PDA

View Full Version : Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths



RedFanAlways1966
05-16-2005, 09:08 AM
A good reason why we should not believe everything we hear or read. Disgusting. I hope the families of those who died b/c of the protests that these erroroneous reports created can sue Newsweek for a pretty penny. I guess the "Dan Rather rush to judgment thing" did not teach some overzealous news outlets a thing.

Newsweek: Koran desecration report wrong
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the information had come from a "knowledgeable government source" who told Newsweek that a military report on abuse at Guantanamo Bay said interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk.

But Newsweek said the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts.

Whitaker told Reuters that Newsweek did not know if the reported toilet incident involving the Koran ever occurred. "As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know," he said in an interview. "We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."

RBA
05-16-2005, 09:18 AM
A good reason why we should not believe everything we hear or read.
Disgusting. I hope the families of those who died b/c of the protests that these erroroneous reports created can sue Newsweek for a pretty penny. I guess the "Dan Rather rush to judgment thing" did not teach some overzealous news outlets a thing.


Right you are. I glad that we agree on things such as this.

Now, what Government officials believed everything they heard or read on erroroneous reports and what deaths did they create? Right you are in condeming Dan Rather for the rush to judgment, but what Government officials have made rushes to judgment?

GAC
05-16-2005, 09:19 AM
It's why I don't buy Newsweek. ;)

Jaycint
05-16-2005, 09:24 AM
Now, what Government officials believed everything they heard or read on erroroneous reports and what deaths did they create? Right you are in condeming Dan Rather for the rush to judgment, but what Government officials have made rushes to judgment?

:laugh: Don't you guys ever tire of kicking each other in the political balls? :laugh:

RedFanAlways1966
05-16-2005, 10:07 AM
I am not sure how this became political, but my concern is with media outlets who run with stories that come from only one source and do not verify the validity of these stories (very-very much like the 60 Minutes II false story). This particular one caused protests in the Muslim world and people were killed in these protests. The 60 Minutes II story could have had an effect on our presidential election and brought about the resignation of a well-known news anchor.

Freedom of the press is a great thing. Many in the Arab world can tell us this as they have been denied such rights for many years. But when stories like this (like this = not valid) are put in print, they can have serious ramifications (16 dead). I wonder how many add'l attacks were brought upon our military men & women b/c of this untrue story? I doubt we will ever know.

Sometimes I think in the glee to be "the one" to break some big news, media outlets take a chance that their sources are right. And when they are wrong... there can be consequences. Is taking a chance to break the big one worth the lives of other humans? Lives that may still be here today if not for the invalid story of an outlet that tried to break a big one.

I hope Newsweek also delivers an apology to our entire military and units at Guantanamo Bay for their story that portrayed those soldiers in a falsehood. Although I won't hold my breath as it seems that they are still trying to say that the Koran story may not be true, but it may not be false either. Still trying their best to prove it, I guess. Let's hope they let the families of 16 dead people know the truth whenever they finally figure it out.

Blimpie
05-16-2005, 10:27 AM
...Arshad and the provincial police chief said the scholars met in Faizabad, 310 miles northeast of the capital, Kabul, and demanded a "reaction" from U.S. authorities within three days.

But Newsweek apologized in an editor's note for Monday's edition and said they were re-examining the allegations.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote...Gotta love the editorial procedures at Newsweek:

1) Print story
2) Fact-check story
3) Hold breath and cross fingers

They should rename Newsweek the Weekly Mullet-Wrapper...

Unassisted
05-16-2005, 10:36 AM
I agree that this is bad, actually worse than bad since it resulted in deaths, but I'm going to resist the knee-jerk impulse to tar-and-feather Newsweek and offer something to ponder. Maybe if the government was a bit more forthcoming about interrogation methods at Guantanamo, the media wouldn't have to get its info from shaky, unconfirmable sources?

Jaycint
05-16-2005, 10:41 AM
I agree that this is bad, actually worse than bad since it resulted in deaths, but I'm going to resist the knee-jerk impulse to tar-and-feather Newsweek and offer something to ponder. Maybe if the government was a bit more forthcoming about interrogation methods at Guantanamo, the media wouldn't have to get its info from shaky, unconfirmable sources?

I agree but dont you think that even if the government was forthright and layed out all of their interrogation tactics for the press to see that there would still be some who would try and dig further and further to see if they could come up with some "dirt" whether it actually existed or not?

Blimpie
05-16-2005, 10:54 AM
I agree that this is bad, actually worse than bad since it resulted in deaths, but I'm going to resist the knee-jerk impulse to tar-and-feather Newsweek and offer something to ponder. Maybe if the government was a bit more forthcoming about interrogation methods at Guantanamo, the media wouldn't have to get its info from shaky, unconfirmable sources?It is unfortunate, but dealing with "shaky, unconfirmable sources" has always been a part of journalism. However, knowing which sources are the reliable ones--and when to use them--is supposed to be what separates reputable journalists/editors from the other weekly rags that fall under the tabloid umbrella. Newsweek was irresponsible and get no pass from where I stand.

savafan
06-03-2005, 10:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301417_pf.html

By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
Friday, June 3, 2005; 9:15 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report _ later retracted _ that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.

The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Hood said in a written statement released Friday evening, along with the new details, that his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2 1/2 years."

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Lawrence Di Rita, did not address the confirmed incidents of mishandling the Muslim holy book. Reached while traveling with Rumsfeld in Asia, Di Rita said that U.S. Southern Command policy calls for "serious, respectful and appropriate" handling of the Quran.

"The Hood inquiry would appear to affirm that policy," Di Rita said.

Hood said that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed to have happened. He could not determine conclusively whether the four others took place.

In one of those four unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards "constantly defile the Quran." The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things.

Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released.

In the most recent confirmed case, Hood said a detainee complained on March 25, 2005, of urine splashing on him and his Quran. An unidentified guard admitted at the time that "he was at fault," the Hood report said, although it did not say whether the act was deliberate. The guard's supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay.

As described in the Hood report, the guard had left his observation post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the cell block. The incident was not further explained.

In another of the confirmed cases, a contract interrogator stepped on a detainee's Quran in July 2003 and then apologized. "The interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the Hood report said.

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for those alleged abuses.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several of the guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

Last week, Hood disclosed that he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details. Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have led to anti-American passions in many Muslim nations, although Pentagon officials have insisted that the problems were relatively minor and that U.S. commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity.

Hood said last week that he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.

Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.

There are about 540 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Both President Bush and Rumsfeld have denounced an Amnesty International report that called the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time."

The president told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday that the report by the human-rights group was "absurd."

On Wednesday, Rumsfeld called the characterization "reprehensible" and said the U.S. military had taken care to ensure that detainees were free to practice their religion. However, he also acknowledged that some detainees had been mistreated, even "grievously" at times.

Dom Heffner
06-03-2005, 10:45 PM
RFA, you always tell us to watch out for biased sources and then you only post the mistakes that go against the Bush administration. It's your type of bias that is just as dangerous.

If Bush gave a hoot about anyone dying, we'd never be over in Iraq in the first place.

We are witnessing quite possibly the worst presidency in the history of this country.

Absolutely shameful.

I love the "I'm not sure how this turned political" statement. If you really want an answer, I'll take a stab. Maybe because a right-wing poster shows his face only to criticize easy targets like Newsweek and Dan Rather on post after post after post and then fails to say anything about the prison abuses going on and all the other Bush administration mishaps.

Where are your Jeff Gannon posts, buddy? :)

Haven't seen those around. Gee, could it be that you're biased?

GAC
06-03-2005, 11:01 PM
RFA, you always tell us to watch out for biased sources and then you only post the mistakes that go against the Bush administration. It's your type of bias that is just as dangerous.

And liberals on here never start a thread with that same intent do they Dom? Naw! They never express their biases. ;)

So what you're saying is that people shouldn't be outraged, or show concern, when a news organization (whether it's Dan Rather or Newsweek) runs a story without verification of the facts, and that upon further investigation, it shows their motivation was more about biases then the truth.

It was simply another example of shoddy, and very unprofessional, journalism.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 12:10 AM
The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening

Heh.

GAC, we've had this conversation many times. Read the thread:


The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

Newsweek was right.

kbrake
06-04-2005, 12:43 AM
You guys are making it sound like Newsweek is responisble for Muslims being angry with us. And like someone already said if Bush or his supporters were so worried about people dying we would not be in Iraq to begin with.

GAC
06-04-2005, 08:16 AM
Heh.

GAC, we've had this conversation many times. Read the thread:



Newsweek was right.

Uh - I read those reports/articles long before they were posted on here. I already know what they have claimed, along with the Pentagon report.

What was it the Newsweek article claimed again? Oh yeah - that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet. That military interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk.

Wrong! So Newsweek was not right. If they had been, then why are they still backing off of this story and apologizing RF?

But the Pentagon report found out that there were some minor incidents where our soldiers even apologized, while some were disciplined. But nothing like Newsweek was trying to report.

Found this interesting in that Pentagon report. Did you happen to read over this?


Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for those alleged abuses.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several of the guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

So they now got it right, wrong, right. Journalism at it's excellence. :lol:

You're right RF. We have had this conversation before. You're the one who started a similar thread about a year ago by posting an article by the always reliable and objective, and never biased (sarcasm), New Tork Times (who is about as anti-military as any journalistic establishment can get) accusing our military of torturing those detainees at Gitmo.

Then I posted pictures giving examples of how these detainees are being "tortured". Check them out again.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29979&page=3&pp=10&highlight=Guantanamo+Bay

They are getting better treatment, and in better living circumstances, then they had while in Afghanistan. As the one base commander stated - these detainees are sleeping on the same type of beds our men are using over in Afghanistan.

Here's a good article on what a day's activities are like for one of these detainee's....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0314/p01s04-usmi.html

They are treated far better then how our enemies treat their prisoners (if they are even allowed to live).

GAC
06-04-2005, 08:21 AM
You guys are making it sound like Newsweek is responisble for Muslims being angry with us.

No we are not. But we don't need Newsweek, or any other organization, showing such strong biases to allow them to rush a story to print without verification and reliable sources. After all, they are the ones now apologizing. Look at the results of their shoddy journalism in this particular situation.

And a vast majority of Muslims aren't angry or hate America. But we don't need organizations like Newsweek trying to "flame the anti-American" sentiment any more then it currently is in various segments.

RedsBaron
06-04-2005, 08:42 AM
RFA, you always tell us to watch out for biased sources and then you only post the mistakes that go against the Bush administration. It's your type of bias that is just as dangerous.

Maybe because a right-wing poster shows his face only to criticize easy targets like Newsweek and Dan Rather on post after post after post and then fails to say anything about the prison abuses going on and all the other Bush administration mishaps.

Gee, could it be that you're biased?
Dom, thanks for giving me a laugh this morning. Is RFA biased? Yeah, I'd say so, and I'll readily admit to having my own biases. What made me laugh was the tone of your post. While you didn't explicitly say so, you certainly implied that RFA was the exception here, someone who only posted mistakes that went against those whom he supported, someone who failed to say anything about the shortcomings of those he favors.
I've somehow missed all your posts about the shortcomings of those you support. Please direct me to your posts that said anything critical about any left-of-center politician or media outlet, or anything positive about any right-of-center politician or media outlet.

kbrake
06-04-2005, 10:50 AM
No we are not. But we don't need Newsweek, or any other organization, showing such strong biases to allow them to rush a story to print without verification and reliable sources. After all, they are the ones now apologizing. Look at the results of their shoddy journalism in this particular situation.

And a vast majority of Muslims aren't angry or hate America. But we don't need organizations like Newsweek trying to "flame the anti-American" sentiment any more then it currently is in various segments.

I understand what your saying but my point is, be more upset with a Government that allows things like the Abu Grhaib prison abuse scandal then a newspaper that screws up a story. Abu Grhaib had much more to do with flaming the anti-American setiment in the middle east. And while I agree that not all Muslims hate America, I think it is a rising number.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 03:25 PM
The report said it confirmed four times when U.S. personnel at the base mishandled the Quran: guards kicked a detainee's Quran; a guard's urine "splashed" a detainee and his holy book and guards in a water balloon fight that resulted in two detainees' Qurans getting wet.

So a guard urinates on a Quran, but that's not bad enough eh GAC? Newsweek certainly may have gotten some details wrong, but it doesn't really matter since plenty of abuse has occurred. Prisoners have been abused, at Gitmo and in Iraq, and the war in Iraq has been made more difficult because of those abuses.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 03:26 PM
While you didn't explicitly say so, you certainly implied that RFA was the exception here, someone who only posted mistakes that went against those whom he supported, someone who failed to say anything about the shortcomings of those he favors.

RFA is the only person I've ever "met" who can turn literally any political discussion around to Ted Kennedy. So he's got that going for him.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 03:53 PM
Dom, thanks for giving me a laugh this morning. Is RFA biased? Yeah, I'd say so, and I'll readily admit to having my own biases. What made me laugh was the tone of your post. While you didn't explicitly say so, you certainly implied that RFA was the exception here, someone who only posted mistakes that went against those whom he supported, someone who failed to say anything about the shortcomings of those he favors.
I've somehow missed all your posts about the shortcomings of those you support. Please direct me to your posts that said anything critical about any left-of-center politician or media outlet, or anything positive about any right-of-center politician or media outlet.

I'm not Dom, but I'll jump in the fray. I respect completely Arlen Spector's (Republican, Pennsylvania) stance on stem cell research--he's standing up against the hatemongering, religion-infused governmental stance from the White House and *sweet, huggable puppies who love other ethnicities and women* like Delay and Frist in order to do what's right for PROGRESS, and not allowing our country to slip into a new Dark Age of persecuted SCIENCE.

KittyDuran
06-04-2005, 04:50 PM
RFA is the only person I've ever "met" who can turn literally any political discussion around to Ted Kennedy. So he's got that going for him. :bowrofl: :luvu: I'd give you rep points but I'm only giving those out for posters on Reds Live!

