News Is an Open-Ended War Without Boundaries Justifiable?

[J77]

Not my choice of a thread title but the title of this Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Thought you may be interested as it ties closely with a lot of Bush/Cheney threads.

This war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

e2a: thanks to whoever moved it from general.

 

[humanino]

Very interesting. In many countries we've been thinking that way for a while, and it feels good to see that the english-speaking part of the world is opening their eyes Meanwhile back in France, we might soon elect as a president something at least as dangerous as Bush...

 

[russ_watters]

This topic comes up from time to time and though the article has a recent date, the story isn't new. It is essentially a plagarization of an article that has been making the rounds on the anti US/hippie/socialist blogs for several years. The earliest reference I see in a quick google is 2003 on Rense.com of all places: http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

It is an utterly rediculous attempt to slander the US. The criteria are so broad and vague and in many cases innocuous as to be useless. You'd have trouble finding countries in the world that most of those don't apply to.

For your specific example, J77, ever hear of NATO and the Cold War? That one applied until recently to every member. And though the title of that one says invoking, the description says creating. Uh, sorry, but Bush didn't create terrorism - 9/11 actually happened.

The second one is more slanderous and ludicrous - why don't you guys feel insulted just by reading it? The Gulag is a specific institution created by the USSR for Russian political prisoners and you are allowing a comparison with Guantanamo Bay? Seriously? Why doesn't it piss you off that this person is making such rediculous comparisons? It is insulting not only to the US, but to the intelligence of the reader of the "article".

 

[Futobingoro]

I found this cartoon very amusing:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/89.3/images/blondheim_fig2_b.jpg

Quotes (clockwise from mill):

Man running mill (Salmon P. Chase?): "These are the greediest fellows I ever saw. With all my exertions I can't satisfy their pocket, though I keep the Mill going day and night."

Messenger: "Mr. Secretary! here is a dispatch. We have captured one prisoner and one gun; a great Victory."

Seward: "Ah well! Telegraph to General Dix immediately."

Lincoln: "All this reminds me of a most capital joke."

Man with bell: "Officer! I am told that Snooks has called me "A Humbug," ... Take this warrant and put him in Fort Lafayette... I'll teach him to speak against the Government."

Man writing: "They say the Tallahassee sails 24 miles an hour! ... Well then, we'll send 4 Gunboats after her that can sail 6 miles an hour, and that will just make enough to catch her."

Man with beard at bottom: "Give us more Greenbacks, compound interest."

Other man: "Give us more Greenbacks."

I am not comparing the Bush administration to Lincoln's, but one could change only a few words and names to make the cartoon a satirization of the Bush administration. The "victory" news of capturing one prisoner, the man being thrown into a military prison for speaking against the government and the two greedy men at the bottom of the table; equivalents would be drawn were the cartoon made today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Very interesting. In many countries we've been thinking that way for a while, and it feels good to see that the english-speaking part of the world is opening their eyes

Note that about 40% of us here have had our eyes wide open all along, but despite our best efforts, there was nothing that we could do to stop this outrage. We tried like hell, but there was no stopping the Bush/Cheney/Rove lie machine. Far too many people are incapable of seeing that they've been had by people of very low quality...that, or they really don't care.

 

[Art]

This topic comes up from time to time and though the article has a recent date, the story isn't new. It is essentially a plagarization of an article that has been making the rounds on the anti US/hippie/socialist blogs for several years. The earliest reference I see in a quick google is 2003 on Rense.com of all places: http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

It is an utterly rediculous attempt to slander the US. The criteria are so broad and vague and in many cases innocuous as to be useless. You'd have trouble finding countries in the world that most of those don't apply to.

For your specific example, J77, ever hear of NATO and the Cold War? That one applied until recently to every member. And though the title of that one says invoking, the description says creating. Uh, sorry, but Bush didn't create terrorism - 9/11 actually happened.
The second one is more slanderous and ludicrous - why don't you guys feel insulted just by reading it? The Gulag is a specific institution created by the USSR for Russian political prisoners and you are allowing a comparison with Guantanamo Bay? Seriously? Why doesn't it piss you off that this person is making such rediculous comparisons? It is insulting not only to the US, but to the intelligence of the reader of the "article".

The article was penned by an American so slandering the US is unlikely to have been her motivation.

You appear to be confusing the country of the US of A with a small corrupt cabal. Unless you believe Bush and co are synonymous with America in which case that is something I would definitely call slandering America.

