Guantanamo Bay

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

NO NO NO NO NO. Disrespecting human rights IS terrorism you bone head. Going around the word kidnapping people is terrorism. The USA should not even have been in Afghanistan, they had no business there.

While I am pretty much 103% against the war in Iraq, I disagree that the US should not have been in Afganistan. The Afgan war was a reasonable and even necessary step in the 'war against terrorism', not to mention one of the worst places on the planet. They had cause, right and reason to be there. (Nopt saying they handled it well, just that their initial cause was good)

Iraq on the other hand was absurd, and in no way connected to the war on terrorism, at least until now. Thanks to the US actions, Al-Quaida now IS active in Iraq, whereas they were not before...

Back to the original issue, the US had every right to take prisoners of war from Afganistan, and sequester them wherever they want. They do not have the right to arbitrarily invent a new term for these people (illegal combatants) so they can circumvent international law, then keep them without charge, release or representation, either legal or consular. Tales of mistreatment have come out of Gitmo, and though they are just tales I would not be surprised, why work so hard to deny people the rights of international law, unless it is your intent to treat them in a way that goes against international law?

[Zar]

The "war or terrorism" starts at home. The USA needs to bomb it's self several times over.

[Radical Edward]

I reckon the US should have avoided all this rubbish by disappearing them. They had no real need to go round telling countries that they had their citizens in the camp. That was the prisoners could have just been taken there, and after they were dealt with, encased in concrete and dropped into the sea, or dunked in powerful acid while still alive and screaming, or whatever the troops felt like at the time.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Afghanistan was a terrible place but the US had no interest in clearing the place up. They even said to the Taliban you can carry on doing whatver but you have to hand over Bin Laden, but those dastardly Taliban had the temerity to ask for proof that is was Bin Laden before handing him over. When you say rwasonable step on "the war on terrror" you are immediatly making the assumption that the war on terror is acceptable which it isn't.The Iraq was not justified for many reasons, the fact that it had nothing to do with teh WoT was a reason for not doing it but it certainly weas not the only reason.

When you say the war on terror isn't acceptable do you mean "morally" speaking? And in fairness now didn't good ole Ossama claim he was responsible for 9/11 (although maybe I'm just under that impression for some random, undefinable reasons)? Do we need a signed note from his mother first?

[Super]

hay guyz whats happening in this thread

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Afghanistan was a terrible place but the US had no interest in clearing the place up. They even said to the Taliban you can carry on doing whatver but you have to hand over Bin Laden, but those dastardly Taliban had the temerity to ask for proof that is was Bin Laden before handing him over. When you say rwasonable step on "the war on terrror" you are immediatly making the assumption that the war on terror is acceptable which it isn't.The Iraq was not justified for many reasons, the fact that it had nothing to do with teh WoT was a reason for not doing it but it certainly weas not the only reason.

I suspect they had an interest in cleaning it up, just no solid idea of how that would be accomplished. I agree that the aftermath of the war in afganistan was handled terribly, and if the US were srious about the country they would put in a major commitment to helping the state build itself up along a modern model, though that would take a great deal of money and time...

I also agree that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and it had nothing at all to do with the ,war on terror'.

Where I disagree is where you say there should have been no war on terror at all, that I find baffling. How is it unacceptable to respond militarily to a long series of terrorist attacks by a single organisation, culminating in 9/11? The war on terror is acceptable, and even necessary. The question is not is this war a good idea (which is clearly is) but is this war being prosecuted properly and with the proper goals in mind (which it is not).

[Perfection]

Originally Posted by Evil Skragg

And of course hostages taken by terrorists are treated so much better...

If you base your actions on what the terrorists would do then you are little better than them. Human rights et al are there to protect people for a reason. The 'Democracy' concept is not just a vote (which would be commonly referred to as an elective dictatorship - basically you elect your dictator, but hes still a dictator) but includes ways of protecting minorities. How do you justify to yourself fighting a war on terror, to protect certain values (including freedom and democracy) by violating said values?

