... The current administration has ruled Afgan detainees as enemy combatents and  unprotected by the Geneva Convention. While they are still protected by provisions of other treaties we have signed about torture, their treatment is subject to a clear and present danger exception.  After being imprisoned several years, it seems we have NO justification for this sort of treatment of anybody we are holding.  

It seems we have to come to some sort of conclusion about clear and present danger situations.  I believe Israel says that any clear and present danger exception is always subject to proecicution and must be justified on an individual basis.  I think we should deal with the situation in the same way (treatment must be justified in a public forum at some point).

What are other's opinions and critiques about this?   Harry

That's a good question. The majority of detainees at Guantanamo Bay are there becuase they are enemy combatants, captured in battle. I am not absolutely sure, but I doubt that the EC's that have been held since the beginning of the Afghanistan War are still being interrogated in a harsh manner. They are being held captive to prevent them from rejoining the fight. I may be wrong about them not being interrogated, but it sure seems foolish to let these people go while we are at war. Maybe a few have lost their taste for fighting, but most are religious fanatics who would rejoin the fight once given the opportunity.

RLTW

-- Modified on 5/21/2004 7:34:47 AM

according to article 3 of the genevoa convention illegal combatants are to be handled on a case by case basis and unilaterly classify all as illegal combatants is a violation.

This brings to mind two quotes:

1. "War is Hell" - Billy Sherman

2. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton, British historian.

The acts which took place are a disgrace!  

And Bush wants to retain Rumsfeld on the job, in spite of this.  Which makes Bush directly culpable as well.

And which makes anyone who votes to retain Bush in the next election culpable as well.  So, if you TRULY believe that the acts are reprehensible, you must do your duty and dump the man who is at the top of the chain of command which ordered this, and which has attempted to cover up and minimize the involvement of the top level command in this disgusting spectacle.  Or it's on your hands, directly.

This entire episode is one of the great black eyes for our Nation.  Cheney/Bush and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have used this to justify the elimination of checks and balances in our military and civilian judicial systems which they found inconvenient.

Certainly, the fact that these interrogations can be carried out without ANY time constraints, nor ANY need to EVER bring charges, nor even account for what has been done, is appalling, and beyond human decency.  

I have no doubt that many legitimate terrorists have been caught by us, and been usefully interrogated under this regime, and we have gained important information from it.  But I am JUST as certain that many completely innocent individuals, and many others who's involvement was peripheral and incidental to the overall threat against our country have been swept up in this effort, and have had their lives brutalized in ways that the civilized world should have moved beyond by now.   There would certainly be no harm to this effort if EVERY prisoner who is held in these efforts were subject to, say, a 90-day limit on their captivity unless we could document a set of specific charges against them, or at least make a compelling case in a hearing in front of a judge that these people actually were providing meaningful intelligence under interrogation, or involved in some way in specific actions against our country.  Would that be too much to ask?

... however, I believe the world does not have sufficient visability into what is going on in the camp to silence concerns.  During the gulf war interrogations were conducted in a room with a one way mirror where military lawyers would wander in and out and observe the interrogations (per news reports).  That was a different situation (they were prisoners of war).  

I don't think this happened for the enemy combatents.  I don't believe the interrogations are being filmed and the detainees have no access to lawyers or the media.  It might be wise to do all or some of these things.

If we are doing things that are "not nice", the government should be willing to justify it in an adversial situation.  I don't think everything should be made public and I don't believe that operational interrogations should be subject to these rules.  But, we could go a long way toward doing the right thing.  

As to keeping people imprisoned because they have not reformed, that doesn't seem fair.  We would probably get more info cutting them loose and seeing whom they contacted.

Harry.


-- Modified on 5/21/2004 1:49:12 PM

The people we are fretting over are by and large a bunch of murderous goatfuckers who get hard-ons from torturing people, use women and children as human shields, hide in holy shrines while attacking Coalition troops, and hack off the heads of innocent people with combat knives while screaming "G-d is Great". There are most certainly some amongst them that are merely misguided followers, but the majority of them would surely try to kill you or I if given the opportunity, just for having a different belief system. Harsh interrogations are almost too good for them.

