Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[Billy_Dean]

From Hobbes.

Could you flesh this out?

We went into Iraq on the "certain knowledge" that Sadam had "Weapons of mass destruction", and that he could, and would, use them. We were told they could be deployed in 45 minutes. You don't need me to point out the truth or otherwise of these claims. Had we gone in to kick out Sadam, world support would have been far different.

And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

By this I meant, the main problem in Iraq at the moment, is lack of services, water, food, medical supplies, electricity, etc. This should have been taken into account before the invasion. We didn't protect hospitals, museums, public buildings, nothing! In fact, our troops watched it happen and did nothing until the worlds press got on their backs, we then had a token effort to stop the looting. A liberating army would have protected all these things, would have gone in with thousands of tons of medical supplies, would have restored services as a top priority. They would have provided jobs for Iraqis, and included them in their planning for the rebuilding of their country.

To believe we would be welcomed with open arms is naive in the extreme. Do you think these people have forgotten the promises Bush senior made after the first Iraqi war? "You rise up against Sadam and we'll help you." They rose up all right, what did we do? We stood by and watched them get slaughtered!

As for Afghanistan, I'll give you one example, there are hundreds of stories like this: The US "intelligence" agencies, (and I use the term intelligence loosely) got wind of a wedding in a remote village. Their sources told them that the bridegroom was the niece of a top Taliban official. The US Air Force sent in a C130 gunship. These are the planes that fly around a target in a circular pattern and fire high powered, rapid fire, 150mm (?) cannon. They shot up the wedding, killed dozens of people, wounded many more, just on the off chance that the official may have been there, he wasn't.

You either lash out or you discuss (as with ilw). Lashing out only detracts from the board,

I refer you to these comments, after this person took the moral high ground for page after page ...

For your edification:

I am well aware of our past actions regarding the overthrow of foreign leaders we deemed dangerous, or undesirable-so what?

We interject ourselves where we see fit-so what?

We aren't overly concerned with the status of a bunch of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and we don't care who is questioning our handling of the situation there.

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

If you sincerely don't like it, get off your duffs, put away your keyboards, and go join the fray-I won't miss you.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Feel free to blather on as you see fit.

Lastly, I'd like to say this: I have lived with Afghanis, I have also lived with Moroccan muslims, and spent time in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. I have travelled overland through Iran and Pakistan, among others. I have had a lot to do with muslims. I have always found them to be peace loving, welcoming people. Their hospitality, to complete strangers, is legendary. This does not happen in our countries, and is part of their religion.

I could compare that to the jewish writings that state all non jews are animals, I could mention that ultra orthadox jews would not have a non-jew in their house, but I won't.

[j2k4]

I never claimed any "moral high-ground", Billy; I just told you what was what.

I never asked you to like it or accept it-I just told you how this shit works, and you don't like it-hence, so what?

If you want to know what I actually think (you really have no idea, either), re-read my posts, and try to key on phrases containing the words "I think...", or "I believe".

Your experiences with Muslims and those of Islamic faith seem to mirror mine; however, I don't think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I'm pretty damn sure you didn't, either.

[Billy_Dean]

I don't think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I'm pretty damn sure you didn't, either.

Fundamentalists of any persuasion are scary j2k4. including christian ones, of which the United States has more than their fair share.

I lived among Afghani mujahadin during their fight with the Russians. I saw very, very strict adherence to a code you would certainly call fundemantalist. I saw an Afghani fighter executed for selling his AK47. I stood at the front of the crowd in a market square in Saudi Arabia in 1978 and watched a Pakistani and a Yemeni beheaded, the Pakistani for importing canabis, and the Yemeni for murder.

EDIT: Regimes don't come much more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the 911 terrorists come from? And which country keeps this lot in power? Living there was scarier than Afghanistan during the war.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 02:17

I don't think I strayed into any fundamentalist camps, and I'm pretty damn sure you didn't, either.

Fundamentalists of any persuasion are scary j2k4. including christian ones, of which the United States has more than their fair share.

