Gonzaels wrote his report while he worked for the justice department talking about treatment of prisoners in Gitmo. The memo he wrote known not only by the President but by the media and many folks in public, BEFORE Bush decided to appoint Gonzales to the position of the attorney general. AQ's training manual and the fact that they are terrorists has zero to do with whether or not our nation acts in a moral way or not. There is no other president since the Geneva convention who justified finding ways out of out it, and rewarded those that did.
Didn’t I read here just recently that a high ranking American military person admitted that for every insurgent killed 3 more are created? And obviously terrorists are being created as well. So lets stop this nonsense about calling this a “War on Terrorism.” This is in fact, albeit I trust unintentionally, a war in support of terrorism. It is clearly advancing the cause of terrorism. So for every Iraqi killed think of the future innocent American who will be killed as a result. Let’s make this linkage clear and not hide behind any misdirected bravado or false reasoning. This war will kill innocent Americans in the future. This is a war in support of terrorism. Bin Laden laid a trap. He provoked the Bush administration with a series of highly symbolic and provocative attacks on 9/11, and Bush took the bait. And now he’s doing Bin Laden’s work for him. Maybe Bin Laden was drawing on his personal knowledge of Bush and his inner circle. Maybe he understood the mentality of the “New American Century” movement better than most of us did. These will be questions for historians to judge, but I think there’s really no doubt at this point that what is happening now is a war that is supporting and advancing terrorism, and that has become a trap for the Bush administration, a trap that was laid by Bin Laden but that relied on the immorality, the self-righteousness, and the self-aggrandising desires of inner circle of this administration.
1. I can imagine that IN THE SHORT RUN there may be an increase in terrorists, but there aren't that many disabusing the Muslim faith just waiting to strap a bomb to their body and kill some Iraqi children. I have more faith in humankind than that. There are, however, too many nutcases for my preferences. 2. Most of the insurgents are not even Iraqi. Far and away most are Saudi (~47%) followed by Syrians and Libyans I think. Iraqis finished third or fourth.
<b>FranchiseBlade Gonzaels wrote his report while he worked for the justice department talking about treatment of prisoners in Gitmo. The memo he wrote known not only by the President but by the media and many folks in public, BEFORE Bush decided to appoint Gonzales to the position of the attorney general.</b> Yes, indeed. That is exactly the timeline I was pointing out. Are you trying to say that Gonzalez is some kind of irredeemable version of evil incarnate? <b>AQ's training manual and the fact that they are terrorists has zero to do with whether or not our nation acts in a moral way or not.</b> I admire your convicton to make life come out a fairy tale, but I wouldn't want you in charge when the going gets tough... <b>There is no other president since the Geneva convention who justified finding ways out of out it, and rewarded those that did.</b> The Geneva Convention agreements don't apply to Enemy Combatants since they don't wear uniforms and they kill indiscriminately.
Enemy Combatants throughout US Miltary History http://hnn.us/articles/5106.html 5-10-04: History Q & A Is the Abuse of POW's Under American Control Unprecedented? By Günter Bischof Mr. Bischof is director of CenterAustria and a professor of American history at the University of New Orleans and co-editor (with Stephen E. Ambrose) of EISENHOWER AND THE GERMAN POWS (1992) and KRIEGSGEFANGENSCHAFT IM ZWEITEN WELTKRIEG (1999). Is the current controversy about the abuse of Iraqi POWs by American interrogators and guards and the prolonged imprisonment of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo unprecendented in American history? What is the American record of treating its Prisoners of Wars (POWs) in previous wars? Good, in general, but at times gives to abuse too. In the final weeks of World War II my father was captured by the U.S. Army in March 1945. As a Wehrmacht soldier he fought on the Western front in the “Colmar Bridgehead.” He was shipped back to the U.S. on the last convoy for German POWs that went States-side. During World War II some 380,000 German POWs were brought to the U.S. I told my father that he was lucky to end up at Fort Carson, Colorado. In no theater of war were German and Italian POWs treated better during and after World War II than on the American mainland. Had he been captured only a few days later, however, he most likely would have landed in one of the infamous “Rhine Meadow Camps.” In the final weeks of World War II in Europe, the Anglo-American armies captured some 7 million German POWs. What to do with such a mass of miserable humanity? General Eisenhower and the U.S. Army were ill-prepared for millions of captured Germans and anticipated disaster. Months ahead of the German surrender they came up with a new legal designation for POWs as “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (DEFs), so the captors would not to be bound by the strict rules of the Geneva Convention protection rights for POWs. The consequence of this intentional legal limbo was that more than half a million DEFs were caged up in rain-soaked open fields along the Rhine River, close to where they were captured in March/April 1945. There was no housing for them, not enough food and water. The Germans had to dig shelter in muddy open earth holes and stand in line for hours for a cup of water and totally inadequate rations. They went to the bathrooms in open pits and some fell in and drowned. Some guards terrorized the POWs psychologically by shooting over their heads without any reason. Medical care for many of these POWs utterly exhausted from the war was rare. The physical abuse came in the form of keeping them caged up for weeks during a cold and rainy spring for weeks. Only in June did the U.S. Army begin with interrogations, dismissals, or transfer to other powers (the French got 750,000 German POWs to be used as labor). Given the dire