The Mosul Attack

[a_unique_person]

Could you give some examples, (ie: "evidence") of the brutal interrogation and torture at Gitmo? Or is it assumed like the innocence of the Gitmo prisoners?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6951969

it's just the liberal pinkos, the Red Cross, but it's a start.

 

[Nikk]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6951969

it's just the liberal pinkos, the Red Cross, but it's a start.

Thanks for saving me the trouble

I do wonder whether Zenith :-

a) Is genuinely ingnorant.

b) Has the sort of brain that is incapable of retaining and processing discordant information.

c) Believes that a bit of simple dodging and weaving will baffle his critics.

or

d) All of the above

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Could you give some examples, (ie: "evidence") of the brutal interrogation and torture at Gitmo? Or is it assumed like the innocence of the Gitmo prisoners?

Have you been living under a rock for the last few days? Or does your brain automatically shut down when stuff like this is reported?

 

[a_unique_person]

Have you been living under a rock for the last few days? Or does your brain automatically shut down when stuff like this is reported?

There is a lot more out there that is a lot worse than this, and Mr Google will find it for you quite easily, ZN.

 

[Giz]

I can give you examples.

During the early years of World War 2, cities were not bombed until the battle of britain. There were two exception, notably in Warsaw in a city in the netherlands. In fact, it's often said that had Hitler not bombed civilian targets, the RAF would not have been able to stem an invasion of the island.

During the Korean War, when the Chinese invaded Korea, McArthur thought that use of the atomic bomb was neccessary. He was dismissed by Truman.

True, the war wasn't "won" in these cases. But these have:

Gulf War I and II, and Afghanistan: Precision Bombing, low casualties, fair treatment of prisoners. I'd call these wars "models" of behavior, and no one can say the U.S. lost these wars.

Examples when restraint is not used:
WW1: Gas.
WW2: Bombing of civilian populations by both sides. I'm not talking about bombing a factory in a civilian city, I'm talking about boming a city to kill its citizens: Dresden, for example.
WW2: Hitler didn't treat commandos according to the Geneva Convention (tortured, executed). As far as I am aware, the Allies did follow it.

And how about the Pacific War in ww2? The japs certainly didn't follow the GC to the letter. That didn't stop the US from restraint.

These aren't really examples of restraint winning the war though, just examples of where restraint may have been used (in some cases) for varied moral/practical/tactical reasons.

Take the US bombing campaign against Japan, not much restraint there, the US still won.

Or the use of gas in ww1, the first time it was used on the western front (by the Germans in 1915) they achieved considerable surprise - and sparked a panic in the French units -and if they had more reserves available they might have made a major penetration of the allied lines. Their problem wasn't a lack of restraint, it was: not anticipating how effective their lack of restraint might be.

The difference between the WW2 and Gulf war bombings is more of:
1) Precision bombing is possible
2) TV coverage/perceptions are considered more important
3) the major targets were military forces in the desert rather than being located in civilian population centres

1 + 2 +3 = it's not restraint per se that's effective, being effective is balancing your capabilities with you goals (both battlefield and public relations...)

Having said that, i'm certainly not urging amoral behavior! Part of what makes us the "good guys" in the WoT is that we don't do the kind of things that Al-Q etc would if they had our resources. And we shouldn't be just "not as bad"/"the lesser evil" - we should be worth cheering for. We can be worth cheering for, and we are, I believe, worth cheering for.

 

[a_unique_person]

we should be worth cheering for. We can be worth cheering for, and we are, I believe, worth cheering for.

You seem to be channelling Maggie T.

 

[zenith-nadir]

How dare America use force to get information from Al Queda prisoners...sorry...innocent Afghani civilians in Gitmo. Boy I am glad some are here at JREF to stand up for the innocent prisoners...again sorry...the innocent Afghani civilians in Gitmo.

 

[Tmy]

How dare America use force to get information from Al Queda prisoners...sorry...innocent Afghani civilians in Gitmo. Boy I am glad some are here at JREF to stand up for the innocent prisoners...again sorry...the innocent Afghani civilians in Gitmo.

