View Full Version : Guantánamo: "The Worst of the Worst"
This is sad, but I can't say I'm surprised. Our current President refuses to close Guantánamo on his watch, even though the legal pretext for the extra-legal prison has been destroyed. I guess he wants somebody else to take the rap for closing it down.
Now it turns out that recidivism rate for Guantánamo detainees is amazingly low (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4535).
Almost a quarter of the Guantánamo detainees who have been released have been sent back to Saudi Arabia. Facing a substantial threat from terrorism in their own country, the Saudi authorities have been rigorous—some might say harsh—in imprisoning and punishing any terrorist deemed a danger. Yet in new statistics provided to us by the Ministry of Interior in Riyadh, zero of the 121 Guantánamo detainees received by the Saudis were deemed dangerous and ineligible for release.
It gets worse. Of those detainees returned to Saudi Arabia from Guantánamo, more than half have been released and are now free, most after spending a period of time in a halfway house designed to promote a smooth return to society. Only six former Guantánamo detainees have been rearrested in Saudi Arabia for any reason—an astonishingly low recidivism rate of less than 9 percent among those released.
Although the Saudi efforts to reintegrate these prisoners into society are certainly commendable, the only reasonable explanation for such a low recidivism rate is that the detainees were never guilty of terrorist acts in the first place. [...]
What we are saying is that new statistics from the Saudi Ministry of Interior, corroborated by the Pentagon’s own findings, show that the overwhelming majority of individuals detained at Guantánamo not only were not terrorists, but were likely innocent of any crime. Given the sad history of detaining men without charges or proof, proven instances of harsh confinement, and now, persuasive evidence to indicate that most detainees were innocent of any terrorist activity, it should be among the highest priorities of the next U.S. president to close Guantánamo promptly.
Guantánamo has been a powerful recruitment tool for extremists and a stain on the reputation of the United States. Now we can say, with little doubt, that it did not even serve to remove terrorists or insurgents from the battlefield.
Strike For The South
10-21-2008, 20:58
Lemur you and I both know that checks and balances are something a republic is supposed to have not an oligarchy
Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera.....
Anyhoo, back to topic, Gitmo did serve an important purpose as a tool of intimidation. Won't be surprised if many a terrorist in U.S./allied custody spilled his beans and provided valuable intelligence when threatedned with Gitmo. Just like the invasion of Iraq as a whole ended up as a catalyst for Libya to mend its ways and start playing nice.
So I take it you're one of the proud owners of the Club Gitmo (https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/28566/41862_12.html) shirts Limbaugh has been selling for the last five years, then, rvg?
If I'm understanding your post correctly, you're saying that it's okay if we imprisoned and used "enhanced interrogation techniques" on potentially innocent people, so long as we could use Gitmo as a threat ... when interrogating people in Iraq or Afghanistan? Am I reading this right?
FactionHeir
10-21-2008, 21:33
While I'm no fan of Guantanamo and would like to see it closed, I wanted to offer and contrasting viewpoint:
What if a number of them had been guilty but due to the use of torture (or what some may say "extraordinary rendition") they have been impacted rather drastically psychologically and of course also physically that they bear such fear to do much else but become an extraordinarily law-abiding citizen?
PanzerJaeger
10-21-2008, 21:33
Sounds like Gitmo has done a better job than most US prisons. :beam:
So I take it you're one of the proud owners of the Club Gitmo (https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/28566/41862_12.html) shirts Limbaugh has been selling for the last five years, then, rvg?
If I'm understanding your post correctly, you're saying that it's okay if we imprisoned and used "enhanced interrogation techniques" on potentially innocent people, so long as we could use Gitmo as a threat ... when interrogating people in Iraq or Afghanistan? Am I reading this right?
