Gems from Gitmo

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't favor extending the rights and protections of our judical system to people who were actively bearing arms against it. Nor to people who ar sworn to destroy it. Especially not to anyone who was supporting AQ in their vile campagin of murder.

I just don't. I don't want them with a battery of lawyers, searching for any technicality they can fiond to get them off. Especially since most of the laws here that protect citizens were anathema to them when they were applying the law.

I commend you for favoring it. I prefer tribunal, where they are afforded a defense, but not the endless rounds of appeals and reviews they would get here, should they be convicted.

So your opinions are based on your personal feelings then? Or do you have some legal rationale?

See, if someone invaded my country, I'd take up arms against them too. I think most of us would. I don't see where what the Gitmo prisoners did was so different than that. I don't see why that brands them as sub-humans with no rights.

I also don't understand what Afghanistan - or Iraq for that matter - has to do with Al Qaida. The Afghanis were supporting the Taliban, not AQ. The Iraqi prisoners, while they probably give nominal support to AQ, are also not directly involved, so what does one thing have to do with another?

Forgive me, but this reminds me of Viet Nam, where all gooks were commies until proven innocent, and all commies were the same. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. It seems to me that we're doing the exact same thing here with Muslim militants/nationalists and Al Qaida. I don't understand the link.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So your opinions are based on your personal feelings then? Or do you have some legal rationale?

See, if someone invaded my country, I'd take up arms against them too. I think most of us would. I don't see where what the Gitmo prisoners did was so different than that. I don't see why that brands them as sub-humans with no rights.

I also don't understand what Afghanistan - or Iraq for that matter - has to do with Al Qaida. The Afghanis were supporting the Taliban, not AQ. The Iraqi prisoners, while they probably give nominal support to AQ, are also not directly involved, so what does one thing have to do with another?

Forgive me, but this reminds me of Viet Nam, where all gooks were commies until proven innocent, and all commies were the same. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. It seems to me that we're doing the exact same thing here with Muslim militants/nationalists and Al Qaida. I don't understand the link.

Totally on personal feelings. I could give some of the rationals, like they aren't subject to the Geneva conventions or that the general punisment for suspected partisans was summary execution, but why mudy the waters? I hate terrorists and I hate anyone who had anything to do with supporting AQ.

Doc, AQ trained in Afghanistan. The taliban government sheilded BinLadin and his organization, providing them with bases, protection and support. If you took up arms in defense of that government. The head insurgant in Iraq is openly allied to AQ. You can make a good case that people picked up in sweeps might not have been fighting and deserve to be relaeased, but you can't say there is no connection to those taken who were armed.

I'd fight for my country too. It really comes down to what Shang said. Intent. If you pick up your rifle and place yourself on the firing line, attacking the invaders or the occupying power, I'm all for extending the status of POW to you if you are caught. If you are making and using IED's on military targets, again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are killing civilians, murdering government officals, blowing up bombs in the hope of getting a few police, terrorizing women for not wearing a face scarf or killing men for shaving, you've crosssed the line. Your actions aren't aimed at military targets, they are aimed at non combatants, and that's purely to inspire terror.

If you ally yourself with AQ, you aren't just sub human to me, you deserve no consideration whatsoever. It isn't PC. It may not even be fair, but it's how I feel.

 

[KarenAM]

I certainly am the last person who would ever sympathize with al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and I understand your feelings, Colleen. Two things trouble me here, though:

First, it has been mentioned in this thread that we have been repeatedly attacked by Islamic extremists. This is true, and we have the right to defend ourselves, which is why few questioned our destruction of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. It's also true, however, that American foreign policy in the Middle East over the past fifty years and more has consistently supported dictators, despots and terrorists, including Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and we continue to support Saudi Arabia, whose society is essentially based on Islamic extremism, and who are known to fund and support Islamic extremism and violence against the United States, Israel, and even Muslims who disagree with them. When we consider the violence done to us it would be only fair to remember our own failed involvement in the region. Recognizing a problem honestly is a good first step toward fixing it, and yet we seem to be singularly unwilling to do this.

