[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you’re saying they should be allowed to starve themselves to death? Hell, I figured that would be worse. Guess not.[/quote]
Why do you persist in playing these silly little games.
It’s between a man and his maker if he wishes to commit suicide. Fuck, if I was an innocent man, stuffed in a hot shitbox with no food, sleep, waterboarding and frequent soap in a towel beatings, for years on end, I might just choose to starve to death myself.
Then again, maybe not.
Obviously, this whole fucking conversation is really off topic. We’re talking about inflicting inhumanities on another… not what, in desperation, someone might choose for himself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There you go. One vote for letting them die.[/quote]
The only reason you wouldn’t want them to die is because then you couldn’t exact any more revenge on them… even though you don’t actually know who is or isn’t guilty of anything.
Oh, wait, I forgot, to you “they” are all guilty aren’t “they”?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
There you go. One vote for letting them die.
The only reason you wouldn’t want them to die is because then you couldn’t exact any more revenge on them… even though you don’t actually know who is or isn’t guilty of anything.
Oh, wait, I forgot, to you “they” are all guilty aren’t “they”?
[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I agree. If they want to starve themseleves to death we should let them.
Yeah, especially those that are there because someone turned them in for
monetary reward or some other mistake.
Unncecesary brutality is not required, does not match our principles and does not advance our cause. What it does is assuage the feelings of certain citizens at the expense of their honor and principles.
After Abu Ghraib, there is simply no room for such nonsense. Whether or not someone has done worse is simply a childs argument. Apparently, a lot scared little children are happy to have the government strike out for them in this way.
Strangely, a clean death on the battlefield or in combat is much preferable to inhumane treatment in detainment camps.
The really big problem is that the US no longer has the credibility to be a moral authority with respect to human rights issues.
Some of you have said as much here yourself. Human rights are simply not important to you. The concept is a joke. Lucky for you, the people at the top feel the same way, and they have made the efforts of the US with respect to human rights, a joke.
This problem is something that is going to be around to haunt you for generations… even though some of the reports of abuse are perhaps very inflated indeed.[/quote]
Let’s confine ourselves to the issue being discussed. The knuckleheads are complaining about the method and manner prisoners who are trying to starve themselves are being kept alive. If they want to kill themsleves is it less humane to keep them alive or to let them commit suicide.
These stories are widely inflated and then blown out of proportion by the media. These prisoners are getting hearings. They’re not getting trials. Whether they are enemy combatants or prisoners of war is immaterial.
I’m not haunted at all and I think we’re al lot better off keeping terrorists locked up. I also don’t worry about credibility. I’ve been to the Middle East. They don’t respect fairness and gentle treatment and they never well. To assign Western values to Jihadists is a suicide pact.
It’s a war and war sucks and people make tough choices everyday. Every decision has consequences and on balance the gain far exceeds the cost.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Let’s confine ourselves to the issue being discussed. The knuckleheads are complaining about the method and manner prisoners who are trying to starve themselves are being kept alive. If they want to kill themsleves is it less humane to keep them alive or to let them commit suicide.[/quote]
That’s hard to answer. If you are killing yourself because you can’t stand your treatment, then keeping you alive just prolongs your suffering… like someone with terminal cancer who refuses treatment.
Hunger strikes are a time honored way of showing the depth of your protest against the treatment you are being given. Whether guilty or not, these people are still human, and our own principles should apply.
Anyway, on the credibility issue, I’m not talking about the Middle East. There are other places in the world where a drop in credibility is still possible and is not a helpful thing.
Let’s confine ourselves to the issue being discussed. The knuckleheads are complaining about the method and manner prisoners who are trying to starve themselves are being kept alive. If they want to kill themsleves is it less humane to keep them alive or to let them commit suicide.[/quote]
It was an illustration of how ridiculous the claim is that Gitmo is such a great place as was mentioned in the article. It’s a place where people’s fundamental rights seem to be disregarded on a variety of fronts. That’s what matters, when the same nation who runs it claims to propose these same rights.
Might be - if it really were such a civilised place, why not let the Red Cross in properly? Secrecy creates mistrust. And the simple number of news about this dreadful place is indeed overwhelming. And the accounts of all those let gone without further proceedings (the overwhelming majority of which have not rejoined the fight - last source I looked at talked about ca. 10 re-captured out of 200 released).
