3
   

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 04:20 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No, I didn't say it was good, bad... or ugly. :wink: Your question seemed to be implying that I thought it was a good thing.

I don't think my question implied anything, except perhaps some confusion over what you were trying to say. But you've explained your post and I am satisfied. I have nothing further to say on the subject, since it is tangential to this thread.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 04:26 pm
I'm gonna cut this into pieces. Here's part 1.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nimh: Interesting perspective on reporting. I want to agree that you can't take the camera's down but wonder if during a war, for instance, it shouldn't be taken out just like any other infrastructure. [..] Wouldn't it ultimately save lives to bombard the enemy airwaves, newspapers etc. with positive information?

How would you prevent My Lai or Abu Grhaib if you had no media to out the story? Are you really going to blindly rely on your government to "do what's right" in such cases - no need for anyone to know, hear or see about it - in a war like that? What historical experience would warrant such confidence?

Or am I misunderstanding you about whom you want to keep information from - the Iraqis (cause it seems we have moved from Palestine to Iraq in this discussion) or the Americans? Or the TV audiences, period?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm thinking it's a foolish charade, for the spectators benefit, to allow the enemy to tell his side of the truth, let alone lie during war.

I'm having trouble pinning down what exactly you're talking about, whose cameras you want to be "taking out".
There's a difference between, say, taking Saddam's state TV off the air; preventing reporters from, say, CNN, from transmitting out gruesome images of war because of the retaliation they might cause; and, say - what you were originally talking about: preventing reporters and their cameras from actually triggering violence by their presence, violence that otherwise wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

The latter is what your original question was about, but now you are talking about stopping "the enemy" from getting his story out, while at the same time proposing to stop anything but "positive information" from getting out altogether.

Yet whose media are doing the reporting during, say, this Iraq war, and reporting, er, "negative information"? Not necessarily just "the enemy's". Isn't it BBC, CBS, Al-Arabiya that are supplying most of the more awkward images of the war? Are you going to stop allowing them to tell "their side of the truth" as well?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sure, many would dismiss it as propaganda, but won't many (most?) in the absence of opposition listen to whoever steps up to the mic?

I do believe that the "good-news-only" propaganda would only work for a short time. Eventually, the absence of credible, neutral information will hit home with people. Which, for one, will leave you with a homefront not knowing what to believe and/or reluctant to believe anything. Thats going to eventually become more detrimental to your country's strength and resolve than whatever bad news filters through. Might have worked half a century ago, when news took a month to travel across the Atlantic and people's trust in the authorities was boundless, but not anymore now.

If you were talking about keeping the information from the Iraqis, specifically, the same holds up: you'd end up with a population whose minds and hearts you're trying to win, whom you're supposedly liberating and whose support you need to defeat the insurgents, who don't know what to believe anymore and/or have become reluctant to believe anything you say. That's gonna make your cause a hopeless one over time too.

Plus, of course, it's a globalised world. Although the administration has made enormous efforts to work along the lines you suggest, with the whole embedding thing, it's become impossible now to just block out info-gathering altogether. Not without taking some draconic measures. And either way you have a problem.

Either you take draconic measures - and you'd pretty much need a totalitarian kind of control to stop Al-Jazeera or local media or third-country media (BBC and the like) or even just Iraqi bloggers from slipping the news out anyway. But then you lose all credibility in the eyes of the local population and the rest of the world as the bringer of freedom and democracy you claim to be.

Seriously, imagine. The only regimes that succeed in totally "taking out" the cameras during the war and instead retaining the airwaves and newspapers as a reserve of positive information are the very kind of regimes you claim to want to scourge from the earth. The North-Korean kind.

Or - you clamp down only on the occupied country's media, preventing them from collecting or reporting on damaging info from the front. But that will never work in this globalised world - the news would slip in through third-country (satellite) media, the net, etcetera anyway.