Reds4Life
06-04-2005, 05:08 PM
I'm not Dom, but I'll jump in the fray. I respect completely Arlen Spector's (Republican, Pennsylvania) stance on stem cell research--he's standing up against the hatemongering, religion-infused governmental stance from the White House and Nazis like Delay and Frist in order to do what's right for PROGRESS, and not allowing our country to slip into a new Dark Age of persecuted SCIENCE.

It's fine to have political discussions, but I'm not going to put up with you calling people Nazis. Consider this your first and only warning.

RBA
06-04-2005, 05:13 PM
It's fine to have political discussions, but I'm not going to put up with you calling people Nazis. Consider this your first and only warning.

He called Delay and Frist Nazis. I don't believe there is a rule against that.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 05:16 PM
Tom Delay isn't a nazi?!? Air America lied to me ...

Reds4Life
06-04-2005, 05:17 PM
He called Delay and Frist Nazis. I don't believe there is a rule against that.

There are rules against it, several actually. If people can't act like adults and carry on a conversation without name calling then futher action will be taken.

RBA
06-04-2005, 05:21 PM
I beleive the "name calling" rule is meant for personal attacks against other posters, not public figures.

I must be mistaken, but didn't someone call Ted Kennedy a murderer, or close to it?

Reds4Life
06-04-2005, 05:24 PM
I beleive the "name calling" rule is meant for personal attacks against other posters, not public figures.

It applies to topics being discussed, not just individual posters. Sort of like the rule against using edgy language, which that comment also violated.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 05:29 PM
Edgy language? Did something get edited out there?

GAC
06-04-2005, 05:34 PM
So a guard urinates on a Quran, but that's not bad enough eh GAC?

Again... read the details concerning this situation in the report RF. You make it sound like he grabbed a copy of the Koran, stood in front of a prisoner, pulled his pants down and urinated on it intentionally. And that is not what had happened now was it.


Newsweek certainly may have gotten some details wrong, but it doesn't really matter since plenty of abuse has occurred.

And Newsweek sure "stoked them flames" with that article didn't they? Should there be any accountability there?

Oh... now it doesn't matter. You first tell me to go back and read the thread, because the Newsweek claim was proven true. I show you where it wasn't (as originally reported by Newsweek), and you say it now doesn't matter because abuse has occurred at Gitmo. Nice dodge.

First define abuse. And then show specific recorded incidents of such abuse at Gitmo. I have read the accusations of abuse being thrown out by Amnesty International's recent report (William Schulz). But they can never really verify or give specific incidents of abuse. They say "we've heard reports of.."

And Amnesty International is basing those allegations on people who were held in detention at Gitmo. Do you think these people's testimony who were captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, who hate America, are credible? I don't. Not when some have been released and are now back in Afghanistan fighting our military.

In March, the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, “all of which were relatively minor.” In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved “female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner.”

Not exactly the gulag that Amensty International charges we are running. But then, I have never been a huge fan of this organization. Their definition of human rights violations differs from what most feel/think.

Reds4Life
06-04-2005, 05:35 PM
Edgy language? Did something get edited out there?

Calling someone a Nazi is edgy in my book, and it was totally unnecessary. The point could have been conveyed without that little comment. And you guys wonder why political threads were nearly banned here? It’s not that hard to figure out, everyone acts like a 3 year old in the sandbox.

The warnings have been issued and if I see it again that person is going on a forced vacation.

RBA
06-04-2005, 05:37 PM
Again... read the details concerning this situation in the report RF. You make it sound like he grabbed a copy of the Koran, stood in front of a prisoner, pulled his pants down and urinated on it intentionally. And that is not what had happened now was it.

How does urine get on the prisoner's Koran unintentionally? How did it happen?

The only excuses that I can come up is:

The Guard was drunk and urinated down the vent.

Than you have to ask why is there drunk soldiers on duty in a prison. Especially a prison such as this one.

Or..

The Guard was at his station and no one came to provide him a latrine break. This makes the most obvious sense to me, since I have first hand experience of what securtiy guards pull on duty, especially very young ones.

Or,

The Guard did it intentionally as he knew the vent went down to the prisoners.

GAC
06-04-2005, 05:52 PM
How does urine get on the prisoner's Koran unintentionally? How did it happen?

According to the report printed in the Washington Post (and posted on page 1 by sava), it states...


In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran

The guard admitted to the incident. It didn't look intentional, and the guard was reassigned.

You also have to look at WHO is making these charges of mishandling the Koran.... the detainees! al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Quran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside.

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about abusing people, but about mishandling the Quran. Let’s understand what mishandling means. Under the rules later instituted by the Pentagon at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Quran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Quran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

Moreover, what were the Qurans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Qurans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text which that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book Portraits 9/11/01 — vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

Take away the Koran, and guess what... it can't be mishandled or abused. ;)

GAC
06-04-2005, 05:54 PM
How does urine get on the prisoner's Koran unintentionally? How did it happen?

The only excuses that I can come up is:

The Guard was drunk and urinated down the vent.

Than you have to ask why is there drunk soldiers on duty in a prison. Especially a prison such as this one.

Or..

The Guard was at his station and no one came to provide him a latrine break. This makes the most obvious sense to me, since I have first hand experience of what securtiy guards pull on duty, especially very young ones.

Or,

The Guard did it intentionally as he knew the vent went down to the prisoners.

Sure are making alot of unsubstantiated assumptions here RBA. I guess you can believe whatever you want to.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:01 PM
It's fine to have political discussions, but I'm not going to put up with you calling people Nazis. Consider this your first and only warning.

Wow. Now we can't use political terms to talk about politicians on the far, far right. Ooooookay, then. Backing away slowly. Original post edited for family fun.

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 06:01 PM
Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text which that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents?

Canada, all of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand ... most western industrialized countries.

RBA
06-04-2005, 06:07 PM
There is a reason they have the "Quran". It's used as a tool to get the prisoners to talk.

Much like if you were in a christian cult and the leader used different verses in the Bible to lead you on a certain path like blowing up an abortion clinic. Well, if I'm an interviewer, I could most likely get you to open up by saying, "hey, I'm a Christian, can you read me some of your favorite passages out of your Bible." I could soon gain your trust and go on getting much more information out of you. What Christian would not use the opportunity to "spead the word". (So he thinks)

Or they could be playing "Good cop, bad cop" with the same scenario. One interviewer would just scream about how he should throw that "Quran" in the toilet. Than, the good cop, would say how he is Muslim once the other interviewer is gone and this would provide an opening to gain the prisoner's trust.

RBA
06-04-2005, 06:10 PM
Sure are making alot of unsubstantiated assumptions here RBA. I guess you can believe whatever you want to.

I'm not making assumptions, just trying to figure out how someone unintentionally urinates down an air duct How do you believe it happened?

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:15 PM
According to the report printed in the Washington Post (and posted on page 1 by sava), it states...



The guard admitted to the incident. It didn't look intentional, and the guard was reassigned.

You also have to look at WHO is making these charges of mishandling the Koran.... the detainees! al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Quran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside.

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about abusing people, but about mishandling the Quran. Let’s understand what mishandling means. Under the rules later instituted by the Pentagon at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Quran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Quran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

Moreover, what were the Qurans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Qurans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text which that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book Portraits 9/11/01 — vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

Take away the Koran, and guess what... it can't be mishandled or abused. ;)

Here's the thing: these people haven't been formally charged WITH ANYTHING. They have no access to representation and are held at the whim of the United States indefinitely. They aren't protected under the Geneva Convention because they aren't prisoners of war or enemy combatants technically. They've fallen through the cracks the Bush administration is making no efforts to fill Constitutionally. Because if the Constitution is brought to bear on Gitmo, they'd have to stop torturing and due process would have to be afforded these detainees. And that's the last thing the Bush gang wants.

GAC
06-04-2005, 06:17 PM
I'm not making assumptions, just trying to figure out how someone unintentionally urinates down an air duct How do you believed it happened?

Don't know. But I'm not gonna make assumptions. What makes you think it was down an air duct? The air duct could have been on an outside wall and the soldier stepped outside to pee. The report says the wind blew it into the duct.

I'm just gonna exercise skepticism anytime one of those detainees starts leveling accusations of abuse. I find it hard to trust anything they say as credible. If some, such as Amnesty International, and others, want to believe them, then that is fine.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:22 PM
Again... read the details concerning this situation in the report RF. You make it sound like he grabbed a copy of the Koran, stood in front of a prisoner, pulled his pants down and urinated on it intentionally. And that is not what had happened now was it.



And Newsweek sure "stoked them flames" with that article didn't they? Should there be any accountability there?

Oh... now it doesn't matter. You first tell me to go back and read the thread, because the Newsweek claim was proven true. I show you where it wasn't (as originally reported by Newsweek), and you say it now doesn't matter because abuse has occurred at Gitmo. Nice dodge.

First define abuse. And then show specific recorded incidents of such abuse at Gitmo. I have read the accusations of abuse being thrown out by Amnesty International's recent report (William Schulz). But they can never really verify or give specific incidents of abuse. They say "we've heard reports of.."

And Amnesty International is basing those allegations on people who were held in detention at Gitmo. Do you think these people's testimony who were captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, who hate America, are credible? I don't. Not when some have been released and are now back in Afghanistan fighting our military.

In March, the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, “all of which were relatively minor.” In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved “female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner.”

Not exactly the gulag that Amensty International charges we are running. But then, I have never been a huge fan of this organization. Their definition of human rights violations differs from what most feel/think.

The operations of a government-run and funded institution like Gitmo should be transparent, accountable to the tax-paying public, just like every other government institution. That's the whole bloody point. This place has no transparency and no accountability. They could be having hug-fests in there for all we know. NO ONE KNOWS--THAT'S THE SCARY PART.

RBA
06-04-2005, 06:26 PM
Don't know. But I'm not gonna make assumptions. What makes you think it was down an air duct? The air duct could have been on an outside wall and the soldier stepped outside to pee. The report says the wind blew it into the duct.



That's one explanation. I find it hard to believe, but it's an explanation.


The incident was not further explained.
And why not?

GAC
06-04-2005, 06:26 PM
Here's the thing: these people haven't been formally charged WITH ANYTHING. They have no access to representation and are held at the whim of the United States indefinitely. They aren't protected under the Geneva Convention because they aren't prisoners of war or enemy combatants technically. They've fallen through the cracks the Bush administration is making no efforts to fill Constitutionally. Because if the Constitution is brought to bear on Gitmo, they'd have to stop torturing and due process would have to be afforded these detainees. And that's the last thing the Bush gang wants.

The are not U.S. citizens, and therefore not subject to protection/rights given under our Constitution.

A look at tribunals at Guantanamo Bay

Associated Press

Detainees first were flown to the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in January 2002. The Bush administration considered them enemy fighters with no recourse to the U.S. legal system because they were foreigners held on foreign soil.

In July 2004, the U.S. government hastily began holding "combatant status review tribunals" to determine whether hundreds of detainees should be classified as "enemy combatants."

The move came a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the detainees could challenge their detentions without charge or trial in U.S. courts. Dozens of cases are pending.

Tribunals that ended in January 2005 were held by three-member panels led by a president for more than 550 detainees from more than 40 countries.

Only 38 men have been released as a result of the tribunals.

Many refused to attend.

Detainees were not allowed lawyers, only a military-appointed military attorney as a "personal representative."

At the hearings, the detainee is present only to hear unclassified evidence - usually a string of allegations. The prisoner is not allowed to attend another session hearing evidence considered classified to protect U.S. national security.

A prisoner can choose to take a Muslim or Christian oath, a personal oath, or nothing.

The personal representative reads accusations, and the prisoner responds.

The prisoner can choose to answer questions, including from the "recorder," a government representative who acts as a prosecutor.

He may also call witnesses, though the only ones who apparently have given testimony were other detainees.

Classified evidence is reviewed separately, and then an administrative review panel decides if the prisoner has been properly classified as an enemy combatant.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:28 PM
I am not sure how this became political, but my concern is with media outlets who run with stories that come from only one source and do not verify the validity of these stories (very-very much like the 60 Minutes II false story). This particular one caused protests in the Muslim world and people were killed in these protests. The 60 Minutes II story could have had an effect on our presidential election and brought about the resignation of a well-known news anchor.

Freedom of the press is a great thing. Many in the Arab world can tell us this as they have been denied such rights for many years. But when stories like this (like this = not valid) are put in print, they can have serious ramifications (16 dead). I wonder how many add'l attacks were brought upon our military men & women b/c of this untrue story? I doubt we will ever know.

Sometimes I think in the glee to be "the one" to break some big news, media outlets take a chance that their sources are right. And when they are wrong... there can be consequences. Is taking a chance to break the big one worth the lives of other humans? Lives that may still be here today if not for the invalid story of an outlet that tried to break a big one.

I hope Newsweek also delivers an apology to our entire military and units at Guantanamo Bay for their story that portrayed those soldiers in a falsehood. Although I won't hold my breath as it seems that they are still trying to say that the Koran story may not be true, but it may not be false either. Still trying their best to prove it, I guess. Let's hope they let the families of 16 dead people know the truth whenever they finally figure it out.

I tell you what: if Newsweek offers an apology to the fighting men and women of our armed forces for their error (and it was an error), then it will be exactly one more than the Bush Administration has given the soldiers and their families for misleading this country into war in the first place.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:33 PM
The are not U.S. citizens, and therefore not subject to protection/rights given under our Constitution.

A look at tribunals at Guantanamo Bay

Associated Press

Detainees first were flown to the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in January 2002. The Bush administration considered them enemy fighters with no recourse to the U.S. legal system because they were foreigners held on foreign soil.

In July 2004, the U.S. government hastily began holding "combatant status review tribunals" to determine whether hundreds of detainees should be classified as "enemy combatants."

