These People Are Nuts!

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its all irrelevant.

If you attack the US Government overseas you have no Constitutional right to anything. No lawyer, no Miranda warning, nothing.

 

[oggbashan]

Its all irrelevant.

If you attack the US Government overseas you have no Constitutional right to anything. No lawyer, no Miranda warning, nothing.

It's all relevant because for many of the GITMO detainees there is no evidence except their "confessions", extracted by means that no other civilised country would use or condone, that they attacked or intended to attack anyone. Those handed over by warlords may just have been political opponents.

Og

PS. Note that I said "no other civilised country". I still believe that the US is a civilised country but GITMO, waterboarding and extraordinary rendition make it very difficult for the US's allies to defend the US Executive's actions.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OG

I say "irrelevant" because no individual or nation can change the situation for the detainees if the US wants the status quo.

No international law is broken. No treaty is broken. The Constitution doesnt apply.


The furor, thus far, is impotent table pounding.

 

[oggbashan]

OG

I say "irrelevant" because no individual or nation can change the situation for the detainees if the US wants the status quo.

No international law is broken. No treaty is broken. The Constitution doesnt apply.


The furor, thus far, is impotent table pounding.

But you don't seem to appreciate that these actions are providing recruiting propaganda for more terrorists.

As a tactic in the war on terror it's a complete failure.

We need to win hearts and minds. We need to challenge the idea that suicide bombing is pleasing to God. We need to convince people who if not our friends are not actually our enemies that they should challenge perverted messages about Jihad.

Every time the US Executive defends Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, waterboarding etc. it makes the task of confronting those who preach terrorism much more difficult. The battlefield is inside Mosques to continue the message that Islam is a peaceful faith considerate of other faiths, inside closed rooms where young people are indoctrinated with false interpretations of what Muslim teaching is, and in changing mindsets inside countries dedicated to terror.

We can only defeat terrorism by challenging its moral bases.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OG

You defeat terrorism by killing its participants and making their aggression unattractive and unappealing to them.

 

[gauchecritic]

OG

You defeat terrorism by killing its participants and making their aggression unattractive and unappealing to them.

This sounds very much like how Al Quaida think. Defeat globalism, consumerism and monetarism by killing its participants and making capitalism unattractive and unappealing.

If they believe themselves to be at war how is dying unattractive? It's simply one of the risks. And come to think of it, isn't dying for a just cause rather appealing? Isn't that how they work?

Killing a dead-man-walking isn't very intuitive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You assume al Quaida are monolithic androids. They arent.

 

[Guest]

You assume al Quaida are monolithic androids. They arent.

Your AV is almost as disturbing as your point of view.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pleasing you is not my life's work.

 

[gauchecritic]

You assume al Quaida are monolithic androids. They arent.

You assume that they're culturally western.

 

[oggbashan]

OG

You defeat terrorism by killing its participants and making their aggression unattractive and unappealing to them.

That was what the Germans tried to do to Resistance movements in Europe during WWII. They even killed people who were not in the Resistance as reprisals e.g Oradour-sur-Saone.

The Resistance provided significant assistance during the D-Day landings by cutting railway lines and communication links.

The policy of killing people who are already willing to risk their lives for a cause failed then. It is failing now.

It wouldn't have prevented the Japanese Kamikaze attacks in the latter stages of the Pacific Theater in WWII. The pilots who attacked the Allied ships set out on their missions prepared to die. They didn't expect to return. They too were indoctrinated that dying for their cause was honorable and just. They were told that an American invasion of Japan would result in wholesale rape and slaughter and that their actions were defending their families.

Terrorists prepared to die to advance their cause are not going to be deterred by making their actions "unattractive and unappealing". Blowing oneself up is already unattractive and unappealing. It is made acceptable by hatred of the US and its allies and by a perverse interpretation of Muslim teaching. They can be defeated by teaching their communities that the US and its allies are not their enemies and by removing the so-called religious justification for their actions.

Og

 

[colddiesel]

RR claims it would be too dangerous for USA to provide a proper trial. Nonsense:-

Spain
Germany
UK
France
Russia
Australia

have all tried and sentenced terrorists for murder without resorting to military kangaroo courts, so there's no need for you to be scared of doing the same RR.

Even Indonesia a moslem country has tried and sentenced the Bali bombers. The argument that it would be too dangerous for the USA to do so will not wash.

I do, however, think that most of the Guantanamo internees will never be charged because there is no evidence against them and the minority which has been charged will stand a fair chance of getting off because the evidence has been so prejudiced that chunks of it would be ruled inadmissable in any ordinary court. However, some of them will probably help out with confessions in order to become 'martyrs'

JBJ. Killing terrorists doesn't work for a democracy. Examples :former Viet Kong now rule Vietnam, Menachim Begin(Stern gang) became PM of Israel, Nelson Mandela sweet old gent now but 40 years ago was blowing up soldiers, the IRA leadership has given up killing people to become ministers of her majesties government etc etc. Og's right you can kill a few to start with but in the end every terrorist organisation which has been neutralised by a democracy has been through democratic means.