Theyve released a number of priosners from gitmo. So yes there were or maybe are inncoent prisoners in Gitmo. Holding onto innocent people to see if they are bad guys aint so bad. But tourturing innocent people.......thats bad!

Same thing with the prison scandle. At first wer were told that the priosners were the "worst of the worst" "killers" and "terrorists". Then a coumpel weeks later they were letting hundreds of them walk free. WHAT HAPPENED TO WORST OF THE WORST????

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

If the sky was pink the clouds would be orange.

The Geneva convention is very clear. You are either a "combatant", "unlawful combatant" or "civilian". You have assumed with an "if" statement, that Gitmo prisoners are "civilians" and then extrapolate from that "if" statement that;
I on the other hand feel that to be in Gitmo one had to be doing something in order to be sent to Gitmo.

Right the ... "an innocent man never runs" line of thought....

So, individuals and/or commanders within context of police and military actions don't make mistakes, as people are not fallible, even in a hostile, confusing, chaotic environment?
What is this doing something? Seams like a broad vague term... these individuals are detained for 3 years or more without access to counsel or the ability to appeal such lengthy detentions... please inform us what specific crimes these people have done, what acts of terrorism they have commited.


When it comes to Abu Gahraib, what was the result of the U.S. detaining so many individuals in general security sweeps, and holding people indefinately... exposing a score or two score (or more?) to humiliation, women and people under 18 years of age to sexual assault, no access to appeal processes, and in some cases death. What were these people's specific crimes, what acts of terrorism did they commit?

 

[rikzilla]

I can give you examples.

During the early years of World War 2, cities were not bombed until the battle of britain. There were two exception, notably in Warsaw in a city in the netherlands. In fact, it's often said that had Hitler not bombed civilian targets, the RAF would not have been able to stem an invasion of the island.

That's interesting but pretty vague. Something "often said" is hardly factual though. But I do conceed the point. Sometimes in certain circumstances it can be strategically smart to offer mercy and show restraint. IMHO these are exceptions...not the general rule.

Case in point: Japan at the end of WWII. August 6th, the atom bomb is dropped on Hiroshima...(the Japanese High Command refuses to surrender) August 9th, 2nd atom bomb is dropped on Nagasaki. (It was a bad day for Japan because earlier that same day the Soviets had declared the opening of hostilities against Japan) Still the Japanese High Command voted against surrender in the face of two atom bombs, Soviet's opening a new front,..and a US promise that the next atom bomb would be delivered directly to Tokyo. Only the Emperor's intervention led the High Command to accept surrender.

It can be argued that the US showed restraint by not nuking Tokyo...but that's pretty far to stretch isn't it? The dropping of 2 atom bombs can hardly otherwise be viewed as any measure of restraint. The point? Allied restraint would certainly not have resulted in the capitulation of the Japanese....

During the Korean War, when the Chinese invaded Korea, McArthur thought that use of the atomic bomb was neccessary. He was dismissed by Truman.

Yet who's to say that McArthur was wrong? History would certainly have been changed by such an action, yet we can't be sure it would have been for the worse. We simply don't know.

True, the war wasn't "won" in these cases. But these have:

Gulf War I and II, and Afghanistan: Precision Bombing, low casualties, fair treatment of prisoners. I'd call these wars "models" of behavior, and no one can say the U.S. lost these wars.

Gulf War I was a UN sanctioned action which had restricted goals. It was less a war than a battle to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It left Saddam in power...and the mass graves no one really wants to talk about are mute testimony to the deadly restraint shown to Saddam who had 11 more years to murder and pillage his countrymen. Not a loss, but hardly a win...it goes into the same category as Korea...a UN mandated state of unfinished business.

GWII is a direct result of the "unfinished business" of GWI. GWII seeks to rectify the unwise and deadly results of UN restraint. War is hell in anyone's book. Going to war is serious business and must result in victory, else the people who fought and died did so in vain. A war that directly results in another war in order to finish the job.... Well, if you don't like war, two wars can't be viewed as a good thing.

