Torture of detainees by the US?

[Chris 62]

Name a SINGLE NAMED CREDIBLE SOURCE in ANY of the articles.

JUST ONE.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
1. Weddings with excessive salute shooting can be found in many areas of the world. It might not be what you call "civilized" (and I think your definition of civilization would be quite scary to me), but it's not something unusual considering the fact that those people living with war (most of the time sponsored by the US) for 20 years had to keep and use their arms...

But I would bet that the guys who did the shooting at our planes were member of the Taliban. The guys change side faster than we change underwear. Remember the Leader of the Taliban was let go by the local war chief as long as he promise not to come back.
Can you now hear the command structure yelling all the way to Bush about letting him go. I would bet some US Commander wanted to take him (war chief) out.

[Jaakko]

Chris - Yes, that's the weakness of my argument.
However, anonymity of sources by itself isn't automatic grounds for dismissal.

First, this is such a volatile issue that the condition of anonymity is understandable.
Second, there are 10 sources in total, whose statements reasonably support each other.
Third, access to Bagram is restricted, and there is an ongoing US Army investigation on two deaths of prisoners.

So yeah, maybe there should be some questions raised on what's happening.
But of course, they could be all lying.

But now I have a question. In case these accusations turned out to be factual, what would your opinion be?

[Chris 62]

I would support your condemnation 100%.

[Jaakko]

Then we don't disagree that much after all.

But I still can't fathom your apparent hostility towards anyone bringing these accusations into daylight.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Chris 62
And as an added bonus, anyone that thinks gunfire is the way to celibrate, is BACKWARD.

Twenty one gun salute?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Then we don't disagree that much after all.

But I still can't fathom your apparent hostility towards anyone bringing these accusations into daylight.

Beacuse these kinds of things are normaly groundless, and lead to hostility directed at the US and it's people, and the general hard feelings we often see between the US and Europe.
When REAL proof is in hand, THEN come with this, and any bastards that broke US law will be punished.

Twenty one gun salute?

At a wedding?

[Jaakko]

Then again, sitting on our hands seldom brings any proof to the table...

[Chris 62]

You won't get anywhere with accusations that never pan out, all that happens is people get mad on two sides.

There are more pressing issues then the fate of these guys, as far as I am concerned, anyway.

[Jaakko]

Hindsight is 20/20, but unfortunately I don't have it in this case yet...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Chris 62
At a wedding?

At a funeral? Different culture. Doesn't make it wrong. And their barbarism in your eyes does not give us the right to **** up and kill them all.

Ned: I'm a hopeless idealist that believes that for most things we do, there is another, much better way in which we could do whatever it is we have tried to do.

Britain and Russia and the United States and Israel all feel (justified or not) that they are fighting for their survival. Because of that they feel they need to do extreme things in order to continue their existence. But in doing so they forget the bigger picture, and execute actions that may help them in the short run, but will be to the detriment of themselves or humanity as a whole in the long run.

I believe there has to be a better way. There has to be some way of creating peace that doesn't involve torture and violence.

And the same goes for the terrorists. They feel threatened and they have a point they wish to make. But instead of actually discussing their grievances or attempting to resolve them peacefully, they immediately just decide that violence is the best answer. It's disgusting that they believe killing others will get their point across, and once again, there has to be a better way.

The only way that I can see this ending peacefully, however, is if someone actually steps up and does the right thing. Someone needs to actually use their power for the benefit of all, and not just for their own selfish (valuing (sp?) the life of you or your people above the lives of others is selfish) reasons.

And who better to do that, than the most powerful country in the world? The United States has the ability to do the right thing. It is a country with amazing potential. It can do amazing good.

The difficult part is determining what the right course of action is. And I don't know the answer. But I do know that simply killing all the terrorists isn't the answer. That doesn't stop people from hating the US. The United States needs to focus more on preventing future people from becoming terrorists, as well as preventing current terrorists from attacking it in the future.

[chequita guevara]

Some points, uncomfortable positions held for long periods of time become painful positions, then excrutiatingly painful. Thus, this does meet the criteria of torture. If it didn't hurt, they wouldn't be doing it.

Tha Taliban prisoners should be considered POWs, al-Qaeda should not. I fail to see what useful information these people might have after more than a year in capitivity.

The problem with Iraq isn't that there isn't enough food, but that there isn't safe drinking water in the government controled areas. As long as sanctions remain in place, there is nothing the Iraqi government can do about this.

While Ritter may be considered a crank by many, simply because he opposes the Administrations' position on Iraq, he was in the best position to analyze and evaluate the data coming out of Iraq. His opinion is that Iraq was in compliance, even when he thought they were hiding something. The current Administration has offered little proof that he is wrong. Hussein was correct, as well, that the US was using the inspectors to spy on Iraq, and he was fully justified inexpelling the Americans.

We shouldn't engage in the tactics of the enemy. If we become like them, what is the point in fighting against them?

[Jules]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We shouldn't engage in the tactics of the enemy. If we become like them, what is the point in fighting against them?

World domination.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jules

World domination.

Torture is counterproductive to that end.