Second, and more to the point of this thread, I am bothered that no public process seems to be in place to distinguish those who are actually guilty of terrorism and similar crimes (and for whom I have therefore no sympathy) and those who might have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who would therefore be innocent. The purpose of a trial, after all, is to make just this determination. As an American, it worries me deeply that guilt or innocence is instead determined in secret by officials who seem to feel they are not accountable to anyone, including citizens like me of the country they claim to be representing, and who they claim to be protecting. When we put the Nazis on trial, we did so publically, so why not here?

 

[LadyJeanne]

...You can make a good case that people picked up in sweeps might not have been fighting and deserve to be relaeased, but you can't say there is no connection to those taken who were armed.

I'd fight for my country too. It really comes down to what Shang said. Intent. If you pick up your rifle and place yourself on the firing line, attacking the invaders or the occupying power, I'm all for extending the status of POW to you if you are caught. If you are making and using IED's on military targets, again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are killing civilians, murdering government officals, blowing up bombs in the hope of getting a few police, terrorizing women for not wearing a face scarf or killing men for shaving, you've crosssed the line. Your actions aren't aimed at military targets, they are aimed at non combatants, and that's purely to inspire terror...

This is the crux of the matter, as I see it. We send ALL of those people to Gitmo - the people picked up in sweeps, the people who picked up rifles to attack the invaders (US) and are firing at military targets, and those killing civilians. We are not sorting them out at Gitmo, but are leaving ALL of them there indefinitely, perhaps torturing them.

Without some sort of tribunal or trial, we treat every prisoner in the same way, regardless of their "crime". We are not investigating, making determinations, and treating them accordingly.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Doc, AQ trained in Afghanistan. The taliban government sheilded BinLadin and his organization, providing them with bases, protection and support. If you took up arms in defense of that government. The head insurgant in Iraq is openly allied to AQ. You can make a good case that people picked up in sweeps might not have been fighting and deserve to be relaeased, but you can't say there is no connection to those taken who were armed.

This is the exact same logic Al Qaida used to justify blowing up the WTC. Israel supports killing inocent Paestinians. The US supports Israel. Therefore, US citzens support the killing of innocent Paestinians. Thus, in AQ's eyes. no American citizen is "innocent".

That's is the same argument you use when you assume all detainees from Afghanistan are supporters of AQ.

On the one hand, we say they're not POW's because they didn't wear uniforms and so weren't representing a legitimate government. On the other hand, we assume that they were all fighting in support of their government's policies--the government we just said they didn't represent. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe they are active supporters of AQ, maybe they aren't, But it would seem to me that if we feel we have sufficient cause to hold these people for years - years - without charges, we could at least go public with our reasons and give them a chance to refute them. Otherwise we're just running a gulag, no matter how we try to justify it, and when they mock us as hypocrites and liars over our much-vaunted freedom and justice, they're right.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is the exact same logic Al Qaida used to justify blowing up the WTC. Israel supports killing inocent Paestinians. The US supports Israel. Therefore, US citzens support the killing of innocent Paestinians. Thus, in AQ's eyes. no American citizen is "innocent".

That's is the same argument you use when you assume all detainees from Afghanistan are supporters of AQ.

On the one hand, we say they're not POW's because they didn't wear uniforms and so weren't representing a legitimate government. On the other hand, we assume that they were all fighting in support of their government's policies--the government we just said they didn't represent. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe they are active supporters of AQ, maybe they aren't, But it would seem to me that if we feel we have sufficient cause to hold these people for years - years - without charges, we could at least go public with our reasons and give them a chance to refute them. Otherwise we're just running a gulag, no matter how we try to justify it, and when they mock us as hypocrites and liars over our much-vaunted freedom and justice, they're right.