I lived among Afghani mujahadin during their fight with the Russians. I saw very, very strict adherence to a code you would certainly call fundemantalist. I saw an Afghani fighter executed for selling his AK47. I stood at the front of the crowd in a market square in Saudi Arabia in 1978 and watched a Pakistani and a Yemeni beheaded, the Pakistani for importing canabis, and the Yemeni for murder.

EDIT: Regimes don't come much more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the 911 terrorists come from? And which country keeps this lot in power? Living there was scarier than Afghanistan during the war.

No matter what you think about our involvement in the middle-east, we are not there to foist our religion(s) on it's inhabitants nor oppress them in the name of religion.

Saudi Arabia may be fundamentalist in it's societal mores, but the ruling class does not practice what it preaches.

In any case, that is not what I'm talking about-for the sake of clarity, lets just say "terrorist" camps; extremist-fundamentalists, if you will.

The type who scream "KILL THE INFIDELS!", and have no concept of a life or religion apart from their own.

I hereby give a nod of respect to the variety of places you have kept house; it doesn't seem to include any experience with the people I've just described, though.

As with any country such as Saudi Arabia, all have enough bad apples to create malodorous biases and prejudices; as you say, the "christian" fundamentalists in the U.S. (which you equate to others in relative "scariness") are as capable as any of holding poisonous views-what is it, do you suppose, that keeps them from becoming a globe-trotting band of marauding terrorists, as have their mid-eastern brethren?

Could be nothing more than pure-D laziness.


I must say, though, I personally regret the level of business we do with the Saudis; they are a despicable lot of hypocrites, and the House of Saud deserves to fall-only trouble being the added regional instability which would result.

Does the mid-east need that at this point?

Just think, Billy-for want of the discovery of a "Miracle Fuel" to replace oil the U.S. could withdraw from the mid-east and you and all the others would have their dreams come true, huh?

[Billy_Dean]

We seem to be finding common ground here, can't we argue about something else? [joke]

Walk into a Republican pub in Belfast and start a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the IRA. You think you'd get out alive? Of course you would!

The actual "extremists", as you pointed out, are a very small minority, you can still talk to people who supposedly "hate" you.

Let me ask you a question; Just suppose, George Bush, (or any current US president), were to ask for talks with Osama Bin Laden. Let's say he accepted, and the two men sat down an talked about all their issues. If the US were genuinely willing to find a solution, what do you think the outcome would be?

EDIT: (forgot this bit) During the second world war, there was a German Government in exile in England, they took over after the war, look at Germany now. Now, I'm not saying the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, but they too have very capable politicians, Western educated, waiting to take over. I believe, and this is my opinion, that the US has already given the Saudi rulers a timetable for reform. I also believe that the war with Iraq is tied up with this.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by hobbes@11 September 2003 - 23:00
Are you commenting on the thread as a whole, or responding to my very specific discussion with RF about twisting definitions to justify actions.

That is why I specifically posted "in the context of this exchange" (exchange between RF and myself over the last 4 posts, exclusive to the rest of the thread), as we (everyone) discussed the bigger picture last night. I knew those last lines, read without the proper context, would bring about a flare-up I did not intend.

Please do not tell myfiles3000 that I used bold, he frowns about this, calls it amateur work.

I agree, i was.

The very fact that i put in the line "It could be argued..." shows that i am playing Devils Advocate on that argument, and dont believe it myself.

However, the twist is no more than, although different, to the slant given by Israel for its justifications, by the US Government on some of its behaviour, and on my own Governments for its behaviour.


I find it strange that you take exception to this "slant", while excepting others that are equally bad....but conform to your world view.



Let me say, yet again:


Killing innocents by ANYONE is criminal.

I make no distinction between a Palestinian or an Israeli.

In my view, the peoples deserve peace, and the Leaders deserve to be tried on BOTH sides.