No, don't mingle with the Limbaugh crowd at all. Not my type. As for rest, what I meant to say was that Gitmo itself as a concept can do alot of good. All we need to do is be more discriminate as far as who gets sent there.
yesdachi
10-21-2008, 21:39
You beat me to it PJ, I was going to say with a “recidivism rate of less than 9 percent among those released” we should send all criminals to Gitmo. :laugh4:
Guildenstern
10-21-2008, 21:46
In my opinion, Guantánamo must be closed because it's a sort of black hole in which detainees have waited for up to half a decade without charges being laid.
In my opinion, Guantánamo must be closed because it's a sort of black hole in which detainees have waited for up to half a decade without charges being laid.
The fact that it is a legal black hole is precisely what makes it so valuable. Had it been on the U.S. soil, it would be worthless.
Guildenstern
10-21-2008, 21:58
First of all, I don't think Guantánamo is a place that can be defined as valuable. There's nothing valuable in the fact that there is no legal limit on how long a suspect can be detained before charges are laid.
Again, to quote from the article: "Guantánamo has been a powerful recruitment tool for extremists and a stain on the reputation of the United States."
It is in the terrorists' interest to paint us as evil, fascistic jerks who praise the law but ignore it when we feel like it. When we behave this way, we play into their hands.
If you're at all serious about doing a cost/benefit analysis of Gitmo, you need to take into account what a great recruiting tool it has been for Al Qaeda.
Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera.....
Anyhoo, back to topic, Gitmo did serve an important purpose as a tool of intimidation. Won't be surprised if many a terrorist in U.S./allied custody spilled his beans and provided valuable intelligence when threatedned with Gitmo. Just like the invasion of Iraq as a whole ended up as a catalyst for Libya to mend its ways and start playing nice.
Of course if you're going to use a high profile detention camp notorious for harsh conditions and allegations of torture as a means of terrorizing people into not opposing the US, it does somewhat knock the legs out from under those who get upset at lefties like me comparing Guantanamo to the Gulags or Nazi concentration camps. Those camps served essentially the same purpose.
If we are truly reduced to consciously using the tools of tyranny to fight terrorism then we have already lost.
Again, to quote from the article: "Guantánamo has been a powerful recruitment tool for extremists and a stain on the reputation of the United States."
It is in the terrorists' interest to paint us as evil, fascistic jerks who praise the law but ignore it when we feel like it. When we behave this way, we play into their hands.
If you're at all serious about doing a cost/benefit analysis of Gitmo, you need to take into account what a great recruiting tool it has been for Al Qaeda.Not having Gitmo around didn't really seem to hold them back too much, Lemur. ~:handball:
Not having Gitmo around didn't really seem to hold them back too much, Lemur. ~:handball:
Again, read what I wrote: "recruiting tool (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294526.stm)."
Al-Qaeda's operating capabilities are at their strongest level since the 11 September 2001 attacks, according to leaks of a US intelligence report. [...]
Al-Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," an official said, paraphrasing the report.
"They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."
That addresses your statement about how they aren't "held back," whatever that means. Meanwhile: (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/Story?id=3319478&page=2)
The Supreme Court has addressed the habeas corpus issue in Guantanamo detainee cases, acknowledging that they do have a statutory right to judicial review.
So the entire exrta-legal framework is meaningless.
So, they're getting close to being as strong as they were before Gitmo? That's not really making your case. :shrug:
And do you have a case to make, Xiahou? What is your take on Guantánamo?
-edit-
To clarify: Are you going anywhere with this line of reasoning, or were you just stopping by to provide your expert opinion?
PanzerJaeger
10-21-2008, 22:42
Of course if you're going to use a high profile detention camp notorious for harsh conditions and allegations of torture as a means of terrorizing people into not opposing the US, it does somewhat knock the legs out from under those who get upset at lefties like me comparing Guantanamo to the Gulags or Nazi concentration camps. Those camps served essentially the same purpose.
If we are truly reduced to consciously using the tools of tyranny to fight terrorism then we have already lost.
