Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
What should we ask of Bush II.2?
When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it? See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject |
 |
Debate - Page 6/12
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Nope, it doesn't. The detainees at Abu Ghraib may have been humiliated,
but they sure as heck were treated a lot more humanely than when the place
was under the command of Sadly Insane Hussein's forces.
There you go again: "hey, we´re not as bad as Saddam, we just
humiliate people; he actually TORTURED them, you know!". Interesting
definition of torture, by the way. So humiliating people systematically
isn´t torture?
> US troops are being issued body armor and new vehicles equipped with
armor plating.
Of course, now public opinion has become aware of the problem.
> Iraqis braved death threats from the terrorists to vote in record
numbers in Iraq's first democratic elections in over half a century.
Like I said, good for them. Let´s hope the peace holds, which is
far from certain yet.
> And the insurgency (actually "insurgencies", there are
a number of small and varied insurgencies going on at the same time and
being carried out by different groups with different agendas) is/are losing
support among the Iraqi people.More and more, the Iraqi people are turning
against the terrorists and supporting the Iraqi government.
You know, I honestly hope you´re right, but I can´t see any
improvement. Another 30 dead in the bomb attack today.
> As for the detainees at Git'mo, they are Islamic Al-Qaeda and Taliban
terrorists who were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq.
And as far as I'm concerned, the US military can do whatever it likes
with them. Torture them to get information about Al-Qaeda and where Bin-Laden
might be hiding? Sounds great to me.
That´s where we differ. I consider it inhumane to torture anybody
for any reason. I think you betray your own principles if you do that,
especially since torture has never been a very reliable way to get information.
Case in point: the Git´mo inmates have been subjected to inhumane
treatments for the best part of three years now and what information did
the US military get? Zip!
> More, please. If I thought that using "prohibited methods of
intelligence-gathering" against the Islamic fanatics caged at Git'mo
might help prevent another 9/11 atrocity, I would cheerfully interrogate
them myself -- with a blowtorch, if that was what worked.
Even if you put concerns about human rights aside: it doesn´t work.
Heck, everybody since the heyday of the Inquisition knows this.
> I have the following comments to make: (1) It had everything to do
with cruise missiles, because that's all Clinton did against al-Qaeda.
(2) In a word, NO. The CIA did not know where Bin-Laden was, other than
that he was almost certianly in Afghanistan and under the protection of
the Taliban. The CIA could not possibly kill Bin-Laden, because (a) as
I have already stated, they didn't know where he was, and (b) it's a little
difficult to kill a particular individual when that individual is being
protected by a 40,000-man Taliban "bodyguard".
With a cruise missile? I don´t think so.
> (3) A person who "looked like" Bin-Laden was spotted by
an unmanned American reconnaisance drone. The soldier controlling the
drone wanted to open fire, but his request to fire was denied because
he couldn't identify beyond any doubt that the target was actually Bin-Laden
and because his request had to go up a chain of command. By the time his
request was approved, the target had moved and wasn't visible anymore.
By the way, all this happened considerably AFTER 9/11, not before. The
US military didn't start using unmanned drones in Afghanistan until well
after 9/11.
Hmm, too tired to research this, so I´ll just go with your story
for argument´s sake.
> That view is blatantly incorrect. Pres. Clinton was very much well
aware of the horrific threat that Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda posed. Pres.
Clinton, after all, was the US President in office in 1998 when Al-Qaeda
terrorists blew up two US Embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of people
and injuring over 4,000 people. Pres. Clinton was also the Commander-In-Chief
of the US in 2000 when Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the US Navy destroyer
USS Cole in a port in Yemen, killing 17 US Navy sailors and nearly blasting
the ship in two. To suggest that Clinton "wasn't aware of" the
threat posed by Bin-Laden or "didn´t perceive Bin-Laden as
the menace he was" is utterly ludicrous. Former Pres. Clinton himself
has stated on more than one occasion that Bin-Laden was the main subject
of the daily threat-analysis briefing at the White House for years at
a time. Therefore, Pres. Clinton knew of the threat that Bin-Laden posed;
he (Clinton) simply didn't do anything about it, other than ordering a
Navy submarine to fire off a few cruise missiles.
