'll find that the rest of the world is perfectly capable of following through words with action. The United Nations isn't just the USA, you know. Ask the French, British, and German troops who are still in the Balkans.

The third bit - So you buy the newspapers every day, but do you read them? Or is it perhaps the US media doesn't report most of what's going on in the rest of the world. Every time I'm in Europe, I'm amazed just how clued up the majority of people there are about what's going on compared to people back home.

Exactly what do you want the Europeans to "help" with?
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>I sure as hell hope so. Go see "Blackhawk Down" for a painful lesson in what happens when we get into situations for the wrong reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And Vietnam. This is the point I've been trying to make. This nonsense about the US "policing the world". The US government has agendas that would make even the most corrupt cop take early retirement. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be that way, just that people shouldn't fool themselves into believing the US is sending troops overseas to "fight for the greater good".
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #107 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>So why didn't we help earlier? Because we don't "care". We're only helping now because we're looking for Osama.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We didn't help before because they didn't want help on our terms only theirs. That is "give us money and don't tell us not to shoot women for getting raped". Don't forget that we did help. We gave money and aid to NGOs for famine relief.

The only "real" way to help would have been to squash the Taliban which before 9-11 the pussies of the world would not have supported. After 9-11 the pussies of the world kept just quiet enough.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #108 of 155
Returning to the subject of this thread here's the always brilliant Mark Steyn (doing my thinking for me):

<a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2002-01-26&id=1517" target="_blank">How ridiculous can you guys get</a>

[quote]... In fairness... the always elegant Matthew Parris at least attempted to expand Guantanamo into a general thesis. 'We seek to project the message that there are rules to which all nations are subject,' he wrote in the Times. 'America has a simpler message: kill Americans, and you're dead meat.'

This caused endless amusement over here. As the Internet wag Steven den Beste commented, 'By George, I think he's got it!'

Mr Parris is right to the extent that there are varying approaches to terrorism. You can take the dead-meat approach, or you can do the British thing: hunker down, fight a defensive war, inconvenience your citizens by shrinking the slots on pillar boxes and eliminating the rubbish bins at railway stations, insulate your political leadership so that the terrorists have nothing to do but blow the legs off grannies and schoolkids, and then after three decades pack it in, give the blood-drenched thugs the red-carpet treatment at the Palace of Westminster, and make them ministers of a Crown they don't even deign to recognise. That playbook wouldn't sell here. If Omagh had happened in, say, Wisconsin, the government would not allow Martin McGuinness to keep his secrets about the perpetrators merely because they had such a high regard for his talents as education minister.

'My difficulty is not with America as America, but with Washington as a hoped-for coalition partner,' Parris continues. 'Partnership in foreign policy is not in their nature.' There's a very good reason for that. Partnership implies the burden is shared more or less equally. If I bought twenty quid's worth of shares in The Spectator and started swanning about bitching that Conrad Black didn't treat me as a partner, he'd rightly think I'd gone nuts...

'America has simple gods and likes to keep her Satan simple, too,' declared Matthew Parris. 'In Salem it was once witches. In Senator Joe McCarthy's heyday it was Commies. Now it is al-Qa'eda.'

Just for the record, the Salem witch trials were conducted not by citizens of the United States but by British subjects. As for Senator McCarthy's heyday; well, there were a lot of Commies around: in short order, they'd seized half of Europe, neutered much of what was left, and had become the dominant influence on the Third World's political class. Suppose America had followed the rest of the West and elected a détente sophisticate like Helmut Schmidt or Pierre Trudeau, whose first act upon retirement from office was to take his young sons to see Siberia because 'that was where the future was being made' - in 1984! The world would be very different today, and not to my liking. The West won't work if every country's Canada and every leader's Trudeau. The only thing that enables Belgium to be Belgium and Norway to be Norway and Britain to be Britain is the fact that America's America - for all the reasons my Spectator colleagues deplore.<hr></blockquote>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #109 of 155
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.html" target="_blank">The Jackals Are Wrong</a>

By Charles Krauthammer

Guantanamo is hopping and the jackals are howling. Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands -- stalwart allies who held America's coat during the war in Afghanistan -- are complaining that the Guantanamo prisoners are not accorded POW rights under the Geneva Convention.