I didn't say I favor what's being done at Gitmo, my Hatred of AQ notwithstanding.

As I see it, it's a very difficult situation, one the government made infintely more messy by taking the most expedient route.

Those arrested under arms, fighting Military personelle, should have been accorded POW status, as I said, if you are fighting an invader to your country with the means avialable, It seems fair to call you a freedom fighter.

Those arrested on suspicion should have been accorded status as suspected criminal aliens. They should have been tried in some manner and their cases disposed of.

Those suspected of War crimes, should have been turned over to the Hague.

Those suspected of helping Aq should have be the only ones held in extreme circumstance. And even they, deserve a trial of some type.

There are aparatus in place that COULD have dealt with these detainees. The government, however, didn't want to use them at the time. They created a new class of prisoner, and in doing so, looped the rope of expediencey around their own necks. Now the noose is tightening and they have no one to blame but themselves. You can't treat them as POWs now, because you denied them POW status. To change your mind would mean having to repaitriate them enmass as you have declared the conflict over. You also can't treat them as war criminals, as you have held them so long incommunicado the Hague wouldn't touch it. Nor can you treat them as alien criminals, as you have already denied them due process to the point where they would walk from any court you brought them to in the US.

I live in NY Doc. Every two to three days I see a little girl who lost her Dad in the Trade center walk past my house on the way to school. Once a week or so I see her mom, she was a friendly and vivacious woman, who is now damn near dispondant. Don't ask me to try and see the motives of AQ. Don't ask me to spare one drop of sympathy for them. As far as I am concerned they should all be flayed alive with a dull butter knife and doused in salt.

At the same time, don't make the mistake of assuming I consider all the detainees to be terrorists, I don't. Considering our government's success in catching and trying terrorists, I'm well aware the odds favor most of them not being.

My position, i,.e. that I favor military tribunal, is the pragmatic solution I see to an intolerable situation. I don't agree with the situation, I don't agree with how it came about, and I don't hold the government blameless for it's lack of foresight. Accepting the situation as it is, however, military tribunal is the only option I see that they have left.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Then you and I agree, Colleen.

Gee, that feels kind of good.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Then you and I agree, Colleen.

Gee, that feels kind of good.

I respect you so much Doc, we don't have to agree for me to fine. But it does feel kinda nice to occasinally find some common ground

*HUGS*

 

[BlackShanglan]

First, it has been mentioned in this thread that we have been repeatedly attacked by Islamic extremists. This is true, and we have the right to defend ourselves, which is why few questioned our destruction of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. It's also true, however, that American foreign policy in the Middle East over the past fifty years and more has consistently supported dictators, despots and terrorists, including Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and we continue to support Saudi Arabia, whose society is essentially based on Islamic extremism, and who are known to fund and support Islamic extremism and violence against the United States, Israel, and even Muslims who disagree with them. When we consider the violence done to us it would be only fair to remember our own failed involvement in the region. Recognizing a problem honestly is a good first step toward fixing it, and yet we seem to be singularly unwilling to do this.

The difficulty I see here is the lack of options. Looking around the Middle East, I don't see a democracy to support, or indeed much of anything but religious dictatorships and petty tyrannies. There is that one democratic state out by the coast, but our support of them has bought us more trouble than anything else we've done in the region. Picking allies in the Middle East is really something like the last US presidential election - the process of picking the least bad of a wretched lot.

This is the exact same logic Al Qaida used to justify blowing up the WTC. Israel supports killing inocent Paestinians. The US supports Israel. Therefore, US citzens support the killing of innocent Paestinians. Thus, in AQ's eyes. no American citizen is "innocent".

