A Different Brand of Warfare

[KafirChobee]

I was hoping to post the story as printed in USN&WR (U.S. News and World Report, dated 19Mar07), but it ain't listed. My guess is that some reporting is not equal to others for their senior editors.

The gist of the article is about Mohamad al Qahtani (you know the fat guy they always picture looking like he just got out of bed) - being held at Gitmo - (alleged al Qaeda operative) who has recanted confessions ("so brutally coersed that military officials have said publically the 'evidence' can never be used to prosecute him"). He was formally charged, and then the charges dropped or atleast sidelined because it would allow him his day in court.

Still, according to the article (not posted on the USnews web site) Qahtani may yet get his day in court - as the lead plaintiff in a war-crimes complaint filed in Germany against Rumsfeld and other US officials (George Tenet, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, chief of staff to Cheney, and former Justice Dept. officials John "the GenevaConventions are antiquated" Yoo and Jay "Torture is subjective" Bybee) who helped draft Bush administration policies on treatment of suspected terrorists.

"The criminal complaint was filed on behalf of Qahtani and 11 Iraqi citizens allegedly tortured in Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, under Germany's tough universal-jurisdiction statute, which allows the German federal prosecutor to investigate crimes against humanity anywhere. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN-RIGHTS GROUPS HAVE LONG USED SUCH STATUTES, passed by several nations, including the United States, TO TARGET FOREIGN DICTATORS. ......"

In 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a similar complaint against Rumsfeld and the other defendants, But the US threatened a range of sanctions against Germany, and the complaint was dismissed on the eve of a Rumsfeld trip to Munich.

It is probably a moot point, and nothing may ever come of this for the obvious international ramifications, but it does demonstrate just how far the integrity of the U.S. has fallen since the Bush era began.

A final note: "It's one thing when a small countries in the world conduct torture and get yelled at," says Michael Ratner, CCR's president. "But when the U.S. does it, who's going to hold them accountable?"

And, that is the point. Who is going to hold Rummy and friends accountable for breaking not only our laws - but international laws that we signed up too?

[Devastatin Dave]

Man, I clicked on the title to see maybe a cool video of some ass kicking or a great article on new tactics, instead I get a "Code Pink", Rosey O'Donnel, Barbra Walters' "hug a terrorist" topic. I should have known. Booo!!! :laugh4:

[Del Arroyo]

Most countries in the region torture people. The US practices a little bit of fake "torture" and all of a sudden we're the bad guys?

Contrary to sentiment in Western world, Arab outrage over the Abu Ghraib photos is not a response to torture but a response to religious and sexual humiliation of Muslims by an unbelieving foreign power. Look at the motley array of gangs and murderous militias which operate currently in Iraq. Do you think they give two damns about inflicting a little pain?

Many of the techniques employed at Abu Ghraib were patently unwise, but not because they were "torture", and in any case the biggest problem was the photos. Frankly I wouldn't care if we really did shock people's balls, beat them with hoses and pull their fingernails-- as long as we only did it to a small number of people who (a) we were really sure deserved it and (b) had useful information. And regardless of whatever media theories there are as to the effectiveness of torture, any professional will tell you that it works-- when combined with other techniques and sources of information, just like all intel.

As to the specified case-- boo-hoo, he's the enemy, let him rot. "Principle" in war is fungible. If he's not a US citizen and he is among the select few singled out by our best and brightest as having engaged in violent subversive actions against the United States I don't need a fair trial to know that he's guilty.

I hate Dubya by the way-- but I don't let politics corrupt my judgement.

[Adrian II]

As to the specified case-- boo-hoo, he's the enemy, let him rot.Osama is still making headway in the U.S. and you are one small part of his bridge head.

[ShadeHonestus]

Osama is still making headway in the U.S. and you are one small part of his bridge head.

hmmm I thought it was INS and that Malvo which were the pathfinders...

[Adrian II]

hmmm I thought it was INS and that Malvo which were the pathfinders...Well yeah, but they ran into a truck on Interstate 70.