With the added result, I may add, of destroying some of your own most powerful strategies. You're faced, in Iraq, with a population riddled with an underground movement of insurgents, who are spreading, mostly by word of mouth, the most hateful and forceful narratives about the evil of your troops. In coffeehouses, at nightly meetings. You want them, instead, to believe the post-Saddam media you're trying to install, the government that's newly in charge. Who they end up believing is vital to who they'll support and thus - your chances at winning the war. Now you are proposing turning those post-Saddam media into a channel of good-news-only propaganda. That way you'll be robbing yourself of the chance of putting an alternative channel of information out there, an alternative to that of the insurgents' underground communication, that people will actually believe.

Of course, this is the time to finally stop for a moment and reconsider how we got here. How did we come to talk about "the enemy" here? Your original Israeli/Palestine story did not figure one - it featured a bipartisan film crew, even. You started this discussion with their observation about how cameras provoke violence, "for the show". Fair enough, so you need to prevent media coverage from triggering violence. But now, somehow, you've gone from that to making the argument for taking the cameras out so they wont show the violence that does already take place - the violence you want to be taking place (so your army can win, "by any means necessary") - because of the retaliation it might cause.

From talking about cases where "taking away the camera takes away the crime", in short, you've gone to arguing that the cameras shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the crimes you want to commit - if committing them without being seen is necessary for your army to win. WHOLLY different story.

(Edited last bit for clarity / brevity)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 04:36 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I'm sorry if I'm not abiding by your rules, Joe. Maybe if you codified them I would do better? Or are we following a version of Robert's Rules?

No, no rules, just common courtesy.

Ticomaya wrote:
The answer is yes. Is that your definition, Joe?

As I mentioned in my initial post, I'm not sure what "win" or "lose" mean in the context of the war in Iraq. Furthermore, as evidenced by the discussion so far, I think it's clear that many other people are similarly uncertain. In any event, I'm not really very interested: to me, defeat and victory are just labels, they mean very little in themselves. Winning or losing, however, seem to be important to people like Bill O'Reilly, who says that no one can want the US to "lose" and still be a patriot. So, if wanting to win makes one a patriot and wanting to lose makes one a traitor, then we need to have definitions of "win" and "lose" before we can start calling people either patriots or traitors.

According to you, if I say that an immediate withdrawal accompanied by mitigation and reparation is a "victory," and I favor "victory" under those conditions, do I get to be a patriot? Or do I have to mean it?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 05:05 pm
And part 2.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Win the hearts and minds right? What's more effective; the truth or lies?

Truth- we are here to kill people you know and love. If you try to stop us, we will kill you too. If we even think you're going to try to stop us, we will kill you too. We are going to kill many of you for no reason at all… and sometimes we're going to be damned smug about it too. Some of you will be raped, tortured and subject to all forms of humiliation…

Lies- Please be patient. We are here to arrest your leader for criminal behavior. He has tortured too many of your relatives friends and neighbors. Your leader has stolen Billions from you while your family starves to death. The global community has seen enough. We are you friends. We are not your enemy. Order will be restored soon. Soon there will be food, etc, etc and things will be better than ever...

The free gathering and dissemination of information during a war is essential to ensuring that what you describe as "truth" becomes as little of one as possible.

I'm going to grant some unexpected praise. The US army now, in spite of Abu G., is immensely better restrained than it was back in Vietnam, never mind how European armies were going about back in WW2 or, worse, in the colonial wars. More praise: in international military forces, US soldiers have been noted to practice more discipline and restraint than other nationals - say, Bulgarians, or Pakistanis (not necessarily those - but, countries like those were shown to have indulged more in corruption and abuse when deployed in such forces). The Brits and some other Europeans have been arguably significantly better still, in Iraq for example - but in any case, progress compared to previous decades. Compare the number of casulaties, alone, in Vietnam and now in Iraq.

This has not come about because the Bush administration is somehow so much more scrupulous and humane than the Johnson administration was. The "outing" of war crimes, outrages, in previous wars, notably Vietnam, by the media have been absolutely essential. It needs to be kept up. We've come too far from the medieval pillaging of towns where anyone in sight was mindlessly raped and slaughtered to allow any slipping back into the logic of "as soon as it's war we might as well have a no-holds-barred one".

