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!

Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
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.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

You don't remember the case of that Seattle lawyer who was abducted off the
street, detained for months, then finally released? He didn't even have an
opportunity to call his family.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Vito, Didn't *we* do that to an attorney from Seattle?

I dunno - did we? Details?

In article , Vito
wrote:

"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.

IOW, you made it up. Right.

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.

Hmmm. Those accounts I've read of you guys shipping people to Egypt to
be tortured are all false, then? If not, where's the record of the
hearing? Or do you mean that it's all being done on the whim of some
faceless person, unaccountable to anyone?

Tell me, why did you guys bring in habeas corpus in the first place? Do
you think it only applies to citizens of the USA? Obviously not, now I
think of it, because you've been desperate to keep people off of US
territory so as to keep them away from the normal protections of the
courts.

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.

Ah. So you agree that the Chinese were correct, during the Korean War,
in doing just this sort of thing to US troops, and that in any future
conflict, you'll make no complaint about such methods being used on US
troops.

Right?

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).

Simplistic. Wrong, and simplistic. This is the sort of dangerous
nonsense that got you *into* Iraq. You refuse to see that a person can
be extremely well educated, while being dedicated to a cause in
complete opposition to your own. By being so ignorant yourself, you
underestimate your enemy to your own disadvantage.

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The then South African government
thought so, and locked him away for 27 years.

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.

So - when are you going to neutron bomb the entire land area of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, big parts of Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia..........?

Hmmmmm?

It's the logical thing to do, from your POV.

I quite agree with you as to the desirability of killing people who are
determined to kill you, BTW. I just think you're dangerously
simplistic. A better way would be to chop off their finances and let
them all rot.... but you won't do that because you're addicted to the
tit of cheap oil. Most of these problems are of your own making,
looking at history. If you know any history at all, if you've read any
of the accounts of the early explorers in that part of the world, you'd
know that the Wahabi sect have *always* been insular, suspicious and
totally intolerant of anyone outside their own strain of Islam. Read
the accounts of Louis Burkhardt who was the first European on record to
see Petra, to travel to Mecca, and a lot of other places, back in the
early 1800's.

It was you guys who empowered them with money from oil to cause such
trouble. Now you're stuck. You can't let go of the oil tar baby and you
can't set up a neocolonial regime in the face of ongoing resistance.
Iraq is shaping up to be a fiasco. I personally am disappointed about
that because I had hopes for success, for the formation of a secular
democratic state, and applauded the downfall of Hussein. I think I'm
going to see the foreign troops - including ours - scuttle home as soon
as it's face-saving to do so, followed by a 3 way civil war aided &
abetted by Syria and Iran, with possibly Turkey as well, to prevent
*their* Kurds from getting any ideas.

As I've said before, I'd be looking at ways to move to a hydrogen
economy powered by fission in the short term and whatever seems less
dangerous/better engineered/more efficient in the longer term. Leave
these nutcases rot. Stop trying to glue together people who want to be
apart - Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in Iraq, for example. It's likely not
going to work and you're only making it worse.


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.

Agreed. Chop off their money supply. Refuse to let them travel in
Western countries. Air drop cheap radios, TV sets etc and set up
satellites broadcasting the virtues of Western society 24/7. Broadcast
educational TV as well as propaganda. The only source of education for
the poor is the religious schools; give them a free alternative and
different points of view and the issue of indoctrination declines
somewhat. These societies are dying and the fanatics know it. As people
get wealthier and better educated, the power of the hard core nutcases
decreases and they get more desperate. I have no love of, or tolerance
for, any society or religion that has as policy the oppression of
better than 50% of the population, believe me. I'm smart enough to not
try to create enemies out of allies, or **** off the bystanders in the
process. Unfortunately, your political leadership is plain stupid.

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!

Yeah. It wasn't a bright move. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was
plain stupid. Might have come off if the post-shooting management had
been half as good as the battle management but as we've seen, too
little resources, too thinly spread, too late, and too poor a quality.
Abu Ghraib has cost you guys more credibility than I think you realise.
You've demonstrated that under certain circumstances, you're no better
than the bad guys. The point you're missing about holding captives
without trial and without access to external reviewing authorities (Red
Cross et al), and engaging in psy war techniques, is that you
demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between you and
them, only power. Without moral authority, power is pretty short lived
and sustainable only by increasing force. There goes your republic.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Vito wrote:

But most .. were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after
some sort
of hearing .... It's implicite in their being there.

