Terrorist rights???

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


Dump the Leahy amendment? Are you serious?

The USA going into different countries and training various paramilitary factions is what got us into this mess in the first place. Pres. Bush senior worked with Osama Bin Ladin and his men extensively. Granted, ths was all during the cold war when we all assumed that we faced a much bigger threat in teh USSR, but we will be dealing with what came of that executive decision for decades to come.

And this is all not to mention the extreme damage that the USA did throughout Central America by using the same tactics- educating paramilitary groups which then turn around and either attack us (against which we retaliate) or against their own people (when we turn a blind eye as long as we get our oil and/or money and other goods).

The USA playing big brother might save us some short term strife, but in the long run I think it has been proven to be disastrou for all concerned.

There is an outright ban on all arms trading, from bullets to F-16. Boeing and Lockheed could have avoided downsizing if not for the LEahey Amendment. SO, instead, the Indonesian government bought their arms from the Russians and the European. We lost billion in arms trade. And thisi s not a para-military organizaton, this is the armed force of a nation that have always supported us. Sure they are going through rough time, but we need them to be stabilized because:

(a) Indonesia is right in the middle of the world economy, 76% of the world economy uses the sea lane that goes through the region.
(b) a stable Indonesia is a stable S.E. Asia. And trust me, you do not want a destablize S.E. Asia.
(c) Indonesia could be the holy grail when it come to having a legitimate democratically elected government where the population are Muslim. (Indonesia is a democratic government)
(d) The Commender of the Pacific fleet himself says that Indonesian armed forces need the military hardware because many of their planes, tanks and boats are running down and they can not buy replacement.
(e) I'm not alone in this regard, CATO, Henry Kissinger (sure I don't like him, but you got to make pact with the devil some time), US Dept. of Defense and other want to restart the different training and selling of weapons to their armed forces.
(f) We have little or no influence on the military right now because of the LEahey AMendment. If we returned to normality, we have better influence

No more rhetoric, it's time to practice real politik.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by skip101
Do you think it is OK for other countries to torture American POWs?

One of the main reasons that people are complaining is because the USA is not following their OWN rules of war.

How exactly are these prisoners being tortured, skip? From the reports I've read, even the Red Cross members examining the men are agreeing that the men are being treated fairly well on the base.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by dzrose93


Lovelyivy,

I understand your point, and it's a good one. However, on the other hand, what does it say about our government if we bow to every demand that a protester makes about the way that we conduct our affairs? To me, it would only make us look weak if we back down. And, quite honestly, I don't think that we are treating the prisoners poorly, which is why it upsets me to hear people complaining so vehemently.

I agree that we have used higher security measures during their transport from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay than we would for other criminals, but I think we would be remiss in not doing so. When it comes right down to it, our soldiers are our main concern. Their safety comes first, and if it means that a group of dangerous prisoners has to feel a little discomfort for a time in order to insure that safety, then I don't think that we are wrong for it.

I don't presume that I know at all what is happening down in the camps. If it's ok by the Red Cross then its ok by me. But if there are concerns in the worldwide community then they need to be addressed because we are at a point where we don't want to lose support for this war- there is far too much (if only in the way of national pride) invested in it.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Arya


There is an outright ban on all arms trading, from bullets to F-16. Boeing and Lockheed could have avoided downsizing if not for the LEahey Amendment. SO, instead, the Indonesian government bought their arms from the Russians and the European. We lost billion in arms trade. And thisi s not a para-military organizaton, this is the armed force of a nation that have always supported us. Sure they are going through rough time, but we need them to be stabilized because:

(a) Indonesia is right in the middle of the world economy, 76% of the world economy uses the sea lane that goes through the region.
(b) a stable Indonesia is a stable S.E. Asia. And trust me, you do not want a destablize S.E. Asia.
(c) Indonesia could be the holy grail when it come to having a legitimate democratically elected government where the population are Muslim. (Indonesia is a democratic government)
(d) The Commender of the Pacific fleet himself says that Indonesian armed forces need the military hardware because many of their planes, tanks and boats are running down and they can not buy replacement.
(e) I'm not alone in this regard, CATO, Henry Kissinger (sure I don't like him, but you got to make pact with the devil some time), US Dept. of Defense and other want to restart the different training and selling of weapons to their armed forces.
(f) We have little or no influence on the military right now because of the LEahey AMendment. If we returned to normality, we have better influence

No more rhetoric, it's time to practice real politik.

I don't think that I am giving in to rhetoric, just observing the effects of former policy.

There may seem to be a number of great reasons (all of the ones you listed are compelling) but in the long run I think it will be a mistake. It is always a mistake. Once America involves itself in the affairs of any given foreign country, it generally takes a war and a couple of billion dollars spent before we get out of it again (Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines, Central America, The Middle East have all proven costly in manpower as well as capital).