[Blodrast]

As to the specified case-- boo-hoo, he's the enemy, let him rot. "Principle" in war is fungible. If he's not a US citizen and he is among the select few singled out by our best and brightest as having engaged in violent subversive actions against the United States I don't need a fair trial to know that he's guilty.



I thought your post was quite sensible, until this paragraph I quoted.

He's the enemy even before it's been established he's the enemy ?

Not a US citizen ? Are you serious ? So US citizens are, somehow, a "better" caste of mankind, that deserve special care and consideration, while for all the others, the attitude is "meh" ? :thumbsdown:
He would somehow be "less guilty" if he did the same thing as a US citizen ?

As for the best and brightest - they would never make any mistakes, they would never have an agenda, they would never ever need scapegoats, or need to show some results, or be the slightest bit corrupted by power - naah, only humans are susceptible to being corrupted by power... oh, wait...

So, in summary, if the US gov't says that someone is guilty of "engaging in subversive actions against the US" and they're not a US citizen, we don't need a fair trial to know they're guilty. They're guilty 'cause the gov't says so.

Wow.

[Devastatin Dave]

Most countries in the region torture people. The US practices a little bit of fake "torture" and all of a sudden we're the bad guys?

Contrary to sentiment in Western world, Arab outrage over the Abu Ghraib photos is not a response to torture but a response to religious and sexual humiliation of Muslims by an unbelieving foreign power. Look at the motley array of gangs and murderous militias which operate currently in Iraq. Do you think they give two damns about inflicting a little pain?

Many of the techniques employed at Abu Ghraib were patently unwise, but not because they were "torture", and in any case the biggest problem was the photos. Frankly I wouldn't care if we really did shock people's balls, beat them with hoses and pull their fingernails-- as long as we only did it to a small number of people who (a) we were really sure deserved it and (b) had useful information. And regardless of whatever media theories there are as to the effectiveness of torture, any professional will tell you that it works-- when combined with other techniques and sources of information, just like all intel.

As to the specified case-- boo-hoo, he's the enemy, let him rot. "Principle" in war is fungible. If he's not a US citizen and he is among the select few singled out by our best and brightest as having engaged in violent subversive actions against the United States I don't need a fair trial to know that he's guilty.

I hate Dubya by the way-- but I don't let politics corrupt my judgement.
God I wish i could sig this!!!:beam:

[Watchman]

Ah, right. So the US has the right to torture people because someone else tortures some people even worse ? How brilliantly logical. So I guess it's okay for those assorted someones - who are often rather unpleasant and repressive regimes BTW - to horribly torture people they have tagged as "enemies" and "terrorists" and whatnot so long as someone somewhere does even worse things ?

And I'm not going to even touch the parts about "guilty because someone said so". I don't have that good mental desinfectants available.

[Del Arroyo]

US citizens are certainly not better than anyone else-- but US law is obliged to give them special consideration. Just like every other nation-state in the world is obliged to give to its citizens.

And while our intelligence services have been scapegoated for a number of purported "failures" to get the big picture, like 9/11 and WMD in Iraq, in both cases there were analysts who knew the truth, but the politicians didn't want to listen. Furthermore when it comes to investigating individuals, our intelligence is pretty accurate, and targeting comes from the bottom up, not the top down. So yes, I feel pretty confident in their verdict, on-- how many is it? A few hundred in gitmo?

Now, I'm not going to say that all of our reactions to it have been wise, but militant Islamism is a threat-- if you don't think so, you should read up on it.

[Xiahou]

Not a US citizen ? Are you serious ? So US citizens are, somehow, a "better" caste of mankind, that deserve special care and consideration, while for all the others, the attitude is "meh" ?
I just wanted to pull this thought out in particular... In a word, yes. Any government should treat its own citizens better and more carefully than anyone else. The reason a government exists is to serve its citizens. If it's not going to do that, what's the point really?