But look at the difference between us and them. They love murder. We argue and worry amongst ourselves about not interrogating them too harshly, while punishing those who have crossed over the line to abuse. If I were face to face with one of those terrorist worms, I'm not so sure that I would be able to refrain from cutting the SOB's balls off.

RLTW

-- Modified on 5/21/2004 2:29:03 PM

I agree with you that MANY of these people are, as you say, murderous, vicious people.  They are NOT my concern.  My concern is that it appears that MANY of these prisoners we are holding are NOT all that guilty, and it is in compromising our principles by not giving a damn about protecting the rights of the innocent and those who are really just minor offenders who had tangential involvement with terrorism, we are giving those who truly despise us a legitimate recruiting weapon against us.

Our shining principle as a society has been the willingness to subjugate even our leaders to the rule of law.  Now, for the sake of simple expediency, we appear to be willing to throw that first principle, that which has given us the moral high ground for over 2 centuries, into the wind, just because we can't be bothered to establish that the people we are holding REALLY ARE our enemies.  Shame on us.  The fact is, if we are unwilling to protect the rights of the innocent, we are no better than the terrorists we seek to defeat.

On the other hand, say we capture a minor offender, who may perhaps have given food, or some assistance, to a REAL terrorist, but who never did anything violent themselves.  If we capture this person, and torture them, or humiliate them, how are they likely to feel about us as a country if they ever are freed by us.  On the other hand, if we question them in an orderly fashion, hold them peacefully for a short period of time, while feeding them and attending to their medical care, and then we release them with a set of clean clothing, a week's pay, a class on how a democracy works, and an apology for their inconvenience, what might they think of us THEN?   I would contend that we are squandering an opportunity for a major civics lesson among those masses in the middle, who could turn either way in this battle for the hearts and minds of the citizens of Iraq.

The Genevoa Convention applies to war time "rules" between sovereign countries. Al Queda and their affiliates are not a sovereign country. They do not follow rules of war and therefore should not be accorded the right to be treated under the rules of war.

RLTW

-- Modified on 5/21/2004 8:08:42 PM

Are bent on destroying your way of life. And if provided the opportunity would readily use you or someone you love as a propoganda tool in the same manner as Danny Pearl and Nick Berg.

RLTW



-- Modified on 5/21/2004 8:33:05 PM

While the Geneva Convention does not apply and SHOULD NOT apply to organizations like Al Qaeda, it does apply to nationals taken prisoner in their own country, it seems that this was Aries41's point.  In that sense, abuse of Iraqi citizens who are taken prisoner or abuse of Afgan citizens who are taken prisoner is a violation of the convention equal in severity to the case where a soldier of an country's army is taken prisoner and abused or murdered.

-- Modified on 5/22/2004 5:13:47 PM

And if you and the tiny brained idiot in the viking helmet had read my prior post, you might have noticed it was in reference to Al Queda and the detainees at GB, not the insurgents captured in Iraq.

RLTW

-- Modified on 5/22/2004 6:35:04 PM

Churchill observed that "duty" is among the most sublime words in the English language.

I view my duty as voting for whomever al Qaeda would least like to see in the White House.

Anyone who doubts that it is Nader, and Kerry, probably in that order, has obviously been imbibing too many illegal or regulated substances.

Bush isn't perfect, and he's certainly due for some appropriate criticism (which excludes most of what occurs here, which is too full of venal hatred to be taken seriously), but he's far superior to the alternatives the far Left is putting up.

What I meant was that those people were NO LONGER my concern, because we had them in custody, and I was quite confident that we would not be letting them back out to do us harm.  I do not believe that it is the slightest imposition to actually document the case against those for whom we have GENUINE information that they are harmful, and present this in front of a judge, as a safety valve against holding ANYONE, simply because we feel like it.  When we no longer need to make any case at all against detainees, and can hold them without a deadline, and without charges, then the door has been opened to allow tyranny against our citizenry by our government for no reason at all.  That's all it takes to stifle dissent and destroy our society over time.

So I guess we agree.  To quote you (although the emphasis has been added by me), Al Queda would LEAST like to see Kerry in the White House.  Although I DISAGREE about Nader - I think that they'd very much love to see Nader in the White House, as would any true enemy of our nation.

Perhaps this is merely a freudian slip on your part?

