Can you trust findings of Guantanamo military tribunals?

[Irvine511]

Well stated.
Post 9/11, many Americans reacted with hand wringing guilt and asked "Why do they hate us?" "Our unflinching and steadfast support of Israel" being one of their most common answers.

can you really compare hang wringing to the bellicosity and starting of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

also, is self-reflection bad? should we not ask questions about how our actions reverberate throughout the world?

But certainly, failing to recognize America's obligations to back Israel against the Fascist states and sadistic fanatics who wish to terrorize and ultimately destroy them.

while i agree with this point, are we also to ignore the effects of occupation? are we to hold the Israelis 100% blameless in their actions? does the occupation of the West Bank not inspire the very terrorism it is supposed to protect against?

or do we not ever doubt ourselves?

Anyway, regardless of the current "confessions" of these detainees, can there be any doubt that they wanted to kill as many Americans as they could?

does this justify what has happened at Gitmo? does this justify the holding of uncharged individuals in a legal netherworld for over 5 years? is this not a grotesque violation of human rights - we think you could maybe one day be dangerous, so we're just going to lock you up until we can pin something on you? and, my goodness, if you're so convinced that they want to kill as many Americans as possible, why is it so hard to formally charge these individuals with some kind of crime? does this, in turn, not inspire hatred and resentment for the United States? that we are willing to violate the human rights of others because someone in Gitmo might, at some point, maybe, possibly, be a threat to the US? do we violate human rights because of their suspected potential to harm US citizens? to what lengths do we go to in order to protect US citizens from suspected potential?

and do you not realize that Bush now has the power to do this to you, Indy? he can lock you up at his own discretion, and never charge you with anything, deny your rights to legal counsel, effectively "disappear" you.

 

[BVS]

and do you not realize that Bush now has the power to do this to you, Indy? he can lock you up at his own discretion, and never charge you with anything, deny your rights to legal counsel, effectively "disappear" you.

Why do you think he's so loyal to Bush?

 

[Irvine511]

i guess i wish the country had the time to really sit down and debate these isssues, as opposed to the 2002/3 dictates from the White House that said, in no uncertain terms, you are with us or against us and if you disagree with anything we do in what we deem to be the best way to prosecute the "war on terror" then you are aiding and abetting the enemy.

i think history will judge that complete Republican control of all branches of government in 2002/3 turned out to be a total disaster. a divided government would have kept them honest.

instead, we got a Soviet-style junta.

 

[INDY500]

bellicosity

Wow, talk about a vocabulary builder.

does this justify what has happened at Gitmo? does this justify the holding of uncharged individuals in a legal netherworld for over 5 years?

On balance I believe it does. Can you tell me how a parallel world without Gitmo would differ? Anyway, the Geneva conventions allow for the detainment of enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict.

why is it so hard to formally charge these individuals with some kind of crime?

Did you see the Moussaoui circus? What of the problems of presenting evidence into trial without hampering on going investigations or harming national security. What about the costs and security issues involved with further civil trials?

do we not ever doubt ourselves?

Doubt or blame? Because some seem to relish in the latter.

do you not realize that Bush now has the power to do this to you, Indy? he can lock you up at his own discretion, and never charge you with anything, deny your rights to legal counsel, effectively "disappear" you.

The ol' Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006) red herring.
Well, here's your chance to give me the name of a "disappeared by Bush American."
x___________________

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's exactly this type of black and white thinking that has gotten us to the point where we are now and the reason why if current tactics don't change the "war on terror" will never be won.

In the terrorists eyes they are good and we are evil "The Great Satan", which is only natural from a human nature point of view. So we have to find a way to show them otherwise and invading a foreign country on false pretenses is not exactly the best way to do it.

You want to show them that your not evil, then convert to Islam and work tirelessly to bring about Taliban style governance where you live and bring an end to the unholiness that the west perpetuates.

When Bush says that the terrorists hate freedom the irony is that the freedoms they hate (sex, music, faggotry, divorce, abortion etc.) are many of the same ones devout Christians stand against; there is no ground to give on issues of secularism and liberty, it can't be negotiated especially when Islamist advocacy front groups push for restrictions.

 

[INDY500]

When Bush says that the terrorists hate freedom the irony is that the freedoms they hate (sex, music, faggotry, divorce, abortion etc.) are many of the same ones devout Christians stand against; there is no ground to give on issues of secularism and liberty, it can't be negotiated especially when Islamist advocacy front groups push for restrictions.

We don't stand against the freedoms, at least I don't. Only to point out that there truly are consequences (good and bad; to the individual and to society as a whole; in this life and in the next) to the choices we make.

