The Mosul Attack

[hgc]

So the JREF "Wise Men" - Nikk, a_u_p and the fool - are here to save the day and will "put me in my place" with their superior intellects because I am...er...ah...so dim. If calling me names makes you feel superior then so be it.

...

"Mommy, they called me names!" is not generally an effective debate tactic.

How do I know you are not a cry baby?

 

[The Fool]

...you don't really know much about Guantanamo Bay at all, do you? Ever heard of Abassin Sayed?

Hi Banquetbear and welcome to the JREF. You will find that the apologists that post here most definitely realise that there is a major problem at Gitmo....its just unfortunate that they cannot allow themselves to speak the unspeakable...to question is to abandon the solidarity they see as strength...

Take the example of the "they were all captured in battle or in afganistan or such tripe. I have, numerous times, proven this false but they will just go quiet for a short time and trot it out again.

we do what we can but are always ready to welcome new input...One day they may just grow to understand the damage they do to the great and honourable aspects of American history and society....you just never know...

 

[The Fool]

"Mommy, they called me names!" is not generally an effective debate tactic.

How do I know you are not a cry baby?

you (claim you are) from NY...how do I know you are not a Canadian posing as a New Yorker? Please post an mp3 of yourself repeating the word "out" repeatedly....this is the only evidence I will accept.

 

[banquetbear]

Hi Banquetbear and welcome to the JREF. You will find that the apologists that post here most definitely realise that there is a major problem at Gitmo....its just unfortunate that they cannot allow themselves to speak the unspeakable...to question is to abandon the solidarity they see as strength...

Take the example of the "they were all captured in battle or in afganistan or such tripe. I have, numerous times, proven this false but they will just go quiet for a short time and trot it out again.

we do what we can but are always ready to welcome new input...One day they may just grow to understand the damage they do to the great and honourable aspects of American history and society....you just never know...

...thanks for the welcome Fool (always wanted to say that! ) , although I'm actually a long time lurker, small time poster!

 

[zenith-nadir]

"Mommy, they called me names!" is not generally an effective debate tactic. How do I know you are not a cry baby?

Holy smokes all the "wise men" are posting today. Attack me, then my religion then attack my objection to being called names. Brilliant. What's next? My objection to being called names proves Gitmo prisoners are innocent?

....feel free to find any evidence to the counter to Sayed's claims

Ok. I will use the same evidence you gave. I think he is not telling the whole truth. Since Sayed's claims are enough evidence for you to prove his innocence then my word should be enough evidence to prove his guilt. Or do I have to provide evidence and he just gets to claim something? Is that how the game works?

It really boils down to this I trust the U.S. more than I trust the claims of former members of the Taliban and Al Queda. It's as simple as that. While nobodys perfect, the U.S. included, I trust that the U.S. more than the "word" of the prisoners. Why? The amount of people who will admit they belong in prison is too small to calculate.

Yet I know people have been wrongly incarcerated, it happens in just about every country on earth, Australia and U.K. included. That is a fact. Yet I still trust the U.S. more than the "word" of Taliban and Al Queda prisoners in Gitmo.

Anyhow I take my leave of this thread because it has become derailed by the attacks upon me and my religion due to my position regarding the status of prisoners in Gitmo. Rather than a friendly debate it has descended into personal attacks and childish taunts towards me.

Have fun dissing me alone.

 

[banquetbear]

Holy smokes all the "wise men" are posting today. Attack me, then my religion then attack my objection to being called names. Brilliant. What's next? My objection to being called names proves Gitmo prisoners are innocent?

Ok. I will use the same evidence you gave. I think he is not telling the whole truth. Since Sayed's claims are enough evidence for you to prove his innocence then my word should be enough evidence to prove his guilt. Or do I have to provide evidence and he just gets to claim something? Is that how the game works?

It really boils down to this I trust the U.S. more than I trust the claims of former members of the Taliban and Al Queda. It's as simple as that. While nobodys perfect, the U.S. included, I trust that the U.S. more than the "word" of the prisoners. Why? The amount of people who will admit they belong in prison is too small to calculate.

Yet I know people have been wrongly incarcerated, it happens in just about every country on earth, Australia and U.K. included. That is a fact. Yet I still trust the U.S. more than the "word" of Taliban and Al Queda prisoners in Gitmo.

Anyhow I take my leave of this thread because it has become derailed by the attacks upon me and my religion due to my position regarding the status of prisoners in Gitmo. Rather than a friendly debate it has descended into personal attacks and childish taunts.

Have fun dissing me alone.