[Vladimir]

IIt is probably a moot point, and nothing may ever come of this for the obvious international ramifications, but it does demonstrate just how far the integrity of the U.S. has fallen since the Bush era began.

Oh dear, very true. Good thing the previous administration had impeccable integrity. As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to put on my blue dress tonight and think fondly of the good old days. Oh, if we could only trust the presidency as we once did! :shame:

[BDC]

Most countries in the region torture people. The US practices a little bit of fake "torture" and all of a sudden we're the bad guys?

Everyone expects better of the USA. Americans should expect better of the USA.

[Watchman]

Or at the very least, should be able to expect better. Civilised first-world country, democracy, defender of human rights, etc. wasn't it supposed to be ?

[BDC]

Or at the very least, should be able to expect better. Civilised first-world country, democracy, defender of human rights, etc. wasn't it supposed to be ?
Yes. But apparently it's ok to break these morals if the enemy does.

Principle? Bah!

[Blodrast]

Del, Xiahou: Please, don't try to dodge the subject by trying to pretend something else was said than what was actually said: we were NOT talking about the rights and benefits of citizens vs. non-citizens in general; naturally, the citizens of a nation will have more benefits and rights than non-citizens, generally speaking; but that's NOT what Del and I were talking about.
We were talking about something very specific: the right to a fair trial.
You know, Human Rights, and all that (obviously irrelevant these days) crap.

In that sense, and, make no mistake, that's exactly what we were talking about, no, I don't see why non-citizens have fewer or lesser human rights than citizens - especially since the US has signed some of those human rights-related conventions/treaties.

And, for the record, Del: you might be surprised to know that in fact I agree with you that Islamic fundamentalism (and all other kinds of fundamentalism) is a threat. I'm perfectly aware of that. However, I do not agree with (some of) the approaches that the US gov't has taken about this - and I'm happy to hear that you feel the same way.:bow:

[KafirChobee]

It seems that those whom agree with the present administrations policies on detainment and torure for "suspected terrorists" (or known ones for that matter) have no qualms about the lessening of moral responsability that has occurred. Mores the pity, but fear does create that type of response to those incapable or unwilling to realize that by giving up the higher ground (ethically and morally) we also lose the ability to point an accusing finger at other nations for using the same tools of interigation (torture) or random harrasment of those perceived as enemy due to their ethnic/religious backgrounds.

Now that the U.S. finds itself amongst the top 5 on the list of rogue states that routinely abuse human rights, it must make these individuals that agree with the Bush policies quite proud.

How can one claim to support the rights of individuals when they routinely abuse those rights? When they refuse a person his rights for speedy trial, or eve being legally defended?

Pointing at Clinton to justify Bush? Personally I can't see what the inference means. Internationally, Clinton was still respected - Bush on the other hand is just a bad joke.

Still, the main point of the article was "who holds America accountable for the commitment of autrocities"? Are we now above the law because we were attacked on 9/11/01 by a bunch of self proclaimed religious zealots? Or, can we still return to being the nation that once gave hope to others that the laws of one's land must be kept as a sacred trust and never become a reactionary force to only do good for those the few deem worthy.

It is a matter of law. Either they apply to all, or they apply to none.

[Devastatin Dave]

I am a bigot.

[Kralizec]

Removed quote. BG

Good god...

[Goofball]

Removed quote. BG

You make me sick.

[Del Arroyo]

All I know, is that when those nutters tried to blow up the parliament, they hanged, drew, and quartered them. 'Nuff said.

And no, I really don't think it is a matter of law. The US government does not have sovereignty outside its own territory or over any citizens other than its own. As far as treaties are concerned-- ok, maybe our bad, maybe not, but in any case it is a diplomatic, not a legal issue.

The reason that "human rights" is so controversial in the "war on terror" is that in this type of war our targets are not enemy bases, supplies or strongpoints-- our most important target is the people themselves. In order to get to people, you have to talk to people-- networking, if you will. When dealing with an uncooperative subject, some persuasion may be required.

