Post #201,049
3/29/05 9:34:44 AM
|
Bill Tierney on torture
[link|http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/13/spy_world?mode=PF|http://www.boston.co...spy_world?mode=PF]
"Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?''
Some listeners murmured in assent; others sat in rapt attention. In all the recent debates about the Bush administration's stance on torture, this voice, the voice of the interrogators themselves, has been almost entirely absent.
Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself - there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.'''
There's more in the article.
|
Post #201,054
3/29/05 9:58:04 AM
|
Interesting piece. Thanks!
Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #201,056
3/29/05 10:01:05 AM
|
"But are we litigating this war or fighting it?"
I said it before, I'll say it again. We're not fighting the war. The public opinion does not support the war, only slow, careful and expensive litigation.
Our enemies make no bones about fighting the war. As long as the "western" public is not ready to fight (and it may never be), they will keep winning. Mind you, when the public is ready to fight, it will cease to be "western" in the sense that most people use this word nowadays. We'd have to revert to "being better at applying the organized force". Not a pretty picture at all.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,073
3/29/05 11:25:57 AM
|
The real question
is this a war? If not, what is it?
My personal take on this the whole time is that this is properly approached as organised crime. The techniques of dealing with crime will go a lot further to solving the problem, and using those techniques (and therefore not bombing the shit out of literally millions of people who had nothing to do with the original actions) will also work a lot better at shrinking the resource base for the criminal organisations.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,077
3/29/05 11:37:13 AM
|
There are two questions here
"Is it a war?"
"How is it properly approached?"
The answers are largely independent.
For the first question, it takes two to have war, and it also takes two to not have it. Bin Laden repeatedly pronounced himself at war, and we really should listen to him.
The second question is currently answered your way by the majority of people in the West. It goes to the heart of the problem. We are not in the war mood. We attempt (or at least US government attempts) to make motions of war, without the popular support that the war needs.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,080
3/29/05 11:42:44 AM
|
And Bin Laden is, of course, why we have taken over Iraq.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #201,081
3/29/05 11:44:31 AM
|
No, we did it for oil.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,086
3/29/05 11:53:45 AM
|
Bin Laden can say what he likes.
Only nation states can go to war.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #201,089
3/29/05 11:57:12 AM
|
You can say what you like.
In the end, neither guns nor nation-states kill people. People kill people.
Two questions for you: Is Chechnia a nation-state? And, how do you think nation-states begin?
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,093
3/29/05 12:01:52 PM
|
What's that got to do with the price of cheese?
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #201,094
3/29/05 12:05:26 PM
|
Bin Laden has an ambition to be the Emir
of all Faithful. The first time the Faithful were united, the Arab nation was born. The second time, the Ottoman Empire.
As for Chechnia, if you ask Russia, there is no such nation-state. Russia has been having the third Chechen War for what, 10 years now?
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,097
3/29/05 12:09:42 PM
|
The "Third Chechen War"
is not a war in the legal sense. There are many things that are called wars that are not wars in the legal sense. The Vietnam War and the Korean War would be two cases in point; neither of these were wars in the legal sense. In fact, the current war in Iraq is not a war in the legal sense; unless I missed it, Congress did not declare war on Iraq.
The controls and forms of war were put into place for a reason, after the Hundred Years War in Europe. These controls and forms were extended over the following centuries to put limits on what could be done. They are part of the West's claims to superiourity. We cannot abandon them without abandoning those claims.
The tragedy that is unfolding is that the west is becoming just like the people they condemn.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,105
3/29/05 12:24:04 PM
|
Grrr...
Yes, yes, yes. None of them are wars in legal sense. Does not matter. The enemy does not care what your law says. They just want to kill you, or push you out of their territory, or conquer yours, or do whatever it is they want to do, using all tools that war puts at their disposal. Repeat, they don't give a flying fuck whether _you_ agree that you are at war. _They_ are.
Vietnam War is a perfect example of my "one-sided" war. Only one side thought itself to be at war (well, American soldiers knew they were at war, but soldiers usually do anyway).