After all, Bush's Iraq invasion has been the single most invigorating thing to happen to them in the past 2 years.  They must thank Bush 6 times a day facing mecca that he took our nation's eye off of them to go after Saddam Hussein.

-- Modified on 5/25/2004 9:52:43 AM

Would, perhaps, Anthony Zinni have hit on any of them the other day on 60 Minutes (As in, this Administration has "screwed up in Iraq", due to either incompetence or derelection of duty?).

Would John McCain or Richard Lugar have hit on any of them when they complain about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility?

Please, don't pull your normal tactic of simply avoiding any post that you don't have a facile answer for.  This forum would really LOVE to hear you acknowledge what the LEGITIMATE shortcomings of this current administration are.  But I doubt that you have the integrity to post them here.

Awww, sdstud dared me, so I guess I just have to respond.

Not telling lies ("BUSH LIED!!!!!," repeated ad nauseum) would be appropriate.

As for "60 Minutes," if I want to see a left-wing hatchet job, at least MoveOn.org does it without pretensions to objectivity.

McCain and Lugar are correct on fiscal responsibility, but for the wrong reasons.  They think the problem is too little taxes.  The real problem is too much welfare spending.  Until they oppose that, it's kinda hard to take them seriously, though both are fairly good on foreign policy.  Alas, though, like you, sdstud, McCain allows his visceral hatred of EvilBush to diminish virtually everything he says.

NOSC asks whether I "think these men have low IQ's and cant determine what was needed to do in Iraq and fiscally."

No, I don't have to engage in ad hominem to attack someone else's argument.  Zinni can be taken seriously because his criticisms are that: criticism.  They are not attacks.  Plus, while I haven't read his book yet (and I buy virtually everything Clancy writes), it is highly doubtful that it is reflective of the kind of venal, juvenile attacks of most on the far Left, whatever his politics.

You can have a reasoned debate about the wisdom of preemption, the reliability of intelligence, and many other things.  It rarely happens here, and it never comes from the BushHaters.

It makes him come off as genuine, and it shows the rest of us that his better judgement is never subsumed for craven political purposes

I'm not sure that I'd categorize you as one of the irrational BushHaters (BTW, I am a "bushLover," pun intended, though I prefer bald kitties ).  I didn't go back to look at most of your posts in order to respond.  As for who IS a BushHater, you know who you are.

We are perfectly capable of having a reasoned discussion of their merits, or lack thereof.  In fact, as I've said many times, I don't hate Bush as an individual.  I simply think he has no qualifications for the job he has.  He's a perfectly affable fellow, who I don't doubt would be a pleasant enough sort to knock back a few (or many) cold ones with.  But the man has never given the SLIGHTEST indication of having the intellectual capacity, or the ability to listen to others, and synthesize diverse viewpoints into a mutually acceptable set of objectives, nor the individual strength of character, necessary to be the leader of the free world.  I cannot imagine that ANYONE, yourself included, sees any evidence of these traits within him.  When I see Bush, I see someone with extremely simplistic vision of the future, and no ability to accommodate other views.  

For a brief period, say the year immediately post 9/11, Bush had an amazing opportunity to unite this country, in both our need to fight international terrorism, and to build a strong domestic and international agenda.  But Bush squandered this opportunity by going to war with Iraq unilaterally, and without any objective evidence that IRAQ was the major threat to the U.S. on the world stage.  This war basically squandered all of the moral authority that the U.S. could have laid claim to in the post WWII era, and it has additionally served to wipe out our strong base of fiscal stability, and killed so far nearly 800 brave Americans, for nothing but to create a different sort of mess in Iraq from the stable dictatorship that Iraq was at the time.  And now we see that many reasonable folks (who cannot possibly be accused of being ideologues) like Anthony Zinni, Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, Norman Scwartzkopf, and others, tried to dissuade Bush from pursuing this path at the time, and he ignored them all.  And the present fiasco we have in Iraq is the result.  It is certainly possible in this context for a REASONABLE person to despise Bush for persuing this course, and that is what has happened with me.

On the other hand, for you to claim any ability to rationally converse on these subjects is the height of hypocrisy, given that YOU have applied the same standard of hatred to anything Clinton ever did, that you falsely apply to me in relation to Bush.