Welcome to the discussion Mr. Godwin. The comparisons to concentration camps are farcical, and demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding.
In any event, it is interesting that certain Americans get their panties in such a twist over the very possibility of muslim foreign nationals being falsely detained, yet never seem too concerned about the literally millions of Americans citizens falsely convicted and sent to American prisons. Maybe Gitmo is easier to wrap their heads around, or maybe the idea of Abu in an orange jumpsuit just pulls at their heart strings.
Welcome to the discussion Mr. Godwin. The comparisons to concentration camps are farcical, and demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding.
I am scarcely the first to draw the comparison.
As a matter of fact I don't consider the two to be at all alike in terms of scale or severity (not that that is exactly saying much for Gitmo), but if the purpose of Gitmo is to act as a symbol of terror to discourage those who would oppose the US from doing so out of the fear that they will be whisked away under mere suspicion of terrorist activity to a notorious place of torture and ill treatment for an indefinitely long period of time, then as an instrument of propaganda it is pretty much identical.
I am scarcely the first to draw the comparison.
As a matter of fact I don't consider the two to be at all alike in terms of scale or severity (not that that is exactly saying much for Gitmo), but if the purpose of Gitmo is to act as a symbol of terror to discourage those who would oppose the US from doing so out of the fear that they will be whisked away under mere suspicion of terrorist activity to a notorious place of torture and ill treatment for an indefinitely long period of time, then as an instrument of propaganda it is pretty much identical.
While Gitmo and its derivatives can be considered a heavy handed response, they is have also helped potentially save countless innocent lives. Now, I'm sure that folks like Abu Zubeida and Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed did not enjoy their stay, but I give the benefit of the doubt to the U.S. Military when they say that both guys provided a plenthora of information regarding Al-Qaeda operations and planning. Does it bother me that they were tortured? On a certain level it would bother any human being to see another human being in agony, but I also believe it was necessary. When it comes to war on terror we must fight fire with fire, because the other side is most certainly not bound by rules of engagement.
PanzerJaeger
10-21-2008, 23:37
....
I am scarcely the first to draw the comparison.
As a matter of fact I don't consider the two to be at all alike in terms of scale or severity (not that that is exactly saying much for Gitmo), but if the purpose of Gitmo is to act as a symbol of terror to discourage those who would oppose the US from doing so out of the fear that they will be whisked away under mere suspicion of terrorist activity to a notorious place of torture and ill treatment for an indefinitely long period of time, then as an instrument of propaganda it is pretty much identical.
I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think its a valid comparison - and it is primarily used for propanda purposes.
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 01:23
SCOUTS found these unconstitutional The president has to listen.
Koga No Goshi
10-22-2008, 01:50
SCOUTS found these unconstitutional The president has to listen.
My dear boy.
As another power-hungry little "unitary executive" esque Presidential power usurper said back in the 1800's about a supreme court ruling against his policies.... "he has has ruling... now let him enforce it."
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 01:52
My dear boy.
As another power-hungry little "unitary executive" esque Presidential power usurper said back in the 1800's about a supreme court ruling against his policies.... "he has has ruling... now let him enforce it."
Yea but Andrew Jackson inspired awesomeness Bush inspires Despair. Not to mention it was till wrong then
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 02:51
In the PR campaign that is the war on terror Guantanamo has been the USA shooting themselves in the foot in terms of international relations and in the hearts and minds of less fanatical muslims, i am skeptical of how important the information recieved from guantanamo is or if it is even that accurate, but even assuming the information was important and accurate i highly doubt it has been worth all the negatives it has caused...
m52nickerson
10-22-2008, 02:55
Well we know that Bush is not going to close Guantánamo so it will be up to the next guy.
In any event, it is interesting that certain Americans get their panties in such a twist over the very possibility of muslim foreign nationals being falsely detained, yet never seem too concerned about the literally millions of Americans citizens falsely convicted and sent to American prisons. Maybe Gitmo is easier to wrap their heads around, or maybe the idea of Abu in an orange jumpsuit just pulls at their heart strings.