Originally Posted by A2

One thing I've never quite worked out however is:

If America was so damn sure that the people they'd caught were members of a terrorist organisation, and could prove it, then why didn't they decide to prove it in a proper, legal, and open manner. The fact that they kept them in, what was described in the article as a "legal balck hole" suggests that they did not have the evidence necessary, and therefore needed to keep them out of sight of normal processes until they "confessed"

They havent, which is why after 2 years they are not being tried. UK has legislation which allows for indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, not dis-similar to GuaBay. Sometimes you cant prove beyond reasonable doubt (the burden of proof in criminal prosecutions) that a terrorist is guilty of any offence. But given the problem of terrorism and the immediacy required in acting, the law recognises that detention of people you hold a reasonable 'suspicion' of, as legal. This is a slightly pre-emptive measure, but a necessary one and one which, in principle, i agree with. Of course, our law also prescribes for something like adequate treatment and supplies whilst in detention, something which isnt happening at GuaBay.

[MrL_JaKiri]

That's not saying that there shouldn't be a War against Terror as such, but you disagree with the implementation (and the like).

Of course, once we view it like that, Verm's statement comes down to a bit of a truism.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

The question is not is this war a good idea (which is clearly is) but is this war being prosecuted properly and with the proper goals in mind (which it is not).

what do you think is a good method of actually dealing with this problem then?

[Petru]

I quite liked the "carpet bomb Northern Ireland" suggestion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

As Chomsky says, the first way to fight terror is to start participating it.

Freudian slip, or did you mean this?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You are wrong. Here are simply questions that have not been addressed.

1. Is there actually a war on terror going on, or is it a war against anyone who challenges US hegemony?

If the US were waging war on the challengers to US hegemony we'd be attacking China and Europe, not Iraq and Afghanistan. You're not even making sense.

2. Is it the right of one nation to intervene in foreign countries unilaterally and preventatively, on the basis that they might be a threat?

The US did not act unilaterally, but putting that aside, yes.

3. Is it any suprise that the United States is a target given its bloody record over the last century?

Are you now suggesting the actions of the terrorists are justified?

4. Athough the US like to cast this as a war of civilization against murderers it is plain to see that here are deeper issues involved, for instance would you have carpet bombed Northern Ireland in order to remove the terorists from there?

Carpet bombing is passe.

5. Given that America still supports many terrorist groups and keeps many areas around the world unstable through aggressive interference, is it really appropriate for the US to be leading the War on terror?

Whom would you suggest instead?

Right.

6. If we look at the coalition against terror, ie Israel, Turkey and Uzebekistan to name but three we can see a record of awful oppression, yet you believe there should be a war on a small group of disparate groups known as terrorists?

You conveniently cherrypicked the list, but let's list some other members of the evul coalition: Belgium, Norway, Poland, UK, New Zealand, Denmark. How about the three wicked baltic states (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) and, of course, the Most Evil of All: Canada.

So far, 84 countries have signed on for at least some aspect of the war on terrorism. Get with the program, Comrade.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

You conveniently cherrypicked the list, but let's list some other members of the evul coalition: Belgium, Norway, Poland, UK, New Zealand, Denmark. How about the three wicked baltic states (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) and, of course, the Most Evil of All: Canada.

That's pretty irrelevent to the point he was making though.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

1. Is there actually a war on terror going on, or is it a war against anyone who challenges US hegemony?

Yes, there is a war on terror going on. This can be seen by all of the terrorist attacks against US interests and citizens by one organisation, Al Quaida. They have launched a number of damaging attacks, killing hundreds in total, and that is before they drove four aircraft into three buildings and killed some 3000 people. (well, three into buildings, one into the ground)

That caused the United States to react, starting the war on terror. I have to tell you it seems pretty cut and dry to me. You seem incredibly self-assured of your correctness, so perhaps you can explain to me why you believe there is NO war on terror going on, rather than just asserting my error.

Besides, even if none of that were true, you point is still silly, unless you can explain to me exactly how Aphganistan was a serious threat to US hegemony.

2. Is it the right of one nation to intervene in foreign countries unilaterally and preventatively, on the basis that they might be a threat?

Not so good with the paying attention are you? Again, I have stated numerous times how I do not believe the war in Iraq is part of the war on Terror, and that it is a mistake, and an ill-conceived one. Please stop responding to what you would like it if I said, and start responding to what I actually said.

As for the invasion of Afghanistan, rarely has there been such a multilateral attack, not only was the UN and all of the US allies on board, but so were traditional rivals like Russia, Pakistan, India and China. The war in Afghanistan was more multilateral than the second world war, and it was certainly provoked. So, in sum, I have difficulty imaging how you could be more wrong.

4. Although the US like to cast this as a war of civilization against murderers it is plain to see that here are deeper issues involved, for instance would you have carpet bombed Northern Ireland in order to remove the terrorists from there?