...that's all you've got? Trust? Why does the United States have a consitution, if it's all about trust? Why does a suspect have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, if you can just "trust" your government and your police and your armed forces at their word? Additionally, the US have made NO comment regarding the detention of Sayed-essentially saying they do not dispute his account-doesn't that matter to you? You conceed that there are innocent people in jail all around the world-is that a concession that you believe that there may be innocent people locked up at Guantanamo Bay? And you believe that there innocence doesn't matter?

I fear I may never get an answer to these questions...

 

[Nikk]

Well you folks keep defending the "rights" of Taliban and Al Queda prisoners in Gitmo. Under the Geneva Convention they are unlawful combatants and therefore have no rights. I didn't write the Geneva Convention and I did force them to fight against Americans. Nor did I ask America to send them to Gitmo. I just don't think they are there because they are innocent I think they are there because they were doing something rather than nothing.

Actually my intellectually challenged friend the point of the Geneva convention as it relates to the treatment of combatants is to give "proper" soldiers a privileged status. Without that they could be legally treated as nothing more than violent criminals, bandits or what have you, i.e. they would only have the rights of someone accused of a crime and could be executed for murder.

Thus in principle it is perfectly reasonable to treat the internees as accused criminals if you can show that they are not entitled to GC protections. There is obviously a whole can of worms in relation to jurisdiction, appropiate legal systems and procedures etc. What cannot be doubted is that they do have legal rights and that it should be up to the courts to determine how they should be treated, whether they should be detained, whether there was any right to remove them in the first place etc. Anything else is mere banditry.

Your idea that the people you captured and kidnapped have "no rights" is no different from Adolph's idea that jews have no rights. Nice, brothers under the skin and all that.

Anyway, that's it for me, I'm off.

Have a nice Christmas and I hope you find a copy of "The Child's Guide to Elementary English Comprehension" in your stocking. The companion volume " My Favourite Logical Fallacies" is good too.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Actually my intellectually challenged friend

Wow about 30 seconds and another personal attack.

Your idea that the people you captured and kidnapped have "no rights" is no different from Adolph's idea that jews have no rights. Nice, brothers under the skin and all that.

They have no rights under the Geneva Convention einstein. How many times do I have to say that? 10? 20? Yet the semantic games, personal attacks and Hitler references continue. And that is why this debate is dead for me.

 

[The Fool]

...thanks for the welcome Fool (always wanted to say that! ) , although I'm actually a long time lurker, small time poster!

yes, my apologies for my fixation about post counts.....as if my volume of drivel counts for something other than an indication of a lack of a life

I hope you continue to flog us a cricket, even if its the short game as Australians need to be reminded that being the best at a game that hardly anyone else plays is not all that important....

 

[The Fool]

Wow about 30 seconds and another personal attack.

are you annoyed he beat your personal best?

anyway...apart from all the usual crap and wind...best wishes for a happy 8 days of Hanukkah to you and your family ZN, and there is no sarcasm, irony or ill intent in that statement.

 

[hgc]

Holy smokes all the "wise men" are posting today. Attack me, then my religion then attack my objection to being called names. Brilliant. What's next? My objection to being called names proves Gitmo prisoners are innocent?

 

[rikzilla]

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.

Well, as I understood it the restraint I was speaking of was strictly about military strategy/operations. Personally I am not speaking in favor of torture, terrorism, or unconventional warfare. All I am saying is that, realistically speaking, if the enemy manages to hurt us badly enough all of the above will magically be back on the strategic table. Look only as far as the effect of 9/11. Now place yourself in, say August 2001....envision yourself arguing for the invasion of Afghanistan....imagine going before the US Congress to advocate the widening of surveilance, search, seizure, and arrest powers of the police.

Hell, even the House conservatives would have laughed you out of the building. ? Yet just 45 days after 9/11 these things were the military strategy of the US, and the law of the land.

One day, if we are not very careful, and if all our security does not work perfectly, there will be another attack here that will...in the words of Al Qaeda's "Azzam the American"

"People of America, I remind you of the weighty words of our leaders, Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, that what took place on Sept. 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America," said Azzam. "And that Allah willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about Sept. 11."

Personally speaking, I believe him. But only if AQ has time, space, and resources with which to make such an attack happen. Ultimately, such a spectacularly organised and devastating attack would require a state sponsor. I don't believe AQ has now, or will have such a sponsor as long as we are actively chasing down AQ elements and making nations which might like to help AQ...(Iran, Syria, etc) very nervous about the ramifications of such support.

As such, the WOT as it now exists may be our ultimate safeguard against the spread of a police-state. If we lose a city to a smuggled nuke the legislative and societal backlash will make the Patriot Act and WOT look like ACLU projects by comparison.

