Supreme Court declares US Guantanamo tribunals illegal

[mears]

I'd find it hard to argue that attacks on civilians are fully justified under any circumstances - I condemn my government and other governments for employing this tactic, so it would be hypocritical to argue that it's OK when used by non-state actors - just as it is utter hypocrisy to support the bombing of civilians by states but condemn it when done by "terrorists". What I would never presume to do is tell an oppressed group what they may and may not do in response to that oppression. FWIW, I can't bring myself to say that all the actions of the French Resistance were "fully justified" either, although I'd never condemn them. Do you?

I hope if I'd been President of the US on 9/11 I'd have already started to turn around foreign policy - if I'd been electable in the US, there's a good chance that foreign policy would already have been very different anyway. Had this unlikely circumstance come about, I'd have accepted the Taliban's offer to extradite Bin Laden, despite the lack of an extradition treaty with the US, if we could offer evidence that he was guilty - just as the British government refused to extradite Raissi, the Algerian pilot who was suspected of involvement in 9/11, to the US until evidence was produced. He turned out to be entirely innocent, but the British government still obediently went about changing extradition procedures so that innocent people can be handed over more quickly in future. Actually, I'd probably already have accepted the offers from the Taliban to hand him over prior to 9/11.

In order to provide better security for the US in the future, I'd have ceased all military aid to Israel and forced them into negotations to be based on fullfilling all outstanding UN resolutions, withdrawn the troops from Saudi Arabia and ended the murderous blockade of Iraq. Of course, if I'd really been President, I'd already have done these things - so there's a good chance that 9/11 would never have happened in the first place. Which is why I'd never be President, because I'd never get elected on a platform of telling the US people the truth about the damage that is inflicted on billions of others in order to keep a minority of Americans rich and lazy and voting for more of the same.

What I wouldn't have done under any circumstances was bomb a country back to the Middle Ages, put millions at risk of starvation, detain thousands in legal limbo without access to justice and demand intelligence to be manipulated in order to "justify" the invasion of a second country and tell my electorate that this was making them safer from terrorism when anyone with half a brain cell and the will to use it knew that it would make the threat far far worse. Had I been President, I'd already have made efforts to improve education and develop an independent media in the hope that the majority of my electorate would have been able to work that out for themselves anyway.

Good so you are against the acts perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, hoped so.

Where do you get the UK or US governments target civilians?

You see you just would have gone right back to 1980's, end the blockade on Iraq and the western corporation pour back in, but the French and Russians never really left in the first place. Back to supporting Saddam. Hardly a moral stance now is it.

No country was bombed back to the stone ages. No more talk exists in Afghanistan concerning starvation as was the case when the Taliban were in control.

You play fast and lose with the facts. But I am interested to know where our governments are targeting civilians.

 

[Ae589]

So let me get this straight. Do you believe the struggle practiced by certain Muslims which has led to such events as Bali and Madrid are appropriate responses to their oppression? Are these types of actions something you believe other oppressed people around the world (like Africans) should emulate?

If I poke you in the eye and you punch me in the face, which one of us is right?

 

[muser]

Mears why do you persist in ignoring the facts. Address ymu's point as he has presented them, he has had the courtsey to answer all queries. What does democracy mean to you mears. Your argument seem to be based around 'if they throw a rock we should too', but in so doing you both become equal. That is why there is so much opposition to the war on terror, as their is no discernible difference between protagonist and antagonist.

 

[TAE]

(fight a war with no concious)
THAT is EXACTLY the problem.
If we where to fight the war on the terrorists with no concience,
this would have been finnished long ago,
and with less casualties.
All the carrying on trying to only shoot the bad guys is not working.
We need to conquer them.
and keep them conquered
only then will we or they know peace.
when the war fighting begins there is nothing more important.
"Every form of human endevor pails to insignificance compared to war." (GSP)
We need to remember that.

How do you see this ending?

That the terrorists will just stop if we go home?
"We must grind those people in to mush and use it to grease the treds of our tanks." (GSP)
THAT will win the war.
See the Al Quedia arse holes cannot win, they can only fight, and kill, and die.
What sort of world would they make?

Iraq will be a interesting place in the future.
I hope what we have done there will help, Hell, it has helped.
lets just hope it doesnt "de evolve" back in to some sort of primitive tribal bull shhhaving cream.

