I'd rather live in an all-Catholic city/state/country (provided it actually is governed in a truly Catholic manner) than in the US.
I'm not taking the word of some left-leaning lawyer whose job is to get his client out of Guantanamo.
Mark, I'm with you on torture, but since when is force-feeding to keep someone from starving, keeping prisoners separated from one another, and turning off the lights "torture"?
That being said, if the prisoners really have been "beaten", that definitely constitutes torture. And it shouldn't be happening.
But I need more proof than this lawyer's word.
And please strike "left-leaning" from my previous comments. I have no proof of that.
But this guy is a lawyer who is advocating on behalf of his clients. So, his words should be taken with a grain of salt.
There's also the "being held forever without charge or trial" thing that makes it kind of hard to distinguish between a free country and despotism.
Are they criminals? Or are they prisoners of war?
Or are they "illegal combatants" or whatever they've been called in the past?
What if we have serious reason to believe these guys are terrorists, but not necessarily enough evidence to get "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal conviction?
What DO we do with them? I don't know the answer.
It seems to me that if the "war on terror" is a real war and these are either "prisoners of war" or "illegal combatants", then they can be held in a POW camp for as long as the war lasts.
Mark,
What free country gives enemy combatants a trial? Not a rheteroical question.
John J.,
I don't disagree with the sentiment-although it would be hard for us to implement the Great Commission if all us Catholics lived in our own little country, pharisaically keeping ourselves pure from other people. In any case, does any such country exist? Today, I mean-AD 2006.
"Thomas Wilner is a partner at Shearman & Sterling, which has been representing Kuwaiti prisoners in Guantanamo since early 2002."
Shearman and Sterling actually uses this point to recruit.
http://recruiting.shearman.com/r.../associatelife/
Mark,
I've met soldiers who've worked at Guantanamo including interrogation, and they tell a very different story. Most of the description in this lawyer's story is entirely justifiable: violent prisoners are being kept in a controlled environment (lights, sequestration, etc.) because they attack soldiers once given the opportunity. The terrorists were not "paraded naked" but were showered and deloused.
The beatings - I submit - are a complete fabrication for the left-newspapers.
One woman I met interrogated prisoners and she said the mere presence of a woman near them - let alone in a dominant position of authority - was enough to make these guys freak out and spill everything. She said she once took off her jacket during the interrogation and this one (previously obstinate) prisoner just lost it.
And before you start going on about that bogus leftist canard about sexual abuse, strippers, etc. this woman was a definitive Christian and I think even pregnant at the time. Basically, many of the Talibs have never interacted with women before their indoctrination. [In fact, many of them practice homosexuality because they are sexually-groomed by their Imams much like abused altar-boys in this country]
The only reason these guys don't get a trial is because our legal system is broken. It took years to try and convict Ramzi Yusuf for the 1993 bombing of the WTC and they still didn't get a death sentence and he still coordinated terrorism through his lawyer for years afterwards! What chance do we have to stop these guys with the penal system and keep them from doing the same? They have the armies of the ACLU behind them - manpower-wise that's probably bigger than the entire Taliban!
I hate it too but you know there's no other way save major judicial reform.
Free country? Despotism? Agreed. Let's start the revolution with the courts...
From the Shearman & Sterling web site that Doubting Thomas linked to:
"All profits from the Guantanamo case were donated to The Regional Plan Association, a New York-based not-for-profit regional planning group that promotes and supports responsible urban development."
Why would there be any "profits" from what looks to me like pro bono work? Who's footing the bill for this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ditto what Jay Anderson said. A lawyer's word in favor of his client isn't exactly rock-solid proof.
American Gulag? Yeah, just like the Soviet Gulag except lawyers representing the inmates, unlike the Soviet Gulag the inmates were captured during time of war, the inmates aren't forced to work, the inmates dine better than many Americans, the inmates receive complete medical, dental and optical treatment, provisions are made for the inmates to observe their religion and, oh yes, the inmates aren't innocent but are active participants in groups attempting to kill us down to the smallest child. Other than these factors, it is just like the Soviet Gulag.
Well, maybe we can trust the words of the United State Navy's general counsel? Many of you probably already read it, but here is the link for the famous New Yorker article:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/
from which you can download the memo itself.
Re the New Yorker article: I find it interesting that when Mr. Shea posted something about it and Alberto Mora (http://markshea.blogspot.com/
2006_02_01_markshea_archive.html#11405478765021808
6), not a soul tried to argue that Mora didn't know what he was talking about, that he "doesn't understand there's a war going on," or any of the usual excuses for assuming that there can't be anything wrong with what's going on at Guantanamo.
Alll I know is that when these guys are released from Gitmo, they nearly always end up back in the battle against our troops. We can't let them go free but on what basis can they be tried? The Geneva Convention provisions do not apply to them as non-uniformed fighters and they are devoted to the idea of destroying us. We can't let them go and we can't try them in American courts, so what's the solution? Doing what has been done so far?
Arnold
That is why we should keep them in prison indefinitely as essentially prisoners of war under international law until the war on terror is over.
but has repeatedly refused to allow these visitors, representatives of the United Nations, human rights groups or nonmilitary doctors and psychiatrists to meet or speak with prisoners.
Because of course those military doctors are "in the tank" for the administration. But as long as we're going to question motives here, what terrorist *wouldn't* claim to have been tortured or victimized by American violence? It's presumably their best shot at a ticket home.
The notion that Gitmo is an American Gulag is an offensive Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Prisoners in the Gulag were civilians awakened by the knock at the door in the middle of the night, not stateless armed terrorists conducting a worldwide jihad.
The first paragraph should be italicized.
Bob,
I totally agree. That was what I intended to say with my rhetorical questions but a simple declarative sentence says it better.
Bob,
Corroection. I read your comment too quickly. Actually, I do not think they are entiled to normal prisoner of war status and treatment but it would be preferable to releasing them. However, if they are so treated, then we lose the right to interrogate them, I believe. That may be too high a price.
Let me state, for the record, since it's relevant to this: I work at Shearman & Sterling.
Sorry. But now you know what I have to live with every fricking day.
Or, rather, I used to work at Shearman & Sterling until February 7, 2006, when its prominent Asset Management group defected and went to another law firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Being an asset management attorney, I went with them, after working at S&S for 4 years. You can read about it in the WSJ.
S&S does use this representation of terrorists as a recruiting tool FOR THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE. Others know to keep it hidden. Still, S&S promotes it in their internal pro bono magazine, which new recruits obviously won't be reading. And though a significant number of attorneys there disagree with the representation, they don't talk about it much and keep quiet.