Not quite. In Afghanistan our target was a specific regime and its military, infrastructure, and guerilla supporters. That's quite different to going into Kabul and shooting dead the first 3,000 civilians we happened to encounter. Yes, I believe that innocent people are getting caught up in our "sweeps." However, I'll go back to my earlier statements on intent on that one. Intent matters, and it is not our intent to tangle the innocent in with the guilty; it's just very difficult to distinguish between them at the moment, and very deadly if one guesses wrong.

I would rather that no innocent person was ever caught up in these sorts of events, but that is the inevitable result of guerilla warfare and terrorist activity. In fact I was told by a history professor that that was one of the reasons Washington rejected guerilla warfare as a tactic - because it has terrible effects on the civilian population, who become indistinguishable from soldiers. With that said, the mere fact that in our discussion we distinguish between innocent civilians and those we are attempting to capture shows the difference between us and the terrorists who committed the September 11th attacks. We recognize combatants and non-combatants. They wish to kill anyone they can hit.

I actually agree with you, Dr. M., on the situation in Guantanamo. But I don't think that that indicates a moral equivalancy in our goals and Al Queda's goals. There are real and very significant differences.

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I actually agree with you, Dr. M., on the situation in Guantanamo. But I don't think that that indicates a moral equivalancy in our goals and Al Queda's goals. There are real and very significant differences.

Shanglan

I in no way implied moral equivalence. I meant that when we start jailing all the people we sweep up in the middle east as potential terrorists, we make the same generalization that Al Qaida made in rationalizing their attack on the WTC: that all Americans are anti-Muslim

In the USA, we're fond of saying that the government serves the people's will. What's a Muslim extremist to make of this? One who's seen Israeli's kill innocent Palestinians? Who is responsible for our policies in the middle east anyway? You and I, right? The voters.

Besides, the intent argument is all well and good for us sitting here at home, but when you're an Iraqi civilian whose family is killed by an errant bomb in the course of an unprovoked invasion, or a Baghdad family that has their house tossed by US soldiers looking for weapons, intent is little specious and self-serving. The road to hell is paved with it, I believe.

 

[patrick1]

I'm interested in the moral legal and political issues raised here about the killing of civilians. The Allied bombing of German and Japanese cities in the Second World War deliberately targeted civilians to cause terror. All the same, I feel that any crew taken prisoner should have been treated as prisoners of war. Indeed, as far as I know they were.

Shouldn't we reciprocate regarding people who regard themselves as at war? Their vileness or the vileness of their acts doesn't seem to me an issue. Terrorist killings of innocent people disgust me. But our principles are tested by how we act towards those we profoundly disagree with, or loathe, aren't they?


patrick

 

[KarenAM]

The difficulty I see here is the lack of options. Looking around the Middle East, I don't see a democracy to support, or indeed much of anything but religious dictatorships and petty tyrannies. There is that one democratic state out by the coast, but our support of them has bought us more trouble than anything else we've done in the region. Picking allies in the Middle East is really something like the last US presidential election - the process of picking the least bad of a wretched lot.

You're quite right; we have few options. This is because, reviewing our policies and activities in the Middle East over the past half-century (and the activities and policies of the European powers in the fifty years and more before that), we have systematically eliminated our options.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You're quite right; we have few options. This is because, reviewing our policies and activities in the Middle East over the past half-century (and the activities and policies of the European powers in the fifty years and more before that), we have systematically eliminated our options.

Can't say I agree with you there. I don't see any point at which the Middle East has been brimming with hard-put-down democratic options. But feel free to convince me otherwise

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm interested in the moral legal and political issues raised here about the killing of civilians. The Allied bombing of German and Japanese cities in the Second World War deliberately targeted civilians to cause terror. All the same, I feel that any crew taken prisoner should have been treated as prisoners of war. Indeed, as far as I know they were.

Shouldn't we reciprocate regarding people who regard themselves as at war? Their vileness or the vileness of their acts doesn't seem to me an issue. Terrorist killings of innocent people disgust me. But our principles are tested by how we act towards those we profoundly disagree with, or loathe, aren't they?


patrick

What a very interesting point.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I thought the Supremes had decided that detainees on American soil are protected by and subject to the rule of American law, of which Habeus Corpus is one of the central tenets. Gitmo is US territory, so US law applies.