It's why The Three Little Pigs isn't just for kiddies.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Leaving it up to individual choice means having it legal and letting individuals act how they see fit, not using force (the law) to stop it; seeing how Islam codifies a religiously virtuous society at the exclusion of choice it's going to have similarities to others that want their religious ethics and morals to be the guiding hand of government.

 

[Vincent Vega]

You want to show them that your not evil, then convert to Islam and work tirelessly to bring about Taliban style governance where you live and bring an end to the unholiness that the west perpetuates.

When Bush says that the terrorists hate freedom the irony is that the freedoms they hate (sex, music, faggotry, divorce, abortion etc.) are many of the same ones devout Christians stand against; there is no ground to give on issues of secularism and liberty, it can't be negotiated especially when Islamist advocacy front groups push for restrictions.

The problem here is rather that many people became terrorists just over the last years.
The war in Iraq, every bomb that hit the wrong house, the occupation (at least seen by them as one) and especially Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib turned many people into supporters of Al Quaida or other terrorist organisations. More than the Al Quaida could ever have recruited.

The USA have lost credibility not only in the Islamic world, but also in the Western world.

And this "war on terror" just got out of control. Now you will find it much harder to ever "win" this war.

Bush has done a disservice to the USA and Israel as well.

And torture, abolishment of human or legal rights and the treatment of the values of the Western world are not justifiable. It is a step back into the middle ages out of the ignorance to think about how it could come to a situation that America gets the target of such terroristic attacks which peaked in 9/11.

Now you are fighting an enemy, which is, as said before, a hydra, and you are fighting yourself with the pointless and naive black and white thinking.

As long as you suppress any alternative proposals by condemning the liberals/Democrats as enemies you shouldn't try to fight an enemy such as a terroristic organisation. Because you can't win that way, and this battle is hard enough to win.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Were not talking about the poor downtrodden masses, it's middle class educated men very often raised in western nations who have the means to spend their time getting indoctrinated and a million excuses to justify jihad (when it wasn't Iraq and Afghanistan it was Chechnya or Bosnia or Palestine or Islamophobia or Uncovered Women etc,). Al Qaeda as an entity doesn't even seem to exist, it's attacks by bunches of guys with grudges and a internet connections that pop up anywhere without having to have outside help.

Im hardly codemning liberals over the issue when I make the point that they have more to loose and that the social conservatives have more common cause (which has been explicitly stated by the likes of Pat Buchanan) with Islamic fundamentalists. The points about balancing these liberties in the face of a security threat has consistently been raised by liberals.

Maybe just pulling back and having a policy of razing religious shrines in retribution of any future attack is a better idea, since human life doesn't seem to factor into the calculus of a true believer.

 

[A_Wanderer]

while i agree with this point, are we also to ignore the effects of occupation? are we to hold the Israelis 100% blameless in their actions? does the occupation of the West Bank not inspire the very terrorism it is supposed to protect against?

Now has the withdrawl from Gaza done much to stem the power of Hamas? Are we to expect a full withdrawl to pre-1967 borders to somehow ameliorate the stated objective of liberating Palestine (from Jordan to the Mediterranean.

A moot point in the long run, when Iran goes nuclear (which it will) Israel can be knocked off by the economic (and then demographic) effects of being a nuclear target. Who knows, perhaps history will see the biggest fault of Bush to have set the stage for the US being internationally hamstrung in a malaise for the next decade or two.

 

[Irvine511]

Wow, talk about a vocabulary builder.

i used to teach SAT classes.


[q]On balance I believe it does. Can you tell me how a parallel world without Gitmo would differ? Anyway, the Geneva conventions allow for the detainment of enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict.[/q]

and what will the end of this conflict look like? will we have an unconditional surrender by all Islamists, everywhere, in the manner in which we received surrender from Japan and Germany?

it's not so much the existence of Gitmo, it's the placing of Gitmo, firstly, in Gitmo (not the US, hence, not the same laws), and the stripping of these prisoners of any legal standing. it's not like they are being denied rights. it's that they aren't even accorded any rights at all. by all means, the Geneva Conventions don't necessarily apply to these specific people, that i can understand, but that does not give us license to hold people indefinitely because we refused to define who they are and what kind of threat they represent.

it's the result of bad thinking, of indecisiveness, on ar part.


[q]Did you see the Moussaoui circus? What of the problems of presenting evidence into trial without hampering on going investigations or harming national security. What about the costs and security issues involved with further civil trials?[/q]

i confess i'm not sure what you're talking about -- it doesn't strike me as accurate that we cannot hold a trial without it being a violation of national security. i'd have to know more.