All right, but what about Mora's concerns while he worked in the Pentagon? From all I read, he's a man of honor.
OMG!
That place sounds suspiciously like a prison, and everybody there claims they're innocent. Shock! Horrors!
Beachfront property without a window! Turning off the lights to calm down the inmates in the manner of a kindergarten teacher! What other devilish schemes will Bushitler come up with next?
But one thing I don't understand is why that evil terrorist Shrubie McHalliburton let lawyers and journalist inside the place to document these atrocities! Stupid stupid stupid!
LOL, James. I gotta laugh whenever "Mc" is used as part of someone's "evil" name. It's like using "Darth" as a title.
"Alll I know is that when these guys are released from Gitmo, they nearly always end up back in the battle against our troops."
I've heard of some cases of this. "Nearly all?" Not by a long shot. Do you have a cite?
The difference betweent this and a normal prisoner's claim that their innocent, of course, is that a normal prisoner has either:
1) pled guilty, or
2) had a trial, in which he had the right to hear the charges against him and confront the evidence against him, the right to an attorney, the right to call witnesses in his defense, in which he could not be forced to testify against himself. After this trial, he was convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
In this case, the prisoners have received a hearing in front of something called a "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" The CSRTs:
1) do not have an independent decision maker
2) place the burden on the prisoner to prove innocence, not the government to prove guilt
3) do not allow the prisoners to see most of the evidence against them
4) do not allow the prisoner to have a lawyer
5) use a ridiculously broad definition of "enemy combatant" which by the government's own admission includes (a) people who were forced into the Taliban against their will and served as cooks; (b) "little old ladies from Switzerland" who give money to a charity that unbeknowst to them donates to terrorist causes; (c) a tutor who teaches English to the son of an al Qaeda member, even if the tutor has no idea of his association with terrorism
6) allow hearsay evidence from untrustworthy and secret sources
7) sometimes rely on evidence that is obviously worthless
regularly ignores exculpatory evidence
9) is allowed to rely on evidence obtained under torture
And actually, a few of the prisoners have been exonerated by their CSRTs are still stuck in Guantanamo.
That smiley face is not deliberate.
Some military doctors and psychatrists have, in fact, been enlisted in interrogation. But more to the point, all military doctors are prohibited from speaking publicly about allegations of abuse, and all military records are classified.
I don't suppose anyone has bothered or will bother to read the National Journal pieces on Guantanamo, just as most of you who blithely dismiss Wilner's allegations feel free to ignore almost all independent reporting on this subject and go on believing assertions and reassurances that have repeatedly been proven false. But hope springs eternal. Here they are again:
Who Is At Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo's Grip
Empty Evidence
Note also that some of these allegations have been confirmed by American personnel. In addition to the FBI emails and Alberto Mora, you might try looking up:
Sean Baker
James Yee
Erik Saar
The administration allows lawyers down there because the courts make them. Wilner was not allowed to even send a postcard to his clients until he & the CCR folks won Rasul v. Bush. They're hoping to get the lawyers kicked out again now, with the help of Senator Graham's jurisdiction stripping amendment. Whether they succeed will depend on whether the courts rule that it applies to pending cases. They allow reporters down there on PR junkets. No contact with the detainees.
Katherine,
I'm all for treating detainees humanely. But I am certainly not in favor of turning over the prosecution of a war to the Judicial Branch, or treating terrorism like a CRIME. It's war, and should be prosecuted like a war.
And that's why I don't like the involvement of lawyers. Treat them humanely, interrogate them harshly. Don't torture them. But don't treat them like criminals with rights under the Constitution. They have their human rights. They should have no Constitutional rights. There IS a difference, you know. I don't think captured Germans tried in Nuremburg had Constitutional rights either.
Thanks for the serious reply. I don't support civilian criminal trials; I support something like courts martial.
Here are the problems with the analogies to Germany:
1) many of these people were picked up on the battlefield only in the sense that the entire world is a battlefield. Pulled out of apartments and public buses in cities of Pakistan, arrested outside the Bosnian Supreme Court, picked up by intelligence in Indonesia or police in Zambia or the Gambia--those are all actual cases. Only 5% were captured by US troops. The largest group was picked up by Pakistani intelligence, followed by Afghan warlords. Many were unarmed. Only a small % are even accused of committing "a belligerent" act against the United States. They are not battlefield detainees in any way comparable to world war ii.
2) Guantanamo has already been open longer than World War II lasted. This war may well last forever. Cheney and Bush said so: if it ends, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. Most of the prisoners in Guantanamo seem to be guilty of nothing, or be low level Taliban, including conscripts. If they are anyone's enemy it is Afghanistan--but Karzai's government doesn't want this. They have been protesting our treatment of Afghan prisoners. Why are they still there? Is being conscripted into the Taliban really enough to justify being detained nearly incommunicado for the rest of your life?
3) in previous wars we treated prisoners according to the Geneva conventions. Now, forget Geneva--we no longer even obey the Convention Against Torture. I know many of these detainees are not entitled to be treated as POWs, but the civilian convention applies to "spies and saboteurs", and Common Article III was supposed to apply to everyone. In previous wars, we applied the POW convention to other irregulars and to soldiers in enemies that violated Geneva. We've had little reason to be sorry we did so. Anyway, some of these people are not only not "unlawful combatants"--they are civilians, pure and simple.
4) quite simply, the executive branch has stopped obeying the law in good faith when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. Congress refuses to provide any meaningful oversight. The courts are the only line of defense. Lawsuits are the only thing that have worked even a little bit. You may say you oppose torture, but if you also oppose all the means of stopping it, what effect will that have?
Read about this case, and ask yourself if these laywers are just terrorist-lovers. (I know two of them personally--no one with your old firm. They are mensches in every sense of the word.)
5) I don't have much patience for the "was 9/11 a crime or an act of war" debate. What it was, was a war crime. Al Qaeda's a hybrid problem--we need a hybrid solution to deal with it. My version would include:
--designating battlefields where there is actually active combat, and allow for traditional POW type detentions there while the war is ongoing. This means when the war ends, and the US occupation transfers power to the local government, most of these low level prisoners get transferred too.
--developing some system of courts martial or military commissions with some real due process (i.e. the prosecutors should not by writing letters complaining about how these are show trials!) for the actual terrorists and war criminals.
Until then, here's my principle: whatever justifies your exercise of power limits your exercise of power. If you are detaining people under the laws of war, you are going to follow the laws of war. If you are denying them Geneva protections because they are unlawful enemy combatants, you had better be prepared to show that they are enemy combatants and that they did something worse than being drafted by the Taliban.