As for when is a gulag not a gulag I think the Bard summed that up best - 'A rose is still a rose by any other name' the same applies to concentration camps.

Personally I think America is a great country with mostly great people and I think this article by an American warning of the dangers to the traditional American way of life and it's constitution is a patriotic act which should be lauded.

As someone else once said ' For evil to triumph it only takes good men to do nothing' At least this author is trying to do something which in my book makes her one of the good guys.

 

[russ_watters]

The article was penned by an American so slandering the US is unlikely to have been his motivation.

It would be interesting to know why she is writing for the Guardian...

As for when is a gulag not a gulag I think the Bard summed that up best - 'A rose is still a rose by any other name' the same applies to concentration camps.

If it is yellow/orange, 6 feet tall, and a foot in diameter, is it still a rose? See, you're looking at the issue backwards: she isn't using the wrong word to describe a similar concept, she simply applied a name that doesn't fit. Your use of the term "concentration camp" works somewhat similarly, as the term can be applied so broadly as to apply to fit any wartime detention center if you want. But by stricter, more conventional/recognized definitions that fit what the Nazis did, Gitmo comes nowhere close. So it becomes a meaningless word thrown around because it can be intentionally misleadingly appliead broadly and conjures up false images of Naziism.

Gitmo is not a gualg and it is not a concentration camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp

 

[Evo]

It would be interesting to know why she is writing for the Guardian...

She's an "over the edge" feminist and her views surely are not representative of the majority of Americans.

She tends to cash in on sensationalist topics.

"According to a 2006 interview with Torcuil Crichton in the Sunday Herald, Wolf claimed to have channelled an adolescent male and had a vision of Jesus Christ in an experience which prompted her to re-explore her own spirituality and her views on what is "sacred" in femininity."

I'm verifying this.

 

[Art]

It would be interesting to know why she is writing for the Guardian...

She isn't. It's an extract from 'The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot' published by Chelsea Green Publishers.

If it is yellow/orange, 6 feet tall, and a foot in diameter, is it still a rose? See, you're looking at the issue backwards: she isn't using the wrong word to describe a similar concept, she simply applied a name that doesn't fit. Your use of the term "concentration camp" works somewhat similarly, as the term can be applied so broadly as to apply to fit any wartime detention center if you want. But by stricter, more conventional/recognized definitions that fit what the Nazis did, Gitmo comes nowhere close. So it becomes a meaningless word thrown around because it can be intentionally misleadingly appliead broadly and conjures up false images of Naziism.

Gitmo is not a gualg and it is not a concentration camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp

I think it is you who has missed the point. Shakespeare was referring to the scent of a rose. Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, concentration camps and Gulags all have the same stink about them i.e. abuse of basic human rights without recourse to justice.

Even within the formal US justice system liberties are being severely eroded e.g.

The story so far: Sami al-Arian, a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian, was a respected computer professor at the University of South Florida who tried, however vainly, to communicate the real tragedy of Palestinian Arabs to the US government. But according to Sugg, Israel's lobbyists were enraged by his lessons - al-Arian's family was driven from Palestine in 1948 - and in 2003, at the instigation of Attorney General Ashcroft, he was arrested and charged with conspiring "to murder and maim" outside the United States and with raising money for Islamic Jihad in "Palestine". He was held for two and a half years in solitary confinement, hobbling half a mile, his hands and feet shackled, merely to talk to his lawyers.

Al-Arian's $50m (£25m) Tampa trial lasted six months; the government called 80 witnesses (21 from Israel) and used 400 intercepted phone calls along with evidence of a conversation that a co-defendant had with al-Arian in - wait for it - a dream. The local judge, a certain James Moody, vetoed any remarks about Israeli military occupation or about UN Security Council Resolution 242, on the grounds that they would endanger the impartiality of the jurors.

In December, 2005, al-Arian was acquitted on the most serious charges and on those remaining; the jurors voted 10 to two for acquittal. Because the FBI wanted to make further charges, al-Arian's lawyers told him to make a plea that would end any further prosecution. Arriving for his sentence, however, al-Arian - who assumed time served would be his punishment, followed by deportation - found Moody talking about "blood" on the defendant's hands and ensured he would have to spend another 11 months in jail. Then prosecutor Gordon Kromberg insisted that the Palestinian prisoner should testify against an Islamic think tank. Al-Arian believed his plea bargain had been dishonoured and refused to testify. He was held in contempt. And continues to languish in prison.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2430125.ece

 

[Chi Meson]

Gitmo is in fact a very special place where the laws of the USA do not apply. This is a fact attested by the Bush admin when the prisoner were first taken there. "It's part of Cuba" they said, yet they never consulted with Castro what to do with the "detainees."