Ludicrous, eh? I´d be interested to know how many americans would
have been willing to sacrifice american GIs in an Afghanistan invasion
before 9/11. I´d bet there weren´t any because the threat
was still too far away. Before 9/11 the american public didn´t understand
the threat to America´s own backyard. They thought it was a localised
problem in the Middle-East and Africa. Therefore they wouldn´t have
supported an invasion of Afghanistan in a million years.
> The claim that "A few years before that, the CIA could probably
have defused the problem by neutralizing bin Laden and the other Al Quaida
leaders", is equally preposterous. It's as nonsensical as the claim
by an ignorant 20-year old Canadian student that "all the US would
have had to do, was send in a small CIA commando team and 'take out' Bin-Laden"
or some such rubbish. Statements like those are so ludicrous, it's difficult
for me to imagine that anyone would even utter something so naive.
Oh, so you´re a SpecWar buff as well now, are you? Where did you
get all your superior knowledge, since you stated before that you weren´t
in the military? Believe me, if Clinton had known the whereabouts of Bin
Laden before 9/11, he´d have been dead as a broomstick, Taliban
guards or no Taliban guards. And that would have hampered Al Quaida efforts
seriously since Bin Laden was the one with the money. After 9/11 however,
Al Quaida had built up a massive organisation with cells all around the
world, a whole bunch of training centres in the Afghan mountains and bin
Laden had dug himself in near Kandahar. At that point, singling him out
wouldn´t have had much of an effect anymore, I grant you that.
> First: Bin-Laden had spent many years in Afghanistan, dating back
to the early 1980s or so, back when the Soviets still occupied the country.
´79 actually, but heck, who cares about accuracy.
> He was and is quite familiar with the country and its terrain. He
also was (and is) quite adept at protecting himself and his entourage,
by staying hidden. He also has had many years of experience in doing so,
dating back to the Soviet era. I realize this may come as a radical concept
to some, but finding a single individual terrorist who doesn't want to
be found and who is very good at staying hidden is not the easiest thing
in the world to do, even for the CIA.
Granted, so how would an invasion have helped? May I remind you that three
years AFTER the invasion, all the president´s men STILL can´t
find him?
> Second: Afghanistan is roughly 400,000 square miles of territory
that ranges from barren plains to jagged mountain ranges and peaks that
are over 15,000 feet high. <....> The Taliban, in turn, became a
private for-hire 40,000 man army and bodyguard that protected and sheltered
Bin-Laden. The idea that a "Small, Elite CIA Hit Squad" could
sneak into Afghanistan, somehow get past the 40,000-man Taliban army,
find Bin-Laden in his hiding place, kill him, and sneak back out again
without being detected, slaughtered or captured and turned in by the Islamic
populace, is so preposterous, it almost can't even be dignified with a
response.
Like I said, who died and made you a Navy Seal? It´s not about 40.000
or even 400.000 troops protecting a person, it´s about information.
But I digress. The point is: at the time Clinton didn´t have public
backing for an invasion, indeed he didn´t have an apparent reason
for it. Since he wasn´t psychic, he couldn´t know about 9/11.
> To Mike in London:
I am outraged at your flimsy and pathetic attempt to claim that the US
was somehow "responsible" for SADDAM HUSSEIN'S actions. The
lives that were terminated by Saddam WERE NEVER LOST WITH 'US SUPPORT'.
The war against Iran WAS NOT 'SUPPORTED' BY THE USA. The US never once
'promoted', 'advocated' or 'encouraged' Saddam's insane war on the Iranians,
actively or otherwise. He did it on his own, without any "guidance"
or "suggestion" from anyone else. Nobody ever "told"
Saddam to launch an unprovoked war against the Iranians who were then
our mortal enemies, but if he wanted to do it on his own, that was his
choice. We simply used his own insanity to our best advantage, which is
fine. The only "support" we ever gave Iraq was defensive in
nature. We never gave Iraq tanks, we never gave Iraq combat aircraft --
nothing that could be used for offensive purposes. We didn't "help"
Iraq to "win", and Saddam didn't "win". We merely
kept Iraq from LOSING, which is a completely different matter. And Saddam
was always a brutal thug, and we always knew he was a brutal thug. And
Saddam was never our "friend". We NEVER "liked" him,
we merely TOLERATED HIS EXISTENCE.