[q]Doubt or blame? Because some seem to relish in the latter.[/q]

are we never to blame? i think there's a difference between saying, "it's because of the homos that this happened," and saying, "American foreign policy has been defined by the propping up of terrible dictators across the Arab world who foster radicalism in their populations." but "blame" is to simplify this too much. pointing fingers (like some in the EU, for example, tend to do, and did to me when i was living in Europe) isn't helpful, but rectifying behavior and understanding how we might not always be doing the right thing isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. "my country, right or wrong" is for those who refuse to think because they are too insecure to do so.


[q]The ol' Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006) red herring.
Well, here's your chance to give me the name of a "disappeared by Bush American."
x___________________ [/q]

well, if they were truly disappeared, we wouldn't know about it, would we? but this is besides the point -- simply according Bush the power to do this is a massive violation of ... well, EVERYTHING the US has ever stood for, you know, all that liberty and democracy and pursuit of happiness that we're supposed to be defending.

but you want a name, i'll give you one: Jose Padilla.

 

[Irvine511]

We don't stand against the freedoms, at least I don't. Only to point out that there truly are consequences (good and bad; to the individual and to society as a whole; in this life and in the next) to the choices we make.

It's why The Three Little Pigs isn't just for kiddies.

perhaps you don't, but conservatives like, say, Dinesh D'Souza enthusiastically admire the ability of Islamic societies to use religion as a brilliant method to regulate and control social behavior so that society doesn't suffer from such consequences.

 

[Irvine511]

The problem here is rather that many people became terrorists just over the last years.
The war in Iraq, every bomb that hit the wrong house, the occupation (at least seen by them as one) and especially Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib turned many people into supporters of Al Quaida or other terrorist organisations. More than the Al Quaida could ever have recruited.

The USA have lost credibility not only in the Islamic world, but also in the Western world.

And this "war on terror" just got out of control. Now you will find it much harder to ever "win" this war.

Bush has done a disservice to the USA and Israel as well.

And torture, abolishment of human or legal rights and the treatment of the values of the Western world are not justifiable. It is a step back into the middle ages out of the ignorance to think about how it could come to a situation that America gets the target of such terroristic attacks which peaked in 9/11.

Now you are fighting an enemy, which is, as said before, a hydra, and you are fighting yourself with the pointless and naive black and white thinking.

As long as you suppress any alternative proposals by condemning the liberals/Democrats as enemies you shouldn't try to fight an enemy such as a terroristic organisation. Because you can't win that way, and this battle is hard enough to win.

impressive. can't believe you're only 16.

 

[Irvine511]

Now has the withdrawl from Gaza done much to stem the power of Hamas? Are we to expect a full withdrawl to pre-1967 borders to somehow ameliorate the stated objective of liberating Palestine (from Jordan to the Mediterranean.

there's so much to say, and such long sentences to write, but i'll just write two:

1. often, when Isreal defends itself in a manner necessary to maintian its security, it weakens its security in proportion to the methods used to strengthen it.

2. totally fucked situation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

American foreign policy has been defined by the propping up of terrible dictators across the Arab world who foster radicalism in their populations

Oppose the Bush agenda, oppose military action, oppose proping up the House of Saud, Mubarraks and Musharrafs; support liberal democrats, trade unionists, socialists (the free secular alternatives to Islamist radicalism against dictators) in the region - watching liberals side with conservatives who want a return to the stability that has marked the middle east over the last 50 years is stupefying.

Looking at how much government has messed up and abused power every step of the way it's clear this is an issue to important to be trusted with it.

 

[INDY500]

but you want a name, i'll give you one: Jose Padilla.

We're at war with al Qaeda, Jose Padilla was an al Qaeda trained operative sent to the United States in 2002 with the sole intention of stealing radioactive material and detonating a "dirty bomb" within a U.S. city.
Sounds more like an enemy combatant than a political dissenter to me but didn't a Federal judge rule against Bush on this?

I guess it comes down to two different philosophies. Do you fight terrorists with indictments and trials (as we did prior to 9/11) or with information gathering, bombs and soldiers.

 

[Irvine511]

We're at war with al Qaeda, Jose Padilla was an al Qaeda trained operative sent to the United States in 2002 with the sole intention of stealing radioactive material and detonating a "dirty bomb" within a U.S. city.
Sounds more like an enemy combatant than a political dissenter to me but didn't a Federal judge rule against Bush on this?

we're at war with Al-Qaeda? when was that declared? what are the objectives we'll need to achieve in order to gain their unconditional surrender?

he was designated an "enemy combatant," and there's no way, yet, to determine if he's a good guy or a bad guy.

it doesn't matter if he's a good guy or a bad guy or just some damn fool. his is a tragic case of what you've enabled the president to do, and he can do it to you, too.

there are also reports that he's been kept in solitary confinement and subjected to torture in the form of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and the always euphamistic "stress positions." it's been reported that he's collapsed, mentally, that he can no longer function as a human being.