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I think the open airwaves may serve the peanut gallery's fine sensibilities at the expense of the actual victims of war. I believe certain News agencies are directly responsible for additional casualties…

They are also saving lives, by ringing the alarm bells whenever something threatens to go seriously wrong. See Abu G.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
and I think an occupying power, who's maintaining their position with deadly force is playing a fools game to not do every non-deadly thing in their power to stifle dissent.

But once you're embracing a status as occupying power who'll stifle dissent by any means necessary, where does your rationale go for the occupation in the first place? Do you really have the blind confidence to say - I'm gonna embrace whatever repression and violence may come up, in the trust that, once we've gone through all that, the idyll of freedom we did it all for will just come a-flowering out? How's it gonna flower after that?

I mean, it seems a little counterintuitive to insist on military intervention whereever in the world totalitarianism reigns, and then suggest the way to go about it is to impose your own totalitarianism "for the time being".

It's funny in fact, Bill - the more I'm talking with you, the more you do kinda sound like a revolutionary socialist - a communist, that is - I mean, the mindset. That is, on the one hand, where my sympathy stems from - the idealism. On the other hand, it's why I consider your mindset dangerous. I mean this whole, I'm willing to suspend freedom, transparency, humanity for the time being, because I believe that, once the suspension has led to the ultimate defeat of all enemies, it will sprout freedom and peace. It rings a bell, doesn't it.

The communists argued for embracing the dictatorship of the proletariat - and they meant the "dictatorship" bit - because they believed that it was necessary to get all the enemies of freedom and equality out of the way. And once that would have been achieved, the peace and freedom of communism would reign - since there would be no more enemies to spoil the soup, and all. Binnyboy was reasoning like that just the other day.

But they made one vital mistake: every step you take on your way, affects where you're going. It is not a zero-sum game between static numbers of good and bad. The steps you take may transform you, yourself, from good to bad. In fact, the more you embrace totalitarianism as the road to get somewhere, the less likely that somewhere is going to be a place of freedom.

Sorry to get all philosophical on you there.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 05:22 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dlowan: I trust the wrong part is that you think Bill's parole parity doesn't apply to Iraq? There appears to be a great deal more power given to a Parole officer here than there or Germany.

I have a cousin who's a parole officer, and another who's either in jail or on parole all his life. A Parole Board serves only to give parole to a prisoner. They have ZERO to do with revocation of Parole. A parole agent can order a man arrested for no reason whatsoever, and hold him for 5 days without even telling him why. He can show up at his house and search it any time of the day or night with neither notice nor permission from anyone. He sets rules he deems fit, over and above what a court may have already stipulated at sentencing and the parolee must abide by them or he is in violation. If he wishes to challenge his parole revocation, he is given a hearing that has no judge, no jury, and if memory serves-not even a lawyer... where he denies that a violation took place. This formality is a joke because the only criteria that must be met is another D.O.C. employee who is bar certified has to believe that the probation agent isn't lying about there being a violation. There is no need for an additional crime for a violation… showing up late for a meeting will suffice, if the P.O. wanted to be a prick about it. Obviously P.O.s generally follow the guidelines that are laid down by their employers, but it's naïve to think that's all they can do or do do. For all practical purposes; if a P.O. wants to revoke Probation, he can set an absurd number of conditions to the probation and then revoke it when the parolee inevitably stumbles. I repeat, no Judge will hear the case, period. Only a civil lawsuit could find it's way back into a court of law.
I'm not really interested in continuing this, which is why I let it drop before.


All of that is - to my mind - outrageous! I can think of nowhere else in the western world that that is true!!!

I'll have to read your argument - I just noted a couple of things that you had said, that I considered quite wrong - and I apologize to you for assuming no such situation could obtain re parole in the US.

I certainlky don't think it SHOULD!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 06:17 pm
Nimh: great points, some misunderstandings and intriguing ideas. I can't focus enough for a response now but I'll get back to it.

dlowan wrote:
All of that is - to my mind - outrageous! I can think of nowhere else in the western world that that is true!!!

I'll have to read your argument - I just noted a couple of things that you had said, that I considered quite wrong - and I apologize to you for assuming no such situation could obtain re parole in the US.