The lawyers are the only thing standing between some innocent people and disappearing into an inhumane and abusive black hole for the indefinite future--the only ones putting any limits at all on the president's power and on the detainees' (some of whom are clearly innocent) powerlessness. You may not agree with everything they do, but cut them some darn slack.
One thing I forgot to mention before as evidence of abusive interrogation--has every here read Muhammad al-Qahtani's interrogation logs?
Last post, I promise.
To those who assume that every single claim of beating is fabricated: please read this article. Do you think that one's fabricated?
Katherine:
Unfortunately, in this war the whole world is the battlefield; ie, New York City, the London subway system, the Spain railroad. All captured enemy combatants must be held prisoner indefinitely. They must not be mistreated. I believe that to fulfill these goals it will be necessary to forget about trying to get information from these prisoners. Our desparation in trying to avoid another attack is resulting in the abuse and torture of these captured enemy combatants. But we cannot let them go and perhaps attack us again. This position is fully compatible with international law and the teachings of the Catholic church.
Katherine,
Thanks for fighting the good fight. As a former US infantryman I'm ashamed about what some of our mean and women in uniform did in Iraq and Guantanamo. And you cannot simply blame it on a few bad apples. It's deeper than that. Alberto Mora's misgivings were correct.
Lenin believed that the end justifies the means. We do not believe that, right?
America should not have oubliettes, no matter what. I think this is as obvious as the fact that we shouldn't torture even our worst enemies. I suppose the people who rationalize away the latter will rationalize away the former by extension.
We have no business detaining people without evidence; if the evidence is there, prosecute them. If the detainees are terrorists, hand the case to an aggressive prosecutor (like Fitzgerald). If our laws need to take on a modern cast to adequately combat the threat of terrorism, let them be recast.
I recall hearing that Sudan wanted to give Osama Bin Laden to the Clinton Administration. They turned down the offer because they didn't have enough evidence to make a legal case against him.
I don't know if this was moral or immoral. There are those out there who have a better understanding of moral theology than I do. My questions are fisrt, is it necessarily immoral to consider that all involved in immoral acts must be referred to a judicial solution. Second, were not prisoners of war held in the past without due process? Were not Nazi prisoners of war held in England into the 50's for fear that they might go back to Germany and foster a resurgence of Nazism? Was this necessarily immoral?
Gosh.
Apparently most of these detainees are guilty of nothing. So it should be no problem to release them.
I guess I just didn't realize that.
But, before we get the key, isn't it possible that there is more to it?
Isn't it, in fact, likely?
Gentlemen & Lady K.
Please allow the following pontification.
During WWII our government treated NASI POWs very, very well indeed and as a matter of policy. (For instance the number of ping pong tables available for the NASI POWs was discussed at the highest levels of government.) This policy had four main objectives which produced concrete benefits:
1. It encouraged the enemy to surrender. The Germans killed a lot more Russians than Americans.
2. It encouraged Germans who were not ardent NASI to defect - again reducing the number fo Americnas killed and producing actionable intelligence.
3. It helped to assure and win over the large ethnic German and Italian populations in the USA that they were on the right side and encourged them to aid the war effort.
4. It encouraged the Germans to treat US POWs well.
The WWII policy was a great success. WW II lasted for the USA from December 1941 to August 1945- about 4 years and 8 months.
The current policy is a failure. It has now been about it has now been about 4 years and 3 month since 9/11/01. OBL is still at large. The bad guys are continuing to resist in Afghan. The bad guys are controlling the situation in Iraq. Iran is thumbing its nose at the West - and getting away with it. The West has poured all of its resources into the war on terror and we are still terrorized.
I submit that the reason we are loosing is in part becasue of our approach to POWs. The POW handling policy at GTMO is stupid, counter prouctive and counter to our historical knowledge of what works in war. It may make us feel good but it is killing our kids in uniform.
Forgive the long pontification.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
If seizure and detention are proof, then *nobody* is more than one denunciation away from a cell.
Wasn't it the Red Queen who said: Sentence first, trial afterward? She must have been a flaming liberal, since at least she held out the possibility of a trial.
Be careful what you wish for.
Mr. Comerford:
Would you then agree with my assessment that we need to start treating these prisoners similarly to the way we treated POWs during WWII.
"If seizure and detention are proof, then *nobody* is more than one denunciation away from a cell."
Agreed Pavel. But as per the Osama bin Laden example above, is a purely criminal court model the only model that can be followed? Is it the only one that is moral?
Bob:
Thank you for your reply.
The short answer is "Yes".
However I love to pontificate. Please bear with me.
In WWII we and the Brits exploited Axis POWs for actionable intelligence. This included "turning" Axis POWs and using them as double agents. The Brits were very good at this technique. Some of the Axis POWs who were turned were not very nice people. You had to hold your nose in order to deal with them. (These deals included post war anti communist actions.) However POW handling and intelligence collection is not about criminal justice. It is about winning the war. Our current policy is helping us to loose the war.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I think we should decide what status these people are being held under, with the understanding that there is no such person as a detainee without rights. That includes a right to a fair, impartial hearing and judgment.
Indefinite incarceration without charge or limit is barbaric. Even prisoners of the Gulag were handed charges and given sentences, even if those hearings and convictions were, in the case of politicals, bogus.
What should concern all of us is that in a war which extends over the entire globe, against no organized political entity, against opponents usually in mufti, it's all too easy to seize anyone, either because of a malicious denunciation, or simply in error as part of a dragnet, or because of some bureaucratic exigency or inertia.
Such errors are not trivial.
Thanks to Katherine, pavel, and Mr. Comerford. You all make very good (i.e., moral and practical) sense . . . in a that the advocates and defenders of these practices do not. Moreover, you reflect the attitudes and values that the U.S. at its best should represent. Not the hysterical, fearful, partisan, desparate, venal, and lowest-common-denominator values and attitudes embodied in these practices. Yet it is for these that the world now comes to know us.
"Indefinite incarceration without charge or limit is barbaric."
Not for prisoners of war. Some American and British POWs, in conditions that would make Git-Mo seem utopian in comparison, endured incarceration for almost the entire eight years of the American Revolution. This is not a criminal justice proceeding but a war. If it benefits our side in the war to hold all of the prisoners until victory , so be it.
"That includes a right to a fair, impartial hearing and judgment."
As per Donald above. POW's have been held without hearings for years. The Church has not condemned this per my understanding. Perhaps it will in the future though this I don't know.
How certain are you that these are POWs and not some poor bastards picked up so someone can collect a bounty?
