Dave wrote:
In the U.S., on the other hand, we generally operate on the principle that
all is permitted which is not forbidden.

Wrong, the Constitution specifically says that all powers not granted
expressly are reserved for the states, or for the people.... ie
everything that's not expressly permitted in writing is forbidden.


1- point out the section of the U.S. COnstitution which says "Persons
suspected of being involved in terrorism, or other unanmed & unknown
threats against the U.S., may be imprisoned & sequestered indefinitely
with no charges, no trial, at the whim of the current President."

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?





...Thus when someone says a particular
action is forbidden, the burden in on him to provide the authority for that
proposition, not on the person whose action is allegedly forbidden.


Kinda like 'guilty until proven innocent' eh? I'm glad as hell you're
not *my* lawyer.

For the record- I am not against the idea of imprisoning & even
sequestering people taken captive in anti-terrorist operations. But
there must be a due process of law, and there must be accountability.
Both are sadly lacking at Gitmo.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?

Absolutely not. But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured, not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.

2- do you think it's a good idea for the U.S. gov't (in theory a
proponent of "freedom") to simply grab anybody they don't like, and lock
them up forever, with no accountability?


Vito wrote:
Absolutely not.

Good, we're agreed.

Oddly enough, Dave has avoided answering this question.

... But it is my understanding that those imprisoned at Gitmo
were tried in the country where they were captured

That's contrary to what I have heard.

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."



... not necessarily IAW US
law but at least by military tribunal, and were found guilty. Then rather
than being killed or imprisoned there, they were turned over to us on the
promise that we would not let them return because we believed they had info
we needed. Thus expecting them to be given additional trials at Gitmo is
equivalent to having courtrooms in a stateside max security prison - it just
don't happen.


If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."

Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.
... not necessarily IAW US law ....

If that were the case, I'd agree. But I don't think it is, at least not
for the majority.

Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?

Because our "allies" are notoriously inefficient at extracting *reliable*
info out of prisoners. The kinds of torture they use gets them the answers
they want to hear quickly but not necessarily the truth. Our experts use
psychological "torture" (if one can call it that) to get much better
results.

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.

That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture" used.

The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."


Vito wrote:
Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.


I wonder where you heard this. It's never even been hinted at in any
material I've seen or heard.


Consider this, why would we keep prisoners ourselves, if the military
suspects they have info on terrorist operations and/or organization,
when we can hand them over to one of our 3rd world "allies" secret
police who will simply torture it out of them pronto? OTOH since the
Bush Administration endorses the U.S. military torturing prisoners, why
do we need to keep them at all?


Because our "allies" are notoriously inefficient at extracting *reliable*
info out of prisoners.

True, but we do it anyway.


... Our experts use
psychological "torture" (if one can call it that) to get much better
results.


Uh huh.

Would you call letting a large maddened dog chomp at the face of a
prisoner "torture"? How about holding his head underwater repeatedly?
Putting a black hood on him and connecting various body parts to
electric wires? All these, and more, are documented to have been done by
U.S. troops.

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.




I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.


That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture" used.


No it isn't. And I think that any 'cooperation' produced under such
duress is likely to be extremely unreliable.

But this probably doesn't occur to people who brag about blowing up an
entire block of downtown Baghdad, and killing everybody there, in a
failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Or people who are in favor
of blowing up houses & cars with drone-launched missiles because
suspected terrorist leaders are suspected to be in there.

However, the guy at the top of this chain of command is a scrupulously
moral chap, he has never once gotten a blow job in his office.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote
The Gitmo prisoners are from a number of sources. Some (perhaps most)
are battlefield captives, others were grabbed in counter terrorist
sweeps. At least a few were turned over to the U.S. military by other
"gov't agencies."


Vito wrote:
Yes. But most people captured on the battlefield or in sweeps or where
ever
were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after some sort
of
hearing to determine their fate. Only a small percent were sent to
Gitmo -
again after some kind of hearing to determine that fate.


I wonder where you heard this. It's never even been hinted at in any
material I've seen or heard.

It's implicite in their being there. Nobody arbitrarily kidnaps a civilian
off the street and carries them half way around the world to imprison them
at great cost without some sort of hearing into the value of doing so. As
you say, most are either battlefield captives or were captured in
anti-terrorist raids, with a few turned over by other agencies. Somebody had
to look at each one and decide who got shot, who went to local prison, who
went free and finally who went to Gitmo. That constitutes a trial in much of
the world - especially the Muslim world.


Would you call letting a large maddened dog chomp at the face of a
prisoner "torture"? How about holding his head underwater repeatedly?
Putting a black hood on him and connecting various body parts to
electric wires? All these, and more, are documented to have been done by
U.S. troops.

Yes, and these have been generally punished when disovered.

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.

These are useful and acceptable methods of changing a person's outlook. Take
a typical terrorist. He's not stupid but he is worse than ignorant. He's
spent years in school studying not science, history, et al, but poring over
the Koran, rocking back and forth while memorizing every verse. This
disinformation has led him to believe that there is only one God - Allah -
and that Mohammad is his prophet. Worse Mohammad demands that everybody
accept this weird notion and if they do not it is his duty to kill them (ie
us).

Now I see nothing wrong with disabusing him of these notions. I would point
out that Mohammad went to Mecca to drown his sorrow over the loss of his
wife in drugs, passed out on a rock and woke days later back home having
dreamed he gone to heavan. I'd show his religion the respect it deserves -
which is zip! I wouldn't let him bow and pray toward Mecca or keep a Koran.
I'd instead have instruction in real history and the benefit of secular
democracy on the TV 24/7. So, his 'torturers' are treating him better than I
would.

I suspect a lot of these guys are being held because somebody, somewhere
deep in the belly of some spook ops dept, thinks they will be able to be
'turned' and used as a U.S. counter agent in the future.


That is entirely possible and consistent with the kind of "torture"
used.


No it isn't. And I think that any 'cooperation' produced under such
duress is likely to be extremely unreliable.

A man wants to kill you because God says he should. He belongs to a large
group who think likewise. They believe this so strongly that they will
gladly kill themselves to kill you. There are only two ways to combat
that - kill all of them first or re-educate them to give up thi idea. Given
their level of madness the latter will enjoy limited success.

But this probably doesn't occur to people who brag about blowing up an
entire block of downtown Baghdad, and killing everybody there, in a
failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Or people who are in favor
of blowing up houses & cars with drone-launched missiles because
suspected terrorist leaders are suspected to be in there.

However, the guy at the top of this chain of command is a scrupulously
moral chap, he has never once gotten a blow job in his office.

Or his life! The war on Muslim extremism is understandable. I doubt that
GWB had any idea it existed before 9/11 and it definately interfered with
his plan for Iraq. Nobody has yet to offer a viable reason for invading Iraq
but there is good reason to contend Muslim extremism. Toppling the Talban
and putting al Qaeda on the defensive were primarily intellegence
operations, supported by military. Gitmo is part of that. Iraq is not. It
is IMHO a rather stupid side show that does far more harm than good,
especially among those who cannot distinguish between the two seperate
"wars". If Roosevelt had been as bone stupid as Bush, he would have
attacked England in response to Pearl Harbor!