I believe that the US Government is intentionally keeping these people as prisoners without legal status solely to deny them any rights, which is tantamount to denying them rights in the first place. We are circumventing our own rule of law.

In other words, their status is not a legal issue. It's a political one. We know damned well what we're doing.

Gitmo is not US territory. It is Cuban land that has been leased to the US Government. We are simply renting it. The same basic rental rules apply in this case as it would anywhere.......the tenant isn't the owner. That's why Cuba was chosen for holding the detainees. It was chosen for the specific legal purpose of rights afforded to US citizens, or people on US soil wouldn't apply to them. In short, it was a legal maneuver. Some one brought up the point earlier about a car thief. It's apples to oranges. The car thief would have to be on US soil to be charged by US authorities, even if the thief is not a US citizen.

Something that keeps getting overlooked in this is that some form of trials are being held. People keep saying "being held indefinitely with no release". That's not what is happening. People are being tried in some form, and many have been released. 12 people that were released from Gitmo were later re arrested on the battlefield in Iraq fighting American troops. How could these 12 have been released if there wasn't some form of trial or investigation?

 

[Pure]

question

Hi Colly,

At the same time, don't make the mistake of assuming I consider all the [Gotmo] detainees to be terrorists, I don't. Considering our government's success in catching and trying terrorists, I'm well aware the odds favor most of them not being.

My position, i,.e. that I favor military tribunal, is the pragmatic solution I see to an intolerable situation. I don't agree with the situation, I don't agree with how it came about, and I don't hold the government blameless for it's lack of foresight.

The case of Padilla is wending its way through the courts; he's held in a naval brig. He is a US citizen arrested on US soil. No charges have been laid, and little and late contact with a lawyer, allowed.

Colly, do you favor GWB saying who gets 'military tribunal' [if and when there is a hearing] and who gets a day in court, *for US citizens*?

One might also ask why a new tribunal system has to be created, one with many defects according to the military. Surely odd terrorists and partisans etc. have been picked up before. What was the old 'military' system, and what's wrong with it?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm interested in the moral legal and political issues raised here about the killing of civilians. The Allied bombing of German and Japanese cities in the Second World War deliberately targeted civilians to cause terror. All the same, I feel that any crew taken prisoner should have been treated as prisoners of war. Indeed, as far as I know they were.

Shouldn't we reciprocate regarding people who regard themselves as at war? Their vileness or the vileness of their acts doesn't seem to me an issue. Terrorist killings of innocent people disgust me. But our principles are tested by how we act towards those we profoundly disagree with, or loathe, aren't they?


patrick

Fraid not.

Members of the Doolittle raid were executed, until an imperial recept saved a couple. The japanese Military was fond of taking allied airmen, trussing them up and leaving them with signs saying reek your vengence. the civilaian population killed most of those so exposed.

In Germany, the Gestapo wanted to turn all allied airmen over for "special treatment". It was only the Luftwaffe, protesting that such action invited reprisal on German pilots downed in the battle of Brittan the prevented it.

As to bombing cities, the British did so, but their rationale wasn't to kill civilians recklessly, although that was the end result. The intent was to save air crew by bombing at night, in which case accuracy had to be forgone in favor of saftey for the crews. The Americans bombed by day and we paid an ungodly toll for seking accuracy and only hitting military targets. The eventual rational was that bombing cities dislocated the workers and thus was an attack on war industry. It's pretty flimsey, but it was also reprisal for Germans bombing British cities indescriminately.

editd to add: I meant to mention accuracy in world war two was judged in hundreds or even thousands of yards. Even the precision bombing of the day was going to kill a lot of folks. But that, is an extengency of war.

