Yeru
First to your question about mercinaries and the US sending an Aircraft carrier to insure justice. Actually, more than once this has happened and NEVER did the US send the military in...I'm thinking specifically of Angola, Rwanda, Zimbabwee, etc.
I must confess, as I don't read 'Soldier Of Fortune', I'd be unaware of this. They don't tend to cover that sort of thing in 'Sarcastic Hippie Mother****er', which is my journal of choice...
I had imagined the response would be similar to when an American boy was given a judicial beating for vandalism in Singapore.
If you have dates and references relating to the imprisonment without normal trial of American Mercinaries, or the use of extra judicial loopholes to imprison American citizens without recourse to habeus corpus, then that would make your rebuttal of my argument complete and total.
Just because a trial isn't public (military tribunal) doesn't mean it's not fair. All verdicts are reviewed, and there is an appeals process.
On the same logic Yeru, one could decide that normal trials need not be open, as "just because a trial isn't public ... doesn't mean it's not fair. All verdicts are reviewed, and there is an appeals process". This would not be acceptable normally. When the prisoners in question are also being kept in an extrajudicial loophole, the issue of openess is even more improtant as already peoples' concerns are arroused.
The war isn't over isn't "loaded language" it's the truth. The war against terrorism is ongoing...Al Qaeda is still out there causing trouble...these detainees were working for and with Al Qaeda...they're still prisoners.
There's the problem. So, there have been trials so we know they were all working for Al-Q? I don't think so. They are there without the normal legal rights for someone in custody of the American authorities, such as habeus corpus. Already they are being talked about, as you exemplify, as though there was some accurate determination of guilt.
Oh, and "The war isn't over isn't "loaded language" it's the truth." is hilarious. I know you didn;t mean to be funny, but using 'truth' and 'loaded language' in a sentence like that shows you just don't understand the idea behind it - don't worry, I'd make a really bad Chaplin's Assistant, you can't expect to get stuff like that all the time.
The difference between POW's and BattleField Detainees is that POW's are legitimate combatants...Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as being legitimate combantants.
And who determines legitimate combantants? How can one decide if many troops are irregulars?, or if most of the fighters have no uniform? I asked the reason about the Germans the term was originally applied to deliberately...
Ya know...if folks would stop worrying so much about these poor defenseless terrorists...and more about ENDING the war on Terror...we'd all be better off.
This is exactly why we are being sold the war on terror Yeru. It means that people can be conditioned to ignore actions against people that they would normally condemn as wrong as they are 'justified'. When you start doing that, you lose something. But I really don't think you see the psychology behind it. I suggest you study the use of propoganda in WWI and WWII.
The President of Amnesty International, USA (an organization I'm not real fond of) said that the Left in the US is a danger to us in the war on terror and needs to change. (This was on O'Reilly last night).
I love the way 'the' left can be invoked so easily when someone on the left has an opinion that is useful to the right's argument. It doesn't contrast well with the howls of outrage from the right that would result in someone on the left saying 'the' right is a danger to us in the war.
There are people on the left with stupid views; to take a comment which probably appplies to those people, rather than the entire spectrum of the left, and use a definate article to give some kind of impression that one is dealing with a Universal truth for "the" group under discussion is verbal sloppiness or intellectual laziness.
It would be like me saying "the" right are a danger to peace. I'd be right in a sense, about some, as I'd be commenting on how fundamental christians who believe Israel must be occupied by the Israelis to fulfil Biblical prophecy are a threat to peace, but I'd be making it look like it's a common opinion. Funnily enough Jan H is doing exactly the same thing on his blog.
Panda:
If you all would read up on terrorism, especially from middle-eastern professors, you will find that not showing strength militarily will allow the terrorist organisations to gain many new recruits. Heck, look at the Syrians. All of a sudden ,"Oh, America look we decided to turn over some Iraqi's to you." Why do you suppose this happened, diplomacy? I doubt it. Nope the Syrians saw that the US was in the middle east for the long haul and they don't want a taste of what Iraqi despots have had and will continue to experience until this war is over.
Talking about Guantanmo Bay, if you think that ignoring protests from many countries and taking advantage of an extra judicial loophole is "showing strength", I have to disagree. I know what most non-Americans (and quite a few Americans) I have spoken to think it shows.
Oh and let's not forget the public trials in Somalia which allowed the despots to go free. And then regain power (I can't remember that guys name???) Free to steal food aid meant for the poor, so that it could be sold to those who had cash and/or given to militias. The poor continued to starve... nice "fair" trial to give the terrorist power over a desparate people. No, if that had been a military trial, if that had been a circumstance where terrorists were detained then, maybe the entire disaster of 1993 would have been avoided... so you see if the terrorists are detained then they won't commit crimes against humanity. Is that a difficult concept? Oh I recall now that was the UN and Pres.Clinton who didn't want military action BUT they sure did put soldiers in harms way with their one arm tied behind their back ie., they were told NOT to fire on the thieves stealing the food and were not provided with armored vehicles (Pres.Clinton was all but disbanding the military while he engaged our soldiers in more countries than any President ever.) The richest country in the world and our soldiers were left defenselesss.
Were the trials in Somalia carried out by local judicary? If so, your example has no meaning. Even IF the detainees were tried in Afghanistan, there should be an Internbational element to their prosecution. USA enforcing this alone just feeds the rhetoric of the fundamentalists as it fulfils their propoganda. It being seen as an International action would ease this.
BTW Amnesty International has for years accused Hussein of crimes against humanity. And while so many foreigners are ready to ney-say President Bush, if they were being tortured in prison would they say "oh no I don't want you to rescue me because your country is too wealthy and nice." Come on. You know you admire the strength of America. Go ahead and admit your awe. And it's ok because we won't take advantage of you for it, nope we'll just save your ass when the time comes ... oh yeah we've already done that , well, allow me to repeat that "you are welcome."
And once again, with a deft twist, we morph the attack on Iraq (because of WoMD and high levels of threat) to an attack on Iraq because of their human rights violations.
And that's the tragedy. If Blair and Bush had said "Saddam's a mad dog, we need to take action against countries like that and allow the people to escape from the tyranny", I'd have been far more supportive. So would many people.
But, I think at some level if they said "Hey, we're gonna get a load of Americans and a few Brits killed to restore democracy in Iraq", many people on the right and left would have asked what business we had doing that. When Iraq was portrayed as an immediate danger to the USA et.al., then the threat of US and UK serviceman dying was far more acceptable - fear is a wonderful excuse to accept other people risking their life.
So we entered a war under pretexts, and no amount of revisionism is going to conceal that on the eve of the war the governments of the USA and the UK had ensured that people were obsessing, not about human rights of Iraqis, but about WoMD, as this was the damnger used to stir people to action.
It's great the Iraqis have a chance of freedom now. It's a pity that so many lies were told to justify the action, or that those in charge were so incompetant and/or badly advised that decisons were made that would not have been justified by a clear understanding of the situation.