Yes, West should learn (again) to fight people who do not feel bound by the "controls" of war. And yes, we're likely to lose "the West's claims to superiourity". Has not happened yet, the current US administration norwithstanding. It may take a dirty bomb in Manhattan, with dead in tens or hundreds of thousands. When it happens, all that we hear about West's aggression will turn true. Targeting of civilians, chemical weapons, mass torture - you name it. The dark ages will come again.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,078
3/29/05 11:38:32 AM
|
I think it's more like piracy.
Organized crime is usually more interested in having the freedom to do what they want economically. They don't care about politics as long as it doesn't interfere with that goal.
Piracy, e.g. the [link|http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html|Barbary Pirates], preys on the economies of enemy states. They demand tribute in order to be left alone. They control territory. They often have the protection of governments.
It's not a perfect fit, but I think al Qaeda is closer to a pirate band than something like the Mafia. It took military action for the Barbary Pirates to end their attacks on the US.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #201,098
3/29/05 12:11:03 PM
|
So, when do we see a letter of marque?
We have legal and useful ways of dealing with that sort of problem already; why aren't we using them?
My thinking is that the true goal is not the stated goal.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,111
3/29/05 12:55:58 PM
|
Dunno. That's a very good point.
Perhaps there would be arguments of whether a Letter of Marque could apply to anything other than private warships, or something.
On the other hand, I think Bush's policy is pretty transparent. And I don't think it's all about oil. Whether his actions further his stated policy goals is a very big question though. :-(
I can't say much more without recycling threads that have been beaten to death already.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #201,130
3/29/05 6:15:25 PM
|
you have one, they are called contractors
they bounty hunt, provide security and carry arms in the field with full aproval of the american government.
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #201,131
3/29/05 6:18:25 PM
|
Like the British privateers harrying the Spanish Main.
All done with the approval of Liz I.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #201,099
3/29/05 12:11:58 PM
|
Damn right
My concept of civilization doesn't include attacking unrelated third parties with the idea of having my civilization beat their civilization.
And I don't support people who think that way. Particularly not when I believe that they are creating problems for me where previously there were none.
That was my position before we went to war, it is my position today, and it will be my position when the USA as a whole decides that we don't really intend to kill everyone in Iraq and gives up.
I'd like the last to happen with as few American bodies as possible, but I'm pessimistic on that front.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #201,129
3/29/05 6:11:12 PM
|
Have to disagree on that....
we have plenty of public opinion to fight the war with bin Ladin. (In fact, it's kind of scary how much public opinion is behind it.) The trouble is that, as you pointed out, we're not fighting that war. Scheuer may be a hero in some circles, but in this crowd he's something of an iconoclast, and as he spoke audience members snickered and shifted uncomfortably in their seats. At a certain point he reiterated the central thesis of his book: that by going into Iraq the United States ignored the more pressing danger of Osama bin Laden and militant Islam.
''Don't you see a connection?'' someone in the audience asked.
''There is no connection,'' Scheuer shot back, apparently incredulous that in a room full of chastened intelligence practitioners there was still support for the supposed Iraq-Al Qaeda link. ''There is now, but there wasn't then.''
A retired general interrupted, ''There is only one war. In Afghanistan, in Iraq. It's all one war.''
''That's wrong!'' Scheuer said.
''You're wrong, Michael,'' the general replied.
''I've lived it for 22 years,'' Scheuer said.
''I've lived it more than you have,'' said the general.
It was a dispiriting spectacle. Three and a half years after Sept. 11 our spies cannot even agree on such fundamental issues as what kind of a war the United States is engaged in, what kind of threats its enemies pose, and whether those enemies are now or have ever been connected.
Our spies see it clearly. Our generals (and our leaders) do not.
|
Post #201,384
3/31/05 9:19:36 AM
|
No, there is plenty of support for
"The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs". You know, the kind of war that's indistinguishable from "business as usual". Not any other kind.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,387
3/31/05 9:26:48 AM
|
I disagree
I think there's a lot of support in the US for going after bin Laden, and even in the rest of the world. Canada did after all accompany the US into Afghanistan for just that reason. However, that's not what the US is doing now.