Aha, so extending the man a 400 million dollar credit guarantee for US
exports doesn´t count? Providing him with reams of satellite and
other intelligence to carry out attacks on the front doesn´t count
either? "Defensive in nature"? Indeed, Phil, defensive like
a kick in the privates, that was.
> As for your ludicrous comment that "A perfect example of not
caring how many non-Americans get killed or maimed in the process is the
use of cluster bombs, carpet bombing, agent orange"... Agent Orange
wasn't even a "weapon" at all!!!
Nope, but it still killed people.
> And what exactly do you think the purpose is in war, if not to WIN!?!
When Britain bombed Nazi Germany, did you "deliberately and humanely
avoid using anti-personnell weapons to spare the civilian populace"
? AS IF. If you want to talk about carpet-bombing and the slaughter of
noncombatants, I suggest that you do a Google search on the word "Dresden".
It might be refreshing and illuminating for you to learn something of
your own history before you arrogantly presume to make accusations at
others.
Now you´re way out of line, Phil. I´m pretty tolerant of rantings,
but you´re using a comparison the german Neonazis (ab)used just
a few days ago during the Dresden commemoration ceremonies, and that takes
it just one step too far. Kindly remember who started that war (and also
started bombing cities). It certainly wasn´t the brits.
> Finally, with regard to your comment that "What I am saying
is that US ideology, viewed from this side of the Atlantic, seems to currently
have created a kind of biblical, black & white world view concerned
with absolutes of good and evil which simply do not exist in the real
world. ". There IS absolute good and Absolute Evil in the real world.
If the Holocaust and the spectre of concentration camps did not teach
you that, then clearly you have a very, very large amount of learning
to do.
And if you don´t know that there are "grey" zones where
sorting out good and evil just isn´t that easy in real life, then
YOU have a very very large amount of learning to do.
Antti Vainio, Finland
Do you really think torture is ok?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian:
I asked: A few questions for you, M. Bastian: (1) Which "non-Americans"
are being "tortured, maimed or killed in the process"?
You responded with: "Errm, well, a few hundred thousand Iraqis, the
inmates in Abu Guraib, Guantanamo Bay and the other camps for "illegal
combatants" the US have put up. Not enough for you?"
A "few hundred thousand"? Do you have any "evidence"
to support that claim? There aren't any "camps" for illegal
combatants other than at Git'mo. There are less than a thousand illegal
combatants housed at Git'mo. And that number is being steadily reduced
as the US, under pressure from its erstwhile "allies", releases
terrorists so that they can then commit more terrorist acts.
See below:
Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01
At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S.
officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed
fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according
to Pentagon officials.
One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership
of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda,
Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he
has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was
someone else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
Michel Bastian wrote: "I´d have
to get the list of the 100.000 + Iraqis killed in the war (if there is
such a list; I understand nobody even bothered identifying them all) as
well as the list of inmates of the above institutions. A bit excessive,
methinks, so I´ll pass."
I think the real reason you're choosing to "pass" is because
there really WEREN'T "100,000+ Iraqis killed in the war", and
because you do not have any "evidence" that there ever were
100,000+ Iraqi deaths.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Long rant, (hopefully) short answer: so now
you need Saddam´s murders (which I am indeed outraged about, just
as you are, since I don´t "select" deaths; all of them
are terrible, regardless of nationality) to justify the Bush administration´s
position? Basically you´re saying: Saddam killed a few million,
so it´s ok if we kill a few hundred thousands. Some argument. No,
really, a very cute exercise in sophistry."
(1) We didn't kill "100,000+ Iraqis" and "100,000+ Iraqis"
did not die. I am still waiting on you to supply evidence of your claim.
And (2) Casualties sustained and inflicted in the course of liberating
a nation of 25 million people from Sadly Insane Hussein ARE acceptable.
60 million people died in WWII, and many of those people died during the
fight to liberate Europe from Naziism, but I don't hear anyone claiming
that those deaths were "wrong" or "immoral". I suppose
we could have lessened French casualties by not invading at Normandy and
instead leaving France firmly controlled by the Axis.