Come on, admit it, you actually work for Al-Qaida's recruitment office, don't you.

 

[Ae589]

All the carrying on trying to only shoot the bad guys is not working.
We need to conquer them.
and keep them conquered

To take it to it's logical conclusion: There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. But we are losing the war because we are not being ruthless enough! Therefore we kill *everyone*... actually, no, I've lost the thread, can you run that past us again?

lets just hope it doesnt "de evolve" back in to some sort of primitive tribal bull shhhaving cream.

It's crystal meth, isn't it?

 

[ymu]

Good so you are against the acts perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, hoped so.

Where do you get the UK or US governments target civilians?

You see you just would have gone right back to 1980's, end the blockade on Iraq and the western corporation pour back in, but the French and Russians never really left in the first place. Back to supporting Saddam. Hardly a moral stance now is it.

No country was bombed back to the stone ages. No more talk exists in Afghanistan concerning starvation as was the case when the Taliban were in control.

You play fast and lose with the facts. But I am interested to know where our governments are targeting civilians.

How could you possibly imply that the UK and the US government don't target civilians? "Shock and Awe" is hardly a tactic which discriminates between military and civilian casualties. Dust from depleted uranium has not been specially treated to avoid those out of uniform. Falluja is a city, not a military barracks and it - along with so many other residential areas in Iraq - has been devastated by invading forces who give not a flying fuck who is killed in the process. And don't go spouting bollocks about "collateral damage" - an attack which will predictably cause more civilian than military deaths is targeting civilians. Palestinians will tell you that the suicide bombers often go for buses because a large proportion of their passengers are soldiers - but I'm betting you wouldn't argue that these attacks don't target civilians. Making civilian life as difficult and dangerous as possible is a standard military tactic - the US even openly admitted to it in the case of Afghanistan (as I've already pointed out).

Back to the 1980's and supporting Saddam? You mean, like the US did until 1991? You really ought to educate yourself a little before spouting nonsense like this. It's making you look a little bit silly.

[A] 1993 Los Angeles Times article by Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas about how Bush I secretly continued to build Iraq’s war machine after the gassing of the Kurds. Just nine months before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, President Bush I approved $1 billion in aid to Iraq. The Bush I Administration also provided Iraq with access to sophisticated “dual use” (military and civilian) technology, “despite emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.” Frantz and Waas uncovered ...

…a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by Bush — both as President and as vice president — to support and placate the Iraqi dictator. Repeatedly, when serious objections to helping Hussein arose within the government, Bush and aides following his directives intervened to suppress the resistance.


From: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/gassing-our-own-people.html

You're so naive, it's almost beyond belief. Is this just a wind up?

 

[mears]

How could you possibly imply that the UK and the US government don't target civilians? "Shock and Awe" is hardly a tactic which discriminates between military and civilian casualties. Dust from depleted uranium has not been specially treated to avoid those out of uniform. Falluja is a city, not a military barracks and it - along with so many other residential areas in Iraq - has been devastated by invading forces who give not a flying fuck who is killed in the process. And don't go spouting bollocks about "collateral damage" - an attack which will predictably cause more civilian than military deaths is targeting civilians. Palestinians will tell you that the suicide bombers often go for buses because a large proportion of their passengers are soldiers - but I'm betting you wouldn't argue that these attacks don't target civilians. Making civilian life as difficult and dangerous as possible is a standard military tactic - the US even openly admitted to it in the case of Afghanistan (as I've already pointed out).

Back to the 1980's and supporting Saddam? You mean, like the US did until 1991? You really ought to educate yourself a little before spouting nonsense like this. It's making you look a little bit silly.

You're so naive, it's almost beyond belief. Is this just a wind up?

Can name an incident where the UK or the US government deliberately targeted civilians? Are you waiting for someone to come bail you out? Try a specific situation instead of just speaking in generalities.

You said if you ran the show you would have ended sanctions. What the hell do you think happens after sanctions are ended? Back to American, French, Russian, German, Serbian corporations doing business with Saddam. Partying like its 1989. That is what you propose. Because thats what happens when sanctions end. Talk about naive

Why not post a picture of Chirac and Saddam as well?