Afghanistan,...and I'd also venture to say Kosovo, may be good examples of tactical restraint. In Afghanistan we used the N. Alliance to do much of the grunt work while we acted in support. (I'm looking forward to the war movies to be made in the future showing our CIA and Special Ops guys riding in N. Alliance cavalry charges)

In Kosovo we just bombed the Serbians into submission with air-power. (Easier to do to Europeans who have valuable targets to bomb, and are averse to living in rubble.)

Yet these two actions have more in common with GWII than either GWI or Korea. All are examples of strategic restraint, yet Korea and GWI both only led to perpetual low level warfare. This is because the UN version of a "win" is in reality a stalemate. It may feel and look a little like peace...but it's not. People go on dying, just at a slower, less newsworthy rate. The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan has changed. The UN is out of the picture. The goal is two newly freed nations full of people. It's a tougher goal than a stalemate,...but if it is reached there need not be more war to correct bad strategies of the past.

Examples when restraint is not used:
WW1: Gas.
WW2: Bombing of civilian populations by both sides. I'm not talking about bombing a factory in a civilian city, I'm talking about boming a city to kill its citizens: Dresden, for example.
WW2: Hitler didn't treat commandos according to the Geneva Convention (tortured, executed). As far as I am aware, the Allies did follow it.

True. Restraint can be a feature in a winning strategy...but again, wars have not been won throughout history by holding back. Mercies have been shown...but overall winning strategies have been to utterly defeat the enemy.

Restraint was shown in sending Napoleon to Elba in comfort instead of executing or properly jailing him. Result? More war. Over 48,000 men died @ Waterloo alone. A great tragedy by any measure, and completely avoidable had Napoleon been shown no mercy or "restraint".

We are showing such restraint in dealing with Saddam right now. IMHO I think it's a huge mistake. The danger being that if he gets away somehow his body-strewn Waterloo could still be in the future instead of the past.

And how about the Pacific War in ww2? The japs certainly didn't follow the GC to the letter. That didn't stop the US from restraint.

Again,...it's hard to twist logic enough so that the use of two atom bombs can be seen as "restraint". But, as you will.

As for the lack of outrage: The way I see it, making a thread for it would not be long. What is there to discuss? Terrorists use terror. Terrorists do not follow the Geneva convention. Do we doubt this? At least, not people who read the news. And if there is no disagreement, there is no discussion. No discussion, no thread. The USA, however, is a subject of heated discussion because we have different points of view. Hence, we will discuss it. The reason why there is more than a thread is because there is a constant stream of news, facts and ideas running around.

I suppose you're right here. It's sad though that criticism only seems to flow one way. There have been many here in the past who have commented that; "Terrorism is just a tactic,...how can you make war against a tactic?" But if that is true and we can divorce the tactic of terrorism from it's immorality...then what is to stop the US from adopting this tactic?? If it becomes obvious that we can gain from use of a tactic against our enemies, and a tactic is "just a tactic" and therefore value-neutral.... well you see where that line of reasoning goes and it's not a good place. We need to condemn these people who use terrorism to pursue their goals...we should never just shrug and say; "Well they are terrorists so what do you expect?"

First, tell me when any country will admit doing evil for their interests (even noble ones). I'm being sarcastic here.

Second: I agree with you. Countries will do "evil" for their interest. You see that, I see that as well. But why accept it? Inidividuals will do evil for their own benefits, and not you or I accept that. Why should we treat countries to a different standard?

You accept it because it is reality. Your non-acceptance of it will not make it go away. Right now the bad things done in the name of America are secret...and most of them will stay secret. The things that do come to light such as Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted simply because our nation does not "accept" the illegality of it.

But this is the tip of the iceberg....and some of the stuff done "in the black" really does need to be done. You have to accept that this stuff happens. Sometimes it's unsanctioned, evil, and stupid like Abu Ghraib....but it's easy to imagine that some dirty deeds could save lives. Like Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"..."You don't want to know the truth!" All countries do such things, yet only free ones discuss the truth freely and without fear. There's still much to love about America,..even after all illusions are shattered.

