It was dumb of Amnesty to compare Guantanamo to the Gulag. Dumb in the way it was dumb of Bush to call the war on terror a crusade. In a friendly interpretation, both metaphors clumsily summarize more intelligent ideas, but to people who know the full weight of the terms, and / or is outside the circle of good faith, they sound callous and stupid, at worst a confirmation of the evil intentions and moral degradation of their political opponents.

Amnesty wanted to put focus on prisoner abuse and torture, and they botched it. Unlike Bush, they're not smart enough to withdraw the offensive word. In many ways, Amnesty has become a threat to their own cause. But that doesn't excuse the way a shrill presentation has been used to distract from the actual content of Amnesty's criticism.

For those of you who heard Irene Kahn say "Gulag", and closed your ears at that point, here's what Amnesty is actually saying about human rights abuse by the US in their annual report:

By the end of the year, more than 500 detainees of around 35 nationalities continued to be held without charge or trial at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay on grounds of possible links to al-Qa’ida or the former Taleban government of Afghanistan. While at least 10 more detainees were transferred to the base from Afghanistan during the year, more than 100 others were transferred to their home countries for continued detention or release. ..

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in June that the US federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees. However, the administration tried to keep any review of the detainees’ cases as far from a judicial process as possible. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), an administrative review body consisting of panels of three military officers, was established to determine whether the detainees were "enemy combatants". The detainees were not provided with lawyers to assist them in this process and secret evidence could be used against them. Many detainees boycotted the process, which by the end of the year had determined that more than 200 detainees were "enemy combatants" and two were not and could be released. ..

The government informed the detainees that they could file habeas corpus petitions in federal court, giving them the address of the District Court in Washington DC. However, it also argued in the same court that the detainees had no basis under constitutional or international law to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. By the end of the year, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, no detainee had had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed. ..

A number of detainees, reported to be those considered by the US authorities to have high intelligence value, were alleged to remain in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases, their situation amounted to "disappearance". Some individuals were believed to have been held in secret locations for as long as three years. ..

Allegations that the US authorities were involved in the secret transfer of detainees between countries, exposing detainees to the risk of torture and ill-treatment, continued. ..

During the year, released detainees alleged that they had been tortured or ill-treated while in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo. Evidence also emerged that others, including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and the ICRC, had found that such abuses had been committed against detainees.

Indefinite detention without trial, abuse and torture, these charges are not made lightly, and deserve to be faced. Is this how you want to fight terrorism, by ignoring everything we've learned about justice? By using methods that were abandoned long ago because they lead to power abuse and injustice? Fine, vent off about some idiotic statements at a press conference, but the first 500 expressions of indignation made your point very well - the next 50000 were superflous. Meanwhile, the actual content of the report went ignored.

Among Bush-friendly bloggers, healthy media skepticism and appeals to a higher standard than diplomatic relations seems to have degenerated into little more than a need to deflect and minimize criticism of the Bush administration. The rhetorics is now on autopilot, and it's as shallow as that of those once so ominous Chomskyites.

The war on terror has spawned a whole gallery of fallacies and rhetorical tricks:

1. Don't defend, counterattack. "That's the left for you, what do you expect? They hate America because they're transnational progressives whose failed deconstructionist utopian thingamabobs have turned them into moral degenerates." Remember to pile on with the buzzwords - the more of them there are, the smarter you look.

2. Always choose the most favorable interpretation compatible with undeniable facts. When there is no hard evidence of torture, assume it doesn't happen. When photographic evidence is presented, call it an "isolated incidence". Never admit to the possibility of any abuse that hasn't been photographed or admitted by the perpetrator.

3. When morality fails, go for legality. Show how this sort of thing is perfectly legal, so you have no idea what people are getting so worked up about.

4. Finally, if you can't deny abuse, and you can't defend it, accept it as a "deeply unfortunate" side effect of war. Act tough and adult-like, bow your head solemnly as you contemplate the horrible things war forces us to do, but protest wildly any suggestions that we should just stop doing them.

How can we fix this? We should start by not using the flaws of human rights organizations as an excuse to ignore everything they say that we don't like. If Amnesty makes 1 idiotic claim about the US in their annual report, and 10 well-founded ones, don't forget the 10 in all the excitement over the 1. There's no reason to be defensive about criticism, even when some of it is unfair. We won, remember?

It's also time to accept that the war on terror has a war part and a judicial part. Invading an al-Qaeda stronghold is war, and should be judged by the standards of war. Arresting suspects, interrogating and imprisoning them is a form of police work, and should be carried out by the standards of the justice system. When a civilian is accidentally shot on a battlefield, that's a deeply unfortunate side effect of war. When a civilian is arrested and held for years without trial, or sent to another country to be tortured, that's not "deeply unfortunate", it's injustice.

Governments are inherently abusive, they will abuse any unchecked, unobserved power we give to them. Agreeing with some politician about foreign policy should not mean throwing centuries of democratic experience overboard. By looking for any excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of the war on terror, that's exactly what many Bush supporters are doing.

Seems the abuse of force will lead to stronger reactions than the use of force. Fighting barbarians by turning to barbarian ways lead nowhere.
KEE

I recommend Weekly Standards article on this topic. They argue that these comments, which are not founded in the report, are not gaffes, but rather part of the PR-strategy of Amnesty:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/686hyaeq.asp

By the way: Amnesty mentions North Korea once in their report, the USA 39 times. Something seems to be not right, even if some critisism of the US is not out of place. The reason we should accept critisism of the US is because we expect a higher standard of superpowerdemocracies, but even so this seems a bit much. (Automatic count by MS Word BTW)

Maybe it simply is easier to get some insight into the dark abysses in USA than in the worlds tyrranies?
And critizising the amnesty for their lack of interest in North Korea, should that make up for what they have uncovered in USA? Even if they slant heavily towards critisizing USA and ingnoring others, the facts they do point out are very serious, and a bit scary. I expected more from the US.
So, let the Amnesty be your source when it comes to what is bad in the US, but don't think of it as a worldwide source; even if they claim to be, it is quite clear where they put in the most effort.

I think the international red cross may be a more worldwide supplier of humanitarian information
http://www.icrc.org/eng try to search their database. Quite a lot of info on quite a ot of places, even if you are bound to find some slent here as well if you look closely.
KEE

I see some problems with #2. If you find evidence of one incident, should you assume there are more? Should you assume that there is torture and abuse happening?

Maybe we shouldn't assume anything at all?
As the saying goes, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

Amnesty's frontal assault on the White House, in my opinion, is about them not being given the respect they think they deserve in that they aren't allowed to go to Guantanamo to investigate all the claims they make.

The Red Cross gets to do this, but Amnesty doesn't. I bet that pisses Amnesty off, and I think that is a big reason for this PR-shuffle they are conducting.

We have more credible and neutral organizations looking into things in Guantanamo, we don't need transparent partisan hacks doing so as well. Amnesty has reaped what they sowed, and rightly so.

I can't imagine they thought they'd get access to Guantanamo by acting in this way. All this ends up with is them looking foolish by frivolously using emotional phrases and preaching to the choir that already loves them.

In other words, a complete failure by Amnesty to accomplish anything.

To show how preposterous AIs statement is, take a look at some comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag — the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s.
Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.
Number of prisoners in the Gulag: as many as 25 million, according to the peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.
Number of camps at Gitmo: 1
Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.
Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.
Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of airplanes.
Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.
Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.
Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.
Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war.
(Hat tip: Michael J. Totten / LGF)
Did anyone mention credibility?

The only abuse taking place at Gitmo is the abuse of American taxpayers. These Jihadi criminals should have been lined up and shot a long time ago. I fail to see any reason in keeping them alive. Any useful intelligence they might have provided would have been extracted already. They're not POW's. Get rid of them. They're just just an unnecessary expense. Or get Saudia to pony up for their indefinite upkeep in a Kuwaiti zoo or something.

The detainees at Gitmo are given far better treatment at Guantanamo than they deserve. Remember, these are Enemy Combatants, not suspects or prisoners of war.

Bjørn, you disappoint me. You have grown soft on the war on terror. Maybe the Anti-American media coverage in Norway has finally gotten to you...

I will not be back.

Until AI starts to do anything but give lip service to Darfur, North Korea, Saudi persecution of Christians, distruction of Jewish archeological sites, desecration of Christian churches,persecution of Hindus in Pakistan, mass graves in Iraq, Mad Mullah Iranian prisons, real Castro gulags in Cuba, Chinese prisons, Turkish prisons, Robert Mugabe and Arab hate literature, just to name a few, I can only assume their fixation on Gitmo is moonbat politically motivated.

I agree with Mika. The only crime here is that these monsters are still with us, fed, watered and given their precious Korans that they themselves seem to rip up and piss on with relish.

George also has a good point. In order to politically inflate themselves, AI is trying out the bogus argument that the US has to be held to an impossible standard in war time, and then set up to be castigated, or more importantly hobbled.

Well, at least I know what side AI would have been on in 1945. Those poor Nazis! Being all brutalized by those occupiers! Some of them were even shot, bring the Americans down to the level of the Nazi!

I am so sick of this nonsense. Basically these are the same poeple who want us to have a standard of moral *perfection* - where the poor (terrorist) perp is the *victiiiiim*. Quite frankly, I think that path will much more likely lead to fascism.

Gitmo is a military prison camp. So sorry that the delicate prisoners and their sniveling enablers believe that only Club Gitmo is good enough for their precious head-chopping "freedom fighters".

Personally, after their kid glove treatment, I hope they are all buried in pigskin sacks.

George Gooding, you might be interested in this little tid bit:

"The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat"
.
.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm

Wm. Schultz is or was a member of People for the American Way - a Norman Lear group.

Lefty.

Also had something to do in the Clinton admin.

All those horrors of "desecrating" the koran.

Any mention how many muslims desecrated it by blowing up mosques?

If they wanted to see a gulag, why not look over the fence at Cuba?

Watch who gives donations. Always follow the money trail.

Amnesty: By the way: Amnesty mentions North Korea once in their report, the USA 39 times.

I'm not sure what you mean by that:

[North Korea] continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions.

But you're right that Amnesty's criticism is without perspective, literally. They focus on the worst behavior of each country, whether their "worst" is really bad or something minor. That's intentional, I think - keep everyone aiming for a high standard, don't let anyone ever feel that they're safe from criticism. Of course, that strategy depends on everyone trusting Amnesty, which their recent behavior jeopardizes.

George Gooding: I see some problems with #2. If you find evidence of one incident, should you assume there are more?

Depends. Say you have a row of symbol cards face down on a table before you. You flip the first, it's an X. The second, X. The third card, another X. Is it more reasonable at this point to say "I suspect there are more X'es here" or "I think we've found the X'es there are to find, I'll go along acting as if there aren't any more left"?

Amnesty's frontal assault on the White House, in my opinion, is about them not being given the respect they think they deserve in that they aren't allowed to go to Guantanamo to investigate all the claims they make.

That's another from the bag of rhetorical tricks: Pseudo psychoanalysis. Present your political enemies as being driven by some weird and perverse motivation, (hatred of success, envy, revenge, etc.)

But very well, if you don't trust Amnesty to be fair, who do you trust? Me, I'd trust the American justice system to give the prisoners at Guantanamo what they deserve. So why isn't that happening?

JD: To show how preposterous AIs statement is, take a look at some comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag — the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s.

Okay. Fifty thousand .. and one. (I still think everyone got the point at 500, though.)

Mika: These Jihadi criminals should have been lined up and shot a long time ago.

How do you know they're "Jihadi criminals" when they've never been put on trial?

Oddvar: The detainees at Gitmo are given far better treatment at Guantanamo than they deserve. Remember, these are Enemy Combatants, not suspects or prisoners of war.

Ah yes, the legality argument. I'm sure you're correct. I'll put it differently: You have a person who is suspected of doing something wrong. If he's guilty, we want him to be imprisoned, if he's innocent, we want him to walk free. What is our best strategy for determining which it is? 1) Interrogate the prisoner without torture, give him a lawyer, build a case, then have it evaluated in an independent court. 2) Torture the prisoner. 3) Hold the prisoner indefinitely in a camp.

I'm not talking about what they deserve, I'm talking about what's smart. Imagine we really care about whether these people are guilty or not. What is the best way to feel confident that we know? If you selected 2 or 3, you've just chucked five hundred years of judicial experience out the window. If you selected 1, you've selected an expensive, slow, flawed but successful method that incorporates centuries of accumulated experience in dealing with suspected criminals.

Bjørn, you disappoint me. You have grown soft on the war on terror.

Oh no! But try saying that again with a straight face.

Maybe the Anti-American media coverage in Norway has finally gotten to you...

Yeah, that must be why I still think it was right to invade Iraq. Seriously, though, I stopped paying attention to Norwegian foreign coverage long ago. It's actually all pro-American coverage in pro-Bush blogs that has gotten to me. I recognize the rhetorical pattern, and it's one I don't like: Desperate apologism. I don't care if they're "more" in the right than that mythical "leftist" army they're fighting against. I just don't like it when people are dishonest with themselves and each other.

I would think that therefore you would be just as against the rhetorical pattern of the LLL blogs and the MSM reporting that hypes up anything anti-Bush and anti-US forces while claiming that they support the troops. Even when their statements are proven wrong they still report the same statements and do it on the front page of the major newspapers. Yet for some reason you take it against the pro-Bush blogs. Seems to me that the leftist blogs and MSM are at least as dishonest with themselves as the pro-Bush blogs and with less reason.

There should really be no reason for dishonesty.
If you have to LIE to make a point, you shound not be taken seriously.
Left, right or centre. Dhere is NO discerning who has the most/the less reason for being dishonest. The reason is naught.

KEE

dick: I would think that therefore you would be just as against the rhetorical pattern of the LLL blogs and the MSM reporting that hypes up anything anti-Bush and anti-US forces while claiming that they support the troops.

I am. You're either a new reader or have a bad memory. Unlike you, I think most Americans, including those in the media and the leftist blogs, "support the troops", (unless you by that mean "support whatever the president tells the troops to do"). But as one of the original "warbloggers" I have criticized leftists, anti-war protesters, and the media (particularly in Norway) for all kinds of rhetorical tricks and shameful behavior since September 11.

The problem of many Bush supporters is that they think that as long as the "other side" is worse, that gives their side a free pass, for whatever can be said about their side can be said even stronger about the other. They get away with this tactic because, usually, opinions about Bush's foreign policy falls neatly into two camps, both of which have enough dirt on the other to dismiss whatever they say without even pretending to listen. Since noone is perfect, and all camps have their raving mad idiots, you never have to take an opposing viewpoint seriously.

Well I'm not letting you get away with that. If the only kind of criticism people will listen to is the kind that comes from "their" side, then that's my task. There are a million right-wing bloggers who scrutinize those evil lefties, what's wrong with one who's against fighting terror with torture and injustice?

"Desperate apologism" is right -- the pro-Bush dittosphere have gone completely overboard trying to distract attention from Bush's callous incompetence. Have you noticed how blissfully hysterical they're getting over the "Deep Throat" revelations? Before that it was trashing Newsweek for "causing" riots in Afghanistan. And before that it was Tom DeLay and others hiding under the bed of a brain-dead woman and calling the rest of America a "culture of death." It's all in the tradition of Newt Gingrich, who blamed the "60s counterculture" for one mother's murder of her two kids, even though that mother grew up in a family and community that were solidly Republican.

I want our operations in Iraq to succeed -- what other option is there? -- and we won't succeed as long as we're "led" by a bunch of shortsighted shambling charlatans hiding behind a firewall of mindless emotion and disinformation.

PS: I notice that some people are now trying to blame Nixon's enemies for "enabling" just about every atrocity that took place in Southeast Asia after the withdrawal of US troops. Like the incompetence and naivete that led to our failure in the first place had nothing to do with the result. How much lower can they go?

You have a person who is suspected of doing something wrong. If he's guilty, we want him to be imprisoned, if he's innocent, we want him to walk free.

We're dealing with war, not crime.

I notice that some people are now trying to blame Nixon's enemies for "enabling" just about every atrocity that took place in Southeast Asia after the withdrawal of US troops.

"How do you know they're "Jihadi criminals" when they've never been put on trial?"

Follow the Hague Convention and get these military tribunals done with already. Why the wait? In the future, have these military tribunals in the field, so justice can be done on the spot. (And save taxpayers money). Allow a stay of execution for a maximum of 60 days. At which time use REAL torture to extract intelligence information. This way these Jihadi SOBs can "die with dignity". The rules simple. Even the nuanced Liberal bolts can follow.

Jeff Dege: We're dealing with war, not crime.

Huh? No, we're dealing with a group of people who, if they have done something, we want to know, so we can learn more from them and lock them up, and if they haven't done something, we want to know that too, so we can set them free. Agreed? This is an old problem, and its closest relative in daily life is .. solving crime. It's an old problem, with a tried and tested solution: Justice.

So either it's not important if those people are really terrorists, or it is, in which case we need justice. Which is it?

Mika: Allow a stay of execution for a maximum of 60 days. At which time use REAL torture to extract intelligence information.

Yes yes, I've gotten your point. Your war on terror is a very macho war on terror. Must be frustrating to have it run by those Republican whimps, then.

No, we're dealing with a group of people who, if they have done something, we want to know, so we can learn more from them and lock them up, and if they haven't done something, we want to know that too, so we can set them free. Agreed?

The jihadis consider this a war, why should we treat them as if it wasn't?

jef: The jihadis consider this a war, why should we treat them as if it wasn't?

But how do you know the people you've got locked up are jihadis? Your argument is circular.

BS:But how do you know the people you've got locked up are jihadis? Your argument is circular.

That's where the torture comes in to play isn't it?

Basically, it seems BS is afraid that the US government/military/intelligence agencies are abusing or will abuse todays imprisoment procedures to hurt innocent people, that happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If BS could get assurance that only jihadist were in fact targeted, then he would be a happy camper and have nothing against keeping these terrorists locked up without trial with their que?rans in toilets, or?

"If BS could get assurance that only jihadist were in fact targeted, then he would be a happy camper and have nothing against keeping these terrorists locked up"

uhm, isn't that the point of the trial?

"Yes yes, I've gotten your point. Your war on terror is a very macho war on terror. Must be frustrating to have it run by those Republican whimps, then."

There's nothing macho about wanting to dispense justice swiftly, and not have drag on for years or decades. Or preferring the life of our soldiers and citizens, over some Jihadi war criminal's fingers before he's executed anyway. What I don't like is this state of legal limbo, where these jihadi savages enjoy a 4 star hotel treatment in sunny Cuba. It's enough to make me want to become a Jihadi, just so I can go work on my tan. >:

keeping these terrorists locked up without trial

Prisoners of war are held until a repatriation agreement is reached with the enemy government - which usually isn't until after the end of the war.

True, the detainees at Guantanamo aren't Prisoners of War, but they're being treated pretty much as if they were.

And true, some of the detainees are not combatants, but terrorists.

The terrorists should be tried, then shot.

The non-terrorists should be held for the duration, then turned over to the Afghan, Iraqi, or Pakistani governments, as appropriate.

Jeff Dege: "They supported the communists, and worked for a communist victory."

Wrong - most liberals just wanted the US to end a military action that seemed counterproductive and unjust. Actual Communist-supporters were a loud and overblown minority within a movement that got a lot of attention but little public support.

"They should not be considered partly responsible for the actions of the communists after that victory?"

No, because they had no control over the Communist governments' actions. More responsibility lies with the US leaders who planned and executed a flawed military campaign, failed, lost the public trust, and thus enabled a Communist victory.

Blame the mistake, not the people who point it out and criticise it.