Or do you have special standards for the United States of America. Big chip on shoulder for such a proud girl.

All America all the time

 

[nino_savatte]

Can name an incident where the UK or the US government deliberately targeted civilians?

Plenty: Vietnam, The Phillipines Ireland, Kenya, India...how many more would you like?

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

 

[ymu]

Can name an incident where the UK or the US government deliberately targeted civilians? Are you waiting for someone to come bail you out? Try a specific situation instead of just speaking in generalities.

You said if you ran the show you would have ended sanctions. What the hell do you think happens after sanctions are ended? Back to American, French, Russian, German, Serbian corporations doing business with Saddam. Partying like its 1989. That is what you propose. Because thats what happens when sanctions end. Talk about naive

Why not post a picture of Chirac and Saddam as well?

Or do you have special standards for the United States of America. Big chip on shoulder for such a proud girl.

All America all the time

You're really in denial aren't you? Few more examples to add to Nino's here: http://www.iacenter.org/folder04/nowar_record.htm

Yes - what happens when "sanctions" (actually a full-scale blockade in the case of Iraq) end is that essential trade in food and medical supplies can occur so that millions of civilians do not die as a result. You have a problem with this?

I could post a picture of Chirac, but we weren't talking about him. Or are you now arguing that the US doesn't have to clean up it's act until everyone else does?

Now, how about answering some of my questions, instead of coming back with more cognitive dissonance? After all, you did say "I can assure you I will give you a straight up answer to any straight up question you ask me."

Do you condemn the actions of the French Resistance?

Do you believe that Nelson Mandela was rightfully imprisoned?

Do you believe that a "terrorist" attack is justified if at least one casualty is a legitimate target in military uniform?

If "terrorists" attack and destroy a key infrastructure target without direct loss of civilian life (eg power station, pharmaceutical factory), do you accept that this is justified even if there is predictable loss of civilian life as a result?

 

[ZAMB]

Plenty: Vietnam, The Phillipines Ireland, Kenya, India...how many more would you like?

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

There are also the cases where the US and the UK sanctioned the massacre of civilians and provided the weapons, aid and training for the killers.

So much for the spreading of freedom and democracy by the good old USA. I've already mentioned Cambodia in this regard - how about East Timor, where the genocide has been sanctioned by sucessive American presidents and almost completely ignored by the press. Pres. Ford was in Indonesia on a state visit just before it started, and gave them the green light - but asked them to wait until he'd left before they started.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1220

Imagine that a small country is invaded in 1975 by a powerful neighbor well over 100 times its size, a major recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. About one-third of the population- -- over 200,000 -- people die as a result of the invasion, politically created starvation, and the ongoing occupation. Despite the atrocities and numerous U.N. resolutions condemning the invasion and occupation, the U.S., Japan and a number of Western European countries continue to provide the invader with about $5 billion in annual economic assistance.

There's no need to imagine such a situation. The aggressor is resource-rich Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country and a major center of multinational corporate activity: The victim is East Timor, a former Portuguese colony 400 miles north of Australia.

But most Americans have never even heard of East Timor. Given the geopolitical and economic importance of Indonesia, characterized by Nixon as the "greatest prize in the Southeast Asian area," the U.S. has been more than willing not only to ignore but in fact to facilitate Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. Following Washington's lead, reporting by the U.S. establishment media has been paltry at best.

 

[mears]

You're really in denial aren't you? Few more examples to add to Nino's here: http://www.iacenter.org/folder04/nowar_record.htm

Yes - what happens when "sanctions" (actually a full-scale blockade in the case of Iraq) end is that essential trade in food and medical supplies can occur so that millions of civilians do not die as a result. You have a problem with this?

I could post a picture of Chirac, but we weren't talking about him. Or are you now arguing that the US doesn't have to clean up it's act until everyone else does?

Now, how about answering some of my questions, instead of coming back with more cognitive dissonance? After all, you did say "I can assure you I will give you a straight up answer to any straight up question you ask me."

Do you condemn the actions of the French Resistance?

Do you believe that Nelson Mandela was rightfully imprisoned?

Do you believe that a "terrorist" attack is justified if at least one casualty is a legitimate target in military uniform?