[Wernazuma III]

Lorizael: The relation between USA and "preventive measures" is limiteds to "preventive use of violence" (like attacking Iraq as a defensive measure).
Looking to the reasons and trying to get to the roots of the problems isn't their strength. Just take a look at the treatment of criminals and the horrendous crime rates. The US move on the issue is extremely severe punishment to "deter" criminals. It works really great, murders are only 10-20 times more frequent than in other countries, the "land of the free" has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other western democracy (don't know it exactly but probably more than most other states too)...

Never ask for reasons or try resolving by understanding the underlying situation, just hit harder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Lorizael: The relation between USA and "preventive measures" is limiteds to "preventive use of violence" (like attacking Iraq as a defensive measure).
Looking to the reasons and trying to get to the roots of the problems isn't their strength. Just take a look at the treatment of criminals and the horrendous crime rates. The US move on the issue is extremely severe punishment to "deter" criminals. It works really great, murders are only 10-20 times more frequent than in other countries, the "land of the free" has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other western democracy (don't know it exactly but probably more than most other states too)...

Never ask for reasons or try resolving by understanding the underlying situation, just hit harder.

Good analysis of America. If, when speaking to a foreigner he fails to understand you, just speak louder.

On crime in the US, the major problem is lack of "families." How to promote stable families to raise kid is the problem we have to solve. Even if we do have families, we have the problem of working mothers.

I don't really know what is going on at Bagram. If it amount to torture, it should end. This is something Bush should look into.

Che, according to the articles, the al Qaeda are now beginning to talk. What were are discovering is how al Qaeda does things, not current plans.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Lorizael: The relation between USA and "preventive measures" is limiteds to "preventive use of violence" (like attacking Iraq as a defensive measure).
Looking to the reasons and trying to get to the roots of the problems isn't their strength. Just take a look at the treatment of criminals and the horrendous crime rates. The US move on the issue is extremely severe punishment to "deter" criminals. It works really great, murders are only 10-20 times more frequent than in other countries, the "land of the free" has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other western democracy (don't know it exactly but probably more than most other states too)...

Never ask for reasons or try resolving by understanding the underlying situation, just hit harder.

I know that's the problem. My point is that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should try to act differently. It has the ability to do, if it really wants to. And, being the only superpower in existence, it should set a good example for everyone else.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
While Ritter may be considered a crank by many, simply because he opposes the Administrations' position on Iraq, he was in the best position to analyze and evaluate the data coming out of Iraq. His opinion is that Iraq was in compliance, even when he thought they were hiding something.

Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership. - Scott Ritter (1998)

[chequita guevara]

Yes, and today he says that he was wrong then.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, and today he says that he was wrong then.

funny how he made his 180 degree turn well after having already done his last inspection. So what made him suddenly realize that Iraq was disarmed - telepathy?

[chequita guevara]

Distance and reflection. Back then he was pissed at the Iraqis for "playing games with him," since they were obviously trying to hide something. What they kept uncovering, however, was clues as to Hussein's where-abouts. Naturally the Iraqis wanted to keep this secret, and because they were trying to keep something secret, Ritter was sure they were hiding something from him.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Distance and reflection.

Frankly, I prefer listening to commentary from individuals who have access to the locations as well as those with access to the latest intelligence than those that have been out of the loop. And expecting the Saddam was fully weapons-free iin 98 seems to be counter-intuitive given that he had continually been hiding things in the years of inspections before.

I'll be far more interested in what Blix (and the other inspectors) have to say in one month's time than anything Ritter has to say, even though, imho, blix has been slightly inept (ie, not interviewing scientists outside Iraq, etc).

[chequita guevara]

Well, since no one in US intel has had access to those locations and since US intelligence has shown itself to a) be woefully inadequate, and B) say whatever supports the administration's policy, Ritter's still a better bet. He was there, on the ground for years.

Why do you think Ritter changed his tune?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why do you think Ritter changed his tune?

Money.

[chequita guevara]

What money?

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, since no one in US intel has had access to those locations

Except for a couple of defectors, IIRC. (and that's who we know about. Frankly, I don't have any access to US intel )

Why do you think Ritter changed his tune?

I have no idea. And it really doesn't matter. Ritter doesn't have any more info than what he did 5 years ago, and he came up with two seperate conclusions, both at opposite extremes, based on that info. Thats enough for me to be skeptical of him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What money?

The money he recieved from an Iraqi national with close ties to Hussein.

PS I don't think that Bond quote is correct.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Except for a couple of defectors, IIRC.

Defectors have every reason to lie about Hussein's capabilities. They get support from the US government and are granted a visa to stay here. If they told some other story, they'd be shipped back to Iraq.

Sorry, this governemnt has very low credibility. It has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to lie to the American people, and without proof, I'm not going to assume they are telling the truth.

[SlowwHand]

As an aside that addesses one of Che's statements;
POW's in Viet Nam were forced to squat for long periods.
Being used to this position, it wasn't recognized that this was extremely uncomfortable for U.S. service personnel.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Defectors have every reason to lie about Hussein's capabilities.

Defectors, at least some of who's information, from what I understand, was verified (ie, via spy sattelites, etc?).

Frankly, I'll take a defectors information over Saddams pleas of innocence any day.