You make a good point on the atom bombs.

The Japanese High Command's ability to absorb 2 atom bombs with a third promissed over Tokyo and still vote to fight on is the most extraordinary aspect of the end of WWII. It's hard to concieve of. It took the direct order of the Emperor himself to make them surrender...if they hadn't been raised to think of him as a living God who knows the extent of the carnage that would have been required?

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.

Yes, and they would have been faced with the same dilemma about using it. But again,...there is no way of knowing. MAD had a way of sobering the US, China, and Soviets of the intoxicant of war. But you can't deter terrorists with MAD...you can only hunt them and kill them before they do unto you. It's a job that has to be done continuously and well....and ultimately....endlessly. When/If we ever slack up, our buddy Azzam's words will be well worth remembering.

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).

Yes but you missed my point. Had Korea been fought with the effort of WWII and not been negotiated into perpetual low level warfare....had GW1 been fought as a real and total war instead of a battle to remove Iraqi armies from Kuwait...GW2 would never have even been necessary.

Remember, Afghanistan, GW2, and Kosovo...your list of modern military victories were all fought without the sanction of the UN and were ended by capitulation or collapse of enemy government forces....not by restraint and negotiation.

An objective truth is that we will never again have to fight Milosovic in Kosovo, or Saddam in Iraq. These things are true only because we sought victory instead of accomidation. It's enough to make a feeling person weep for the generations of N. Koreans who suffered and starved under the Kims....and those to come.... with no end in sight. The Iraqis no longer need fear the reign of Saddam, and Qusay,...and son,....and son,...etc...forever. For that alone I have no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi majority is profoundly grateful.

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.

True. But also our soldiers no longer suffer incredible hardships at the actions of the enemy,...and are generally well disciplined. There was a time though that military brutality was an uncontrollable aspect of war. I particularly remember studying the British seige of Badajoz during the Penninsular war in Spain against Napoleon. The British spent a long wretched time assaultiing the stronghold...they lived in the cold mud while the French slept in warm beds and jeered at them from the walls. Imagine the pent up anger....

The Duke of Wellington laid siege to the fortress form 17th March to 6th April, on the 5th April a large scale assault breached the fortress walls which allowed Wellingtons troops to storm the defences. The main assault failed with the loss of 2,000 but one of the two diversionary attacks succeeded in scaling the walls at the second attempt. The following day the defenders surrendered. The British troops took their revenge on the town with sustained looting and it was 3 days before order was restored. The Duke of Wellington's forces had 5,000 casualties during the siege of Badajoz.

That doesn't really begin to tell the story though. The French that survived their surrender were few...only the ones who found British officers to surrender to. It indeed took 3 days for British officers to again bring their army under control. The rape, pillage, and murder after the fall of Badajoz were legendary. Wellington had to hang scores of his own men just to re-establish order. Think of it, 5,000 men lost just on the British side in an assault on one city. Iraq looks like a military victory minted in solid gold in comparisson to that nightmare. Wellington is perhaps the quintessential British hero....but in todays world would he be seen as a butcher? Or perhaps an incompetent who couldn't control his own army? Our modern perspective is one crafted by the bias of journalists...and ignorance of history.

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

Well, I think restraint is important in and or itself where appropriate. When fighting for one's life restraint is no longer an issue...but when presiding over captives, or the remains of a defeated people...it's humane and appropriate. Had Napoleon been executed it would have saved the 48,000 dead @ Waterloo, yet had restraint been held by Wellington in Badajoz he would have won a moral as well as a military victory. We need to remember that...I need to remember that!

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?

Yes, there are cultural differences. However I haven't seen any Iraqis protesting with pictures of the "martyrs" Uday and Qusay. I don't think Saddam was quite religious enough to be seen as a "martyr"...but who knows? We have to do the smart thing...as far as we have the ability to. Any trial we help the Iraqis perform will be looked upon as bogus by jihadis and Ba'athists.

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.

I agree...but I also think that the use of genocide and terrorsim should always be criticised and constantly. It may not be news that terrorists use terror...but you can't just say (yawn) so what? We need to point it up...even if it is like screaming that fire is hot. Otherwise we are tacitly agreeing that for one side in a conflict, the targeted murder of innocent humans is....ordinary.... and as such acceptable.

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.

Well they don't. Governments are just groupings of people. There are governments run by and for terrorism instead of the good of their people. Saddam's Iraq was a good example.

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.