A little certain? Perfectly certain? Or is it a case of: 'I don' need no stinkin' certainty'?
The problem with not having hearings under controlled conditions is that we don't know who these people are.
One prisoner, the lawyer claims, was arrested on the grounds that he was wearing a Casio watch? Funny how no confirming details are given to authenticate that one. Seems to me like some details were left out.
And the lawyer keeps citing "American news reports" as sources that confirm his allegations. Since when are "American news reports" completely trustworthy and ironclad sources of information?
Just wondering...
How's this for trustworthy:
The US Government has agreed to pay $300,000 (sic) to an Egyptian swept up in a dragnet after 9 - 11.
Can't make mistakes?
"Can't make mistakes?"
No, everyone can make mistakes and do. But if we use that line of reasoning we could never imprison anyone because eventually we are going to imprison (have imprisoned) and innocent person.
The exception truly does not make the rule. And I don't think that it has been proven that the rule exists (i.e. that Guantanamo Bay is a Gulag.)
doubting thomas:
You make a good point - nobody is perfect.
However a few thoughts:
If a tribe is holding alleged POW's why not interrogate them on site? Why bring them to GTMO? (Note: During WW II SOE operatives interrogated German POWs held by Tito on site in the Balkans.)
If you offer a tribe that has been at war with its neighbors for centuries a bounty, money on the head, for alleged POWs how can you be sure that the alleged POWs are your enemies and not the tribe's enemies? (Note: The U.S. Cavalry made this same mistake during the Indian Wars in the West.)
If you know that you are going to make mistakes then you must have a drill in place to quickly correct said mistakes. It should not take more than 6-weeks in detention to figure out that you have lifted the wrong guy. It has taken no less than 3-years for the USA to admit it made a mistake and to subsequently release innocent men.
The entire U.S. POW handling policy is wrong headed. It is wrong headed becasue it ignores both human nature and military history.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
There's mounting evidence that torture is going on at Guantanamo and elsewhere around the world under the guise of the "war on terror".
But, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the torture claims, that Catholic Church teaches that those accused have the right to a fair trial in a reasonable time frame :-
In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed "Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim" [JPII Address to International Committee Red Cross 15June1982)]
International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances [my emphasis].
Likewise ruled out is "the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial" [JPII Address to Italian Association of Judges 31March2000].
Moreover, it must be ensured that "trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in real injustice" [ibid]
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 404.
Isn't it obvious that this Catholic teaching is violated at Guantanamo ?
God Bless
Mr. Comerford:
Do you think the methods you describe would work on Islamic/Arabic prisoners the way they worked on German prisoners in WWII.
Mr. Chichkov and Mr. Sullivan:
It is my understanding that the purpose of holding prisoners of war during war is not for punishment at all. It is essentially to reduce the men available to the opposing army. There can be prisoner exchanges etc. However, as long as the prisoners are treated humanely, they can be kept indefinitely. If Mr. Comerford or anyone else wishes to weigh in on this I would be most receptive.
Actually the hard core Nazis were usually segregated from the regular German troops and held in special POW camps during WW2. The POWs were also subject to being tried at any time by courtmartial for offenses committed before or after capture.
Bob,
It hasn't been proven that all of the prisoners are enemy combatants.
That's the whole point.
They haven't been proven guilty and they are being denied the right to proove their innocence.
This isn't the American Way and its a huge and ugly blot on America's good name and global reputation.
God Bless
Chris,
I guess this is part of the problem of such a "war". It doesn't follow the traditional norm of nation-state vs. nation-state. There are not combatants with a defined command and are who are clearly part of an army:
"Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."
None of these are done by terrorists. So how do we confine, try, interrogate them? What are the rules?
BTW, I don't see the Geneva Convention requiring trials to determine if a prisoner is a combatant.
If you offer a tribe that has been at war with its neighbors for centuries a bounty, money on the head, for alleged POWs how can you be sure that the alleged POWs are your enemies and not the tribe's enemies? (Note: The U.S. Cavalry made this same mistake during the Indian Wars in the West.)
Funny you should mention the Indian Wars. I'd just been wondering: During the Indian wars, did the U.S. assert the right to hold those we took prisoner indefinitely, or until after the end of the wars (presumably some time after Wounded Knee (1890)? Or could we argue that, in light of the actions of the American Indian Movement in 1973 and of Leonard Peltier in 1975 on the Pine Ridge Reservation, those wars are not yet definitively ended, and we can hold unlawful Indian combatants indefinitely without trial?
While we're at it. I note that, when we sent the U.S. Army to chase Pancho Villa after the last act of foreign terrorism on U.S. soil before 9/11, whenever the army caught someone who had taken part in Villa's raid on Columbus, N.M., they were sent back and tried in New Mexico for murder and other crimes under New Mexico law. (After conviction, they were hanged or sentenced to long prison terms.) Would the better practice by the army have been instead to hold those Villistas indefinitely as unlawful combatants until the end of the war on Villism (whenever that might have been)?
'Would the better practice by the army have been instead to hold those Villistas indefinitely as unlawful combatants until the end of the war on Villism (whenever that might have been)?"
Certainly it would have been in regard to Pancho Villa if we had succeeded in capturing him. No court ever punished Pancho for his numerous murders and other felonies great and small, although he was eventually assassinated so he received some rough justice at the end.
In regard to the Indian Wars, Indian chiefs were often held for lengthy periods and exiled to other parts of the country. Goyathlay, better known as Geronimo, was held from 1886 until his death in 1909. Although he had considerable freedom of movement in his later years, and even rode in Teddy Roosevelt's inaugural parade, he was still a POW and never allowed to return to his homeland
If people don't like the term "American Gulag," perhaps we can revive the term "American Bastille," which was the title of a book published shortly after the Civil War, detailing the U.S. record of indefinite detentions, and trials by miliatary tribunals, of those suspected of being Confederate agents and sympathizers. Some of us had thought the Supreme Court had put an end to that practice with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866). (Milligan, by the way, was accused of plotting to organize an attack on the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1864 -- what would now unquestionably be called a terrorist act by an unlawful combatant. Yet the Supreme Court held that he could not be tried by a military commission, but had to be brought before the civilian courts for trial, or else released. Because Milligan was arrested in the United States, his case isn't on all fours with those of detainees who were arrested in Pakistan or Bosnia. But it indicates that this question of "how can we treat these terrorists like ordinary criminals?" has come us before, and been answered in quite a different way than the current administration would like.)
Bob:
Thank you for your reply.
The short answer is again "Yes".
Pontification: Human nature does not change.