Following this logic, bringing western values like democracy and pluralism won’t work in the Middle East. Why is the US still there then? As for the loss of credibility - the coalition has been shrinking and the US has lost allies. It stands pretty isolated and that is among other events a result of Gitmo.[quote]
It’s a war and war sucks and people make tough choices everyday. Every decision has consequences and on balance the gain far exceeds the cost.[/quote]
I really don’t see many gains: Yeah, Saddam is dead - and his half-brother has been decapitated during his hanging (nice move - great PR). They won’t be missed. But the ever increasing headcount in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall …) - and the lack of democracy and freedom in those brave new democracies - makes me wonder what else has been gained in this war of terror.
Let’s confine ourselves to the issue being discussed. The knuckleheads are complaining about the method and manner prisoners who are trying to starve themselves are being kept alive. If they want to kill themsleves is it less humane to keep them alive or to let them commit suicide.
It was an illustration of how ridiculous the claim is that Gitmo is such a great place as was mentioned in the article. It’s a place where people’s fundamental rights seem to be disregarded on a variety of fronts. That’s what matters, when the same nation who runs it claims to propose these same rights.
These stories are widely inflated and then blown out of proportion by the media. These prisoners are getting hearings. They’re not getting trials. Whether they are enemy combatants or prisoners of war is immaterial.
Might be - if it really were such a civilised place, why not let the Red Cross in properly? Secrecy creates mistrust. And the simple number of news about this dreadful place is indeed overwhelming. And the accounts of all those let gone without further proceedings (the overwhelming majority of which have not rejoined the fight - last source I looked at talked about ca. 10 re-captured out of 200 released).
I’m not haunted at all and I think we’re al lot better off keeping terrorists locked up. I also don’t worry about credibility. I’ve been to the Middle East. They don’t respect fairness and gentle treatment and they never well. To assign Western values to Jihadists is a suicide pact.
Following this logic, bringing western values like democracy and pluralism won’t work in the Middle East. Why is the US still there then? As for the loss of credibility - the coalition has been shrinking and the US has lost allies. It stands pretty isolated and that is among other events a result of Gitmo.
It’s a war and war sucks and people make tough choices everyday. Every decision has consequences and on balance the gain far exceeds the cost.
I really don’t see many gains: Yeah, Saddam is dead - and his half-brother has been decapitated during his hanging (nice move - great PR). They won’t be missed. But the ever increasing headcount in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall …) - and the lack of democracy and freedom in those brave new democracies - makes me wonder what else has been gained in this war of terror.
Makkun[/quote]
Makkun
I have always found you a reasonable poster, well informed and gentlemanly in debate. So please take these comments in that regard.
Gitmo isn’t a vacation resport, it’s a prison. As prison’s go it’s wll beyond humane. The conditions are dry, clean and temperate for the climate. The inmates are not forced to work. They are well fed. Better then what they are used to. They are also treated to better medical care then they recieve at home. In other words to claim their human rights are being violated is an attempt at information warfare. It’s not working very well. Most see right thru it. Reluctant allies are screaming about it but when they became reluctant their opinions became less and less meaningful to the US. If they will not fight for themselves or others then why would we care what they think regarding how we deal with prisoners. England excepted.
If 5% of these prisoners return to fight it makes the argument for not releasing them until they are too old to fight. If less then 5% were found to be innocent would you use the same argument?
The Red Cross isn’t allowed in because we don’t Al-Queda to know who we have. At some point it will not matter and they will.
Much of the harsh treatment I read about was initiated by the prisoners. Spitting on guards. Starting riots to provoke guards etc. I don’t care what prison you are in Gitmo, Leavenworth or the la la land, you start trouble with a prison guard, and your an inmate, your going to get your ass kicked, and it will be very one-sided. That’s more or less a rule of being in prison and it’s not unique to Gitmo.
Regardless I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe these people are having any human right violated at all. They may not like being prisoners but they are far from innocent bystanders.
Btw a prison is a place where you go after being sentenced by a judge. Gitmo is not a prison, its a concentration camp. Just thought those terms shouldnt be mixed up…
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Btw a prison is a place where you go after being sentenced by a judge. Gitmo is not a prison, its a concentration camp. Just thought those terms shouldnt be mixed up…[/quote]
So were the places FDR sent the Japanese-Americans and they were not even suspected of being terrorists or enemies. They were locked in concentration camps based on their ethnicity.
I have always found you a reasonable poster, well informed and gentlemanly in debate. So please take these comments in that regard.[/quote]
Thanks.