I certainly don't think it SHOULD!
No biggie bunny. Both cousins are in Wisconsin which you might remember is pretty liberal by U.S. standards, but I have no idea how the P & P division stacks up against other States. As a rule, it isn't a state you want to get busted in unless you're a murderer. They throw 5, 10, and 20 year sentences around like mad. Works too. Very low Per Capita Crime Rate... but probably one of the faster growing inmate populations found anywhere...

The Parole rules may sound outrageous, but it depends how you look at it. My description of ultra minimum security is most accurate. It's like you're finishing your sentence but with TONS of privileges compared to other prisoners. Until your actual sentence is up, you are still considered a ward of the state. A well behaved Parolee usually just has a monthly meeting where he makes a payment on any restitution he may owe, court costs, and of course the cost of Parole. He may be have to pee in a cup, take a breathalyzer or show proof that he's performed community service.

Sometimes, the judge will basically sentence a prisoner straight to parole by staying his sentence. Example: 20 years stayed. Prisoner will report directly to P and P and begin fulfilling whatever other obligations were ordered. Now say he violates probation and his P.O. revokes his paper. Dude is now doing 20 years without ever getting another day in court. He may only have been picked up drinking or whatever, but that's not why he's getting 20. That's why he's losing his ultra-minimum classification. He was already a ward of the state from the moment he reported to P & P. This guy, is actually worse off than the guy who started in prison; because the guy who started in prison can only remain on parole until he would have been discharged anyway. No time-served credit is earned for the guy who spent how ever many years on probation before he violated.

If you think that's crazy, you should see how much disparity there is in sentencing. Shocked Everywhere you go is different too... with this State's Rights nonsense. There is no semblance of uniformity whatsoever. Stay out of trouble if you visit the States. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 06:58 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
The answer is yes. Is that your definition, Joe?

As I mentioned in my initial post, I'm not sure what "win" or "lose" mean in the context of the war in Iraq. Furthermore, as evidenced by the discussion so far, I think it's clear that many other people are similarly uncertain. In any event, I'm not really very interested: to me, defeat and victory are just labels, they mean very little in themselves. Winning or losing, however, seem to be important to people like Bill O'Reilly, who says that no one can want the US to "lose" and still be a patriot. So, if wanting to win makes one a patriot and wanting to lose makes one a traitor, then we need to have definitions of "win" and "lose" before we can start calling people either patriots or traitors.

According to you, if I say that an immediate withdrawal accompanied by mitigation and reparation is a "victory," and I favor "victory" under those conditions, do I get to be a patriot? Or do I have to mean it?


It appears I agree with O'Reilly on this one.

Yes, and yes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 01:40 am
I'm afraid I'm unable to keep up with these threads and unwilling to page through 20 or so pages of posting since my last contribution.

However I have some thoughts on this topic.

Read them or not, respond to them or not. My involvement in A2K is all about me anyway.

It is not outrageous that someone might wish that his or her nation is not successful in prosecuting a war. After all, surely there were some Germans who hoped the Nazis would lose.

However, like it or not we live in a very tribal world. One can kid themselves that they are above such base considerations, but, generally, it boils down to one's sense of affinity to the tribe. Deny your tribalism, and my bet is that we can find one or more tribes to which you belong.

Tribalism isn't Satan's scheme. It developed for a reason, and that reason is primarily associated with the survival of the species.

This is not to say that we humans should not attempt to rise above evolutionary imperatives when we perceive a need to do so, but it is foolish to dismiss the behaviors we seek to rise above as valueless.

It still boils down to the fundamental question "Who has your back?"

If you live an existence which is devoid of danger or uncertainty, then the question is rather moot, but if you live in the same world as the rest of us, it's a question that matters.

Generally speaking, it's not smart to hope that the folks whom one expects to have one's back, should fail...at least not in a manner which become widely known.

There's not much to Loyalty when it only involves support for popular actions or activities with which one is sanguine.

In all likelihood, tribal loyalty is a barrier to societal evolution, but there is quite an impressive array of experts who refuse to see evolutionary advancement as necessarily beneficial progress.