The move came a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the detainees could challenge their detentions without charge or trial in U.S. courts. Dozens of cases are pending.

Tribunals that ended in January 2005 were held by three-member panels led by a president for more than 550 detainees from more than 40 countries.

Only 38 men have been released as a result of the tribunals.

Many refused to attend.

Detainees were not allowed lawyers, only a military-appointed military attorney as a "personal representative."

At the hearings, the detainee is present only to hear unclassified evidence - usually a string of allegations. The prisoner is not allowed to attend another session hearing evidence considered classified to protect U.S. national security.

A prisoner can choose to take a Muslim or Christian oath, a personal oath, or nothing.

The personal representative reads accusations, and the prisoner responds.

The prisoner can choose to answer questions, including from the "recorder," a government representative who acts as a prosecutor.

He may also call witnesses, though the only ones who apparently have given testimony were other detainees.

Classified evidence is reviewed separately, and then an administrative review panel decides if the prisoner has been properly classified as an enemy combatant.

Thanks, I was already aware of this. But the Bush Administration is making no effort or move to give them ANY particular status. He and the military are making it up as they go along. That's NOT the American Way.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia decided they could lock up any Western looking person without charge, unaccountable to International or Constitutional law. Would you be in favor of that?

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 06:35 PM
The are not U.S. citizens, and therefore not subject to protection/rights given under our Constitution.

They aren't prisoners of war either, so they're not protected by the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration wants to be able to have it's cake and eat it too by not having these people be protected by anything. I wonder why they might desire such a thing?

Regardless of why they want it this way it's hurting our country.

GAC
06-04-2005, 06:38 PM
That's one explanation. I find it hard to believe, but it's an explanation.


And why not?

I don't know RBA. Maybe our Congress needs to spend taxpayer monies and do a full investigation. :lol:

Maybe the soldier had irritable bowel syndrome, or a weak bladder. It looks like what he did was wrong, in that he simply stepped outside to pee when he should have went to use the proper facilities. But it wasn't intentional. Maybe they just didn't want to embarass this soldier after they already reassigned/reprimanded him. They felt that was enough.

He obviously was never taught to not pee in the wind! :lol:

GAC
06-04-2005, 06:45 PM
They aren't prisoners of war either, so they're not protected by the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration wants to be able to have it's cake and eat it too by not having these people be protected by anything.

What should we have done with these prisoners once they had been taken alive on the battlefields of Afghanistan? Where should they have been taken or encarcerated until investigations/interrogations could be down? I fully acknowledge that it has been a slow process, and not the most ideal situation; but what should we have done?


I wonder why they might desire such a thing?

I'm all ears. You tell me. ;)

Redsfaithful
06-04-2005, 06:47 PM
Where should they have been taken or encarcerated until investigations/interrogations could be down?

You've got to be kidding me. How about taking them as POW's and following the Geneva Convention guidelines like we promised?

You'd be falling all over yourself to condemn a different country holding American soldiers hostage without charging them with anything or treating them according to the Geneva Conventions. The hypocricy you seem capable of is stunning to me.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 06:49 PM
What should we have done with these prisoners once they had been taken alive on the battlefields of Afghanistan? Where should they have been taken or encarcerated until investigations/interrogations could be down? I fully acknowledge that it has been a slow process, and not the most ideal situation; but what should we have done?



I'm all ears. You tell me. ;)

They should have been proclaimed prisoners of war if they were taken from the field of battle. If not, they should have been questioned and released.

GAC
06-04-2005, 09:41 PM
You've got to be kidding me. How about taking them as POW's and following the Geneva Convention guidelines like we promised?

You'd be falling all over yourself to condemn a different country holding American soldiers hostage without charging them with anything or treating them according to the Geneva Conventions. The hypocricy you seem capable of is stunning to me.

Hypocrisy how?

These prisoners are being treated properly and fairly. Far better then when one of ours is captured by these terrorists (we're lucky to get them back alive). Why not be in more of an uproar over that.

You have yet to prove any of the abuse accusations at Gitmo. And when cases of abuse were discovered at Abu Graib (or at Gitmo) we moved quickly to investigate, take corrective action when it's needed, and discipline those that were responsible. IMO, that says alot about us as a nation/people. We're not perfect; but we don't condone nor approve of it when it situations like this are brought out. And we want it corrected when it occurs, and those responsible held accountable.

All you want to do is use something like this for your own partisan political motives. You look for situations like this in order to try and make something big out of it, and embarass an administration you are in opposition with from an ideologocal standpoint. Pure and simple.

Falls City Beer
06-04-2005, 10:21 PM
Hypocrisy how?

These prisoners are being treated properly and fairly. Far better then when one of ours is captured by these terrorists (we're lucky to get them back alive). Why not be in more of an uproar over that.

Apples to oranges. You're comparing the actions of the U.S. Government with those of terrorist groups. I think we can all agree that the U.S. Government should be held to a higher standard of conduct (vis. treatment of prisoners) than the actions of terrorist groups in regards to prisoner treatment.

Somebody's got to set an example.

Redsfaithful
06-05-2005, 12:05 AM
Yes, the US is doing better than the terrorists when it comes to human rights violations. Let's have a parade because that certainly is impressive.

When your kid brings home a D do you say, "well hey now the neighbor kid failed so you really didn't do that bad"? No, I doubt that you do. You get upset because that level of performance isn't acceptable.

What we've done in Cuba and in Iraqi prisons shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. And yet it is, to most of the people who voted for Bush. That's frightening.

GAC
06-05-2005, 10:23 AM
What we've done in Cuba and in Iraqi prisons shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. And yet it is, to most of the people who voted for Bush. That's frightening.

That's pure BS and you know it. When Abu Ghraib occurred, no one condoned it or looked the other way (including anyone that voted for Bush). We were just as appauled, shocked, and disappointed that a segment of our military would perform such acts on prisoners, and bring disrespect on our military. We demanded investigations, that the prison conditions be improved, and that those held responsible brought to justice.

That has occurred RF. This administration has done everything that should have been done when Abu Ghraid occurred. But your political partisanship refuses to allow you to accept that.

And as far as Gitmo goes. You have yet to show any specific instances of physical abuse of prisoners there... only accusations.

We've been arguing on this thread about what?....people mishandling the Quran. Wow! That's real abuse! And again, they come from such reliable sources - the detainees themselves. Many which have been investigated and shown to be false. And again, what ones were discovered (minor) were addressed/corrected - and when it required disciplinary action, then they took it.

Isn't that what we should have done?

Ah yes - it shouldn't have happened to begin with. I agree. But when something like this does, then the mark of a nation (and it's people), that do have high standards, is that they act quickly to address the wrong.

We can argue all day about how these prisoners should be classified - POWs or enemy combatants.

As far as I'm concerned, those at Gitmo are terrorists. And while they are encarcerated, they should be treated humanely (and they are). And until we can complete the individual investigations/background checks on each of these individuals to see what they level of their involvement was, then that is where they should stay.

You do realize several prisoners released by the U.S. military from a detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rejoined their comrades in arms and taken part in fresh attacks on U.S.? So yeah, as long as those at Gitmo are treated humanely, I'm in no hurry to have them released while investigations are pending.

Redsfaithful
06-05-2005, 11:38 AM
And as far as Gitmo goes. You have yet to show any specific instances of physical abuse of prisoners there... only accusations.

If there hadn't been pictures in Abu Ghraib you'd be saying the same thing about that.

What purpose does Gitmo serve GAC? Why can't we have the prison in America? It would silence critics immediately and show that the US is trying to do the right thing. It's not like the prison is helping our standing in the world, which does matter whether you want it to or not.

You are aware that terrorist attacks are up in the past two years, right?

GAC
06-05-2005, 10:37 PM
If there hadn't been pictures in Abu Ghraib you'd be saying the same thing about that.

Uh, no I wouldn't. Do you live your life by assumptions? Who took those pics? Some pretty stupid and irresponsible miltary personell there. I'm glad they got caught, and I hope justice is swift. I also hope it has sent a message to the rest in our military that this type of thing will not be tolerated and is not representative of not only our military as a whole; but we as a nation.

The accusations coming from Gitmo have coming mainly from those encarcerated RF. I find their words to be most unreliable and untrustworthy. Obviously you don't. But the fact of the matter is that the Pentagon did take what allegations were coming out from there seriously and investigated them. And when they found violations, they dealt with them.

Again... neither you (or Amnesty International) can show any documented cases of physical abuse/torture at Gitmo. You still continue to avoid that question.

It seems your only concern is the the way they have been classified -i.e. enemy combatants vs P.O.W.s (which would then fall under the Geneva Convention). I've read/reviewed the Geneva Convention articles. Can you show me where these prisoners at Gitmo are being treated in violation of the Geneva Convention as far as it's regulations on the treatment of prisoners?



What purpose does Gitmo serve GAC? Why can't we have the prison in America? It would silence critics immediately and show that the US is trying to do the right thing. It's not like the prison is helping our standing in the world, which does matter whether you want it to or not.

I think you're trying to make more out of Gitmo then what is really there. I haven't read where the rest of the world is outraged over it. Where, outside of left-leaning organizations such as Amnesty International, are the world governments voicing their protests with the U.S. over Gitmo? Where are their ambassadors/representatives showing outrage over it? Where's the UN's protest? Show me where even Arab/Muslim countries/governments have registered protests with the U.S. government over Gitmo? Yes, there are some organizations protesting. But it's not at the level of outrage you seem to want to claim.

Why should we build or try to house these prisoners in the U.S. when we have an overcrowding problem within our prisons as it is? You show me how locating them here would make it right? What does location have anything to do with how well/bad they are treated? They are gonna still be encarcerated, interrogated, and treated no differently, whether they are at Gitmo or in the U.S.

And personally, due to the uniqueness of this situation, I want these individuals isolated. I don't want them anywhere near our prison population.

And re-locating them here would not silence critics llike you. You's simply move onto or find domething else to be outraged over in this particular situation. If they housed these individuals in a five star Ramada in while they are being investigated/processed, you'd complain that that it wasn't a Holiday Inn. :lol:

Nothing this administration does, or will do, will ever satisfy you simply due to the ideological differences that exist. That's the pure and simple truth. If they turn left, then you'll wonder why they didn't turn right.


You are aware that terrorist attacks are up in the past two years, right?

That's obvious. We are at war (and not just Iraq). They were killing us throughout the 90's and we did nothing or very little. So we are now taking that war to them, and it's only natural they they are gonna fight back.

Hypothetically speaking - lets say we never went into Iraq, but concentrated only on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda around the world. Do you think terrorist attacks would have still increased? They sure would have. So the point you are trying to make is mote at best.

I'm glad that we are going after these terrorists. We should have been doing it for over a decade now. We looked at it with indifference or that it wasn't a problem. Then a 9/11 happens. I wish we had even more support from the rest of the world community.

Do you actually think that if we had left them alone they would leave us alone? Are you that gullible? As long as there is a presence in the Middle East, and we continue to support Israel, then these terrorists are gonna attack/kill us at every oportunity. They have been for awhile now. It's time we took the batle to them.

And yes RF, we have done great harm to Al Qaeda, regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

kbrake
06-05-2005, 10:55 PM
GAC, do you honestly think you will live to see an end to this "war on terror"? We can fight them for the next 50 years and they will still be there. And sooner or later this whole "we fight them there so we dont have to here" crap is going to be exposed for what it is. (In no way am I saying I am hoping for this, I just think it is a matter of time)

Falls City Beer
06-05-2005, 11:03 PM
GAC, do you honestly think you will live to see an end to this "war on terror"? We can fight them for the next 50 years and they will still be there. And sooner or later this whole "we fight them there so we dont have to here" crap is going to be exposed for what it is. (In no way am I saying I am hoping for this, I just think it is a matter of time)

I think we should fight the war on terror as long as it takes. And yes, "over there." Heck, I'm willing to have my taxes raised to do it. ;)


I DON'T think we should bomb an impotent and contained Iraq to stir up the viper's nest.

Redsfaithful
06-05-2005, 11:05 PM
And yes RF, we have done great harm to Al Qaeda, regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

And yet terrorism is up.


I haven't read where the rest of the world is outraged over it.

You don't tend to seek out information contrary to your beliefs, so that doesn't surprise me. If you want me to dig up some links I'd be more than happy to, although they won't change your mind at all. Because nothing ever does.


Why should we build or try to house these prisoners in the U.S. when we have an overcrowding problem within our prisons as it is? You show me how locating them here would make it right?

GAC, I don't mean this in a mean way at all, but your ignorance is showing.

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


The peculiar legal status of Guantanamo Bay was a factor in the choice of Guantanamo as a detention center. Because sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba, the U.S. government argued unsuccessfully that people detained at Guantanamo were legally outside of the U.S. and did not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory (see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995)). In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

The U.S. classifies the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as illegal enemy combatants, but has not held the Article 5 tribunals that would be required by international law for it to do so. This would grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war. On November 9, 2004 US District Court Judge James Robertson ruled that the Bush Administration had overstepped its authority to try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and denying them access to the evidence used against them.

Three British prisoners released in 2004 without charge have alleged that there is ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay and have released a 115-page dossier detailing these accusations (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a06.shtml). They also accuse British authorities of knowing about the torture and failing to respond. Their accounts have been confirmed by two former French prisoners, a former Swedish prisoner, and a former Australian prisoner. In response to accusations, US Navy Secretary Gordon England has claimed that a Navy inspector general has performed a review of the practices at Guantanamo and concluded that it was "being operated at very high standards."

Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed last month after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed that he "witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths".