What is remarkable about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so far, is the lack of atrocities. Of course there has been some, but not in the scale of for instance French warfare in Algeria.
Abu Ghraib? Yes, and those atrocities were investigated and made public by the US armed forces.
Gitmo? Except for the koran brouhaha, it is in place to mention that the inmates are represented in US courts- courtesy of the US armed forces.
Battlefield brutality? Yes, and there has been no battlefield without some brutality since man started fighting each others. War is hell, as general Sherman once observed.

And back to French warfare in Algeria. The worst massacre in Europe in recent times took place in Paris. In 1961. Against unarmed civilian, arab, demonstrators. About 2-300 of them.
No one has yet gone to jail for this, or even been investigated.
But even claims about koran desecration in Gitmo are treated as facts.

HH:"uhm, isn't that the point of the trial?"

I do no see how the trails could change BS's opinion. He evidently does not trust US institutions. BS's arguments could also be used even if there were trials: how are we to know that the trails are just, that the juries are not rigged, that the judges are not bought, that the evidence is not faked etc.. Even if the gitmo prisoners where sent to trial, BS could still choose not to trust the US institutions, and we would be right back having this discussion..

I am willing to stake money on Amnesty International still making claims that the US abuses prisoners, if trails where in fact started tomorrow, and they would also claim the US was running gulagish trails.. Not to mention the twisted media coverage we would experience.

ch: I do no see how the trails could change BS's opinion. He evidently does not trust US institutions.

But I do - what gave you any other idea? I trust the American justice system to give suspected terrorists a fair trial. I don't trust it to perfectly discern ultimate Truth, but I trust it to approximate truth as well as any other Western justice system, using a heuristic that has been painstakingly developed over centuries.

Your alternative seems to be to throw all that experience out the window, and start relying on the gut feeling of military commanders and government officials. Back to square 1, in other words.

kjell: What is remarkable about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so far, is the lack of atrocities.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Others have done far worse, and the French massacred Algerians in 1961, which means .. that we should accept abuse and injustice? Or fight it? If we want to fight it, we should begin by listening to organizations like Amnesty, (while of course criticizing their hyperbole), not use any pretext to ignore them and paint them as evil anti-Americans.

I just dont get how violation of individual rights can be justified by pointing at Stalin, indicating he was even worse. The US has a tremendous history in defending invidual rights, and a standard far above the Saudis, the Soviets, the French, the North Koreans, the Pakistanis, Saddam, Castro to name a few of the examples in the comments so far. I was in favour of the American invasion in Iraq. Not because of oil, WMD or al-Qaida, but because I believed the invasion would lead to a better protection of individual rights to the iraqi people, and in the really long run: the growth of democracy and market economies in the Middle East, with higher living standards for Arabs and possibly lower terrorist recruitment possibilities.

The AI is criticizing the US, not because the human rights in the US are poor, they are maybe still the best in the world. However: they are deteriorating in the planets most important democracy. That is why AI mentions the US 39 times in their report, and N. Korea only once. To the world, the US practice and standards are very important. The Korean are not. They are just not comparable.

Apparently the head of Amnesty International has admitted that his reason for charging "gulag" was to get AI in the press and on TV so that AI could raise funds.

Suckers.............(who, me?)..............

Here's a new topic for discussion. What's Robert Mugabe doing in Zimbabwe and what should or can be done about it, if anything.

BS:But I do - what gave you any other idea? I trust the American justice system to give suspected terrorists a fair trial.

I am not so sure it would be fair.

First of all, admitting the rights of the citizens of the US to the enemies of US and all it stands for, seems unfair to the US citizens. It will deteriorate the importance of those rights in the eyes of the citizens, and ultimatly not be worth fighting for. Fair trails does not apply to foreigners waging war against the US.

Secondly, a normal trail is dependent on the police being able to collect evidence, they can even order people to witness, arrest people for witholding evidence or helping the criminal. How do you propose they do that in these cases, BS?

Not trusting that the US military and intelligence service are doing their job of protecting the US against foreign threats as specified by their charters, should be taken up at election time by the people, not during a war, as it will surely decrease the moral of the fighting units. Congress of course has other options...

I can't imagine the feelings of the troops that risked their lives to get the detainees to the gitmo, if they have to see the detainees go through media-circus trails, then be released for lack of evidence, since they probably didn't have time to do much forensics at the scene of the "crime".

Treating this as crime is wrong. This is war.

There is s distinct difference between a war zone and civil society. In civil society, everybody is innocent until proved guilty. A soldier on a battlefield cannot survive if he presumes everybody he sees innocent. When fighters are caught on the battlefield, the troops cannot be expected to secure admissible evidence of their guilt that would stand up in a civil court. If that course of action were pursued, the vast majority of terrorists would be sent back to kill and bomb again. In civil society we can afford the luxury of allowing almost-certainly criminals to walk free. In a war we can't.

On the other hand, irregular fighters cannot and should not be awarded all rights under the Geneva convention, which would mean they could not be interrogated. Intelligence is vital to the war, and those who fight without any respect for the laws of war should not be rewarded by this status.

It's unfortunate that like innocents are sometimes killed in war, some innocents may well be held prisoners indefinitely. But I don't see a perfect solution to the dilemma, either. Civil courts is certainly not a good solution, for the reasons I outlined above.

Wrong - most liberals just wanted the US to end a military action that seemed counterproductive and unjust. Actual Communist-supporters were a loud and overblown minority within a movement that got a lot of attention but little public support.

You need to do a bit of time looking into what has been revealed about the "peace" movement, since the collapse of the USSR.

Yes, most liberals were "useful idiots", but they were parroting propaganda written by the KGB, and accepting as legitimate organizations that were funded and staffed by the KGB.

Jan:

First of all, there is no such thing as "unlawful combatants" mentioned in the Geneva conventions.

Prisoners of war receive full protection of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; and can for instance not be tried for the mere act of being combatants. They may of course be prosecuted for common crimes unrelated to the conflict, for war crimes or for crimes against humanity.

Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. According to the 1958 International Red Cross commentary to the Conventions (and this interpretation has been confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia as late as in 1998):

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.

In short; if you are not a prisoner of war; you are a civilian criminal.

It might be worth pointing out what this understanding has been repeated by US officials, as well. The very idea of "unlawful combatants" is in breech with the Geneva conventions. This leaves us with the essential question here:

Do you think it is okay to break the conventions, or do you not?

Prisoners of war can, by the way, be interrogated, but are only required to provide their surname, first names, rank, date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under interrogation. They can be interrogated further, but can not be "threatened, insulted or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind".

Of course, things are even more complicated. The Geneva Convention and the Geneva Convention is not the same. In fact, one should use the name conventions, which is much more accurate. In addition a central document like protocol two - were non-governmental forces (guerillas, etc) are given protection, that is - they are "entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction", "collective punishments" are not acceptable and neither is "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault".

Protocol two is, however, not ratified by the United States, while it is ratified by for instance the United Kingdom.

Sorry, Jeff, that "KGB puppets" angle doesn't work. (And yes, I read the Mitrokhin Archive.) The US didn't pull out of the war because a bunch of KGB-inspired radicals made a convincing case to the general public; we pulled out of the war because body-bags started coming back to small-town America, and the ordinary bedrock silent-majority types, who never listened to the far left anyway, started wondering what their country was getting for their sacrifice. Also, don't forget that the government we were propping up was too corrupt and incompetent to stand up to a determined rebel force backed by North Vietnam, and as a result, we were never able to hold onto what we took on the battlefield. This is not to say that the VC were "better" than our guys; only that they were able to fight and govern, and our guys were not.

The US was neither equipped nor prepared for the kind of war we had to win in Vietnam; thus we lost, as fair and square as these things go. Quit blaming "useful idiots" and "KGB puppets" and face reality already. You're starting to sound like those bitter Germans who swore to their graves that Germany coulda-shoulda-woulda won WWI if only they hadn't been betrayed by weaklings who didn't think like them.

The very least I can say for Jimmy Carter, is that he never tried to blame his military failure in Iran on his critics, the media, or the Republicans.

Getting back to the torture question: do we have any meaningful evidence that this or that sort of torture is actually effective in getting useful information? And do the prisoners in our custody actually HAVE useful information?

Jan Haugland: There is s distinct difference between a war zone and civil society. In civil society, everybody is innocent until proved guilty. A soldier on a battlefield cannot survive if he presumes everybody he sees innocent.

Naturally. On the battlefield, you need quick life or death judgements. If you spend too much time thinking you die. That kind of situation, where there are people all around you who potentially wants to kill you, requires a very special kind of heuristic, one that makes the most out of the little time you have to think. It's a flawed heuristic, but it's the best one available for those circumstances.

And then there's another kind of situation, where time is not a problem, where you're not under fire, where you have a prisoner who you suspect of having done something, and you want to find out if he really did it, so that you can either get more information out of him and punish him, or set him free. This situation requires a different kind of heuristic, one that makes the most out of its particular circumstances. It's called the justice system.

Two different situations, two solutions. You can argue that the people at Guantanamo don't have the "right" to be tried in a real court, but that's entirely irrelevant. I can't believe how ignorant a lot of people are here about what the purpose of the justice system really is. The purpose is not to be nice to criminals. The justice system is not something we invented because someone thought "hey, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on those murderers and rapists". It's something we invented because it's the best way of finding out whether a suspect is guilty or not.

So the question is: Is it important to know whether the people held on Guantanamo are really guilty? Everything else follows from that.

Bjørn,
It's something we invented because it's the best way of finding out whether a suspect is guilty or not.

It is, in civil society, where we can afford to let 10 people go free rather than allow one innocent men to go to prison. In a war, we cannot allow nine out of ten (or whatever) of the suspected terrorists captured go free.

Also, in many cases the captured terrorists may not have violated domestic US laws. They were fighters of al-Qaeda, hell-bent on killing every infidel on the planet, but it still not may be illegal. Should we wait until they break a law, killing thousands of innocents?

Øyvind,

Isn't there a ban on this blog from copy & pasting large sections of text from, say, HRWs website? Why not even a link?

The Geneva Conventions are, I think, valid, but they are not a suicide pact. Sometimes the law didn't foresee some facts we have to face up to, like a war waged entirely by people that would be "civilians" by a literalistic reading of the documents. Real-life militaries have very different interpretations than "human rights" organisations.

Two examples:

1) Say a aircraft spotted Osama Bin Laden. The pilots fired, and Osama was wounded. According to the Conventions as interpreted by human rights groups, it would be illegal to shoot him again, since he now couldn't resist. You think they should not violate the convention, and thus let him slip away?

2) A small special forces group is on its way to do a very crucial mission (e.g. see above). They encounter an ememy, who propmtly surrenders. If they take him prisoner, they cannot complete the mission (and may endanger their lives); if they let him go, they would be betrayed. In real life, the special forces will execute the prisoner. This is true whether it be US, British or Norwegian special forces. This is not theoretical; it happens all the time. A violation of the Geneva conventions? You bet. But otherwise, special forces operations would hardly be possible.

I think the compromise found by the US in the war on terror, where prisoners are awarded some rights similar to, but not exactly like, prisoner of war status, is very reasonable.

Jan Haugland, Bergen . . .

"Reasonable." Ah, that's a concept that more people who argue this and that should bring into play. The treatment of prisoners at Gitmo is a compromise--similar to prisoner of war status, but not the same.

And, from what I understand, some of these prisoners give the military important information. Sometimes it takes time to get that information, however. That's where the civilian laws don't help the military, and other laws have to apply.

Jan:

I return again to my question; is it okay to break the Geneva conventions or is it not? If you think it is that has more wide-reaching implications than shooting bin Laden from planes, I am afraid.

So; yes - or no?

Øyvind

And oh, by the way - not that it is relevant to the discussion - but I have not copied large amounts of text from HRWs website. Their report on this is one of several sources I had available when writing my post.

Since this is not an academic work, but a debate on a blog I allowed myself to take a few sentences out, rewrite some other sentences, etc. I might be accused of plagiarizing them, but I do not think I care; and I doubt that they care either. As you will notice not everything I write is something they write.

If that makes me break the rules of this blog, Bjørn should point out it out, not you. And to play your trick; it is certainly worse breaking the Geneva conventions than breaking the Law of Beorn.

Øyvind

And to summarize your last post, Jan, you write: The Geneva Conventions is valid, I think, but it is reasonable to break them, of course. Make up your mind; are they valid - or are they not?

I have answered your question, Øyvind. Now you answer mine!

Øyvind, I think you are setting up a bit of a strawman.

In order to set up your question "In short; if you are not a prisoner of war; you are a civilian criminal." you cite the 1958 International Red Cross commentary to the Conventions.

While this is interesting, commentaries by the International Red Cross are not binding, and hence the binary distinction you are making is a false one. Whether the term "unlawful combatant" appears anywhere in any Geneva Convention text is also irrelevant. In each case, the Geneva text describe who is covered by the convention. I have not been able to find any catch-all phrase saying "this covers everyone not covered elsewhere" (but I am sure you will correct me, if one exists) and that the Red Cross thinks this is so does not make it so. Besides, the conventions DO specify what is meant by a "lawful combatant" and the contention therefore is that a combatant who does not qualify as a lawful combatant (and is therefore entitled to a certain set of rights) is ipso facto an "unlawful combatant (and is not).

The Third Geneva Convention deals with POWs. The Americans are arguing that the Gitmo detainees do not qualify for POW status, by a strict reading of the definition thereof.

The Fourth Convention deals with the protection of civilians in time of war.
Article 4 has the interesting clause: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

Now, before getting into a discussion of whether detainee X originally hailing from country Y, but caught fighting in Afghanistan, can still be said to be a National of country X, if he is now a de-facto member of a trans-national terror organization like al-Qaeda, it is interesting to ponder why this sentence is present. Could it possibly be because the intention of the Conventions is to confer certain rights upon those who agree to confer the same rights to others? And deny same to those so disinclined? Could it be that the whole point of the conventions is to reward humane behavior, and not inhumane? If you accord these rights to everyone, regardless of their behavior, you are in effect rewarding inhumane behavior, since there will no longer be any incentive to sign onto the conventions. The Geneva conventions are not there for us to feel good about ourselves but a carrot to mitigate the unmitigateable (is that a word?). And no carrot without a stick, with the stick obviously being the non-protection of the conventions.
But I digress...

Article 5 lists a number of cases where in effect the rights under the convention or the status of a person may be withheld or delayed until "the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power."

Now, I think it is fairly certain that the US Government does not feel that the Conventions as listed are wholly applicable or sufficient to the situation and times we live in, and they fully intend to use any ambiguity in the wording of the conventions to prosecute the war.

Jan Haugland: In a war, we cannot allow nine out of ten (or whatever) of the suspected terrorists captured go free.

You can call this war as much as you like, but the fact remains that the problem of Guantanamo is more like a judicial problem than a battlefield problem. There are no bullets flying. There is no army surrounding you. Just some people you want to know whether are terrorists or not. The war on terror is abstract, only a part of it is actual warfare. This has nothing to do with whether one should invade countries that protect terrorists or talk sternly to them, it's a factual description of the challenges we're faced with.

Guantanamo is a judicial problem, but of course you may say that locking up terrorists is so important that the balance of evidence must be shifted so that very few guilty terrorists are ever set free, at the cost of imprisoning innocent people. But why apply this only to terrorism? Some crimes are more serious than others, and some of them I would rank as just as bad as being a member of terrorist organization. By your logic, the more serious the crime, the less important it is to protect the innocently accused. Justice becomes a privilege we grant to lesser criminals, it comes a way of being nice.

But that's upside down. The legal process is a way to acquire knowledge. And the alternative to knowledge is ignorance. Your "nine out of ten" number is imaginary, we don't have a way of observing the false positive/negative balance. There's no dialog box where you can tweak the settings. All we have is a process that has been finetuned over centuries to convict criminals and let the innocent go free.

And we have an alternative: Just let the government grab who they like and say they're terrorists. There's only one reason to choose that method, and that's if you don't care that innocent people are being held imprisoned indefinitely. There's no "nine out of ten" number to hold on to, just the knowledge that you're not making an effort to ensure that innocent people are set free. You seem to be able to live with that. But then, you're in no danger. Neither are most Americans. So I guess it doesn't matter.

They were fighters of al-Qaeda, hell-bent on killing every infidel on the planet, but it still not may be illegal.

So make it illegal. Or give them a fair trial in a military court. That's not a problem, it's an excuse, and a poor one. It's the method that matters, more than the legal context it is applied in.

BS:The justice system is not something we invented because someone thought "hey, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on those murderers and rapists". It's something we invented because it's the best way of finding out whether a suspect is guilty or not.

No, it is something we invented to keep from giving the judical power to the legislative power. If you remember that old story about spliting the power three ways and so on, to ensure minimal power abuse...

It is an institution which sole purpose is to ensure that the rights of the citizens are respected, both by other citizens and the government.

A court case with a jury is a civilized way of determining if a citizen's rights should be revoked, in the case were he has not respected the rights of another or other citizens in a civilized society.

The best way to find out if a suspect is guilty or not is probably lie-detector tests combined with drugs and/or torture.

BS believes the gitmo deteainees should be counted among the citizens of the civilized society and adorned with the rigths that entail.
I do not, and it might be my ignorance of the purpose of the justice system that makes me think BS is doing the justice system a bear-service.

The answer is simple, Jan Haugland. In my opinion the present rules - that is the Geneva conventions and other international law, in addition to US Law (in this case), are good.

Breaking the conventions, international law or US Law is not good, regardless of who or what the criminals are.

Osama bin Laden can hardly be seen as taking part in armed forces as of the Geneva conventions (and one would have to stretch Protocol II to the extreme to say that he would be given a POW status under it). In other words - he is a criminal. Like other criminals, he should be apprehended, put on trial and - I dare believe - convicted.

Even for a dreamy socialist like me it somehow seems likely force will have to be a part of that apprehension. In cases where police forces, or those doing police functions, meet force, they are - according to International Law and US Law, perfectly justified in using force themselves.

They are however not perfectly justified in willingly killing defenseless people. There is nothing making special forces special in that connection.

To walk away from the Geneva conventions because you feel morally superior means that others can also do the same because they feel morally superior. To walk away from the Geneva conventions because something is "crucial", means that others can also do the same because they think something is "crucial". They can employ the same arguments as you, Jan Haugland, and they will.

That is a gate I do not wish to open.

You do. Then at least you should have the guts to say it out loud, clearly and with conviction: "I believe it is justifiable to break the Geneva conventions". Instead you wrap it in all kinds of weird claims, like the one saying that "real-life militaries" understand that the Geneva conventions do not say what they are saying.

In my eyes, Jan Haugland, that is a show of cowardice in your otherwise macho war on terror.

Øyvind

The US didn't pull out of the war because a bunch of KGB-inspired radicals made a convincing case to the general public; we pulled out of the war because body-bags started coming back to small-town America, and the ordinary bedrock silent-majority types, who never listened to the far left anyway, started wondering what their country was getting for their sacrifice.

You are, as is usual, glossing over about three years of very important history.

We pulled out in 1971 and 1972 - South Vietnam fell in 1975.

The Communists didn't win because the US had withdrawn ground troops. They won because in 1974 the US Congress cut off all support, funding, and equipment.

In 1972, South Vietnam defeated a massive ground invasion by the North, with the US providing air support only.

In 1975, South Vietnam was defeated by a much smaller and more poorly organized ground invasion by the North - they were short of supplies, spare parts, replacement equipment, had no air support, and they knew that the Democrat-controlled Congress had tossed them to the wolves.

If the US had provided the support it had pledged to, by treaty, the 1975 invasion would have failed.

But the leftists who'd taken over the Democratic Party didn't want it to fail. They wanted the Communists to win.

Soren:

Sorry, mac, but there is no strawman. As it is stated in my post above:

"This interpretation has been confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia as late as in 1998. [It has also] been repeated by US officials".

The interpretation of the American government might have changed; since they like Jan Haugland seem somewhat unwilling to admit that they have abandoned parts of the Conventions. But the interpretation quoted above is the most widely accepted one, with both judicial precedent and political support.