Yes I know,...it's convoluted and contradictory and I didn't like writing it. But still and all I think it's a pretty fair description of human history. We may (and should) attempt to rise above it, but it's pretty naive to think that this (or any) nation will be the transparent democratic paradise described by GWB in that excerpt that has been previously posted here. For people here who profess never to believe a word that GWB says, to then accept at face value what any reasonably educated person would recognise as basic political rhetoric, is frankly astonishing. I'm astonished! Hell, even I'm not that pro-Bush!

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?

Nice, but holding the moral high ground will not necessarily win you a war. But it may win the peace....as long as the enemies propaganda machine does not paint you differently. That moral hill you think you have may just be an illusion that only you can see. IMHO, the US will never have that ground as long as the Arab street has already convicted us for the crime of supporting Israel.

"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?

Are you trying to "Godwin" the thread? Hitler also loved his dog, and great taste in cars, loved nature, and was good to his friends. By extension he breathed air and peed standing up...

IMHO the evolution of civilisation is moving towards a world being run by a central authority....by the consent of the majority of the world's people. In other words,...world democracy. It's the best system of government yet devised, unless something better comes along to take it's place that offers more freedom, justice, and prosperity to the individual then that's where we're going. We may not live to see it, but I bet our grand-kids will. As long as we don't destroy ourselves getting there that is....

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.

Use it as you wish with my blessing. As long as they are placed in proper context I have no problem with anyone repeating any quotes of mine.

The Roman Empire is a fascinating historical example of the wonders and pitfalls of empire. America itself is an example of empire writ small. We are a group of semi sovereign states who voted to join together and give up some power to a central government while reserving the handling of most local issues to local governmental bodies. All under the prinicple of democratically elected leaders, and separation of political power branches. Evolution is not just about biology you know...we are all evolving, always...just look at the influence of the internet in the last few years. The Islamists, and other repressive societies will not be able to keep the flow of information from their people. People will recognise the worth of freedom of speech, religion, movement, thought.... The Mullahs are undoubtedly worried as are the Al Sauds, Kim Jung Il's, and Khaddafi's of the world.

Khaddafi has turned away from terrorism...perhaps he'll be the leadership example the Arabs follow in the future??? One can only hope. But you don't change a Khaddafi by turning a blind eye to his terrorism. He must be confronted, his mind must be changed. We can never stop turning the spotlight of immorality on these criminals...no matter how cliche it may seem.

-z

PS:

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes I know,...it's convoluted and contradictory and I didn't like writing it. But still and all I think it's a pretty fair description of human history. We may (and should) attempt to rise above it, but it's pretty naive to think that this (or any) nation will be the transparent democratic paradise described by GWB in that excerpt that has been previously posted here. For people here who profess never to believe a word that GWB says, to then accept at face value what any reasonably educated person would recognise as basic political rhetoric, is frankly astonishing. I'm astonished! Hell, even I'm not that pro-Bush!

Rick, maybe when you can come up with a consistent argument, you should raise it. It is just sophistry otherwise, but you can't admit it to yourself.

And to think that these 'dark secrets' are just that is just once again an example of your inability to see things from any other than your own, narrow perspective.

These secrets are known, just not to the people of America. Every dirty trick that is carried out is known, and remembered, by someone.

You may want to cast your mind back to Vietnam, (yes again), and how ineffective and self defeating the dirty tricks were in that war. For all the allure and temptation, in the end, such methods appear to be pretty well useless.

To have gained the basic trust of the people of Iraq would have been worth a million tons of 'precision' bombing and thousands of American lives.

The Roman Empire is a fascinating historical example of the wonders and pitfalls of empire. America itself is an example of empire writ small. We are a group of semi sovereign states who voted to join together and give up some power to a central government while reserving the handling of most local issues to local governmental bodies. All under the prinicple of democratically elected leaders, and separation of political power branches. Evolution is not just about biology you know...we are all evolving, always...just look at the influence of the internet in the last few years. The Islamists, and other repressive societies will not be able to keep the flow of information from their people. People will recognise the worth of freedom of speech, religion, movement, thought.... The Mullahs are undoubtedly worried as are the Al Sauds, Kim Jung Il's, and Khaddafi's of the world.

America is an empire in all but name. What other country posesses and projects at will such power, and has so many military bases scattered around the globe. The 'shock and awe' of Iraq was about asserting that power.

Khaddafi has turned away from terrorism...perhaps he'll be the leadership example the Arabs follow in the future??? One can only hope. But you don't change a Khaddafi by turning a blind eye to his terrorism. He must be confronted, his mind must be changed. We can never stop turning the spotlight of immorality on these criminals...no matter how cliche it may seem.