That's the problem. These are mostly innocent foreign nationals. Those unjustly locked away in U.S. prisons actually can fight that, while these men cannot, because you know, Muslims don't have a right to fair trial.
Besides, I rarely hear of waterboarding in a state prison.
That's the problem. These are mostly innocent foreign nationals. Those unjustly locked away in U.S. prisons actually can fight that, while these men cannot, because you know, Muslims don't have a right to fair trial.
Besides, I rarely hear of waterboarding in a state prison.
Well yes, the selection process could have been better, however, just because we did a poor job of evaluating who needs to go to Gitmo and who does not, does not mean that Gitmo itself is this 100% evil entity. We just need to be smarter about who gets sent there.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:10
Too much censorship on these boards.
What they are doing in Guantanamo is violating human rights. Every human has them. Even if they did plan on flying planes through skyscrapers, they are still violating human rights, which there are no for excuses for.
Close it, mr. President >: |
What they are doing in Guantanamo is violating human rights. Every human has them. Even if they did plan on flying planes through skyscrapers, they are still violating human rights, which there are no for excuses for.
Close it, mr. President >: |
Occasionally, we have to break our own rules and go against our principles in order to save those principles. Certain situations warrant that.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 14:25
Too much censorship on these boards.
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 14:41
/me is laughing out LOUD
/golfclap
If I ever need a quote to explain the american mindset, I will use that one.
I still hope you wrote it as a joke though, but I think you were serious, no?
I cant think of a civilization in history that didn’t say the same thing rvg just said. :shrug:
Occasionally, we have to break our own rules and go against our principles in order to save those principles. Certain situations warrant that.
This is the point I would fundamentally disagree with.
Winning a war against terrorists is not ultimately about killing or capturing as many terrorists as possible; it is a secondary goal at best. As a material threat the terrorists are so minor as to be almost negligible.
The threat posed by terrorism is almost entirely in the form of the fear they inspire driving us to sell out our values and change our way of life in order to protect ourselves from attacks.
The terrorists may talk big about "destroying the West" and "slaughtering the infidels" but ultimately they are nothing but a small band of angry nutcases and they are nowhere close to having the capability to defeat us militarily. Forcing us to stoop to their level out of fear is the only way the terrorists can possibly achieve victory, and if we are truly reduced to adopting torture and abandoning the rule of law in order to prevent attacks then they are clearly winning.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 15:00
Too much censorship on these boards.
This is the point I would fundamentally disagree with.
Winning a war against terrorists is not ultimately about killing or capturing as many terrorists as possible; it is a secondary goal at best. As a material threat the terrorists are so minor as to be almost negligible.
The threat posed by terrorism is almost entirely in the form of the fear they inspire driving us to sell out our values and change our way of life in order to protect ourselves from attacks.
The terrorists may talk big about "destroying the West" and "slaughtering the infidels" but ultimately they are nothing but a small band of angry nutcases and they are nowhere close to having the capability to defeat us militarily. Forcing us to stoop to their level out of fear is the only way the terrorists can possibly achieve victory, and if we are truly reduced to adopting torture and abandoning the rule of law in order to prevent attacks then they are clearly winning.
During the U.S. civil war, Abraham Lincoln did many unconstitutional things: taxed individuals, locked people up without trial, etc. For that he was called a tyrant, a dictator, and just about every other name in the book. He however, always maintained that what he did was both temporary and necessary, and that he would give back all the civil liberties as soon as the war was over. We are fighting a war, a new kind of war that can potentially become FAR more dangerous than the U.S. civil war could ever be. Thus, we can to keep *all* options open. All of them. Example: should we use torture to obtain information about an upcoming nuclear attack? I say, absolutely. In fact, it would be a crime to let millions die just so that we can say that we are faithful to a given principle. Occasionally, rules have to be broken. As long as that is done reluctantly and sparingly, it is understandable.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 15:16
Occasionally, we have to break our own rules and go against our principles in order to save those principles. Certain situations warrant that.