IOW, you made it up. Right.

Sure. Just like I made up my claim that the sun rose this AM. It's
axiomatic - obvious to the most casual observer. NOTHING happens without a
decision. Did Allah magically transport them there?

Hmmm. Those accounts I've read of you guys shipping people to Egypt to
be tortured are all false, then? If not, where's the record of the
hearing? Or do you mean that it's all being done on the whim of some
faceless person, unaccountable to anyone?

a) Probably. The only reason to send one off to torture would be to
intimidate others and the rumor would work as well as actually doing so.

b) Knowing military bureaucracy I'm sure we have some record of each/every
decision to send anybody to Gitmo - so sure I don't need to see them. If you
do ask under the freedom of information act.

c) Absolutely! That's how the "legal" system works over there! They got the
same "trial" as the women the Taliban shot for being literate. Don't like
it, don't go there.

Tell me, why did you guys bring in habeas corpus in the first place? Do
you think it only applies to citizens of the USA? Obviously not, now I
think of it, because you've been desperate to keep people off of US
territory so as to keep them away from the normal protections of the
courts.

Now you understand!! If Blimy convicts a criminal under English law, then
'loans' him to us, and he never touches US soil then he has no rights under
US law. Similarly, if an Afghan "court" convicts a Sudanese of trying to
overthrow their government then loans him to us .... Would England want us
re

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.

Ah. So you agree that the Chinese were correct, during the Korean War,
in doing just this sort of thing to US troops, and that in any future
conflict, you'll make no complaint about such methods being used on US
troops. Right?

US spies, sabateurs and insergents captured in civilian cloths - sure. US
(or other) uniformed troops - no.

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).

Simplistic. Wrong, and simplistic. This is the sort of dangerous
nonsense that got you *into* Iraq. You refuse to see that a person can
be extremely well educated, while being dedicated to a cause in
complete opposition to your own. By being so ignorant yourself, you
underestimate your enemy to your own disadvantage.

You are confused. First, there is no connection between the Iraq invasion
and the war on terror, nor is our understanding of radical Islam the reason
we invaded Iraq. Nobody knows why we invaded Iraq. As I said, had Roosevelt
been as stupid as Bush, he would have attacked England in response to Pearl
Harbor.

That said, I can well understand educated opposition, but that is NOT what
the western world is facing in the war on Muslim extremism nor are the folks
detained at Gitmo rational, educated foes. They are dedicated to converting
the world to their idiotic religion and killing any who fail to comply. It
is gentle folks like you who underestimate that enemy through ignorance of
their madness.

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The then South African government
thought so, and locked him away for 27 years.

Yes! How many fellow Africans did he murder by "necklessing" them, burning
them alive? Is So Africa better off now? Rhodesia?? Hardly.

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.

So - when are you going to neutron bomb the entire land area of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, big parts of Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia..........?

Why? Most Muslims are far less radical and have no desire to kill anyone
over religion. I believe in re-education. The foundations of Islam, like
Christianity and Judism, are easily refuted by fact and logic.

It was you guys who empowered them with money from oil .....

Us? Look in a mirror. How much oil does Europe produce vs consume? How much
mid-east oil goes to the USA vs Europe and Asia? How much US oil goes to
Asia? We're all guilty.


...... Stop trying to glue together people who want to be
apart - Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in Iraq, for example. It's likely not
going to work and you're only making it worse.

IIRC Britian established the current borders - which were working fine til
Bush attacked Saddam. Saddam knew how to deal with these "conflicts".

..... Unfortunately, your political leadership is plain stupid.

And dogmatic to boot. Sadly they reflect much of our voting population.

You've demonstrated that under certain circumstances, you're no better
than the bad guys. The point you're missing about holding captives
without trial and without access to external reviewing authorities (Red
Cross et al), and engaging in psy war techniques, is that you
demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between you and
them, only power. .....

Trouble is there IS no difference when looking at leaders. Osama, et al,
strike the "great Satan" because God tells them to. Bush and Co invaded Iraq
for no better reason. If intelligent Americans were in charge Saddam would
still be running Iraq, Osama and company would be quietly enjoying Cuban
weather and the world would never have heard of Gitmo.