-z

PS:

Gaddafi was turned away from terrorism in a textbook example of what you can achieve without spilling blood all over the place.

 

[rikzilla]

Rick, maybe when you can come up with a consistent argument, you should raise it. It is just sophistry otherwise, but you can't admit it to yourself.

And to think that these 'dark secrets' are just that is just once again an example of your inability to see things from any other than your own, narrow perspective.

These secrets are known, just not to the people of America. Every dirty trick that is carried out is known, and remembered, by someone.

You may want to cast your mind back to Vietnam, (yes again), and how ineffective and self defeating the dirty tricks were in that war. For all the allure and temptation, in the end, such methods appear to be pretty well useless.

To have gained the basic trust of the people of Iraq would have been worth a million tons of 'precision' bombing and thousands of American lives.


America is an empire in all but name. What other country posesses and projects at will such power, and has so many military bases scattered around the globe. The 'shock and awe' of Iraq was about asserting that power.


Gaddafi was turned away from terrorism in a textbook example of what you can achieve without spilling blood all over the place.

Look AUP, calling me a "sophist" and quoting me about Hitler in your sig line does nothing to disprove the arguments I have made. Neither did I deny the aspects of America which fit the description of empire. Your entire post is an example of amateurish sophistry of a scale and scope that only a slightly dim middle-schooler could possibly be fooled by.

Did you even read my post? Never mind,...it was not meant to foster any kind of conversation between you and I. Been there, done that. My post was a reply to Gem...the latest installment of a courteous and informative exchange of ideas. Try it sometime.

-z

Oh...and if you're going to quote me about Hitler why not put it into context, or at least post the entire quote. Although for the life of me I can't understand how "rikzilla" must be pro-Hitler since he acknowledged Hitler as a human. He was. Hitler didn't love his dog, nature, friends, appreciate nice cars, breathe air, or pee standing up because he was an evil Nazi, but because he was a human being. Hitler was evil because of the murderous crap he did...not the regular everyday human stuff he did.

But why am I telling you this? You know it already and besides mindlessly demonizing people you disagree with is your sport of choice.

You may think your way is more fun...but I submit that my conversation with Gem in this thread is agood example of what makes the JREF forum both fun and informative.

 

[Mycroft]

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

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

tan·ta·mount: Equivalent in effect or value

So it's not the same as torture, but in someone's opinion, its equivalent in effect or value.

For starters, just what does tantamount to torture mean? While those practices do sound like they could elicit both physical and mental discomfort and duress, they do not appear to rise to the level of torture, or something tantamount to it.

Also, the ICRC's bases for its allegations of abuse are the reports of the detainees themselves, not any first-hand observation of the alleged abuse, said a Pentagon official. That fact calls into question the findings, for obvious reasons. The official maintains that claims of ongoing conflict between the Pentagon and ICRC are also false. "It actually is a pretty good relationship we have with the ICRC," he said. "They continue to make valuable comments and suggestions."

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041205-100543-2116r.htm

 

[Mycroft]

People in prison have a trial, and a chance to dispute evidence, and are told what the charges against them are.

Cox and Forknum? King of the strawmen.

So you think prisoners taken in time of war should be treated exactly as criminals arrested by police?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
you simply can't comprehend it can you.... That you are applying the exact same pisspoor arguments against these people that people used to rationalise the detention of Jews.....that my government tells me they are evil and thats enough for me...

Not really.

On one hand, the argument is applied to an ethnic group regardless of circumstances. On the other hand, the argument is applied specificly to circumstances.

That some of the people at Gitmo may be innocent of wrong-doing is certainly a cause for concern, but to say that the treatment of these people is wrong because some of them are innicent would be similar to saying the treatment of prisoners in any prison system anywhere is wrong because innocent people sometimes wind up in prison anyway.

 

[gnome]

Well, I think restraint is important in and or itself where appropriate. When fighting for one's life restraint is no longer an issue...but when presiding over captives, or the remains of a defeated people...it's humane and appropriate.

THIS is all I've been looking to get you to say. You'll admit that when the argument gets really heated up, some of the hawks tend to abandon agreeing even with that principle if the detainees are judged horrible enough?

 

[a_unique_person]

So you think prisoners taken in time of war should be treated exactly as criminals arrested by police?

It is clear they don't even know anything about these people. One lesson they could have learned from the Vietnam war, if you offer a reward for information on the 'enemy', there are people out there who will see it as an easy way to make a dishonest dollar.

 

[Mycroft]

It is clear they don't even know anything about these people.

Are you really saying they don't know anything about anyone being held at gitmo? Isn't that a little absurd?