If we treat our POW's honorably then:
1. Moslem-Americans will be more inclined to identify with their fellow countrymen rather than with their co-religionists.
2. The enemy will face more international condemnation if they abuse a U.S. POW after the US has treated enemy POWs honorably..
3. It will encourage the faint hearted among the enemy to surrender to U.S. forces rather than fight. This is a good things. It prevents mroe of our kids from getting killed.
4. If we interrogate on site when possible the risks involved with POW handling are lessened.
Thank you for the opportunity to shoot my mouth off.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Although he had considerable freedom of movement in his later years, and even rode in Teddy Roosevelt's inaugural parade, he was still a POW and never allowed to return to his homeland
How did we justify that? Did we claim that the Indian Wars were still going on in 1909? (Maybe so. I see from this article (http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/
lcp68dspring2005p173.htm) that it wasn't until 1909 that the courts held that all Indians weren't ipso facto prisoners of war, who couldn't leave their reservations without government permission. I'd hate to think we're regarding that practice as a good model to follow, though.)
From the article Katherine posted above about the US soldier who was beaten during a training exercise, by fellow soldiers who mistakenly believed he was a detainee:
He [the US soldier, on guard duty at Gitmo] was the new guy on the block, and he says he got special treatment from the detainees: "They wanna try the new guy. See how much they can push you. You know? How much water they can throw on you. How much urine they can throw on you. How much feces they can dump on you."
Serious questions:
1. What moral responses are available to those guarding detainees who behave as described above?
2. Did German POWS enage in such behavior against US guards during WWII?
What happened when they did?
Alfred McCoy establishes in his major treatise on torture , A QUESTION OF TORTURE: CIA INTERROGATION, FROM THE COLD WAR TO THE WAR ON TERROR that:
1. Hooding for sensory disorientation, arms extended for self-inflicted pain, etc. are all very long established procedures which CIA interrogators have been trained in and have been policy for a long time. He traces these methods to the beginnings of the Cold War, establishes that mental as over against physical torture is the main theme, and that the CIA taught these methods to regimes in Vietnam, Algeria, the Philippines, and Honduras (either personally or through written manuals).
2. that these methods have lifelong, devilitating and devastating effects on BOTH the tortured and the torturers.
3. that torture is not a recent innovation of the Bush administration but has been used for a long time by the U.S.
4. that there is overwhelming evidence that torture (while occasionally effective) is NOT as effective as other methods of gaining information.
5. that Mr. Comerford's view that there's no need to torture is confirmed by the experience of the U.S. in the Pacific theatre during World War II. Using standard law-enforcement techniques (building up rapport, inspiring trust and intimacy, etc.), the U.S. Marines were "getting complete order-of-battle intelligence on the enemy array, the enemy defenses, WITHIN 24 HOURS!
6. that the FBI successfully used these Marine methods (morally unobjectionable) on Al Quaida training camp leader Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi in custody in Kabul, and were in the process of extracting a confession that would stand up in court - that is, one that hadn't been coerced. But on orders from the White House, the CIA took over. He was rendered to Egypt, brutally tortured, gave false information that Colin Powell used in his famous U.N.address (to his discredit), which false information helped lead the United States into war in Iraq.
In a word, torture as policy is "same old, same old." Shame on us. Bush, Cheney, and their ilk have never been tortured themselves but have advocated these methods. McCain HAS been tortured and doesn't advocate them. There's a faculty lounge wimp factor in all of this. We need to listen to the military more. And retire these arm-chair theorists who've used our military in a preferential option for an Islamic theocracy in "democratic" dress, as over against a ruthless secular neo-Nazi (Baathist) dictatorship.
I say "Let the soldiers speak"! A new poll by John Zogby released today asked 944 service members "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" 23 percent backed Bush; 72 percent said get out within one year; 29 percent said get out immediately. Even the ground troops don't buy the "stay the course" bullshit.
Bush says the big threat is foreign non-Iraqi terrorists. Only 26 percent of the guys agreed. Most think that insurgents are Iraqi Sunnis.
Two to one the troops believe that winning would involve doubling troops.
John Paul the Great was not only a brilliant theologian, but had plenty of this-worldly moxie as well. He was right about the war.
Info about the Zogby poll is contained in Kristoff's op-ed piece in the New York Slimes.
doubting thomas,
Actually, we don't need a "war" on terror at all, but a policing operation (using military resources) to track down terrorists and bring them to justice.
That's how terrorism has always been handled in our democratic and legal tradition.
To suddenly trump it all up as a "war" and therefore anything goes is a very radical break with tradition and due legal process.
And for those doubting the motives of the lawyers representing these prisoners, let us not forget that Christ taught that those who visit the prisoners are visiting Christ HIMSELF "For I was... in prison and you visited me.' (Matthew 25:31-46).
As Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta spelled out on her five fingers "You Did It Unto ME".
God Bless
As Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta spelled out on her five fingers "You Did It Unto ME".
Let's not jump the gun. So far, she's only Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.
Sorry, I meant to say Blessed.
God Bless
"How did we justify that? Did we claim that the Indian Wars were still going on in 1909?"
In the case of Geronimo it was justified on the grounds that there would never be peace in the Apache lands so long as Geronimo was present. I believe this assumption was entirely reasonable based upon the actions of Geronimo in surrendering and then going to war again at the first opportunity.
"Unfortunately, in this war the whole world is the battlefield; ie, New York City, the London subway system, the Spain railroad. All captured enemy combatants must be held prisoner indefinitely"
Including guys conscripted into the Taliban at gunpoint? Including people conscripted into the Taliban who served as the damn COOK? Including gullible little old ladies from Switzerland? Including English tutors?
Why do they need to be locked in prison for the rest of their lives? I really don't see it.
Again, all of those are included in the administration's definition of an "enemy combatant."
If you're talking about actual dangerous terrorists that's another story. But to know whether someone is a dangerous terrorist, you need something other than the President's word. You some kind of real hearing, requiring real evidence of real support for the enemy.
No one has had that yet--not in GTMO. The military commissions have some redeeming qualities, but they're bad enough for some of the prosecutors to resign in protest. None have occurred yet (this is partly because they're being challenged by detainees' lawyers in federal court, and partly because DoD has charged about 10 people out of over 500.) The CSRTs are kangaroo courts.
As far as documentation of some of these lawyers claims--there are actually a lot of court docs, but they're really really expensive to get access to. The AP will hopefully be getting and publishing some unredacted CSRT transcripts soon.
