U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

[Pop N Wood]

LOL! What makes you think democracy is the answer? True democracy only works when isolated from class, religion and ethnicity...

 

I don't. Go back and read JohnC's links he posted earlier. Also research the situation in Somalia. They didn't lack food, just the political will to distribute it fairly. Kind of hard to feed people when there is a total lack of social order. IMO stability is much easier to achieve in a country run by some form of democracy than one run by warlords.

[Michael]

Getting back to the original discussion, I believe that the key idea is that America should hold itself to a higher standard than the standard that our enemies apply to themselves.

 

An “eye for an eye†response to 9/11 would have been to drop a hydrogen bomb on Kabul, then threaten the same for Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran…. And act on that threat, if the intended recipients don’t cooperate.

 

Democracies NECESSARILY find themselves fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Phrased another way, such is the price of freedom.

 

As for what we should do to “solve the problem of Islamic jihadist terrorismâ€, here’s step #1: get out of Saudi Arabia. Notice I didn’t say get our of Iraq, or stop supporting Israel; just get out of Saudi Arabia.

[Guest Phil1934]

But if you believe the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", the U.S. gov't has pledged to keep the Saudi royal family in power in return for their trying to keep oil prices low.

[mjfawke]

Going back a bit...

 

I'm Irish... You spit on me' date=' I knock you down, you kill one of mine, I'll erase a generation of yours... Simple as that.

Mike 8)[/quote']

 

Im sure that a lot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan feel the same way. I would not be suprised if organisations such as Al-Qaida now have an over-supply of recruits.

 

It's not beneficial to take down two countries when you were only after a few hundred people in the first place.

[mjfawke]

I don't. Go back and read JohnC's links he posted earlier. Also research the situation in Somalia. They didn't lack food, just the political will to distribute it fairly. Kind of hard to feed people when there is a total lack of social order. IMO stability is much easier to achieve in a country run by some form of democracy than one run by warlords.

 

Yes - but the point is that you can't impose democracy on a country that has social issues to deal with first. Somalia, Rwanda and even Afghanistan are all places where democracy is not a good fit, because the ethnic/social issues override everything else. Somalia is a an extreme case... but only because they have fallen back to 'tribal' mentality.

 

What we should do is convert them all as Christians or Muslims (one religion per country only, thank you...), give them a few hundred years to get settled, and then make sure that they all have access to Social Security payments. Problem solved...

[Guest Phil1934]

Now the WHO reports 10,000 cases of polio in the refugee camps. And it will likely spread. Do you still think sending them voting machines is the best course of action?

[johnc]

I don't think how Mike said it was the best way to describe feelings over here as a result of 9/11. Let me give it a try (at least from my persepctive)...

 

Before 9/11 the citizens of the US felt that terrorism was a crimminal issue. Yes, we had attacks on our soil from Islamic Fundamentalists and our own Christian Fundamentalists at close to the same rate as other first world countries (abortion clinic bombings, Oklahoma City, and the first WTC attack are examples). But most folks in the US didn't see those attacks live on TV and the attacks were mostly on buildings that were not a significant part of our culture.

 

The attacks on WTC were different from a few angles:

 

1. The impact of the second plane and the collapse of the buildings was shown live, nationwide.

2. The attackers also hit the Pentagon and attempted to hit the White House.

3. Thousands of people (from all over the world) died a very visible death.

4. Immediately after the vast majority of people in this country felt we were at war - the crimminal aspect of terrorism was gone from our minds.

 

And, another perspective:

 

My parents were stationed at a US military hospital near Reading, UK in late 1943 and 1944. My mom always commented on the resolve of the British to win WW2. My dad also said he admired their determination to see the war to the end and he felt that their determination was greater then the US's after Pearl Harbor was attacked. After 9/11 my mom commented that the anger and resolve she felt in the US was equal to everything she had experienced and admired in the British people in 1943.

[johnc]

BTW... More good news from Afghanistan:

 

http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=47050

 

The Afghan government has launched a new US $312 million project financed by international donors to centralise and equip the country's fragile district administrations. The project, entitled the Afghanistan Stabilisation Programme (ASP), is expected to strengthen the authority of the central government beyond the capital Kabul.

