ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xingu wrote:

And besides under torture how do you know the truth is being told. Many times the person being tortured will say anything he/she thinks the inquisitor wants to hear, just to stop the pain.

end of quote

Absolute bunk!!! The fact that interrogation has brought facts to light which HAVE PREVENTED ATTACKS is clear evidence that Interrogation works..

Bush defended the program, saying captured terrorists "have unique knowledge" about how their networks operate, where operatives are deployed, and about plots that are under way.

"This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place, and our security depends on getting this kind of information," he said. "To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world."

Thanks to the information gained by the program, "everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding," the president said potential mass murderers were taken into custody "before they were able to kill," and authorities gained a greater understanding of al-Qaida's structure, financing, communications and logistics.

The program is "invaluable" to the United States and its allies and is "one of the most vital tools" in the war against terror, Bush said.


Interrogation works:_________________



But in Germany, when people are interrogated, the officials doing the interrogating say-pretty please!


Federal police already are investigating a previous, alleged attempt to blow up two trains in western Germany.

Four people, including two Lebanese men suspected of planting the bombs on July 31, have been detained in Germany and Lebanon in the past week. The crude explosives, hidden in wheeled suitcases, failed to explode.

The main suspects are accused of being part of a German-based terrorist organization. Prosecutors say they are treating it as a "no-name" group rather than a known entity.

************************************************************


I would not wish to be a Terrorist being interrogated in Germany if a bomb ever caused damage in Germany as the bombs in Madrid and London did!

But you would like to be a terrorist at some other place? Exactly why?

And what objections do you have against the German Code of Criminal Procedure?

Never a terrorist.

No objections against the German Code of Criminal Procedure

But I would not like to be a Terrorist from Lebanon who is being interrogated about planting bombs( which did not explode) on German railways.

Why do you make Israel's discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian majority contingent upon the actions of a few terrorist extremists?



Why do you blame the Palestinian majority for the acts of terrorism committed by a few extremists, or the few who harbor them?



The sources you have cited do not negate the findings of Israel's Or Commission which explicitly state that the Israel government has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory in its handling of the Arab sector. Neither do the sources you've cited negate the fact that Israel has discriminatory marriage cohabitation laws against the Arab Israelis and Palestinians.



Why shouldn't a discriminatory and oppressive regime be destroyed?



Has it occurred to you that the dismantling of the ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive state of Israel in favor of an egalitarian and pluralistic state would put an end to the need for the discriminatory and oppressive state to have to defend itself?



It is the explicit policy of the leadership of which very Arabs?



This is a ridiculous straw man. I have never stated that Israel should not discriminate against those who firebomb crowded buses and market places. I am saying that Israel should not discriminate against, or oppress the Palestinian majority which doesn't firebomb crowded buses and market places.

The fact that interrogation has brought facts to light which HAVE PREVENTED ATTACKS is clear evidence that Interrogation works..

Bush defended the program, saying captured terrorists "have unique knowledge" about how their networks operate, where operatives are deployed, and about plots that are under way.

"This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place, and our security depends on getting this kind of information," he said. "To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world."

Thanks to the information gained by the program, "everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding," the president said potential mass murderers were taken into custody "before they were able to kill," and authorities gained a greater understanding of al-Qaida's structure, financing, communications and logistics.

The program is "invaluable" to the United States and its allies and is "one of the most vital tools" in the war against terror, Bush said.


Interrogation works:_________________

The people who sanctioned the interrogation and the torture say this. They have got their own position to protect.

As someone said recently, if you kill one terrorist and 99 innocent civilian bystanders, if terrorism diminished or increased?

The same would hold good for "democratic civilisation" sanctioning torture. Self- defeating, and not civilisation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that interrogation has brought facts to light which HAVE PREVENTED ATTACKS is clear evidence that Interrogation works..

Bush defended the program, saying captured terrorists "have unique knowledge" about how their networks operate, where operatives are deployed, and about plots that are under way.

"This is intelligence that cannot be found any other place, and our security depends on getting this kind of information," he said. "To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world."

Thanks to the information gained by the program, "everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding," the president said potential mass murderers were taken into custody "before they were able to kill," and authorities gained a greater understanding of al-Qaida's structure, financing, communications and logistics.

The program is "invaluable" to the United States and its allies and is "one of the most vital tools" in the war against terror, Bush said.


Interrogation works:_________________

You said that over and over and over again, and people have tried to answer it, but you just ignore the answer and restate your false dichotomy.