The problem that GWB seems to be having is that at this late stage of the game, people are no longer willing to take the stated aim at face value; too many examples of words and deeds differing markedly in the last few years.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,389
3/31/05 9:38:07 AM
|
"Going after bikn Laden"
in the fashion of organized crime invetigation - yes. Bombing Saudi Arabia into stone age for financing Wahhabism - no.
Do you _understand_ what war is? It's _not_ police action. It does _not_ involve proof, arrests or convictions. It's raw chaotic killing, extermination, conduct that in any other circumstances would be called a crime.
The Afghan campain was indeed as close as we ever came to supporting a _war_. It was done mostly by Air Force and dollars. It was extremely limited in scope. We simply gave support to the less dominant faction in a civil war. No, I do not think support for Afghanistan qualifies as support for war.
(Please keep in mind, I do not _want_ real support for war to materialize. It will set us back by hundreds of years, morally. And yet, it's inevitable, as long as bin Laden keeps his end of the proceedings)
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,392
3/31/05 9:50:50 AM
|
Sorry, you seem to be forgetting something
I'm not from the US.
Take a look at what Canada's been doing in Afghanistan over the last three or four years. The reason why we allied with the US on Afghanistan was because there was a clear and direct connection between the Taliban and bin Laden, which leads to a clear and direct connection between the Taliban and the events of September 11th. As such, war on the Taliban was justifiable, and we've had both Special Forces (TF2 is the name of the unit) as well as regular troops on the ground in Afghanistan since. The number one activity of the regular troops since their arrival has been removing land mines, and policing in Kabul.
Why did we decide to take this on? After all, this represents a substantial chunk of treasure, and Canadian blood has been spilled in Afghanistan. And yet, there is no serious opposition to involvement there among the Canadian public. This is because the then government in Afghanistan had played a large role in enabling 9/11, if not actively supporting it. Furthermore, the goal of capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice is a laudable one. Two years later, it was no longer clear that those were in fact the real goals of US policy, so no participation in Iraq. That is the current situation we see now, and unless and until the stated and apparent goals of US foreign and military policy come into accord again, I think there's going to be a lot of resistance in my country to helping your country out.
And if there's a lot of resistance here to that, the kinds of resistance you can expect from those further away is going to be huge.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,416
3/31/05 11:15:26 AM
|
Sorry, you seem to be forgetting something
Do you _understand_ what war is? It's _not_ police action. Maybe not where you're from, but here, it most assuredly is a police action, and has been for the last 60 years. Here's a hint: Of our last 7 wars in the last 60 years, how many have been accompanied with a formal declaration of war, as required by our Constitution? (You do remember that quaint appendage to our legal system, don't you?) If you can't keep up, take notes.... And, unlike jake123, I am an American! jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #201,417
3/31/05 11:19:02 AM
|
Yes
I did notice that no civilized coutry fought a real war for 50 years now, declared or otherwise. It does not make police action and war the same.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,428
3/31/05 11:53:37 AM
|
Maybe not in your mind
probably becuase you have one, and ar enot afraid to use it. But for those in Washington, they most assuredly are the same thing. Why else, for example, would shitferbraind Rummy try to prosecute both Afganistan and Iraq on the cheap? Why wouldn't the US bomb Hanoi? why was there a Grenada? I can name that tune in two words:
Police.
Action.
QED
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #201,451
3/31/05 1:45:01 PM
|
Eh? Nit.
Why wouldn't the US bomb Hanoi?
Um, the US [link|http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1224-04.htm|did] bomb Hanoi. Do you mean Pyong Yang or something?
I can think of several things that you might have been trying to say there, but it might be better for you to clarify what you meant.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #201,540
4/1/05 10:49:22 AM
|
IIRC...