If you are not a lawful combatant according to the Geneva conventions you are a criminal. In that case you are subject to criminal law. This is the case for many of the people in Guantanamo; and they are therefore, according to International and US Law, entitled to a fair trial. Prisoners of war have another set of rights, but to take both set of rights away and pretend like you are still following the Geneva conventions is nothing but dishonest.

"Now, I think it is fairly certain that the US Government does not feel that the Conventions as listed are wholly applicable or sufficient to the situation and times we live in"

Agreed. And that is why they are occasionally breaking it. Because that is what they are doing. Breaking it, not interpreting it differently.

Øyvind

Geneva convention is nice , fancy and schmanzy and appropriate for 'conventional ' warfare....terrorists are another breed...this post by adamyoshida says it all.....his opinion: terrorists are malevolent creature and need to be wiped out - geneva convention nothwithstanding. ---->

www.adamyoshida.com/2004/12/ terrorists-are-enemies-of-human-race.html

I am sure dreamy socialists in perpetual state of stupor can even appreciate that ? hmmmm????

Sister Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
Totally lucid and bewildered kuntry girl

Via Instapundit, Kurtz works for the Washington Post as media critic, I think.

Howard Kurtz: "Excuse me, but did Schulz say that it's okay to unleash words like 'gulag,' even if it's not an 'exact or literal analogy,' because it gets him booked on Fox News? Is that the new standard? Yes, Chris, I called the president a war criminal because it was the only way I could get on Hardball?"

And thank you John Kerry and Viet Nam Vets Against the War.

General Piap wrote about it in his book.

VVAW were voting on whether or not to assassinate senators to start the Revolution.

By God!
Looks like Bjørn has learned quite a bit from reading the slightly more US-Skeptic blog «norvegia».

Next thing you know, he'll be admitting that the top brass Neocon assholes were in on the 9/11 mass slaughter of Americans, and that they should hang for this.

Jeff:

In 1972, South Vietnam defeated a massive ground invasion by the North, with the US providing air support only.

In 1975, South Vietnam was defeated by a much smaller and more poorly organized ground invasion by the North...

That kinda seems to prove my point: if the North came back to win, after being defeated in 1972, then that '72 "victory" doesn't count for much, does it? If you have to keep "winning" the same battles over and over again, are you really winning anything?

One North vietnamese officer put it best with this question: if our side was "winning," as we so feverishly insist we were, why did we have to keep sending more troops and capital to keep up the fight year after year?

Bjørn,

I accept that you now believe that the war on terror should be fought through law enforcement and civil courts. I, however, strongly disagree. On a battlefield, there are different rules than in civil society.

Øyvind,

Even though you appeare to have dodged the question, you seem to say that if a pilot had a shot at a wounded Bin Laden, he should not open fire since it would be a violation of the Geneva conventions (for a pilot, I had hoped it needless to say, capturing a person on the ground is hardly an option).

As I said, laws and conventions are not suicide pacts. I am no scholar of int'l law (neither are you!), but for the sake of argument we can assume that we may have come to a situation where a very literalistic reading of the Geneva convention would force the US to free almost all prisoners in the WoT. Instead of doing such an insane thing, I will argue we should think "this is something the drafters hadn't ever considered. Let us apply the principles of the law as reasonable as we can in the circumstances."

Norvegia: Looks like Bjørn has learned quite a bit from reading the slightly more US-Skeptic blog «norvegia».

Nah, I stopped reading your blog when you started lying to your readers. But that's another discussion.

Jan Haugland: I accept that you now believe that the war on terror should be fought through law enforcement and civil courts.

Oh come on. My position on this is not difficult to explain. The war on terror has many fronts, a few of them are real wars, where battlefield justice applies. But to apply battlefield justice outside the battlefield, where there's a so much smarter system available to us, is lazy and wrong. The only reason to do so is if you don't value the innocent victims very highly, if you think that, on the margin, getting a few more terrorists locked up are worth a few civilians being imprisoned and tortured.

I don't think it does, and that has nothing to do with whether terror should be primarily fought in court. Neither of us believe Guantanamo is a battlefield. The difference is merely that you want to apply battlefield justice to it, and I don't.

Bjørn: Nah, I stopped reading your blog when you started lying to your readers. But that's another discussion.

Oh, come on, Bjørn. You know as well as I that «lying» and who lies is extremely dependent on one's perspective.

You are of course referring to a group that uses fear and terror to increase their power in society, namely the ESAG front group, that refuses to say who really funds all the TV and newspaper ads.

All we did at «norvegia» at the time was to quote other people, every day we quoted other people from around the web, and this very day we quoted some thoughts about ESAG and its money men from a post at the Norwegian anti-new-NATO mailinglist.

These thoughts are still thoughts, and will always be thoughts, even if proven wrong, which they haven't been as of yet.

You cannot remove another blogger's right to cite other people, no matter how mad you are or how much you listen to US rightwing talk radio.

BS:"Neither of us believe Guantanamo is a battlefield. The difference is merely that you want to apply battlefield justice to it, and I don't."

The battle does not end because you remove people from the battlefield to interrogate them, the terrorists do not suddenly recieve any new rights by removing them from the battlefield.

If the guantanmo interregation center was located in falluja, it would be ok?

Øyvind,

"This interpretation has been confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia as late as in 1998. [It has also] been repeated by US officials".

The Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia had a strictly defined mandate to deal with the situation in - wait for it - Former Yugoslavia. Whatever their pronouncements, they are valid and binding only so far as it relates to Former Yugoslavia. In the same fashion we do not cite legal arguments at Nuremberg except where they are incorporated into the Geneva Conventions, and thereby made universal. I am unaware of which US officals you are referring to, but unless they happen to include the President, Attorney General or Defense Secretary of the United States, I don't see how statements by US officials are all that interesting given that the official policy is at odds with this interpretation. If they DO happen to include one of the three, I will grant you that it is quite interesting and would be a prime example of hypocrisy in action.

Your case is still based on the opinion on the International Red Cross and some jurists. Interesting, maybe even reasonable, but hardly binding. The loophole, if one may call it that is that the text of the conventions leaves the status of the detainees in legal limbo until their exact status has been determined. The US government is taking its own sweet time in making that determination. You can say that this is at odds wiht the spirit of the conventions, but not the letter.

Now, Bjørn is obviously of the opinion that what we want is to determine whether or not the detainees are guilty of something (of what I am uncertain) or innocent. I disagree. While it is of course necessary to find out if any of them have taken part in any of the terror attacks, that is no longer the prime motivator. What is really interesting is whether or not these people are going to continue to fight or not. Taking their word for it is clearly not an option since everyone (possibly except the truly stupid) will proclaim that they are quite peaceful. But letting someone go who might very well return to (or go on to participate in) terrorism would be criminally irresponsible.

And there you have it. Bjørn seems content to release everyone not clearly indictable and wait until some of them turn up in some horrific attack. The argument seems to be that since the (major) fighting in Afghanistan is over, we should return to our peacetime law enforcement paradigm. But the people we are worried about are not people who consider themselves or their cause defeated, and they are not likely to alter their actions just because the Taliban are no longer in control in Kabul. They are still at war.

I don't think there is a happy resolution, but my thinking is that incarceration for the duration is the better option. We cannot read minds. We cannot know for sure. Some people have been released and it turns out that a few of these DID go back to their old ways. Oops. My guess is that the risk of avoiding more of these incidents is more important to the administration than keeping some former enemy combatants incarcerated for a few more years. Bjørn keeps talking about determining guilt or innocence. These are concepts entirely within the law enforcement paradigm. Guilty of what? Innocent of what (to paraphrase Stalin)? The people in Guantanamo did not magically appear in Cuba. They were captured in Afghanistan, and the ones deemed to be the most hardcore, the most dangerous were sent to Gitmo. While it is possible for someone to be there who had nothing whatsoever to do with anything, I think it is fairly safe to say that the detainees were at one time combatants.

As for the incidents of abuse these are deeply troubling, and I very much doubt that the detainees have a whole lot of valuable information left after being locked up for a couple of years, so I fail to see the point of continuing to interrogate these people.

Still, on the whole I am fairly satisfied that the US military is taking action to curb the worst excesses, and what I perceive as an unhealthy fixation on (mostly) minor cases of abuse by the media is probably influencing me to be more lenient in my views than I would otherwise be.

Hello,
I have a small think to tell you… the western world is very strong and developed now, especially USA, you know why, because you start with the democratise and democratise mean that we do what the majority want! This small concept can make miracle and do only the best thing for any country! But now we see that western world start to lose this concept and automatically it’s the start of the degradation! I said that this war which is not the will of the majority!
Sorry about my bad English, it’s my third language!
Bye!

Soren: Guilty of what? Innocent of what (to paraphrase Stalin)?

«Innocent of what?» That's a good one!

The fascinating thing about this whole militaristic adventure called «The War of Terror» (WOT?!) is that it remains totally faith-based.

You either believe in all the Pentagon and their parrots tell you, or you dismiss it all as rumors, Hörensagen and «secret evidence».

If you're not a True Believer of bushism, you pay attention to what Amnesty International has to say, what the Red Cross International Committee points out, and so on. And you maintain that a crime that killed 2800 Americans should somehow be investigated like any mass murder case, and investigated by someone who's not among the main suspects (the neocons and the intelligence apparatus).

Insofar as there hasn't been a real investigation of the crimes of New York City and Virginia, there was no reason to invade Afghanistan. And Iraq we all know had none of the WMDs the liars told us and the UN Security Council about.

And following that thread, it can be argued that the miserable prisoners at Gitmo Fun Camp are all totally innocent and there just to flesh up the «muslim terrorist» bone, and that they would never think of committing a terrorist act if it wasn't for all the torture and mistreatment and yank camp guards pissing on their wholy books.

And when all of this starts breaking through in the disgusting US media, and in the increasingly disgusting European and Western media, all the mass murderers have to do is have Israel launch a nuke attack on Iran, «for fear that Iran may have the nuke in a decade or so».

It's utterly laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that it's so incredibly dangerous and real.

norvegia, what are you talking about?

Besides, have you been paying attention to UNMOVIC lately?

The dual-use WMD components which were never there at 109 sites -- because Saddam never had WMD -- might have actually left Iraq before the war. Which is a "duh" statement cos a lot of stuff showed up in European and other scrap yards.

They've been analyzing satellite photos.

Jan:

"very literalistic reading of the Geneva convention would force the US to free almost all prisoners in the WoT".

Bullshit. They would have to treat them like criminals, because that is what most of them are (with the exception of genuine prisoners of war from the armies of Afghanistan and Iraq, that is).

That means a lot of things. Amongst other things it means giving them the right to a fair trial. That means you will have to put trust in the judicial system, as Bjørn points out the best system we have got for these cases. Putting trust in the judicial system is not the same as "having to free most of the prisoners". If that was the case; then something would be seriously wrong about how easy you can become a prisoner in the War on Terror. Of course, we have heard about Afghan cab drivers and peaceful Iraqian family fathers, but I would like to think those are the exception and not the rule.

It seems like you prefer to break the Geneva conventions and US Law and keep innocents prisoned, because it is somehow fair to imprison innocents in the war on Terror, and somehow a mistake to give suspected criminals the right to a fair trial.

You seem to think there is something new to this situation allowing us to not only purposefully kill defenseless people, but also to imprison innocent people and refusing criminals a fair trial.

To quote a novel by H.P.Lovecraft, Jan, "do not call upon what you can not put down".

Øyvind

Norvegia: You cannot remove another blogger's right to cite other people, no matter how mad you are or how much you listen to US rightwing talk radio.

Of course you have the right to be silent about your own mistakes, even one as large as quoting a fake news story. But why then should anyone read you?

ch: The battle does not end because you remove people from the battlefield to interrogate them, the terrorists do not suddenly recieve any new rights by removing them from the battlefield.

When you leave the battlefield and wait three years, I think it is safe to say the battle has ended. Not the overall war, but the battle. No bullets flying on Guantanamo, last I heard. Of course you meant "battle" metaphorically, but the battlefield justice you want to use is very much not metaphorical. And by the way, I haven't said a word about the legal rights of these prisoners. They could have no more legal rights than a mosquito but they'd still be humans, and battlefield justice would still be a lousy way of determining whether they really are terrorists.

If the guantanmo interregation center was located in falluja, it would be ok?

During and right after a battle, sure. Three years later, no.

Oyvind Your idea that terrorists are criminals and should have a fair trial effectively makes this a law and order issue. Under your view it would appear that anyone wearing a uniform or not is subject to the judicial process. At some point I would guess that you would favor giving Miranda warnings to terrorists. The fact is that terrorists, by their own definition are at war with the US and secular society. The rules as originally promulgated dealt with conflict between nations. If you want to change the rules, then have the rules changed, but now terrorists do not have criminal rights. In my view that is correct. Indeed I would go further and take the position that they are outside of “society” and should be treated like a plague bacterium. They and their families are fair game. Indeed, it was once the story that when a white flag was put forth so people could talk and the envoys were murdered, the Romans responded by killing every soldier and their women and children. The result is now a white flag is respected world wide. Attacks on civilians should result in the same response.

Herbie,

Excellent observation. This is exactly what AdamYoshida has been opining all along:

www.adamyoshida.com/2004/12/ terrorists-are-enemies-of-human-race.html

to quote him:

".....By worrying about “abuse” and the “human rights” of terrorists we are, to a great extent, treating them like they’re ordinary criminals. By housing them in clean cells at Guantanamo and taking care to abide by the absurd standards of various international human rights conventions, we are according them a status that they do not deserve and we are twisting our own perceptions.

To be ultimately successful the Global War on Terrorism must be a war of extermination...."

"....We need to breach the artificial wall that now seems to separate the military and “civilian” side of Islamism, for it is the civil side: the radical Imams, the shops which sell Islamist propaganda and the web sites which store Islamist videos which feed the military side. The shelf-life of people in the military wing of Islamism is short......"

".....In order to truly destroy Islamism, we need to start blowing up the Mosques which are used to preach hate and recruit. We need to shoot in the streets the supposedly “peaceful” Imams and Professors who, from all over the Islamic world, recruit men for Jihad......"

and further-----

".....Remember: cash goes a long way in the Moslem world. It wouldn’t be at all hard for a few dozen operatives, with access to hundreds of millions of dollars in clean American $20 bills, to do a lot of damage.

I don’t imagine it would be at all hard to find a gang of Pakistani thugs willing to burn down Madrassas in the dead of the night in exchange for a few hundred dollars each. I don’t know what the going rate is: but I’ll bet that a million dollars will buy at least twenty-five murders in most of the Moslem world......."

Now don't you think that makes more sense than all this hoopla about geneva conventions eh???? ....the last recommendation above by adam yoshida to smite down the peddlers of terrorism ought to make all those western apologistes, leftologistes, and dreamy sosjialistes foam at the mouth with righteous indicknation tee heeeee.

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
"what is the sound of one hand slapping ;) - zen ko'an "
Specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults
危險宗教崇拜專家

Herbie: Indeed I would go further and take the position that they are outside of “society” and should be treated like a plague bacterium.

So you want to treat terrorists bad. Fine. But how do you know they're terrorists?

I don't think it does, and that has nothing to do with whether terror should be primarily fought in court. Neither of us believe Guantanamo is a battlefield. The difference is merely that you want to apply battlefield justice to it, and I don't.

Bjørn, Guantanamo is a prison for illegal combattants, equivalent to but not exactly the same as a prisoner of war prison.

If the prisoners were awarded POW status, they could not be interrogated. That is, they could be asked questions, but had no obligation to answer them. The US would be precluded from awarding those who cooperated and punishing those who did not. And, no, I am absolutely not talking about torture. I am talking about incentives and rewards, as used all over the world in the legal system.

That Guantanamo Bay is not a battlefield is irrelevant. POW camps are designated outside battlefields to protect prisoners, according to the laws of war. A POW remains imprisoned for the duration of the war, not only the battle. Illegal combattants, like legal ones, of course should not be released while there is still a strong risk they would go back to fight.

If they were considered criminal prisoners, all but a handful would have to be released immediately. You obviously don't realise that the domestic laws of the US are created for the US, and not intended for warriors in a faraway country. And, I have to remind you, writing new laws to use against past crimes is unconstitutional.

We deal with the real, imperfect world here, for which existing, imperfect laws didn't fit. What you propose is a recipe for a disaster, effectively arguing the immediate release of hundreds of the most dangerous people in the world.

And, as I have repeated countless times, I am absolutely opposed to torture, and you implying otherwise is unbecoming of you. I believe these monsters should be treated humanely, and I hope and believe that the military tribunals will be able to release anyone that may be innocent yet are imprisoned at Guantanamo (if such people exist).

This is a couple of weeks old, but still highly relevant to this discussion...

Amnesty International Wants U.S. Officials Arrested and Investigated

Governments should arrest any official who enters
their territory and begin legal proceedings against them," said William Shulz, executive director of the U.S. branch of the international human rights agency.

By Bob Dart

Amnesty International USA urged foreign governments Wednesday to use international law to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other alleged American "architects of torture" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other prisons where detainees suspected of ties to terrorist groups have been interrogated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8956.htm
http://snipurl.com/f70k

Jan Haugland:

You are wrong. Prisoners of war can be interrogated. In fact they have also been interrogated in a number of wars the United States have taken part in, without that being in violation with the Geneva accords.

They are obligated to give a certain amount of information, stated above, but are not to be threatened, tortured or pressured to give information. That does not mean they can not be interrogated. This is for instance pointed out quite clearly by Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice in the United States and a former Coast Guard lawyer:

The prisoners can be interrogated, but the prisoner only has to respond to four questions: It's the familiar name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. Beyond that, you cannot bring undue pressure on a prisoner of war by means of withholding food or other requirements of living.

Prisoners of war can be interrogated, they can be charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity or other crimes, they can be cajoled, they can be questioned. As this this article points out:

The Geneva Convention does allow POWs to limit their responses to name, rank, and serial number. Yet over the years many POWs, questioned under the framework of the convention, have provided much more information.

Thus, it was no breech of the Geneva conventions when Iraqi forces interrogated American POWs under the first Gulf War, but it was a violations when they were beaten as a part of interrogations.

However, this is not even relevant for most of the prisoners on Guantanamo, except for instance Taliban fighters that may or may not be considered legal combatants, depending on interpretation of the Afghan situation pre-invasion. Since the United States has not ratified Protocol II they are not obliged to treat guerilla forces in the same manner as national forces (the Brits, however, are). That is not the issue at hand, Jan.

The issue at hand is what rights the people imprisoned at Guantanamo who are not prisoners of war, in my opinion most of them, have. These people are in fact suspected criminals, there simply is no such group as "unlawful combatant" that are not also "suspected criminals"; that is even the very meaning of "unlawful". According to international and United States law they are entitled to a fair trial. In addition they are not to be put under undue pressure, not to be tortured, et cetera.

To walk away from that is a violation of the Geneva conventions and, more importantly, of both US law and international law in general.

Herbie:

Fine, Herbie, at least you have the guts to admit that you want to treat people as something less than people. Now, will you admit that this includes people that are possibly innocent?

Or will you go on pretending that everyone internated by US forces anywhere are in fact guilty of criminal acts and can be imprisoned indefinitely without law and without verdict?

Actually you do say that the families of terrorists, who definitely may be one hundred percent innocent, are "fair game", so I guess you have stated your opinion clearly enough. Seemingly, you think it is okay to imprison, torture and kill possible innocents. In addition you support collective punishment.

When Søren paraphrased Stalin above I thought to myself, "now - isn't that ironic?". Apparently I was wrong. It is not ironic at all. The ideas you state above are not American, not patriotic, not democratic. They are - in lack of a better name - fascist.

Kim Sook-Im:

Yeah, I mean, to read something as "intelligent" as that from a man who blames W. Mark Felt for basically every thing bad in the world really pisses me off.