So, part from the tribe. Go ahead and hope that it fails in those actions that don't square with your sensibilities. It would be appropriate for the tribe to send you packing in your hour of need, but that won't happen. That's not the way tribes work. As long as you are member of the tribe, you reap the benefits of the tribe. Great gig if you can get it. You get to condemn the tribe while still sucking on its teat.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 02:46 am
dlowan wrote:
All of that is - to my mind - outrageous! I can think of nowhere else in the western world that that is true!!!

I'll have to read your argument - I just noted a couple of things that you had said, that I considered quite wrong - and I apologize to you for assuming no such situation could obtain re parole in the US.

I certainlky don't think it SHOULD!


Ditto. I'm more than surprised that such can happen and no-one ever objected it, but
Quote:
In some countries the decision of the supervising officer or the parole board to terminate the offender's license and require him to return to prison are not subject to appeal or judicial review, even though the consequences for the offender may be serious.
source: britannica
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:17 am
nimh wrote:
It's funny in fact, Bill - the more I'm talking with you, the more you do kinda sound like a revolutionary socialist - a communist, that is - I mean, the mindset. That is, on the one hand, where my sympathy stems from - the idealism. On the other hand, it's why I consider your mindset dangerous. I mean this whole, I'm willing to suspend freedom, transparency, humanity for the time being, because I believe that, once the suspension has led to the ultimate defeat of all enemies, it will sprout freedom and peace. It rings a bell, doesn't it.


The entire of this post was more than excellent, Nimh.

I highlight this particular paragraph, because it says something akin to what I had written earlier.

In response to something Bear wrote, I said:

Quote:
We may...and probably will suffer a defeat over in Iraq...but we've already suffered a defeat by ever engaging in this misadventure.


This mindset of "I'm willing to suspend freedom, transparency, humanity for the time being..." essentially is GIVING victory to those dedicated to harming our freedoms, our transparency, our notions of humanity.

Most indications lead me to suppose we will suffer a defeat over in Iraq...a stinging defeat...one that will make what happened in Vietnam look minor by comparison.

But even if I am wrong there...by compromising our principles...by dissing the international community...by so many things leading up to this incredible misadventure...we have already suffered a defeat.

And since, as you suggested in the above paragraph, we are now gnawing at the edges of our personal freedoms and rights in the name of protecting those freedoms and rights....we are not only doing something galactically stupid...we are further imposing defeat on ourselves.

I keep thinking that people like Bill and Ti...realize this...even if only deep down inside, hidden from consciousness...that they so want to defend the policies of this administration and the thrust of the conservative agenda...that they are repressing knowledge of what I see as the obvious.

If I am right and they are wrong, I hope one day they will drag the realization out...and grow from it.

And until then...I will continue to WISH that somehow, we work our way out of this mess in a way that does permanently damage the 200+ year old American experiment in personal freedoms. Not only will we be the worse for that if it happens...but the entire planet will be the worse for it also.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:38 am
From today's New York Times

January 8, 2005
CAPTURED INSURGENTS
U.S. Said to Hold More Foreigners in Iraq Fighting
By DOUGLAS JEHL and NEIL A. LEWIS



WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - After raids in recent months that captured hundreds of insurgents in Iraq, the United States has significantly increased the number of prisoners it says are foreign fighters, a group the Bush administration contends are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, American officials said.

A Pentagon official said Friday that the United States was now holding 325 foreign fighters in Iraq, a number that the official said had increased by 140 since Nov. 7, just before the invasion of Falluja. Many of the non-Iraqis were captured in or around that city.

Many of them are suspected of links to Al Qaeda or the related terror networks supporting the insurgency in Iraq, senior Bush administration officials said this week.

Some of the non-Iraqis who were involved in the insurgency there could be transferred out of the country for indefinite detention elsewhere, the officials said, as they have been deemed by the Justice Department not to be entitled to protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, testifying Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to become attorney general, noted that the Justice Department had issued a legal opinion last year saying non-Iraqis captured by American forces in Iraq are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

"We had members of Al Qaeda, intent on killing Americans, flooding into or coming into Iraq," Mr. Gonzales testified. "And the question was legitimately raised, in my judgment, as to whether or not - what were the legal limits about how to deal with these terrorists."