Michel Bastian wrote: "So all the european leaders are like Chirac,
eh? Even if he was elitist, arrogant and all that, I doubt very much Mr.
Blair, Mr. Zapatero, Mr. Schröder, Mr. Fogh-Rasmussen, Mr. Balkenende
etc. etc. would care for your argument." I don't care whether they
care for it or not. Mr. Zapatero is a great deal like Chirac and is part
of the problem.
See below:
Old Europe's New Alliance
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1327552,00.html
A Franco-Spaniard-German Axis
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/UnitedEuropeStories/unitedeuropestory04-49.shtml
Michel Bastian wrote: "ROTFL! So if Bush
can´t find any terrorist ties, he has to pull out the old ones and
the classic "anti Israel" story. Achille Lauro? Come on, Phil,
surely there must have been some terrorist attack at least in the nineties
you can pin on Saddam´s back. Put in a little more effort, will
you.
Certainly, Michel. My pleasure. Here you go:
SALARIES FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives
of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.
Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully
struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of
them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish
holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have
recently received payments of $25,000.
Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge,
religious zeal and dreams of glory ˜ not greed.
Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation
Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier
for some potential bombers to make up their minds. "Some people stop
me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do
it immediately," Safi said. He also suggested such remarks were made
mostly in jest.
Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace
proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian
battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue
supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes,"
said Safi.
Rumsfeld, who said earlier this week that Saddam and the Iraqi government
were offering the lower amount, elaborated on the issue at a Pentagon
briefing.
"It turns out that he has raised that amount and it's $25,000 per
family, not $10,000 per family," Rumsfeld said.
"Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has
proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance
human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent
men, women and children," Rumsfeld said.
Though he did not say so, he appeared to refer to the current wave of
suicide bombings on Israeli civilian targets.
"I am simply trying to let the people of Iraq understand what their
leadership is doing, to let the people of the Middle East and the rest
of the world ... know what is in fact being done to arm young people and
send them out to blow up restaurants and shopping malls and pizza parlors,"
he said.
Rumsfeld blasted Iraq, Iran and Syria on Monday for inflaming violence
in the Middle East, and said he raised the issue of Iraq on Wednesday
to suggest it was important to "recognize that there is an infrastructure
to terrorism."
Rumsfeld said Saddam had stated publicly the payment for families "if
they're able to persuade a family to have their teen-ager strap explosives
on them and go out and kill themselves and kill innocent men, women and
children."
"He is pleased with his idea and is promoting it in the region,"
Rumsfeld said of Saddam. "It is a matter of public record."
Under the new Iraqi payscale, decided on March 12 during an Arab conference
in Baghdad, the families of gunmen and others who die fighting the Israelis
will still receive $10,000, while the relatives of suicide bombers will
get $25,000.
Safi and two others from the Arab Liberation Front visit families in the
northern West Bank and make the payments. "We go to every family
and give them a check," he said. "We tell them that this is
a gift from President Saddam and Iraq."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
Michel Bastian wrote: "Right, so you
didn´t incite the war, you just supported it. Big difference!"
Yes, it IS a big difference. If you're unable to understand that huge
difference, that's unfortunate, but it sounds like a personal problem
on your part to me.
Michel Bastian wrote: "And yet another dead horse: comparisons between
Germany, Japan and Iraq are skewed. It´s not the same situation
by far. Read the other posts on this thread." Correct, it's not the
same situation by far. Iraq was FAR MORE DANGEROUS to American interests
than Germany or Japan ever were. Nazi Germany couldn't even conquer Britain
across the English Channel, much less invade America. Same for Japan.
Iraq on the other hand posed a MORTAL THREAT to America's interests in
the Persian Gulf. Iraqi forces were within striking distance of the oil
supplies that are the lifeblood of the world's economies.