Moreover, "the standard of hatred to anything Clinton ever did" is, once again, projection.  I have never used the contemptuous language that you have used with regard to Bush, though I have called Clinton a liar, something that is provable, since he not only lied about things about which he had personal knowledge (Gennifer Flowers; his relationship with Monica Lewinsky; seeking a middle class tax cut; being for welfare reform; seeking "to make abortion ... rare"), he lied even when the truth would suffice (Billy Dale; the Travelgate fiasco; about having "marriage" with Hitlary).  Oh, and I've also called him a rapist (Juanita Broadderick, something he's never denied, fearing a lawsuit) and an adulterer.  Again, all provable and indisputable.

On those rare occasions when he did the right thing, I said so, and in a way likely more public than anything you have ever done.  However, he was so fundamentally corrupt that doing the right thing was, to paraphrase John McLaughlin, something stumbled into unwittingly.

You, on the other hand persist in calling Bush "Dumbya," when he's probably a whole lot smarter than you, and a "liar," when the worst that you can peg him for is relying upon faulty intelligence.  In this post alone, you call him "simplistic," which is Lefty-speak for "I don't agree with his position, but since I really can't refute it, I'll just belittle it."  You say that "has never given the SLIGHTEST indication of having the intellectual capacity, or the ability to listen to others, and synthesize diverse viewpoints into a mutually acceptable set of objectives, nor the individual strength of character, necessary to be the leader of the free world," which is also code for "He has rejected my arguments, therefore he must not have really listened to them," an argument indicating arrogance of the highest order.

You blame Bush for "squander[ing] the opportunity" to "to unite this country, in both our need to fight international terrorism, and to build a strong domestic and international agenda," which is indicative of the same "simplistic" view --- indeed, Pollyannish --- that you attribute to Bush.  You Lefties persist in the notion that, gee, if we'd only talk and talk and talk it to death, we'd all just get along.

Grow UP!  There are people in the world who wish us ill.  Even so-called "allies" like France are jealous of our preeminence, and have delusions of grandeur --- appropriately, a French word --- about their own rightful place in the world.  Unfortunately, France hasn't produced a world-class diplomatic thinker since Metternich (or Talleyrand; can't remember which is which) and that was nearly 200 years ago.  Moreover, you presume that it is always possible to "synthesize diverse viewpoints into a mutually acceptable set of objectives."  That is so nonsensical that its idiocy stands naked for all to see.

We have "a strong domestic and international agenda."  That is simply is not one with which you agree doesn't mean that it does not exist; that it is one which you dismiss as nonexistent is simply the typical Lefty response to something that they can't really answer.

Finally, the notion that he lacks "the individual strength of character, necessary to be the leader of the free world" is of a piece with the general tone of contempt that you consistently display, and is an amazing statement, given your apparent support for Bill Clinton.  Americans in the wake of 9/11 disagreed in droves with your assessment of the President, and recognized him as a man who had risen to his moment.  And get over it: whether he has or lacks "the individual strength of character necessary to be the leader of the free world" he is it.  Get used to it.

-- Modified on 5/28/2004 5:19:32 PM

and a total mediocrity like Bush.

Not trivial stuff like whether he got a consensual blowjob from an intern.

The entire justification for this Iraq war has been shown over and over to be self evident as a lie.  

Bush continues to deny that he received counsel not to go to war from people like Powell, Zinni, Schwartzkopf, and others.  That' a lie.

I call Bush "Dumbya", because he is CLEARLY not of the intellect to do the job.  He got crappy grades in school, lousy test scores, and he quite obviously can't think on his feet.  The man has never succeeded in ANYTHING based on his own abilities.  He might not be dumb when compared to YOU, but he's certainly dumb compared to everyone I would ever consider voting for as President.  And yes, I will tell you point blank, that he's an awful lot dumber than I am.  Although, frankly, I would hate to damn myself with such obviously faint praise.  

The man can't even think of a single mistake he's made in over 3 years as President.  That is prima facie proof that he is either Dumb, or a Liar, or BOTH.

The staggerring finacial irresponsibility of Bush's Presidency, deficit spending, and the damage to our international reputation, threaten to be more long reaching in the damage that they cause us.  And Right now, Osama's only got Bush beat by around a 3-1 ratio in terms of the number of Americans he's gotten killed, but Bush already has Osama well beaten in terms of the number he's gotten maimed.