"There was a fear about creating a sanctuary for terrorists if we were to say that if you come and fight against America in the conflict with Iraq, that you would receive the protections of a prisoner of war," he said.
He confirmed that the Justice Department had issued "some guidance with respect to whether or not non-Iraqis who came into Iraq as part of the insurgency, whether or not they would also or likewise enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention. And I believe the conclusion was that they would not."

The disclosure about new foreign detainees comes as a high-level group in the administration is struggling to come up with a long-term plan for how to handle the hundreds of prisoners accused of links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are already in American custody in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

The administration has asserted an authority to detain such prisoners indefinitely, as unlawful combatants, but officials have acknowledged that they cannot say how or when the war on terrorism might be deemed to have reached an end.

A senior American official said in an interview this week that the vast majority of the 550 prisoners now held at the American detention center at Guantánamo no longer had any intelligence value and were no longer being regularly interrogated. Still, the official said the Defense Department planned to hold hundreds of them indefinitely, without trial, out of concern that they continue to pose a threat to the United States and cannot safely be sent to their home countries.

"You're basically keeping them off the battlefield, and unfortunately in the war on terrorism, the battlefield is everywhere," a senior administration official said.

The extraordinary circumstances surrounding the suspected Qaeda and Taliban prisoners have prompted increasing statements of concern from members of Congress, who say the administration has shown little sign of willingness to put the prisoners on trial and who have questioned whether there is adequate legal basis for their indefinite detention.

"It is time for Congress to thoroughly consider whether locking them away for life on the coast of Cuba or wherever is the appropriate solution," said Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

As part of the plan for their long-term detention, a Pentagon proposal nearing final approval in the administration calls for the construction of a second, permanent prison at Guantánamo, at a cost of at least $25 million, to hold about 200 of the suspected members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are seen as posing the highest security risk.

The original purpose of detaining the prisoners at Guantánamo was said to be to interrogate them for information about terrorist operations. But at least three-quarters of the 550 prisoners there are no longer seen as worthy of regular interrogation, the senior American official said, reflecting a judgment that he said had been made in recent months.
That assertion is at odds with statements made as recently as November by the top American commander at Guantánamo Bay, Brig. Gen. Jay Hood. He told reporters that the "vast majority" of the prisoners still had valuable information to impart.

"Are they still of potential intelligence value to our mission? Yes." General Hood said. Asked if many of the detainees were of little value, he said the vast majority were still useful as an intelligence resource.
The military has put in place two separate quasi-legal proceedings at Guantánamo that officials have said will confirm that almost all were properly imprisoned as enemy combatants and then will allow the authorities to reduce the population.

Most of the 550 prisoners at the camp have been through the first process and deemed to have been properly imprisoned as unlawful combatants. The military has just begun the second process, an annual review as to whether they could be released because they are no longer judged to be threats.

Military officials say no prisoners captured in Iraq have been transferred to Guantánamo. But government officials acknowledged last fall that about a dozen non-Iraqis suspected of ties to Al Qaeda had been transferred out of Iraq by the Central Intelligence Agency between March 2003 and March 2004 to undisclosed locations.

Asked about the review of non-Iraqi prisoners now under way, the officials have left open the possibility that more could be transferred to secret facilities run by the C.I.A. outside the United States. Those facilities are believed to house a total of about two dozen suspected high-ranking officials of Al Qaeda, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and others.

When administration officials first described the legal opinion on detainees in Iraq in October, they acknowledged that the transfer of non-Iraqis by the C.I.A. had already taken place.

Until last fall, the administration had asserted that the full protections of Geneva, including the prohibition on the transfer of prisoners, applied broadly to the conflict in Iraq, and had given no indication that any exception was being made for non-Iraqis.

Altogether, the United States military still holds about 8,500 prisoners in Iraq, including about 7,500 at three main prisons in Iraq and an 1,000 or so at temporary battlefield detention centers. All are classified as security detainees, American military officials say.

As for the American detention center at Guantánamo, intelligence veterans not associated with the prison camp have long indicated that it was highly unlikely that most of the detainees could still have any valuable intelligence.