Michel Bastian wrote: "The point is that before the war there wasn´t
a united front against the US in the arab world. Now, due to the war,
there is. Ask any arab what he thinks about the US and you´ll find
disdain at best and pure hatred at worst. That´s what Bush managed
to do: make Iraq a focus point for the arab world. He effectively destabilized
the whole region." What planet have you been standing on? There was
always a disdain of and pure hatred against the US, BEFORE we liberated
Iraq. The Arabs' hatred had nothing to do with Iraq. It had to do with
the US continuing to expect the Arab world to face reality once and for
all and acknowledge the fact of Israel's permanent existence. The focus
point for the Arab world was, and remains, Israel's existence. And we
will NOT compromise on that issue. Bush in liberating Iraq and in creating
democracy has STABILIZED the whole region.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Ok, I´m
willing to be convinced here: what are your sources for the fact that
George Bush Sen. Called upon the Shi´ites and Kurds? Incidentally,
even if you were right, he only needed to protect the Shi´ites and
Kurds. No need to invade the whole of Iraq, which is why he didn´t
do it even after the massacres."
Here you are, Michel:
The Ghosts of 1991
By Peter W. Galbraith
Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
The writer, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia,
is a professor at the National War College. He was in rebel-held Iraq
during the 1991 uprising.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
Michel Bastian wrote: "Ok, I´m
willing to be convinced here: what are your sources for the fact that
George Bush Sen. called upon the Shi´ites and Kurds?"
I provided the source already.
Michel Bastian also wrote: "Incidentally, even if you were right,
he only needed to protect the Shi´ites and Kurds. No need to invade
the whole of Iraq, which is why he didn´t do it even after the massacres."
False. Pres. george Bush #41 didn't even do anything to protect the Kurds
and Shi'ites. He didn't order the invasion of even the parts of Iraq predominantly
inhabited by the Kurds and Shi'ites, when doing so could have and would
have saved thousands of lives. He was criminally wrong to NOT have invaded
Iraq, which is why Saddam was allowed to remain in power and continue
to be a threat to other Iraqis and to the Middle East for another 12 years.
Michel Bastian also wrote: "Heck, Phil, if you insist on using french
phrases, at least try to get it right. It´s "quelle horreur",
not "quelle horror"." Yeah, whatever, Michel.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Again, just trust me on this." Uh, sorry,
Michel, but NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
Old Indian saying: "The White Man came to us and said, 'Let us all
join hands in a circle, close our eyes, and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ
for your Salvation.' And so, we did. When the White Man first came among
us, we had the Land, and the White Man had the Bible. After we prayed
and opened our eyes, the White Man had the Land and we had the Bible.
The White Man, too, said 'just trust me on this' ".
Michel Bastian wrote: "Oh my god, this
is the decline of the western world. Cuba and Zimbabwe will actually be
on a panel (with several other states) which will decide on an AGENDA!
This is the end! I mean honestly, get off it, Phil, or you´ll end
up in hospital with a coronary."
Michel, if you don't recognize the utterly Orwellian absurdity of selecting
some of the worst human-rights violators on the planet to decide what
the agenda should be for the U.N. Human Rights panel, then maybe you're
just not as intelligent as I gave you credit for.
And here I thought the French built an entire domestic film industry out
of making three-hour long and totally incomprehensible movies filled with
dialogue about absurdities of life....
"UN-Balanced"...
Good News: the UN has chosen a group of countries responsible for deciding
the agenda for its next Human Rights Commission meeting.
Bad News: The countries include:
Cuba
Saudi Arabia
Zimbabwe
Yes, folks, 60% of the members on the panel are human rights abusers themselves.
Perhaps the UN felt that first hand experience would aid the panel in
its mission.
Michel Bastian wrote: "There you go again:
"hey, we´re not as bad as Saddam, we just humiliate people;
he actually TORTURED them, you know!". That's absolutely correct.
Have you ever seen a Death Certificate that read "Cause of Death:
Acute Embarassment and Humiliation"?? No? I didn't think so. People
can survive embarassment and/or humiliation quite nicely, Michel. But
they might have a whole lot more trouble surviving horrendous actual physical
tortures... the kind of torture that involved people having their arms
pulled out of their sockets, being beaten half to death, being burned
with red-hot irons, watching their limbs amputated with chainsaws, or
being subjected to high-voltage electric shocks in their genital areas.