As for providing arms, that would spur American industry, and then in 20 years when tht country is financially unstable from the various wars amongst the political factions that we armed, or who received the arms through corrupt dealers, and the country has split into several deadly factions resulting from the weakened centralized government that the people lost faith in when the officials 'betrayed' them by giving in to the American dogs, and they have massacred their own people and want to unify themselves as a country again, who becomes the Enemy? Us. Who is subject to a fresh wave of terrorist acts? Us.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


I don't presume that I know at all what is happening down in the camps. If it's ok by the Red Cross then its ok by me. But if there are concerns in the worldwide community then they need to be addressed because we are at a point where we don't want to lose support for this war- there is far too much (if only in the way of national pride) invested in it.

If I'm understanding the news correctly, the main problem that people are having with our treatment of the prisoners is that they are not being classified as POW's, which means that they are in "legal limbo," so to speak, because they aren't entitled to a trial unless they are actual POW's.

Right now, the government is still trying to determine how best to deal with these men, and may be holding off on POW status until they come up with a safe, effective way to try the prisoners and, also, get information from them that will help us in our fight against terrorism. I can definitely understand why the government is hesitating. They want to be absolutely sure that they are doing everything possible to prevent future terrorist acts.

I think that we have and will continue to follow the rules of war as stated by the Geneva Convention. However, it may take us some time to sort through all of the 1,000's of prisoners that we've taken and interview them for any knowledge they have. If the rest of the world would just give us a little breathing room to accomplish that important task instead of jumping down our throats about every move we make, then I think everything will work out as it is suppose to in the end. The men will get the trials that they are entitled to, and we will feel safer as a country.

Instead, it seems as if people are just waiting for us to make a questionable move so that they can complain about it, and I don't think that the government should be rushed into anything that is so important to our national security just because we might offend another nation's idea of morality.

[dzrose93]

I do agree with you on the point you made about America getting involved in other nations' affairs. You're absolutely right. We help out certain groups when it is in our best interest to do so, without seeing the big picture and what might happen down the road. That's how Bin Laden got started -- with the help of the American military.

If our government would consider the big picture more often, we would probably not be hated so much by other countries. I think that we should still assist needy countries, but leave arms and combat lessons out of it!

[moe.ron]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lovelyivy84

Sorry to cut the quote, but it was getting a little long. By the way, I enjoy this debate, its reinvegorating to debate without name calling or other stuff.

The thing is that our manpower will never get involved in Indonesia aside from training, even that will prob. be held either in Australia or Hawaii. The difference btw the location you have staed is that it is in our best interest to support Indonesia and its military. We have cut virtually all ties with the Indonesian military. Our influence are little to none. THe military are making great progress in curtailing their abuses and, believe it or not, the Minister of Defense is a civilian, unlike the past. Another plus is that the Chief of Staff is an admiral. It's better if you e-mail me, this is prob. boring for other people.

[KillarneyRose]

My overriding concern is the safety of Americans, both civilian and military. I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it.

We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't.

[James]

That is actually the major point. Under the rules for POW's you can't interrogate them (prisoners). They are only obligated to reveal name rank and serial number. One of the reasons why we aren't calssifying them is so we can use more persuasive methods of getting information, because obviously they are not going to say much if asked nicely. And we really don't want a lot of scrutiny on that or have our hands tied by obeying rules that we get outraged about when others don't follow.

Originally posted by dzrose93


If I'm understanding the news correctly, the main problem that people are having with our treatment of the prisoners is that they are not being classified as POW's, which means that they are in "legal limbo," so to speak, because they aren't entitled to a trial unless they are actual POW's.

Right now, the government is still trying to determine how best to deal with these men, and may be holding off on POW status until they come up with a safe, effective way to try the prisoners and, also, get information from them that will help us in our fight against terrorism. I can definitely understand why the government is hesitating. They want to be absolutely sure that they are doing everything possible to prevent future terrorist acts.

I think that we have and will continue to follow the rules of war as stated by the Geneva Convention. However, it may take us some time to sort through all of the 1,000's of prisoners that we've taken and interview them for any knowledge they have. If the rest of the world would just give us a little breathing room to accomplish that important task instead of jumping down our throats about every move we make, then I think everything will work out as it is suppose to in the end. The men will get the trials that they are entitled to, and we will feel safer as a country.

Instead, it seems as if people are just waiting for us to make a questionable move so that they can complain about it, and I don't think that the government should be rushed into anything that is so important to our national security just because we might offend another nation's idea of morality.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84
There may seem to be a number of great reasons (all of the ones you listed are compelling) but in the long run I think it will be a mistake. It is always a mistake. Once America involves itself in the affairs of any given foreign country, it generally takes a war and a couple of billion dollars spent before we get out of it again (Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines, Central America, The Middle East have all proven costly in manpower as well as capital).

See, but these billions of dollars spent don't necessarily spell financial ruin for the US - Keynesian deficit spending? I think you're making the same argument for both sides here - military spending is a boon on the economy, hence repealing of the Leahy Amendment makes sense on that level . . . and wartime military spending has the same (albeit impulsory) effect, no?

(I'll look for cites later if desired. . . )

[matthewg]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
My overriding concern is the safety of Americans, both civilian and military. I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it.

We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't.