Finally isn't it obvious that McCain is adopting his current position in order to obtain the conservative vote. If elected he will free most of the minor players and then with regard to the major prisoners will be given legal advice telling him they have to have a proper trial. He'll go through the motions express regret and breathe a sigh of relief to get shot of the problem. It's called realpolitik.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

COLD DIESEL

But we dont even need to have kangaroo courts. We can shoot them or drop them in the ocean or give them to some kind soul needing meat for their lions. Killing always works. In the past entire societies were extinguished. Terrorists are not weeds in the garden.

OG

I suspect too few people agree with your view.

 

[oggbashan]

OG

I suspect too few people agree with your view.

What is a real concern is that too many US citizens agree with yours.

Your reply to ColdDiesel suggests that genocide is a possible solution.

Would you kill all students because a very few of them go shooting up their campus?

Would you kill everyone in a town that has a drug dealer who killed a competitor?

Would you nuke the Gulf States, Afghanistan and Pakistan because Osama Bin Laden might be somewhere nearby?

Terrorists hide in normal populations. Where did the 9/11 terrorists train to fly aircraft? Would you kill everyone with a pilot's licence?

When anyone responds to terrorism with threats to commit mass murder of people who are entirely innocent and uninvolved you become a terrorist yourself.

If you think that all Muslims or even anything other than a tiny minority support terrorism then you are as deluded as the suicide bombers.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with trying to deal with Muslims is the structure of their religion. Islam has no central authority. Thus, each Imam has a lot of power over his congregation. If you convince one Imam of your desire to opeerate in a peaceful manner, you still have thousands of other Imams to deal with.

Just one example. The Muslim Imams have not even been willing to state to their congregations that suicide bombings against civilians is against the teachings of Islam.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with trying to deal with Muslims is the structure of their religion. Islam has no central authority. Thus, each Imam has a lot of power over his congregation. If you convince one Imam of your desire to opeerate in a peaceful manner, you still have thousands of other Imams to deal with.

Just one example. The Muslim Imams have not even been willing to state to their congregations that suicide bombings against civilians is against the teachings of Islam.

Some Muslim Imams have not. Most refuse to allow the preaching of Jihad except as an internal struggle within the individual. In the UK preaching in support of terrorism is against the law.

However how many people follow some of the extreme forms of Christianity preached in some churches in the US? How many regard some of the sects as completely weird? How many sects in the US are unregulated except by their local minister? How many would be recognised as normal Christians by the main-stream churches?

Most Muslims in Europe would see glorification of suicide bombing as being as odd as for example snake-handling churches appear to be. Snake-handling churches hurt no one but themselves.

The terrorists are NOT typical. Those who encourage and train them are cynically using extreme forms of belief to brainwash people but the leaders are not Muslim in any sense that most Muslims would recognise. However they CLAIM to be Muslim to gain support from people who resent the western democracies for a variety of reasons. The leaders of the terrorists want power in their own hands and not in the democratic votes of the people. Some are covert agents, or unwitting stooges, of countries unwilling to declare open warfare on the West.

Many wars, and this one against terrorism is no exception, claim to be about religion. The reality is different. This war is about who controls the oil-revenues of the Middle East. Are the revenues to be used for the benefit of the local people or just to enrich a few arbitary rulers. Al-Queda hated Saddam Hussein because he had the power and the money and they didn't.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

"Elevator goring down. 2nd floor...Bedding, Sheets, Strap-ons...
1st floor... cosmestics, women's clothing...
Basement...Men's clothing, garden supplies...
2nd basement... Terrorists, rapists and right-wing Republicans..."

 

[manyeyedhydra]

OG

You defeat terrorism by killing its participants and making their aggression unattractive and unappealing to them.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. All that happens is you refill the ranks of the terrorists with otherwise moderate individuals who become incensed after losing loved ones to the collateral damage.

You only have to look at the Israeli situation. Tit for tat is going to keep that going forever.

Northern Ireland resolved itself when the new generation came along and decided there was more to life than maintaining generations old grudges.

Normal people generally don't come to the conclusion that blowing themselves up for a cause is a good idea. The only way you'll defeat terrorism is by choking off the supply of willing recruits and to do that you have to stop killing their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers and allow them to live a normal life.

 

[Pure]

note to rr.

RRWhen you deal with people who use suicide bombers against civilians, you have to find ways to protect yourself. Secrecy is one of those ways. I have no proof, but I can assure you that the founding fathers did not consider suicide bombers when they wrote the constitution.

Again, much of the evidence against the detainees was gathered via inside informants or highly classified intelligence means. Revealing the inside informants is worse than a death sentence. Revealing the classified intelligence means not only renders said means useless, but puts US soldiers at risk.

i do NOT see the reason for the hysteria, RR, except as rightwing efforts to brand Dems as traitors.