That may be so - it doesn’t address the issue of due process and whether the people there should actually be there in the first place. It’s recognised that Gitmo is an unusual place, and the current US government has done everything it could to keep it from internal and external controls. That in itself is a problematic issue. If the government is so sure that it’s place based on proper procedure, why avoid any proper controls?
I’m not sure what you mean be information warfare, but I can assure you that on a worldwide scale (that includes many people in the US), Gitmo has been criticised for years.
The UK is not an exception:
'Guantanamo ‘damages terror fight’
The war against terrorism is being damaged by the US continuing to run its Guantanamo Bay detention centre, an influential committee of MPs has said.
The Commons foreign affairs committee urged ministers to make UK opposition to the camp “loud and public”.
But Tony Blair refused to go further than his previous stance on the camp, telling reporters it was “an anomaly” which should come to an end.
He urged people to remember the terror attacks which prompted its creation.
Earlier, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said the UK would never have opened the camp.
And Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said everyone, including terror suspects, were entitled to a fair trial.[…]’
If the Bush administrations staunchest ally calls it an anomaly, this should make Bush and co. think. Blair - who has lost a lot of support for siding with Bush on too many issues - will be gone in a few months; on an international scale that may mean that the US indeed may stand as alone on more issues we now expect.
If these people were convicted in proper courts for proper offenses to proper sentences - a re-offending rate of 5% would be fantastic, compared to most other prison systems. ‘Proper’ means under public scrutiny - secret evidence never goes down well in a democracy.
I think Al-Queda might just check Wikipedia - they don’t need the Red Cross. A freedom of information act request did that.
It’s in the open, why is the Red Cross not in? What’s to be feared?
I have had some minor personal insight on what goes on in UK prisons, and yes they are scary places. If we go back to the original FBI PDFs, chaining someone in a stress position in a hot room until they shit themselves is abuse - and not part of normal prison reality in a civilised country. Neither is the force feeding issue.
You can defend the internment of people, you can defend the ‘judicial’ process - but you can’t defend abuse.
And, KenKaniff made a good point - you go to prison for a proven offence, or for the time until your offence is proven by a court. The hearings and reviews conducted have been widely criticised - and the sheer amount of people who came out completely innocent is just a bit too high for my taste (Murat Kurnaz anyone?).
Now funnily enough, if they were accepted as PoWs, interning them until hostilities are over (whenever that might be in a war against a concept) would meet much less criticism. It’s that third way - neither convicted offenders nor PoWs, with disputed and secretive procedings - that’s been so problematic. And extraordinary renditions - say ‘kidnappings’ - of foreign citizens and conducted on foreign soil show a healthy disregard of human rights. And it’s good that complicit EU countries’ governments get their asses kicked for that.
Too many have been proven to just be that - not all, perhaps not even a majority. But as a judicial operation, Gitmo has proven to be bad; just look at how long it took to come up with the processes applied. It’s bad enough to be proven guilty after 4 years - being proven innocent after that time is clear failure. Those alone makes it a mistake - or in the words of Tony Blair ‘an anomaly that should be closed’.
The Bush administration has missed loads of opportunities to deal with terrorists and PoWs firm but fair. It’s time to acknowledge that and try to repair the damage done.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]
So were the places FDR sent the Japanese-Americans and they were not even suspected of being terrorists or enemies. They were locked in concentration camps based on their ethnicity.
These are the things done in times of war.[/quote]
‘On September 27, 1992, the Amendment of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, appropriating an additional $400 million in order to ensure that all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal apology from the U.S. government.’
It took a long time and a lot of money to correct that. What will Gitmo cost the US, besides its credibility as a nation that purports freedom and democracy?
I have always found you a reasonable poster, well informed and gentlemanly in debate. So please take these comments in that regard.
Thanks.
Gitmo isn’t a vacation resport, it’s a prison. As prison’s go it’s wll beyond humane. The conditions are dry, clean and temperate for the climate. The inmates are not forced to work. They are well fed. Better then what they are used to. They are also treated to better medical care then they recieve at home. In other
That may be so - it doesn’t address the issue of due process and whether the people there should actually be there in the first place. It’s recognised that Gitmo is an unusual place, and the current US government has done everything it could to keep it from internal and external controls. That in itself is a problematic issue. If the government is so sure that it’s place based on proper procedure, why avoid any proper controls?
words to claim their human rights are being violated is an attempt at information warfare. It’s not working very well. Most see right thru it. Reluctant
I’m not sure what you mean be information warfare, but I can assure you that on a worldwide scale (that includes many people in the US), Gitmo has been criticised for years.
allies are screaming about it but when they became reluctant their opinions became less and less meaningful to the US. If they will not fight for themselves or others then why would we care what they think regarding how we deal with prisoners. England excepted.