Amnesty International is shocked that we are using shackles. The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, is disturbed that the United States might be violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Yes, the same Mary Robinson who, in the name of famine relief, made the idiotic demand for a cessation of U.S. bombing five days after it began -- a demand that would have resulted in untold Afghan deaths in a famine now ended by the American victory.) The British tabloids are apoplectic, achieving full-throated silliness when the Mail on Sunday managed an allusion to slavery: "Each man is handcuffed and wears leg irons, a term that survives from slave-trading days."


Thanks for the etymology. No thanks for the advice. We should treat these complaints with the contempt they deserve.


The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants."


An Iraqi soldier captured in Kuwait is a prisoner of war entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. An al Qaeda fighter captured anywhere is not. By self-definition, al Qaeda members are unlawful combatants, meaning people who fight outside the recognized rules of war.


Among the distinguishing characteristics of unlawful combatants are these: They deliberately attack civilians, and they deliberately infiltrate among civilians by not wearing an insignia or uniform.


Al Qaeda openly practices both. In 1996, Osama bin Laden issued "A Declaration of War Against the Americans." Note: not "against the United States." Unlike, say, Nazi Germany and Japan, al Qaeda declared war not on the state but on the people. In 1998, bin Laden declared that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim."


Osama said it. And on Sept. 11, al Qaeda did it. And they did it the way terrorists do: out of uniform, by means of infiltration and concealment.


You join al Qaeda, you join an outlaw army. You explicitly violate -- and thus forfeit the protection of -- the Geneva Convention. Indeed, denying such murderers POW rights vindicates the Geneva Convention and encourages others to adhere to it, by reserving its protections for those who observe its strictures. (I am willing to concede that low-level Taliban fighters -- if there are any at Guantanamo -- might be entitled to more protection. Senior Taliban, however, having expressly joined their cause to al Qaeda's, should share in its fate.)


The jackals are wrong on the law. They also deeply misunderstand the purpose of the capture of these prisoners. It is not to "bring them to justice" as we would domestic bank robbers, but to prosecute an ongoing war by finding out what they know about how al Qaeda works and what future massacres it is planning.


We need information, or more innocent civilians will die. Information obtained as a result of the Afghan war has already thwarted planned attacks on Americans in Singapore and Yemen and exposed sleeper agents throughout the world.


POWs are required to give only their name, rank, serial number and date of birth. Granting the Guantanamo prisoners POW status is thus militarily ridiculous. If they have information, we need to get it. There is a war on.


This fact, too, seems to have escaped the critics. They deem the prisoners POWs of the Afghan war. But then, the Taliban having fallen and the war winding down, these men would have to be released, as are POWs at the end of "active hostilities," as ordinary Iraqi soldiers were released with the end of the Gulf War.


This is lunacy. The war is not against Afghanistan. It is against al Qaeda. And the war is ongoing until al Qaeda either recants or surrenders or disbands or is destroyed. Until then, these prisoners are not the detritus of a leftover war. They are active combatants, and unlawful ones. We should do whatever it takes to get from them whatever information we need to win that war.


Chris Patten, the European Union external affairs commissioner, is concerned that by doing so the United States is "losing the moral high ground."


Too bad. Right now, what is of supreme importance to Americans is not the moral high ground of salon opinion but the strategic high ground of military intelligence -- the advantage we gain in combating terror with the knowledge we glean from these prisoners.


The world loves us, bleeding and suffering nobly, at the moral high ground of Ground Zero. To which we say: no thank you. Our paramount national duty today is to prevent another Sept. 11, not to glory in the moral high ground -- the moral vanity -- of the victimhood we suffered last Sept. 11.
post #110 of 155
[quote] the pussies of the world <hr></blockquote>


...by the way... the kind of thinking exhibited by this kind of phrase is truly truly idiotic. Stupid morons who think that they are always right and are "real" men.