Specifically, to get back on-topic.....in a Civilian Court, with all their rights to a legal defence intact.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 10:25
Let me ask you a question; Just suppose, George Bush, (or any current US president), were to ask for talks with Osama Bin Laden. Let's say he accepted, and the two men sat down an talked about all their issues. If the US were genuinely willing to find a solution, what do you think the outcome would be?



EDIT: (forgot this bit) During the second world war, there was a German Government in exile in England, they took over after the war, look at Germany now. Now, I'm not saying the same thing would happen in Saudi Arabia, but they too have very capable politicians, Western educated, waiting to take over. I believe, and this is my opinion, that the US has already given the Saudi rulers a timetable for reform. I also believe that the war with Iraq is tied up with this.

Your scenario presupposes such a thing could actually take place; Bush would neither request nor entertain the idea of such a meeting, given (with much justification) that to appease terrorists (after all, that is what Osama is) or negotiate with them in any way is to abandon principle.

BUT-

Just to play out your string:

Osama, presumably, would also hold to his principles, and would make the following demands:

1-The U.S. immediately cease ALL activity in the mid-east, including support of Israel.

2-The U.S. stand idly by while Osama and his merry band of fanatical pranksters re-align the entire mid-east according to their and Allah's master blueprint, which would include holding all non-oil-producing nations hostage to selective distribution of the mid-east's only real resource (And I don't mean sand).

3-The U.S. commit, with all haste, genocide upon itself, as we are infidels, and Islam, as viewed by Osama, cannot countenance our continued existence.

Bush, of course, would refuse.


As to a "government-in-exile" awaiting a return to Saudi Arabia, I only wish such a thing were true; given the U.S.'s bent for unwanted intrusion, do you think, if the option existed, that we would be sitting on our hands?

If the U.S. can bring pressure to bear on the royal family, I am sure that they are.

On the other hand, if it were ALL about oil, wouldn't we just "take" it?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 September 2003 - 10:51
Specifically, to get back on-topic.....in a Civilian Court, with all their rights to a legal defence intact.

Rat-

Regardless of my wayward posting, I am as desirous as you to stay on topic.

I must, however, fall back on my "exceptional circumstances" argument of previous posts.

It is my contention that terrorists do not fit extant legal definitions; civilian, military, or those of the various international auspices (Geneva, et.al.), as they are not specifically nation-sponsored.

(If they wanted to claim a nation, or name names, so to speak, maybe we could get off the schnide as to their detention).

In the absence of this definition of "status", jurisdiction does not default to civilian courts; admittedly, the U.S. is exploiting what it sees as a legal "loophole", but, there it is.

I am glad to finally get to respond to you, Rat.

[Billy_Dean]

I thought when I read your first point you intended to be serious, some hope!

Do you HONESTLY believe the ridiculous rhetoric about wanting to destroy the western way of life? Do you really think that is what this is all about? Do you really believe 911 happened because the Americans were considered infidels? I just hope there are people in your government with more sense than that!

And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own! I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?

As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with a few more facts.

As for the "appeasement" of terrorists, I take it you believe the British government, with US assistance, was wrong to negotiate a ceasefire with the IRA?



If the whole of America holds your views, I fear for the world!

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4
It is my contention that terrorists do not fit extant legal definitions; civilian, military, or those of the various international auspices (Geneva, et.al.), as they are not specifically nation-sponsored.

You are talking as if they have already been proved guilty of terrorism. They have not. You have to entertain the notion that at least some of these people are innocent and put their treatment in that context.

If you do then I dont see how you can come to any other conclusion than that the treatment being dished out to them is completely wrong.

Isnt the truth simply that these are the fall guys fated to appease the lust for vengeance for 9/11?

Bush has already influenced their 'trials' by stating that "there is no doubt in my mind that there are some very bad people in there" (or words to that effect.)

Under any kind of justice, be it civilian, military or whatever.. a politician influencing a future trial in such a manner is unthinkable.

All of these factors lead me to believe that this has got nothing to do with any form of justice civilian, military or otherwise.