The UK is not an exception:
'Guantanamo ‘damages terror fight’
The war against terrorism is being damaged by the US continuing to run its Guantanamo Bay detention centre, an influential committee of MPs has said.
The Commons foreign affairs committee urged ministers to make UK opposition to the camp “loud and public”.
But Tony Blair refused to go further than his previous stance on the camp, telling reporters it was “an anomaly” which should come to an end.
He urged people to remember the terror attacks which prompted its creation.
Earlier, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said the UK would never have opened the camp.
And Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said everyone, including terror suspects, were entitled to a fair trial.[…]’
If the Bush administrations staunchest ally calls it an anomaly, this should make Bush and co. think. Blair - who has lost a lot of support for siding with Bush on too many issues - will be gone in a few months; on an international scale that may mean that the US indeed may stand as alone on more issues we now expect.
If 5% of these prisoners return to fight it makes the argument for not releasing them until they are too old to fight. If less then 5% were found to be innocent would you use the same argument?
If these people were convicted in proper courts for proper offenses to proper sentences - a re-offending rate of 5% would be fantastic, compared to most other prison systems. ‘Proper’ means under public scrutiny - secret evidence never goes down well in a democracy.
The Red Cross isn’t allowed in because we don’t Al-Queda to know who we have. At some point it will not matter and they will.
I think Al-Queda might just check Wikipedia - they don’t need the Red Cross. A freedom of information act request did that.
It’s in the open, why is the Red Cross not in? What’s to be feared?
Much of the harsh treatment I read about was initiated by the prisoners. Spitting on guards. Starting riots to provoke guards etc. I don’t care what prison you are in Gitmo, Leavenworth or the la la land, you start trouble with a prison guard, and your an inmate, your going to get your ass kicked, and it will be very one-sided. That’s more or less a rule of being in prison and it’s not unique to Gitmo.
I have had some minor personal insight on what goes on in UK prisons, and yes they are scary places. If we go back to the original FBI PDFs, chaining someone in a stress position in a hot room until they shit themselves is abuse - and not part of normal prison reality in a civilised country. Neither is the force feeding issue.
You can defend the internment of people, you can defend the ‘judicial’ process - but you can’t defend abuse.
And, KenKaniff made a good point - you go to prison for a proven offence, or for the time until your offence is proven by a court. The hearings and reviews conducted have been widely criticised - and the sheer amount of people who came out completely innocent is just a bit too high for my taste (Murat Kurnaz anyone?).
Now funnily enough, if they were accepted as PoWs, interning them until hostilities are over (whenever that might be in a war against a concept) would meet much less criticism. It’s that third way - neither convicted offenders nor PoWs, with disputed and secretive procedings - that’s been so problematic. And extraordinary renditions - say ‘kidnappings’ - of foreign citizens and conducted on foreign soil show a healthy disregard of human rights. And it’s good that complicit EU countries’ governments get their asses kicked for that.
Regardless I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe these people are having any human right violated at all. They may not like being prisoners but they are far from innocent bystanders.
Too many have been proven to just be that - not all, perhaps not even a majority. But as a judicial operation, Gitmo has proven to be bad; just look at how long it took to come up with the processes applied. It’s bad enough to be proven guilty after 4 years - being proven innocent after that time is clear failure. Those alone makes it a mistake - or in the words of Tony Blair ‘an anomaly that should be closed’.
The Bush administration has missed loads of opportunities to deal with terrorists and PoWs firm but fair. It’s time to acknowledge that and try to repair the damage done.
Makkun[/quote]
Information warfare is the fact that Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately many have bought into this type of warfare and have also been duped.
Information warfare is the fact that Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately many have bought into this type of warfare and have also been duped.
[/quote]
Now if US operatives would spread the disinformation that,
Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners…
they would gain nothing from such a lie, wouldn`t they?
Who do we trust here? US government or Al Queda?
In my book? Neither.
And then remains the fact that people have been released, because of their, um, innocence, that claimed to have been tortured.
Information warfare is the fact that Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately many have bought into this type of warfare and have also been duped.
