The US secret war

[Kaka Tim]

And mears - you can sit there and deny and excuse and employ all your self delusional sophistry but it wont make any difference - to the vast majority of people in the world the truth of americas routine use of torture camps is plain to see - and will be considered 'business as usual' by the people of south america, cambodia and vietnam.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He loves to repeat that tired wee mantra of "We are at war". It's funny but I never heard this sort of language during the Vietnam War and thousands were being conscripted at the time, but I do not recall Johnson or Nixon using this line as a means of stifling debate...they used COINTELPRO instead.

More mendacity, isn't it?

I've heard loads of repugs do the "we are at war" bit, and they nearly all share a common bond besides their politics, and that bond is that very few of them have been or ever will be "at war", but feel qualified to pontificate about it.
Their nation might be at war, but are they? Nah, nor ever likely to be.

Chickenhawks, every last one of them.

 

[monkeyhead]

Its not something where a government presents articles of surrender. The war against Islamic terrorism is over when Islamic terrorists stop attacking. Then the "enemy combatants" should be released. If some were released and they perpetrated acts of terrorism ,the President would never be forgiven by the American people.

have you ever thought that innocent people locked up without trial are more likely to become terrorists?

and there are thousands of them

 

[mears]

I think Guantanimo is a good location for enemy combatants. Its a secure location where the prisoners can't make contacts with associates. Some prisoners have been released from Guantanimo. This location has also been visited by international humanitarian organizations.

Countries have held prisoners of war for thousands of years (or enemy combatants). And most of these people were fighting US troops in Afghanistan.

They made the mistake of their lives.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think Guantanimo is a good location for enemy combatants. Its a secure location where the prisoners can't make contacts with associates. Some prisoners have been released from Guantanimo. This location has also been visited by international humanitarian organizations.

Not "the location", just parts of the installation.

Countries have held prisoners of war for thousands of years (or enemy combatants). And most of these people were fighting US troops in Afghanistan.

Not most, some. Big difference.

They made the mistake of their lives.

Couldn't resist a bit of posturing, could you?

 

[Yossarian]

Its a secure location where the prisoners can't make contacts with associates.

Of course it's a fucking secure location, you buffoon, it's a prison.

Would a prison on the mainland US be an insecure location?

 

[TAE]

Countries have held prisoners of war for thousands of years

And have released them when said war was over. When will the Afghan war be over?

Besides, what about the ones which were not caught fighting US troops? Why are they being held?

 

[ViolentPanda]

And have released them when said war was over. When will the Afghan war be over?

Besides, what about the ones which were not caught fighting US troops? Why are they being held?

They're guilty of being (for the most part) black or brown-skinned Muslims who may have expressed a dislike of US imperialism.

Of course. it's equally likely that they're the victims of vindictive state officials who wanted a larger bribe from the victim but didn't get it, or of people who want to get a piece of the American reward money for "al Q" operatives.

I reckon Osama never knew his "organisation" had that many recruits!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course it's a fucking secure location, you buffoon, it's a prison.

It comes to something when you have to point out something quite so obvious to certain fuckwits, doesn't it?

Would a prison on the mainland US be an insecure location?

Actually, it would, in terms of what the US secret state wants to do with these prisoners. After all, if they have them on the mainland US they have to afford them the protections given by the US justice system, all those pesky things like access to a lawyer of your choice, habeas corpus, protection from torture, trial by a properly constituted court etc etc etc.

Can't have that, can we?

 

[rogue yam]

Well, which is it?

It comes to something when you have to point out something quite so obvious to certain fuckwits, doesn't it?

or...

Actually, it would...

?????????????

 

[fishfinger]

or...




?????????????

Actually, it would, in terms of what the US secret state wants to do with these prisoners.

It's only ????????????? if you quote out of context

 

[rogue yam]

Calm down, fishfinger.

It's only ????????????? if you quote out of context

You are not making any sense. mears explicitly used the term "secure location" to embrace the concept that detainees not be able to contact their co-conspirators. Yossarian called mears a name, and then implied that it was obvious that a "mainland U.S." location would be "secure," remaining silent on the issue of outside contacts. ViolentPanda called mears a more vulgar name and affected to agree with Yossarian, yet then agreed on the substance of disclosure with mears. It was to this contradiction that I replied. Your non-comment was the most worthless of the lot. Everyone knows that one main purpose of America's not affording the full protections of our domestic criminal justice system to terror detainees is to prevent the disclosure of information that will undermine our continuing efforts to defend ourselves. Reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line between self defense and the rights of the detainees. But to be reasonable requires both intellegence and education. You, ViolentPanda, and Yossarian have demonstrated neither, you not least.