On November 30, 2004, The New York Times published excerpts from an internal memo leaked from the US administration, [2] (http://nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?ei=5094&en=8d107165e454d8b6&hp=&ex=1101877200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1101843681-+nTyVVJpq8yXt1yEg4X28g) referring to a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The report points out several activities which, it said, were "tantamount to torture": exposure to loud noise or music, prolonged extreme temperatures, or beatings. It also reported the existence of a behavior science team (BSCT), also called 'Biscuit', and the fact physicians of the base communicate confidential medical information to the interrogation teams (weaknesses, phobias, etc.), resulting in the prisoners losing confidence in the medical team of the base. Access of the ICRC to the base was conditional, as is normal for ICRC humanitarian operations, to the confidentiality of their report; sources have reported heated debates had taken place at the ICRC headquarters, as some of those involved wanted to make the report public, or confront the US administration. The newspaper said the administration and the Pentagon had seen the ICRC report in July, 2004 but rejected its findings.[3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4645430,00.html) [4] (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6951969). The story was originally reported in several newspapers, including The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1213640,00.html), and the ICRC reacted to the article when the report was leaked in May.[5]

Try reading differing opinions before making up your mind. You don't even have anywhere near all the facts, and yet you're convinced that we're not doing anything wrong.

RBA
06-05-2005, 11:20 PM
I would think housing these prisoners in the Desert Southwest or in any of the numerous moth balled military installations would be a lot cheaper than housing them on part of an isolated location on an unfriendly island. The US is probably spending a small fortune keeping that camp operational. (Makes you wonder what company has the contract to maintain that base? I'm sure it's not outsource to Castro's Cuba. Would guessing Haliburton be close too the truth?)

We are going to have these types of prisoners for years to come and I would think that a prison with private contract guards would be the way to go. It would provide some jobs in the current stagnant economy.

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 08:58 AM
Does anyone else here realize that Newsweek admitted that they were wrong? Hard telling by reading some of the posts here.

And Amnesty International... are they looking into Geneva Convention violations and human rights violations by "the insurgents"? Do those who are so concerned about tha Quran and the accusations of Amnesty International (who talks to detainees and takes their word for truth) concern themselves with the blatant violations of the insurgents? I am not talking about peeing on someone's book... I am talking about blowing up innocent civilians (that includes children and women), I am talking about cutting off the heads of civilian workers, I am talking about executing civilian workers and hanging their bodies from a public bridge, I am talking about flying planes into buildings, I am talking about Kurds being murdered.

Comments? Tell me how you feel about butchering civilians as compared to peeing on a Quran.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 09:29 AM
Like I said before RFA, we're better than the terrorists. I don't consider that impressive.

I'd hope people would want to hold their country to a higher standard than simply "better than the Taliban/Al Qaeda".

GAC
06-06-2005, 10:36 AM
Does anyone else here realize that Newsweek admitted that they were wrong? Hard telling by reading some of the posts here.

And Amnesty International... are they looking into Geneva Convention violations and human rights violations by "the insurgents"? Do those who are so concerned about tha Quran and the accusations of Amnesty International (who talks to detainees and takes their word for truth) concern themselves with the blatant violations of the insurgents? I am not talking about peeing on someone's book... I am talking about blowing up innocent civilians (that includes children and women), I am talking about cutting off the heads of civilian workers, I am talking about executing civilian workers and hanging their bodies from a public bridge, I am talking about flying planes into buildings, I am talking about Kurds being murdered.

Comments? Tell me how you feel about butchering civilians as compared to peeing on a Quran.

Exactly. How many Korans did that suicide bomber desecrate/destroy when he blew up that mosque last week (along with the innocent)? Where is the outrage among the Muslim community when their own people are slaughtering the innocent?

Organizations like Amnesty International won't touch such matters as these. They instead feel it is much more worthy of their time to give credence to the unsubstantiated claims of terrorists held at Gitmo.

And heck yes I want our nation to have a higher standard. But some of you are demanding absolute perfection. A nation with high standards will still make mistakes and screw up. But where those high standards come into play is when they acknowledge those wrongs, address/correct them, apologize when needed, and try to improve.

IMO - America does this as best they can.

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 10:36 AM
Like I said before RFA, we're better than the terrorists. I don't consider that impressive.

I'd hope people would want to hold their country to a higher standard than simply "better than the Taliban/Al Qaeda".

And I do. And I believe that our leaders do too. Some want to believe the words of those who have "earned" a cell in Gitmo. Do those in Gitmo lie or do they do anything in their ability to make the U.S. look bad? I cannot speak for them as I have never experienced a day at Gitmo. And neither can you... and in the same regard what takes place at Gitmo (you CANNOT speak about what happens there in truth, b/c you do not know). The big difference is... I trust my country and you trust the accusations of people (terrorists) who earn the right to stay at Gitmo. That is a HUGE difference. Maybe you are right and I am wrong. Or maybe I am right and you are wrong. I know one thing for sure.... NEWSWEEK admitted to being wrong. However, some here still behave as if the original Newsweek story (the topic starter) is factual. Why? I don't know. Perhaps b/c they believe terrorists who live in Gitmo nowadays.

You do not know if there are abuses at Gitmo. And do not justify your words with Abu Gharib (a handful of bad soldiers, not high officials... check the record). Two different things. Not one in the same. Not if it happens here, then it must happen there. No. It amazes me how people that claim to be U.S. citizens will take for granted the words spoken by terrorists. And these people are willing to trash the U.S. gov't based on the words of people who are involved w/ groups who blowup innocent people. Groups who murder people who do not follow their religion (are you defending religious types?!?!). Think about it. And after thinking about it, give factual abuses from Gitmo. And please do not base "your facts" on the words of terrorists who reside there. I look forward to the factual cases that you may present.

GAC
06-06-2005, 11:00 AM
GAC, do you honestly think you will live to see an end to this "war on terror"? We can fight them for the next 50 years and they will still be there. And sooner or later this whole "we fight them there so we dont have to here" crap is going to be exposed for what it is. (In no way am I saying I am hoping for this, I just think it is a matter of time)

Will you or I live to see it the end? That I can't say. But that does not mean it should not be addressed does it? These groups nailed us pretty hard throughout the last decade of indifference on our part. How many innocent Americans and other foreign nationals have died and been slaughtered via various terrorist acts over the last 10-15 years, and by groups such as Al Qeada and Bin Laden (among others)?

When were we gonna take it seriously when Bin Laden declares war on the U.S. in 1998 and tells his followers to send America a message with body bags attached? He accused the American people of being weak-willed, and that they haven't got the spirit to fight. He also swre to bring America down economically. That is what worried me, because it was/is possible. Look what the events of 1 day (9-11) did to us economically.

I'll be honest with you (and I've said this before) - our government was partially to blame for the events that lead to 9-11 because of their inactivity and indifference towards Bin Laden/Al Qeada. We never seriously went after these people since the very 1st WTC bombing, several emabssy bombings, The USS Cole, etc. Our leaders from both Parties have failed us.

Yeah, we went after and captured a blind cleric and a few others, and then paraded them around like we had done something grand -but we weren't going after the people/organization that was backing them. We kept cutting off branches here and there (but those always grow back) - we never went after the "root" of that tree.

America and the world community over the last 20+ years, has allowed, via their indifference, for these terrorist networks to grow and become entrenched around the world. It seemed it was always someone else's problem.

Well, now that problem has GROWN. And now we have to face it head on. There is no way we can avoid it now. Are they gonna leave us alone?

Lets say we had never went into Iraq but concentrated our military only in Afghanistan. It wouldn't have made any difference to these terrorists. Instead of flocking to Iraq, they'd now be doing the same in Afghanistan. It wouldn't matter where we chose to fight - the terrorists would congregate there to oppose us.

And personally, I think it could have been worse with Afghanistan's terrain/mountaineous terrain. Just ask the Ruskies. ;)

kbrake
06-06-2005, 11:56 AM
I'll be honest with you (and I've said this before) - our government was partially to blame for the events that lead to 9-11 because of their inactivity and indifference towards Bin Laden/Al Qeada. We never seriously went after these people since the very 1st WTC bombing, several emabssy bombings, The USS Cole, etc. Our leaders from both Parties have failed us.

I couldnt agree more with that statement, especially the last line. My entire point though is that these people live there and they will wage this war for as long as it takes. When do we say enough is enough and quit sending our soldiers to die for a war we may never see an end to? My solution would be to quit pissing them off. I think that obviously bin Laden has to be dealt with, but the more we kill them the more angry they will be, then when they retaliate 9/11 style, we will be outraged and want more blood. If things stay the way they are we will never see an end to this war.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 01:10 PM
Some want to believe the words of those who have "earned" a cell in Gitmo.

Odd how we've released many prisoners without charging them with anything or punishing them further. How did they earn their cell again?

I guess you'd be fine with spending a year or two in jail, not being charged with anything, and then being let go though eh?

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 02:28 PM
Odd how we've released many prisoners without charging them with anything or punishing them further. How did they earn their cell again?

I guess you'd be fine with spending a year or two in jail, not being charged with anything, and then being let go though eh?

I am still awaiting your tales of abuse. Ones that you can verify with fact. That is what this thread is about. Give me the names of those you want to bring into this in your attempt to change the subject. Tell me about their everyday lives that were interuppted by the U.S. government. And I want more verification and fact on the Quran abuse. I'd also like to hear...

* Tales that al qaida operatives are not trained to charge torture and abuse of a book when they are detained. This does wonders to incite fellow prisoners and potential sympathizers on the outside (seems as though it even works on our own citizens).

* Tales of how we require our personnel at Gitmo to wear gloves and use two hands when handling the Quran. This means that any guard who used only one hand and may have touched it w/out gloves is considered abusive. Why? Because non-believers are not allowed to touch this holy book in the opinions of believers. Therefore, touch is abuse. How about that?

* So let us compare this form of abuse to murdering innocent civilians (whether by beheading or indiscriminate bombs). Touching a book with bare unholy hands vs. decapitating a civilian. Let me hear the comparisons and the charges from Amnesty International reagrding the slaughter of innocent civilians by the insurgents.

* Tales of the Bible being given to those kidnapped by insurgents. Do the insurgents handle the Bilble with the respect that Christians demand or is it a moot question b/c who cares about the Bible when their prisoners will be decapitated in the end anyhow?

* The same people in our country who demand justice on the "allegated abuses of the Quran" are the same ones who think it is freedom of speech to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and display it in a museum. These same people also think it is considered freedom of speech when they take a painting of the Virgin Mary and smear elephant crap on it and adorn porn on it. These things received taxpayer funding and a supportive ACLU brief.

zombie-a-go-go
06-06-2005, 02:40 PM
I am still awaiting your tales of abuse. Ones that you can verify with fact. That is what this thread is about. Give me the names of those you want to bring into this in your attempt to change the subject. Tell me about their everyday lives that were interuppted by the U.S. government. And I want more verification and fact on the Quran abuse. I'd also like to hear...

What about innocent until proven guilty? Does that not apply to people cursed by fate to have not been born a citizen of the USA?

Why do you assume that these people, whose names and/or faces you do not know, are guilty of something? Why not assume their innocence? Surely the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

zombie-a-go-go
06-06-2005, 02:41 PM
* The same people in our country who demand justice on the "allegated abuses of the Quran" are the same ones who think it is freedom of speech to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and display it in a museum. These same people also think it is considered freedom of speech when they take a painting of the Virgin Mary and smear elephant crap on it and adorn porn on it. These things received taxpayer funding and a supportive ACLU brief.

And on this tangent, you don't have to respect what people are "saying," but you do have to respect their right to say it.

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 02:43 PM
I am still awaiting your tales of abuse. Ones that you can verify with fact. That is what this thread is about. Give me the names of those you want to bring into this in your attempt to change the subject. Tell me about their everyday lives that were interuppted by the U.S. government. And I want more verification and fact on the Quran abuse. I'd also like to hear...

* Tales that al qaida operatives are not trained to charge torture and abuse of a book when they are detained. This does wonders to incite fellow prisoners and potential sympathizers on the outside (seems as though it even works on our own citizens).

* Tales of how we require our personnel at Gitmo to wear gloves and use two hands when handling the Quran. This means that any guard who used only one hand and may have touched it w/out gloves is considered abusive. Why? Because non-believers are not allowed to touch this holy book in the opinions of believers. Therefore, touch is abuse. How about that?

* So let us compare this form of abuse to murdering innocent civilians (whether by beheading or indiscriminate bombs). Touching a book with bare unholy hands vs. decapitating a civilian. Let me hear the comparisons and the charges from Amnesty International reagrding the slaughter of innocent civilians by the insurgents.

* Tales of the Bible being given to those kidnapped by insurgents. Do the insurgents handle the Bilble with the respect that Christians demand or is it a moot question b/c who cares about the Bible when their prisoners will be decapitated in the end anyhow?

* The same people in our country who demand justice on the "allegated abuses of the Quran" are the same ones who think it is freedom of speech to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and display it in a museum. These same people also think it is considered freedom of speech when they take a painting of the Virgin Mary and smear elephant crap on it and adorn porn on it. These things received taxpayer funding and a supportive ACLU brief.

No one knows these tales of abuse. That's the PROBLEM! I'll say it again for the thousandth time: NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE GITMO CAN'T BE WATCHED/SURVEYED BY A DISINTERESTED, OBJECTIVE 3RD PARTY. IT'S UNACCOUNTABLE TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL. THAT'S SCARY. AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY OPERATES.

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 03:09 PM
No one knows these tales of abuse. That's the PROBLEM! I'll say it again for the thousandth time: NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE GITMO CAN'T BE WATCHED/SURVEYED BY A DISINTERESTED, OBJECTIVE 3RD PARTY. IT'S UNACCOUNTABLE TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL. THAT'S SCARY. AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY OPERATES.

In times of war.,.. yes, this country does operate that way. You do not even have to look further than 100 years ago to understand this. It is only some in today's society that thinks every single thing has to be monitored and checked. They cannot be further from the truth w/ these thoughts. When was this made a law that everything has to be monitored and checked? I am interested to know. My understanding was always that our gov't had the right to keep certain things classified for certain periods of time.