Apparently, W. Mark Felt is to blame not only for 911, but also for the invasion of Afghanistan, the fact that South Vietnam is not free (was it free before the Vietnam war?), for Pol Pot, Iran-Contra and the Clinton Impeachment, and this impressive political analysis leaves me nothing but baffled and humiliated.

Hail to Yoshida! He must be the Eleventh of the Gurus!

Øyvind

Norvegia:

Well, that is just lovely. I guess I missed the part where similar action was urged against Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, and their ilk? Oh, you mean AI does not consider them to be sufficiently evil to warrant disregarding the established rules of diplomatic immunity?

This is, if possible, even more stupid than calling Gitmo a gulag. This is stupidity so dense it warps time and space.

But it sure is going to be popular with a certain unmentionable subset of people, that's for sure.

Øyvind,

No, you are wrong. You must think everybody here is unable to read the text for themselves.

Article 17: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Of course, you are also wrong on substance. These terrorists are not combattants under the Geneva conventions. They don't meet the criteria in Article 4 by any stretch of the imagination. Giving these monsters POW status is a reward that would set a dangerous precendent.

Oyvind. Yes, I believe that it may be appropriate to kill innocent people, just as the Romans did to establish the sanctity of a flag of truce. You don’t. You are prepared to give t4erroists the right to act as they will, homicide bombings, beheadings using children and yur response is what try them. No my response is the Roman response a response so hard and cruel and potentially devastating that the terrorist will understand tht in committing those acts that he put his family and tribe in danger of annihilation. Do you have any doubt that if terrorists were strong enough that they would not annihilate the US or Great Britain. I don’t. You do.

Oyvind a lot of mispellings so I corected them and added a few thoughts:

Yes, I believe that it may be appropriate to kill innocent people, just as the Romans did to establish the sanctity of a flag of truce. You don’t. You are prepared to give terroists the right to act as they will: homicide bombings, beheadings, using children; your response is what: try them. No, my response is the Roman response a response so hard and cruel and potentially devastating that the terrorist will understand that in committing those acts that he put his family and tribe in danger of annihilation. Do you have any doubt that if terrorists were strong enough that they would not annihilate the US or Great Britain. I don’t. You do.

You live in a nice and clam world . I would surmise you have never been in combat. If you had been you would never forget it. In a hand to hand fight you do anything to survive: gouge eyes, tear noses open with your fingers, bit ears -- throw an “wounded” enemy in front of you to avoid a bullet -- there is only one person that will leave alive. That apparently is OK since it is one on one. It is not OK if there is not a trial according to you. Your rights exist because of people who did gouge out eyes. I would be just as happy if you hung out a sign: " I will only fight back if I am convinced the terrorist is guilty and then only to bring him or her to trial." I will in turn hang out a sign “Fuck with me and I kill you and your family.” Now take a vote and see who wants to stand behin d each sign -- not as a theoretical exercise, but as a matter of reality. This is not a police or law and order issue this really is a war

The jihadist who are fighting us in this war firmly believe that it's their holy duty to kill infidels, and if they themselves are killed, they will go straight to Heaven where 72 virgins are waiting for them. For me, this sound like madness, and I think it's overdue for the psychiatry to examine these people's sick minds. May be they will find that these people are suffering from some kind of psychosis, or may be they find that their mental decease don't fit into any of psychiatry's present diagnosis, and they have to come up with a new one. May I suggest Jihadiosis.

Anyhow, I am sure they will find that the people who are suffering from this disease, are the very most dangerous people on earth, and should be locked up until cured. A cure might be hard to find so indefinite confinement might be the only solution.

This would solve the Guantanamo problem. After being examined by a psychiatrist, and found suffering from jihadiosis, a court would have no options but to sentence them to compulsory treatment in a mental hospital.

And is it possible to find a better place to treat this very ill people than Guantanamo mental hospital?

Peer, instead of floridated water, they need prozac water.

--Amnesty International Wants U.S. Officials Arrested and Investigated

Governments should arrest any official who enters
their territory and begin legal proceedings against them," said William Shulz, executive director of the U.S. branch of the international human rights agency.

---
ahhh, yes, what would President Cheney do?

AI has jumped the shark.

BTW, you guys do know they used "gulag" deliberately to get noticed, don't you?

ch,
When tripartition of power was first enshrined in the US constitution, courts of justice had existed for millennia and had been refined to pretty much their current form centuries ago. The court system was not created for the purpose of dividing power. The Supreme Court was endowed with this responsibility, exactly because people had great trust in the courts of law. The partition of power could have been very different and still effective. Power could have been given to the Church, or to the Press, for instance. This is unlikely to happen now, since the tripartition turned out to be a success. But the court system was not originally invented as a countermeasure to government, but as a way to dispense justice.

I voice no opinon on whether it is worse to lock up people forever than to shoot them forever. I just think history should be remembered correctly, lest we repeat it needlessly.

Herrro Oeyvind,

YO(shi)DA's opinion is indeed very sane and reasonable when you are engaging an enemy who does not play by the rules of civilization. If a rabid animal were to lunge at you, would you consider all the niceties of 'convention' before deciding to take action , or would you do the necessary thing to ensure self - preservation??? hmmmmm?

As you so aptly indicated his is the enlightened opinion of a Maha Guru - Guru Nanak's mayhaps? ;)

May the Force be with HIM :)

Sister Ayesha NyahNyahPonika Kim
Zzzzen at Hwar
위험한 사교 전문가

Some hard cases on this site. Herbie, have you experienced combat?

But very well, if you don't trust Amnesty to be fair, who do you trust? Me, I'd trust the American justice system to give the prisoners at Guantanamo what they deserve. So why isn't that happening?

How do you know they're "Jihadi criminals" when they've never been put on trial?

Bjorn, You have really come a long way from your outrage after 9/11. You also seem unusually ignorant in this case. No insult intended. The normal result in this situation is military trials. Bush wants this to proceed but: (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/7/110446.shtml).

The USMJ system IS part of the american justice system. By all evidence, it's extraordinarily fair. The USMJ is held in really high esteem here.

The idea that enemy combatants are entitled to the protections that US citizens receive inside the US is ludicrous. No US citizens could possibly be sent to Gitmo.

These enemy combatants are not POWs, since they don't qualify, but they are treated well, while my children are spared the fate that they would surely inflict on us.

Ahhh, here it comes, Herbie.

If we only knew, we wouldn't.

Wait for awhile, BigBen, it could be coming to a movie theatre or supermarket near you.

What are you willing to give up to get along? What's you line in the sand before you say enough?

Or are you willing to give up all your beliefs and rights?

Jan:

First of all; the quote from the convention says precisely the same thing as I have said above, and precisely the same thing as I have quoted Eugene Fidell on. The rules are quite clear, you can not deny people food, you can not torture them, you can not beat them, you can not threathen them. You can however interrogate them. They are obliged to give a certain amount of information, but can not be forced to give more.

That is, if they are prisoners of war. Of course, I have never claimed that most Guantanamo prisoners are POWs. Apparently you were not able to read for yourself what I write, or actually - that is probably just what you did. You made up your mind of what my opinion had to be, and then you stopped reading.

I have repeatedly stated that most of them are not POWs. One possible exception is Taliban fighters, who might or might no be considered as POWs, depending on interpretation (the U.S. State Department interpretation being that Afghanistan as a "failed state" could not be considered a high contracting party of the Geneva conventions). Another exception would be guerilla fighters, but that is not valid for the US, since they have not ratified Protocol II.

Most of the prisoners on Guantanamo are suspected criminals. There is a number of crimes they are suspected of; murder, conspiracy of murder and terrorism being amongst them. These are, if I am not mistaken, illegal acts in both the United States and pretty much the rest of the world. Now, here is the thing with suspected criminals, Jan - they might be what you refer to as monsters. But then on the other hand; there is a risk that they are not. There is a risk that they are innocent.

That is up to the court system to decide. Just as any other suspected criminal these suspected criminals are entitled to be charged with recognazible crimes and to a fair trial. Why? Because that is how a civilized, democratic society does it. Imprisoning people in camps for an indefinite amount of time with neither law nor trial is not. Why should civilized societies act like this? If you think long and hard, you might come up with some ideas yourself, Jan. Bjørn has already pointed out one central thing. Although this system is flawed, it is simply the best way we've got.

Herbie:

That's right, Herbie. People did gouge out eyes to defend us. Amongst the things they fought against where ideas like yours; ideas that innocent people can be willfully killed to reach some higher purpose, ideas about collective punishment being a fair method.

Terrorists are criminals. They should be apprehended, charged and convicted. To do that I am quite convinced that battlefields must be entered; and on the battlefield the rules are different. But when the battle is over, the smoke is gone and the prisoners taken are flown thousands of miles away - the terrorists are still criminals; who should be charged and convicted.

Your idea is to kill the family members of terrorists. After the battle is over and the body of Abu Badass is found you want to send of combat helicopters to bomb the village where Abu Badass lived. You are the one who wants to kill children and innocent people, because it is supposedly a good tactics.

In Norway, we have experienced your kind of tactics. It was used by the Germans during the Second World War, for instance in a little village not far from where I come from, the little village of Telavåg. In the early stages of the war some of the villagers where engaged in the resistance movement, helping to smuggle fugitives over to the Shetland Isles. In April 1942 the Germans caught wind that Martha and Lauritz Telle were hiding two men from the Linge resistance company, Arne Værum and Emil Hvaal. The Germans raided the Telle farmhouse and a gunbattle took place. Værum and two high-ranking SS-men got killed.

The Germans struck back through the use of collective punishment. The village was blown up. All the men between 15 and 66 were sent to the Grini prison camp, where two were executed. The rest were sent off to Sachsenhausen, where dozens of them died. Of course, not only was this cruel and inhumane, it was also totally unsuccessful. The Telavåg incident did not weaken the Norwegian resistance; it became a symbol.

People are not that different around the world, Herbie. What you have forgotten is what Colin Powell so excellently pointed out in his memoirs that Americans (and I am sure, Europeans), so often forget:

McFarlane, now in Beirut, persuaded the President to have the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey start hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion. What we tend to overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we would... And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target, the exposed Marines at the airport.

Terrorists are of course perfectly aware of this, Herbie. They gain support through using stories about the atrocities of their enemy - that is the United States.

Osama bin Laden:
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy...

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

Do you want to give that man Telavågs to talk about, Herbie? Really?

Øyvind

Oyvind,

I stand by my position. Terrorists killed over 3,000 innocent Americans in 9/11 and hundrerds in Indonesia. Those acts, in my view, were outside the bounds of civilized society and teeorosits must be forced to face the fact that the response will be that their own are at risk. The response should be equal and overwhelming. I am not prepared to participate in a situation where my enemy is free to use both hands and I must fight with one tied behind my back. We are not dealing with an attack on an organized military force by insurgents/terrorists, if we were my response would be different. We are dealing with an attack on women and children by terrorists. Your response is that we should capture them and try them. Lebanon is relevant but not for the reason yo propose. When the US did stand off and shell the Bka valley it was over the objection of Sec. of State George Shultz who was of the view that we should have flatted the valley. At that time the response of Hamas to the shelling was that Americans were cowards, terrorism worked and Americans had no stomach to respond as Hanmas would have -- which would have been to annihilate the enemy.

You may wish a police force; I wish it to stop and am prepared to make it as horribly painful as possible until it does or there are no more left to kill. Your response, in some ways, is admirable in its “morality”. My response is that I don’t wish it written on my tombstone that I sacrificed my family for the sake of a “higher value”. You wish to accept that risk, I will not.

Herbie: "Terrorists killed over 3,000 innocent Americans in 9/11 and hundreds in Indonesia. [They] must be forced to face the fact that the response will be that their own are at risk".

Osama bin Laden: "We should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children".

To have "both hands free" to you apparently means to become a terrorist yourself. Becoming a terrorist is of course a quite brilliant way to win the war on terror. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

By the way, Hamas is a Palestinian group, not founded before 1987. The Lebanese group called Party of God, Hezb Allah, was founded five years earlier. The two groups have a few similarities, like their common hatred for Israel and their theocratic ideas, but they should not be confused; as they are in fact quite different on a long number of areas.

Øyvind

Oyvind,
I am of the view that we did not start this horror. You apparently are prepared to give equal weight to each view. I am not. My view does not presuppose that I will get 72 virgins (I should be so lucky) nor does my view rest on any purported religious imperative. My view is based on pure self protection for me, my family and my society. If your society is ever attacked (and I hope it is not) you will have to make a decision: whether you will sit on the sidelines, not become involved and instead make “balanced” judgments -- or -- take sides and defend yourself and your society. You seem to feel that you can stay uninvolved. The terrorists do not care that you are uninvolved, they see western secular society as a cancer. I see them as a cancer. Both sides are prepared to eradicate the cancer as they see it. I submit that you had best decide which cancer you prefer.

Quite right I mis typed it should have been Hizzbollah

First of all; the quote from the convention says precisely the same thing as I have said above, and precisely the same thing as I have quoted Eugene Fidell on. The rules are quite clear, you can not deny people food, you can not torture them, you can not beat them, you can not threathen them. You can however interrogate them. They are obliged to give a certain amount of information, but can not be forced to give more.

No, Øyvind, it is not the same you said earlier. Nobody can be tortured, POWs or otherwise. But a POW cannot even be coerced by the same techniques used in normal law enforcement. They cannot be bribed. Interrogators cannot withhold or give extra privilegues to POWs (rest, extra good food, breaks, commodities, better rooms, etc) to make them volunteer information. There can be no carrot or stick technique in interrogating POWs, which is pretty crucial.

The US has very charitably extended almost all privilegues of POWs to these illegal combattants, only withholding those necessary for US security. When the whining left is complaining even about that, we know what side they are on.

I have already refuted your silly assertion they should be treated as oridinary criminals. They were caught fighting on the battlefield by soldiers, not cops trained in reading them their rights. There was of course no possibility of securing evidence on the crime scenes. A judge would throw out criminal charges against them (if they could even find anything in the US Code they violated!), securing the release of some of the most dangerous men imaginable. Your proposal is in effect, if not in intent, a drive for al-Qaeda to get their soldiers back in the war.

Oyvind's still in the 90s mentality. Bubba's approach was the same after the 1993 WTC bombing.

And that led to possibly Oklahoma City 95, and the 96, 98 and 2000 bombings.

A lot of this goes back to 1979 and peanut's handling of Iran. He didn't do anything either.

Jan Haugland:

I am starting to question whether you know what coercion means; let us define the word, shall we?

http://www.answers.com/topic/coerce

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

You would have to have an extremely wide interpretation of the word coerce to make the things you claim are illegal illegal under the Geneva conventions; and the International Red Cross, for instance, would not share that interpretation. Jelena Pelic writes a number of things that should be interesting in this debate:

There is only one set of rules for the interrogation of persons detained in an international armed conflict regardless of whether they are POWs or civilians (including "unlawful combatants"). The Third Geneva Convention does provide that POWs cannot be coerced to answer questions beyond giving their name, rank, date of birth and service number. This was done primarily in order to prevent the detaining power from eliciting information on ongoing military operations from POWs right after capture. There is, however, nothing in the Convention that would for, example, prohibit the interrogation of a POW suspected of war crimes

The key issue is therefore not, "Can a detainee be interrogated?" but, rather, what means may be used in the process. Neither a POW nor any other person protected by humanitarian law can be subjected - it bears repeating - to any form of violence, torture, inhumane treatment or outrages upon personal dignity. These acts, and others, are strictly prohibited by international law, including humanitarian law. Under the laws of war it is the detaining authority that bears full responsibility for ensuring that no interrogation method crosses the line.

People like Scott Silliman, director of the Center of Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University Law School takes it one step further:

Rumsfeld's contention that tough techniques are legal under the Geneva convention of 1949 are probably correct, said Scott Silliman, director of the Center for Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University Law School.

He said the relevant section of the convention, which would cover detainees picked up after Saddam Hussein was ousted in April 2003, says prisoners are protected against "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture". They are also to be shielded against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment".

"It's a question of degree", said Silliman, referring to such practices as placing prisoners in "stress positions" or depriving them of sleep.

For instance, he said, keeping a prisoner awake for 48 hours probably wouldn't violate the treaty, but depriving them of sleep for two weeks would.

Now, most of the people in Guantanamo are, as repeatedly stated, not prisoners of war. Although you claimed that this was my position, it is not. Neither is it the position of Human Rights Watch:

Al-Qaida does not fill the demands for being defined as prisoners of war, but the Taliban soldiers do, because they fought in the regular forces of Afghanistan, Tom Malinowski, HRW.

That means, Jan Haugland, that they are civilians. And civilians that are suspected of crimes like murder, conspiracy to murder, belonging to an illegal group, taking up arms illegally and terrorism are nothing but exactly that; suspected criminals. There is plenty of precedent for people being charged and convicted with crimes after being captured on the battlefield. In fact, even that they were on the battlefield without being legal combatants means that they have broken the law; that is the very meaning of the concept "unlawful combatant".

Being a brilliant mastermind that can throw about claims about what you have "refuted" whenever he feels like, you can of course continue to claim your supremacy. That does not make you right. Your assertion that they are not criminals because they were apprehended by military forces is outright silly. However, I suggest that Norway immediately start using the same logic with people we would like to see internated on Svalbard or the Bouvet Isle for good, like those Nokas robbers. Instead of sending the police after them, just send the military. The military is totally unable to secure evidence, meaning that we can't try them for a court since we can not prove that they are in fact criminals at all. But hey - in this case Norwegian and International law would be forfeited anyway and the robbers would be on the first plane to Longyearbyen.

Oeyvind in an earlier response to herbie wrøte:

"........Actually you do say that the families of terrorists, who definitely may be one hundred percent innocent, are "fair game", so I guess you have stated your opinion clearly enough. Seemingly, you think it is okay to imprison, torture and kill possible innocents. In addition you support collective punishment......."

Ø.k.... according to the tenets of Isssslam, blessed are they that die in the cause of Allah ( purportedly and especially fallen heroes in the quest for more territory for Allah). This category of muslims who engage in arm struggles enjoy special benediction and dispensations from mighty and merciful Allah. The 'mukmins' - mere believers ( who may contribute through the pocket book or by other means) are slightly less blessed than the Jihadists - if you will...'children of a lesser god' LOL. AND then for those weaklings ( ahem ) women (naturally - herrrrro ex-kkkkristian?, un comentario por favor ?), children and the elderly - who are unable to take up arm struggle and smite, chop, hack and garrot in the name of Allah the most merciful and munificent, then they should strive to resist in actions , by word or else resist in their heart against the infidels and enemies of Issssslam.

Oh and did i make this up , nay, verily I say unto thee.... this is paraphrased from the mohammadians own holy book - verily , verily I say unto thee, tis a veritable manifesto of Terror to be practised on the infidels of the world ( oh...and that includes you too, Señor
Øyvind--- Islamikkk terror is an equal opportunity enterprise...LØL).

O.k. I'm sure the Muqtadar Khans and Tarriq Ramaddhans and other more 'møderate'/'ecumenical' muslim spøkesmen of Isssslamdom will høwl with indignatiøn at the preceding comments about the operating tenets of Isssslam. They will rabidly deny the interpretation of the verses which lends to the fore-going paraphrase...øh,they will use the standard ' the Quran should not be taken out of context, .....it can only be understood in the original Arabic ( this glosso-centrism itself is prima-facie evidence of arabo-bedouin ethnocentrism and hegemony masquerading or opportunistically hiding behind the façade of a religion).... blah , blah.....blah.