If "terrorists" attack and destroy a key infrastructure target without direct loss of civilian life (eg power station, pharmaceutical factory), do you accept that this is justified even if there is predictable loss of civilian life as a result?

Do you pay any attention? Do you remember the oil for food program set up by the UN? Saddam sold the supplies on the open market. Milk and medecine didn't reach the people. Sick children were dying. You talk about implementing a program that was tried and failed. Try to keep up.

No, I don't condem the actions of the French Resistance.

I don't believe Mandela should have been imprisioned.

Your third question is nebulous. But I do understand the resistance in Iraq trying to kill American soldiers as much as I detest the act. I don't understand Musims randomly killing other Muslim civilians in food markets or Mosques.

Again, your last question is very general. Take Iraq. The resistance bombs a power plant, and who does it hurt? The hospital without running generator the 90 year old women in her apartment, or the sweltering infant. So, no infrastructure usually harms innocent civilians. The big boys have their generators.

But I will say this about Muslim resistance. They know what they hate but never quite tell you want they want. Where are their perscriptions for good government? Where are their writing on future socities?

At least with communist sypathisers, or American and French revolutionaries they told you what type of society they wanted after the revolution. But Muslim terrorists around the world just skip that part. And it seems so do you.

 

[ymu]

Do you pay any attention? Do you remember the oil for food program set up by the UN? Saddam sold the supplies on the open market. Milk and medecine didn't reach the people. Sick children were dying. You talk about implementing a program that was tried and failed. Try to keep up.

No, I don't condem the actions of the French Resistance.

I don't believe Mandela should have been imprisioned.

Your third question is nebulous. But I do understand the resistance in Iraq trying to kill American soldiers as much as I detest the act. I don't understand Musims randomly killing other Muslim civilians in food markets or Mosques.

Again, your last question is very general. Take Iraq. The resistance bombs a power plant, and who does it hurt? The hospital without running generator the 90 year old women in her apartment, or the sweltering infant. So, no infrastructure usually harms innocent civilians. The big boys have their generators.

But I will say this about Muslim resistance. They know what they hate but never quite tell you want they want. Where are their perscriptions for good government? Where are their writing on future socities?

At least with communist sypathisers, or American and French revolutionaries they told you what type of society they wanted after the revolution. But Muslim terrorists around the world just skip that part. And it seems so do you.

So do you recognise the hypocrisy of only condemning these actions - committed by "terrorists" or states - when you happen to disagree with their cause?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of Muslims would simply be happy with the US withdrawing from the Middle East and ceasing to interfere with the ME political and economic landscape, including artificially propping up an Israeli regime which doesn't need to make peace whilst it has such extraordinary military dominance over the region. Al-Qaeda's aims go somewhat further, but the establishment of Islamic theocratic rule doesn't have popular support. Yet.

 

[nino_savatte]

At least with communist sypathisers, or American and French revolutionaries they told you what type of society they wanted after the revolution. But Muslim terrorists around the world just skip that part. And it seems so do you.

Such glaring ignorance cannot be allowed free reign. The French revolutionary governments were overthrown at least twice and as for the so-called American revolution, only land-owning males were enfranchised. As for the vision, it seems to me that the US has moved far beyond the original ideals of the War of Independence (to give the event its proper name) to a place that looks altogether different.

Interesting how even the idea of 'terrorism' has been used to give vent to your prejudices too. Why "Muslim terrorists"?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Plenty: Vietnam, The Phillipines Ireland, Kenya, India...how many more would you like?

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

Welcome to MearsWorld - everything exists just as he's told it does.

 

[ZAMB]

Interesting how even the idea of 'terrorism' has been used to give vent to your prejudices too. Why "Muslim terrorists"?

To go back to my earlier example, I wonder if he would designate the Govt. of Indonesia, in their genocide of the christians of East Timor, as "muslim terrorists" - given that thse are Muslims that the US government supports genorously with his tax dollars?

His attitude on this whole question reminds me of an interview that John Pilger did in his documentary about East Timor - he asked a politician if the genocide didn't bother him, given that he was a vegetarian who campaigned against cruel methods of killing animals. The answer was 'Not at all'.

Perhaps Mears should get "my country is always right" tattooed on his forehead. Just in case he's ever tempted to think for himself in regard to nasty things like torture or US empire building.