 

"Maintaining proper administration and proper buildings and complexes in districts will bridge the gap between Kabul and local administrations," deputy Interior Minister Helaluddin Hellal

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p01s04-almp.html

 

Barely three years ago, at a time when women in Afghanistan were not permitted even to leave their homes, the idea of a woman performing on stage--and in mixed company!--seemed inconceivable. Any woman who did so risked life and limb. All the more astonishing, then, that a theater festival opening in Kabul will include a play written by a woman (a teenage schoolgirl, to be precise), with real actresses, about the brutal suppression of women under the country's now-ousted Taliban government.

 

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20279607~menuPK:34457~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html

 

"There has been a tremendous demand for education, since the rebuilding of Afghanistan began. It has continued to exceed all expectations." says Keiko Miwa, an Education Specialist with the World Bank . . . based in Kabul. "More than 3 million students enrolled in grades one to 12 in 2002, when only 1.7 million students were expected to enroll. In March 2003, the enrollment surpassed 4 million." Today, more than 5 million students are enrolled in schools, according to Habibullah Wajdi. "This is the most definitive expression for education in Afghan history."

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=4&u=/nm/20041117/sc_nm/afghanistan_treasures_dc

 

More than 22,000 ancient cultural treasures from Afghanistan, feared lost or destroyed after decades of war and Taliban rule, have been taken out of dusty crates and safes in Kabul and inventoried for safekeeping, said a U.S. archeologist. The objects, including 2,500 years' worth of gold and silver coins and ancient sculptures, represent a "Silk Road" of goods once traded from China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and ancient Afghanistan. "By the end of the Taliban's reign, most of us thought there was nothing left, just destruction and despair," said National Geographic fellow and archeologist Fred Hiebert, who led an inventory project of the items.

 

And the best news of all! Bowling is coming back to Afghanistan!

 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-12-2004_pg2_21

 

Afghan Atiq Sikander only took up bowling two years ago, but he dreams of building a bowling alley in his war-torn homeland. "People used to play bowling in Afghanistan in the 1970s, but after all that has happened, probably eighty percent of Afghans now have never heard of bowling," Sikander said. Sikander, 30, is the first Afghan to compete in the 40th American Machine and Foundry Bowling World Cup, to be held in Singapore from December 5-12. . . . Although he holds an Afghan passport, Sikander has lived in Bulgaria for the past 16 years after moving there from Kabul with his family. . . . [Now] Sikander wants to bring his love of the sport to his native country. "War destroyed us. The Afghan people are eager to learn new things, but they do not have the facilities. I'm sure they will like bowling if they have a chance to play," he said

.

 

Bowling movie trivial question:

 

Who says the following in what movie that has bowling as an important theme:

 

"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by 3:00, with nail polish. Getting a toe is easy."

[Zhadman]

 

Bowling movie trivial question:

 

Who says the following in what movie that has bowling as an important theme:

 

"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by 3:00' date=' with nail polish. Getting a toe is easy."[/quote']

 

John Goodman, "The Big Lebowski"

 

Sorry for going OT

[HS30-H]

.....Yes' date=' we had attacks on our soil from Islamic Fundamentalists and our own Christian Fundamentalists at close to the same rate as other first world countries (abortion clinic bombings, Oklahoma City, and the first WTC attack are examples). But most folks in the US didn't see those attacks live on TV and the attacks were mostly on buildings that were not a significant part of our culture.

 

.....4. Immediately after the vast majority of people in this country felt we were at war - the crimminal aspect of terrorism was gone from our minds.

 

.....After 9/11 my mom commented that the anger and resolve she felt in the US was equal to everything she had experienced and admired in the British people in 1943.[/quote']

 

Thanks John, I appreciate your efforts to explain this to me in a reasoned and thoughtful manner.

 

Here in the UK, I would say that just about every major terrorist incident in the US ( apart perhaps from every single anti-abortion related incident ) made the news here over the last thirty-odd years. Some of these were truly major incidents ( Oklahoma comes to mind ) but I really don't think that you can compare like-for-like with the atrocities committed in the name of the IRA in the United Kingdom, or in the name of ETA in Spain during the same period.