Kadagar this isn't just an american mindset... its a world mindset, im sure individuals in evil organisations ranging from the nazis to hamas to the israeli goverment have had this in thier mind as they carry out thier terrible acts.
I wouldn't say that this should never be the case but it should be something used so rarely, the only good example i can think off is the suspension of democracy in the UK during WW2, but if we compare UK situation at the start of WW2 and america now during war on terror you will notice a huge gulf of difference, the UK was facing probably the biggest baddest enemy of the day, america is the huge superpower facing a bunch of angry fanatics, if a threat so small is enough to abandon your morals why bother even having them ?
I have said it many times and i will say it again (and again until blue in the face)
The war on terror is a pr war!!!
You cannot simply kill off all the terrorists, of course killing terrorists is a good thing but when the same conditions that created the original terrorists remain and then on top of that all the collateral damage from the terrorists your currently killing you have just stuck yourself in a vicious circle
Guantanamo is simply a very bad pr move, not just in terms of potential terrorists but also to your friends and allys around the world, how am i supposed to sensibly argue with an extremist that america is not the great satan when its making every effort to appear that way...
And how bad an effect it will have on efforts against torture everywhere, why should anyone listen to america when it says don't torture people, as a foriegn leader you would either think they where complete hypocrites or genuises Chinese premeir 'why didn't i think of just calling it enhanced interigation ?'
Israel and the palestinians where both happy to sacrifice thier morals to save them, look where that has got them in the last 60 years...
During the U.S. civil war
There is a astronomical difference in the two wars, the us civil war is probably closer to ww2 in terms of immeadite threat and consequences of losing
But the war on terror is almost unloseable (despite the best efforts of the previous administration) the threat is absolutly tiny, if you just compare deaths from terrorism on american soil (because you hardly have to torture people because theres suicide bombers in iraq) to deaths caused by the nazis or deaths caused by the confederates.
If britons were dying by the hundreds of thousands i could probably support some fairly extreme measures, but 3000 deaths no matter how tragic would not turn me into a bloodthirsty animal ready to abandon all logic and morality and willing to use torture...
Banquo's Ghost
10-22-2008, 15:18
If I ever need a quote to explain the american mindset, I will use that one.
There are rules about generalised bashing of nationalities, and this comes perilously close to breaking them - especially in light of your other posts.
rvg's post is his opinion - one shared by many Americans, and disputed by as many more.
Posting general insults against "americans" is likely to provoke flaming, bad feeling and general unrest.
Thus I disapprove, and you won't like me when I'm disapproving. :beadyeyes2:
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 15:22
Too much censorship on these boards.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 15:26
If anyone wants to harp on about the torturing the guy who we know has planted a big bomb somewhere that will kill millions, yeah sure torture the guy, now lets get back to the reality of the situation shall we ?
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 15:26
Too much censorship on these boards.
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 15:27
Winning a war against terrorists is not ultimately about killing or capturing as many terrorists as possible; it is a secondary goal at best. As a material threat the terrorists are so minor as to be almost negligible.
But you do have to kill them. I think the often misunderstood side of terrorism is what happens when they win. They don’t just stay a small organization or crackpots, they eventually become the ruling body of an area or even country, and an example is Hamas.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 15:42
I think the differences between al qaeda and hamas is too great to make that comparison....
For one Al Qaeda isn't aiming to win an election or any other such thing
For two Hamas is more of a merged political party / terrorist group / charity whereas al qaeda is quite simply a terrorist group
For hamas to win they needed to secure a majority of palestinian voters, For al qaeda to win... hmm well they have some pretty unreachable win conditions
Lastly and most importantly Al Qaeda winning would not make it big, lets assume an al qaeda win would be foriengers and foriegn interferance removed from the middle east, where would AQ move from there ? after all interference is gone how are they going to recruit new members ? how are they going to convince people that suicide is worth it to strike at the enemy when you haven't seen the enemy strike you or your loved ones...