Quote from

The United States has occupied Guantanamo Bay for over a century. U.S. Marines first wrested control of Guantanamo from Spain in 1898, at the outset of the Spanish-American war. The American government later formalized its power over the territory via agreements signed with Cuba in 1903 and 1934, back when the Cuban Republic was an obedient client state.

A single clause in these agreements reserves "ultimate sovereignty" over the territory to Cuba. Except for the right to an annual rent -- money that the current Cuban government refuses to accept -- Cuba's formal sovereignty has little practical value. No matter how unhappy the Cuban authorities may be with the United States, their putative "tenant," they are unable to evict U.S. forces from the island.

Cuban sovereignty over Guantanamo exists only in the abstract. Yet it is, for the U.S. government, a convenient legal fiction. In the current litigation over the fate of the hundreds of detainees held on Guantanamo, the government's position is premised on the fact that Guantanamo is technically foreign soil. Because Guantanamo is part of Cuba, argues the government, it is beyond the reach of American courts.

What is most dismaying about these formalistic discussions of Guantanamo's legal status is not simply that they disregard the practical reality of U.S. control over the territory. They also, quite mistakenly, ignore the U.S. government's deliberate decision to place the detainees there.

This much should be clear. The detainees did not accidentally fall outside of the jurisdiction of the federal courts because they ended up on Guantanamo. Rather, they were brought to Guantanamo for the very purpose of being kept beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.

This bothers me. This is unamerican.

That being said, the Guardian article has that "tone" which makes it clear they are not being objective.

 

[GTdan]

The article was penned by an American so slandering the US is unlikely to have been her motivation.

I don't see how this makes it unlikely.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I should let this go, since it is now two weeks old, but I just saw it...

I think it is you who has missed the point. Shakespeare was referring to the scent of a rose. Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, concentration camps and Gulags all have the same stink about them i.e. abuse of basic human rights without recourse to justice.

Wow, Art, wow. 6 million people died in the Nazi concentration camps and 1.6 million in the Russian Gulag and 'Gitmo has the same "stink" to you? I have no words to describe the breadth of the cognitive dissonance required to hold that thought in your head.

A sunflower (from my example) doesn't smell anything at all like a rose (or look like one except in that both are flowers): Guantanamo Bay similarly bears no resemblance to the Nazi concentration camps or Russian Gulag. The purposes are different and the treatment of the prisoners is different.

 

[humanino]

The purposes are different and the treatment of the prisoners is different.

Certainly agreed. But that does not mean that Bush should not be sued for crime against humanity. I am aware this will not happen

 

[Skyhunter]

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

That one is a given.

Cheney: Threat of nuclear attack in U.S. city 'very real'

By Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
Published April 16, 2007


WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, often called upon to deliver the administration's toughest talk about the wars abroad, now says this about the threat of terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb in an American city: "It's a very real threat. ... Something that we have to worry about and defeat every single day."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704150326apr16,1,6049960.story

2. Create a gulag

Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]

Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." [Feb. 4, 2006]

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

What are these "new programs?"

3. Develop a thug caste

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackwater_USA

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/22/lockheed-martin-to-build-high-altitude-airship-for-homeland-secu/

5. Harass citizens' groups

Got to keep a close eye on those pacifists.

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/print/1/displaymode/1098/

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/29/russia15576.htm

7. Target key individuals

US attorneys, CIA NOC's, scientists, anyone not a "loyal Bushy" or "Ditto-head".

8. Control the press

FOX

9. Dissent equals treason

President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us

10. Suspend the rule of law

Posse comma whaatever.

Signing statements anyone?

The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html

Emphasis mine.

What is a unitary executive anyway? sounds a lot like "dictatorship"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

Madame speaker is going to challenge his unitary exeutive.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-threat-to-sue-bush-over-iraq-bill-2007-05-08.html

Fascism is corporatism.