Information warfare is the fact that Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately many have bought into this type of warfare and have also been duped.
Now if US operatives would spread the disinformation that,
Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners…
they would gain nothing from such a lie, wouldn`t they?
Who do we trust here? US government or Al Queda?
In my book? Neither.
And then remains the fact that people have been released, because of their, um, innocence, that claimed to have been tortured.[/quote]
You are a case in point. As long as it is Anti-American you will believe it. The details really don’t matter do they?
I’ll believe the US over Al-Queda.
Although if I was a dedicated Anti-American pundit from an anemic Western European country my fears and bias may overcome my common sense. I’m sure you can relate to that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just because it seems that some still believe detainees are not being charged and given tribunals…
All prisoners at Gitmo are now charged and given hearings. In fact, you can now view how many detainees go through combatant status reviews, and tribunals.
In short, a CSRT must be performed to determine a detainee’s status. If determined that the detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant he receives a trial by military tribunal. The detainee is not only able to appeal his status as an unlawful enemy combatant, but also the verdict of the tribunal.
These appeals go through our very own DC circuit court of appeals…Did old Roosevelt allow that before having unlawful enemy combatants shot? Nope. Did any president, in any war, in our entire history, allow that? Nope.
Furthermore, every single year, a report is now turned over to Congress concerning the status of detainees. This is a requirement now. And has been since 2005.
By the way, some of you do realize that LAWFUL enemy combatants are held without a trial, right? It’s not a matter of criminality. You hold enemy combatants till all hostilities cease. Not as punishment for crimes, but as a logical means to prevent them from going back to battle. So, basically, they could hold detainees till hostilities cease, without being charged with anything.
Maybe they should’ve held off calling them illegal enemy combatants till after all hostilities ceased. Just call them regular old POWs for the time being. Put them to work paving roads and picking up trash. Could make for cheap labor, I suppose. Anyways, upon the total surrender of enemies presently fighting our troops, state the number of detainees we will continue to hold and charge as UNlawful enemy combatants.
Oddly, this would have taken even longer for detainees to receive trials. I mean, hey, it’s obvious that our troops are still engaged with our enemies. So, drop the charges, hold them as POWs till our enemies surrender, and then charge them as unlawful enemy combatants. Not a damn thing could be argued against that. And it would actually be counter-productive to those who criticize us for not giving the detainees trials. Now we wouldn’t have to, till the fighting ceased. Ever thought of it that way?
Thank you.
I had to read through about 20 other retarded posts to get to this one but I pretty much guessed that would be the case when I started.
These are FBI agents talking, not accused terrorists. Maybe you don’t believe locking someone in a 100 degree room until he pulls his hair out is torture, although I question what your definition is then. But way to win friends in the Islamic world, profaning the Koran and wrapping detainees in the Israeli flag. Wow.[/quote]
Wow.
You really believe that is “torture” don’t you? Ok. If you truly believe that’s how the world is I won’t wear myself out telling you otherwise.
Let me say this much though: It would be great to win hearts and minds of the Islamic world but alot of that will depend on whether the Islamic world could ever be receptive to it in the first place. From what I have seen in the Middle East, I don’t see that as too likely.
Here is something else to consider:
They haven’t won too many hearts and minds in the West with their ideology either. In fact, having lost someone in the WTC on 9/11 I can say they pissed me the fuck off greatly. Beheading truck drivers on video didn’t get me leaning toward conversion to Islam either.
Using women interrogators, barking dogs, Israeli flags or any other psycological steps like that to break prisoners down - doesnt keep me up much at night my friend. Actually, everyone I know doesn’t give it a second thought because they haven’t forgotten we are in a war.
There is no nice way to win a war.
Next time a picture of a dog barking at a naked prisoner upsets you just picture friends and family burning alive in jetfuel and jumping off the north tower. Picture instead the people who kissed their kids and headed to work on the tube in London -and got blown up by another brainwashed teenaged “mujahidn”.
Picture the sobbing man who saved his money for a vaction only to have his wife dismembered by a bomb in a disco in Bali.
Wow.
You really believe that is “torture” don’t you? Ok. If you truly believe that’s how the world is I won’t wear myself out telling you otherwise.[/quote]
If it’s not torture by a selective definition, it’s clearly abuse - and if it happened in a police station to mormons from Utah, there would be public uproar; well there has been public uproar for years, but the convenient choice of location makes it harder to follow up.