circumstances, it is surprising that only about 1 percent of the POWs died (compare this with 90 percent of the German POWs taken at Stalingrad dying in Soviet captivity). German soldiers were also shot rather than taken prisoner, particularly in the confusing opening battles during the Normandy invasion. A soldier from the Third Armored division told me that they did not take any prisoners among SS-troops in his unit, after the massacre of more than 100 American POWs at Malmedy by the SS during the Battle of the Bulge. Clearly, POW maltreatment is often sparked by a revenge motive. While American POWs were terrorized and brainwashed by the North Koreans and Chinese during the Korean War (remember The Manchurian Candidate?), no major stories of abuse of North Korean POWs have surfaced. The Vietnam War, on the other hand, was characterized by numerous stories of maltreatment of POWs on both sides. The fate of American POWs (“air pirates”) being tortured in the “Hanoi Hilton” is well-known. The South Vietnamese allies of the U.S. regularly tortured suspected “Vietcong” prisoners in their infamous “Tiger Cages” on Con Son Island. They confined women Vietcong into tiny cages without a shower for months, “eating, urinating, and defecating” and tearing up their clothes for sanitary napkins during their period. Thousands of suspected Vietcong and their supporters were assassinated -- often on suspicion -- in the American “ Phoenix” pacification program. American “search and destroy” missions and “free fire zones” were characterized by few or no prisoners being taken at all. The “Winter Soldier Investigation” conducted by the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” in Detroit in 1971 posited that the atrocities committed in My Lai were not unique but part of larger history of atrocities committed by American forces in Vietnam. Among the findings read into the Congressional Record were that “we were murdering prisoners, we were turning prisoners over to somebody else to be tortured.” Moreover, “every law of Land Warfare has been violated.” A recent Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by the Toledo Blade into the atrocities committed by the “Tiger Force” of the 101 st Airborne division in 1967 has confirmed this general picture of some U.S. armed forces routinely breaking the rules of civilized warfare. The abuse of POWs in Baghdad and the legal no man’s land constructed for the Guantanamo “enemy combatants” is nothing new, then, in the annals of American warfare. It is rare though that we get to see such explicit pictures of abused prisoners so soon after their maltreatment. It is also unique among the American public to have such a widespread suspicion that something is very fishy with the Guantanamo “enemy combatants” being denied any legal protections for over two years now – now under review by the Supreme Court. German “DEFs” during World War II were only left in such legal limbo for a few chaotic postwar weeks, before the vast majority of them were released and sent home.
I am not the one to say that Gonzales is irredeemable, but he never apologized and in fact he defended the memo(s) he wrote at his appointment for attorney general. To justify torture is not a quality we would want to be in charge of the justice department. If he would have said it was a mistake and apologized or repented that would be one thing. He has not. I'm not trying to make life come out like a fairy tale. I am talking about upholding American Principles, values, and carrying out policy in a moral way. One does not have to behave immorally just because the going gets tough. There are Geneva conventions in place not only for military personell but also for civilians. In addition there are UN resolutions against torture and numerous other treaties against torture all signed by the U.S. which would prevent torturing anyone including enemy combatants. But the enemy combatant designation is exactly what needs to change. If we are truly at war like so many claim, then prisoners need to be POW's. If they are not then we need to send them to trial as criminals. Terrorism is against the law, and past presidents have been able to send terrorists to justice through the U.S. legal system. It worked after the first WTC bombing, and it worked after OK city.
Not true. Please read the link I provided in this which says that despite official reports most of the attacks are carried out by IRaqis. ::EDIT:: Killing more and more Iraqis doesn't make them like you more, it makes them like you less. There won't be a point when all of a sudden it magically stops increasing the number of terrorists it creates.
If this is true, which I'm not saying it is, why then invade Iraq when clearly it wasn't a source of terrorism and terrorists directed at America? Perhaps the bigger question then is why are so many terrorists coming from supposed allies like Saudi Arabia? Even by your own reasoning that most insurgents and terrorists aren't from Iraq weakens the argument that Iraq is the lynchpin of terrorism. Its like if my neighbor two houses down dog has been trashing my yard I beat up my neighbor immediately next door.
I've been traveling this month, so I've only popped in a couple of times. This is the first time I've been able to read this thread. Large chunks of it are pretty disturbing, more because of what they say about the poster than the posts themselves. There are a few gems in here as well. basso, are you going completely 'round the bend? I was bothered enough by what I'd read from you here before your graphic photos splashed across my laptop. I tell you what... why not post the photos of torture conducted by rulers of nations that we supported at one time or another over the past several decades? Saddam is no different from many of them. We actively embraced him when it was seen to be in our national interest to do so, like we have with so many other despots. I don't know what's up, basso, but I hope things take a turn for the better. Soon. FB, we went to war with Hitler because he declared war on us. Given the mood of the country prior to Pearl, and after, we may not have declared war on Hitler for years had he not amazed his general staff and the Bundestag (hope I spelled that right!) by making the decision entirely on his own. Gotta go. More when I can. Keep D&D Civil!!