Bit of a non- point, isn't it? If the government of Ireland was an oppressive, tyrannical and cruel undemocratic regime and they fully sponsored and supported the IRA, included their units in the regular militia, co-ordinated supply and troop movements and endorsed in word, money and fact the IRA, proclaimed publicly the value of IRA attacks and called for more of the same, AND the IRA as opposed to blowing up Pubs, drove a series of aircraft into UK buildings killing 3000 people, then frankly, yes I as the UK would have attacked the Irish seat of power. Not carpet bombed of course, another factual red herring, as the US did not do this in Afghanistan, except in mountain ranges and cave complexes once they had determined no civilian towns or significant presence...

Note for you: parables work better when they have at least SOME connection to the situation we are discussing.

5. Given that America still supports many terrorist groups and keeps many areas around the world unstable through aggressive interference, is it really appropriate for the US to be leading the War on terror?

Here we get to your first reasonable point. As a sponsor of a certain kind of terrorism at various times, can the US be morally responsible in leading this war on terror? There are two problems with this: one- the question is fundamentally irrelevant, and two- the situation is different.

The second one first, as it is the weakest. Unquestionably, the US has done some things regarding terrorism in the past which were at best questionable, at worst downright wrong. The Taliban grew from religious schools funded by Pakistan with US money, to fund anti-soviet sentiment. In the Americas and in the middle east, the US has had a hand, though usually indirectly, in funding destabilising regimes. The reality is however, almost all of these actions took place in the context of the cold war, faced with an 'enemy' doing the same thing but far worse. It was seen, and reasonably so, as the lesser of two evils. Now that does NOT justify their actions, and I agree the US has a lot to account for, but it does provide some measure of explanation, in particular when compared to modern international terrorist groups.

The second point is that the question is essentially irrelevant in reality. Once the US lost the world trade centres, did you really expect them to say: "we have been attacked and thousands of lives have been lost to terrorism, but tell you what, we will not respond to it, we will quietly take it because in the 1970s we engaged in some questionable activities of our own." Of course not. While precedent exists in law as a founding principle, it has only limited value in international politics. Otherwise you could say that the UK should accept IRA bombs going off without response or redress, because they were a colonial power once, or that Japan should not sentence the subway Sarin gas bomber to death, because they used chemical weapons themselves in the first world war.

Its an irrelevant question, interesting in theory, but with absolutely no foundation in practice.

6. If we look at the coalition against terror, ie Israel, Turkey and Uzebekistan to name but three we can see a record of awful oppression, yet you believe there should be a war on a small group of disparate groups known as terrorists?

I agree completely here, at least with part of your point. Yes, some of the US allies are terribly oppressive to their populations. (I would not have used Turkey or Israel mind you, and would have substituted Saudi and Pakistan instead, but whatever) The US needs to reconsider what nations it allies with if it wishes to salvage its international reputation. However, what does that have to do with anything?

Turkey and Israel did not attack the US, Al Quaida did,. This is not a group of disparate groups, this is one highly organised and efficient terrorist organisation which has launched massive multi-hundred fatality attacks on the US, Spain, Indonesia, and smaller attacks on dozens of other countries.

You seriously have no idea what you think here. You start by saying there is no war on terror, but some of your points are essentially :"the US is not all good and has some problems." I agree 100%, the US has made some idiotic mistakes and has some insane policies. So what? That in no way obliviates the existence, reality or value of the current war on Terror.

As I said, I have enormous problems with the way the war has been persecuted, they should have dealt with Afghanistan fully, and then made a major effort to rebuild the state along reasonable lines, and they should certainly never have gone into Iraq...


And Mr_J, you are correct, my statement was a bit of a truism, which is why I am surprised to hear someone disagreeing with it.

[Radical Edward]

spelling is good.

[Elfhelm]

Did you write all that yourself T & F? It's good.

[Ste]

copy and paste then

[Vermillion]

It is an interesting post, and it certainly makes your personal world view clear, but it is also almost completely irrelevant.

Firstly, though your decision to take the global view was interesting, I note you didn’t bother addressing in your global view any of the issues we were debating earlier, and I dealt with. That’s neither here nor there.