It has been argued that the chosen methods (war among them) haven’t exactly been conducive to ‘winning hearts and minds’. Funny phrase that anyway - in the Iraq context it’s supposed to mean that the population there was supposed to accept a benevolent army moving in, removing authoritarian rule and torture. Well, that hasn’t exactly worked brilliantly.
[quote]Here is something else to consider:
They haven’t won too many hearts and minds in the West with their ideology either. In fact, having lost someone in the WTC on 9/11 I can say they pissed me the fuck off greatly. Beheading truck drivers on video didn’t get me leaning toward conversion to Islam either.[/quote]
Now here’s where you are mixing things up a bit: First of all with ‘they’, I presume you mean muslim people (see above ‘the world of Islam’). Having read that you have lost someone on 9/11 (for which you have my sympathies), I can understand that it may be harder to rationally make the distinction between muslim people and radical islamists. Now we can argue what their percentages are and if mainstream muslims do enough to eradicate radical elements within their midst - but you should make that distinction, for moral as well as for practical reasons. Morally it’s pretty much a no-brainer: to deduce general views from a minority within a religious or ethnic group is simply wrong. From a point of practicality, you’ll do many more people wrong than hitting the right guys. Both don’t help with winning ‘hearts and minds’.
[quote]Using women interrogators, barking dogs, Israeli flags or any other psycological steps like that to break prisoners down - doesnt keep me up much at night my friend. Actually, everyone I know doesn’t give it a second thought because they haven’t forgotten we are in a war.
There is no nice way to win a war.[/quote]
One issue should be raised here, one questions asked:
The issue is that certain rights (not being physically or mentally abused even while in custody being one of them) are granted to all humans, whatever their actions (proven or unproven). That’s why the question about the Gitmo detainee’s guilt is so irrelevant in this discussion - it doesn’t matter if they are; you don’t abuse your prisoners, they are under your care and you are responsible for their wellbeing, even if you hate them.
The question is: With whom is this war in your opinion? With islamic fundamentalists who have chosen terrorism as their way to push their agenda - or with the ‘Middle East’ and ‘the world of Islam’. From your earlier paragraphs, I fear you don’t seem to be making a distinction between the two - which is imo morally wrong and impractical.
[quote]Next time a picture of a dog barking at a naked prisoner upsets you just picture friends and family burning alive in jetfuel and jumping off the north tower. Picture instead the people who kissed their kids and headed to work on the tube in London -and got blown up by another brainwashed teenaged “mujahidn”.
Picture the sobbing man who saved his money for a vaction only to have his wife dismembered by a bomb in a disco in Bali.[/quote]
Yes, picture them - and then prove to me that these people who have been held in Gitmo for 4 years have been directly responsible for these acts. Put them in front of a real court, sentence them and put them in jail for their offences. You’ll have all our hearts and minds (even that of a good part of the muslim community).
Don’t let your executive squander your country’s credibility by fucking about with flags, dogs, stress positions, and having to let a massive proportion of detainees go after two years, because they were collected by mistake. It’s immoral, impractical and defeats the stated aim of the war.
Information warfare is the fact that Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately many have bought into this type of warfare and have also been duped.
Now if US operatives would spread the disinformation that,
Al-Queda operatives are trained to claim torture as soon as they arrested. Since they have the media duped no matter what the US does, they will be accused of torturing prisoners…
they would gain nothing from such a lie, wouldn`t they?
Who do we trust here? US government or Al Queda?
In my book? Neither.
And then remains the fact that people have been released, because of their, um, innocence, that claimed to have been tortured.
You are a case in point. As long as it is Anti-American you will believe it. The details really don’t matter do they?
I’ll believe the US over Al-Queda.
Although if I was a dedicated Anti-American pundit from an anemic Western European country my fears and bias may overcome my common sense. I’m sure you can relate to that.
[/quote]
Ahhh, the truth is something to be determined by emotions and by “taking sides”…
Truthiness!
That must be were I routinely go wrong…
Seriously, how long do you think the Bush administration could bullshit the world until their credibilitiy was exactly zero?
If you think it is common sense to trust this guy and his henchmen, there is a tower in Paris I?d like to sell you…
Even it`s value in scrap-metall is huge…
And yes, if an European citizen is kidnapped, tortured and then set free by the US, I believe him over the US, especially if case after case after case comes known…
Did you ever consider that when “facing reality” becomes “America hating” you have a serious problem?
