The "war on terror" is a "mistake",

[perseus]

According to (UK) Foreign Secretary David Miliband. However, perhaps it is just political manoeuvring now the effectiveness of such strategies are being questioned and the Blair and Bush regimes are out. The proof of a genuine belief requires statements when they are more controversial and less fashionable.

Mr Miliband said the idea had unified disparate "terrorist groups" against the West.
Highlighting US President-elect Barack Obama's commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, Mr Miliband said it was time to ensure human rights and civil liberties were upheld. He suggested that the different organisations took advantage of the belief that they had one common enemy and a key way to tackle them was to stop this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829946.stm

 

[HokieMSG]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

 

[BritinBritain]

Damn right HokieMSG

Politicians never cease to amaze me, sometimes I wonder who's side they are really on.

 

[HokieMSG]

Thanks BritinAfrica.

I am getting tired of a lot of people complaining about gitmo, yet these same people seem to overlook the civil right violations by the Islamists. I guess there are 2 standards. Maybe the US should really give everyone a right to complain, when we Obama closes gitmo, maybe we should behead all of the detainees that we don;t know what to do with or whos home countries dont want them back. Then we can :drink:, :rock::drunkb::horsie::cheers:.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Damn right HokieMSG

Politicians never cease to amaze me, sometimes I wonder who's side they are really on.

I would agree but then i'm a soldier and serve these guys who pay my bills- hail to the politicians (though i think Angela Merkel is one of the few real good politicians... appearence isn't everything )

 

[perseus]

Well I guess there are two issues regarding the Guantanamo case: treatment of the prisoners and are most of the prisoners actually guilty of anything? If a number of the detainees are not guilty and are being tortured, which seems likely, it undermines the whole principle of justice and breeds hatred on a scale which will just escalate the problem. I don't think the majority of Muslims had terrorist sympathies prior to the 'war on terror campaign', now I'm not too sure. I certainly don't want to be on an underground train next to one of these guys when they are released as they will feel like acting just as indiscriminately towards 'infidels' as they were to Muslims.

The criteria on how these detainess were obtained beggars belief. I think there may be exceptional cases were torture may be justified but these don't come even close.

THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: THE GOVERNMENT’S STORY
Professor Mark Denbeaux* and Joshua Denbeaux*
An interim report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The media and public fascination with who is detained at Guantanamo and why has been
fuelled in large measure by the refusal of the Government, on the grounds of national security, to provide much information about the individuals and the charges against them. The information available to date has been anecdotal and erratic, drawn largely from interviews with the few detainees who have been released or from statements or court filings by their attorneys in the pending habeas corpus proceedings that the Government has not declared "classified."
This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo
detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents. This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called "the worst of the worst."
Among the data revealed by this Report:
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterised as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.
This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

 

[03USMC]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

Can't argue with that at all. Well I suppose the bunny hugging, terrorist defending head in the sand "they have grievances and are misunderstood" crowd will. But I agree 100% with Hokie.

 

[LeMask]

I dont see where is the problem.
Honestly guys, I dont understand how you see life... I have no clue... I dont know if I'm blind and stupid, or if you are misguided or just plain wrong and love it this way...

And it's not a matter of opinion neither. A plant needs light, water and minerals to grow. End of story. There is no room for another opinion.

But even with that, I still find people who are ready to express an opinion on a simple thing like that.

Okay, fighting terrorism is a complex thing... But still... The situation is very clear.

So let me explain the whole situation again. It deserves 500 pages... But I will try to make it short.

An open war against terrorism is NOT a solution. Because the purpose of terrorism is to get out of conventional ways to fight because the enemy is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat with conventional weapons/tactics...

I hate the terrorists who blow themselves up against civilians.
But I hate the idiots who attack modern tanks with cheap RPGs way more... Because they are STUPID.

The question here is: Why these two guys are facing each others? the weak isnt a threat to the strong. And the weak have nothing to win in such a battle. They shouldnt be at war with each others.

And this is the real question here. Ask the strong, and he will tell you that the weak is making ****. And ask the weak, and he will tell you that the strong is abusing him.

So no, I'm not going to sue the strong for being strong. But I will tell him to stop abusing his power.

And by looking at history, I see that the strong abused his power since the middle ages and way before... The Roman empire, the Arabs in the conquest era, the European countries in the colonial era, the germans in world war II, the USSR, The Talebans, the USA...

You name it. Every important power in history was corrupt by his own military power...

But today, we live in an era where a single man can do A LOT of damage... with automatic weapons and explosives... a small group of determined men can do a huge amount of power. And even without the help of the others around them...

And it's impossible to control our populations to the level where we can guarantee that no small group will try to make damage. It's impossible to do even if we give up on our rights and privacy...

And we cant go there bombing the hell out of anyone we dont like...

To fight terrorism, we need schools, we need police work, we need justice, we need an economic solution, we need to solve our own problem.

The solution to terrorism will come from the political side. And it will never come from military means...

 

[perseus]

The solution to terrorism will come from the political side. And it will never come from military means...