Third: The "PR-PC" is important. The war on terror is just the more public face of the war. The real battle is to make the mainstream and liberal/conservative muslisms, arabs and people of the middle east fight against the fundamentalists. If the USA does acts like Abu Ghraib then they lose a battle for the minds of people. They definatly haven't lost the war, nor do I think they will lose it.

Gem

I agree with you there, to a certain extent. But the real problem is that the "Arab street" as a whole will overwhelmingly hate us regardless of what PR-PC measures we take. In the end, if the war heats up,..say in Iran and Syria,...we're going to have to re-think the value of all that PC-PR. Ultimately we may have to take the war to Iran and Syria in order to remove international terrorists from their remaining sponsors. There is much unfinished business in this world. IMHO, it's only going to get worse before it gets better....I just hope we have the societal will to see it through to victory. Only victory will make us safer at home.

-z

 

[Tmy]

Gulf War I was a UN sanctioned action which had restricted goals. It was less a war than a battle to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It left Saddam in power...and the mass graves no one really wants to talk about are mute testimony to the deadly restraint shown to Saddam who had 11 more years to murder and pillage his countrymen. Not a loss, but hardly a win...it goes into the same category as Korea...a UN mandated state of unfinished business.

What about Saddams restraint during the wars? Sure he lobbed some dud scuds towards Isreal and burned some oil fields. But he never did go the gas/chem rout that everyone feared.

Yeah he sought revenge on the Kurds and his other enemies. thats no suprise. But heres a guy everyone thinks is a mental case and even he knows enough not to push things too far.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Theyve released a number of priosners from gitmo.So yes there were or maybe are inncoent prisoners in Gitmo. Holding onto innocent people to see if they are bad guys aint so bad. But tourturing innocent people.......thats bad! Same thing with the prison scandle. At first wer were told that the priosners were the "worst of the worst" "killers" and "terrorists". Then a coumpel weeks later they were letting hundreds of them walk free. WHAT HAPPENED TO WORST OF THE WORST????

My position is that some JREF liberals allude that Gitmo is a holding place for innocent Afghanis so Americans can flaunt the Geneva Convention and torcher them there. I differ with that "opinion".

Probability states that the majority of the people in Gitmo are there becasue A) they were caught in battle, B) they are members of the Taliban, C) they are memebers of Al Queda. The chances that America transports "civilians" to Gitmo for fun and torcher is too low to contemplate.

 

[karl]

That is your opinion Karl, yet it is not based in reality and as such I do not agree.

Police vs Crime is not what is going on in Iraq. Criminals act in a limited fashion. Limited by their own self interest. War fighters are acting in a larger context...not limited self interest. The weapons, tactics, and goals are completely different...and of a different scale.

The police operate within a larger working system of justice in which society dictates rules that insure justice is served.

They cannot operate thusly in absence of a stable society. Until a civilian Iraqi police force is capable of providing security...it's war.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you are deluding yourself. On one hand you acknowledge the "War on Drugs" and "War on Crime" as misnomers. On the other you defend the WoT label with a definition (?) of the word "war" that's so vague/broad it would include the other two as well.

As for your claim about criminals and self-interest, there is a pretty obvious counter-example called organized crime. Larger context, different goals, tactics and all that.

Look, I understand why you want the situation in Iraq to be a war. It sounds a hell of a lot better than "failure to maintain law and order." In a war you don't fail until you give up, which will never happen. Of course, I realize I stand as little chance of talking sense into you as I'd do of convincing a Castro supporter that it isn't a real democracy if you only have one political party. So I'm leaving this thread now.

Feel free to put me in my place with a brilliant claim that criminals don't fight over territory, or somesuch.

 

[DavidJames]

My position is that some JREF liberals allude that Gitmo is a holding place for innocent Afghanis so Americans can flaunt the Geneva Convention and torcher them there. I differ with that "opinion".

Probability states that the majority of the people in Gitmo are there becasue A) they were caught in battle, B) they are members of the Taliban, C) they are memebers of Al Queda. The chances that America transports "civilians" to Gitmo for fun and torcher is too low to contemplate.

going way out on a limb here, but would you care to provide evidence for any of those claims.