In Japan, the reason for fire bombing raids was even more acceptable. The Japanese government had co-opted the entire civilian population. There were litterally thousands of cottage industries that supplied parts to the war industry. And you could only wipe that out by going for massive damage to civilian areas, where the people worked and lived at once.

As to terrorists, they aren't at war. They represent no nation. They have no soverign state. They are fucking subhuman pieces of filth, killing wantonly in an effort to intimidate and terrorize for political gain. There is no military excuse, no mater how flimsey because they are not a military. You feel free to try and rationalize their barbarity. Feel free also to try and understand and sympathize with their cause. All I need to understand is that they need to be exterminated, every last mother son of them. Preferably in the most painful way that can be arranged.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,

At the same time, don't make the mistake of assuming I consider all the [Gotmo] detainees to be terrorists, I don't. Considering our government's success in catching and trying terrorists, I'm well aware the odds favor most of them not being.

My position, i,.e. that I favor military tribunal, is the pragmatic solution I see to an intolerable situation. I don't agree with the situation, I don't agree with how it came about, and I don't hold the government blameless for it's lack of foresight.

The case of Padilla is wending its way through the courts; he's held in a naval brig. He is a US citizen arrested on US soil. No charges have been laid, and little and late contact with a lawyer, allowed.

Colly, do you favor GWB saying who gets 'military tribunal' [if and when there is a hearing] and who gets a day in court, *for US citizens*?

One might also ask why a new tribunal system has to be created, one with many defects according to the military. Surely odd terrorists and partisans etc. have been picked up before. What was the old 'military' system, and what's wrong with it?

Let me start by saying I think Padilla is a thug. He is, however, a U.S. Citizen and ther is NO excuse I find acceptable in holding him without charges and denying him a writ of habeus corpus. I don't care how vile he may be, you can't start picking and choosing whom the law applies to. that way leads to no law and justice for none.

I amnot a scholar, but i will try to answer your last question. The old system of military tribunal features a pannel of judges who also act as jury. It's very similar to the continental system, Each party has counsel, but the judges can and do ask questions, unlike in our system. A militray tribunal willnot afford you many of the nicities of our system, that goes without saying. The appels process is also, much more streamlined.

Judges are chosen from active duty or retired military, in general a three judge pannel with a represenative from at least two services. Sometimes a five judge pannel with represenatives from all services. Often the pannel is chosen because of expertise or experience in the area one is charged. They do not neccessarily have any judicial experience, besides whatever court martials and no judicail punisment they may have dispensed at their various commands.

 

[KarenAM]

Can't say I agree with you there. I don't see any point at which the Middle East has been brimming with hard-put-down democratic options. But feel free to convince me otherwise

We must keep in mind that democracy is not a concept that has ever been strong outside the Western political and intellectual tradition. The reason you don't see democracies in the Middle East is because historically the cultures there have always placed more value on ethical, efficient government than on direct political participation by the population. The reason that the current despots are so despised isn't because they aren't democratic, but rather because they are despots who do not do their duty as rulers and look out for the people they rule.

Now, there are a lot of problems with this model, and historically, despots have risen in that part of the world with apalling regularity. But there are also forces that counter the despots, such as the strong tribal tradition and the strong theology in Islam that ethical government isn't just a good thing, but that it is a direct commandment from God. There is no parallel to this, as far as I'm aware, in the Christian tradition.

The trouble is that Europe and the US have never tried to really understand the historical or cultural background of the region. We have always seen the Middle East as the "other", as having that "strange" and "dangerous" religion that swept over the world and very nearly supplanted Christianity. To make things worse, Europe and more recently the US have come to believe that our culture is superior to everyone else's, and so we continue to formulate policy that not only ignores the reality on the ground in places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but which often actively antagonizes the people there, because we assume that they all, deep down inside, want to be just like us. The fact that so many of them tell us they don't is ignored.