 

[nino_savatte]

2 posts and you're an expert? Hmmmm.....

 

[ViolentPanda]

or...




?????????????

Mears states that Guantanamo is a secure location, Yossarian castigates him for saying the obvious, after all, Guantanamo is a prison.

(with me so far?)

Yossarian then asks mears if a prison (and please take careful note of this next bit) on the US MAINLAND would be an "insecure location".

(still there?)

My reply to this (as you well know if you are able to read) was that, in terms of the practices the USA (in the form of its' various intel agencies) wishes to conduct on the bodies of those prisoners, a prison on the US MAINLAND would indeed be "insecure" because those prisoners would enjoy constitutional protections in a US MAINLAND prison that they do not in Guantanamo bay or any of the other offshore installations the US is using to hold prisoners while they torture them.

I hope this helps.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are not making any sense. mears explicitly used the term "secure location" to embrace the concept that detainees not be able to contact their co-conspirators. Yossarian called mears a name, and then implied that it was obvious that a "mainland U.S." location would be "secure," remaining silent on the issue of outside contacts. ViolentPanda called mears a more vulgar name and affected to agree with Yossarian, yet then agreed on the substance of disclosure with mears.

Did I really?
You know, that really surprises me because I can't remember actually writing anything of the sort agreeing on "the substance of disclosure with mears".

In fact, on reviewing what I wrote, I find that you've either somehow misinterpreted something I've written (although I can't see how, as I mentioned constitutional protections and nothing to do with preventing putative al Q "members" communicating with one another which, given their cellular structure, wouldn't work very well anyway. How do you communicate with someone when you don't share any contacts or points of reference?) or that you're, to put not too fine a point on it, lying.

It was to this contradiction that I replied. Your non-comment was the most worthless of the lot. Everyone knows that one main purpose of America's not affording the full protections of our domestic criminal justice system to terror detainees is to prevent the disclosure of information that will undermine our continuing efforts to defend ourselves. Reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line between self defense and the rights of the detainees. But to be reasonable requires both intellegence and education. You, ViolentPanda, and Yossarian have demonstrated neither, you not least.

Nice, my intelligence and education judged by someone who can't even spell the bloody word.

1.5/10. You really must try harder.

 

[TAE]

Everyone knows that one main purpose of America's not affording the full protections of our domestic criminal justice system to terror detainees is to prevent the disclosure of information that will undermine our continuing efforts to defend ourselves.

The poor little helpless US can't afford to practice what they preach because it would undermine their ability to defend themselves against those big scary terrorists? Give me a break.

I think its more a case of nobody can touch the US military so why should they bother to abide by inconvenient international norms of conduct.

 

[fishfinger]

You are not making any sense. <snip>

I'm making perfect sense.

It's not my problem if you are either too stupid to read, or just enjoy misrepresenting what others have said.

Either way, judging from the rest of your post, you're just an apologist for illegitimate US action.

 

[rogue yam]

2 posts and you're an expert? Hmmmm.....

Utterly worthless.

 

[rogue yam]

...I hope this helps.

It helps me understand how unserious you are. You specifically mention detainees' access to attorneys and then pretend this has no implications regarding their ability to communicate with their compatriots. Google "Lynne Stewart" and then get back to me (or don't).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Your nation kidnaps and tortures people, it ignores international law at will. What claim does it have to be judged as better than those it's fighting?

 

[rogue yam]

The poor little helpless US can't afford to practice what they preach because it would undermine their ability to defend themselves against those big scary terrorists? Give me a break.

This really isn't about your feelings, TAE. Seriously. As for practicing what we preach, it is not the U.S. that fails to understand the difference between terrorists and prisoners of war. After all, it is ultimately our insistence on making this distinction that you're whinging about, isn't it?

I think its more a case of nobody can touch the US military so why should they bother to abide by inconvenient international norms of conduct.

Everone expects jihadists to act like bloodthirsty savages in every instance, even leftist twits. The U.S. military IS abiding by those international treaties to which we are a signatory, all while patiently explaining to hysterical foreigners how so.

 

[rogue yam]

I'm making perfect sense.

Brilliant rebuttal.

...you're just an apologist for illegitimate US action.

I'm explaining why the actions are legitimate.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You should probably try to explain to the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale "how so" too, 'cos he thinks you're arsehole deep in war crimes.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/09/anti-torture-memos-balkinization-posts.html

 

[rogue yam]

Your nation kidnaps and tortures people, it ignores international law at will. What claim does it have to be judged as better than those it's fighting?