You know, the kind that Saddam's minions practiced on helpless people.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Interesting definition of torture, by the
way. So humiliating people systematically isn´t torture?" That's
right - it ISN'T Torture. If it were, every US Marine drill instructor
who ever taunted or chewed out a recruit would have been accused of "Torture".
But they weren't accused of "Torture", because it wasn't "Torture".
As for the detainees at Git'mo -- the poor widdle Dears... did the Big
Bad American Interrogators "psychically damage" the detainees'
"Inner Terrorist-Child"? Did we "commit injury to their
self-esteem"? Awwwww, such a shame!!! Such a tragedy!! The Horror
of it all, those Big Strong Tough Mass-Murdering Al-Qaida Terrorists being
reduced to weeping babies by a 5-foot tall American woman in a thong bikini.
My heart positively BLEEDS for them.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Case in point:
the Git´mo inmates have been subjected to inhumane treatments for
the best part of three years now and what information did the US military
get? Zip!" Oh, you were there in person, huh? How would you have
the slightest knowledge of how much or how little vital information we
obtained from the detainees at Git'mo?
So, you think that interrogation of the detainees at Git'mo revealed "Zip"
in the way of vital information, huh? Michel, Michel, Michel..... You
disappoint me.. and here I thought you were so knowledgable and well-informed.
Guantanamo tip tied to arrests of 22 in Germany
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 24, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Information obtained through the interrogation of a Guantanamo
Bay detainee led to a spectacular series of counterterrorism raids in
Germany this month, in which more than 700 police swept through mosques,
homes, and businesses in six cities and arrested 22 suspected militant
extremists, according to a senior Defense Department official.
The role of the Guantanamo interrogations in triggering the raids had
not been previously reported. In Europe, the interrogations have been
widely denounced as flagrant violations of international law, and many
leaders have expressed concern over alleged abuses.
The United States is holding 558 detainees at Guantanamo, and some have
been imprisoned for as long as three years. Officials say that only a
quarter of the detainees still regularly meet with interrogators, but
they maintain that that core group still provides valuable intelligence.
The German raids of Jan. 12 are the most extensive intelligence coup attributed
to the operation. The sweep was the largest counterterrorism operation
in recent months in Europe.
In the series of raids, German police seized computers, cellphones, large
sums of money, counterfeit identity documents, and literature espousing
jihad, or holy war.
German police and prosecutors also told reporters that portions of the
suspected Al Qaeda-related network had been under surveillance by Bavarian
authorities. They did not say how the alleged cell first came to their
attention.
Army Brigadier General Jay Hood, who has commanded the Guantanamo operation
for 10 months, confirmed last week there had been a previously unknown
terrorist cell in another country recently uncovered by information obtained
at the base. He provided no further details.
"We have [obtained information] in the last 90 days which has been
of significant value to us and has been relayed as appropriate to allies
who might also have an interest, and I'll leave it at that," Hood
said.
A senior Defense Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
confirmed that the intelligence breakthrough led to the arrests in Germany.
The raids have been considered particularly significant because the terrorists
involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States
had roots in Al Qaeda cells in Germany.
Hood said the US military has been interested in demonstrating the value
of the interrogations at Guantanamo -- interrogations that he said have
been undermined by adverse court rulings and the release of memos by FBI
agents describing alleged abuses.
"I have provided through the chain of command specific examples where
information gathered here has been of value to us and our allies in the
global war on terror," Hood said.
He also said the operation has had many intelligence successes, including
intelligence provided to US military forces operating in parts of Afghanistan,
as well as information that contributed to a broader understanding of
how Al Qaeda interacts with other terrorist networks around the world.
The most dangerous terror suspects are in a new wing of the prison, called
Camp Five, where they are housed in cells next to high-tech interrogation
rooms. About 50 detainees are living there. When interrogators question
the detainees, an analyst observes the encounter via a closed-circuit
camera, and then feeds information into a computer database and compares
it to intelligence gleaned from other sources.
