Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:04 am

Nekulor wrote:Kate, I did quote the statistic for total war deaths, you must have searched under something different than I did when you got that site, because I didn't have that site when I searched.

I believe you were looking for stats on US inflicted casualties upon civilians in Iraq. Anyway, invading and occupying a country, even under BS reasons will create an uprising partially fueled by the relatives of those civilians killed. And can you really blame them? Add to that the flies to honey scenario where US forces attract foreign fighters by their mere presence and it's quite obvious it's going to get ugly. Imho I believe the US would have been further ahead invading Pakistan and not Iraq if this were really about terrorism.

I am suggesting people involved in terrorist or insurgent style attacks be put on trial and dealt with by our courts and tribunals. Soldiers in pitched battles would not be subject to such. It sounded to me like the boy was acting as an insurgent, not in a pitched military maneuver.

"Insurgent style attacks" is a specialty of most Special Forces units around the globe. The SAS has a long history of it as do US units such as Delta Force so I think it's best to stick with true Terrorist acts.

Kate

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:27 am

And when our boys are not in uniform(and get caught) they are disowned by the goverment. It is a risk they know going in. And you can bet they would trade places with anybody down in the "bay" in a heart beat.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:41 am

ç i p h é r wrote:I was offering evidence to you that these extremists you seem so unconcerned about are far from harmless.

I like how you keep suggesting that I somehow support extremists. The usual "You’re with us or with the terrorists" crap I suppose.

So please, quote any of my posts that support your statement.

That said, the stories you linked are totally unrelated to this thread. This 15 year old committed an act of war, not terrorism as per the facts. In neither case do I support what he did but I object to the US side-stepping the constitution and Geneva Conventions to torture and execute anyone they get their hands on.

The point is that you, and many people in America and beyond, STILL underestimate these folks despite everything we know. You're right, just being an extremist isn't evidence of a crime, but you KNOW these guys are connected to radical Islamic groups somehow just like you KNOW the CIA is torturing suspected terrorists. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It helps if you get the right people to begin with

You can't just torture everyone for info because anything useful would be swamped by those saying anything to end the torture. Everyone pretty well knows their capable of anything but suspicion or association alone isn't enough. Maybe for the Stalin era but not for the best Democracy money can buy

But can anyone PROVE any of it? This is exactly how the Bush administration has justified ALL the things you are condemning, including the detention of Mr Khadr, who by direct association and by his own actions, is VERY LIKELY a terrorist. How in the world do you reconcile that?

You've got to be joking? Mulu already posted facts that even the US Military has acknowledged large scale torture practices so I'll leave it at that. And "Likely" doesn't quite cut it in court when facing the death penalty.

I have no idea. I don't torture people. What incident are you speaking of exactly? And are you suggesting that you know more than the folks in the intelligence business about the quality of the information they gather, whether by torture or otherwise?

The detailed reports of torture are endless if you care to Google it. It's also been well documented over and over again that torture in unreliable which is why all sorts of things have been tried instead to get people to talk over the years, including the use of LSD and other drugs.

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:56 am

A little cartoon on Bush Justice.

Too much naughty language to just post as an image.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:48 pm

And here's an article on one explanation for why we torture, even though it doesn't generate actionable intelligence.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:25 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:But regarding your point, if it's as you say that the intelligence community believes there are more effective ways of gathering intel than through the use of torture, what difference does a policy allowing torture really make?

Oh but torture does serve a purpose. It's just not intelligence gathering.

It's convincing your population you are doing everything you can, it's taking revenge for the frustration, fear and desperation america deep down feels due to its inept handling of the challenge of global terrorism against an amorphous enemy who doesn't ever grant you clear victories, and it's giving in to the sadistic urges that are so very easy to incite in humans.