 

[Art]

Maybe I should let this go, since it is now two weeks old, but I just saw it... Wow, Art, wow. 6 million people died in the Nazi concentration camps and 1.6 million in the Russian Gulag and 'Gitmo has the same "stink" to you? I have no words to describe the breadth of the cognitive dissonance required to hold that thought in your head.
A sunflower (from my example) doesn't smell anything at all like a rose (or look like one except in that both are flowers): Guantanamo Bay similarly bears no resemblance to the Nazi concentration camps or Russian Gulag. The purposes are different and the treatment of the prisoners is different.

So to you it's a matter of numbers. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell us in your opinion how many victims of torture, sexual abuse and murder coupled with denial of the most basic human rights does it take before the likes of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo does carry for you the same stink as the Russian and Nazi concentration camps? And on the same basis how many children in your opinion does a paedophile have to abuse before it becomes reprehensible?

Your argument of small numbers negating despicable behaviour is simply ludicrous.

As an interesting aside one could argue from a purely legal POV the Bush administrations behaviour is worse as Hitler didn't actually break any existing laws with his behaviour whereas Bush and co did. The charges brought against the Nazis at Nuremburg of crimes against humanity were for breaking laws only enacted after the end of WW2.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it's important to remember the function of a gulag when comparing Gitmo to the secret prisons used by fascist regimes. The point of a gulag is to suppress political dissent, to punish those who would disagree with the ruling party so as to create an effective one-party system whereby control is complete and concentrated in the hands of a very small number of like-minded people.

If Gitmo was really a gulag, the writer of this article would be imprisoned there. Violating human rights is a terrible thing to do, but doing it doesn't make you a fascist.

 

[drankin]

If I had a choice of prisons, Gitmo would be my first pic. They are living large over there. And the weather is great.

 

[edward]

If I had a choice of prisons, Gitmo would be my first pic. They are living large over there. And the weather is great.

Yeah, you just can't beat Gitmo for a five year get away. And you wouldn't be a prisoner, only a detainee. Although if a person has been a detainee for more than 5 years they just might be a prisoner.

 

[devil-fire]

If I had a choice of prisons, Gitmo would be my first pic. They are living large over there. And the weather is great.

heh, iv seen some investigative reporting that says the fishing is great and they are also otherwise "treated humainly"

 

[edward]

heh, iv seen some investigative reporting that says the fishing is great and they are also otherwise "treated humainly"

The fishing is great for who, the guys shackled to the floor?? It is very difficult to fish in that position.

 

[Smurf]

If Gitmo was really a gulag, the writer of this article would be imprisoned there. Violating human rights is a terrible thing to do, but doing it doesn't make you a fascist.

If gitmo was a perfect gulag. perfect being always wants to, and does so with perfect efficiency, imprison every political dissenter of every kind. let's split hairs, ok?

 

[loseyourname]

If gitmo was a perfect gulag. perfect being always wants to, and does so with perfect efficiency, imprison every political dissenter of every kind. let's split hairs, ok?

The Gulag was pretty well known for the number of academics, writers, artists, and general social commentators imprisoned. There is plenty of dissent against the US ruling party within the halls of academia and in popular culture and people aren't being rounded up and thrown into Gitmo. Being sentenced to the Gulag for nothing more than dissent was perfectly legitimate under Soviet rule. You can't be charged with dissent in the US. At the very least, you have to be framed for some other crime. Hey, maybe that happens and I'm sure there are political prisoners serving time in various places, but Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, the Berkeley city council, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, and hundreds of other prominent public figures can broadcast all of the anti-Bush rhetoric they want, over whatever medium they want, and they stand zero chance of ever being hauled into Gitmo and charged with a crime for it. In fact, you could come to the US today, and start up an organization that spread pamphlets everywhere you go telling people that Gitmo is a Gulag and the US regime is fascist. You could buy air time or ad space on NBC or in the New York Times or even write an Op Ed for the paper and make those same claims. The very fact that you'd be allowed to do that, and heck, even run for public office on that platform if you wanted to, kind of demonstrates the ridiculousness of the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

Certainly agreed. But that does not mean that Bush should not be sued for crime against humanity. I am aware this will not happen

If that's your opinion, fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point.

I would, however, be curious to know what specific crimes you would charge him with.

 

[russ_watters]

So to you it's a matter of numbers.

No, Art, it is a matter of purpose and actual treatment. I was explicit in my post...