Many islamists and their apøløgists keep saying that Issslam is not to blame for all the barbaric practises such as female circumcision, honor killing of women, slavery,misogyny,and a plethora of other ills that have beset all the countries of islamdom, but rather it is the traditions and cultures of those societies that are blameworthy --- to which one replies: if those societies have been exposed to such a noble ideology as Issslam after all those hundreds and thousands of years and they have not been uplifted and Issslam has failed to eradicate the coarse and barbaric customs and traditions of those societies then what good is this supposed divine 'ideology'?....to which one may add that again we have ample proof of the impotence and bankruptcy of a false creed which cannot be but only a man-made militaristic arabo-bedouinic fascist ideology masquerading behind a thin veil of religion!!! Tear away the veil and you expose the face of arab theofascist hegemony !!!!

Hermana Aisha NiaNiaponika Kim
أخت عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم
金姐妹- 危險宗教專家

They'll stay locked up because they are enemy combatants and the U.S. is still at war with their organizations.

When the U.S. is no longer at war, or if their organizations cease to exist, or if the U.S. determines they are no longer a threat and/or no longer a source of information, then they'll be released or be charged with a crime.

I'm completely comfortable with my government doing this because unlike almost every other organization in the world, including the U.N., the U.S. government has comprehensive and transparent controls in place to identify and rectify abuses taking place under it's authority.

Disagree with that all you want, but the U.S. is legally, historically, and morally justified to do just as it's doing.

Furthermore, I find most of the arguments against the U.S. on this topic to be immature, basically claiming that what we do is "not nice". As if the U.S. is expected to prosecute a war against terrorists in such a way that even the terrorists themselves must be able to later remark that the days they were under U.S. care were the best days of their lives...

Øyvind,

It's ridiculously easy to refute your wild assertions. All I have to do is quote the very text of the Geneva conventions that you dance so carefully around.

Article 17: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Can it get any clearer? I don't think so.

QED.

Your comparison of armies of terrorists to a handful of bank robbers is patently ridiculous. In these debates, your argument begins nonsensically, and as you keep repeating already debunked assertions, it turns into a farce.

Just in case any of you haven't heard, there was another Damning Street Memo released. This one even more damning than the last.

"Just in case any of you haven't heard, there was another Damning Street Memo released. This one even more damning than the last."

Why do people keep trying to "spin" the stated reasons for invading Iraq? Is there any purpose to it other than an attempt to make the U.S. or U.K. look bad? For example, do you feel that since there is doubt (in your mind, anyway) about the reasons for war, Saddam should be placed back in power?

Unless you want things back the way they were in some form or fashion, posts like that are just sophomoric "gotcha" games that serve no purpose other than to make yourself feel better than everyone else. Next time just pat yourself on the back and spare the rest of us your detritus.

Bjorn,

It seems to me the Soren clearly, and thoroughly, destroys your argument in both of his posts on 2005-6-8. You have not responded to, or refuted, any of his points. In effect, there is such a thing as unlawful combatants, and they don't deserve the rights, and status, of being treated like mere criminals. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points he made.

Thank you very much,

Roger

Roger: It seems to me the Soren clearly, and thoroughly, destroys your argument in both of his posts on 2005-6-8. You have not responded to, or refuted, any of his points. In effect, there is such a thing as unlawful combatants, and they don't deserve the rights, and status, of being treated like mere criminals.

Then you've misunderstood my point. I don't care about interpreting the Geneva convention, about what rights an "unlawful combatant" does or does not have according to a legal document. The legal angle is interesting if you're a diplomat or a lawyer, but what matters for the rest of us should be that it's wrong to imprison innocent people. And without a fair trial, there's no way to know that the people on Guantanamo are guilty of being terrorists.

Where Soren does touch this angle, he's not "destroying" my argument, merely expressing a different set of priorities. He seems to believe it's okay to hold innocent people indefinitely along with real terrorists. I don't.

What our soldiers eat, MREs are considered torture under the GC.

They will get a fair military trial.

To extend US rights to them and treat them as civilians is ridiculous.

They are not US citizens.

Since they are in Cuba, maybe we should use Cuban law.

Actually Bjorn raises an interesting issue. With soldiers, you don't deal with guilt or innocence. They are prsoners of war period and entitled to certain protections. Terrorists or suspected terrorists are not soldiers, nothwithstanding the politcally correct views expressed by some on this thread. At some point it may be that they are entitled to due process; the question would be when and under what circumstances. I do not believe that this a law and order issue and certainly do not buy the drivel currently esposed by many that "we will show them we are better then they are with our protections". Terrorsits do not care one wit about "protections"; they care about killing. Perhaps the question might be better dealt with as askingwho has the burdenofr proof in such an instance and what the burden is. I would say that the Government has the burden of proof and that it is by a preponderence of the evidence which is that you put al of the proof of each side aon a sclae and whichever waythe scale tips -- every so slightly -- that party wins.

Actually Bjorn raises an interesting issue. With soldiers, you don't deal with guilt or innocence. They are prsoners of war period and entitled to certain protections. Terrorists or suspected terrorists are not soldiers, nothwithstanding the politcally correct views expressed by some on this thread. At some point it may be that they are entitled to due process; the question would be when and under what circumstances. I do not believe that this a law and order issue and certainly do not buy the drivel currently esposed by many that "we will show them we are better then they are with our protections". Terrorsits do not care one wit about "protections"; they care about killing. Perhaps the question might be better dealt with as askingwho has the burden ofr proof in such an instance and what the burden is. I would say that the Government has the burden of proof and that it is by a preponderence of the evidence which is that you put al of the proof of each side on a scale and whichever way the scale tips -- every so slightly -- that party wins. The reality is that if this is turned into a crimminal trial that it will be become a morass. Is it messy? Yes. So were 3,000 Americans that were killed because of a sick mind set. I for one am so fed up with the debate of what is the corrct way to try terrorists, that i am begining to think that Judge Bean had it right: "First we execute them and then we have the trial."
There is almost no Islamic commnetary condemning terror. Indeed in Iraq thoiusands of women and children are being killed by bombers who target civilians and we hear almost nothing from the Islamic world. To continue to beleive that our actions if they are not in accordence with the "rules of war" will make a difference is absurd. Yet no one protests their lack of comment. In my view what will make a diffeernc is when Islamics feel that their conduct will result is danger to themselves, thier wayu of life and their family.

As an elderly individual, I am scared by the new and unhistorical anti-Americanism that seems to take hold in Norway. I cannot believe that so many of my fellow citizens dare to be so stupid.
American mistakes are trivial compared to the atrocities perpetrated every day in the many tyrannies in the world. Also, know that comparing things that cannot be compared is an old propaganda device expertly conducted by, among others, leftists and isliamists.

No one says it better:

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/

The true horror of American Torture has been revealed. Let me make light of it. Says Time:

” On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods,

What, he made them stand in line for eight hours to vote? Fiend....

Cheney Hearts Torture, enough said.

Impeach the bastards!

Ok all views have now bee heard. NOw how do all of you who oppose "toprture" deal with this scenario whichy is reported in "Kremlin Rising" by Peter Baker

When Chechen terrorists took 1,200 schoolchildren hostage in Besaln, the Russians arreested family members of Chechen leaders. They brought the wife and 3 children of one of them to the phone to speak to him and she beggedhim to let the children go or they might be hurt. He asked to speak to the Russian commander and when he got on the phone told him: "kill her and all 3 of my kids".

My view, the Russians shoud have done whyat they could to save the children AND should have leveled an area of Chechna that would have ensured that at least double the number of Chechens died.

I don't believe suc a response is comparable to what the Nazi's did, but if it is so be it. The Nazis lost and I don't want the West to lose. Nothing I have heard from opponents of this view has convinced me otherwise. The only commentary is that we may be morally wrong if undertake such acts. Morality is a two way street in my view. Unless Islam is prepared to flatly condemn such acts as the Chechens committed, and it has refused to do so (except for isolated voices) then it has lost all foundation to critique the West or to claim that such a response is wrong. We are not dealing with isolated threats, we are dealing with a group that supports such acts and bases it suppoort on theological grounds. It is not in my view a law and order issue; itis an issue of Western survival

Herbie wrote:

"...........When Chechen terrorists took 1,200 schoolchildren hostage in Besaln, the Russians arreested family members of Chechen leaders. They brought the wife and 3 children of one of them to the phone to speak to him and she beggedhim to let the children go or they might be hurt. He asked to speak to the Russian commander and when he got on the phone told him: "kill her and all 3 of my kids"..........."

O.k...what impels this men to do this heinous crime is the teachings found in the manifesto of Terror , the Quran.

To read the distilled essence of Terror contained in this blue-print of violence, hate and vengence go to WWW.FAITHFREEDOM.ORG and click on the the heading "QURAN" - the source of hate, violence and islamic terrorism. Nothing can be more damaging to Islam than what is found in its holy writ !

......meanwhile somewhere among the dreamy fjords....Ateistiske journalister omfavner islam!
Jesus elsker deg !

Sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults

This is what is at issue, among other things:

"Slavery is a part of Islam . . ." "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." He argued against the idea that slavery had ever been abolished, insulting those who espouse this view as "ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Al-Fawzan is no maverick. He is:

A member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body;
A member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research;
Imam of the Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh; and
Professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning.

Kofi - I don't know nuthin bout my son's job - might know more than we think, check out Roger L. Simon's blog.

Memos, never put anything in writing.

Touche

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx

6/15 cartoon if you're interested

Jan:

Yes, Jan, I already know. You are, of course, allowed to merely claim that you refute stuff, and then it is - per definition - refuted. "I refute", you can scream, no matter what your opponents claim. Global warming? I refute. Torture? I refute. Not all people opposing the war in Iraq was pro-Saddam. I refute! At least, you are good with your adjectives, "ridiculously easy" is it?

Alas, in this case, you will have to interpret the Geneva conventions in a way there is little precedent for.

It does not matter how many times you quote the Geneva conventions, when all you do is to claim that it says something you feel fits the political argument you are trying to make. When you do it, you are overlooking the clear interpretations found in, for instance, this Congressional Research Service report (found on the website of the Federation of American Scientists:

The essence of coercion is the compulsion of a person by a superior force, often a government, to do or refrain from doing something involuntarily. The intentional application of an unlawful force that robs a person of free will is coercive. However, circumstances that cause a person to reevaluate a course of action, even if deception is instrumental, may arguably be non-coercive pressure.

Under the interpretation set forth in FM 34-52, "physical or mental torture and coercion revolve around the elimination of the source's free will". These activities, along with "brainwashing", are not authorized, it explains, but are not to be confused with the psychological techniques and ruses presented in the manual. FM 34-52 includes in the definition of mental coercion "drugs that may induce lasting and permanent alteration and damage".

[...]

The pertinent question appears to be whether the person subject to treatment designed to influence his conduct is able to exercise a choice and complies willingly or has no choice other than to comply.

The really odd thing, dear mr. Haugland, is however that you choose to do play this "no see, no hear"-trick; that you choose to interpret the Geneva conventions in a way so strict that few human rights organisations and absolutely not the American authorities would interpret it similarily.

Actually, it does not matter. Because in this White House memo, president Bush says the following:

Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. As a matter of policy, the U.S. armed forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

Now, as Major Anthony F. Milavic points out here that means:

Regardless of where you place the threshold between torture and coercion, they are both banned by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and anathema to President Bush's order to "treat detainees humanely.

By the way, Major Milavic writes a number of other interesting things, as well, amongst other things he looks into the effectiveness of both torture and coercion, using a number of excellent examples. The latest number of The Atlantic also contains a very interesting article about the same thing.

I quote:

The document described a situation very similar to the one the United States faces in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a fanatical and implacable enemy, intense pressure to achieve quick results, a brutal war in which the old rules no longer seem to apply.

Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.

(For those without a subscription to the Atlantic, and without a paper copy, further quotes and comments are found here).

In the article James Cornum, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, is also quoted about Abu Ghraib. He says:

The abusers couldn't even use the old 'ends justify the means'-argument, because in the end there was nothing to show but a tremendous propaganda defeat for the United States.

Øyvind

Sandy P wrote: "What our soldiers eat, MREs are considered torture under the GC".

While I fully support Bjørns point that the issue at hand here is not how one interprets the Geneva conventions - but whether one thinks it alright to imprison innocent people or not.

However, I can not help myself; it is amazing how little people actually know about the Geneva conventions, and yet - how sure they seem in their claims.

Oyvind,
I don't think the article in the Atlantic is necessarily pertinent although it may be instructive. Many of the examples given in the article relate to German and Japanese prisoners primarily from WWII. The cultural and religious motivations of these prisoners are and were quite different from Islamic terrorists.

I recognize the point that torture should not take place. In the other hand, the fact remains that cutting of a prisoner’s head and screaming “God is Great” does not accord with anyone’s idea of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Yet I hear very little if nothing from you as to how such atrocious actions can be stopped. Most certainly one hears nothing form the Islamic world in condemnation of such acts. I am against torture as a general proposition, I am also against the idea that in fighting terrorists we should do so in a way that ties one hand behind our back.

At bottom the issue of terrorists is a black hole and not really provided for in the Geneva Conventions and how to treat them is an open question.

Have a good weekend

Oyvind, the prisons are filled w/innocent people.

And considering that the MRE comment was made by either a congressman or military man rebutting someone from the opposition.....

Øyvind's constant self-flagellåtion and unpretentious refusål to denounce the blåtånt violation of human rights by the islåmoids of the world is symptomatic of europe under dhimmitude.

Check out Oriana Fallaci's expose' of the insidious transformation of europe into euråbia - å province of Issssslåm :

.........Is Europe a Province of Islam? The Danger is Called DhimmitudeAnd this is what Oriana Fallaci holds: European Christians, ... Among the "services" performed by this "hidden dhimmitude" of Europe is a laxity in the face ...
www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/ Articles/Magister-2003-03-20.asp - 9k - Jun 16, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

and for another thought provoking expose' of the bedouinization of europe, check out this link:

.........EurabiaLa Forza della Ragione – Oriana Fallaci. “Bat Ye’or has traced a nearly ... The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996, ...
www.dhimmi.com/Eurabia.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

With legions of leftists, liberåls, somnolent sosjialists and sundry coteries of apologists and revisionists the insidious transformåtion of eurØpe into euråbia should be a piece of cåke LØL.

Søster Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
Spesjialist in irratiØnal adamikkk kkkults
أخت عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم
金姐妹- 危險宗教專家

also check out this article " welcome to Eurabia" by Estafania:

WWW.FAITHFREEDOM.ORG ( Click on the article ' welcome to eurabia' )

i guess all this reports and happenings will still not qualify as statistically significant for those figure-obsessed statistisjiåns - hå hå!

Zuster Aisja Njanjaponika Kim

Sandy, Herbie, do not flee the issue. The question is not whether people are innocently imprisoned elsewhere. The question is not whether terrorists are cruel people. The question is not whether the Islam practiced and taught in Saudi Arabia - an ally of the USA, by the way - is morally corrupt.

The issue is simply whether it is alright to imprison people that are potentially innocent together without terrorists, and this without giving them the right to a trial.

Is it alright to abandon long-standing principles of law? That's the question.

And if you are not capable of answering that without turning to "but someone else does this and that" I dare say that is because you are on weak ground. You are starting to remind me of people who apologized for human rights atrocities in Eastern bloc countries by pointing out negative aspects with Western bloc countries. Two wrongs does not make one right, remember?

We're not fleeing from the issue, we don't agree. You want a civil trial w/US rights, we say no way, Jose, military and they're not US citizens. End of story. I'm sure your heart bleeds just as much for those who are captured in Spain - go talk to John at Iberian Notes, it's in his archive for the 3/11 bombing suspects, IIRC, and frogistan.

You and your like-minded don't realize what pushing this is doing.

They knew we were coming and chose to stay.

Well, I think this closes this topic via Dailypundit:

No American 'Gulag'

By Pavel Litvinov

Saturday, June 18, 2005; Page A19 (Hmmm, not on page 1 I wonder why????)

Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."

"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.

"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees....."

Oyvind, The answer, much as you may not like it to your question is Yes. Morality is relative. What you are really asking is what mechanism should be in place to determine if people are innocent. Both questions are pertinent, but perhaps only in a situation where both sides accept and agree upon basic rules. Mohammed Atta did not board the plane on 9/11 wearing a miltary uniform. The NY Times reports today that US soldiers uncoverd a terrorist prison where people were uniformly tortured and a jihadistst manuel with such interesting chapters as "How to select the best hostage" and "Religious justification for cutting off an infidel's head". The fact is that your morality or lack of it exists outsidde of the real world. This is a war. while perhaps not relevent I lsot 12 firends in 9/11 and a relative. You remain safe and secure in your cocoon untouched by this horror and pontificate. The mortailty you preach is a one way street. I have rarely heard you, except as a snide aside pause to reflect on the horros inficlted by terroorists. You might be on stronger ground if you were to ask is it OK to deliberately target innocent people to become prisoners. However that is not the question you asked. Perhaps the best analysis is Malmady in WWII where the world was repulsed by the execution of unarmed prisoners. The revenge taken by Allied soldiers on German POWs was terrible, but there were no more Maladys. You apparently would back handlingly acknowledge that what the Germans did was wrong but prosecute the Allied troops. When innocent civilians stop being targeted by terrorists and Islaimics stop cutting off heads, there may be something to talk about in regard to innocent people being imprisoned. However, your views in the absence of that, to my mind, are naive drivil.

While this is certainly not the intention of Mr Bjorn Staerk, there's a lot of information on this site which could easily classify it as a "hate site" - try replacing the word 'Islamist' or variants with the word 'Jew'in many of the posts here - particularly those by Kim Sook-Im - and see what you come up with. Stormfront couldn't do better.

That terrorism today is an urgent problem is under no question. Since the US/UK alliance, against the wishes of most of their own citizens, using excuses that are being increasingly exposed as lies and manipulation, went ahead with their long-term plan and invaded Iraq anyway, there's little point wasting time on whether we should be there or not - there we are - or rather, there are a bunch of young squaddies waiting to get blown up for their dollar because there was zero chance of finding work at home.

The "War on Terror" - there's a stupid catch-phrase if ever there was one - remember the "War to End War", which didn't, guaranteeing instead the start of another? It seems that most patriots on this blog see it as having begun with the evil attack on the WTC. Such behaviour must be punished - just as with a civilian crime (Son of Sam springs to mind), the culprits must be quickly found and brought to justice, that goes without saying. But assuming it was actually committed by those and in the manner broadcast by the mainstream media, which is in serious doubt, sweethearts, however evil it was, and it was, there nonetheless remains room for thought. How could people get so murderously angry with the USA to go through the very complex organisation and implementation of such a terrible plan? Many people don't see, or don't want to see, that several decades of US and UK intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world is perceived as, and can be shown to be, rapacious and unjust in the extreme, in many cases abetting or actually directly causing optimum prejudice to human lives and property. Before you get all lathered up, that's no excuse for slinging bombs, of course, one evil doesn't condone another. Two wrongs don't make a right, as Oyvind reminds us. The present position espoused by most of the armchair Terminators on this site is the ostrich position - basically "We are Innocent, Good, and Infallible, and may not be questioned and can do whatever we want to whomever we want with extreme violence" - in this I suspect they feel they are expressing their patriotism or support for their government, or something - they may also be expressing a deep and unsettling reservoir of hatred which can in no possible scenario be beneficial for the human race. It is exactly this same motivation expressed by Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk, whoever they're working for.

It is not serious to dismiss out of hand any and all criticism of your point of view as "naive", symptomatic of "dhimmitude" etc - there is an enormous quantity of information available world-wide to anyone interested in these questions, and a lot of it requires that you accept to suspend your pre-conceived ideas in order to attain a wider viewpoint.

My view - the problem of "terrorism" will never be solved by increasing violence - this has been demonstrated time and again, not only in History, but even over the last few decades. I know many people perceive the US/UK invasion of Iraq (+ elsewhere soon) as being "Saving Private Ryan" with ragheads instead of Nazis - but it isn't - even if it was, the analogy works both ways, there are a lot of people who feel that Bush's government is basically the Fourth Reich with better PR.