My goodness

I think the hatred of people like the El Quaida terrorists is nurtured by exactly this attitude.
Everybody should be granted to live the life he wants to live - but what you propose is that America dictates what this life has to look like. Maybe for about 6 billion people minus 290 million Americans that is not such a perfect concept.

We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by KSig RC


See, but these billions of dollars spent don't necessarily spell financial ruin for the US - Keynesian deficit spending? I think you're making the same argument for both sides here - military spending is a boon on the economy, hence repealing of the Leahy Amendment makes sense on that level . . . and wartime military spending has the same (albeit impulsory) effect, no?

(I'll look for cites later if desired. . . )

You have a point. But the financial aspect is not the only thing to be considered is what I am saying. Wars, whether ours or other people's, in the past have generally been good for business (sharp deviation from that trend with Vietnam) but that is just one aspect of the affect of getting involved in a foreign military action on this country.

One HUGE aspect of it is loss of life. I have family in different branches of the armed forces and am TERRIFIED for their safety should they be sent to train these groups and "accidents" happen.

Then of course there is the aspect of the way it would affect our role in international politics. The USA is a big convenient target. Other countries hate us, and some of them with damn good reason, for our past policies. Going into any other country as big brother just gives further justification for those anti-American sentiments and goads individuals and organizations to perpetrate more terrorist acts. I am not saying there is not reason to be big brother- America can be of great aid to any number of small countries, but it is a precarious and slippery slope.

Where do we stop? First we train them. Then when there might be a military action, we lend "minimal" support. Then when there are casualties we lend medical aid. Then when the country needs to be rebuilt we send advisors. It goes on and on, we spend billions and who knows what the repercussions will be? History tells us they won't be pretty.

[damasa]

Originally posted by matthewg


My goodness

I think the hatred of people like the El Quaida terrorists is nurtured by exactly this attitude.
Everybody should be granted to live the life he wants to live - but what you propose is that America dictates what this life has to look like. Maybe for about 6 billion people minus 290 million Americans that is not such a perfect concept.

We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!

ahhh, talking about al qaida and their lifestyles. Are they truly mad because they think that the u.s. is trying to push off their way of life? No, it goes much much deeper than that.


About this quote. What is the main point? You say that americans are trying to push their way of life onto other people? That's what it seems like. I didn't realize that us helping to topple the Taliban and reform the gov't of afghanistan was a push off of our lifestlye. Further, the same things that we do to try to help, such as humanitarian aid missions, peace keeping missions, etc. How does that help america to push off their way of life?
Double standards, what double standards?
"he" Everybody should be granted to live the life "he" wants to live? I didn't know we were all "he" '

But you propose? Who is the you doing the proposing? Further, what are we proposing? These double standards. Give examples, data, something.


d

[Peaches-n-Cream]

From what I know, one of the reasons these men have not been classified as POWs is because if they were, they could not be tried in a criminal court in the United States. I believe that they ought to be tried for the murders of over 3,000 people, for conspiracy, and for anything else that they allegedly did.
Actually, these prisoners have many rights including the right to practice their faith. They are criminals and are willing to die and take everyone with them for their cause. Based on what I have heard, I don't think that they are being tortured. I think that the military has to protect itself and the USA from the threat that the prisoners pose and that involves putting shackles on prisoners.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by damasa


First, I agree with James on many levels, too many to name, anyway.

About this quote. What is the main point? You say that americans are trying to push their way of life onto other people? That's what it seems like. I didn't realize that us helping to topple the Taliban and reform the gov't of afghanistan was a push off of our lifestlye. Further, the same things that we do to try to help, such as humanitarian aid missions, peace keeping missions, etc. How does that help america to push off their way of life?
Double standards, what double standards?
"he" Everybody should be granted to live the life "he" wants to live? I didn't know we were all "he" '

But you propose? Who is the you doing the proposing? Further, what are we proposing? These double standards. Give examples, data, something.


d

Dear damasa,
ok, ok, please let me clarify - my post was referring to the following, Killarney Rose wrote:

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

2) There is no question that what has happend in Afganistan lately isn't for the benefit of the Afghan people.

3) However, that is beside my point!

4) I correct for the politically correct: everyone should be granted to live the life ONE wants. - thank you!

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

7) of course that last sentence in my last post ("We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!") was meant to address the general topic of this thread, namely the conditions in camp x-ray and whether the inmates there are POW's or not. It had no connection to KillarneyRose's post.


In this matter I would like to add that the Geneva Convention states that "when in doubt about the status of POW or not, an international tribunal shopuld decide in that matter". There is nothing to agree or disagree about that - the USA signed the document, period!
Of course the reason why this is not happening is that the authorities want to question the el Quaida fighters which they were not allowed to do if they had POW status. However, and here we come back to the double standard: I cannot violate a convention (by not allowing an international tribune to decide whether the guys are POW's or not) just because it is against my interest.
That is a matter of principle and not of wanting and wishing.

And it has nothing to do with my personal opinion that it would of course be desirable to learn as much as we can from those prisoners and that, indeed, they don't deserve better conditions.

All that matters is if we stick to rules that we set up ourselves and if we apply them to everybody regardless of personal distress or emotions.

I hope that was clarifying enough