 

[rikzilla]

Sorry to be so blunt, but you are deluding yourself. On one hand you acknowledge the "War on Drugs" and "War on Crime" as misnomers. On the other you defend the WoT label with a definition (?) of the word "war" that's so vague/broad it would include the other two as well.

Not really. The difference is clear. Chaos in this context is synonymous with war. To create order from chaos takes force. Police enforce law and order,...yet general law and order are necessary prerequisites. Police are also known as "peace officers". They keep law and order...they do not create it. Only a stable society can do that.

Does anyone else here think that a state of war does not exist in Iraq?? Sure it's a guerilla war...but it's far more serious than a bad crime problem.

As for your claim about criminals and self-interest, there is a pretty obvious counter-example called organized crime. Larger context, different goals, tactics and all that.

True, but organized crime is not a good example either. Organized criminals are brutal, but they don't usually war against the government. Usually they seek to subvert it for their own profit. IOW, a mobster may have a politician in his pocket...but rarely centered in the sights of an RPG.

Look, I understand why you want the situation in Iraq to be a war. It sounds a hell of a lot better than "failure to maintain law and order." In a war you don't fail until you give up, which will never happen. Of course, I realize I stand as little chance of talking sense into you as I'd do of convincing a Castro supporter that it isn't a real democracy if you only have one political party. So I'm leaving this thread now.

It's not about what I want...it's about reality. Please tell this guy that he's not really at war.

Feel free to put me in my place with a brilliant claim that criminals don't fight over territory, or somesuch.

Ahem....

Thanks for participating Karl. Hope you come back.
-z

 

[rikzilla]

going way out on a limb here, but would you care to provide evidence for any of those claims.

Eh? Requests for evidence from a guy with a biased sig line filled with logical fallacies?

Physician, heal thyself.
-z

 

[Tmy]

My position is that some JREF liberals allude that Gitmo is a holding place for innocent Afghanis so Americans can flaunt the Geneva Convention and torcher them there. I differ with that "opinion".

Probability states that the majority of the people in Gitmo are there becasue A) they were caught in battle, B) they are members of the Taliban, C) they are memebers of Al Queda. The chances that America transports "civilians" to Gitmo for fun and torcher is too low to contemplate.

The Taliban is not AlQ. The Taliban was the Govt of Afganistan. Dont they have international rights when caught in battle fighting for their govt/country. Woudlnt that be textbook POW?

 

[rikzilla]

The Taliban is not AlQ. The Taliban was the Govt of Afganistan. Dont they have international rights when caught in battle fighting for their govt/country. Woudlnt that be textbook POW?

True Tmy...
Funny but it sure seems the rules of war, GC, etc were written with European/Western/modern governments and armies in mind. There is no doubt the Taliban was the actual Afghan gov't even if many nations did not officially recognise them. But the Taliban "fighters" had no discernable army. No uniforms or ID cards. Just alot of raggedy non-documented guys armed to the teeth. Not really the martial paradise envisioned by the GC.

POW status has to be based on positive identification. You capture a uniformed troop on a battlefield...there's your POW. You capture a raggedy guy armed to the teeth in the mountains of Afghanistan you don't know what you've really got. The only thing reasonably sure is he's a "bad guy". There is not any real difference between what ap[pears to be a Taliban gov't soldier, and a AQ terrorist at first glance. They have to be investigated individually....hence Gitmo.

Honestly what we need to do is take a hard look at the reality of asymetrical warfare in the 21st century and adjust the GC to reflect the true situation. The GC worked well in the European theatre during WWII...(hell, even Hitler who's name provokes such hatred, fear, loathing and invoking of Godwin actually played by GC rules concerning POW's...in most cases that is)...yet the Japanese didn't even pay lip-service to the GC. They openly starved, tortured, and murdered POWs as they wished.

It seems to me the GC is a cultural product of mostly European wars. A remnant of wars in which honor was upheld. When officers were gentlemen first. When a man's word meant something. This is not remotely the world we live in today.