Does that mean that something is wrong? I guess it depends on who you ask. Are some motivated by nothing more than political reasons for non-factual allegations? Yep. Has every war that this country fought had some soldiers who turned bad and did bad things to the enemy. Yep. Were Dems and/or Repubs in the White House when these things happened? Yep, both at different times. Is it possible to make every single soldier (thousands upon thousands) follow the law? Nope. Did it stop us from finishing the job in Nazi Germany or 1940's Japan? Nope.

The words of detainees are not good enough for me. They may be good for others, but not me.

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 03:43 PM
The words of detainees are not good enough for me. They may be good for others, but not me.

Which is why there needs to be oversight. If they are prisoners of war, then they are prisoners of war. If they are detained because they are dark-skinned and once lived in Afghanistan, they need to be charged in order to be held in custody.

Right now, the administration is operating outside of both U.S. and International law; they are following neither rule. They are in essence making up the rules as they go along. Tyrannies do not follow the rule of law, for example. Again, I ask you, would you be okay with the Saudis setting up their own Gitmo where they keep Western looking people without charging them, without representation, just because they're Western looking? GAC didn't answer that question, maybe you will?

There are rules. There is law. Without it there is chaos.

I do think it's quaint that the Bush administration falls all over themselves to support the word of Amnesty International's investigations into human rights abuses in Cuba, China, or North Korea, but suddenly when the spotlight shines on the good ole USA, their word is preposterous, absurd and unfounded.

Convenient, eh?

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 03:48 PM
What about innocent until proven guilty? Does that not apply to people cursed by fate to have not been born a citizen of the USA?

Why do you assume that these people, whose names and/or faces you do not know, are guilty of something? Why not assume their innocence? Surely the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Innocent till proven guilty? Only if you're white. :rolleyes:

Jaycint
06-06-2005, 03:52 PM
If they are detained because they are dark-skinned and once lived in Afghanistan, they need to be charged in order to be held in custody.

Again, I ask you, would you be okay with the Saudis setting up their own Gitmo where they keep Western looking people without charging them, without representation, just because they're Western looking? GAC didn't answer that question, maybe you will?




I almost hate to jump into this mess but I gotta ask. How is this suddenly about race? Do you REALLY believe that the only reason they were locked up and sent to Gitmo is because they are olive-skinned in complexion? I'm asking because I really can't bring myself to believe that that's what you think. Did you think they were going to find a bunch of caucasian Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan to bring over and lock up?

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 03:59 PM
I almost hate to jump into this mess but I gotta ask. How is this suddenly about race? Do you REALLY believe that the only reason they were locked up and sent to Gitmo is because they are olive-skinned in complexion? I'm asking because I really can't bring myself to believe that that's what you think. Did you think they were going to find a bunch of caucasian Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan to bring over and lock up?

How else do you explain Americans detaining innocent Afghanis at Gitmo? The U.S. cast an enormous net--sure, they got some bad guys, but they also netted a bunch of innocent people. Why is that? Was it because they were listening to Peaches and Herb?

Because if they had actual EVIDENCE against them, do YOU honestly think they would allow prisoners to leave Gitmo, which we now know they have?

Jaycint
06-06-2005, 04:05 PM
How else do you explain Americans detaining innocent Afghanis at Gitmo? The U.S. cast an enormous net--sure, they got some bad guys, but they also netted a bunch of innocent people. Why is that? Was it because they were listening to Peaches and Herb?

Could it have been because they thought the people had legit terrorist ties and then were released when it was found out that they didn't? I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that of course they are gonna be olive complected, that's the part of the world they come from. Just like if they raided Northern Ireland for IRA terrorists they would all be milky white. I don't think there is any racial agenda tied into the Gitmo thing.

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 04:18 PM
Could it have been because they thought the people had legit terrorist ties and then were released when it was found out that they didn't? I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that of course they are gonna be olive complected, that's the part of the world they come from. Just like if they raided Northern Ireland for IRA terrorists they would all be milky white. I don't think there is any racial agenda tied into the Gitmo thing.

Sure, they could have thought they had legit ties to terror. But "legit" means evidence or cause to be arrested or detained. If these people aren't given a trial (which they're not) how can it be determined whether or not they "didn't have legit terrorist ties?" It's a guilty until proven innocent setup, contrary to what this country stands for.

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 04:22 PM
"Only if you are white"... that has no place in this topic. The U.S. military is not racist and has never proven to be racist. Gee, does this racist military have any middle-eastern or asian people in it? That should put the racist charge to bed. Calling the U.S. military racist is shameful IMO. You care about racism and genocide? Tell me about the insurgents... not the U.S. military. Fact is fact.


Could it have been because they thought the people had legit terrorist ties and then were released when it was found out that they didn't?

Or because we did not have enough evidence. People need not look any further than O.J. Simpson to understand how that can work (despite the fact IMO that the DA did have enough evidence... wrong venue).

I believe the word innocent is being used too loosely in this topic. Innocent and not enough evidence are two completely different things.

zombie-a-go-go
06-06-2005, 04:28 PM
Innocent and not enough evidence are two completely different things.

:eek:

Let me edit, here: By what means do we determine a person's guilt, then? A hunch?

Jaycint
06-06-2005, 04:33 PM
Sure, they could have thought they had legit ties to terror. But "legit" means evidence or cause to be arrested or detained. If these people aren't given a trial (which they're not) how can it be determined whether or not they "didn't have legit terrorist ties?" It's a guilty until proven innocent setup, contrary to what this country stands for.

I don't disagree with you that things could have been done better where Gitmo is concerned and the prisoners need to be given some kind of official legal status so the process can be moved forward efficiently. I was simply saying that I disagree that it is racially motivated.

Rojo
06-06-2005, 04:43 PM
I believe the word innocent is being used too loosely in this topic. Innocent and not enough evidence are two completely different things.

I think we can all agree that there are a lot of scary folks in the world.

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2005, 05:19 PM
:eek:

Let me edit, here: By what means do we determine a person's guilt, then? A hunch?

Let me be straight... this IS NOT everyday street crimes. This is war. The same rules DO NOT apply. If so, then there should never be a thing called a POW.

Blame al qaida for this, not the U.S..

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 05:27 PM
Let me be straight... this IS NOT everyday street crimes. This is war. The same rules DO NOT apply. If so, then there should never be a thing called a POW.

Blame al qaida for this, not the U.S..

They should be POWs, then, right? If that's what they're determined, then I have no problem detaining them. But they AREN'T considered POWs, and are not therefore protected under the Geneva Convention. They are nothing, they have no status, and are subject to whatever the heck the U.S. sees fit to impose upon them.

You're completely missing the point, you're strawmanning. No one EVER suggested that we shouldn't be hunting down, killing or detaining Al Qaeda. That's a straw man argument and you know it. What we ARE saying is that people should be given a trial to DETERMINE guilt, not presume guilt.

GAC
06-06-2005, 09:43 PM
Odd how we've released many prisoners without charging them with anything or punishing them further. How did they earn their cell again?

I don't know why I waste my time reminding you of this when you already knew of it. ;)

Yes - some have steered clear of terrorism since being released. But some have not. And it has brought deadly results. I have no problem with detaining these characters until it can be ascertained what, if any, their level of involvement is. You forget - they were captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan in the first place. That should mean something.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml

Gitmo Detainees Return To Terror

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2004

(AP) U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.

At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. Others are at large.

Additional former detainees are said to have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.

Pentagon officials acknowledged that the release process is imperfect, but they said most of the Guantanamo detainees released have steered clear of Islamic insurgent groups.

The small number returning to the fight demonstrates the delicate balance the United States must strike between minimizing the appearance of holding people unjustly and keeping those who are legitimate long-term threats, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Human rights groups frequently criticize the Defense Department for holding the hundreds of prisoners at the naval base, largely without charges or legal counsel. Many have been held for more than two years; only a few have been charged.

An additional 57 Guantanamo prisoners have been transferred to the custody of their home governments: 29 to Pakistan; seven to Russia; five each to Morocco and Britain; four each to France and Saudi Arabia; and one each to Spain, Sweden and Denmark, the Pentagon has said.

The Pentagon did not identify the seven detainees believed to have returned to fighting, although a few names have been made public. One released detainee killed a judge leaving a mosque in Afghanistan, Plexico said.

Those in the small group that has gone back to fighting come mainly from the upper echelons of suspected militant or terror groups, some allegedly linked to al Qaeda, several counterterrorism officials in the Middle East said. They gave no details, but one noted a trend that lower-echelon members tend to get on with their lives after they are released.

The former prisoners include Abdullah Mehsud, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee linked to al Qaeda who oversaw the recent kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, one of whom was killed.

On Friday, Pakistani soldiers began a massive search for Mehsud, 28, who returned to Pakistan in March after about two years' detention at Guantanamo. Pakistan officials say he has forged ties with al Qaeda since then.

One of the two former prisoners killed is Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, a senior Taliban commander in northern Afghanistan who was arrested about two months after a U.S.-led coalition drove the militia from power in late 2001.

He was held at Guantanamo for eight months, then released, and was killed about a month ago, on Sept. 26, by Afghan security forces during a raid in Uruzgan province. Afghan leaders said they believed he was leading Taliban forces in the southern province.

Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, the No. 2 commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press this month there was no alternative to releasing prisoners from Guantanamo.

"It's not going to be perfect, so it (the Ghaffar case) has not led to any soul-searching about the release program," Olson said.

Other former prisoners have expressed publicly they wanted to return to the fight.

In Denmark, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, who was released in February from the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip, said he would go to Chechnya to fight with rebels there against Russia.

"The Muslims are oppressed in Chechnya, and the Russians are carrying out terror against them," the 31-year-old Dane, who has an Algerian father, told Danish television in September.

Abderrahmane, who was never charged in Denmark upon his return, later backtracked. After being questioned by Danish intelligence agents, he said he would stay in Denmark, hand over his passport and honor his pledge. Danish intelligence officials are keeping tabs on Abderrahmane.

In Sweden, Mehdi-Muhammed Ghezali, who was released in July after more than two years at the base, is being monitored by Swedish intelligence agents. While Sweden's security police, SAPO, has no official comment, its agents have said Ghezali is not a threat.

Other former Guantanamo prisoners, including Yaser Esam Hamdi of Saudi Arabia, had their releases held up amid fears they would rejoin their comrades.

Hamdi, who was born in Louisiana, spent three years in solitary confinement, first at Guantanamo and then at a Navy brig in South Carolina after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was returned to Saudi Arabia on Oct. 11 after agreeing to forfeit his U.S. citizenship.

He also is required to stay in Saudi Arabia for five years, renounce terror and cannot travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan or Syria. Additionally, Hamdi must notify Saudi officials if he becomes aware of "any planned or executed acts of terrorism."

It is likely that Hamdi will be monitored by government officials there, as much as Ghezali and Abderrahmane have been in northern Europe.

GAC
06-06-2005, 10:03 PM
I couldnt agree more with that statement, especially the last line. My entire point though is that these people live there and they will wage this war for as long as it takes. When do we say enough is enough and quit sending our soldiers to die for a war we may never see an end to? My solution would be to quit pissing them off. I think that obviously bin Laden has to be dealt with, but the more we kill them the more angry they will be, then when they retaliate 9/11 style, we will be outraged and want more blood. If things stay the way they are we will never see an end to this war.

My above response, which was about this "war" on terrorism, is not about, but is also not exclusive of either, Iraq. It has been the world communitie's indifference toward the seriousness of this threat over the last decade or so that has allowed these cells to grow and become entrenched all around the world, and has gotten to the point where it can no longer be ignored; but must be confronted. It has become global in context.

And it is interesting that since we have started to strike back (since 9/11) we have made alot of progress. But yes, due the extent we have allowed it to grow/expand, there is still alot to be done. But it is not going to be an easy task; but that doesn't mean it should then be avoided either. One of the first things we have to do, and which we have allowed to "fall behind the times" (so to speak) is our intelligence gathering/monitoring/coordination. But thousands of Al Qaeda operatives have been caught - many high ranking -we've killed how many?- we've also made great strides, in coordination with many other nations, in finding and disrupting their financial networks.

The above is what we have to do, and continue to do. And I believe that more needs to be done. We have not had any attacks on our own soil since 9/11; but we still need to do a far better job at securing our own borders. Again, this is an issue where our illustrious leaders in Washington are failing us.

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 02:40 AM
Yes - some have steered clear of terrorism since being released.

And many were never terrorists at all. Strange that. And yet they were held for a year or two without being charged with anything.


You forget - they were captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan in the first place.

GAC, the battlefields of Afghanistan were where people lived. Do you get that? There aren't big fields where everyone marches out, lines up on both sides, and then charges towards each other. People were captured in their homes, in the streets of their towns, everywhere. Anyone the US military thought looked suspicious or that they had reason to believe was connected to terrorism or the Taliban. Then they were transported to Gitmo, questioned for a couple of years, not charged with anything, and then many were let go. I'm sure you'd love it if the same thing happened to US citizens, wouldn't you? Well, you would if Bush said it was a good thing.


Again, I ask you, would you be okay with the Saudis setting up their own Gitmo where they keep Western looking people without charging them, without representation, just because they're Western looking?

I find it extremely interesting that no one's given this question a shot.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2005, 08:52 AM
I find it extremely interesting that no one's given this question a shot.

And I find it extremely disturbing that American citizens are more worried about detainees than their own safety. Less than 4 years after 9-11 (WTC, Pentagon, field in PA) and this is what some people are worried about. Have we forgotten the 2,800+ lives that were snuffed out in heinous actions on 9-11? Got to wonder if these same people would be voicing these opinions if the November 2004 elections had a different outcome?