What if your governments are lying to you about what's happening, about their motivation for what they're doing (supposedly in your name, definitely with your money). Do you think they might?

Bad men should be stopped, whatever flag they wave.

Big Ben. "What if your govenment is lying to you" What if they are not? You say about 9/11 "But assuming it was actually committed by those and in the manner broadcast by the mainstream media, which is in serious doubt" I would geuess that anythihng the US does or does ot do is open to to question by you. The concept that this is a crime and should be dealt with by the legal system is not an idea that gains much traction. I would assume that you would prefer Meranda warnings also be given.

BigBen:
"My view - the problem of "terrorism" will never be solved by increasing violence - this has been demonstrated time and again, not only in History, but even over the last few decades."

Please demonstrate this with some hard evidence.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-06-20 13:16 | Link

Big Ben. "What if your govenment is lying to you" What if they are not?

This simple but transparent gambit might allow you to avoid questioning anything you feel you want to put forward if I let you get away with it. But question it, if you're serious. Do you not pay attention to even mainstream news coverage (the latest UK govt memo e.g.) - please don't disppoint by dismissing it out of hand - tip of the iceberg, there's a great deal more of that around - if you're truly interested in the truth of the problem.

Answer the question. What would it mean to you were you to discover you were being lied to?

ch - Vietnam close to home - known by the Vietnamese as the "War Against the Americans to Save the Nation" (total failure and defeat at the cost of 58,168 US dead over 11 years - Vietnamese combatants between 200,000 and 300,000 dead, between 2 and 4 million civilian dead) - though, incidentally, huge profits by the 'defense' industry) (http://www.historyguy.com/american_war_casualties.html)

- WWII German "repression" of "terrorism" by European national freedom fighters didn't work either. Israeli military repression of people in the illegally (and unquestioningly US-supported) occupied terrories isn't working either. Right?

In Iraq we're at over one thousand US dead so far and where are we?

You can no doubt summon the verve to stomp on some of that, (define failure), but I defy you to do what you ask me to do - that is, provide hard evidence that the 'War on Terror' is doing anything more than creating more terror and advancing some very murky agendas that you're working your asses off trying to deny.

We can solve this very simply.

Big Ben.
"This simple but transparent gambit might allow you to avoid questioning anything you feel you want to put forward if I let you get away with it.” In a word illogical. If you have any proof that such happened, present it. If not stop babbling.

Under your analysis, it wouild appear that we should not have gone to war with Germany after they declared war on the US. As for resistance, the reality is that the Germans did quite well in stomping out most of it in the Ukraine, in France, in the Scandinavian countries in Romania and in just about all areas except in Yogoslavia.

In Iraq we're at over one thousand US dead so far and where are we? On the way hopefully to establishing a democratic state. Will we? I am not sure.
As for “We can solve this very simply” please share with us your sophisticated thought process.

Herbie

Touchy - you give me "babbling" and ignore the rest. Germany retaliated viciously but did not stop "terrorist" attacks by European freedom fighters - they fought on, with great and selfless courage, through severe difficulties, and went on to win the war alongside their US/UK allies.

"In Iraq we're at over one thousand US dead so far and where are we? On the way hopefully to establishing a democratic state. Will we? I am not sure." Do you think the Coalition elite is sure? Do you think they care about Democracy? You may, but do our governments? How do you consider the wealth of evidence that there are large rats at large in the various stories cobbled together to explain the anomalies of 9/11 and the Iraq invasion? It's all leftist horseshit, right?

More later

Big Ben, Your sarcasms aside and gross generalizations aside, you say "More later" Please spare me if you have nothing of substance to offer. While I may disagree with Oyvind, at least, he is articulate, well educated and logical. Qualities that, in my view, appear lacking in your responses

No, BB, it's unfinished bizness. What makes you think the target was Iraq?

Sandy, Debate with Oyvind. At least he is articulate and thoughtful. This guy, BB is . . .

Well, they're torturing Omar:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/temperature-over-110f-and-rising.html

---

Yup, Herbie, he thinks this is a decades-long issue.

Big Ben,
referring to your post of 6-20-05 in which you wrote -

"......... there's a lot of information on this site which could easily classify it as a "hate site" - try replacing the word 'Islamist' or variants with the word 'Jew'in many of the posts here - particularly those by Kim Sook-Im - and see what you come up with. Stormfront couldn't do better............"

Again how astute is Ms Oriana Fallaci when she said that such responses characterizes the attitude of western men who are under dhimmitude...they capitulate to the islamists, kowtow to the ayatollahs and become subserviet to the whims and wants of the sundry mullahs that dot the landscape of Eurabia !

Mr. Big Ben ... how can criticizing a dreadful fascist /theofascist ideology such as Issssslam be characterized as hate speech. Isssssslamism is akin to Nazism - actually worse - since its goals are global as opposed to the rather modest regional 'das Vaterland' intent of Hitler and his co-horts. How- by any stretch of sane imagination can truthful exposure of the horror that is Isssslamism = Global Theofascism = Global TheoNazism , be categorized as hate speech ---- are you being slyly inventive or just plain ignorant of the scope and intent of global hegemony of the adherents of IssslamoNazism????

Do i dare presume that you are another one of those academique, theoretical arm chair philosophers comfortably esconced in your ivory tower and ever so wont to observe all the niceties of civilized society when dealing with this irreconciliable monster of Yssssshlam?

Take north korea for example. We in south Korea have to live under constant threat of potential violence - consequence of the hegemonist intent of the petty north korean Ayatollah Kim Jung-il who espouses a form of fascism whereby his subjects ( read "Ummah" ) rever him as a prophet . In fact his biography has been doctored and fed to the millions of north koreans for consumption -so that his cultic followers believe him to be something supernatural...the best of the best . His birth was marked by supernatural events, he is the leader of the north korean people, his ideologies ( well actually his Daddy's the other deceased ayatollah Kim-il Sung)are revered as God-sent and his words and mandate are divine. This little north korean shenanigan is typical manifestation of cultic Fascism. Multiply Kim-ism a gajillion times and you have the phenomenon of Issslam - a global superCult, a super TheoFascism which manifesto is the destruction of non-cult members ie. the rest of the world....and its adherents are under divine mandate to ensure the success of the Cult by all means available to them. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and as small a cult as it is - it has already prsented the civilized world with a major headache . Imagine the scenario where IslamoNazists are in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Even without the nuclear factor they are and have proven themselves extremely destructive......do you dare imagine a world where they have superior fire-power???

Mr. Big Ben....my guess is that you are naive, ....if not naive, then ignorant....if not ignorant then just plain lackadaisical and foolhardy.

You would do good to start by reading our honorable Mr. Ali Sinas plea to humanity . Go to :

WWW.FAITHFREEDOM.ORG ( read the title ' a letter to mankind' first )

Thank You
shukran
Tedanhi kamseh hamneeda

Sister Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamikkk kkkults
الخبير و الإخصائيّ في الطّوائف الدّينيّة الخطيرة
危險宗教崇拜專家

Oh Herbie,
ahem...by the way the fact that Oeyvind is more articulate and thoughtful merely makes him more efficacious in aiding in the already rapid transformation of Europe into Eurabia !!!

Educated and articulate western men , sosjialists or otherwise , who are facile with their words ,consciously or unconsciously , lend support and legitimize the activities of Isssslamists and their proxies-when they belittle the ideals of democracy and pick incessantly on the minor foibles and pecadillos of the free-world.

One could not ask for a better ally if one were to engage in propaganda which will further the cause of a super theofascist Cult such as Isssssslam....to put it mildly it is an ill-vind that blows nobody good ;)...tee hee.

(disclaimer - honestly this is not a harsh criticism or attackkk on anybody o.k. ...just a very sober and factual observasjion. :)....ooops, i'm such a poor speller.

Herbie / Sook-Im / Sandy P

Sarcastic - gross - inarticulate - illogical - uneducated - naive - ignorant - dhimmi - two short comments on the site and I collect all that, plus I garner praise for Oyvind who generally gets sneered at or dumped on. (Isn't all that stuff called 'ad hominem', by the way?)

My original question to Herbie was - "what if your government is lying to you?" He's done as much as he could to avoid answering it, but I insist. Everything you put forward is basically government issue, you seem to have no doubt whatever that the truth proceeds from the White House and Downing Street, and shines most brightly on Fox, CNN, and BBC World - everything that may raise a question about it is immediately trashed as any of the epithets with which you graced my offerings. I believe the question is important. Are you content to simply gob up unquestioningly whatever the media serve, or are you prepared to research towards a balanced point of view, which may require that you change your opinion.

I'd like to know what kind of people you are.

Kim, I don't disagree with you about Oyvind, but at least he formuulates a coherent argument, back up by a tender of facts in support and not the drivel espoused by BB. I respect Oyvind. As for BB: well one in not allowed to be insulting here so I'll leave it at that

BB to answer your question, if one can call it that, "what if your government is lying to you?" He's done as much as he could to avoid answering it". I am of the view "what if questions" are irrelevant. If you have any proof that the government has lied and if so about then I suggest you provide it rather then burden everyone with your excathedra speculations and pronouncements.

As for Oyvind, I will repeat: No I do not agree with him and, in fact, strongly disagree. However, he is articulate and his position is logical. I find some of his analysis based on assumptions that are too general to agree with. In contrast I have your position which I will repeat again: in my view it is drivel and for the entiety of your postings you have refused to post anything remotely supportive of your conjecture.

I trust that answers your questions your peevishness aside

BB as for your last question as to "I'd like to know what kind of people you are." I am a historian by college major, I hold graduate and post graduate degrees in law, I have taught in major law schools -- mostly trial practice -- where logic and proof trump bullshit.

BigBen:Vietnam

So the US were fighting terrorists in Vietnam, goes to show that history cahnges every day..

BB:WWII German "repression" of "terrorism" by European national freedom fighters

Nazi germany was fighting terrorists... I must say I feel the word terrorist has been highjacked here.

BB:Israeli military repression of people in the illegally (and unquestioningly US-supported) occupied terrories isn't working either. Right?

All Wrong, but I will not start up the legality of Isreal debate, just now. "In 2003, the number of Israeli fatalities due to terrorism declined by more than 50% from the previous year, from 451 to 213. The overall number of attacks also declined from 5,301 in 2002 to 3,838 in 2003, a drop of 30%."

ch - if you look back to documents of the time, you will see and hear that the VietCong were often called "terrorists" by the US militia and government

In WWII, as you can easily discover, the Germans called "resistance" fighters "terrorists" who engaged in "illegal acts of terror". When the Germans lost, they were proclaimped heroes.

So the number of Israeli victims of bombings diminished - did you look at figures for Palestinians killed, wounded and/or rendered homeless by the IDF in "targeted assassinations", "surgical strikes" etc? (I haven't yet, but I will, since the information is important too.) And what could possibly be the state of mind of a people policed 24/7 as potential criminals, when, like most of us, the vast majority are simple, peace-loving,law-abiding citizens? And what does that state of mind inevitably lead to?

Herbie - congratulations on your degrees and vast experience - you'd be mistaken if you thought I discount them.

May I assume then that, since to you "what if" questions are pointless, you do in fact believe that your government is telling you no more and no less than the truth about the "War on Terror"?

BB, You should assume and conclude that my poosition is exactly what I wrote: "what if" questions are irrelevant, pointless speculation. As to the issue of the govenment telling me "no more and no less than the truth about the "War on Terror", that is a different issue. Am I to assume that you are excluding sensitive or secret information? Or is it your view that a government that is at war is impelled to regurgitate all information it has even if that may result in the deaths of more innocent civilians or soldiers?

Big Ben:

Vietnam: The Vietnamese communists won that war, Vietnamese anticommunists lost. Not right wing propaganda but a fact confirmed by millions of boat people.

But assuming it was actually committed by those and in the manner broadcast by the mainstream media, which is in serious doubt
Is this to suggest you like to entertain typical Bush/Mossad/whoever was really behind it all conspiracy theories? Anyway in pure technical terms it did happen 'in the manner broadcast by the mainstream media. Link
Downing street memo: One of probably thousands of documents concerning Iraq flying around at that time. Written based on hearsay by a mid level official. Not a policymaker by any stretch. The big gotcha being :
A: Bush had already made up his mind on removing Saddam. Jeez, who knew that?.
B: The phrase information fixed around. Of the 12 different interpretations of fix it of course had to be number 11:To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means: fix a prizefight; fix a jury. , it couldn't by any means be for instance be v. intr.(1):To direct one's efforts or attention; concentrate: We fixed on the immediate goal.

the problem of "terrorism" will never be solved by increasing violence
There i agree with you though. Give them a workable comprise on their grievances and everything will be alright. Such as when IRA disbanded after Ireland became free and ETA's great laying down of arms when Spanish democracy was restored.

Herbie

Let's try this - I'm anticipating some yelling, but let's try

I'm sure that you and the other ladies and gentlemen in tenure here, being interested in politics, are already familiar with this little film, but just in case, this is where you can get it if necessary -

http://cdo.co.uk/jfk/download.php?show=zapruder

Now, would you look at the film a couple of times - I assume you're familiar with the case - and then answer the question I asked in the first place? What if the government is lying? Do you think they could? If, perhaps, they did once, might they do so again?

I believe that there are inconsequential "what if" questions - the tabloids abound with them - but when billions of dollars of hard-earned tax-payers' money and many human lives (lots of "ours" and many more of "theirs") depend on government statements, whether they are true or not is no longer inconsequential.

There are readily-accessible links (Google it) to an incredible quantity of information which throws the stated motivation of everything from 9/11 onwards into very serious and well-documented doubt. Anyone with genuine interest in the subject will already be aware of this material.

Otherwise, in my opinion, your point of view remains infallible and unassailable only insofar as you studiously ignore or dodge any alternative information. That's cool for the Coalition, mind you, couldn't be better, I mean at least you guys are squared away - I've actually wondered if some of you weren't making a few bob working for the Company - in Sook-Im's case, though, she'd have to be a Committee - but finally, I can't help thinking of the crowd who stood applauding ecstatically as the Emperor paraded his new suit through the city.

BB I am to conclude what from this? That there is an open question as to whether one man or more than one man killed JFk?

You then ask "Do you think they could [lie]?" Yes. You then ask "If, perhaps, they did once, might they do so again?" Yes -- anything is possible. That something is possible does not mean or even suggest that it, in fact, is. Perhaps of more importance what level of proof would you require to prove a negative (I will leave aside the philosophical impossibility of trying to prove a negative.

The Q more pertinent is: have you ever taken course in logic and, if so, did you learn anything. Decarte established "I think therefore I am" All you have established is "I feel therefore" -- and what exactly.

Rats - my comment didn't take so, again --

BB - The government's "stated motivation."

Perhaps you err when you assume we believe the government's "stated motivation." Your comments show a fundamental ignorance of recent 20th century American history.

Because obviously, it must be that we are uneducated unwashed drones who the VRWC controls. Otherwise we'd be as enlightened as you and of course couldn't see the world any other way.

I'm not sure if the correct word is "irony" but, we're discussing this on a Norweigan blog. Perhaps our "alternative" sources are "the world." Perhaps we don't rely on MSM boomers longing for their hazy 60s youth where everything is Viet Nam redux. They don't want to face the fact that they're pushing 60, and their job is to drain SS and medicare, get the hell out of the way and let us fix the multiple messes they caused because it's all about them and trying to create their utopia.

Perhaps Herbie and I come to our beliefs other ways. After all, this is how we "feel" and our feelings must be validated.

However, the Viet Nam reference doesn't apply to you since you're not American.

Look, BB, we never intended to take away nor want Britain's birthright. Most Americans don't think about it, don't realize we have it and why that's part of frogistan's pissiness, just a continuation of the anglo-gaul war. (You're the history major Herbie, not me. What do you think?)

Look, almost 229 years ago our Founding Fathers saw things differently than your ancestors. We had a bloody disagreement, and the lobsterbacks lost. You and Allan are going to be very entertaining. We see the world in fundamentally different ways, we have for 229 years and it won't change.

John Adams, June 30, 1826, his message to the American people for the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:

"Independece forever."

Too bad you guys have decided to give up yours for a rebate and NHS.

So I'm sure Herbie and a few others here will be looking forward to quite spirited dialog.

Herbie, if you don't get easily offended, GOC - Denny at Grouchy Old Cripple has a good lawyer joke.

If you're really easily offended, stay away from Saturday postings - it's boobage day.

Sandy BB is British? Wow! I have it now. He's still pissed they lost the revolution. Poor man he has Prince Charles -- a real "prince" of a guy who wanted to be in someone's Knickers. How quaint -- never mind the smell -- just picture him curled up in her knickers. And don't forget his son -- as bright as the father. I say Rule Britania -- just not here in the colonies. :-)

Sandy I love lawyer jokes; most of them contain a grain or more of truth. You know what the difference between a sperm and a lawyer is? A sperm stands a chance of becoming human

Yeah, 229 years ago you had a bunch of Founding Fathers who were not really sure whether they could trust the people, but at least they had imported some pretty nice ideas from European enlightment thinkers, and conjured up some equally nice ideas themselves.

When it came to trusting the people they might have a point, as well, since a good bunch of the people were genuine religious fanatics of the kind who liked to portray the English as the legions of Satan. A certain religious sentiment has, if I am not mistaken, been given some of the honour (or blame) for the Americaness in America at around those days. Anyway, I am pretty sure that this Great Awakening of yours, did not only wake up happy thoughts.

Considering certain European tendencies a bit before, after and around that time I can not really blame you, and I am sure that God will be forgiving. Well, to quote the Norwegian poet Jens Bjørneboe:

That is the wisdom in which I trust:
May God show mercy before being just!
I hope that God in heaven will say:
Justice, my children... another day.

I am also quite happy about the ideals of the American revolution, since they sort of inspired revolutions in country like France, and since the Norwegian constitution is - at times - a badly written copy (with a slight touch of anti-Semitism added in the phrase: Jews are not allowed in the Kingdom).

My point here is that Americans and Europeans are not really that different. It just went a bit wrong somewhere along the way, at least on one side of the Atlantic. In my opinion, probably both.

Sandy if BB is really British, he should be able to relate to this :-)

DEPRESSED MAN DIAGNOSED AS "BRITISH"

George Farthing, an expatriate British man living in America, was recently diagnosed as clinically depressed, tanked up on
anti-depressants and scheduled for controversial Shock Therapy when doctors realised he wasn't depressed at all - only British.

'Not depressed, just British' Mr Farthing, a British man whose characteristic pessimism and gloomy perspective were interpreted as serious clinical depression, was led on a nightmare journey through the American psychiatric system.

Doctors described Farthing as suffering with Pervasive Negative Anticipation - a belief that everything will turn out for the worst,
whether it's trains arriving late, England's chances at winning any international sports event or even his own prospects to get ahead in
life and achieve his dreams.

"The satisfaction Mr Farthing seemed to get from his pessimism seemed particularly pathological," reported the doctors. "They put me on everything - Lithium, Prozac, St John's Wort," said Mr Farthing. "They even told me to sit in front of a big light for an hour a day or I'd
become suicidal. I kept telling them this was all pointless and they said that it was exactly that sort of attitude that got me here in the
first place."

Running out of ideas, his doctors finally resorted to a course of "weapons grade MDMA", the only noticeable effect of which was six hours of speedy repetitions of the phrases "mustn't grumble" and "not too bad,
really". It was then that Mr Farthing was referred to a psychotherapist.

"Suicidal?" Dr Isaac Horney explored Mr Farthing's family history and couldn't believe his ears. "His story of a childhood growing up in a gray little town where it rained every day, treeless streets of identical houses and passionately backing a football team who never won, seemed to be typical depressive ideation or false memory. Mr Farthing had six months of therapy but seemed to mainly want to talk about the weather - how miserable and cold it was in winter and later how difficult and hot it was in summer. I felt he wasn't responding to therapy at all and so I recommended drastic action - namely ECT or shock treatment".