I
Lastly and most importantly Al Qaeda winning would not make it big, lets assume an al qaeda win would be foriengers and foriegn interferance removed from the middle east, where would AQ move from there ? ...
I think their ultimate goal is pretty clear: establishment of a taliban-style khalifate across the globe.
Well... I am of COURSE aware that not every american thinks this way!
However, the majority does, how else could bush have won in 2004, it was a primary example of just this mindset.
Is it insulting to call this a typical american mindset? If so, you would have to explain the election result, no?
Again, I am certain not all americans believe this, but more do than don't... Am I wrong?
John Kerry is why Bush won in 2004. Don't assume anything about how Americans think based on that election.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 15:52
Too much censorship on these boards.
I think that what the rest of the world did see, was a nation voting for a the person who allowed the guantanamo base, the patriot act, and so on...
I did not see a general uproar against it.... did you?
Why would there be an uproar? Bush won the election fairly and legally.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 15:58
I think their ultimate goal is pretty clear: establishment of a taliban-style khalifate across the globe.
They had a list of stated goals, im writing from memory here now though
1. Establishment of palestinian state
2. removal of foriegn troops from holy ground (not sure if they just mean saudi or whole ME)
3. i can't remember this one...
All 3 were fairly reasonable, and if all met where would AQ's recruits come from then ?
Im sure OBL and a few other lunatic fanatics would love to setup a worldwide taliban-style khalifate but in terms of thier stated goals or realisticly reachable goals (being the 2 i listed and one i forgot) reaching them would essentially kill of AQ
When there's no visible direct or indirect negative influence from america / the west is the day AQ recruits start to run dry, sure you can get people whipped up over historical wrongs but even in the balkans (where history matters!) they cannot be got into such a frenzy that they are willing to suicide bomb to strike the enemy
Noone will kill themselves attacking a nation/people that has never done them wrong.... and that is how to combat terrorism...
RVG, i think kad meant where was the uproar about guantanamo and the patriot act and not the election
I think their ultimate goal is pretty clear: establishment of a taliban-style khalifate across the globe.
Yes, and I met guys at university who were absolutely convinced that they were going to persuade everyone to adopt worldwide communism by about next Thursday.
Al Qaeda have about as much chance of succeeding in their goals as those guys.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 16:00
Too much censorship on these boards.
I think that what the rest of the world did see, was a nation voting for a the person who allowed the guantanamo base, the patriot act, and so on...
I did not see a general uproar against it.... did you?
There was and uproar, but the failure of the Democratic party to put forth a viable candidate is the reason Bush was reelected.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 16:22
I know there where complaints and disagreements but i thought a sizeable majority of americans were happy or didn't care about both guantanamo and the patriot act, from what i remember it didn't seem like an uproar. there where few in goverment who didn't support it and among the general public was a mood of revenge and a war footing, i figured it was just the far left fringes of america who opposed it... (nader, amnesty, only those kind of crazy lefties...)
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 16:28
...Al Qaeda have about as much chance of succeeding in their goals as those guys.
Not the way things are but without someone to stop their advance there is a potential for AQ to grow into a political party ala Hamas. No one in power gives up power on purpose. If QA reaches their 3? goals the leaders will just make up more goals. And as long as there are uneducated, downtrodden people the terrorist leaders will always have a pool to draw from. It doesn’t really matter what the US does, any decent leader that can convince people that their neighbors are their enemies can definitely convince their people that a country thousands of miles away is filled with devils that need to be destroyed bla bla bla.