The civilian in charge of interrogations, Steve Rodriguez, said he would
seek permission from his Defense Department superiors to use aggressive,
stress-inducing, interrogation techniques only if he believed a detainee
has information that could save lives that are in imminent danger. He
said he has not encountered such a situation in his year and a half at
the prison. After years of questioning certain detainees, the sessions
continue to yield useful information about local terrain and leaders in
areas of Afghanistan or Pakistan where the US military is still conducting
operations, Rodriguez said.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/01/24/guantanamo_tip_tied_to_arrests_of_22_in_germany/
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I previously stated that the CIA could not
possibly kill Bin-Laden, because (a) as I have already stated, they didn't
know where he was, and (b) it's a little difficult to kill a particular
individual when that individual is being protected by a 40,000-man Taliban
"bodyguard".
Michel Bastian responded: "With a cruise missile? I don´t think
so."
Then I suggest that you think again, and re-think your position. As I
just stated in (a) (above), no one in the CIA, FBI, NSA, the US Navy or
any other organization knew "exactly" where Bin-Laden was. Therefore,
because they didn't know exactly, precisely where he was, they obviously
couldn't kill him with a cruise missile.
I also stated: "To suggest that Clinton "wasn't aware of"
the threat posed by Bin-Laden or "didn´t perceive Bin-Laden
as the menace he was" is utterly ludicrous. Former Pres. Clinton
himself has stated on more than one occasion that Bin-Laden was the main
subject of the daily threat-analysis briefing at the White House for years
at a time. Therefore, Pres. Clinton knew of the threat that Bin-Laden
posed; he (Clinton) simply didn't do anything about it, other than ordering
a Navy submarine to fire off a few cruise missiles."
To which Michel Bastian responded: "Ludicrous, eh? I´d be interested
to know how many americans would have been willing to sacrifice american
GIs in an Afghanistan invasion before 9/11. I´d bet there weren´t
any because the threat was still too far away. Before 9/11 the american
public didn´t understand the threat to America´s own backyard.
They thought it was a localised problem in the Middle-East and Africa.
Therefore they wouldn´t have supported an invasion of Afghanistan
in a million years."
I have the following comments. To begin with, a great many Americans likely
would have been willing to sacrifice American GIs in an Afghanistan invasion
before 9/11 if they had understood the threat that Bin-Laden and his Al-Qaeda
terror organization posed. And it was Pres. Clinton's job to make the
American people aware of the threat and to marshal public support for
annihilating that threat. And doing so would not have been at all difficult,
especially for someone of Clinton's persuasion skills, and especially
when the bombings of US Embassies in Africa were still fresh in peoples'
minds. But Clinton failed to do so, and because he failed to do so, Al-Qaeda
was ALLOWED by him to build up its strength and resources in planning
the 9/11 attacks.
It was Clinton's responsibility to take the lead on annihilating Al-Qaeda.
It's the President, not Congress, not the public, who sets the direction
and agenda for US foreign policy. If Clinton (regarded as one of the most-gifted
communicators ever to occupy the White House) had gone before the Congress
and the American people and had made his case for aggressive US intervention
in Afghanistan with as much persuasive skill and determination as he used
in trying to Socialize the US health care system, American troops would
have stormed Afghanistan in 1998-1999. And 3,000+ people in Washington,
D.C. and New York City would likely still be alive. And the American people
would have supported that invasion. They would have supported any military
action whose need was driven by protecting our national security. Hell,
they supported US military deployment in Somalia to protect famine-relief
aid, in a situation that had utterly nothing to do with US national interests
whatsoever.
But Clinton not only never presented the case for that option before the
American people -- he never even tried. And whether the American people
"wouldn´t have supported an invasion of Afghanistan in a million
years", as you claim, will never be known. It's a moot point. And
the reason the answer will never be known, is because Clinton never even
considered it as an option. Therefore, it wasn't an option open for our
consideration.
I previously stated: "He (Osama Bin-Laden)
was and is quite familiar with the country (Afghanistan) and its terrain.
He also was (and is) quite adept at protecting himself and his entourage,
by staying hidden. He also has had many years of experience in doing so,
dating back to the Soviet era. I realize this may come as a radical concept
to some, but finding a single individual terrorist who doesn't want to
be found and who is very good at staying hidden is not the easiest thing
in the world to do, even for the CIA."