The result is, as we see, an ever diminishing range of options. The Arab world is in a state of extreme crisis due to both our bungling and some serious problems that the cultures of the region are having as they face the realities of modernity. The roots of groups like al-Qaeda (and I share Colly's rage at them) are not simple but rather are tied in with history and culture. We have precious few options these days because we refuse to look at the complex world in which we live, preferring instead to retreat into a simple black and white, good vs. evil apocalyptic model that is actually probably just making things worse for us in the long run.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmm. Interesting. What options are you suggesting? (in your last paragraph)

 

[cantdog]

I'm interested in the moral legal and political issues raised here about the killing of civilians. The Allied bombing of German and Japanese cities in the Second World War deliberately targeted civilians to cause terror. All the same, I feel that any crew taken prisoner should have been treated as prisoners of war. Indeed, as far as I know they were.

Shouldn't we reciprocate regarding people who regard themselves as at war? Their vileness or the vileness of their acts doesn't seem to me an issue. Terrorist killings of innocent people disgust me. But our principles are tested by how we act towards those we profoundly disagree with, or loathe, aren't they?


patrick

As Christ noted, any ass can love his friends. We are called upon to love our enemies. Unless, of course, our Christianity is of the fundamental kind.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmm. I've read that the allied generals predicted the loss of between 500,00 and a million soldiers in taking Japan by conventional means - and the loss of at least comparable numbers of Japanese. How does that play in? No one who experienced Hiroshima or Nagasaki could possibly think them a mercy, but were those bombs numerically speaking the least destructive option for the Japanese as well as the allies?

 

[KarenAM]

Well, first of all, nothing we do is going to improve things in the short run. Some things we could try in the long run would include:

1. A concerted effort to reduce the industrial world's dependency on oil, and thereby reduce the flow of petrodollars to countries like Saudi Arabia, which will then force them to actually grow up and pull their culture out of the Middle Ages.

2. Reduce the influence of Christian extremists in American politics, and reduce the influence of Jewish extremists in Israeli politics.

3. Support Islamic moderates, as well as Christian and Jewish moderates. The US has large populations of Muslims who can serve as representatives of American culture and pluralism in dealing with Muslims worldwide.

4. Create and support, long term, Islamic social service organizations, and use these to edge out organizations like Hamas, which currently supply the only social services available for many Palestinians. Encourage the Israelis to do the same.

5. Change our focus and obsession with democracy to a focus on ethical government, which hopefully will allow Arab culture to take its own path to modernity.

6. Never stop pointing out that al-Qaeda and the Taliban represent a profound rejection of Islamic principles. Follow the example of the Muslims in Spain who issued a Fatwa against bin Laden and al-Qaeda for their betrayal of Islam. Do this publically throughout the Muslim world, and back it up with genuine respect for Islam.

These are just a few ideas; I'm sure clever people can improve on them or add to them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I like most of your suggestions, Karen, and I am particularly fond of #1. Forgive me, though, for this - it seems a little uneven to ask the United States and Israel to back away from their local religions while encouraging and embracing Islamic states. Or am I reading you correctly? You did say "extremists," although I find that a very flexible term that gets used to mean a great many things. Are you also in favor of Islamic extremists being shifted away from power? How would we accomplish those goals?

 

[KarenAM]

Extremists tend to make up fairly small proportions of most populations, because most people are aware that in the long run they cost more than they bring. Most Israelis are quite moderate, as are most Americans. Unfortunately, and particularly since 9-11, the extremists have controlled the debate, playing off each other to gain power. This is true in the US, Israel, and Muslim nations.

The only way to counter this effectively is to provide an alternate, moderate voice within each of these three religious traditions. Muslims need to challenge al-Qaeda on Islamic grounds, just as Christians need to challenge Jerry Falwell on Christian grounds. The problem religion has, and which leads it to do horrible things, is the lack of dialogue within each tradition. Promoting that sort of internal debate is in everyone's interest.