The detainees in gitmo are not suspects-- they are assets. You don't try assets in a court of law. You use them until they are dry, and then you get rid of them in the way that will leave the least mess.

I think that one of our biggest problems in the "war on terror" is that our strategy has sort of overwhelmed our tactics. Meaning that in spite of generally sound procedures and some really good work at the low level, there has been something missing at the top.

[ShadeHonestus]

What people seem to forget, maybe because of its shock value compared to what the U.S. symbolizes is that instances like Abu Ghraib prison are the exception to the norm. I don't quite understand how completely and quickly perspective can be lost.



Now that the U.S. finds itself amongst the top 5 on the list of rogue states

Statements and classifications like this by what ever entity did it must have some of the fuzziest math employed to date.

Go to China, Eithiopia (in fact most of Africa), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, anywhere in the pacific outside of Dingoland, or Spain and raise a generation of your family as the minority population of your choice and live in accordance to their laws. Then come back and tell me that the U.S. placement is accurate.

[Goofball]

What people seem to forget, maybe because of its shock value compared to what the U.S. symbolizes is that instances like Abu Ghraib prison are the exception to the norm. I don't quite understand how completely and quickly perspective can be lost.




Statements and classifications like this by what ever entity did it must have some of the fuzziest math employed to date.

Go to China, Eithiopia (in fact most of Africa), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, anywhere in the pacific outside of Dingoland, or Spain and raise a generation of your family as the minority population of your choice and live in accordance to their laws. Then come back and tell me that the U.S. placement is accurate.

I agree. While the U.S. might have slipped quite a few notches on the "respector of human rights" scale over the past 6 years, it started considerably higher on that scale than most nations. It would have to slide a very long way further down before it was at the same level of say, China.

But having said that, Americans should hold their government to a much higher standard than they hold that of China.

[ShadeHonestus]

I agree. While the U.S. might have slipped quite a few notches on the "respector of human rights" scale over the past 6 years, it started considerably higher on that scale than most nations. It would have to slide a very long way further down before it was at the same level of say, China.

But having said that, Americans should hold their government to a much higher standard than they hold that of China.

Well stated. :yes:

[Sir Moody]

anyone remmeber the line "Liberty an justice for all" im thinking this would be a good time for france to ask for their statue back going by the trend of some peoples ideas ....

[ShadeHonestus]

anyone remmeber the line "Liberty an justice for all" im thinking this would be a good time for france to ask for their statue back going by the trend of some peoples ideas ....

oooooo sick burn...

Will they take their huddled masses back as well?

[Watchman]

We could probably manage to accommodate ours, but how're you going to convince certain segements of the need to move to Africa ?


All I know, is that when those nutters tried to blow up the parliament, they hanged, drew, and quartered them. 'Nuff said.And this would have been around the same centuries they were burning single women as witches, I presume ? If it's the Gunpowder Plot you're referring to, then I could give you a lecture on just how badly that century went and why it's a signally good thing the standards of ethics have kind of gone up since them.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Go to China, Eithiopia (in fact most of Africa), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, anywhere in the pacific outside of Dingoland, or Spain and raise a generation of your family as the minority population of your choice and live in accordance to their laws. Then come back and tell me that the U.S. placement is accurate.

"pacific outside of Dingoland"
firstly, i think the country you are referring to is called Australia. :daisy:. Secondly which countries are you talking about? New Zealand has an excellent record of welcoming the poor from around the rim. the same goes for many other countries around the rim, Malaysia also has a excellent tradition of welcoming minorities.
i also presume that you had lived in all of the listed countries and also raised a family there too? no...?

The top 5 list is maintained by amnesty international, of which is reguarded as one of the leading international human rights groups, and watch dogs of governments, it would also be in regards to government sanctioned human rights abuses.

[Mooks]

I bet most public supporters of torture, would retract their support if they themselves were tortured on false pretenses. Anyone care to ask some spanish inqisition victims of their view on torture?