Why do you think that the police, e.g. in the USA, does not have the right to break into a suspicious truck and inspect it? Do you really think it would be illegal for the police to do so? Do you really think the only possibility for the police to protect the citizenry is to act outside the law?

This is your answer Old Europe--



The Colorado Freedom Report--www.FreeColorado.com

When Heros are Outlawed:
How Joel Myrick Saved Lives by Breaking the Law
by Ari Armstrong, October 1, 1999

Joel Myrick is a hero. In 1997 this Mississippi high school principal prevented a psychotic teenager from opening fire at Pearl Junior High, potentially saving numerous lives and immeasurable grief.

But according to Federal law, Principal Joel Myrick is a criminal.

You see, in order to stop the deranged teen from leaving the high school to continue his killing spree at the junior high, Myrick retrieved a handgun from his truck, loaded it, and held it on the youth until authorities could arrive. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," Myrick said. Myrick clearly saved lives.

He also clearly violated the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (18 USC 922(q)(1)(A)), which specifies, "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm... at a place that the individual knows... is a school zone."

Of course, the Federal law doesn't seem to have held much sway over criminals. Perhaps Luke Woodham, the murderer in Mississippi, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine murderers, simply forgot to review the relevant Federal statutes before they went on their killing sprees.

Many law makers suffer from what Nobel Economist Friedrich Hayek called a "fatal conceit." They believe they can alter the world merely by their God-like pronouncements. However, these legislators fail to realize that their social-control laws won't stop criminals but will only lead to unintended bad consequences, such as preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and the children under their care.

Fortunately, even though Federal law brands Joel Myrick a criminal, some have recognized his courage and bravery. The Boulder-based Soldier of Fortune magazine presented Myrick with its annual Humanitarian Award this past September.

Curiously, the Gun Free School Zone Act may itself be illegal. Lawmakers snuck it in under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which states, "Congress shall have the power... to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." The purpose of the clause originally was to "make regular" trade between states and prevent states from erecting tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions. The purpose was not to give Federal law makers a blank check with which to write any social controls they could imagine. (See Glen Harlan Reynolds's Kids, Guns, and the Commerce Clause, A Cato Policy Analysis, No. 216, October 10, 1994.)

Until Franklin Roosevelt exerted political pressure on the Supreme Court in the 1930s, the Court had regularly defined commerce narrowly to include only trade. But since then the Court has allowed the Federal government to control virtually everything in the United States, using the Commerce Clause as its excuse. Since every activity is in some way affected by "interstate commerce," everything may be controlled by Federal law, goes the theory.

But this flies in the face of the original intent of the Constitution, which clearly is to permit the Federal government only to "keep regular" actual trade. Once a person purchases a gun, the "commerce" has ended and the Second Amendment right of self-defense has begun. So by this reasoning, the Federal law is clearly unconstitutional.

If, as the 1803 Court put it, "a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law," then perhaps Myrick wasn't breaking the law after all.

In the April 26, 1995 decision United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun Free School Zone Act, as originally written, indeed went beyond the intent of the Commerce Clause. In his own consenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause."

Congress re-wrote the Gun Free School Zone Act following the Court's decision. Whether the slightly tweaked Act will withstand the Court's scrutiny will depend on subsequent test cases, and on whether the Court follows Thomas's advice.

One argument curiously missing from the Lopez decision, though, is a discussion of the Second Amendment. The Commerce Clause grants power to the Federal government. The Second Amendment, though, prohibits certain acts by that government. In particular, the Amendment demands, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even if the Commerce Clause were deemed to grant the Federal government the broadest of powers, still it could not over-ride the Second Amendment. How preventing "the people" from bearing arms in particular locations is not "infringing" that right is difficult to see.

Another distasteful aspect of the Act (as if its unconstitutionality on two grounds weren't enough) is that it attempts to dictate to states their concealed carry laws. In particular, the Act provides an exception for those legally licensed by the state, but only for those licenses which include background checks (18 USC 922(q)(1)(B)(ii)). In other words, the citizens of Vermont, in which every lawful citizen is automatically permitted to carry a concealed handgun, could still be charged by the Gun Free School Act. Clearly, the Act is a preemptive strike against "Vermont carry" proposals in other states.

The Act also presumes to dictate the property rights of private schools. Individual private schools are quite competent to decide if they will allow firearms on their property -- they don't need Federal politicians to make this important decision for them.