Besides... Im a liberal and could probably wipe the floor with the both of you and smile while doing it.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #111 of 155
Oh well bring on man!
post #112 of 155
&gt;Then all of a sudden we need access to Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden, so we say "Hey, let us come in, and while we're there we'll rid you of that awful Taleban government because they're evil scum". Meanwhile we're also thinking "This makes us look good. We're helping these poor Afghanis". And I'm sure the Afghanis are thrilled, but they'd have been more thrilled if we'd helped a few years ago.
So why didn't we help earlier? Because we don't "care". We're only helping now because we're looking for Osama.&gt;

ScottH took care of my rebuttal for me.


&gt;The third bit - So you buy the newspapers every day, but do you read them? Or is it perhaps the US media doesn't report most of what's going on in the rest of the world. Every time I'm in Europe, I'm amazed just how clued up the majority of people there are about what's going on compared to people back home.&lt;

You mean they read and believe everything their press tells them? So now people think that the terrorists in Guantanamo are being tortured even though they're not? Europeans are NOT more clued in on whats going on in the world because the European press is even far more biased towards the liberal agenda than the US press if thats even possible. Europeans protest in the streets because we execute a mass murderer. Europeans think everything we do is incorrect even though we are the first place they go to in a crisis. Europeans as a whole are jealous of our power even though they know we are the country the world trusts most to try and do the right thing. I don't believe Europeans know a damn thing more than Americans do-they just have a different slant....................
post #113 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants."</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a great article, full of all the "I'm American, screw you, you Euro-trash" stuff we all love. One problem is that even though he says "they're wrong," in fact, he is wrong. The al Qaeda are supposed to be initially treated as lawful combatants before a final judgment as unlawful can be made. Oops.
post #114 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>We didn't help before because they didn't want help on our terms only theirs. That is "give us money and don't tell us not to shoot women for getting raped". Don't forget that we did help. We gave money and aid to NGOs for famine relief.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very good, we gave them famine relief. We also armed them. We also imposed sanctions on them.

Exactly whose terms do you mean? As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only people who had an international voice in Afghanistan until its "liberation" were the Taleban, the Northern Alliance, and the exiled monarchy. So who said (I assume this is an approximation ) "give us money and don't tell us not to shoot women for getting raped"?
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #115 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>You mean they read and believe everything their press tells them? So now people think that the terrorists in Guantanamo are being tortured even though they're not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Other than the usual editorial pieces expressing support or horror, for the most part the TV news and newspapers contain factual pieces that leave you to make your own decision. They present no opinion.

And the vast majority of people don't believe the prisoners are being mistreated. Clearly the media in the US is incorrectly reporting the situation in Europe, or you're forming confused opinions. You'll note that the vitriolic piece Scott H posted didn't provide evidence of Germany, Sweden et al speaking out against the situation. I'd like to know who exactly is objecting.

Europe has its liberal do-gooders, just as the US has.

The rest of the article - and most newspaper and TV news pieces - covering "objections" to the US actions at Camp X-Ray quotes international bodies such as Amnesty and the UN.
[quote]<strong>Europeans are NOT more clued in on whats going on in the world because the European press is even far more biased towards the liberal agenda than the US press if thats even possible. Europeans protest in the streets because we execute a mass murderer. Europeans think everything we do is incorrect even though we are the first place they go to in a crisis. Europeans as a whole are jealous of our power even though they know we are the country the world trusts most to try and do the right thing. I don't believe Europeans know a damn thing more than Americans do-they just have a different slant....................</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think this paragraph shows that you have fallen foul of the accusation you threw at me earlier. You clearly believe what the media tells you about Europe. I can't believe what an inflated opinion you have of our country, or rather believe that the rest of the world sees something wondrous when it looks at the US.