People in Bagram have less process than a CSRT. People in
If the entire world is a battlefield, and the war lasts forever, you are left with a situation where someone accused of being "an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield" could actually be "some poor innocent schmoe kidnapped from his bed because Pakistan's secret service had a grudge against him" or "an innocent Canadian father of two trying to change planes at JFK airport, whom two other Canadians named under torture in Syria" or "an out of work German used car salesman who has a similar name to an Al Qaeda terrorist" or "a guy who was acquitted of terrorism charges by the Bosnian Supreme Court 5 minutes ago."
To say that you don't need due process because these are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield--you don't know if they're actually enemy combatants without due process. You can't rely on the fact that they were captured "on the battlefield" to prove anything at all if the whole world is a battlefield.
Some of these guys are guilty, though almost none are high ranking--those guys get sent elsewhere. But some are no more terrorists than I am.
The powers the president claims here--there's no limit to them. Really, none. And that's the opposite of what our country was founded on.
If people will allow me to get all pretentious and quote Democracy in America...
"Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws."
With a perpetual war going on and the beginnings of universal surveillance, this is beginning to look like some kind of futuristic novel by Eric Blair.
Listening - I don't watch TV - to C-span the other day, and hearing people call in to volunteer their personal telephone calls to surveillance ("I have nothing to hide"), I was starting to follow the logic of it all.
If you don't mind having your phone conversations listened to, why not have microphonnes in your home, in every room? If you have nothing to hide, why not? Why would you concede surveillance of your phone conversations but not those within your own four walls? Do you have something to hide that you might say at home but not on the phone? People in the old SU were very careful about what they said over the phone. There was even a joke about it during perestroika:
["You'll never guess what I read in Pravda today - it never could have happened before perestroika."
"What was it?"
"I can't tell you over the phone."]
But then, if there are microphones in every room, why not cameras in every room? A disloyal person could create loyal talk for the benefit of the mikes, while plotting in mime and with written communications.
Have nothing to hide? Then permit cameras to be installed, even in the bathroom. That way, you can't just run the bath so the microphones are stymied. Any loyal person wouldn't mind.
See? It's logical. Inexorably. Of course, by that time the whole populace is insane - but logical.
Below is a link to a blog entry that excerpts a piece written by someone who served in Iraq as an interrogator.
http://
www.belgraviadispatch.com...ability_an.html
I agree completely with that former interrogator.
Here are links to transcripts of three interviews with the same interrogator, Specialist Anthony Lagouranis:
1, 2, 3
You leave with the distinct impression that our interrogation policies are not only wrong, but also quite stupid.
But the most horrifying thing is not the torture allegations; it's his description of his job in Fallujah in the second interview.
Katherine,
War is an ugly business. Searching dead bodies happens sometimes. But I remain unpersuaded that lawyers should have anything to say about it, and certainly not a black-robed, elitist, unelected Judge.
I think you're beginning to believe your own hysteria. There is no unlimited power. Congress can impeach Bush if they want to. He'll be out of office in a couple of years, thanks to Constitutional term limits on his power. And finally, Congress can withhold funding on paying for any of this, as they did in Vietnam. Those are basically your constitutional options on limiting his war powers.
Additionally, you're using terms which would lead to ABSURD consequences. You talk about "due process" rights of combattants on the battlefield. Do you know what that means? Honestly? Do you expect soldiers to start reading people their Miranda rights ("you have the right to remain silent...")? For pete's sake, this is a war, not a criminal trial.
You might rebel at the thought that a conscripted fighter gets stuck in a bad situation. Yes, it's bad for a poor guy who had no other option but to fight for the Taliban. But I'm not going to cry over it: he chose to kill Americans. He's gotta face justice. If that means sitting in prision for his attempts at killing soldiers, so be it. I also can understand how you might rebel at the idea that some detainees may only be there because of the word of a sinister opposing tribal member. Yeah, it sucks. But the proper balance the military has taken is to protect American lives first, and if that means that an "innocent" guy sits in jail for several years, then that's what it takes. The military is categorically inept at doing what you ask it to do - police investigations. They kill people and break things, not sweep for evidence. I'm all for the government trying to make sure the right people are captured, but I think you're asking for a lot more that would put American lives at serious risk.
I'm not even going to dignify Chris Sullivan's idiotic plea for a police operation on terror with a response. I'll only say that such police operations were the policy of the 1990s, which directly led to the attack on the World Trade Center and the death of nearly 3,000 American lives (of which Sullivan seems to care not a whit about).
Let's save American lives by incarcerating people for years, even if they're innocent.
Actually, not even dumb logic makes sense out of that one.
I wasn't suggesting that lawyers do anthing about searching for bodies. But you knew that, didn't you?
Would everyone please STOP using the term "combatants" as if there's been any clear proof of that, and please STOP using the term "battlefield" as if it meant something when, under the administration's definition, the battlefield includes my damn kitchen? Why do you talk about "chose to kill Americans" when that is not REMOTELY something included in the definition of "enemy combatant"? Most people there do not even stand accused of a "belligerent act." 5% were captured by U.S. forces. Most were turned over by Afghan warlords and Pakistani intelligence. Are you still unaware of these facts after they're repeated to you again, again, and again? Or are you indifferent?
What excuse do you have for the scare quotes around innocent? Why do you talk about three years when GTMO's been open four and when you and the President have suggested that people should be imprisoned for the length of the war the pres. says may not end in our lifetimes?
The military runs a very nice and honorable court martial system when they're asked to do so.
You have no right to accuse people of not caring about dead American civilians just because they haven't stopped caring about their countries ideal's, or human beings from other countries.
and the difficulty of police operations in actual combat is one thing, which is EXACTLY why I supported a dual system including more traditional POW-like detention for the duration of shooting wars in specific countries rather than indefinite metaphorical wars spanning the entire globe.
We've not even begun to discuss the fact that the lawyers and courts and public scrutiny have been the only effective mechanism against abuse and torture, either.
"See? It's logical. Inexorably. Of course, by that time the whole populace is insane - but logical."
Actually its not logical. Generally slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies.
Phil,
Your post cites that people let dogs intimidate prisoners. From here the soldier states, "No slope is more slippery, I learned in Iraq, than the one that leads to torture."
Its not clear that barking dogs are torture.
"But people were using, you know, harsh, stressed positions for long periods of time, isolation, taking people's clothes and mattresses. And so you saw that ran into problems at Abu Ghraib. I think the MPs there who committed these crimes were taking cues from the interrogators and the CIA who were coming in there and stripping the prisoners down, and leaving them naked in their cells.
So I would consider that torture, especially in an interrogation environment where you're supposed to be a professional, and the safety and well being of the prisoner falls on you."