This is tangential but I've read some historical speculation that if not for Pearl Harbor the Cold War might've been between the US and Germany or a US vs German / Japan. Even with war its still possible that if Britain had been defeated by Germany the US might not have been able to win in Europe without a European base of operations like Britain.
please point to an example of where i have ever suggested any such thing. nothing could be further from the truth- the issue is, and has always been, about context, and the gleeful recitation by those on the left of setbacks in the iraq war because they see it as their chance to damage gee dub. what they don't realize is their laser like focus on short comings in the war effort, whether body counts or abuses at git-ghraib, to the absolute exclusion of any good news weakens the war effort and so risks the lives of the very troops they purport to "support." it's sickening.
it's not necessary to find a way out of the geneva conventions since the terrorists by definition do not subscribe to it. they are not in uniform, they directly target civilians, and they are not under the control of any nation state. geneva protections are irrelevant.
i'm sorry grizz, but this post is complete and utter unsupported bull****. if anything the reverse is true. we're fighting them on our terms, and a place and time of our choosing, rather than on the streets of new york, dc,or houston. if the war is successful, and i should think you would want it to be, we will have dealt a cripling blow to al queda and any other terrorist group that seeks to project terror internationally. i'm astounded that the DP deliberately works at cross purposes to a goal that so obviouslyh in the national interest. truly, the DP has lost its collective soul in its head long rush into bush hate.
what's up is the DP has lost all sense of proportion and fails to realize that it's america that is at war, not gee dub. and i've finally lost patience with you all when you attempt to defend outrageous statements like those made recently by harry-dean-durbin. my god, at the democratic national headquarters yesterday they were passing out leaflets blaming israel for 9/11! have you guys lost your collective ****ing minds?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html -- Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War By Dana Milbank Post Friday, June 17, 2005; A06 In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe. They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along. The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session. "At the next hearing," he told his colleagues, "we could use a little subpoena power." That brought the house down. As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important. A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one -- Conyers -- had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers's session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves. The hearing was only nominally about the Downing Street Memo and its assertion that in the summer of 2002 Bush was already determined to go to war and was making the intelligence fit his case. Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, barely mentioned the memo in his opening statement. Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, said the memo "only confirms what I already suspected." No matter: The lawmakers and the witnesses saw this as a chance to rally against the war. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) proclaimed it "one of the biggest scandals in the history of this country." Conyers said the memos "establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses." Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) concluded that "the time has come to get out" of Iraq. The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic." Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer." At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks. The event organizer, Democrats.com, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died." One man's T-shirt proclaimed, "Whether you like Bush or not, he's still an incompetent liar," while a large poster of Uncle Sam announced: "Got kids? I want yours for cannon fodder." Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!" The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping system in the Nixon White House." Of course, Democrats controlled the real committees back then -- though Conyers was not deterred. "We have a lot of work to do as a result of this first panel," he told his colleagues. " 'Tis the beginning of our work."
I understand the reasons why we went to war. We didn't understand the extent of the concentration camps until after the war was over. I never tried to say that we went because of the Holocaust. I was saying that we would have been justified going in to stop Hitler's ongoing genocide, IF we had known about it. I was in no way trying to rewrite history and suggest that is why we went to war with Hitler.
Saddam was a terrorist-- albeit one in power. He got whacked by the War on Terror. I never said that Iraq was the lynchpin of terrorism. I'm going to have to resort to a potentially flame-worthy analogy, but here goes: In football, you gameplan against the weakness of your opponent. Saddam, the terroristic dictator of Iraq, was the weak link of all nations run by terrorists. Geographically it is situated between Iran and Syria. Saddam was a guilty, despised man. Because we cozied up with Iraq and Saddam 20 years ago (and it was wrong then) shouldn't our actions there now be construed as correcting a past mistake based upon his invasion of Kuwait and his snubbing of all the UN sanctions that he was capable of snubbing? 9/11 was the spark that lit the fire.
Saddam was not a terrorist. Saddam was a cruel murdering dictator, who brutalized his own people, and used harsh authoritarian measures in order to stay in power. But Saddam was not a terrorist. I don't think you will find any references to him as a terrorist prior to 9/11, and very few that accuse him of actually being a terrorist himself after 9/11.
and i can't believe you feel the need to draw this distinction. he terrorized his own people and harbored those who terrorized others. if he wasn't a terrorist, then neither is bin laden.
I don't want to muddy the definition of either what a terrorist is or a brutal dictator. Language has a purpose, has distinctions. Words mean different things. Saddam did not harbor terrorists, unless you want to join the 'fool me twice' crowd and accept the word of Chalabi. The distinction is especially important when trying to justify a war. Bush has not proclaimed us entering into a war on dictators, but a war on terrorists. We support a number of dictatorships around the world to this day, and have throughout the history of our nation. Bin Laden, however, is most definitely a terrorist. You can find references to him as a terrorist before 9/11 and certainly after it. If you need to change the English language in order to justify this war, then maybe you need to think harder about the reasons you support it.