School officials concerned with safety still have options, however. As Joel Myrick proved, armed adults on school property can save lives. If Luke Woodham had expected to face several armed adults, he may never have even tried to attack the high school in the first place.

Similarly, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold knew beforehand that they would face a maximum of one armed guard at Columbine. (That guard fired a few frantic, un-aimed shots before he turned tail and ran.) These killers also knew it would take the police minutes if not tens of minutes to arrive at the scene. At Columbine, the SWAT teams didn't even storm the school until well after Harris and Klebold had committed suicide.

Perhaps Cesare Beccaria, the father of modern criminology often quoted by Thomas Jefferson, said it best: "An unarmed man [or woman] may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

If school officials want to do more than impose meaningless restrictions on honest students (like metal detectors and dress codes), they will seriously consider training some teachers to use firearms safely and effectively. Even under the Gun Free School Zone Act, school officials can organize a formal "program approved by a school" (18 USC 922(q)(1)(B)(iv)) in which teachers could carry pistols openly.

In Colorado, teachers can also apply to their local sheriff for a concealed carry permit, and state legislators may eventually pass a state-wide concealed carry law. (However, in previous efforts the legislature has threatened to forbid concealed carry in schools, which again would maintain "criminal safety zones" there.)

In Israel, schools suffered horrible terrorist acts until teachers and parents armed themselves. School terrorism in Israel then stopped immediately. Israel also teaches its youth to handle firearms and defend against violent attacks. In America, the best school officials have done so far is to violate the privacy of their students.

By and large, American schools are "gun free." That's why criminals are free to murder students there without fear of facing opposition. The noble actions of Joel Myrick prove that "gun free school zones" are exactly what we don't need, if our concern is the safety of our children rather than political correctness.

No, it's not. It's rather likely you have some reading comprehesion problems. This article argues how Myrick saved lives by violating the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. That's quite cute, but irrelevant. The law also outlaws murder. Yet if you kill somebody in self-defense, you're not going to be charged. That doesn't answer my question:

I'll say it again. Anybody living under Israeli oppression can walk out of it in less than a day. People living under slammite oppression are nowhere near so lucky. This person for instance...

Well, what about that person?

The pupils from the (Danish) Grammar School in Fredrikshavn shot this photo there.

Do you know more about that than written on their website?

That was part of a project there in 2002/3, about how it would be for a "normal Danish boy/girl" to walk around in a small Danish town like a Muslim. A lot more photos about it are on the school's website.

Why did you choose exactly that?

This one e.g.



shows the 'actors' (= pupils) how they look alike usually ...



Or is it that you've something against Frederikshavn? I've been there a couple of times, and think that it's a rather nice place with nice people living there.

I admit, though, that I can say nothing about that grammar school.

But you'll certainly enlighten me, gunga.

Thanks in advance.

I don't blame innocent Palestinians. But are those who harbor, protect, and/or conceal terrorists among and/or who elect terrorists for their leadership truly innocent? When the Palestinians themselves reject terrorism and become peaceful, law abiding citizens of israel, the Israelis have demonstrated that they will no longer discriminate against Palestinians.



But then the sources I have posted have a good deal of credibility, while posts from blatantly anti-Israel sites must be considered more suspect.



Well if that is your criteria for why a regime should be destroyed, why are you not demanding the destruction of governments of Arab countries who are far more discriminatory and oppressive that anything Israel has ever been and certainly more so than Israel is now? I would think you would be cheering and encouraging Israel to accomplish that. And you would be one of George Bush's greatest champions for taking out Saddam Hussein.



Well since discrimination and oppression existed in the Middle East long before the arrival of the modern Israeli state, I rather doubt it would just evaporate with the removal of Israel. The State of Israel was created as a place where JEWS could live and be free without discriminaton and oppressions heaped on them. The fact that they have extended such policies to others and are the most inclusive society in the Middle East and are less discriminatory than most nations of the world just doesn't seem to impress you at all.

You still seem to very much want Israel to vanish off the face of the Earth while you've given no impression that you have any problem with Israel's neighbors who want to exterminate Israel. Not Israel's leadership. Not Israel's government. They want to exterminate Israel and all the Jews in it. So I am mystified about how somebody like you can hate Israel so much and yet seem to have all the tolerance and understanding in the world for terrorists. I don't pretend to understand that.