A veteran interrogator at Guantánamo told The New York Times in a recent interview that it became clear over time that most of the detainees had little useful to say and that "they were just swept up" during the Afghanistan war with little evidence they played any significant role.
"These people had technical knowledge that expired very quickly after they were brought here," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"Most of the emphasis was on quantity, not quality," the interrogator said, adding that the number of pages generated from an interrogation was an important standard.

source
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 03:51 am
Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state - and continue to attempt to stretch the boundaries - at what point do would you consider that nation-state loyalties would be/were superseded in survival value by the need to see one's primary loyalty to an entity greater than a nation state?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 06:32 am
dlowan wrote:
Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state ...


When you look at Euroep, for instance, you'll notice that we indeed go back towards more 'tribalism' = regionalism.

And when you look around - I think, this is going on elsewhere, too (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq, the Tamiles in Sri Lanks etc).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:33 am
dlowan wrote:
Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state - and continue to attempt to stretch the boundaries - at what point do would you consider that nation-state loyalties would be/were superseded in survival value by the need to see one's primary loyalty to an entity greater than a nation state?


What supra-national entities do you have in mind? Are they real or just imagined? Is it God or the UN you to which you refer here? I don't think your question can be answered without this.

Certainly I would never transfer my loyalties to the UN - compared to my own "nation state" its values, structures and overall state of political development are far too primitive for me to consider it a beneficial replacement in any matter. Perhaps if I lived in Zimbabwe, I might give the matter some thought, but even there I would consider leaving and seeking a different "nation state" a far better alternative. I see the UN as what it is - a voluntary association of sovereign states for specific purposes. It has no potential whatever to evolve into a body that I would acept for real governance. Perhaps in another age in which the state of political and economic develoment in the world is more uniform this might be possible, but that is very far from the case now.

Interestingly the United States is not something that evolved from tribes (as in your metaphor). It was the creation of people who fled their "nation states" in search of a better (at least in their eyes) alternative.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 09:48 am
Well, the thing is re this desire to have the US lose the war in Iraq is that meself and a few other cohorts (un-named) started a betting line about 1 1/2 years ago and got great odds with those betting that the US would win the war so we have substantial money on the line at 8 to 1, (us taking the US will lose in Iraq). Y'all need to understand that it's just a profit motive on our part not at all politically motivated. I am operating under the assumption since there's a profit to be made, we remain patriots. (although my cohorts are not exactly US citizens)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 10:17 am
Porshe now on order.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 10:23 am
damnit, I clearly said "un-named cohorts"
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 10:23 am
georgeob1 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Finn - interesting - given that, in most of the west, we have moved from tribal loyalties to those of the nation state - and continue to attempt to stretch the boundaries - at what point do would you consider that nation-state loyalties would be/were superseded in survival value by the need to see one's primary loyalty to an entity greater than a nation state?


What supra-national entities do you have in mind? Are they real or just imagined? Is it God or the UN you to which you refer here? I don't think your question can be answered without this.

Certainly I would never transfer my loyalties to the UN - compared to my own "nation state" its values, structures and overall state of political development are far too primitive for me to consider it a beneficial replacement in any matter. Perhaps if I lived in Zimbabwe, I might give the matter some thought, but even there I would consider leaving and seeking a different "nation state" a far better alternative. I see the UN as what it is - a voluntary association of sovereign states for specific purposes. It has no potential whatever to evolve into a body that I would acept for real governance. Perhaps in another age in which the state of political and economic develoment in the world is more uniform this might be possible, but that is very far from the case now.

Interestingly the United States is not something that evolved from tribes (as in your metaphor). It was the creation of people who fled their "nation states" in search of a better (at least in their eyes) alternative.


Change a few words around...and this could just as easily have been written by someone in one of the American colonies...talking about the possibility of a federal government.

Hey...I can understand it.

American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major issue this country has ever faced. It figures they'd be on the wrong side now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 10:25 am
Cohort???

And all this time I thought he was a Mountie.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2005 10:27 am
all an illusion my friend, all an illusion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 10:39:00