Terrorist leaders don’t seem to often work to the benefit of the terrorist organization, they are usually more interested in power manipulation and selfish goals, if they were loyal to the cause we infidels would be in real trouble.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 16:50
And as long as there are uneducated, downtrodden people the terrorist leaders will always have a pool to draw from. It doesn’t really matter what the US does, any decent leader that can convince people that their neighbors are their enemies can definitely convince their people that a country thousands of miles away is filled with devils that need to be destroyed bla bla bla.
I have to disagree completely with you there... i would be hugely surprised if you could get anyone to suicide bomb costa rica as an example....
Ill admit im going on guesswork here but i would confidently speculate that the vast majority of suicide bombers (at least 99%) experienced tragedy on a personal level directly or indirectly becuase of the country or coalition member they attacked
I think their ultimate goal is pretty clear: establishment of a taliban-style khalifate across the globe.
They had a list of stated goals, im writing from memory here now though
1. Establishment of palestinian state
2. removal of foriegn troops from holy ground (not sure if they just mean saudi or whole ME)
3. i can't remember this one...
All 3 were fairly reasonable, and if all met where would AQ's recruits come from then ?
Im sure OBL and a few other lunatic fanatics would love to setup a worldwide taliban-style khalifate but in terms of thier stated goals or realisticly reachable goals (being the 2 i listed and one i forgot) reaching them would essentially kill of AQ
When there's no visible direct or indirect negative influence from america / the west is the day AQ recruits start to run dry, sure you can get people whipped up over historical wrongs but even in the balkans (where history matters!) they cannot be got into such a frenzy that they are willing to suicide bomb to strike the enemy
Noone will kill themselves attacking a nation/people that has never done them wrong.... and that is how to combat terrorism...People keep trotting this out- if we were just nicer to them, they'd leave us alone. It's nonsense. Before we had harsh interrogations or Gitmo, we got embassy bombings, plane highjackings and bombings, the WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and so on- finally culminating with 9/11. Again, all of this is before Gitmo, and before harsh interrogations and everything else that we flagellate ourselves over. Why? You list some of the reasons above- but if they didn't have those, they'd make up other reasons. I think it all boils down to the fact the we have wealth, prosperity, and power- and the crazies of the world want it for themselves. They'll always find justification.
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 17:01
I have to disagree completely with you there... i would be hugely surprised if you could get anyone to suicide bomb costa rica as an example....
Ill admit im going on guesswork here but i would confidently speculate that the vast majority of suicide bombers (at least 99%) experienced tragedy on a personal level directly or indirectly becuase of the country or coalition member they attacked
Hey LG, my reference was directed more toward a Middle Eastern local than a place in south America (I think the terrorist level drops sharply where there are beaches and beautiful women).
Well not every recruit is a suicide bomber :laugh4:
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 17:14
I could care less how the rest of the world views us. To me this isnt about improving our world image. but the fact of the matter is these prisoners are under our care and therefore have the same rights as us and when the SCOUTS tells you to do something, as president you must oblige.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 17:33
People keep trotting this out- if we were just nicer to them, they'd leave us alone. It's nonsense. Before we had harsh interrogations or Gitmo, we got embassy bombings, plane highjackings and bombings, the WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and so on- finally culminating with 9/11. Again, all of this is before Gitmo, and before harsh interrogations and everything else that we flagellate ourselves over.
Obviously AQ didn't start attacking america because of gitmo and noone has been stupid enough to suggest such a thing, what i have been saying is gitmo is just extra encouragment for terrorism. The core problem which you have to address would be the israel palestine situation, im not sure how much of an issue the troops in the holy land is, i now its something of a personal grudge for osama that the saudis chose usa over him to repel saddam, but it pales in comparison to the israel palestine situation...
People keep trotting this out- if we were just nicer to them, they'd leave us alone. It's nonsense.
You think people would go out of thier way to kill themselves harming someone who does nothing to them ?