 

Don't forget, we had incidents such as a British cabinet minister assassinated in the grounds of our Parliament, and the bombing of a hotel in Brighton where most of the incumbent government was staying. Countless other incidents too.

 

After 9/11 - would it be true to say that some of the realities of terrorism might have been brought home to the communities and organisations that were halping to fund the IRA's activities? Some reports claimed this to be so, and indeed it seems that many of the terrorists themselves saw just how counter-productive and pointless their activities had been. 9/11 could be seen as one of the factors that contributed most to the Northern Ireland peace process in the last few years. The two sides are now talking.

 

The parallel of the post-9/11 resolve of the US people with that of the British people during the Second World War is interesting. However, I would say that times were of course greatly different, and the people of Britain were able to focus quite easily on a clearly identifiable common enemy.

 

The situation now is not quite the same, but I take your point and I understand it.

[Zhadman]

IIRC the 'pacification' of the IRA was not purely non-violent. The SAS are darn good Spec Ops forces!

 

The average Irishman was not altogether different from the average Englishman. There were some cultural differences, of course, and a long history, for sure, but they share many commonalities. The largest of which are a common tongue and similar religions (Catholic and Protestant). Largely, though, I think they could more easily relate to each other (if not agree).

 

It is difficult for many Americans, and Europeans, to relate to those that live in the middle east. Our cultures seem diametrically opposed, there is a language barrier, and economic/social conditions are vastly different.

 

Perhaps a closer parallel (using the UK and the IRA) would be between the Kurds and the Muslims (Sunni, Shi'ite and... uh, the other one. Sorry ).

 

I'm not trying to cause a stir or discredit your opinion, but although there are similarities I just find the parallel fitting a bit too 'loose'.

[johnc]

After 9/11 - would it be true to say that some of the realities of terrorism might have been brought home to the communities and organisations that were halping to fund the IRA's activities? Some reports claimed this to be so, and indeed it seems that many of the terrorists themselves saw just how counter-productive and pointless their activities had been. 9/11 could be seen as one of the factors that contributed most to the Northern Ireland peace process in the last few years. The two sides are now talking.

 

Although I don't have any facts to back up my thinking, I'd be willing to bet that post 9/11 a lot of funding for the IRA that came from the US dried up. This could have been a result of the changed attitudes towards terrorism and/or the tightening of financial controls as part of the Patriot Act.

[mjfawke]

KJFawke' date=' A few hundred? You honestly believe a FEW HUNDRED? Hmmm, Tell you what.. When you have 4000 of your countrymen killed by a terrorist attack on your countries soil, come talk to me... until then, your feet won't fit in my shoes...

Mike[/quote']

 

How many active 'terrorists' do you really think are out there?

[johnc]

How many active 'terrorists' do you really think are out there?

 

That's a tough question...

 

Do we count as "active" the support network (finance, logistics, safe houses, etc.)?

 

Do we count as "active" new recruits who are in training but haven't been part of an operation?

 

Do we count as "active" old terrorists that have retired (did people considered Yassir Arafat a terrorist during his last 10 years of life or was Bobby Seal ever considered a terrorist)?

 

Do we count as "active" the mullahs, Islamic, or Cathloic clergy that preach jihad, issue fatwahs, or provide confession/communion as a religious basis for acts of terrorism?

 

Do we count as "active" parents who send their children out to be suicide bombers and receive "restitition" from the PLO or the IRA?

 

Persoanlly, I think all of the above can be considered "active" terrorists. But, even more fundamentally, which groups are considered "terrorist" organizations and by who's definition of the word are we relying on? (FYI... can't be the United Nations because they have been trying for 30+ years with hundreds of committees to come up with a definition of the word "terrorism.")

[mjfawke]

That's a tough question...

 

Do we count as "active" the support network (finance' date=' logistics, safe houses, etc.)?