There have been postings ad nauseum of the stated policy of Hamas and other Arab leadership and the opinions of the other Arab peoples that make this point quite clearly and explicitly. If you haven't taken the time to read those, I suggest you go back and find them and do so. I won't take the time to hunt them all up again for you.



You have yet to condemn the Arabs who have repeatedly attacked Israel and you have yet to commend Israel for anything. So I see no straw man. My point was specific, pertinent, and apparently accurate. Everything you have posted on this subject screams anti-Israel everything - pro-Arab anything.

When the Palestinians reject their terrorist leadership and rise up and condemn terrorist activities originating from within their midst, and when they demonstrate that they are willing to be law abiding and good citizens of Israel, I'm willing to bet a substantial wager that they will no longer be discriminated against.

To expect Israel to embrace terrorists or terrorist sympathizers or even those who tolerate terrorism is not reasonable for a tiny country that most of its neighbors would obliterate if they thought they could and get away with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204.html

For as interesting as that article is, it is hardly germane to the topic of the thread. I would also like to point out the absurdity of referring to a "secret report" or a "classified assessment" which is described in The Washington Post. It would have been more accurate to describe it as "a once secret report," or a failed attempt to produce a "classified assessment."

set

Please pretend you saw it in a place more agreeable to your categorization system. I'll mail a box of good local cookies in exchange.

It's not my "categorization system." This thread concerns itself with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Lebanon and Israel. It does not concern itself with Iraq. God knows there are any number of theads in which it would be more pertinent, and would constitute a timely and interesting contribution.

set

I conceptualize this a bit differently. But I don't have any clear rationale to give my notion preference over yours. I can do it the other way with no problem.

If you were capable of explaining how a not at all secret report about the utter failure of this administration's efforts in Anbar province in Iraq impinge upon the lives of the Lebanese, the Israelis and the Palestinians, it would be a breath of fresh air in a very, very stale thread.

I'd be delighted to see that--it is simply that nothing recommends itself to me as a connection between the events.

Hamas agrees to indirect recognition of Israel

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas has agreed to indirect recognition of Israel by accepting a 2002 Arab peace initiative as part of the platform for a unity government with Fatah, Hamas representatives indicated Monday.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah said Monday that he had reached an agreement with Haniyeh over the formation of a unity government and said he would dissolve the current Hamas-led cabinet within 48 hours.

"Hopefully in the coming days we will begin forming the government of national unity," Abbas said.

The Palestinians hope a unity coalition will lead to the lifting of international sanctions that have stalled the functioning of the current government.

"We are very, very close to the establishment of a unity government," said an advisor to Haniyeh on Monday.

Ahmed Yosef said that Haniyeh and Abbas on Sunday night reached agreement on the main principles and political platform of the future government.

The head of the Hamas parliamentary faction, Salah El-Bardaweil, said that the group's political stance is based on the "prisoners document," as well as the 2002 Arab League peace initiative.

"There will always be a role for us in future diplomatic processes," Bardaweil said.

Haniyeh's acceptance of the Arab initiative as is would be a dramatic turning point and would signal the legitimization of negotiations with Israel and recognition of its existence within the 1967 borders.

"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Monday that, "Hamas will continue to have its political agenda ... we will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation."

In an interview with the Palestinian Ma'an news agency, Bardaweil said Abbas requested clarification of Hamas' stance regarding the Arab peace initiative as well as on previous agreements signed by the PLO.

Hamas representatives said in response that it would be possible to use the Arab peace initiative to serve the Palestinians' national interests.

Abbas also asked Hamas to find a formula that would bring about the end of the political boycott of the Palestinian Authority, sparked by Hamas' policies on Israel, and envisioned the foundation of a unity government as fundamental to ending the embargo.

Haniyeh said earlier Monday that he and Abbas were close to agreeing a unity government with Abbas.

"We are going ahead to form a national unity government," Haniyeh told players from the Palestinian national soccer team.

Palestinians hope the creation of a unity coalition will lead to the lifting of the sanctions imposed on the six-month-old Hamas government for refusing to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous interim peace agreements.

Asked by reporters when an announcement of a unity government would be made, Haniyeh said: "Hopefully in the nearest time possible."

He described the late-night talks Sunday with Abbas as "positive and fruitful."

Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction, has so far resisted international pressure and calls by Abbas to soften its policy toward Israel.

But Fatah officials said a breakthrough had been Hamas' willingness to accept United Nations resolutions relating to the Middle East conflict and decisions from previous Arab summits.