Secondly, your world view post deals almost not at all with the debate at hand, it is as if you believe the US has done wrong in the past (which I will agree to) thus NOTHING they do now can ever be right. You do not rebut the concept of the war on terror, you just point out how unfair the US embargo on Cuba is. You made not a single comment in your world view about the war on terror or the attack on Afghanistan, just generally railed against the US for what you perceive as its many evils.

You say, in one of your few relevant points, that I am ‘pathetic’ for asserting that the US has the right to defend itself when attacked, as it was during 9/11. Of course, you make no case or argument to back that up, just another massive assertion, somehow we are supposed to accept your assertion that the US has no right to defend itself, and I guess should change the American Airlines slogan to ‘Fly us into buildings, we won’t mind!’

Then your tirade goes from the silly to the idiotic:

You are part of the secular priesthood, who will speak from the pulpit despising those blasphemers who question the divine right of the US to do whatever it likes as long as it doesn't impede profit.

Are you pathologically insane? Not only am I one of the most vocal critics of the US on these boards, but in EVERY POST SO FAR in this thread I have commented that the US was on Iraq was idiotic and foolish, that the war in Afghanistan was badly handled, that the US allies itself with despot states for the sake of convenience… You are so eager to rant and wax (somewhat) eloquent that you pay not the slightest attention to the actual points of the debate, the issue or what your opponent is saying. It’s like you put your hand in the middle of the screen, read the beginning and end of every sentence and then just fill in the rest with what you think it would be cooler if I said. PAY ATTENTION!

I condemn the US on issues and facts; you condemn them as a part of your dogma: nothing they do can ever be right or reasonable, because they are the UNITED STATES! Please. If you wish to insult the US, there is plenty of ammunition, but (and let me be very clear here) in this thread I have condemned almost every one of there actions on point, EXCEPT the fact that they were right to lead a war on terror following 9/11, EVEN THOUGH they then handled it badly. And for that one bit of faint praise, for that one semi-positive comment, you label me as one who “despising those blasphemers who question the divine right of the US to do whatever it likes as long as it doesn't impede profit”.

Great verbiage, utterly asinine logic.


But wait, there’s more. Not only did your little tirade deal almost not at ALL with the actual issue up for debate, it was also filled will errors and misinterpretations, clearly caused by your one-sided world view. Your first statement was laughable:

It was always much more powerful than the USSR I think we can all agree. Furthermore there was never any realistic threat to the US mainland from Russia.

How old are you? I must assume you were too young to be politically aware during the cold war, but this is complete hindsight. There was a time during the Cold War when everybody assumed that the US was the second most powerful nation in the world, behind the leading Soviet Union. Even during the 1980s, when it was clear the US did have a lead in technology in some fields, the USSR still led the west in other technologies, and kept their weaknesses very well concealed. Nobody knew the extent of the weakness of the USSR, not even the leaders of the USSR itself.

Then your post degenerates (if that was possible) into just ‘look at all the bad stuff the US did ever!’. Of course some of your criticisms have real merit, but they are presented carefully without the backdrop of the actions of the USSR, which were the same but worse. Does that justify the US actions? Probably not, but it is a critical context to have to understand why the US acted as it did.

You reduce Iraq to an attack because ‘they were not following orders’ and you reduce the attack on Afghanistan to ‘get oil and make sure they paid attention to the US’. That is almost not worthy of a comment. What oil in Afghanistan? (maybe you will now use the tired and silly ‘pipeline across the country’ argument, already discarded by even the most vocal conspiracy theorists. I hope you do…) Why on EARTH would they need ANOTHER major base next to Russia, and what happened to it, if that was their plan? Do you, in all seriousness, believe that this was actually the reason they went into that part of the world?

I will never get up here and defend the actions of the US Carte Blanche. Though your portrayal was one-sided and riddled with inaccuracies, you did manage to point out some of the truly atrocious things the US has done around the world. I have been to Cuba several times, the sanctions there are absurd, and based on local politics. I have been to the middle East, both sides of the fence, and while I understand the concept of support for Israel, clearly the US ‘support’ has been FAR too universal and unquestioning, especially recently.

The US has ignored several valuable conventions put forward by the UN, which is unfortunate and in some cases contemptible. They do not have more WMD than anyone by the way, they are still second in all three forms of WMD behind Russia, but I will just add that to the list of errors in your post.


NONE of that has anything to do with the issue at hand, and NONE of that explains why the US should not have acted against Al Quaida to defend itself after Sept. 11th, and NONE of that supports your vapid contention that there ‘is no war on terror’.