"I was all strapped down on the table and they were about to put the rubber bit in my mouth when the psychiatric nurse picked up on my
accent," said Mr Farthing. "I remember her saying 'Oh my God, I think we're making a terrible mistake'."

Nurse Alice Sheen was a big fan of British comedy giving her an understanding of the British psyche. "Classic comedy characters like
Tony Hancock, Albert Steptoe and Frank Spencer are all hopeless cases with no chance of ever doing well or escaping their circumstances," she
explained to the baffled US medics. "That's funny in Britain and is not seen as pathological at all."

Identifying Mr Farthing as British changed his diagnosis from 'clinical depression' to 'rather quaint and charming' and he was immediately
discharged from hospital, with a selection of brightly coloured leaflets and an "I love New York" T-shirt.

Big Ben:

Kennedy assassination conspiracies now.
This website debunks most of the conspiracy 'facts'.
'”ll the evidence in this case proven to be forged has been on the conspiracy side “

Even if you don't have the time to read it all please consider that the reason usually given by conspiracy freaks that he was gonna end all wars and bring in a new age of brotherhood between men (Imagine all the people......) are just myths. He was just a politician like other politicians. No more no less. When it comes to social reform Lyndon Baines Johnson
did much of what Kennedy is commonly attributed. Desegregation post WW2 started in 1948 when Harry Truman through Executive Order 9981 'calling for the equal treatment and opportunity for all within the armed services without regard to race'. Desegregation of education was put into law by a supreme court ruling in 1954 , the first great standoff between segregation retainists and the federal government happened in 1957.
To sum it up: The reasons usually given for assassinating Kennedy relies on attributing him alone the decisions of three other administrations and the US supreme court. The 'evidence' given is highly suspicious at best.

Oyvind:
'I am also quite happy about the ideals of the American revolution, since they sort of inspired revolutions in country like France'

The French revolution turned into bloodbath. Does the term 'Madame Guillotine' tell you anything? The French revolution is not the main inspiration source for modern freedom, but the birth of the first modern totalitarian state. The term communism is named after the revolutionary government in Paris.
Also, today's France is often reffered to as 'The fifth republic'. If the first was so damn great, why did they have to give it four more tries?

Yes, of course, the French revolution was a bloodbath. But it is, as the Chinese politician said, still a bit early to conclude about its effects.

Oyvind, I think Americans and Eurpoeas are very different in at least one respect. Americans absolutely distrust power in government. Europeans are much more comfortable -- even in a democracy -- with power flowing, not from the poeple up, but down to the people from the government. That really wasa the central debate in the Federalist Papers when the debate took place

Rune, they're heading for their 6th. I just started reading Roger's The American Enemy.

Haven't even reached page 100 and I'm laughing, tho I'm not supposed to be. SOS - they haven't changed.

---

Via Dailypundit:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050622.shtml

Debunking another Gitmo myth

...Every single detainee currently being held at Guantanamo Bay has received a hearing before a military tribunal. Every one. As a result of those hearings, more than three dozen Gitmo detainees have been released. The hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," are held before a board of officers, and permit the detainees to contest the facts on which their classification as "enemy combatants" is based.

Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters -- with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial -- is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system -- long established in wartime -- in the first place....

Oyvind, I think you're getting it! Hope for the best, plan for the worst. -

But, almost 230 years and you still can't make conclusions? What's your timeline, 500? 1000? Or is the process the most important? Or you've reached your conclusions and they're not what you want?

Well, blimey! I just returned from six days abroad, logged on to see how our conversation had evolved in my absence, and discover that while I feel I have barely scratched the surface, I've already uncovered what looks from here like a cess-pool full of robber crabs.

But first the good news - may I congratulate Sandy P on his (or her) remarkable powers of deduction. I am indeed English. Did you really intuit all that from careful scrutiny of the subtle differences in rhythm between UK and US English? Or perhaps you were helped by phrases like " ... make a few bob ...", or even by my nickname "Big Ben"? Anyway, nice job, Sandy P, keep plugging away.

But I had to extract that nugget from the turmoil of a spiteful rant about baby boomers which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Sandy, those of us who read Bearstrong now and again already knew that you hate Arabs, the people of France (frogistan to you), the United Nations and those stupid, cowardly Spanish. Now we discover that you also despise the British and everyone over 50. That's a lot of hate, Sandy. Are your parents still alive? I know a number of people of that age group, and none of them seem to have any trouble " ... facing up to that fact that they're pushing 60 ...", and as far as I can tell, none of them waste time " ... longing for their hazy 60's youth ...". They don't seem bent on " ... draining the SS and Medicare ..." either. I can agree that there are plenty of reasons to be angry with certain people of that generation, if only because so many of them now gravitate around positions of major power (the US government, for example) and continue to apply self-serving decisions which are murderous and disastrous for us all. But why drag the entire generation into this discussion? Did your powerful deductive skills suddenly go pear-shaped?

If I chose the example of JFK, Sandy (and Rune), it's because it's the clearest, simplest, and best documented litmus test of political gullibility available. The fact that it happened before you and I were born changes absolutely nothing. Look at the film. Anyone with average eyesight and a rudimentary grasp of the physical laws that apply to life on Earth can see immediately what happened. Your government and their institutions lied about it at the time, and have lied about ever since, deploying considerable energy to muddying the waters, despite the fact that the truth is plain to see. This should open certain avenues of enquiry, don't you think?

And Herbert, you seriously disappoint me, and I wasn't expecting much in the first place. You proclaim that you are a " ... historian by college major, (...) hold graduate and post graduate degrees in law, and (...) have taught in major law schools -- mostly trial practice -- where logic and proof trump bullshit." Then you ask me what you are supposed to infer from the self-explanatory experiment I proposed, going so far as to admit (timourously) that there may be " ... open question as to whether one man or more than one man killed JFk?"

The CV you presented didn't mention current law practice, so perhaps there's a chance that you're not actually trying to defend anyone innocent at the moment. I certainly hope so.

Either you didn't look at the film and think for a few seconds about the official story on the event, or else you did and decided that, like so many other things, it's " ... inconsequential ...", which would make you a lousy lawyer. Forgive me if I mention a couple of facts. The film shows that Kennedy's body is pushed violently backwards and left by the shot that blows his head apart, indicating that it came from in front and to the right. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." You must have heard of that. Oswald is said to have fired from behind the motorcade. Therefore he could not have fired the fatal shot. Therefore someone else did. Therefore, using all the "studies" and "commissions" and "scientific proof" they can wangle, your government lied and continues to lie to the citizens it is supposed to represent about something as important as the assassination of your own President.

That's as far as I intend to take the example (sorry Rune). My point is simply this: despite the availability of as much clear proof as necessary, your government, with insulting scorn, continues to act as if you were all stupid, even counting on it to continue to advance their own evil agendas. And in fact, they have little reason to fear otherwise as long as people like you, Sandy and Herbert, queue up to cheer them on as they spend your money to do so. If they lied about JFK, why wouldn't they lie about 9/11? It's been proved beyond doubt that they lied about Saddam and Iraq.

So what are they really doing? Sandy P says " ... Perhaps you err when you assume we believe the government's "stated motivation." Does this mean that you know they're lying and you go along with them anyway? If that's the case, it's worse than I thought. And if you know they're lying, do you think you know what the truth is? Do you care? I know a lot of Americans, and the majority of them firmly believe that Bush is a disastrous leader for your country and an evil man among many evil men. (I know I feel that way about Blair, with the added inconvenience of his spineless kowtowing to Bush's power plays.) But some Americans I know feel that the USA was unjustly attacked and that the Vin Diesel movie option is the valid one. If this were just an idle chat, that would be little more than exasperating, but as I've said before, we're talking about billions of pounds and dollars and many tens of thousands of human lives being wasted on false pretenses. Unless, like ch, you only count "our" casualties, since theirs are of no account.

Finally, I have to say this - my first comment here concerned the inescapable element of nasty racism present in some of your posts. (Not everyone here crawls around in that cess-pool, though). Despite your posing about "logic", I've seen almost nothing but hardcore ad hominem in response to my very lightweight questioning of your position. In particular, Herbert, what on earth do you think you're doing with that nasty little childish hissy fit about Prince Charles and knickers? (I couldn't care less about Charlie, by the way.) But that from a History Major and Teacher of Law? Perhaps you were drunk when you excreted that. But nonetheless, I hope you're ashamed of yourself, Herbert. Go to your room.

BB, Your ad hominum attacks aside, the only thing relevant to your concept of what the film shows is you do not have even an elemntary undertstanding of what bullets do:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5b.html

Your argument ignores the forward motion of the head that occurs between frames 312 and 313. But putting aside the initial forward motion, is the backwards motion in the Zapruder film evidence of a shot from the knoll?
* * *
JFK’s was not thrust "back and to the left" * * * Had the President been thrust to the left, that is, the left side of the limousine, directly into his wife, Jacqueline, this would not be inconsistent with the trajectory of a shot from the grassy knoll. But that's not what happened. JFK lurched forcefully to his left, almost directly backwards in his seat.
* * *
If [the President] had been hit from the Grassy Knoll or stockade fence, it would have taken off the left side of his head and thrown him violently sideways, and not backward as in the film. The left side of his head was not damaged at all.

Consultant Gus Russo: Standing behind the picket fence, it is . . . apparent that if the shot were from the front, then it couldn't have originated behind the fence: the fence is at a 90 degree angle to Kennedy's head -- tilted 34 degrees left of center when hit -- at the time the President was struck. A virtual broadside hit. Such a shot would not have forced JFK's head forward or backward, but side to side, with the bullet exiting near Kennedy's left ear, hitting Jackie. Of course, none of this happened.
* * *
Note also that in the frames of the Zapruder film following the head shot, the wound is towards the front right of the President's head. If one assumes, then, in spite of the forward motion between Zapruder frames 312 and 313, that the rearward motion beginning at frame 314 is the result of the President's body being propelled by the force of a bullet from the front, the gunman would have to have been located on an elevated position (high enough to clear the limousine's windshield and the individuals seated in front of JFK) almost directly in front of the limousine.
* * *
Of course, this is a problem, as it is universally conceded, even by the most devout of conspiracy theorists, that no gunman was or could have been located on the overpass in front of the car, which was populated by a number of eyewitnesses.

In Dale Myers's meticulous reconstruction of the event, he asked the computer to draw a line from low in the back of Kennedy's head -- where some have erroneously stated a wound existed -- to the wound in the right temple area. Giving the front-shooter theorists the benefit of the doubt, and negating all the autopsy X-rays and photos, Myers then followed the line forward to determine where such a shooter had to be located. It turns out that if the shooter were in front of Kennedy, in a line with his wounds and front-to-back axis of movement, the assailant could only be in one place: [thirteen] feet in the air above the southernmost point of the railroad underpass.

The cause of the backward motion. The simple truth is that, regardless of the trajectory, a rifle shot alone could not cause anyone to be propelled violently in any direction to the degree President Kennedy is in the Zapruder film; the laws of physics simply do not allow for it.

Researcher Joel Grant interviewed Duncan MacPherson, a rocket scientist (literally) since the 1950s. * * * In the late 1960s, "MacPherson branched into Systems Engineering, relating primarily to trajectory dynamics." * * * Here is an excerpt from Grant's interview with MacPherson:

Q. It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder, President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet? That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?
A. No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms. This body recoil is one favorite. . . .

Q. If the effects observed on the Zapruder film are not the result of a direct "push" by a bullet, what could account for JFK's movements?

* * *Simulations have shown that bullet strikes to the skull that result in blowing out a significant hole upon exit result in skull recoil towards the bullet entry direction. The dynamics of this are a little complicated, but are more related to the pressure inside the skull cavity created by the bullet passage than to effects directly related to the bullet movement. The dynamics of this kind of impact were demonstrated independently in testing by Dr. Luis Alvarez and by Dr. John K. Lattimer, et al. . . . The main aspect of the Kennedy assassination that would surprise most people is how uncontroversial the wound ballistics aspects are among the physicians in the country who are most experienced in gunshot trauma. * * *

Final thoughts

Responding to the rest of your gibberish is a waste of time.

Oh Sandy, I have reread BB's most recent post. Wow is me or really us! Sack cloth and ashes are our fate.

“a cess-pool full of robber crabs” “spiteful rant”, you hate Arabs, . . . France, the United Nations and those stupid, cowardly Spanish, powerful deductive skills suddenly go pear-shaped?
“Anyone with average eyesight and a rudimentary grasp of the physical laws that apply to life on Earth can see immediately what happened.”
and the
Herbert, “a lousy lawyer" Oh! "Sharper than a serpant's tooth that BB :-)

Hmmm Hi and Hei. I've lurked here on occasion, but this is my first post... I didn't get through the entire thread on this topic, it's late and I'm tired and this is a very long thread, but given today's events in London, I thought I might address a few things which were stated that concern me.

There seems to be an overwhelming trend, particularly in America but apparently with some very pro-American norsemenn as well, that any criticism against the United States must be driven by some anti-American sentiment. That's not only ridiculous, it's smacking of overt paranoia.

Shocking fact: America ranks #22 in the world for upholding human rights as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified 1948 United Nations. That means, 21 countries rank higher. It means, America isn't the best when it comes to human rights.

Since everyone knows America likes to be the best at everything, does stating the fact that USA violates some human rights automatically mean I am criticizing America? Considering there are 193 countries in the world (give or take Taiwan), rank 22 really isn't all that bad, and it sure could be a LOT worse.

So, why should Americans care where we rank by human rights standards? We're up there, right? We may not be #1, but we're not #192, right? Why should we care about what Amnesty International has to say about us?

Perhaps because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not only based upon the American Bill of Rights (remember that grand founding document?) it was in fact drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt herself. In other words, *America CREATED the standards* we now are violating. THAT is why we should care.

Further, the United nations is an American concept, first tested by Woodrow Wilson (the President who entered us into WWI) with the League of Nations... when that fell apart and a second world war took place, America tried again, and the United Nations is the result. That's why the headquarters are in New York. Still think we shouldn't CARE?

Americans SHOULD aim higher, and set higher standards for ourselves. Why? Because we are the beacon, pure and simple. We're the shot heard around the world. We changed the face of human civilization, literally... Let's take France: without us, France would still be a monarchy and Chirac wouldn't be able to "disagree" with American policy. In fact, Chirac probably would have been beheaded for even thinking of running for president. So, we Americans nurtured the right to free-thinking, we embrace democracies... but we then turn around and dismiss when those very democracies *we encouraged to form* exercise the right we taught them of disagreeing with our policies? How hypocritical are we???

I realize there's going to be some people who feel a bit of a huff coming on regarding "typical American arrogance" at the statements I just made--most of them will probably be French, I'd guess (touche!), but my point in all this is that factual criticism of the USA does not automatically equal anti-American sentiment, and the very fact that my many of my fellow americans seem to believe it does is beginning to get a bit tedious.

I agree with Bjørn... Amnesty International made a huge error by comparing Gitmo with the Gulag... however, that does not erase nor even make defensible the fact that human rights violations ARE taking place under our policies. That truly IS something we need to address, because we are supposed to rise above the standards of the Gulag. But when it becomes acceptable for us to overlook a "few" transgressions because we aren't as bad as we *could* be, we are on a very slippery slope to becoming that which we claim to stand against.

How many posts did I see talking about "who cares what happened to the stupid Koran"? Anyone care about freedom of religion? Such a concept *requires* us to care about the rights of all people to hold things sacred, even if we don't feel the same way. It's one of the original threads of American fabric. So, do we really not care about what happens to the Koran? Then perhaps we really don't care about our very own Constitution, because that document *guarantees* we respect religious dogma.

Who cares if a few "military prisoners" are tortured just a wee bit? Well, we *drafted* most of the world's doctrines against the use of torture, so we're beaking our own laws. Do we not care about our own laws, now, either?

Do all the nay-sayers see where this is going? Where does it stop? If it's okay to disregard freedom of religion in a few cases, and then just a few more, how soon before it becomes okay to kill in the name of religion (don't scoff... such things *DO* happen in the USA, even today)? And then how, exactly, are we different from Islamic Fundamentalists???

The same holds true for torture... the old proverb, one small pebble started an avalanche. The founding fathers of this country were aware of such dangers, it's why they invented the concept of checks and balances (hope everyone has heard of those???) and if Amnesty International, the ICRC, UN, or anyone else creates the check, should we draw a dismissive line simply because "it's only in a few cases?"

To use Bush's rhetoric, we stand against those who disregard the sancity of humanity. It therefore cannot be "okay" for us to disregard humanity as well, because, in theory, that means we should be standing against ourselves. I don't ask that we be perfect, I just ask that we do raise questions when violations of said sanctity is performed by our own hands, and when mistakes are made, they should be acknowledged & addressed, not dismissed as irrelevant without merit.

Med vennelig hilsen,

Anita

Hmmm Hi and Hei. I've lurked here on occasion, but this is my first post... I didn't get through the entire thread on this topic, it's late and I'm tired and this is a very long thread, but given today's events in London, I thought I might address a few things which were stated that concern me.

There seems to be an overwhelming trend, particularly in America but apparently with some very pro-American norsemenn as well, that any criticism against the United States must be driven by some anti-American sentiment. That's not only ridiculous, it's smacking of overt paranoia.

Shocking fact: America ranks #22 in the world for upholding human rights as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified 1948 United Nations. That means, 21 countries rank higher. It means, America isn't the best when it comes to human rights.

Since everyone knows America likes to be the best at everything, does stating the fact that USA violates some human rights automatically mean I am criticizing America? Considering there are 193 countries in the world (give or take Taiwan), rank 22 really isn't all that bad, and it sure could be a LOT worse.

So, why should Americans care where we rank by human rights standards? We're up there, right? We may not be #1, but we're not #192, right? Why should we care about what Amnesty International has to say about us?

Perhaps because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not only based upon the American Bill of Rights (remember that grand founding document?) it was in fact drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt herself. In other words, *America CREATED the standards* we now are violating. THAT is why we should care.

Further, the United nations is an American concept, first tested by Woodrow Wilson (the President who entered us into WWI) with the League of Nations... when that fell apart and a second world war took place, America tried again, and the United Nations is the result. That's why the headquarters are in New York. Still think we shouldn't CARE?

Americans SHOULD aim higher, and set higher standards for ourselves. Why? Because we are the beacon, pure and simple. We're the shot heard around the world. We changed the face of human civilization, literally... Let's take France: without us, France would still be a monarchy and Chirac wouldn't be able to "disagree" with American policy. In fact, Chirac probably would have been beheaded for even thinking of running for president. So, we Americans nurtured the right to free-thinking, we embrace democracies... but we then turn around and dismiss when those very democracies *we encouraged to form* exercise the right we taught them of disagreeing with our policies? How hypocritical are we???

I realize there's going to be some people who feel a bit of a huff coming on regarding "typical American arrogance" at the statements I just made--most of them will probably be French, I'd guess (touche!), but my point in all this is that factual criticism of the USA does not automatically equal anti-American sentiment, and the very fact that my many of my fellow americans seem to believe it does is beginning to get a bit tedious.

I agree with Bjørn... Amnesty International made a huge error by comparing Gitmo with the Gulag... however, that does not erase nor even make defensible the fact that human rights violations ARE taking place under our policies. That truly IS something we need to address, because we are supposed to rise above the standards of the Gulag. But when it becomes acceptable for us to overlook a "few" transgressions because we aren't as bad as we *could* be, we are on a very slippery slope to becoming that which we claim to stand against.

How many posts did I see talking about "who cares what happened to the stupid Koran"? Anyone care about freedom of religion? Such a concept *requires* us to care about the rights of all people to hold things sacred, even if we don't feel the same way. It's one of the original threads of American fabric. So, do we really not care about what happens to the Koran? Then perhaps we really don't care about our very own Constitution, because that document *guarantees* we respect religious dogma.