"Right. I mean, you know, these are big German Shepherds. So when I would ask the prisoner a question and I didn't like the answer, I would cue the handler so the dog would bark and jump on the prisoner, but he wasn't able to bite him."
"Well, I never saw too much with the interrogators who were actually professional interrogators that they were doing much more than what I described to you: the dogs, the stress positions, the hypothermia. Which ended up not really causing severe bodily harm, anyway, to the prisoner."
Doesn't quite sound like torture. But others will disagree.
"The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture people in their homes. They were using things like … burns. They would smash people's feet with the back of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was serious stuff.
When you say "burns," what do you mean?
I remember one guy who was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe on a humvee, and he had a pretty huge blister on his leg. Another guy, I don't know what they used to burn him, his legs. He was blindfolded so he didn't know either, but it looked like it might have been a lighter. He had some pretty big, [some] smaller blisters, but a lot of them.
Why would they do that?
Part of it is, they were trying to get information, but part of it is also just pure sadism."
This last part actually makes more sense. There were people doing this just for the fun of it. I agree, sounds like sadism, not torture.
"If there wasn't really strong, strong leadership that said, "We're not going to tolerate abuse," … in every facility there would have been abuse."
But where there was strong leadership, there was no abuse (sadism.) Hmmm.
"[Did] Abu Ghraib [get] better [after the scandal broke]?
Yeah, it got better almost immediately, and progressed also, you know? Like they keep making it more and more sterile, which is good, you know? I mean, I'm glad they're doing that, but that also frustrated the interrogators… You get more and more oversight and more and more focus on Abu Ghraib or anything in the Army, and it turns into a lot of bureaucracy. So they were slowed down in their ability to do their jobs. But at least it did prevent abuse at Abu Ghraib."
And the military responded appropriately to the abuse (sadism.) Thanks for the link Katherine.
DT:
We should not torture; However, we should incarcerate indefintiely.
Katherine,
Could you please email me at the address above?
Thanks,
Pavel
That was, actually, the address below.
Bob,
Guess that's the crux of the issue. Torture is wrong. So is sadism and any form of abuse. That's why people have been asking what is torture. Are muzzled barking dogs? Are strobe lights? Are cold rooms or skipped meals?
I am somewhat provocative above for the sake of demonstratting why people have asked this. Yes I understand Mr. Comerford's and others arguments that the better approach is to build rapport. But are what are listed above necessarily wrong? If so, what degree of coercion (if any) is appropriate? Real people in real positions of responsibility need to know so they may act morally.
And yes I think there is a distinction between sadism and torture. I unfortunately agree with the soldier that is linked that there was quite a bit of sadism in Iraq. I have seen such sadism too many places. In the military, in Catholic schools, in Catholic homeschooling families. But let's make the correct distinction so that we don't come to dramatic conclusions like "American Gulag."
For I have also seen a great many people act exceptionally professionally in these strenuous environments. And where the command was strong, that abuse, sadism, torture or whatever did not occur as the link also documents.
Anyway, must be scarce for today. As Mark would say, discuss class.
As DT seems to be saying, is it now the teaching of the Catholic Church that indefinite incarcerate of prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants in conditions similar to WWII POW camps torture?
I would appreciate inpute from Robert Comerford and Mark Shea and anyone else on this matter.
Bob:
Great! Another opportunity for me to pontificate. This time on the indefinite inprisionment of bad guys -some of whom may not be bad guys. Thank you.
This is a bad, bad idea. Usually the expectation behind lifting a bad guy is that you will eventually throw him back into the fishing pond as your own fish - whether he knows it or not.
For instance you have a hard case. You release him; but before you release him you put out that he betrayed his comrades. The hard case and his ex-comrades will spend most of their time chasing each other when they should be chasing the good guys.
Or, you have a soft case who wants to help the good guys. You release but before you relesae him you put out that he heroically resisted the good guys in prision. You now have an agent in place.
Or, you have a hard case who lives in an area where the good guys have a great intell net. You release him. He goes home and visits the other bad guys. The good guys now know who all the bad guys are.
Or, the bad guys lift a good guy. The good guy policy is never to deal with terrorists; but it just happens that it is time to release 10 bad guys; and it just so happens that the good guy who has been lifted will be released because it is a revolutionary day of celebration. Everyone saves face.
Or, you lift a kid who was engaged in some minor fighting. He has not killed anyone. You release him. Now on the street he is a free but failed fighter instead of being an imprisioned, heroic fighter - a martyr.
Further no matter how hard you try the good guys are going to lift bad guys who are in fact not bad guys. Oops! It is best to release these "mistakes" as soon as possible. (Also this is a good technique to bring in agenst for a face to face debrief adn then to re-insert them.)
Finally please remember that this is not a matter of justice. It is a war. The current bad guys, like PIRA in Northern Ireland, have a bottomless well of recruits. They cannot equip and field all the men who want to fight. We are not going to diminsih their fighting strength by keeping a few hundred bad guys locked up till they die of old age. Better to release them in ways that will further our cause and not give the enemy fodder for the propoganda war.
I enjoyed potificating. Hope I did not offend anyone.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Richard,
You release him; but before you release him you put out that he betrayed his comrades.
How is this morally different than rendition to a country to a Syria or Uzbekistan?
Isn't such a release likely to get the bad guy tortured or killed?
Rick:
Thank you for your post. Great point!
As previously posted. I am a blockhead. I do not know how this is morally different than rendition to a country like Syria. However I do not think releasing a serious player under conditions described above is a violation of the 5th Commandment.
Look these guys voluntarily engage in what the Brits call "Big boys' games". These serious players have decided to wage war in the shadows without uniforms, without adhering to Western rules like the Geneva Convention, and with the deliberate intent of murdering noncombatants in order to terrorize an entire population into submission. And why not? It works. Gerry Adams is now a welcome, honored guest at the White House and at Number 10 Downing Street.
But how about our own immortal souls? I am speaking about low level operators like myself. Lets pretend I am a young man again and a player. I release this guy with the intention of placing him at risk and disrupting the enemy insurget network. I want the bad guys to spend all their time and energy chasing their former comrade. I want the former comrade to spend all of his time and energy hiding from the bad guys. In fact I will try and help him to hide in order to drag the scenario out.
How is above scenario different from a conventional war when I trick the enemy into firing onto his own posiition and killing his own soldiers?
If you think in so acting that I am violating the 5th Commandment please tell me so I can save my immortal soul.