One of the main points of contention between the military (who, all differences aside, really did want to win the "war") and the politicos was that the US forces were enjoined from bombing Hanoi...or at least parts of Hanoi that would have put severe pressure on the North. The Military wanted to leverl the place...non-nuclearly, of course, but simply to reduce it to a picture resembling Dresden or Hamburg, so as to break the "enemy". The politicians would not allow that, so we ended up with what we got.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #201,388
3/31/05 9:37:15 AM
|
I agree
"The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs". Just look how succesfull the War on Drugs has been. -----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
Support our troops, Impeach Bush.
D. D. Richards
|
Post #201,390
3/31/05 9:38:31 AM
|
My point exactly.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,426
3/31/05 11:48:57 AM
|
Nod...point taken...
but, my only comment was that Americans can and will support a true action to bring Bin Laden to justice (war/kidnapping/whatever).
Furthermore, we could've rolled a wall of tanks across Afganistan with complete support.
And, unlike the War on Drugs, there's a nice neat way to determine when you have "won" the War to get Bin Laden. You have him in custody.
The problem isn't that we don't have the support...or that the action is impossible (War on Drug), the problem is that our Administration has decided that Bin Laden is no longer a threat and HAS STOPPED THE WAR.
Kerry called him on it in the debates. He was a fool not to push it harder.
|
Post #201,434
3/31/05 12:08:45 PM
|
Wall of tanks across Pakistan?
That's where he is now, right?
How about Saudi Arabia? That's where money is coming from.
Do we have support for that?
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,437
3/31/05 12:14:31 PM
|
Not among the moneyed classes
and they're they only people the administration is listening to right now.
But, I don't think they really want to solve the problem. It would take a way a lever that can be used to manipulate the electorate. Not good from their point of view.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #201,395
3/31/05 10:08:35 AM
|
Define succesful
"The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs".
Just look how succesfull the War on Drugs has been.
At getting politicans elected? It's actually worked pretty well. It's only if you make the mistake of defining the War on Drugs as having anything to do with reducing drug usage that it looks like a failure. I'm sure the War on Bin Laden will work the same way. Jay
|
Post #201,415
3/31/05 11:03:53 AM
|
Not a failure at stated purpose
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
Support our troops, Impeach Bush.
D. D. Richards
|
Post #201,459
3/31/05 2:36:15 PM
|
I firmly believe that you're wrong about that
I am strongly opposed to this administration's actions. Particularly in Iraq.
However after 9/11 I expected there to be a formal declaration of war, a draft, and an all-out effort to demonstrate very clearly to bin Laden and anyone who wanted to shelter him that you Do Not Fuck With Us. Not only did I expect that but I would have supported it! (And where I was in NY, a good number of my co-workers expected a reaction like that from the USA.)
After all that was our reaction the last time that someone managed to successfully attack the USA on US soil. (A minor incident named Pearl Harbour. You may remember it. I'd personally consider that a far smaller deal than taking out the 2 most economically important buildings in the USA, hitting our military headquarters, and attempting to take out the White House.)
Then Bush came out and told us all to continue shopping. He further proceeded to take out Afghanistan in a fairly careless way and then proceeded to try to turn the public feeling into support for taking out Iraq. (Which had nothing to do with 9/11.)
Yes, there was support for something more than treating this as business as usual. And if we had a real leader in the white-house, rather than an heir designated by the usual interests, we might have demonstrated that to the world.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #201,466
3/31/05 3:26:24 PM
|
One of us is highly untypical.
(and I think it's not me :) )
Not one person I know expected a formal declaration of war or, God forbid, draft. Yes, people expected "something". No, no one expected or supported the kind of intervention that Pearl Harbor triggered.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #201,478
3/31/05 4:33:33 PM
|
Truly none?
In the first few days as NYC went into a military lockdown, nobody that you knew had such expectations?
That surprises me. I strongly suspect that if you talked to various people you'll find that some did think that - you just don't know that they did. I think that if you dug further into what people say now versus what they were saying as the shock was still settling in, that more of them were ready for extreme measures then than recall it that way now.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