And honestly Art - what you are saying here is disgusting and disrespectful to those who died at the hands of Stalin and Hitler. It is truly disturbing to me that you would be making this comparison. You must know what went on in these places. And by trying to play the numbers game, you are saying that a small handful of individual, unintentional killings (researching, I can only find a claim of one) is the same as genocide. That's just sick. Yeah, Art, it is worse to mobilize the entire resources of a country for the purpose of genocide than for one individual to be abused to death unintentionally. How big does the difference have to be? That isn't an answerable, much less relevant question.

Just in case you actually are clueless, Art, here's some pictures of both Abu Graib and some random, relativley minor concentration camp: http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/belsen.html
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

The key difference? In the worst of the abu Graib photos, the people in the pile of bodies are all alive.

As an interesting aside one could argue from a purely legal POV the Bush administrations behaviour is worse as Hitler didn't actually break any existing laws with his behaviour whereas Bush and co did.

Wow again, Art. The duality seems to grow larger with every post. First Bush was like Hitler (and Stalin), now he's worse. Absurd. You do, of course, know that the guards at abu Graib were prosecuted under our own legal system, right? That's in contrast with Hitler's actions which were directly sanctioned by his government. But I guess if we chose not to prosecute them or change laws to make it not illegal, that would mean what they did wasn't as bad? You actually base your view of right and wrong on whether something is illegal or not?

In every possible way of measuring, there is simply no comparison.

 

[russ_watters]

If gitmo was a perfect gulag. perfect being always wants to, and does so with perfect efficiency, imprison every political dissenter of every kind. let's split hairs, ok?

Huh? Who used the word "perfect" and how does it fit? In fact, Gitmo simply does not exist for the purpose of imprisoning political dissenters like you are suggesting. I guess you could say it is perfectly different from a gulag.

Let me be explicit, since you guys are saying there is a comparison wthout actually making comparisons:

The purpose of the Gulag was to imprison political dissenters and forcing them to work for the purpose of permanently eradicating them from society. That's a nice way of saying working them to death.
The purpose of the concentration camps was two-fold:
-to work Jews (and others) to death.
-to simply kill Jews (and others).

The purpose of Gitmo is to imprison unlawful combatants in a pseudo-war. It does not exist for the purpose of forced labor and wholesale murder and those things simply do not happen there. About the only thing these prisons have in common is the bars.

You guys are also operating under the unstated assumption that everything that happens at these places happens under the direct orders of the Bush administration. Every prison has abusive guards and the guards of abu Graib are not claiming they were under orders to do what they did. They are simply bad-seeds, so what they did has nothing at all to do with whether abu Graib compares with a gulag. If your logic were sound, then essentially every prison on the planet would have to be equivalent to a gulag or concentration camp. That's the rediculousness of your claim.

 

[denverdoc]

Imo, this is the most disheartening thread I have read on PF, among generally well educated folk smarter and sometimes way smarter than the average bear. One can look at it either from the ends justify the means perspective, or more narrowly within constitutional/imternational law perspective.

Lets take the first case. Granted there may be many good reasons related to national security where the administration has provided restraint from spilling the secrets oozing from the cracked lips at Gitmo, but that is not in keeping with the track record where they crow about any and all victories against terror. They have one conviction to date, and that a plea bargain so the guy could get back to Australia. Its a disaster and embarrassment to the american people and continues to undermine the world's confidence in the USA being able to do the right thing., or admit a mistake once made. Show us disbelievers how the world is safer via Gitmo and extraordinary rendition. Otherwise, until proven otherwise, it does not meed any criteria for national security, only a step closer to fascism. Certainly as a scientist, one needs to appreciate that under different socio-political gravities bound by constitution, habit, and free press, that such movements are apt to be slower initially/ I still agree that is is worrisome to the max.

 

[Art]

Russ it seems you are one of the handful of people in the world who still believes Bush's rhetoric of how muslims in general a) hate you because of your freedoms or b) because they are just evil.

Well I've a surprise for you, it's actually about politics. Bush is trying to force his political system on inhabitants of other countries down the barrel of a gun and so yes Bush is persecuting, killing and imprisoning people for their political beliefs because they refuse to submit to his world view which by his twisted logic makes them terrorists.

It would be laughable if not for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been sacrificed on his altar of democracy. Perhaps when this figure climbs to the million plus mark you'll figure it rates condemnation or perhaps you'll still continue to believe the crap of how 'we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'

It seems it is perhaps you who is clueless.