I guess it comes down to two different philosophies. Do you fight terrorists with indictments and trials (as we did prior to 9/11) or with information gathering, bombs and soldiers.

why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? why not the judicious use of bombs and soldiers (hint: NOT in iraq) and using intelligence to garner indictments and trials?

 

[Vincent Vega]

impressive. can't believe you're only 16.

Me neither

I'm 21, thank you

But I wouldn't have written anything else five years ago.

 

[BVS]

We're at war with al Qaeda,

We are? Where did you hear this?

Jose Padilla was an al Qaeda trained operative sent to the United States in 2002 with the sole intention of stealing radioactive material and detonating a "dirty bomb" within a U.S. city.
Sounds more like an enemy combatant than a political dissenter to me but didn't a Federal judge rule against Bush on this?

He was found guilty? By who?

I guess it comes down to two different philosophies. Do you fight terrorists with indictments and trials (as we did prior to 9/11) or with information gathering, bombs and soldiers.

Is "information gathering" the new neo-con word for torture?

I find this statement, this type of black and white thinking very interesting, especially compared to your previous statement of

We don't stand against the freedoms, at least I don't. Only to point out that there truly are consequences (good and bad; to the individual and to society as a whole; in this life and in the next) to the choices we make.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Freedom for my people! Nothing for my enemy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We are? Where did you hear this?

Would this count as a declaration of war?

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.

The war started before the US was in the fight, it will continue.

 

[BVS]

Uh, yeah where's that from?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Thats from the fatwa issued by Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri in 1998 for attacks on American and western targets to get the US out of Saudi Arabia and Israel out of existence. Islamists see it as a war, one that will lead to the removal of western influence and the rise of pan-Islamic governance across the Muslim world and eventually the globe (long term goal). I don't think that anything short of making that happen (hence the sarcastic convert to Islam and talibanise your country comment) will stop the intent or hatred; for a good many people it is sanctioned from above (even a small percentage minority of over a billion is still a lot of people).

 

[BVS]

So any group can make a statement like that and we're in war with them?

Don't think so.

 

[INDY500]

So any group can make a statement like that and we're in war with them?

Don't think so.

Does this help.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You wanted a declaration, Bin Laden made one, and it seems like your position is that it isn't a war, I have read a number of pieces that take that position to rationalise that if the US stops it's actions abroad then terrorism will decrease and end, I don't know if thats your position.

I think that when those edicts are matched by attacks of increasing magnitude against your interests (WTC bombing, USS Cole, Kenya and Tanzania bombings) culminating in September 11 then it is reasonable to say that you are in a state of conflict, a war if you will; however it is much larger than "Al Qaeda" and there is a lot of crossover between different organisations with shared ideology.

War on Terror is a fallacy, since it is a really a war on Islamism or Jihadism or even Islam; terrorists aren't representing state actors, they don't obey the conventions of war or have militaries that define conventional warfare, it ends with a whimper not a bang. No surrenders, no accords, no clearly defined end point (which is why power can't be consolidated with government because in a real sense trying to topple an ideology is a perpetual war). The poor definition of this conflict and the sorting out of status for combatants ties into this (I don't think that it would be remotely possible to try those captured in Afghanistan through the courts, I also think there is a hard balance between the rights of those captured and what to do with them until their status is determined and the risk posed to general populations if even a fraction would be instrumental in terrorist attacks - it's a dillemma, to pretend otherwise one way or another is equally shortsighted).

It's all moot anyway; if the position I alluded to in the first paragraph is right then great, the political lethargy and isolationism that America is embracing won't have any concequences in the long term, if it is wrong and those groups gain the means for another escelation then I doubt the response from the US will involve spending American lives and coin to remove fascistic dictators and protect representative government, would probably be a lot more of a scorched earth reaction.

 

[BVS]

War on Terror is a fallacy, since it is a really a war on Islamism or Jihadism or even Islam; terrorists aren't representing state actors, they don't obey the conventions of war or have militaries that define conventional warfare, it ends with a whimper not a bang. No surrenders, no accords, no clearly defined end point (which is why power can't be consolidated with government because in a real sense trying to topple an ideology is a perpetual war).

Well even that's a fallacy for their is no consensus and Bin Laden isn't the leader of Islam of Jihadism.

But once again if we're at war with Al Queda as INDY put it, why the hell are we in Iraq?

 

[BVS]

...

 

[BVS]

Does this help.

And how many in Gitmo had something to do with that?

And what does ground zero have to do with the current war? I know you neo-cons like to blur your evidence and truth, but answer this one straight forward.

 

[Irvine511]

Me neither

I'm 21, thank you

But I wouldn't have written anything else five years ago.

eep, sorry, i thought you said you were 16 in the alcohol thread.

entschuldigung.