Lets go back to costa rica, they don't do anything to the middle east, no troops in saudi, no military/finaincial support for israel and they have no islamic suicide bombers.... theres a very real reason AQ went for america, and its not because your rich or free however much your politicians would like you to believe that, it is because you have a real negative impact on peoples lives, that is why they choose to suicide bomb, however smart it makes you feel thinking the idiot got brainwashed into doing it the fact is he probably had some real issues with america that allowed AQ to send him happily on his way...
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 17:41
Too much censorship on these boards.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 17:53
Please feel free, when someone else echo's my words it feels less like im on some crazy arguing rampage becuase i haven't slept in like 30 odd hours...
PanzerJaeger
10-22-2008, 19:07
This is the point I would fundamentally disagree with.
Winning a war against terrorists is not ultimately about killing or capturing as many terrorists as possible; it is a secondary goal at best. As a material threat the terrorists are so minor as to be almost negligible.
I don't consider the scale of 9/11 a negligible threat. Sure AQ cannot bring down the nation, but they did manage to kill thousands of our citizens and destroy a huge amount of property. Writing off the threat posed by these guys is irresponsible.
Of course eliminating terrorists should be only one part in a larger strategy to target the rationale behind their motivations, but killing and capturing as many as possible is a very important part.
The threat posed by terrorism is almost entirely in the form of the fear they inspire driving us to sell out our values and change our way of life in order to protect ourselves from attacks.
The terrorists may talk big about "destroying the West" and "slaughtering the infidels" but ultimately they are nothing but a small band of angry nutcases and they are nowhere close to having the capability to defeat us militarily. Forcing us to stoop to their level out of fear is the only way the terrorists can possibly achieve victory, and if we are truly reduced to adopting torture and abandoning the rule of law in order to prevent attacks then they are clearly winning.
This thought process is constantly refrained. "If we lower our standards, the terrorists win!"
Well, no, they don't - they die. Detaining some foreign nationals and putting them in "stress positions" isn't going to bring down the legal system, and hasn't. Gitmo hasn't fundamentally changed American values, or brought down our society, and the government hasn't become fascist. (not that that would be such a bad thing ~;))
IMO, your construct for defining the terms of victory is off. No war is won based on broad platitudes. America dropped nuclear bombs on women and children in WW2, yet it went on to support democracy and human rights throughout the world. Classroom morality and necessity don't always play well together, especially during armed conflict when lives are on the line.
Victory in the "War on Terror" or however it is defined should be measured in realistic terms, such as AQ's ability to operate and carry out further attacks.
CrossLOPER
10-22-2008, 19:48
Too much censorship on these boards.
Meh.
Well yes, the selection process could have been better, however, just because we did a poor job of evaluating who needs to go to Gitmo and who does not, does not mean that Gitmo itself is this 100% evil entity. We just need to be smarter about who gets sent there.
That has generally been my position. We need to make sure we're actually getting the right people.
Banquo's Ghost
10-23-2008, 07:11
That has generally been my position. We need to make sure we're actually getting the right people.
Isn't that usually called habeas corpus, due process of law and fair trial by jury? :inquisitive:
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 07:22
The only reasons to support guantanamo are because you want USA to be able to lock people up without a trial or because you want them to use torture, i do not condone either of these actions whether thier sure this time that they got the right man or not...
And im sure you would all be a lot less understanding if it was you or a loved one wrongly accussed and locked up for years without any means for justice
HoreTore
10-23-2008, 08:39
Welcome to the discussion Mr. Godwin. The comparisons to concentration camps are farcical, and demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding.
If you're thinking about the death camps, yes. If you're thinking about more standard camps like Grini, then no.
Isn't that usually called habeas corpus, due process of law and fair trial by jury? :inquisitive:
Well, yes, and again, that has been my position.
I mean, what, "Sorry about the waterboarding, you can go"?
Alexanderofmacedon
10-25-2008, 04:58
I must say it is a disgrace.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.