BTW a key difference between other prisons and Gitmo which you failed to spot is in other prisons the inmates have been found guilty in a court of law before a judge and jury; in Gitmo they have not. And as for changing laws to make illegal acts legal - you seem to have forgotten how Bush wanted to legalise torture.

And again you appear to have missed the point I made and gone off on some rant suggesting I was minimising the attrocities of Stalin and Hitler so I'll explain it to you yet again. If you happen to be one of the unlucky 'few' who has been tortured or murdered by US personnel or their agents then for you it is 100% as bad as it was for the inmates of the gulags. And so the reasons - political differences and the actions - inhumane treatment are the same, only the scale is different.

 

[chemisttree]

Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, concentration camps and Gulags all have the same stink about them i.e. abuse of basic human rights without recourse to justice.

Why do you think that Gitmo prisoners have had their basic human rights violated and that they have no recourse to justice? The Supreme court of the US has ruled that they shall have access to our legal system. The court hasn't yet ruled that every case shall be decided in their favor.

What basic human right has been violated? Their right to evade capture? Their right to demand release?

 

[Skyhunter]

Why do you think that Gitmo prisoners have had their basic human rights violated and that they have no recourse to justice? The Supreme court of the US has ruled that they shall have access to our legal system. The court hasn't yet ruled that every case shall be decided in their favor.

What basic human right has been violated? Their right to evade capture? Their right to demand release?

Habeas corpus anyone?

Obviously from your post you are somewhat misinformed here. Your sarcastic comments about rights leads me to believe that you consider them guilty because they are prisoners. This is the reason for Habeas Corpus. The right to appear before a court to challenge your detention. Without Habeas Corpus, (which AG Gonzales doesn't believe in) a person can be detained (imprisoned) indefinitely.

The Supreme court has ruled yet, what has been done?

How many of the Guantanamo prisoners have had access to our courts to challenge their detention?

I suggest a little more research before making such a blanket statement.

[edit] I just watched the Gonzales link again.

Listen to Specter's comment at the end.

"You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense Mr. Attorney General."

 

[edward]

It's not just the prison issue. It is the whole picture. We paid war lords to turn over suspects ,a good way to get rid of a brother in law, but not a good way to gather credible suspects.

Buying the War on Bill Moyers PBS show is still available. Watch it !

Spying on The Home Front on PBS Frontline, again watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/

It is almost as if our leaders have had a collective case of temporay insanity.

 

[drankin]

Well, you can look at it this way. If we had simply shot all of them for being enemy combatants plotting the deaths of US citizens rather than arrest them, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Their "human rights" wouldn't be in question. There wouldn't be a Gitmo.

Lord knows, that was how it used to be done.

Once upon a time, your war-time enemies were simply executed.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, once upon a time, until people wised up and realized that's not how you do things. It's called evolution.

You can't prove that a single one of them were plotting to kill anyone. (My bad, you can prove EXACTLY one, but that's it.)

 

[drankin]

Yes, once upon a time, until people wised up and realized that's not how you do things. It's called evolution.

You can't prove that a single one of them were plotting to kill anyone. (My bad, you can prove EXACTLY one, but that's it.)

I agree, when captured and found to be suspect they should have been executed on the spot or simply let go.

 

[Cyrus]

I believe there are rules of engagement against that drankin.....this isn't the wild wild west.

 

[drankin]

I believe there are rules of engagement against that drankin.....this isn't the wild wild west.

Could you find me those rules? Wild wild west! LOL It's called war. In war, you kill your enemy before he kills you. You don't put him up in a cell indefinately, infringing on his "human rights".

 

[Cyrus]

Our point, if you were paying attention, is that most of those people were not caught in the middle of combat. They were rounded up and flown over in the dead of night to a prison in Cuba, with little to no explination or rights afforded to them.

We even had a Candian at one point, who was finally let go after the Candian government demanded his return. The US government returned him with no apology. This is not an isolated incident.

 

[drankin]

Our point, if you were paying attention, is that most of those people were not caught in the middle of combat. They were rounded up and flown over in the dead of night to a prison in Cuba, with little to no explination or rights afforded to them.

We even had a Candian at one point, who was finally let go after the Candian government demanded his return. The US government returned him with no appology. This is not an isolated incident.

This is my point, they should have either been executed or let go. That simple. Most, IMO, should have been let go. But I don't know all the details. But if some were a clear threat, they should have been executed. Torture wouldn't even be necessary, just line them up and put them down until someone gave some info. If that info turned out to be no good, put him down too. War was never meant to be civil.