Thank you.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
The just treatment of one's enemy is crucial not only from a Christian point of view, but also from the point of view of one's own soldiers. Imagine how differently any US soldier captured in any theatre of war from now on is likely to be treated. The rest of the world, European as well as Asian looks on with horror at what has happened to America's apparent carelessness of human dignity and callousness
Do you really think that a terrorist would respect a captured American soldier? None of the people we are currently fighting wear the uniform of any nation, and will treat captured Americans dismally, Abu Graib or not. Summary execution is the most likely outcome.
(I'm not saying this negates the military's responsibility to treat prisoners in a humane fashion)
GregM, agreed. We shouldn't mistreat our prisoners because it is morally wrong to do so. However, I have long found arguments that our mistreatment of unlawful combatants who respect no code of decency towards our people will lead to other, lawfully warring enemies to mistreat our men stretched at best. If anything, mistreating unlawful combatants and treating lawful combatants well will encourage borderline adversaries to play fair and deter them from not abiding by the laws of war. The moral argument is clear, the practical argument is muddy at best and serves the pro-torture side at worst.
"Summary execution is the most likely outcome."
If our troops are lucky.
"The rest of the world, European as well as Asian looks on with horror at what has happened to America's apparent carelessness of human dignity and callousness."
Yes, I am sure they are horrified. I can imagine the conversations in North Korea, Libya, Sudan, the PRC, Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc. "Imagine, those idiot Americans have held those prisoners in comfort at Guantanomo and have released hundreds of them. Think of the expense! Think of the risk of those released captives attacking them again! Why didn't they simply torture them all and then kill them as we would have done?". Other than soft-hearted and headed Americans and other inhabitants of the industrial west, I am sure that is what most of the rest of the world truly thinks.
Well, Donald, as we all know Jesus is quite hard on soft hearts!
The Abu Ghraib sentences seem to have been a function of negative publicity as much as anything else.
There are at least eight cases we know of of detainees being tortured to death in custody. So far, the maximum sentence imposed in any of these cases after a military trial is six months imprisonment. That's right, six months.
In cases where civilians are involved--contractors or CIA personnel--only one person has been charged. That trial is still ongoing.
The only explanation I can come up with is: no pictures. (Except in Manadel al-Jamadi's case, where even pictures don't do the trick.)
The fact that there seems to have been dramatic and pervasive clean up at Abu Ghraib suggests a lack of oversight and discipline before the fact.
Don't get me wrong--it's a good thing, and some of the changes did happen before the press. It seems to take a press report to get anyone actually held accountable, but the efforts to stop future abuses seem to begin sooner than that.
"Comfort on Guantanamo" indeed. Is there any lie you can't convince yourself of? Is there any amount of government documents, credible news articles, accounts from U.S. soldiers, consistent accounts from prisoners who have never met each other, that will ever convince you to actually research these issues instead of simply believing what you want to believe?
Mark, there's no need to call themselves apologist or any other name. Confront them with the evidence, and they prove true any charge you might wish to make. Just watch them shut their eyes, cover their ears, and apologize for everything.
that was me.
"Well, Donald, as we all know Jesus is quite hard on soft hearts!"
Our country always needs to listen to Christ Tom. Lectures from most of the rest of the world however, considering the great respect for civil liberties and the laws of war most of the nations of the Earth have demonstrated, is rather like a social drinker, the US, being harangued about Demon Rum by the town drunk.
I dunno Greg, Donald. I had a conversation with an ex-Green Beret last week. He found himself in Afghanistan during the 80s, negotiating with a well-known hardline Islamic war lord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, for the release of Soviet POWs, among whom was Alexandr Rutskoi, who later defended the Moscow White House and Yeltsin during the attempted putsch of 1991, and was vice president of the Russian Federation. Rutskoi owed one to this American.
This guy, the Green Beret, was also Minster of Defense of Lithuania for one day, in January of 1991. People familiar with that situation will know who he is.
Hekmatyar is now fighting us, but who knows how the negotiations of the 80s might affect future events in Afghanistan.
Does anyone here realize how complex human relations really are, despite the boiler plate of the propagandists and xenophobes on all sides?
Life is not a video war game. Have you guys ever been operational on enemy territory, with no weapon but your ability to relate to people as a human being?
"Have you guys ever been operational on enemy territory, with no weapon but your ability to relate to people as a human being?"
Not unless you count the blogs Pavel!
Human relationships are complex, but one constant in human affairs is that weakness in the face of agression is almost never a good policy. The radical Islamists have made their intent quite clear. I have no problem talking to those who wish to talk. Interesting discussions are underway sub rosa between the US and Sunni elements of the Iraqi insurgents, for example. Without sufficient military power and the resolve to use it however, mere talk is useless.
pavel chichikov:
In reply to your last question the answer is "yes" and there are a couple of thousand guys who can give the same answer.
During the Cold War U.S. Army Special Forces were routinely deployed, more often than not, without weapons into areas where armed militants, Marxists and various types of thugs wanted to X us out. Sometimes the State Department would allow us to carry firearms but no ammunition! However the job almost always got done.
I think the reason is that we were trained to think of our brians as our "primary weapon". As long as we were thinking we were armed and dangerous, even if we were put down naked admidst our enemies.
Also we had a very old fashioned and Catholic view of human nature. This helped a lot.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
pavel chichikov:
In reply to your last question the answer is "yes" and there are a couple of thousand guys who can give the same answer.
During the Cold War U.S. Army Special Forces were routinely deployed, more often than not, without weapons into areas where armed militants, Marxists and various types of thugs wanted to X us out. Sometimes the State Department would allow us to carry firearms but no ammunition! However the job almost always got done.
I think the reason is that we were trained to think of our brians as our "primary weapon". As long as we were thinking we were armed and dangerous, even if we were put down naked admidst our enemies.
Also we had a very old fashioned and Catholic view of human nature. This helped a lot.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Straw men of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chaff.
Many of the people supporting the Guantanamo and the denial of rights to its inmates seem to believe that there is only one response to terrorism- a reactive savagery; some even believe that torture may be included- if you change the definition.
Terrorism has been around a long time, and it has usually ended with political change of some kind. Washington, Nehru, De Valera, De Gaulle, Mandela were all terrorists. They were human rational beings. Do many Americans ever consider why they are so hated? We British had to do so, and made many mistakes, but rationality played some part in the resolution of our problems. Recognising the humanity of the enemy is sometimes hard.
You would be hard put to it, however, to find a single English politician, beginning with Tony Blair who would defend the present function of Guantanamo Bay. And we are your allies..............
"Washington, Nehru, De Valera, De Gaulle, Mandela were all terrorists."
I must have missed that part in American history where Washington sent our suicide bombers to blow up civilians.
Commenting by HaloScan