RF... can you give me some names of these poor people that you are so concerned about? The ones who you claim were prisoners of the American way. Ones who were held for 2 years for NO REASON. Tell me about them and the innocent lives they led before they were detained for no reason. And I do not want some copy-n-paste job from one of your fav political blogs. B/c I will research the author and see if he/she has a history of bashing my country and my country's president. So... tell me about these poor people. And then I will share stories about innocent people who were snuffed out on 9-11 as they flew to see familiy in California or were blown out of the 100th floor of a building as they worked at their desk. Or I will tell you about a Jewish family who was blown up as they traveled to the market in Isreal to buy food.... a family who never hurt a soul, but seemed to pick the wrong religion. Or I can share a story of a civilian contractor, who never shot a gun before, having their head whacked off by a terrorist. Or a Shiite family who was taken from their home late one night by Saddam's killers and never seen again (hopefully a bulldozer will dig 'em up some day with thousands and thousands of other missing people). I can share a story about 5,000 Kurds being gassed.... women, kids and men.

I wonder if these poor innocent people would kill you, RF, for being American and not having their religion? You had better bet your life (no pun) on that, friend. Not because of President Bush. Because you are not them. You are not their religion. That is the only reasons they need. But I am sure that you and your fellow political-buddies have a better solution to stop these barbaric terrorists? How do we stop it? I mean get all the terrorists and not accidently pickup some who are eventually released due to "lack of evidence". Give us your plan. You bash the current plan... surely you have a better idea or would not have the nerve to bash the one being used. Tell us your plan. Thanks.

zombie-a-go-go
06-07-2005, 09:02 AM
RFA, let me ask you a question (and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here);

Do you think Gitmo is "Good Policy," or "Regrettable-But-Necessary Policy?"

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2005, 09:19 AM
RFA, let me ask you a question:

Do you think Gitmo is "Good Policy," or "Regrettable-But-Necessary Policy?"

Thanks for asking, z-a-g-g. I'd really have to go in-between on your selections. I think it is a good-and-necessary policy. I admit that there are no easy solutions. Terrorists cannot and should not be dealt with like the common street criminal. They are a completely different animal. They are willing to kill themselves to take out a few of their enemies. That mentality in itself makes it a very-very dangerous activity to round them up and detain them. And I admit that we live a non-perfect world. I believe that some may have been detained that were completely innocent. I do not believe that those who were "completely innocent" were detained for 2 years. I also believe that some who have been released have gone back to terrorist ways (GAC posted an article on this matter). There is no "perfect way" to handle the conquest of terrorists. But we should blame the terrorists and those who have allowed them to flourish, not the U.S. gov't. I only blame the U.S. gov't for not doing something sooner. But that statement, I admit, is in hindsight. I had no idea that 9-11 was going to happen and did not have the thoughts about crushing terrorism like I do know before 9-11.

How many other countries have done something about crushing terrorism? What country will take the lead on crushing genocidal activities that these terrorist groups live by? I still see visions of that day on Sept. 11, 2001 and it bothers me. I will not soon forget it. I am bothered that in less than 4 years time it seems as though some Americans seem to be "over it". I am not and I am glad that our gov't is not over it either. Terrorists will always be around and I hope there will always be the "good side" to fight and eliminate them.

GAC
06-07-2005, 10:22 AM
And I really don't have a problem or really disagree with those who wonder why, or advocate, that these prisoners should have been classified as POWs and thus falling under the Geneva Convention. Personally, I tend to agree with you.

But my biggest concern in this particular situation is not necessarily how they are "classified", because after reviewing the Geneva Convention articles I don't see where we are treating them differently then what is required in those articles.

Yeah, it is a prison. And these guys are in total isolation, so I am not trying to paint some rosey scenario. But from the pictures I have seen- the daily routine that they all go through- the fact that outside relief agencies have had access to them (some, not all)- that we have gone out of our way to not only provide them with the basic necessities, but to also try as best we can to respect their religious routines (clerics, Korans, diet)- shows me that it is not the "gulag" that some try to say it is.

I think when we captured these individuals on that battle field in Afghanistan we really weren't prepared like we should have been as to what to do with them. We didn't know the length/breadth of their involvement with Taliban or Al Qaeda; but we knew we had to somehow and somewhere interrogate them. Our intelligence craved/needed information.

I really don't know the reasoning as to why they chose Gitmo. I've been to Gitmo (spent about 45 days there in training). While the weather/climate is reasonable, it is definitely a place of isolation. And maybe that is what our military was looking for - an "Alcatraz" where these individuals would not only be isolated, but would also have no avenue of escape or outside communication. I don't know, but it is definitely a great place for the purpose they want it for (isolate/interrogate).


And many were never terrorists at all. Strange that. And yet they were held for a year or two without being charged with anything.

And who is to say they weren't members? Yeah, we may not have been able to get the physical evidence to prove otherwise; but at the time of capture they dont carry Al Qaeda union membership cards. ;)

How would one go about proving/disproving it anyway? I don't think, if they were, they'd be dumb enough to carry around or possess anything that could link them.

"Are you a member of any terrorist organization?"

"No"

"Ok. You can go; but leave the munitions."

All I know is that even those those have been released, IMO, were not totally "innocent". They may not have been members of Al Qaeda or whatever; but they were captured fighting, and trying to kill our men, while supporting The Taliban/Bin Laden - and for that, a 2 year prison sentence, while they are being checked out/interrogated was not that bad of a sentence for what they were involved in.



GAC, the battlefields of Afghanistan were where people lived. Do you get that? There aren't big fields where everyone marches out, lines up on both sides, and then charges towards each other. People were captured in their homes, in the streets of their towns, everywhere. Anyone the US military thought looked suspicious or that they had reason to believe was connected to terrorism or the Taliban.

RF - I know more about battlefield logistics, strategies, and manuevers then you will ever be able to read about. ;)

Our military was not running around and indiscriminately grabbing anyone who they thought looked like a radical Muslim terrorist. If that was the case, then you'd think they would have grabbed alot more then the 500+ they got.

You seemed to have expended alot of your time on here to proclaim all of these detainees as some sort of innocent victims, with no hint of guilt whatsoever. Why have some of them returned to the fighting then if they were so innocent? Was John Walker Lindh also an innocent victim?


Then they were transported to Gitmo, questioned for a couple of years, not charged with anything, and then many were let go.

I guess we should have allowed them to post bond, set a court date, and made them promise to return for trial. ;)

All I know is that even those those have been released, IMO, were not totally "innocent". They may not have been members of Al Qaeda or whatever; but they were captured fighting, and trying to kill our men, while supporting The Taliban/Bin Laden - and for that, a 2 year prison sentence, while they are being checked out/interrogated was not that bad of a sentence for what they were involved in.

All I know RF is that neither you nor I really know the level of involvement of alot of those detainees now do we? But obviously you do. And I'd rather be safe then sorry.


I'm sure you'd love it if the same thing happened to US citizens, wouldn't you?

Where have you been? Are you kidding? It has happened quite alot to American citizens, and in almost every quarter of the world. We have Amreican citizens rotting in prisons with far worse conditions that what these Gitmo detainees are enduring. And alot of them for reasons that even you would find to be extreme, and human rights violations. But there is very little our foreign ambassadors can do about it when it involves another nation's sovereignity/laws.


And I will say this (but the Supreme Court struck this down)- we tried to say that even when any of these detainees were found innocent of involvement in terrorist groups, we were still allowed to hold them till the end of the war (whenever that may be). That was wrong IMO. But correct me if I am wrong, but if they had been classified under the Geneva Convention couldn't they have done just that, as long as we are at war?

TeamCasey
06-07-2005, 10:41 AM
Not getting into this, but you piqued my curiosity about something.

Isn't a U.S. military base in any country considered U.S. soil?

GAC
06-07-2005, 10:53 AM
Not getting into this, but you piqued my curiosity about something.

Isn't a U.S. military base in any country considered U.S. soil?

Yep. And Gitmo is completely cut off from the rest of the island. You try to get off that base, and you'll be shot dead before you get 2 feet by Fidel's militia. Both sides watch each other's activities immensely.

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 12:43 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3506774.stm


One of the five Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay has said he received "horrific" treatment while he was detained by the US government.

Tarek Dergoul, 26, from east London, said he was held in inhuman conditions, interrogated at gunpoint and beaten.

The family of the 26-year-old believe his mental health has been "severely affected" by his experiences.

Another freed Briton, Jamal Udeen, has also complained of poor treatment at the Cuba camp, which the US denies.

Mr Dergoul, from Bethnal Green, was arrested two years ago in Afghanistan on suspicion of terrorism.

He was one of five Britons released by the US on Tuesday. Four are still being held at the camp in Cuba.

After returning to the UK, former care worker Mr Dergoul was freed without charge from British police custody on Wednesday.

In a statement released through his solicitor Louise Christian, he said "horrific things" had happened to him during detention at Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay.

"This has included... botched medical treatment, interrogation at gunpoint, beatings and inhuman conditions," it said.

Torture

He accused the US and UK governments of "gross breaches" of human rights and demanded the immediate release of all the other detainees at Guantanamo Bay.


The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture - bruises heal after a week but the other stuff stays with you
Jamal Udeen

Guantanamo Briton 'was tortured'
"Tarek finds it very difficult to talk about things and his family believe his mental health has been severely affected by the trauma he has suffered," the statement added.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Sir Trevor McDonald for ITV1's Tonight programme on Friday, dismissed the Britons' claims of mistreatment.

He said: "We have watched Guantanamo Bay very carefully knowing of the interest of a number of nations, including the United Kingdom, and knowing that we have responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and because we are Americans, we don't abuse people who are in our care."

Mr Powell said it was "not in the American tradition to treat people in that manner".

The other three Britons who were released are Ruhal Ahmed, 22; Asif Iqbal, also 22, and 26-year-old Shafiq Rasul, who are all from Tipton in the West Midlands.

The four remaining at Guantanamo Bay are Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, Moazzam Begg, 36, from Sparkhill, Birmingham; Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London, and Richard Belmar, 23, from Maida Vale, London.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2005, 01:56 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3506774.stm

I think some have gotten wise to anything coming from British publications. Others must still use them and believe in them.

Hey... different strokes for different folks. And I think that it is a great thing that people in this country can pack up and move to England if they so desire. RF... do you read the BBC everyday? Or did this link to come from a blog?

I didn't miss this...


US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Sir Trevor McDonald for ITV1's Tonight programme on Friday, dismissed the Britons' claims of mistreatment.

More accounts from detainees? Sorry, but that does nothing to sell me that Gitmo is bad.

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 02:04 PM
RFA, thanks for the laugh. If you have a problem with the BBC, probably the most respected news organization in the world, then I'm not sure why you even bother following world events.

You would have definitely been a flat earth proponent back in the day.

registerthis
06-07-2005, 03:33 PM
What I find interesting about this whole ordeal is that the White House completely jumped on Newsweek when the report came out, squeezed a retraction out of them, and harumphed about it for several weeks--all this despite the fact that the report now appears credible.

Meanwhile, this entire administration led a concerted effort to mislead the public into a war in Iraq--by intentionally falsifying or exagerrating evidence--that has taken thousands of lives, yet never once have they offered even a hint of contrition or an apology. They have simply swept it under the rug.

The hypocrisy of this administration simply astounds me.

Rojo
06-07-2005, 04:08 PM
I think some have gotten wise to anything coming from British publications. Others must still use them and believe in them.

How's that aluminum hat working out for you?

GAC
06-07-2005, 06:03 PM
What I find interesting about this whole ordeal is that the White House completely jumped on Newsweek when the report came out, squeezed a retraction out of them, and harumphed about it for several weeks--all this despite the fact that the report now appears credible.

Meanwhile, this entire administration led a concerted effort to mislead the public into a war in Iraq--by intentionally falsifying or exagerrating evidence--that has taken thousands of lives, yet never once have they offered even a hint of contrition or an apology. They have simply swept it under the rug.

The hypocrisy of this administration simply astounds me.

Gee- that's not what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported. Alot of leading Dems, such as Biden, who are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and through whom the intelligence came through, would staunchly disagree with you over your contentions of lying and fabricating intelligence. But we've been over this before - and it makes good copy.

Was Clinton fabricating intel/evidence when he said that Saddam had WMD in 98, and then bombed Iraq?

I'm not going to quote all the get-tough statements made by our leading Democrats from 2000-prior to our invasion (been there-done that). But they sure were convinced that Saddam had them. Now their easy-out is that Bush lied to them. Convenient. ;)

Funny how an idiot like Bush, with such low SAT's, could deceive so many Democrats. :lol:

Falls City Beer
06-07-2005, 06:44 PM
Gee- that's not what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported. Alot of leading Dems, such as Biden, who are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and through whom the intelligence came through, would staunchly disagree with you over your contentions of lying and fabricating intelligence. But we've been over this before - and it makes good copy.

Was Clinton fabricating intel/evidence when he said that Saddam had WMD in 98, and then bombed Iraq?

I'm not going to quote all the get-tough statements made by our leading Democrats from 2000-prior to our invasion (been there-done that). But they sure were convinced that Saddam had them. Now their easy-out is that Bush lied to them. Convenient. ;)

Funny how an idiot like Bush, with such low SAT's, could deceive so many Democrats. :lol:

What does the 9/11 commission have to do with Iraq's phantom WMD? The 9/11 commission all but established NO ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda/Bin Laden.

I agree that some hawkish Dems were quick to jump on board the bombing brigade (Lieberman and Biden, both of whom I can't stand).

pedro
06-07-2005, 06:52 PM
I think some have gotten wise to anything coming from British publications. Others must still use them and believe in them.



Yeah that BBC ain't got nothing on Talon News.

registerthis
06-08-2005, 11:07 AM
Gee- that's not what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported. Alot of leading Dems, such as Biden, who are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and through whom the intelligence came through, would staunchly disagree with you over your contentions of lying and fabricating intelligence. But we've been over this before - and it makes good copy.
9/11 commission? Who said anything about that? I'm talking about the Bush Administration's fraudulent claims that Iraq had WMD's and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and/or its allies. I'm talking about the lies about Iraqi agents attempting to purchase "yellow cake" uranium in Nigeria. I'm talking about the lies concerning supposedly clandestine meetings between Iraqi government agents and high ranking members of Al Qeada. Thousands of people--including upwards of 1,700 U.S. soldiers--are now dead because of this. Where is the outrage?