Actually many small terrorist groups have come and gone because of military defeat and a ruthless approach. eg. Muslim Brotherhood

From 1976 until its suppression in 1982, the arch-conservative Muslim Brotherhood led an armed insurgency against the government. In response to an attempted uprising by the brotherhood in February 1982, the government crushed the fundamentalist opposition centered in the city of Hama, leveling parts of the city with artillery fire and causing between 10.000 and 25.000 of dead and wounded, mostly civilians (see Hama massacre). Since then, public manifestations of anti-government activity have been very limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

(now what contemporary situation does that remind you of)

Others because they thought the political process was more fruitful, or the funds dried up (IRA).

It is difficult to apply ruthless rules in a democratic society and to international terrorist organisations. In a few cases perhaps we shouldn't anyway because they may be in the right.

 

[LeMask]

Perseus, you really believe that?
I'm talking about terrorism as a whole, not just Islamo fascism terrorism.

But to follow your topic, I will say that the Muslim world is suffering from extremely corrupt governments. A lot of these government are seen by the locals as puppet governments in the hand of western countries.

Take Egypt as an example. Or Saudi Arabia... Or even Iraq under Saddam. Do you want pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

And they are absolutely right on many aspects. Think about Iran under the Shah regime. And believe me, USA will have to pay for his crimes someday. You cant back up a dictator by overthrowing a democratic government and get away with it. No body have the right to do such things...

But yet, we did let our governments get away with such crimes.

And the Muslim world hate us for all these little things. They hate our hypocrisy about democracy. They hate us. And I'm sad to see that they have good reasons to do so.

And with all this corruption... They take refuge in religion. Extremism will grow easily in such conditions... And in the end, the Islamists get public support.

And here, I see you talking about the Syrian regime as an exemple to follow...
Good job Perseus... We should behave like the Syrians now? Level a whole city with artillery fire? You think that you will tech them democracy by killing them? Or you just want to terrorise them so they accept the corruption we bring upon them?

Well let me give you the words that come to my mind. Genocide, mass murder, fascism, corruption, arrogance, abuse of force, war crimes& war criminals, state terrorism...

I'm here watching democratic societies learning from colonial empires and dictatorships... No,really! good job there!

We need a political change. a political solution.

 

[SHERMAN]

Lemask...:

An open war against terrorism is NOT a solution. Because the purpose of terrorism is to get out of conventional ways to fight because the enemy is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat with conventional weapons/tactics...

Its exactly because of this attitude that we are unable to defeat them. Westerners like youwho say if it takes more than 10 years its "impossible" are the fule to the terrorists beliefe that they will win. You have no patience. No willingness to suffer in order to see victory. In short if you were a terrorist you wouldent last long in your fight...

And they are absolutely right on many aspects. Think about Iran under the Shah regime. And believe me, USA will have to pay for his crimes someday. You cant back up a dictator by overthrowing a democratic government and get away with it. No body have the right to do such things...

Back to your twisted version of "the white man's burden". The USA has no obligation to free and maintain free people around the world. The USA like any other country must protect the freedom and well being of its own people. In order to do this it somtimes supports regiemes that make us sick to our stumeck, but what was the alternative- Communisem? Islamic Theocracy? if I have to choose one of the three I would choose the Semi-Facist Shah any day.

And here, I see you talking about the Syrian regime as an exemple to follow...
Good job Perseus... We should behave like the Syrians now? Level a whole city with artillery fire? You think that you will tech them democracy by killing them? Or you just want to terrorise them so they accept the corruption we bring upon them?

I shudder at the self hatig euro-guilt retoric you use. We brought corruption to them?! The Arab world is corrupt as hell, the fact that we cant see it is because whan their news papers type it the government cuts the editors head off.

 

[perseus]

QUOTE]
Perseus, you really believe that?

And here, I see you talking about the Syrian regime as an example to follow...

Good job Perseus... We should behave like the Syrians now? Level a whole city with artillery fire? You think that you will tech them democracy by killing them? Or you just want to terrorise them so they accept the corruption we bring upon them?
[/quote]


I think you have got me all wrong. I am saying that in cases of isolated groups confronted by Totalitarianist type regimes the evidence suggests violence works, surely this is hardly surprising? This isn't just my opinion, it is the view of knowledgeable people who study this subject. I have just finished reading a modern book which assesses every main terrorist group since the war, and watching a TV series. Terrorist groups are rarely immortal, they come and go. The exception may be when you have a credible ideology, the supporters are distributed and it is internationally supported. Palestinian groups are perhaps an example, although the groups have changed over the years.

Of course I don't agree with indiscriminate violence. I'm telling you as it is, not how we want it to be, are you reading my posts carefully? Terrorism is usually the result of desperate action of the weak against the strong, and they often have little choice but to either stop or choose soft targets. Both Terrorists and their opponents can hold the moral high ground. (Take allied resistance groups in WW2 for example)

 

[HokieMSG]

And we cant go there bombing the hell out of anyone we dont like...

The islamists are the ones doing most of the bombing.

To fight terrorism, we need schools, we need police work, we need justice, we need an economic solution, we need to solve our own problem.