The US solved the problem of Nazi spies decades ago. Mafia trials have been held for years. As cold diesel points out, a number of countries have dealt with trying terrorists--e.g. in close court rooms-- for years.

All the flap is pretty much BS. Oh, and the suicide bomber thing; again, nothing new. the mafia blows up judges and prosecutors in their cars. some countermeasures apply.

It's been solved, as best as possible. gitmo, the black prisons, the 'military commissions'--- all BS where existing procedures are there. capturing 'bandits' on the battle field is common. army procedures exist.

99% of the NEW anti terrorism measures is either ill considered, or for show, and most of it's counterproductive. torture usually is. the pictures of hooded shackled prisoners are excellent recruiting tools. i credit GWB with top numbers in al quaeda recruiting stimulation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Manyeyedhydra

No. Extinction is a lot quicker and more effective than winning hearts and minds.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Manyeyedhydra

No. Extinction is a lot quicker and more effective than winning hearts and minds.

I believe the Nazi's tried that.

Cheerful folk, you might remember them. Had a few PR issues with the rest of the world and got their asses kicked.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Nazis and virtually every other society.

 

[R. Richard]

Some Muslim Imams have not. Most refuse to allow the preaching of Jihad except as an internal struggle within the individual. In the UK preaching in support of terrorism is against the law.

However how many people follow some of the extreme forms of Christianity preached in some churches in the US? How many regard some of the sects as completely weird? How many sects in the US are unregulated except by their local minister? How many would be recognised as normal Christians by the main-stream churches?

Most Muslims in Europe would see glorification of suicide bombing as being as odd as for example snake-handling churches appear to be. Snake-handling churches hurt no one but themselves.

The terrorists are NOT typical. Those who encourage and train them are cynically using extreme forms of belief to brainwash people but the leaders are not Muslim in any sense that most Muslims would recognise. However they CLAIM to be Muslim to gain support from people who resent the western democracies for a variety of reasons. The leaders of the terrorists want power in their own hands and not in the democratic votes of the people. Some are covert agents, or unwitting stooges, of countries unwilling to declare open warfare on the West.

Many wars, and this one against terrorism is no exception, claim to be about religion. The reality is different. This war is about who controls the oil-revenues of the Middle East. Are the revenues to be used for the benefit of the local people or just to enrich a few arbitary rulers. Al-Queda hated Saddam Hussein because he had the power and the money and they didn't.

Og

I am aware that the people behind the terrorist organizations are not really Muslims. When the were training terrorist Muslims at Salman Pak, one of the complaints was that the trainees always wanted to stop and pray.

There is a semi-legitimate complaint about democracy in a Muslim country. Only Allah is authorized to direct the destiny of his worshippers. A king is supposedly guided by Allah. A democracy is an attempt to use the will of the people, instead of the will of Allah, to guide the destin of Muslims.

You say, "In the UK preaching in support of terrorism is against the law." However, the Finsbury mosque has been in open and notorious violation of said law for a long time.

I realize that the terrorists are atypical Muslims. However, they are funded by the charity of mainstream Muslims.

If the funding were cut off and the Imams were to state, "Suicide bomb civilians and you go to hell!" the problem would be much smaller.

 

[oggbashan]

You say, "In the UK preaching in support of terrorism is against the law." However, the Finsbury mosque has been in open and notorious violation of said law for a long time...

.

...the Finsbury mosque HAD been...

Part of it had been taken over by jihadists. They were ejected some time ago. That is why Abu Hamza was preaching in the street. The Finsbury mosque is no longer tolerating people who preach violence.

Og

Edited for PS: Part of the training given by Al-Queda and other groups is about how to merge into the community, how to appear normal and not arouse the suspicion of the security services and the Muslim community. Some of the tenets are based on the teachings of Chairman Mao and Che Guevara (and the practices of Allied agents working inside occupied Europe in WWII).

 

[Pure]

reply

I say "irrelevant" because no individual or nation can change the situation for the detainees if the US wants the status quo.

No international law is broken. No treaty is broken. The Constitution doesnt apply.


The furor, thus far, is impotent table pounding.

the first point is true, in that the most powerful nation can not be 'forced' short run to do anything, even if it starts bombing the capitals of the major muslim countries.

i believe there are treaties and agreements to which the US has signed on, in cluding the some of the Geneva Accords. there are US signed agreements on torture, with US designed loopholes.

all the battlefield issues, as far as i know, are very old ones, e.g. apprehending 'bandits'-- as terrorists are usually called. the army has its procedures in place since WWII at least. the US army participated in, if not carried out, the execution of lots of 'bandits' in the War in the Philippines ca 1904. however the pics of bodies of 50 bandits dumped into a mass grave does not help the US these days!

the issue of 'being at war' and congressional power to have a say in that is also involved: the president, in a war, has various powers; clearly it's an abuse of power, to act Hitler style--for any Pres to say, "it's always a war; i say so" or "it's always a national security emergency; i declare it so."