Was Clinton fabricating intel/evidence when he said that Saddam had WMD in 98, and then bombed Iraq?
First of all, there is a HUGE difference between bombing a suspected missle site and invading and occupying a nation. About 20,000+ casualties difference, to be exact. Secondly, it appears the intelligence which led Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and the suspected weapons site in Iraq was, in fact, embellished or fabricated. I'm not defneding Clinton here. But, then again, this isn't ABOUT Clinton, it's about Bush...unless you feel that you can't defend Bush's actions and in turn have to take a swipe at a past president.


I'm not going to quote all the get-tough statements made by our leading Democrats from 2000-prior to our invasion (been there-done that). But they sure were convinced that Saddam had them. Now their easy-out is that Bush lied to them. Convenient. ;)
Oh, there were hawkish Dems, to be sure. They're spineless, or they simply don't care. But there were also those who spoke out against the war from the beginning, some who saw the fabrications being put forth, and saw this looming catastrophe for what it really was--a war planned years ago and put forth under false pretenses. Simply the fact that some hawkish Dems went along with the plan in no way excuses the Bush administration from what they have done.


Funny how an idiot like Bush, with such low SAT's, could deceive so many Democrats. :lol:
I don't think this is very funny at all, I think it's sad and disgusting that tens of thousands of people are dead because of one man--and one administratios--overt desire to go to war. And I think if a Democrat were in the White House you could be protesting on the Capitol Steps calling for impeachment proceedings against him. Again, I ask, where is the outrage?

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 11:15 AM
I think it's sad and disgusting that tens of thousands of people are dead because of one man--and one administratios--overt desire to go to war. Again, I ask, where is the outrage?

Where do you get your numbers? Tens of thousands you have said. I am not sure where that "number" comes from and I am curious as to your source for this "number" (British news sources do not hold much water). Have you studied how many people died while Saddam was in power? You are sad and disgusted by death, but no mention of Saddam's reign. Again, I ask, where do get your numbers? Do you count dead insurgents and dead terrorists? Oh, by the way... that one man you mention must be Saddam Hussein. Right?

Since we are talking "numbers". Look up the approx. numer of dead people under Saddam's iron-fist and divide it by the number of years that Saddam was in power. How many dead per year while Saddam was in power? Does this disgust you?

zombie-a-go-go
06-08-2005, 11:30 AM
If this were debate class, most you cats would be getting "Fs" for failure to answer your opponents' questions. ;)

Falls City Beer
06-08-2005, 11:38 AM
If this were debate class, most you cats would be getting "Fs" for failure to answer your opponents' questions. ;)

*registerthis would get an A--he continually rebuffs their claims.

*This is for RFA, from October 29, 2004 BBC News report which quotes the UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, an ally of the U.S. and a conservative:

"UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000. "

Falls City Beer
06-08-2005, 11:43 AM
Where do you get your numbers? Tens of thousands you have said. I am not sure where that "number" comes from and I am curious as to your source for this "number" (British news sources do not hold much water). Have you studied how many people died while Saddam was in power? You are sad and disgusted by death, but no mention of Saddam's reign. Again, I ask, where do get your numbers? Do you count dead insurgents and dead terrorists? Oh, by the way... that one man you mention must be Saddam Hussein. Right?

Since we are talking "numbers". Look up the approx. numer of dead people under Saddam's iron-fist and divide it by the number of years that Saddam was in power. How many dead per year while Saddam was in power? Does this disgust you?

Two logical fallacies: straw man and "two wrongs don't make a right."

Straw man in the sense that you believe registerthis and I don't think Saddam was an evil or that his reign wasn't despicable. No one ever said it wasn't.

Two wrongs don't make a right: just because Saddam was evil doesn't make it right to go to war on false pretences and lies. Those are totally separate and separable issues.

Do I get an A zombie?

registerthis
06-08-2005, 11:47 AM
Where do you get your numbers? Tens of thousands you have said. I am not sure where that "number" comes from and I am curious as to your source for this "number" (British news sources do not hold much water).
OK, then I'll gather my information from "non-british' sources. :rolleyes:

CNN (I ssume you trust them) lists 1,858 coalition casualties so far. Link (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

Of those, over 1,600 are American

The Washington Post runs a daily chart which is available in the print edition, but unfortunately not the online edition, which tracks Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of coalition actions (or, inaction, as it were). The most recent count lists between 22,000 and 25,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the beginning of the invasion. The U.S., conveniently, does not track Iraqi civilian deaths, leaving it up to sources such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) to track the civilian deaths. It should be noted that over 7,000 deaths occured during the immediate invation, until Bush declared an end to "hostile actions."


Have you studied how many people died while Saddam was in power? You are sad and disgusted by death, but no mention of Saddam's reign.
Well, to be fair, i didn't mention Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pinochet or Milosevic, either...because I view it as implicit that I don't support authoritarian dictators. But do you really want to compare U.S. policy with Saddam Hussein's? Do you want to say that, hey, at least our body count isn't as high as it was while Saddam was in power? Do you think that's a positive? And, since we're on this path, there is no shortage whatsoever of global situations where people are living under a murderous, or inept and corrupt, governments. Consider Haiti, Sudan, Uzebekistan and Sierre Leone, to name a few. If the U.S. wishes to be global human rights police, then there are certainly no shortage of opportunities. Although, it should be noted, places like Haiti and Sierre leone don't have much in the way of oil, so our interest in intervening might not be so high.


Again, I ask, where do get your numbers? Do you count dead insurgents and dead terrorists? Oh, by the way... that one man you mention must be Saddam Hussein. Right?
I listed sources above, feel free to view if you like. Or don't, and continue on ignorantly thinking that this is a "clean" war.


Since we are talking "numbers". Look up the approx. numer of dead people under Saddam's iron-fist and divide it by the number of years that Saddam was in power. How many dead per year while Saddam was in power? Does this disgust you?
Nice try to divert the argument, but it doesn't work.

My point--which you made no effort whatsoever to rebut--was that Bush led the U.S. into a war against Iraq because he claimed that:

1) Saddam Hussein had WMDs, including nuclear weapons, that he was preparing to use against the U.S. and/or Israel,
2) That Saddam corroborated with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, and
3) That Saddam posed an imminent threat to U.S. security.

ALL THREE OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE WRONG. Absolutely false. At the beginning of the war, there was very little mention of Saddam's well-documented atrocities, and if they were made it was done so only in passing. Bush knew that popular support for a war would be very difficult to obtain if the cause was only the liberation of a downtrodden people. SO intelligence wa embellished and/or fabricated, charges were trumped up, lies were repeated, and Bush got his war.

Death disgusts me, RFA. Whether it be brought on by a murderous dictator like Hussein, or someone like Bush. And, like I said, if the U.S. wants to play Human Rights Cop, well, the world sure could use some help there. Where, oh where, to begin...?

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 11:51 AM
But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000. "

Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!? ;)

UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.

How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers? Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO. Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 11:56 AM
Death disgusts me, RFA.

Something we can agree upon. :)

And a shame that the world has never figured a better way than killing each other. Cure for polio, man on the moon... and never a better way to settle disputes.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2005, 11:58 AM
Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!? ;)

UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.

How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers? Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO. Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.

So NOW the word of our Allies the British isn't good enough, eh? Where does the skepticism, willful ignorance, the buried head in the sand end? You trust nothing but your gut and Fox News?

Of course Americans aren't doing all the killing. Again, who SAID THAT? From typing Jack Straw to Strawman so many times, I'm getting hay fever.

registerthis
06-08-2005, 12:01 PM
Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!? ;)

UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.
Have you ever considered asking yourself why the U.S. government doesn't track Iraqi civilian casualties? Maybe you think, like their press releases say, that it's just too hard.


How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers?
Well, the U.S> government doesn't, because it reflects poorly on them. reports I have read indicate between 10-12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the insurgency. Which is as much a statement on the inability of the U.S. to provide security or plan accordingly for the invasion's aftermath as it is a condemnation of the insurgents perpetrating these acts. The U.S. can't invade and conquer a nation, dispose of the army and civilian police forces, then throw their hands up and claim no responsibility when fanatical insurgents attack the civilian populace.


Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO.
So, blaming America for the results of a war that it started disgusts you? But the fact that this war came to be under false pretenses does not? I wish for the life of me I could understand your rationale for such things, RFA.


Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.
Now your posts are just getting laughable. Who here has claimed that Saddam was good? Then again, this post is just another in a series of posts by you which do not address any of the arguments being presented, but only resort to simplistic phrases like "Saddam Good/America bad." Let me guess--your next post is going to be "Why do you hate freedom?" :rolleyes:

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 12:10 PM
Now your posts are just getting laughable. Who here has claimed that Saddam was good? Then again, this post is just another in a series of posts by you which do not address any of the arguments being presented, but only resort to simplistic phrases like "Saddam Good/America bad." Let me guess--your next post is going to be "Why do you hate freedom?"

Thanks. I guess that I should be flattered.... considering the source. I do my best.... and try my best to not get personal. Have a good day!

registerthis
06-08-2005, 01:41 PM
Thanks. I guess that I should be flattered.... considering the source. I do my best.... and try my best to not get personal. Have a good day!
I didn't insult you or call you names, RFA, I simply said that in this thread you are conjuring up statements that aren't there and aren't addressing the arguments that I and others are presenting. No one here, or anywhere that I have read (and I'm assuming that my reading material is far more progressive and liberal than is yours) has said Saddam or the insurgency is "good" or that Saddam was a good and fair leader. No one is arguing that--least of all me.

But that isn't the argument we're making. We're saying that Bush led this nation to war on false pretenses, and that has led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of individuals. Your responses are to simply state that Saddam was bad, Clinton screwed up too, you don't trust british journalism, and you can't believe anyone could find American policies "bad". That's not rebuttal of the argument, they're straw men set up to deflect a serious discussion of these issues.

Again, I maintain that if a Democrat had behaved this way, people would be clamoring for him to resign or be impeached. And you know what? I would be right there with them.

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 01:50 PM
No problem, register. I enjoy "discussing" these matters with all you guys. And I know that I am a target sometimes and I do a fine job of putting out a welcome mat for that. A glutton for punishment!

I think I'll step aside on this one at this point and as usual agree to disagree with you guys.

GAC
06-09-2005, 10:52 AM
9/11 commission? Who said anything about that? I'm talking about the Bush Administration's fraudulent claims that Iraq had WMD's and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.

The very same exact claims that Clinton and many of our leading Democrats were making too. Who used the term "imminent threat" first - Bush or Clinton?

Clinton bombed Iraq to destroy these so-called non-existent WMD. Have you ever taken the time to look up what many in your own illustrious party have said? It is a matter of record. The same strong words/claims that this administration was making. The very same intelligence agencies that the Clinton administration believed and acted on, so did Bush.

Were you outraged then? Were they fraudulent?

And were you outraged when so many of the Dems, such as Hillary, Wes Clark (whom you support), Barbara Boxer, among many others, backed this war? Wesley Clarke heaped nothing but applause and accolades on Bush and this administration before and right after the initial invasion.

Then- when things start to get rough, what do these lead Democrats do? They become bandwagon jumpers simply for the political expendiency of the circumstances. Yet they can't hide from their positions as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the explanations/excuse they now use.


First of all, there is a HUGE difference between bombing a suspected missle site and invading and occupying a nation.

Well duh. No kidding. And what did bombing those suspected sites get us? How many terrorist cells/organizations did we destroy/capture? How many terrorists did we kill? Capturing a blind cleric, and a few deranged followers, is not gonna come close to solving the problem. It was simply "window dressing".

Do you actually believe that we could contain these people when their network was vast, and spreading throughout the world? When they publically were making threats on America and it's interests, and then carrying them out without little or no retaliation?


Secondly, it appears the intelligence which led Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and the suspected weapons site in Iraq was, in fact, embellished or fabricated. I'm not defneding Clinton here. But, then again, this isn't ABOUT Clinton, it's about Bush...unless you feel that you can't defend Bush's actions and in turn have to take a swipe at a past president.

Not taking swipes at anyone my friend. And it's funny that you, like so many, want to nail Bush, while making excuses for those within your own party who supported this war, and were saying the same things. But it proves the point that I, the majority of Americans, and which the 9-11 Commission confirmed - our intelligence gathering agencies, from field operations, logistics, and coordination, was sorely, sorely lacking, and has been for sometime.

You want to use it for partisan purposes to nail Bush, then go ahead. I've never said Bush was perfect. And I've never said that he hasn't made mistakes during his terms. But I have never bought into these claims that Bush purposely fabricated intelligence in order to go to war. That is stupid and ridiculous IMO. And even lead Dems such as Biden, and others, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and who reviewed all the intel, has publically refuted those claims.


And I think if a Democrat were in the White House you could be protesting on the Capitol Steps calling for impeachment proceedings against him. Again, I ask, where is the outrage?

No I wouldn't. We should have been utilizing our military and going after these thugs years ago. Our indifference and looking the other way attitude allowed them to prosper and flourish IMO.

You seem to be so outraged over this war, and I never take lightly the deaths/sacrifices that our men/women have made in this efort. I just happen to believe that it was coming and was inevitable. We, as a nation (and even the world community) could no longer avoid it, or look the other way any longer. Whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We, as Americans. shoul dhave been outraged when the WTC was bombed the very first time. That should have opened our eyes to the seriousness of the problem, and that it was gonna get worse if not confronted. This wasn't just a blnd clreic and some of his fanatical followers who did this. The intelligence agancies then, and it was confrimed by members of Clinton's Cabinet also (Berger and Albright) that their backing came from this guy named Bin Laden.