-z

 

[Gem]

It can be argued that the US showed restraint by not nuking Tokyo...but that's pretty far to stretch isn't it? The dropping of 2 atom bombs can hardly otherwise be viewed as any measure of restraint. The point? Allied restraint would certainly not have resulted in the capitulation of the Japanese....

Again,...it's hard to twist logic enough so that the use of two atom bombs can be seen as "restraint". But, as you will.

Actually, I was refering to the treatment of Japanese POWs during the war. The Japanese had a bad reputation of treating Allied POWs badly. And even after this knowledge, Americans still treated surrendering soldiers humanly. Probably not everyone, of course, but on an overall level, there was no mass execution of Japanese POWs.

You make a good point on the atom bombs.

Yet who's to say that McArthur was wrong? History would certainly have been changed by such an action, yet we can't be sure it would have been for the worse. We simply don't know.

Definatly, but by the time of the Korean War, the Soviets had the bomb as well (since 1949). I don't think they would have liked to see their puppets in China being nuked. You probably would have won the war, but started a nuclear war. Even if the US had won, the price would have been too great in lives and economic well being.

Yet these two actions have more in common with GWII than either GWI or Korea. All are examples of strategic restraint, yet Korea and GWI both only led to perpetual low level warfare.

I think what it shows is that restraint is useful only in certain types of war. My whole point to replying to you was to show that not all restraint (like Korea and GW1) was harmful, because there was Kosovo, Afghanistan and GW2. In these three modern wars, restraint led to victory and mostly positive results (that is: there's still some bad things going on, but no mass execution of POWs or of populations).

True. Restraint can be a feature in a winning strategy...but again, wars have not been won throughout history by holding back. Mercies have been shown...but overall winning strategies have been to utterly defeat the enemy.

Restraint was shown in sending Napoleon to Elba in comfort instead of executing or properly jailing him. Result? More war. Over 48,000 men died @ Waterloo alone. A great tragedy by any measure, and completely avoidable had Napoleon been shown no mercy or "restraint".

We are showing such restraint in dealing with Saddam right now. IMHO I think it's a huge mistake. The danger being that if he gets away somehow his body-strewn Waterloo could still be in the future instead of the past.

We have to distinguish between restraint when dealing with the humanitarian side of war, and the battle side of the war. The Armerican Military has shown considering restraint on the humanitarian side of war, treating POWs decently far, far more often that they did not. The military no longer bombs civilian populations (rather, they bomb key facilities, like power plants, etc, rather than homes), the military doesn't loot or enslave the conquered.

On the military side, there's not much discussion. Restraint is only needed when dealing with POWs.

You bring up a good point with Napoleon. But then with Saddam, it's different. Killing him would make him a martyr (even if he died of natural causes or commited suicide, I would add), and it would not send the right message. The US is trying to send a message, that the rule of law is better than the rule of tyrants. Tyrants kill the previous rulers. We, on the other hand, try them for war crimes. Can you see the benefit to the Iraqi people if an Iraqi court finds Saddam guilty?

I suppose you're right here. It's sad though that criticism only seems to flow one way. There have been many here in the past who have commented that; "Terrorism is just a tactic,...how can you make war against a tactic?" But if that is true and we can divorce the tactic of terrorism from it's immorality...then what is to stop the US from adopting this tactic?? If it becomes obvious that we can gain from use of a tactic against our enemies, and a tactic is "just a tactic" and therefore value-neutral.... well you see where that line of reasoning goes and it's not a good place. We need to condemn these people who use terrorism to pursue their goals...we should never just shrug and say; "Well they are terrorists so what do you expect?"

I think that "Terrorism is just a tactic" is true, but just like "Genocide" is a strategy. I don't think that if you view terrorism as a tactic, it means that we can use it or that it is value-neutral. When it is said we can't make a war on a tactic, it's true. Technically, we fight those who use the tactic (AQ, Hamas, etc). As for adopting the tactic, I think the US has and is using (covert, of course), a form of terrorism aimed at terrorists. The US can send in tactical teams, precision guided missles or cruise missles pretty much anywhere in the world. I have no doubt that some terrorists were scared at one point or the other. To use terror on military/insurgents/terrorists is an acceptable method to me. To use terror on civilians, a la Al-Qeida, is stooping to their level, losing not the PR-PC, but the real moral high ground. Civilians caught between AQ and US terrorism would be in a similiar situations to those on the Eastern Front during WW2. I think we can both agree that, morally and practically, it's much better to offer a carot when the other offers a stick.