 

[mears]

So do you recognise the hypocrisy of only condemning these actions - committed by "terrorists" or states - when you happen to disagree with their cause?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of Muslims would simply be happy with the US withdrawing from the Middle East and ceasing to interfere with the ME political and economic landscape, including artificially propping up an Israeli regime which doesn't need to make peace whilst it has such extraordinary military dominance over the region. Al-Qaeda's aims go somewhat further, but the establishment of Islamic theocratic rule doesn't have popular support. Yet.

Why do you go on about Israel? Russians kill more Chechens than Israelis kill Palestinians but you have not mentioned Russia's war in Chechnya one time. Or are you only interested in suffering when you can make some connection witht the US and that suffering.

I do agree with your comments on Al Queda, they are ultimately doomed because of their ideaology.

A poll you might find interesting.

"Despite the country's continued problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276

 

[ZAMB]

Why do you go on about Israel? Russians kill more Chechens than Israelis kill Palestinians but you have not mentioned Russia's war in Chechnya one time. Or are you only interested in suffering when you can make some connection witht the US and that suffering.

If you want a thread about Russia - why not start one? It is not relevant to this topic.
This thread is about US foreign policy, which has to include its Israel/Palestine policies, as they are relevant to the war in the ME, the use of torture etc.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One interesting aspect of the decision, if I understand it correctly, is that in order to remain free from the possibility of being charged for violating the Geneva convention (common article 3), asssuming that they want to carry on torturing and degrading prisoners, US personnel would require an explicit decision from Congress.

That decision would need to specifically grant the right to US interrogators of e.g. humiliating and degrading detainees, and hence Congress would need to explicitly abrogate common article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

In effect the decision removes their ability to waffle their way around common article 3 by saying that it doesn't apply. The supreme court has now decided that it definitely does apply.

The reasons for this are discussed here

 

[xiannaix]

The war on terror is being waged almost exclusively on Islam.

It is not beig waged on Islam. However, considering that AQ blew up the WTC in the name of Allah it would seem follish to separate the issue of Islam from the equation.

It would have a bit more creditability if china and russia were brought to book for their crimes against humanity.

This is undeniable. I agree. However, this failure is no reason to do nothing to address the attacks on the WTC

 

[nino_savatte]

To go back to my earlier example, I wonder if he would designate the Govt. of Indonesia, in their genocide of the christians of East Timor, as "muslim terrorists" - given that thse are Muslims that the US government supports genorously with his tax dollars?

His attitude on this whole question reminds me of an interview that John Pilger did in his documentary about East Timor - he asked a politician if the genocide didn't bother him, given that he was a vegetarian who campaigned against cruel methods of killing animals. The answer was 'Not at all'.

Perhaps Mears should get "my country is always right" tattooed on his forehead. Just in case he's ever tempted to think for himself in regard to nasty things like torture or US empire building.

The Indonesian government actively supports the state sponsored terrorism of the US...which mears wouldn't describe as terrorism but "police action".

Have you noticed how quiet people like mears go when one mentions the name of Raden Suharto? Suharto killed millions of Indonesians because the CIA had sent him a list of alleged communists.

 

[nino_savatte]

Why do you go on about Israel? Russians kill more Chechens than Israelis kill Palestinians but you have not mentioned Russia's war in Chechnya one time. Or are you only interested in suffering when you can make some connection witht the US and that suffering.

I do agree with your comments on Al Queda, they are ultimately doomed because of their ideaology.

A poll you might find interesting.

"Despite the country's continued problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276

Your 'good news' contradicts what is actually happening on the ground. Your poll is meaningless.

 

[spring-peeper]

Your 'good news' contradicts what is actually happening on the ground. Your poll is meaningless.

The poll is also over 6 months old. I read an interview with an Afganistan that sums it up for me. it was along the lines of "You keep asking about politics. First we need food and stability, then we will worry about politics".

 

[nino_savatte]

The poll is also over 6 months old. I read an interview with an Afganistan that sums it up for me. it was along the lines of "You keep asking about politics. First we need food and stability, then we will worry about politics".

Helmand province isn't stable either. Perhaps the poll was conducted in the relatively safe surroundings of Kabul.