The 1990's saw the expansion/growth of al Qaeda and various other terrorist networks throughout the world. Take a good hard look at all the embassies and other installations that were atacked by terrorists, inwhich thousands of innocent lost their lives. And the world community looked the other way in indifference, and hoped the problem would go away.

We tried to take legal action against these thugs, and also diplomacy, and it didn't work. That is not the language they understand IMO.

I have never blamed Clinton nor Bush. It's not the fault of one individual. As I have stated before - our illustrious leaders, on both sides, along with various world leaders, failed us ALL miserably, and set this country up for the tragedy that occurred on 9-11.

And Bin Laden was right - he said back in '98 that Americans didn't have the fortitude, nor the stomach, to come after him (or any terrorists) because the public didn't want to see their boys coming home in bodybags. The situations surrounding "Blackhawk Down" taught him that. Did you know that he was behind that fiasco too?

It's a fight we can no longer avoid. And I don't think our illustrious men and women who have died/sacrified in that cause have died in vain.

registerthis
06-09-2005, 11:45 AM
The very same exact claims that Clinton and many of our leading Democrats were making too. Who used the term "imminent threat" first - Bush or Clinton?
Why is the comparison being made? What does this have to do with Bush leading the nation into war on fraudulent terms? I'm not here to debate the Clinton presidency--which was far from perfect, and which I have made no attempt to defend in this thread. But bringing up Clinton's rhetoric only serves to deflect criticism from Bush and away from the argument at hand.


Clinton bombed Iraq to destroy these so-called non-existent WMD. Have you ever taken the time to look up what many in your own illustrious party have said?
I'm not a Democrat, GAC.


It is a matter of record. The same strong words/claims that this administration was making. The very same intelligence agencies that the Clinton administration believed and acted on, so did Bush.
But the reactions were SIGNIFICANTLY different...bombing a suspected arms depot and invading and occupying a country aren't even in the same league...but let's discuss more below.


Were you outraged then? Were they fraudulent?
Outraged, no. I save my outrages for egregious acts of incompetency or falsifications that lead to the deaths of thousands. Fraudulent? It certainly appears that it was, it was misleading or exagerrated evidence. But, again, who here is defending Clinton's actions? This isn't about Clinton.


And were you outraged when so many of the Dems, such as Hillary, Wes Clark (whom you support), Barbara Boxer, among many others, backed this war?
Would I have liked to see them take a stronger anti-war stance? Yes. But voting for the approval of the use of force if necessary--versus a complete support of the war--are not the same things. No one wanted to let Saddam run amok, create WMDs and become a significant security threat. But that's what the UN inspectors were there for, and according to evidence we've seen after the invasion, they were doing their job--the inspection program was effective.

The government grants police the use of force if necessary to subdue a subject, but if the police abuse their authority, it doesn't mean the government supports it.


Wesley Clarke heaped nothing but applause and accolades on Bush and this administration before and right after the initial invasion.
Well, unfortunately, Wes, much like Hillary and Kerry and others, are politicians at heart, and they play that card, and play it safe. But do i think that this country would be embroiled in a war in Iraq seemingly wihtout end if Clark, Kerry or another Dem were President? Not for a second.


Then- when things start to get rough, what do these lead Democrats do? They become bandwagon jumpers simply for the political expendiency of the circumstances. Yet they can't hide from their positions as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the explanations/excuse they now use.
Well, I would tend to agree with you that their public statements on this war were meant to play the political game--as much as any of the statements by Republicans were. But this is a war propagated by Bush--he wanted it from the beginning. Transcripts of White House conversations only days after September 11 had Bush searching for a way to "tie this to Iraq." Afghanistan was a diversion, Iraq is what he always wanted. No Democrat--and certainly some Republicans as well--sitting in the Oval office would have led this nation to war under the circumstances that Bush did.


Do you actually believe that we could contain these people when their network was vast, and spreading throughout the world? When they publically were making threats on America and it's interests, and then carrying them out without little or no retaliation?
Yes, because you can't defeat terrorism with an armed force. It doesn't work that way. Not that you ever would, but I highly recommend Chomsky's "9/11" for an outstanding narrative on the ways to combat terrorism. He explains it far better than I ever could, at least while making this post still readable.

And, just so we're clear on this: the number of global terrorist attacks during 2004 was an all-time high. This is after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, three years after our launch of the so-called "war on terrorism"...terrorism must be addressed at its core, which means a fundamental change in the way America conducts itself in the world, and the way we construct our foreign policy. A lot of people don't want to do that, or believe that we can "force" the terrorists into submission. Sadly, they will find that is not the case.


Not taking swipes at anyone my friend. And it's funny that you, like so many, want to nail Bush, while making excuses for those within your own party who supported this war, and were saying the same things.
First of all, I haven't defended ANYONE here. And if you feel that I have, I would appreciate quotes I have made to that effect.

Secondly, I am a registered member of the Green Party, and no one in "my" party voiced any type of support for the war at all. But, then again, you simply *assumed* I was a Democrat because I don't support Republican policies.


But it proves the point that I, the majority of Americans, and which the 9-11 Commission confirmed - our intelligence gathering agencies, from field operations, logistics, and coordination, was sorely, sorely lacking, and has been for sometime.
Well, I'm not going to list a point-by-point rebuttal to this, only to say that--people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. Bush had plenty of evidence to show that Saddam, for example, didn't attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium in Nigeria, didn't try to align himself with Al Qaeda, didn't have functioning WMD labs...and he chose to ignore it.
A detailed CIA report highlights the fact that Iraq had no WMDs and no weapons facilities (available here if you're interested (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html) ) and numerous detailed correspondance between intelligence agencies and the Bush administration in the months leading up to the invasion show that the administration was made known that a good deal of the intelligence they were relying upon was speculation or downright inaccurate, yet the administration used it anyway.

If he was so very wrong--if it was, honestly, a failure in intelligence and there was no effort made to deceive the American public, then why not apologize? Why not admit that mistakes were made, that intelligence was bad, and apologize to the families of all the soldiers who have been killed fighting a war that needn't have been fought?


No I wouldn't. We should have been utilizing our military and going after these thugs years ago. Our indifference and looking the other way attitude allowed them to prosper and flourish IMO.
Pardon me for finding this hard to believe, GAC, but say what you will...


You seem to be so outraged over this war,
I am.


and I never take lightly the deaths/sacrifices that our men/women have made in this efort.
Would you send your son/daughter/loved one to Iraq to fight? Do you believe the cause is just, and the price is worth the outcome?


I just happen to believe that it was coming and was inevitable.
Now THIS I would agree with--I, too, think the Iraq war was inevitable, only probably for completely different reasons than you do.


We, as a nation (and even the world community) could no longer avoid it, or look the other way any longer. Whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.
OK, well, let's go invade North Korea. They've admitted to having nuclear weapons, are run my a maniacal dictator who kills his own people, have admitted that they loathe the U.S. and are pursuing missles that could attack us...come on, let's go. (Warning! No oil in North Korea. Interest might be low.)


We, as Americans. shoul dhave been outraged when the WTC was bombed the very first time. That should have opened our eyes to the seriousness of the problem, and that it was gonna get worse if not confronted. This wasn't just a blnd clreic and some of his fanatical followers who did this. The intelligence agancies then, and it was confrimed by members of Clinton's Cabinet also (Berger and Albright) that their backing came from this guy named Bin Laden.
Fine, go after Bin Laden. I haven't heard anyone not want to do that. I even supported the Afghanistan invasion--although I think the handling of the aftermath has been extremely disappointing (insamuch as we never really cared much to be there in the first place). But Iraq? Yes, I was outraged at the attacks of 9/11, I wanted them to catch who was responsible. But I DIDN'T want to start a war against a nation that had nothing to do with that attack...a war which would kill thousands of people. (I maintain that if Iraq had been a poor, destitute third-world oil-starved nation in Africa, we wouldn't give a crap about them...)

Again, I highly recommend reading Chomsky's book. It's far better explained than I could do. If I have time I will post some quotes here for you. A brief warning, though, if you read him with an open mind it may expand your views on the world.

Falls City Beer
06-09-2005, 12:05 PM
Why is the comparison being made? What does this have to do with Bush leading the nation into war on fraudulent terms? I'm not here to debate the Clinton presidency--which was far from perfect, and which I have made no attempt to defend in this thread. But bringing up Clinton's rhetoric only serves to deflect criticism from Bush and away from the argument at hand.


I'm not a Democrat, GAC.


But the reactions were SIGNIFICANTLY different...bombing a suspected arms depot and invading and occupying a country aren't even in the same league...but let's discuss more below.


Outraged, no. I save my outrages for egregious acts of incompetency or falsifications that lead to the deaths of thousands. Fraudulent? It certainly appears that it was, it was misleading or exagerrated evidence. But, again, who here is defending Clinton's actions? This isn't about Clinton.


Would I have liked to see them take a stronger anti-war stance? Yes. But voting for the approval of the use of force if necessary--versus a complete support of the war--are not the same things. No one wanted to let Saddam run amok, create WMDs and become a significant security threat. But that's what the UN inspectors were there for, and according to evidence we've seen after the invasion, they were doing their job--the inspection program was effective.

The government grants police the use of force if necessary to subdue a subject, but if the police abuse their authority, it doesn't mean the government supports it.


Well, unfortunately, Wes, much like Hillary and Kerry and others, are politicians at heart, and they play that card, and play it safe. But do i think that this country would be embroiled in a war in Iraq seemingly wihtout end if Clark, Kerry or another Dem were President? Not for a second.


Well, I would tend to agree with you that their public statements on this war were meant to play the political game--as much as any of the statements by Republicans were. But this is a war propagated by Bush--he wanted it from the beginning. Transcripts of White House conversations only days after September 11 had Bush searching for a way to "tie this to Iraq." Afghanistan was a diversion, Iraq is what he always wanted. No Democrat--and certainly some Republicans as well--sitting in the Oval office would have led this nation to war under the circumstances that Bush did.


Yes, because you can't defeat terrorism with an armed force. It doesn't work that way. Not that you ever would, but I highly recommend Chomsky's "9/11" for an outstanding narrative on the ways to combat terrorism. He explains it far better than I ever could, at least while making this post still readable.

And, just so we're clear on this: the number of global terrorist attacks during 2004 was an all-time high. This is after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, three years after our launch of the so-called "war on terrorism"...terrorism must be addressed at its core, which means a fundamental change in the way America conducts itself in the world, and the way we construct our foreign policy. A lot of people don't want to do that, or believe that we can "force" the terrorists into submission. Sadly, they will find that is not the case.


First of all, I haven't defended ANYONE here. And if you feel that I have, I would appreciate quotes I have made to that effect.

Secondly, I am a registered member of the Green Party, and no one in "my" party voiced any type of support for the war at all. But, then again, you simply *assumed* I was a Democrat because I don't support Republican policies.


Well, I'm not going to list a point-by-point rebuttal to this, only to say that--people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. Bush had plenty of evidence to show that Saddam, for example, didn't attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium in Nigeria, didn't try to align himself with Al Qaeda, didn't have functioning WMD labs...and he chose to ignore it.
A detailed CIA report highlights the fact that Iraq had no WMDs and no weapons facilities (available here if you're interested (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html) ) and numerous detailed correspondance between intelligence agencies and the Bush administration in the months leading up to the invasion show that the administration was made known that a good deal of the intelligence they were relying upon was speculation or downright inaccurate, yet the administration used it anyway.

If he was so very wrong--if it was, honestly, a failure in intelligence and there was no effort made to deceive the American public, then why not apologize? Why not admit that mistakes were made, that intelligence was bad, and apologize to the families of all the soldiers who have been killed fighting a war that needn't have been fought?


Pardon me for finding this hard to believe, GAC, but say what you will...


I am.


Would you send your son/daughter/loved one to Iraq to fight? Do you believe the cause is just, and the price is worth the outcome?


Now THIS I would agree with--I, too, think the Iraq war was inevitable, only probably for completely different reasons than you do.


OK, well, let's go invade North Korea. They've admitted to having nuclear weapons, are run my a maniacal dictator who kills his own people, have admitted that they loathe the U.S. and are pursuing missles that could attack us...come on, let's go. (Warning! No oil in North Korea. Interest might be low.)


Fine, go after Bin Laden. I haven't heard anyone not want to do that. I even supported the Afghanistan invasion--although I think the handling of the aftermath has been extremely disappointing (insamuch as we never really cared much to be there in the first place). But Iraq? Yes, I was outraged at the attacks of 9/11, I wanted them to catch who was responsible. But I DIDN'T want to start a war against a nation that had nothing to do with that attack...a war which would kill thousands of people. (I maintain that if Iraq had been a poor, destitute third-world oil-starved nation in Africa, we wouldn't give a crap about them...)

Again, I highly recommend reading Chomsky's book. It's far better explained than I could do. If I have time I will post some quotes here for you. A brief warning, though, if you read him with an open mind it may expand your views on the world.

That one left the freakin' park.

westofyou
06-09-2005, 12:07 PM
That one left the freakin' park.

Yep... BTW Zinn is good too.

Rojo
06-09-2005, 02:37 PM
Honestly GAC, this war is a serious issue and you treat it like some lame high school debate. Dredging up the past utterances of Democratic politicos doesn't serve any purpose -- it doesn't exonerate Bush, justify the war and or shed any light on the current tragedy. It's telling, that you can only see things through a filter of partisanship and talk-radio-level sophistry. Many folks here feel a wrong was committed and feel it very strongly. Surely, you must have some real thoughts about the tragedy that has unfolded in front of our eyes.

registerthis
06-09-2005, 02:55 PM
Very interesting, I just saw this today:

Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html)

I would like to see GAC, RFA and other war 'defenders' thoughts on this memo. It seems to support the position that many of us have held for some time: That Bush long ago planned an invasion to topple Saddam's government, and that evidence to support this directive was being compiled and fixed around this directive.