And you know the reason Europeans protest in the streets when there are executions in the US? 1. Because as I said, Europe has its do-gooders, just like the US. And 2. Because they take an interest in what's happening in the rest of the world.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #116 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Very good, we gave them famine relief. We also armed them. We also imposed sanctions on them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When did we arm the Taliban?
post #117 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>When did we arm the Taliban?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When the Taleban entered Afghanistan as protectors of a convoy from Pakistan in 1994, they decided they quite liked the place and decided to stay. And rule over it. They took Kandahar not long after, then Kabul in 1996. At this point they armed themselves with thousands of weapons and tons of ammunition provided by the kind people of the USA to help the people of Afghanistan defend themselves against the Russian army some years previously.

On an unrelated matter, would someone tell the Pentagon it's cheaper to drop bombs on your enemy than helicopters?
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #118 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:

<strong>And the vast majority of people don't believe the prisoners are being mistreated...</strong><hr></blockquote>

True.

[quote]<strong>... I'd like to know who exactly is objecting.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001755" target="_blank">Human Rights Watch</a>, Ramsey Clark (not a Eurpopean), <a href="http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=115680" target="_blank">Robert Fisk</a>, <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=490218&in_review_text_ id=447954" target="_blank">A.N. Wilson</a>, The Independent, apparently some Brit members of Parliament had a go at us, as did Brit Home Secretary <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=114688" target="_blank">Jack Straw</a>...

I'm sure there are others I've missed.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #119 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
When the Taleban entered Afghanistan as protectors of a convoy from Pakistan in 1994, they decided they quite liked the place and decided to stay. And rule over it. They took Kandahar not long after, then Kabul in 1996. At this point they armed themselves with thousands of weapons and tons of ammunition provided by the kind people of the USA to help the people of Afghanistan defend themselves against the Russian army some years previously.

On an unrelated matter, would someone tell the Pentagon it's cheaper to drop bombs on your enemy than helicopters?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Where did you get that info from? Indymedia?

Everything I've read tells me the Taliban grew into power AFTER the soviets pulled out with funding from PAKISTAN and SAUDI ARABIA. You're Blame America First doctrine is clouding your view.
post #120 of 155
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001755" target="_blank">Human Rights Watch</a>, Ramsey Clark (not a Eurpopean), <a href="http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=115680" target="_blank">Robert Fisk</a>, <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=490218&in_review_text_ id=447954" target="_blank">A.N. Wilson</a>, The Independent, apparently some Brit members of Parliament had a go at us, as did Brit Home Secretary <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=114688" target="_blank">Jack Straw</a>...

I'm sure there are others I've missed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is kind of the point I was trying to make. These are the opinions of journalists, human rights activists, and politicians, all of whom have reasons for objecting, and objecting publicly. And yet the impression you'd get from some posters here is that they have this idea the whole of the rest of the world is objecting to the treatment of the prisoners in Camp X-Ray. And it's not just that, many of those voicing some kind of objection are just asking that the US ensures the prisoners are kept in an appropriate manner, not suggesting that the manner in which they have been kept is objectionable.
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Where did you get that info from? Indymedia?

Everything I've read tells me the Taliban grew into power AFTER the soviets pulled out with funding from PAKISTAN and SAUDI ARABIA. You're Blame America First doctrine is clouding your view.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not "blaming America first", just pointing out that many Americans have a very insular point of view. Read my first contribution to this thread... and now I'm defending those same people I want shipped to Afghanistan...

The Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, while the Taleban first entered in 1994. One of their first moves was to take the stockpiles of weapons and ammunition stored in Kandahar and Kabul, much of which was provided by the US.

Admittedly, the connection is a generation removed, but my point, and the issue I've been arguing is that to genuinely believe that the US is the "police force for the world" and acting out of good intentions is incredibly näive. The US acts in its own best interests (Not a bad thing at all) and if some people are helped along the way, fine, it's great publicity.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Is the treatment of Taleban and al-Qaeda terror suspects counter-productive?