As fast as we build schools and infrastructure, the islamists destroy them beacuse they do NOT want an educated society. An educated society would realize the depth of their evil and seek alternatives to their extremism.

The solution to terrorism will come from the political side. And it will never come from military means...

The political process will never work without security. For that you need the military, until the police can take over.

If we packed up and left as PEBO promised, do you realize the size of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of our departure?
Violence is on the decline for good reason, the surge worked.
We have an obligation to help fix the country that we so handily destroyed.

 

[Ted]

Since everyone is trumpeting about human rights violations at Guantanimo, I wonder what Daniel Perls wife would say about her husbands civil rights being violated. And they were violated worse than anyone who has been detained at Guantanimo.

I have a lot of pupils using this argument too. "Ï did it because he did that!" In my opinion this is a very childish way to look at this particular issue. Because some ragged band grabbed some guy, the US can grab 400+ people and torture them too.
One of the many obstacles the US has with this attitude is the multitude of international agreements it has signed on the abuse of torure, holding without charging and so on and on.... For a country that is claiming they want to bring peace and democracy to the region, they sure have funny methods and a very funny interpretation of democracy. If you really want to bring democracy then value every individual. Isn't that the fundamental point of democracy? This doesn't start with Gitmo!

And a second point is: the US has no clue who they have in Gitmo. I'll wager most of them have absolutly nothing to do with the whole Daniel Perl affair. So if you use him as an excuse to validitate your usage of torure, than at least get the people who did anything to him. Your point sounds a lot less rightious when you say: they did that to him, so we grab randomly 400 people and do to them what these terrorists did to Daniel Perl.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

And a second point is: the US has no clue who they have in Gitmo. I'll wager most of them have absolutly nothing to do with the whole Daniel Perl affair. So if you use him as an excuse to validitate your usage of torure, than at least get the people who did anything to him. Your point sounds a lot less rightious when you say: they did that to him, so we grab randomly 400 people and do to them what these terrorists did to Daniel Perl.

Where did you get the idea that the US "randomly grabbed 400 people"?

 

[The Other Guy]

I still don't know how a war can be fought against a feeling. If I decided to declare war against anger, how do you think that would go?

Guantanamo Bay makes no sense if we are going to fight this war on feelings. If we're agianst terrorism, then why are we recreating the Hanoi Hilton in North America? I also do not understand why we're whining at our politicians yet again. David Miliband has a poing; we're removing civil liberties from our own people (i.e. The "Patriot" Act) to better ensure our safety. Why not just remove them alltogether, then there's no way the terrorists can get us!

When did "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" become "Give up your liberties or we're all gonna die!"?

We cannot let these people just have the run of the place, I agree, but at the same time I do not want to give up my liberties to attack someone whose only beef against me was the puppet government my leaders forced on him.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

This was just posted by the News Manager: "AP - Two of the five men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks offered unapologetic admissions of guilt..." http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/gitmo-war-court-back-what-t71385.html

I thought it was quite fitting, as part of this discussion! It goes back to the fact that it is not "random people" held at Gitmo, but those who have been involved in suspicious activities. We cannot bury our heads in the sand when a threat is issued. Had the threats been taken more seriously, would Pearl Harbor or the events of 9-11 happened? Perhaps history would have changed, perhaps not.

 

[perseus]

Where did you get the idea that the US "randomly grabbed 400 people"?

I don't think this was meant literally, just without due care.

Among the data revealed by this Report:
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any
hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterised as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining
detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a
large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.
This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly
Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

It seems someone needs to be made an example of for political reasons, and only the vaguest of connections is sufficient. It's a bit like rounding up anyone who also went to the 80 meetings of the gun circuit that Timothy McVeigh attended, or anyone who said you went in return for a reward! Interesting Eh? Not too sure if Gimto is a good idea after all if the same principles were applied to US citizens!

 

[HokieMSG]

And a second point is: the US has no clue who they have in Gitmo. I'll wager most of them have absolutly nothing to do with the whole Daniel Perl affair. So if you use him as an excuse to validitate your usage of torure, than at least get the people who did anything to him. Your point sounds a lot less rightious when you say: they did that to him, so we grab randomly 400 people and do to them what these terrorists did to Daniel Perl.

Ted, You are correct. I made the point earlier that one of the problems we are having is that once a person has been cleared for release, we attempt to send them back to the country of their citizenship, but they don't want them back. So what do we do with them?

Actually most of the detainees were snatched by Pakistan and handed over to us. Most of them have involvement with Bin Ladens organization.
Most of the Pakistani's either dont want to go back to Pakistan or their government doesn't want them back.

 

[HokieMSG]

I don't think this was meant literally, just without due care.



http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

It seems someone needs to be made an example of for political reasons, and only the vaguest of connections is sufficient. It's a bit like rounding up anyone who also went to the 80 meetings of the gun circuit that Timothy McVeigh attended, or anyone who said you went in return for a reward! Interesting Eh? Not too sure if Gimto is a good idea after all if the same principles were applied to US citizens!

That's just the point. It has not happened to US citizens that I am aware of. Don;t you think the ACLU would scream from the rafters about it if it did happen?