As for the comdemnation, I do not openly condemn terrorists because then I would sound like a repeating recorded message. You would have to decry it just about everyday, at the same people, for a long, long time. Or maybe you meant governments? Then yes, I think governments should always comdemn terrorist actions, no matter who did it.

You accept it because it is reality. Your non-acceptance of it will not make it go away. Right now the bad things done in the name of America are secret...and most of them will stay secret. The things that do come to light such as Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted simply because our nation does not "accept" the illegality of it.

I'm not sure I get this: Are you saying that we should prosecute actions like Abu Ghraib simply because they become visible to everyone? And/Or are you saying that "bad things" must be prosecuted because the USA does not allow such action? It doesn't help you in either case, because you either say bad things can be done so long as no one knows about them, or that we should stop doing all the secret bad things the US does because they are illegal? Or maybe I missed something.

But this is the tip of the iceberg....and some of the stuff done "in the black" really does need to be done. You have to accept that this stuff happens. Sometimes it's unsanctioned, evil, and stupid like Abu Ghraib....but it's easy to imagine that some dirty deeds could save lives. Like Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"..."You don't want to know the truth!" All countries do such things, yet only free ones discuss the truth freely and without fear. There's still much to love about America,..even after all illusions are shattered.

Yes, there is still much to love about America. True, some things are bad and better kept secret. But then we're threading on a dangerous road. At what point do we lose the moral high ground? If we are willing to lose the moral high ground, then who will want to help us? What kind of example will that give to the world, follow your interests, don't worry about what you do is moral or not?

I agree with you there, to a certain extent. But the real problem is that the "Arab street" as a whole will overwhelmingly hate us regardless of what PR-PC measures we take. In the end, if the war heats up,..say in Iran and Syria,...we're going to have to re-think the value of all that PC-PR. Ultimately we may have to take the war to Iran and Syria in order to remove international terrorists from their remaining sponsors. There is much unfinished business in this world. IMHO, it's only going to get worse before it gets better....I just hope we have the societal will to see it through to victory. Only victory will make us safer at home.

"Only victory will make us safer at home." Although true, do you realize that this sort of rationalization is the same used by Hitler? Of course I realized we're very different in many reguards. What I and others dislike is this: where does it end? It cannot end. It will only end when you control everything, which the US can't. Assuming we have the military to take both Syria and Iran (and keep control of Iraq at the same time, which I have doubts), it won't end. That's why I beleive military victories in both syria and Iran will not help. How can you keep control of Syria, Iraq, and Iran (or just Iraq and Syria), when controlling iraq is stretching your military manpower at the moment?

Of course, the more I think about what we're saying, the more my mind turns to the Romans and The Mongols. These guys were not very liberal minded when it came to foreign policy. Yet, Pax Romana and Pax Mongolia was a result. The romans had one of the best living standards of the world at their time as well. Can we deny the advantages the romans brought by conquest?

Gem

P.S.: "Only victory will make us safer at home." is going to my sig.

 

[patnray]

Let's look at this from the perspective of an American GI. The Geneva Convention protects GIs guarding and interrogating prisoners. The GC clearly states what behaviors are acceptable. GIs know what the GC says they can and cannot do. As long as they follow the GC they cannot be prosecuted for their handling of prisoners. Once they are told the GC does not apply, they have no guidelines for what is acceptable unless hey are given clear instructions. Since no one is willing to put in writing what torture is acceptable, the GIs may find themselves charged with crimes one day for behaviour their superiors did not object to the day before.

The GC protects American troops. If their superiors want the trroops to disregard the GC they should spell out what is acceptable and what is not, i.e. what guidelines are replacing the GC. Absent such clear guidelines it is cowardly for their commanders to let them be prosecuted for excesses and not take responsibility for failing to protect them with proper instructions.