(rest snipped)[/quote']

Very good point... but if you were to take out the top few hundred that coordinate, manage and organise the funds, a large part of the threat would disappear. But the collateral damage being inflicted against muslim civilians appears to be creating popular support for terrorist activities. http://www.etaiwannews.com/China/2004/11/13/1100316093.htm

[mjfawke]

O.K. - in Mid 2002, Al Qaeda (will I ever get the spelling right?) was estimated to have 500-600 'full' members with around 200 non-Arab members. The worldwide terrorist organisations had an estimated 20,000 members.

[Guest Z-rific]

If we, as Americans, accept torture as an acceptable form of interrogation, then we have no right to object to any other nation that does the same.

 

If we adopt a "kill them all" attitude, then we can not object to any other nation, religion, race, whatever who uses the same philosophy.

 

Here's what General James Hill, who holds authority over Gitmo says....

 

"What works with interrogation is rapport between the interrogation team and the guy that they're interrogating," he said. "Harshness - any kind of beating, or clearly what you saw in the incredibly obscene pictures from Abu Ghraib - that doesn't work."

 

And check out this article by someone who knows a little about emprisonment and torture...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005151

 

Any questions?

[johnc]

then maybe you should read up on Nazi Germany prior to WW2. And if you don't like those kinds of comparisons

 

I have, extensively, and comparing the feelings of patriotism in the US to the calculated and successful efforts of the Nazis in early 1933 to establish a dictartorship is silly and insulting.

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm

 

When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933, it was at the head of a coalition government. It was very clear in his mind that it would not remain this way for long. By the end of March 1933, he had acquired much greater powers than the former leading politicians of the Weimar Republic could ever have foreseen when they supported his appointment as chancellor. The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, allowed him to combine both chancellor's and president's positions into one when Hitler became the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.

 

How did Germany descend so quickly into becoming a dictatorship ?

 

When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership.

 

Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take.

 

One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?

 

A known communist - Marianus van der Lubbe - was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him - Nazi officials - claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.

 

Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the 'communist takeover'. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.

 

This law gave Hitler what he wanted - a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To 'keep the peace' and maintain law and order, the SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.

 

The election took place in March - though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag:

 

Communists 4.8 million votes

Social Democrats 7.2 million votes

Centre party 5.5 million votes

Nationalists 3.1 million votes

Other parties 1.4 million votes

Nazis 17.3 million votes

 

That 12 million people voted for what were effectively two outlawed parties is remarkable when the intimidation of voters is taken into account.

 

After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building - perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler's Enabling Law.

 

As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler's signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted - dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.

 

On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

 

On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.

 

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.

 

Germany became a nation of snoops. People were employed in each street, in each building complex etc. with the sole purpose of keeping an eye on others in their 'area' and reporting them to the authorities if they believed that something was amiss. The reputation of the Nazi police and the secret police lead by Himmler was such that no-one wished to cause offence. People kept their thoughts to themselves unless they wished to invite trouble. In this sense, Nazi Germany was a nation run on fear of the government. Hitler had created a one party state within months of being appointed chancellor.

 

His only remaining problem from his point of view was loyalty within his own party ranks. In June 1934, he overcame this with the Night of the Long Knives.

[Michael]

This has been mentioned before, but the theme got lost some pages ago….

 

Arguably it’s the right thing to do, to hit your enemy and to hit him hard. Not only are you teaching him a lesson, and exacting revenge; you’re also preventing future terrorism by speaking “the only language that terrorists understandâ€.

 

OK. But shouldn’t you be damn well sure that you’ve got the right guy? In the past three years we’ve had some high-profile arrests of known Al Quaida members – we cab say that those guys belong in Gitmo, that they belong in the interrogation chamber, with its various accouterments. That does NOT mean that everyone that we’ve got in custody is a terrorist.

 

One can support harsh treatment for terrorists AND still support due process for identifying who’s guilty and who isn’t. Respect for innocent-until-proven-guilty is NOT identical to being soft on terrorism.

 

The difference between “us and them†is not that they’re not afraid to use force, and we are. No. The difference is that we use force with discretion, and they use force indiscriminately. Right?