 

[Cyrus]

No, that is not a valid point. http://www.judoinfo.com/pdf/USMCcombat.pdf Scan down to page 4 and 5. No where does it say a Marine is authorized to kill anyone after they are detained. If they do, there ass will be put in jail, and rightly so.

When you detain someone, they are not a 'clear threat', they are a captive.

War was never meant to be civil.

So anything goes in war? Well, the United States Military and the rest of the world disagrees with you on that one, thankfully.

You know, there's a saying...enemies today, friends tomorrow.

 

[drankin]

I understand that what I am suggesting does not hold up to the "standards" that have been created over years for "proper" warfare.

And, unfortunately, our enemies do not practice what we have established as "proper" warfare.

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

"Proper" warfare and the current "rules of engagement" pretty much makes becoming the "authority" in this war impossible.

 

[Futobingoro]

Art, I can only speak for myself, but I think Russ Watters and I share a desire to correct some of the fallacies surrounding George Bush's performance as president. Yes, there are some well-founded criticisms of his decisions. I think, however, that several unfounded accusations have been stirred up in the resulting firestorm and absorbed into the mainstream (like how Bush connected Saddam and 9/11, and claimed Iraq had purchased yellowcake from Niger).

So when Russ Watters questions an accusation against the Bush Administration, he becomes somebody who hangs on Bush's every word:

Russ it seems you are one of the handful of people in the world who still believes Bush's rhetoric of how muslims in general a) hate you because of your freedoms or b) because they are just evil.

It seems that as far as these issues are concerned, if Russ is not with you, he is... well you know the rest.

 

[Cyrus]

I understand that what I am suggesting does not hold up to the "standards" that have been created over years for "proper" warfare.

And, unfortunately, our enemies do not practice what we have established as "proper" warfare.

Sorry, but it does not work that way. You don't go down to their level. Thats a huge no, no.

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

Correct, but what does that have to do with the people in Gitmo?

Proper" warfare and the current "rules of engagement" pretty much makes becoming the "authority" in this war impossible.

Not really. Putting people in prisons without reason makes winning wars impossible because you recruit more people to fight against you via your actions,...exactly why you can't do the things you propose.

 

[drankin]

What do you mean by "go down to their level"? Can you be specific?

My point about Gitmo is that they should either be executed or freed.

Again, I agree, they shouldn't be imprisoned. It doesn't do us any good. Execution or freedom. Why take prisoners? Prisons are for domestic criminals.

 

[Kurdt]

I don't know if drankin is deliberately trying to sound like a fascist to be ironic or not. Somehow I suspect not.

What Cyrus was saying about going down to their level was that your country holds certain values and if you discard those values when dealing with others then they must be worthless. You also lose any credibility with anyone else when they see how little you respect those values. Thats what fascism is. Simply put its do as I say and not as I do.

 

[Astronuc]

Why do you think that Gitmo prisoners have had their basic human rights violated and that they have no recourse to justice? The Supreme court of the US has ruled that they shall have access to our legal system. The court hasn't yet ruled that every case shall be decided in their favor.

What basic human right has been violated? Their right to evade capture? Their right to demand release?

Because they were kidnapped. And I am not talking about true 'enemy combatants', who are fair game. I am talking about innocent people, who are not combatants, but who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and terrorized.

Many Gitmo (and other) detainees have been released without charge. It is entirely true that some, like Khalid Mohammed may have been involved in hostile acts against the US or its people. However, since many have been released without charge, it would appear they were innocent.

So the US government IS terrorizing innocent people, IS kidnapping innocent poeple, IS torturing innocent people, and GW Bush is in the top position and the primary instigator of this behavior. Bush and his cronies have orchestrated this, whether or not explicit orders have been given. It certainly appears, from the circumstances, that there is a lot of nod, nod, wink, wink - I don't want to know about - in addition to a depraved indifference to fellow human beings.

 

[daveb]

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

If this is your point, then at what point is someone consiered to have submitted to the authority? For those enemy combatants who were not captured during combat, how and who is it that says they are an enemy? For those captured during combat, if they surrender is that considerd submission? If not, then why in the world should they ever surrender?