Politicians do not make decisions based on efficiency, they make it based on what they think voters will agree with them on. And there is so much pent up anger, hatred and frustration in the US currently "giving it to the extremist bastards" may just be a good gamble for a politician.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:41 pm

Alara wrote:Politicians do not make decisions based on efficiency, they make it based on what they think voters will agree with them on. And there is so much pent up anger, hatred and frustration in the US currently "giving it to the extremist bastards" may just be a good gamble for a politician.

I think it's the realization of the sheer scale of the torture that has shocked people the most.

Kate

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:00 pm

MorbidKate wrote:I think it's the realization of the sheer scale of the torture that has shocked people the most.

Kate

Well, of course you couldn't just say "we're torturing these guys, yeah" bluntly either... that'd disgruntle a lot of people. But letting the sense permeate through that you're really being tough and rough on those folks... that's the sweet spot.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:15 pm

Alara wrote:Well, of course you couldn't just say "we're torturing these guys, yeah" bluntly either... that'd disgruntle a lot of people. But letting the sense permeate through that you're really being tough and rough on those folks... that's the sweet spot.

I think it's safe to say that most people somewhat expected torture (effective or not) to be used against specific terrorists if it meant stopping a planned attack and nobody would have said much about it but the discovery of an entire network of prisons and thousands of detainees, wide-spread torture and the realization that these prisons were also filled with the falsely accused and unknowing little fish shocked people. The more one reads, the more one sees just how out of control this situation is.

Kate

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:04 pm

Mulu:

Now that's an explanation that adds up, all things considered.

Kate:

I believe the word I used was underestimate. You said you have NO problem with Mr Khadr returning to your own country. I don't doubt that you don't support extremists. Given the insight into how the jihadists have been operating in Britain, given the background of the Khadr family and their direct engagement with Pakistani and American forces, is there any doubt about their allegiance in your mind? I'm surprised that they are able to retain their Canadian citizenship frankly. If that grenade had somehow killed a Canadian soldier, wouldn't that be construed as an act of treason?

I guess what irks me Kate is that you (and many others) rail against American overzealousness but have very little to say about people like these so called citizens of Canada. There's an "inequity" in the moral outrage, certainly on these forums.

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:15 pm

I agree cipher

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:14 pm

Well it's history and human nature. We like to see the top folks stumble, goof up, and make mistakes as well as fools of themselves. No different for people or countries.
It does bother me that the moral outrage is tilted. Take the iraqbodycount site. It blames it all on the usa. And it takes atleast two to argue or fight. In this case it looks like a free for all. Sure it is our mess but to say all the deaths are the fault of the usa is like blaming all Canadian whiskey makers for deaths from drunk driving in the usa.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:23 pm

Unless you actually think people are being TOLD or FORCED to torture prisoners en masse, wouldn't such a policy really only apply to select cases where a) there's reason to suspect the prisoner has information b) nothing else has worked and c) information is desperately needed?

I can only conclude you're unfamiliar with Hersh's articles on Abu Graib.

In point of fact, yes, people were told to torture prisoners en masse.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:33 pm

I guess what irks me Kate is that you (and many others) rail against American overzealousness but have very little to say about people like these so called citizens of Canada. There's an "inequity" in the moral outrage, certainly on these forums.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion, cipher. Should it have been the opposite way around, an American been held unlawfully in Canada (or anywhere else for that matter in the western world) for five years, I am sure there would be just as much outrage.

There are two main reasons why people 'rail against American overzealousness' so much, compared with other countries - both which have been pointed out many times before. (1) America is THE world power - the spotlight is on them; and (2) as a result, and the fact that they claim to be a force of good, upholding freedom and democracy, should they slip from that themselves people are going to question them.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:38 pm

mxlm wrote:I can only conclude you're unfamiliar with Hersh's articles on Abu Graib.

In point of fact, yes, people were told to torture prisoners en masse.

That's one instance. To say the policy mandates this conduct, you'd have to believe it applies universally. If this is in fact mandated, then I can't believe it's for intelligence gathering purposes, but I can believe the explanation offered by Mulu's link. Fight fire with fire. Terrorize the terrorists. Offer a fate worse than death for those who do not fear death.