Who cares if a few "military prisoners" are tortured just a wee bit? Well, we *drafted* most of the world's doctrines against the use of torture, so we're beaking our own laws. Do we not care about our own laws, now, either?

Do all the nay-sayers see where this is going? Where does it stop? If it's okay to disregard freedom of religion in a few cases, and then just a few more, how soon before it becomes okay to kill in the name of religion (don't scoff... such things *DO* happen in the USA, even today)? And then how, exactly, are we different from Islamic Fundamentalists???

The same holds true for torture... the old proverb, one small pebble started an avalanche. The founding fathers of this country were aware of such dangers, it's why they invented the concept of checks and balances (hope everyone has heard of those???) and if Amnesty International, the ICRC, UN, or anyone else creates the check, should we draw a dismissive line simply because "it's only in a few cases?"

To use Bush's rhetoric, we stand against those who disregard the sancity of humanity. It therefore cannot be "okay" for us to disregard humanity as well, because, in theory, that means we should be standing against ourselves. I don't ask that we be perfect, I just ask that we do raise questions when violations of said sanctity is performed by our own hands, and when mistakes are made, they should be acknowledged & addressed, not dismissed as irrelevant without merit.

Med vennelig hilsen,

Yvonne

Hei Yvonne,

you wrote: ".........How many posts did I see talking about "who cares what happened to the stupid Koran"? Anyone care about freedom of religion? Such a concept *requires* us to care about the rights of all people to hold things sacred, even if we don't feel the same way. It's one of the original threads of American fabric. So, do we really not care about what happens to the Koran? Then perhaps we really don't care about our very own Constitution, because that document *guarantees* we respect religious dogma....."

in general i am in agreement with a lot of things you wrote in your above post. However i sincerely believe that Issslam is different and should not be accorded the status of religion... rather it is a warrior cult masquerading as a relligion. The constitution and all the ideals of a free society protects legitimate religions and matters of spirituality. Issslam has the trappings of a religion and presumed 'spirituality'...but is it a bona-fide 'religion' per se.??? I can present you arguements ad nauseum to the contrary............herein lies the quandary that the free world and civilized society faces: how do you deal with a superCult with the veneer of a religion?

.....how do you deal with a mundane -supramundane theofascist kkkult akkkin to Nazzzism hell bent on world hegemony by hookkk, crookkk or nukkklear bomb.

Søster Aisha Nyanyaponika Kim
Spesjialist in irratiØnal adamikkk kkkults
أخت عائشة نيانيابونيكا كيم
金姐妹- 危險宗教專家

yvonne,

to help us understand the dilemma and the formidable task that free society faces , perhaps we should peruse the following article regarding the myth of the 'moderate muslim':

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004034.php

Tack sa mycket
sister aisha nianiaponika kim

I tend to agree with Kim. Not only is Islam a constant source of terrorism, but there is a remarkable lack of internal criticism of Islam of that terrorism. At bottom I am coming to the view that discourse is not possible with Islam and that we are in a confrontation with it and only one side will win. Islam does not seek co-existence but domination.

As regards "torture", and various conventions: when Islam stops killing women and children and ceases to cut off the heads of infidels, then people have a right to protest it. Until then, it may be wrong, but I do not see fighting with one hand tied behind my back.

Back in the crusading days, I'm quite sure Islamists could make the same arguments regarding Christians. I also think said arguments would be backed up by the Eastern Orthodox Christians the Crusaders were supposed to be saving.

The point is, it really doesn't *matter* what our personal opinions are of Islam, at least not in America, which directly answers the question ".....how do you deal with a mundane -supramundane theofascist kkkult akkkin to Nazzzism hell bent on world hegemony by hookkk, crookkk or nukkklear bomb." We face that question on a daily basis here int he USA, and bottom line comes down to, their right to it is guaranteed by our constitution, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Which means, one of our oldest laws protects anyones right to practice Islam, as long as they don't murder in the name of Islam.

IE, the torture. Since I consider America to have higher standards than Islamic terrorists, I do not accept your argument that it's okay for us to use the practice as long as the terrorists are doing it. We are better than that, and we should expect more of ourselves.

Med hilsen,

Yvonne

Let me rephrase that: We Americans should expect more from ourselves than we expect from terrorists.

Well, guys. The report is out.
No torture at Gitmo. Instead what we have is a few incidents consisting of the best of boot camp, fraternity hazing, and what used to be available for a hefty price in the sweatier corners of the old Times Square.
AI was wrong. Durbin was wrong. The dems were wrong.
Like this is any kind of surprise.

Hello Herbie NY,

"Islam does not seek co-existence but domination."

This may be true to a certain extent, but also the western world seeks domination over the world. There is no doubt about that. That is probably the most important reason why USA is met with hate and suspicion by the Arabian world. They don`t want western influence forced on them.

Morally the major difference between the western world and the arabian world, is freedom of press and democracy - of course. The foundation of any civilized society.

When it comes to torture, degrading other human beings is really most degrading to one self. Retrieving useful information is a fight against time to save innocent lives, but if we "corrupt our souls" in the process, we may win the battle, but lose the war in the long run.

Jorg:

""Islam does not seek co-existence but domination."

This may be true to a certain extent, but also the western world seeks domination over the world. There is no doubt about that. That is probably the most important reason why USA is met with hate and suspicion by the Arabian world. They don`t want western influence forced on them."

Your arguement is a bit oversimplified. There is a distinction between wilful islamist 'religious'/'theocratic'world hegemony and the 'influence' of the west and US culture and politics. Islam by its very nature and tenets is an imperialist, expansionist warrior cult as evidenced by its long history of forceful hegemony. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges!

The phrase that herbie used "Islam does not seek co-existence but domination."holds much frightening veracity. The rest of the free world that do not subscribe to the dogma of this ancient warrior cult, needs to be on constant vigilant less the seeds of domination once sown cannot be shaken off.

I refer you to the following for information on meme theory and familiarization with the true nature of this ancient theofascist warrior cult:

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/memes.htm ( memetics and the meme criticism of religious hatred and intolerance)

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html (sword of militant islam )

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Islam/ ( alternative views of islam )

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim

Kim:

"You are attempting to compare apples and oranges!"

In war both sides will call it a fight between good and evil, but it could really be a fight between bad and worse. Doesn`t Bush come out as an aggressive fanatic to you? with the bible in one hand and a loaded gun in the other.

Both christians, jews and muslims have blood on their hands.

Most individuals in this world: christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, nonreligious etc. want to live peaceful lives. Implying that most muslims in the world are a bunch of raving war mongers, is in fact helping to polarize the conflict, and a dangerous way of simplifying the whole discussion of cultural antagonism.

Jorg,

Indeed, indeed, most people would rather live lives of peace and plentifulness...and who would'nt. But then again you are being idealistic.

Then again you summarily lump everyone together , like this: jews,christians and muslims have blood on their hand....not everyone have equal amount of bloodshed on their hand.

You should be aware that the amount of conflict in the world today involving muslims or islam is somewhat disproportionate for the no. of muslims on planet earth. if l/5 of the worlds denizen are engaged in 90% of the worlds conflict , driven by a nefarious ideology of Theonazism, does not that sort of worry you. ???? or would you rather sit ideally by singing Kumbaya?

There are of course muslims who are not ravaging war-mongers, but it is an undeniable fact that a large percentage of current terrorists are muslims....yes not all moo-slims are terrorists ( yes all cows are animals, not all animals are cows :)

...and then again if according to your 'peace-nik' analysis of the desire of majority muslims to live lives of peaceful co-existence, how then do you account for the almost endless conflict and brewing trouble that is upon the various free societies of europe that have invited sizeable nos. of muslims into their countries over the years re: germany, france, holland, belgium, sweden, danemark , spain, italy , etc. etc...and then we have the question of 'peace-ful?' co-existence of muslim communities in other parts of the word re: thailand, indonesia, malaysia, india.

Truth is whereever adherents of this superMeme of Islam reside, there will you find strife and wilful attempt of the guests to segregate themselves and to eventually impose their theofascist ideology ( initially by persuasion and eventually by force) ...this is the natural outcome of this Cult, they have no other way, because the vicious tenets of their cult impels them to act otherwise.....and for you to pretend that muslims are 'intrinsically peace-loving' and are just another exotic bunch of folks out there like the jews and christians, and bahaiis and buddhists and hindus and taoists and shintoists, and zoroastrians and jainists and sikhs etcetera etcetera is revealing of a naive kumbayist boy-scout idealism.

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim

ملاك الحقيقة و المعرفة
真相和知識天使
angel of truth
진실과 지견의 천사 ;-)

Kim:

Islam is not a cult, it`s a religion for better or worse.

Norwegians became christians a millenium ago by brutale men with bloodstained swords. I also find the behaviour of muslim terrorists most disturbing. Also it`s a bit disturbing to see western soldiers trying to achieve democracy by pointing guns to the "towelheads". Will it work? Hardly. I guess they`re just displaying their typical all-american naive kumbayist boy-scout attitude.

Kumbaya, my Lord - Kumbaya...

oooh Jorg,

Somehow , i suspect you like a rather large %age of scandinavians have become enamoured of late with a somewhat leftist, multi culturalist world view. In this context you are wont to dismiss criticism of Islam or muslims' intransigence as another islamophobic diatribe.

But mind you, and i say this again with earnesty, Eeeeeeklam is not your run of the mill 'religion', rather it is a cleverly contrived warrior cult, a theofascist hegemonistic ideology founded by a desert brigand who used the facade of religion to further his expansionist dream.

A fusion of fascism and religion indeed gives birth to a most potent Weapon for world domination and mischief. Hitler's nazism was localized geographically, Deutschland ueber Alles....his 'Alles' was limited to the european theatre of sort. Islam - TheoFascism extraordinaire, has eyes on the whole world.

Again your world view is in reference to the experiences of europeans vis a vis Islam....but mind you , perhaps you should talk to the Hindus and the sundry ethnic and minority religious groups in asia and other countries that are non christian and european and survey their travaille and cruel sufferings at the hand of adherents of this Cult, then perhaps your world view regarding islam will change a bit.

It is easy to be kumbayisch when ensconced in the comfort of your air conditioned office and cushy chair in Oslo or Bergen in Norge....but perhaps you would think twice if you were on the receiving brunt of islamist brutality in animist and christian villages of southern Sudan, or the buddhist and hindu villages of far flung indonesian archipelago........and further if your sister had just been raped and eviscerated in a small chinese-taoist community in bandar Seronok in rural indonesia, crime-spree committed by Quran wielding , pious, muslim rogues, bullies of Allah who had just gained merits by executing the vicious quranic injunctions to kill , maim, and rape infidels !

So herr norske boy scout ..sing along, kumbaya while Oslo burns to krisp and Loki let's in the marauding hordes of Eeeeeklam at your city gate haaaaaaaaaah.

Namaste
धन्यवाद

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है

위험한 종교 전문가

Kim:

The extremes of Islam wants nothing more than to elevate hate between between different people and countries. Just like the neonazis of Europe want "war of the races" or the rightwing christians of USA, fanatically believe they do Gods work being the superpower of the planet.

I believe we must try to stay a bit more reflected. Lets not all dance to the devils pipe and sings songs of hatred. I`m not a pacifist, so I too understand that military interventions can be necessary. But we need to stay focused and not let our eyes be clouded by venom and hate.

Remember: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes"

Obi-Wan Kenobi

>> Islam is not a cult, it`s a religion for better or worse.

It's a cult by either the original christian definition or the modern secular one, since they don't allow their members to leave.

>> Norwegians became christians a millenium ago by brutale men with bloodstained swords.

Actually, you should read some more history. Atempts by convert Norge by force failed. After St Olaf fell at Styklestad, many miracles were experienced, and the people converted when the people realized that God was real.

>> I also find the behaviour of muslim terrorists most disturbing.

Only a leftist would behaviour of nazis disturbing.

>> Also it`s a bit disturbing to see western soldiers trying to achieve democracy by pointing guns to the "towelheads". Will it work? Hardly.

Only a leftist would be disturbed by any attempt to achieve democracy. Only a leftist would feign so much ignorance of reality in order to advance his anti democratic agenda. I'll remind the readers about the reality that no intelligent person has the right to ignore, only decades after the fact, is that democracy has almost ALWAYS been achieved with soldiers and ideas. The American revolution created the first modern democracy. WW2 created democracies in Germany and Japan. The Korean war created a democracy in South Korea.

>> Just like the neonazis of Europe want "war of the races" or the rightwing christians of USA, fanatically believe they do Gods work being the superpower of the planet.

As I've shown previously in this thread, there is no ideological connection between the conservative Christians in US and the neonazis of Europe. There is a strong connection between the left and nazism.

Your statement is even more ridiculous since
the US democratic party that has been responsible for much of the work to make the US a superpower in the first place. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy were democrats. That US is the lone superpower has several causes. It's true that Reagan and Bush helped, but John Paul 2 did as much. Since communism is evil, it would fail eventually anyways. American conservatives believe that spreading democracy and freedom is good. And the good is God's work, by definition. I have not heard anyone even hinting that they spread democracy and freedom because God told them to.

Hei Jorgi bin Kenobi
Salaams wa shalom

I invite you to participate in this symposium on islamic terrorism:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/NonieDarwish50813.htm

...........if you would just tear yourself away from your boyscout jamboree for just a few minutes o.k.?

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
specialist in dangerous and irrational adamic cults

إخصائيّ الطّائفة الدّينيّ الخطير

Salaams brother Jorgi bin Kenobi,

you may or may not be a leftist or revisionist etc ( though Gunnar's analysis seem to lend credence that you harbor leftist tendencies ;). Needless to say many scandinavians and 'liberal' westerners subscribe to this fallacious idea that Islam is a religion ( for 'better or for worse') and thus accord it the protection and respect that it does not deserve.

I refer you to this wonderful article that further articulate what many of us who are in the know would like for the rest of the world to realize ......before this superMeme infects the whole planet and brings utter ruin and destruction to humanity:

http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/a_gmason_p4.htm ( america's - and the world's extreme vulnerability to Islam - the religion barrier )

here are some thought provoking excerpts from the above article:

"Islam is a global movement, the goal of which is to bring every living human being on the planet under its crushing totalitarian rule, the likes of which has never before been seen. Some of Islam is obvious and easy to identify. Some of it, however, lies beneath the surface, like an iceberg. The true nature of Islam sports a remarkable disguise - 'religion'......."

also:

"Americans could lose their struggle against Islamic Jihad or be forced into an extreme, mutually-destructive, war, if they do not correct their most serious, and most under-recognized, vulnerability. This is the vulnerability non-Islamic Americans share and can be called their "religion barrier." It means that they accord Islam the same respect that they accord Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. simply because Islam is a religion. Americans need to reprogram this aspect of their thinking in order to see Islam for what it is and to be able to deal with it definitively.

Americans religion barrier permeates our culture.

Here is a paragraph of President George W. Bush's commencement address to the Air Force Academy, on 3 June 2004, illustrating the problem:

"History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions (emphases mine)."

This short passage fully captures this very serious, and potentially fatal, flaw in American thinking, and take note--meaning well but staying ignorant will get us all killed....."

Namaste
नमस्ते

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam
Specialist in irrational adamic cults

मैं हिंदी में लिख सकता हुं.
जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है

Salaam,
Sister Aishah

Thank you for your interesting points.

My last comment for now: By massive hostility against Islam, we may risk alienating all - both moderate and other muslims from any constructive debate.

Not claiming to be an expert myself, I reckon you don`t belive "moderate Islam" exists, but there still are moderate muslims out there..just regular people and they are not our enemy.

Jorgi out.

Salaam och Shalom Jorgi,

o.k.... one little post-scriptum :

........if one subscribe or submit (issalamaa) to the Religion of Nazism can a Nazi be moderate...are there moderate Nazists....or is it an oxymoron and a figment of our collective imagination because of our collective denial ?

,,,,,that Eeeklam is nothing but Nazism with a theological Facade?

.....and that it is this 'moderates' that continue to befuddle us kaffirs, that continue to tacitly support and embolden the 'extremist' factions that do the killing and destruction?

....so that if I were a good person, i cannot in all honesty claim to be moderate and yet be an adherent of Nazism ..fair enough? .....unless I were ignorant

devious and two-faced

nominal lip s'vice muslim
clinging to the religion more out of
cultural pride than its intrinsic worth
as a 'religion'

let us then read Robert Spencer on the elusive moderate muslim:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004033.php

and further let us see what a lot of 'moderate' muslims seem to think:

http://faithfr.dreamhosters.com/oped/BarbaraStock50426.htm

and just for levity let us read a renegade Taliban's letter to the smiling Buddha:

http://faithfr.dreamhosters.com/Articles/abulkazem/laughing_buddha.htm

So in conclusion to all the Jorgis of the world i say to you this: finding a moderate muslim is like finding a partially pregnant Virgin :-)

and here's the link:http://hindutva.org/moderatetaliban.html

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika Kim
Moderate Tao-ist
partly ying, but sometimes yang :)

Ok Kim - yang,

Now I`m provoced (finally)

I had some muslim friends when I lived in east Africa some years ago. And I have had muslim neighbours and colleagues in Norway. To compare them, as I said most of them "just regular people" with nazis is totally ridicolous. You truly are a "useful idiot" aren`t you! People with your attitudes toward other human beings can never help to solve conflicts. And one more thing, just because others have different experiences and a different view than you - doesn`t mean they are naïve or leftists or whatever nonsense expressions you love to use. Did you ever hear about the Srebenica massacre?

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

There are always two sides to a story, but you are obviously a total ignorant to certain very important aspects of the full picture, "miss speaker of blind truth".

Also,

As a matter of fact: you`re beginning to sound more and more like a totalarian nazi yourself...

o.k. brother jorg,

hmmmm so now you finally blew the lid eh?
o.k. you're sounding like jorg the org - moderate viking LOL :)

fear not, i'll be back to deprogram you from the eeevil meme of Eeklam.

Gotta run for now..will be back with rebuttals later.....ah have appointments to keep with moderate muslims too you know !

Sister Yan(g)kee Kim

Ahhh well sister,

No need for deprogramming. The day the terrorists start blasting dirty (radioactive) bombs around our citys - us moderate vikings will probably call on Thor and Odin and go totally berserk. HAAA!

But until then, let`s ease our nerves by quoting the bible:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"—Matthew 19:19.

First of all, from a radical perspective: Good to see a rational conservative voice, Bjørn. Your analysis of neo-con rhetoric is spot on, as is your critiscism of the practice in the US juidical system. The discussion of Gitmo is not a discussion about wether the inmates deserve it, it is about the very fundamentals of our so called civilization-project: The individuals recause to the law *no matter what the society might feel at the moment*.

I find the "They deserve it..." and "Korea is much worse..." arguments ridicolous, it is the kind of argumentational rhetoric you find in kindergarden. If we are sincere in our own eyes in keeping a humane and legalistic society, we *must* avoid using emotional standards and variable systems of judgement for different groups.

As an aside to that, for you hard-core fascists who scoff at such principles, please consider the effect that your treatment has in the long run. How much blood-feud is the US willing to take? The war in Iraq isnt exactly going very well, and a lot of the anger is focused on the treatment of prisoners of war. Contrary to hard-core right-wing points of view, most muslims are rational beings who are just as developed as the rest of us, and are able to see that two different legalistic measures apply in the conflict.

Doing it the Gung Ho way is an easy and stupid option, and in Iraq it has been proven that it does not function. US strategy in Iraq has time and time again proven counterproductive, and the US military has been shown as a not very good occupational army, prone to the same mistakes of overkill as the russians did in Afghanistan. I applaud Bjørns critiscism, because even though we propably disagree on most points, we both see the need for a fundament of law in the society.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1594