 

[turbo]

Those "detainees" not captured in battle may well have been turned in for reward money or to settle old grudges. Afghanistan is a very tough place with lots of rivalries amongst clans. Let's not forget that the US government cemented the power of the Taliban by funneling money and weapons to them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The very same US government also helped build up the strength of Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran and helped him decimate the Kurds.

 

[chemisttree]

Habeas corpus anyone?

Obviously from your post you are somewhat misinformed here. Your sarcastic comments about rights leads me to believe that you consider them guilty because they are prisoners. This is the reason for Habeas Corpus. The right to appear before a court to challenge your detention. Without Habeas Corpus, (which AG Gonzales doesn't believe in) a person can be detained (imprisoned) indefinitely.

The Supreme court has ruled yet, what has been done?

How many of the Guantanamo prisoners have had access to our courts to challenge their detention?

I suggest a little more research before making such a blanket statement.

What statement? I merely asked a question regarding the source of someone else's statement regarding the detainee's lack of basic human rights and access to our legal system.

But since you brought it up... I am aware of the status of the detainees. Their rights to habeas corpus has indeed been limited in federal court and has been passed to the military trubunals. This was a result of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which was amended, after Supreme Court review, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been challenged and upheld in court (this is what is referred to as 'access to our courts'). Hamdan's new petition of habeas corpus was dismissed (in court - again that 'access' thingy), the federal court ruling that the Military Commissions Act was not an unconstitutional limitation of the petioner's right of habeas corpus. All other detainees request for review in Federal Court was dismissed based on similar reasoning. The Supreme Court has denied petitioner's request for review of their cases. All cases of habeas corpus are being held in the military court.

Sorry, but that is our legal system. You have a right to try... not a right to win. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and when it says 'NO', that's it.

How many of the Guantanamo prisoners have had access to our courts to challenge their detention?

All of them. They were denied the right to have their cases heard in Federal Court. Their cases are being heard in our military courts. (access, access, access...)

 

[drankin]

If this is your point, then at what point is someone consiered to have submitted to the authority? For those enemy combatants who were not captured during combat, how and who is it that says they are an enemy? For those captured during combat, if they surrender is that considerd submission? If not, then why in the world should they ever surrender?

What determines that a war is won? With our current method of waging war, it cannot be won on our side. We can't prosecute ourselves to victory. The enemy has to be defeated.

How are the hostile muslim extremist defeated? They have to be killed. Surrendering does not work for this particular enemy. It works for us because when faced with a no win situation we will surrender, submit, and adapt in trade for our lives. But this type of enemy will not submit.

Basically, we should either fight brutally or quit altogether. It seems we are doing neither and because of that there will be no victory.

 

[chemisttree]

Those "detainees" not captured in battle may well have been turned in for reward money or to settle old grudges. Afghanistan is a very tough place with lots of rivalries amongst clans. Let's not forget that the US government cemented the power of the Taliban by funneling money and weapons to them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The very same US government also helped build up the strength of Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran and helped him decimate the Kurds.

I thought everyone knew that the Taliban's power was resultant from Pakistan's support after the Soviet war. The taliban during the Soviet era war (1979-1989) consisted of unorganized groups of religious students (taliban, small 't') who had almost no organization and little real power. These small groups and many others were supported in their fight against the Soviets by the US and other western and pro-western governments. This in no way 'cemented' their power! It was not until late 1994, when a group of Pakistan-trained "Taliban" were hired to open a trade route to Kandahar, that the Taliban began their takeover of Afghanistan. The original assistance to the mujahadeen from the UK, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc.. began during the Carter Administration and significantly expanded during the Reagan years.

 

[turbo]

I thought everyone knew that the Taliban's power was resultant from Pakistan's support after the Soviet war. The taliban during the Soviet era war (1979-1989) consisted of unorganized groups of religious students (taliban, small 't') who had almost no organization and little real power. These small groups and many others were supported in their fight against the Soviets by the US and other western and pro-western governments. This in no way 'cemented' their power! It was not until late 1994, when a group of Pakistan-trained "Taliban" were hired to open a trade route to Kandahar, that the Taliban began their takeover of Afghanistan. The original assistance to the mujahadeen from the UK, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc.. began during the Carter Administration and significantly expanded during the Reagan years.

Apparently some insiders disagree with you about the US involvement in empowering the Taliban. There are many more such articles out there if you want to Google on Taliban and CIA. Our tax money was used to recruit, arm, and train them.

"CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban"

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.

It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (1)