False on all counts. As a matter of policy, we do not kidnap or torture. There have been no proven allegations of kidnap. In a tiny handful of instances, individual Americans have been found (by our own people, mind) to have violated our rules regarding detainee treatment. In those cases the offenders have been punished. Our claims of the moral highground are based on our ideals and the institutions we have put in place to implement these ideals in a reasonably self-regulating manner. The terrorists don't share these ideals, and have no such institutions. Therefore we, and all civilized and reasonable people, consider them to be savages.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's probably worth pointing out that several japanese persons were executed for war crimes after WW2, for using the water-boarding technique apparently favoured by the US (and Klaus Barbie) on British and American servicemen.

 

[rogue yam]

You should probably try to explain to the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale "how so" too, 'cos he thinks you're arsehole deep in war crimes.

The day that Yale professors stop slagging the U.S. from a leftist viewpoint will be the day that America has been taken over by a fascist, right-wing dictatorship. Contrary to the views of infantile leftists everywhere, such a day will never come. It is not the job of sensible citizens to try to change the minds of persons chosen for academic positions and offered advancement in large part because of their leftist views. Here in America, we've decided to let the leftists run the universities, and have the conservatives running the government.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Italians are in the process of proving kidnap. They're really quite pissed about it. And as for torture, go read that stuff I just linked. The evidence that the US is in the torture business, albeit with a thin veneer of weaselling and proxies, isn't really in dispute in the eyes of the rest of the world. Kidnapping and torturing people with no fear of the consequences is what the US stands for. Your nation has disgraced itself in the eyes of the world. From its fine orgins rooted in the noblest instincts of humanity, it has become a disgrace.

I am shocked and saddened, that the nation that Tom Paine stood for, that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson stood for could become the very opposite of everything its founders stood for. A nation of gimps and drooling sadists.

A nation that other nations, and if they were still around, your founding fathers, could only look upon with fear, horror, revulsion and disgust.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Constitution: A Safe Haven for Terrorists

This Sunday on Meet the Press Secretary Rice explained that President Bush needed to wiretap American citizens in the United States without a warrant and without going through the procedures required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because it is important to prevent the "use of American territory as a safe haven for communications between terrorist operating here or people with terrorist links operating here and people operating outside of the country."

The "safe haven" of which Secretary Rice speaks is the constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment, which apply to American citizens on American soil. What Secretary Rice is saying, in effect, is that the President wants the same freedom from constitutional limitations within the United States that he enjoys on the battlefield or overseas.

What a shame that the Constitution seems to be getting in the way of the President doing whatever he wants. And he has the gall to talk about "strict construction." When it comes to his own prerogatives, this President clearly wants as loose a construction as possible.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

 

[rogue yam]

The Italians are in the process of proving kidnap. They're really quite pissed about it.

Some Italians are making some noise. Let's wait and see what they come up with. There are a lot of Italians, and they are a famously fractious and noisy bunch. That this one or that one is spouting off nonsense is of no great concern, even if they happen to be a minor judge somewhere.

The evidence that the US is in the torture business, albeit with a thin veneer of weaselling and proxies, isn't really in dispute in the eyes of the rest of the world.

This is nonsense. The rest of the world has billions of eyes. They all see different things. You make yourself look silly by speaking of "the rest of the world" as if there was some grand understanding between the Japanese and the North Koreans (say) in opposition to the United States.

Kidnapping and torturing people with no fear of the consequences is what the US stands for.

Liberty is what the U.S. stands for. You know it, and everyone else does too. That we are imperfect is beside the point.

Your nation has disgraced itself in the eyes of the world. From its fine orgins rooted in the noblest instincts of humanity, it has become a disgrace. I am shocked and saddened, that the nation that Tom Paine stood for, that George Washington and Thomas Jefforson stood for could become the very opposite of everything its founders stood for. A nation of gimps and drooling sadists.

Blah, blah, freakin' blah. The very opposite, eh? And when did this happen? What year? What decade? What century? (Include in your thoughts on this question notice of slavery, Indian wars, imperialism, etc. that go right back to the very founding.) Did our "fall" just happen to occur in your lifetime? Is this whinging of yours really just all about you?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So OK, foreign opinions don't count, even if they happen to be a minor judge someplace. If you didn't get nailed in a US court of law it didn't happen ...

I have news for you. The number of people around the world who want to see the US humiliated increases tenfold with each word someone like you utters.

Watch what happens in Iraq for example. Pretty soon, Sistani is going to tell the US to go home. They may do so, or they may try to cling to their gains.

If they try to cling, I think we're going to be seeing marines stomping on the fingers of desperate collaborators trying to get on the last chopper again.