[ShadeHonestus]

"pacific outside of Dingoland"
firstly, i think the country you are referring to is called Australia. you SMF.


My Australian friends refer to it as Dingoland in the mocking of Aussiephiles..so get ahold of yourself there.





Secondly which countries are you talking about? New Zealand has an excellent record of welcoming the poor from around the rim.


Dingolight



the same goes for many other countries around the rim, Malaysia also has a excellent tradition of welcoming minorities. i also presume that you had lived in all of the listed countries and also raised a family there too? no...?


And live in accordance with their laws...was a key statement you omitted. While never having raised a family there myself I have met and welcomed many families from the Pacific in their pursuit of a new life here in the U.S. I have worked professionally with many. Family members do have commercial interests throughout the rim and inland stretching from Laos, Cambodia, and up to China.



The top 5 list is maintained by amnesty international, of which is reguarded as one of the leading international human rights groups, and watch dogs of governments, it would also be in regards to government sanctioned human rights abuses.

Great, break out their criteria and formulas in the open and lets go over them. A name means nothing.

[Devastatin Dave]

There is no good explanation for my statement. I will edit and expect to face the consequences.:shame:

[Watchman]

Anyone care to ask some spanish inqisition victims of their view on torture?The Inquisition was actually downright elightened when it came down to that. They normally only resorted to torture as the last straw if investigations were otherwise not proceeding anywhere, normally only used actually fairly mild methods (joint stretching and dislocation sort of stuff mostly), and fixed the damage afterwards however the case now concluded. The really nasty stuff was used by the temporal authorities as punishement, not rarely capital. Cautionary example and all that. Foucault's Surveiller et punir famously opens with a lenghty quote of a period witness account of a would-be regicide's execution through the long form... and that was from something like the early or middle 1700s.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

POLICE MODEL

If your model for dealing with terrorism is police action, then there can be no place whatsoever for torture -- and torture should be defined as anything remotely coercive of a suspect. From a police action model, you are attempting to prevent crimes where possible and collect evidence to punish the guilty after a fair trial. Evidence generated by torturous may have been fabricated to stop the torture and therefore cannot be trusted and, as a matter of right, cannot be used to condemn any suspect.

Note, this is not police in the sense of a beat cop smacking the local adolescents with a nightstick or kicking drunks off his beat -- the model is modern, investigative policing.

The "down" side of this is that the terrorists conceive themselves as being at war and that the struggle itself justifies any and all means. They have and will use the rules of any legal system as a tool to further their war effort. Scrupulous maintenance of the moral high ground can overcome this -- by not sinking to the level of the terrorist and moving forward despite terrorism the terror forces will eventually quit it as unprofitable -- but this model must be willing to absorb decades of low-level casualties until terror groups alter their approach.


MILITARY MODEL

Seeks to use military force to smash terror opponents and any support structures for same. Capable of generating powerful results -- particularly against support structures as these are more "tied" to a physical location but, because of the bluntness of the tool, always creates some degree of backlash that the terrorist forces can use as a tool for recruiting/promoting their cause.

From this model, coercive interrogation methods during incarceration are a benign alternative to the "bayonet them to death on the spot" approach. The earlier comment about using them as assets is spot on for this model.

This model meets the terrorists war with direct warfare response. This is both its strength and its "down" side as violence can beget as much violence as it resolves.

Many effective counter-insurgency efforts under this model have used fairly harsh methods in order to be successful. This "hard-boiled" approach -- if applied in a fully mediated era -- would garner a huge degree of negative publicity.


APPEASEMENT MODEL

Buy them off with whatever is handy. This can work, but does more to shunt off the problem than to resolve it, for all the obvious reasons.


QUIT

Give them what they demand. Allow them to become the rulers as they seek to be and to fail in their own turn. Note: this is rather impractical in some instances (e.g. Israel agreeing to its own cessation).