Michel Bastian responded with: "Granted, so how would an invasion
have helped?". It would have very, very obviously helped, Mon General,
by helping to track, corner and eventually flush out the game (bin-Laden),
in the same way that sending 125,000 troops to storm and occupy Iraq helped
us to track, hunt down and eventually locate and corner Saddam Hussein
in ways that we never could have if we weren't "in-country".
If you want to hunt and eventually capture your quarry, you have to hunt
him in HIS territory. This means that you have to physically be present
in HIS territory. Otherwise, if you're not physically in HIS territory
and hunting HIM, then HE IS HUNTING YOU.
Michel Bastian wrote: "May I remind you
that three years AFTER the invasion, all the president´s men STILL
can´t find him? It´s not about 40,000 or even 400,000 troops
protecting a person, it´s about information.".
You appear to be trying to claim that we didn't "need" to occupy
Afghanistan at all in order to be able to hunt bin-Laden, that all we
supposedly "needed" was for some Afghan intelligence source
to be desperate enough for money that they would betray Bin-Laden's whereabouts
so that we could pop him with a cruise missile.
That claim is utter rubbish and nonsense, for the following reasons:
(1) Killing a Terrorist with a cruise missile requires first knowing where
the Terrorist IS, so you know where to send the missile "TO".
As has already been pointed out to you, scouring 400,000 square miles
of Afghan valleys, canyons, mountains, caves and old bunkers to find one
specific, individual terrorist is hardly the easiest thing in the world
to do. The Soviets could not find Bin-Laden even when they had 125,000
troops in-country, and they had 10 TIMES more troops in Afghanistan than
we have there now.
(2) Getting the "information" you speak of (the location of
Bin-Laden's hiding place) requires the help and cooperation of someone
who is local, who has knowledge of Bin-Laden's whereabouts, and who is
greedy/courageous/desperate/stupid enough to risk having their throat
cut by Bin-Laden's supporters in retaliation.
As I previously stated: "Afghanistan's rural populace is fanatically
Muslim, deeply religious, and intensely suspicious of and hostile toward
foreigners, especially non-Muslims. It's a population that is a natural
base of support for Bin-Laden; they simply will not give him up."
There is already a $25 million reward for information leading to Bin-Laden's
capture, and no one has stepped forward to try to earn it, either because
they themselves support Bin-Laden, or because they know they'd never live
to spend it in a region where Bin-Laden has a lot of fanatical support.
People are also much more willing to cooperate with you if they perceive
that you're on the side that's going to win. Nobody's going to be willing
to be an informant for you if they think you're going to disappear tomorrow
and abandon them to be murdered by revengeful fanatics -- not unless they
have a Death Wish. Being perceived as the eventual winner requires being
"in-country" with "boots on the ground" - LOTS and
LOTS of boots, and we aren't there yet.
(3) Shooting off "fire-and-forget" missiles, on the "ass-umption"
that the Terrorist is going to be nice and agreeable and sit there waiting
patiently when the missiles finally arrive, is a Really, REALLY, Stupid
Idea.
Charles Warren, USA
Michael, I was very entertained when you insisted
that America must join the ICC to improve it's relations with "the
rest of the world". Apparently the ICC is so universal that every
nation everywhere belongs.
Well, this kinda leaves out Asia doesn't it ? China, Japan, India, and
practically every major power in Asia aside from South Korea wants nothing
to do with this European abomination. And that leaves out practically
the entire Muslim world.
Countries with a strong sense of themselves and confidence in their future
see no reason to subject themselves to the political culture of Europe.
The relationships that will be crucial to America's future will be with
the rising powers of Asia, not the declining powers of Europe who see
"multilaterlism" as a desparate attempt to freeze in place an
increasingly unequal relationship. We have little confidence in the future
of a continent where in 2002 the most popular baby name was Mohammed and
the 12th most popular was Osama. And speaking of which I was amused at
a recent article in The Guardian by Martin Jacques where he practically
leapt for joy at the thought of rising Asian powers superceding the US.
Does that fool really believe that Asian powers will play by European
rules ? Does he believe that a nation that does not even respect copyrights
and patents will care at all for "international law" ?
There is no reason for us to belong to any organization that has been
so thoroughly rejected by the nations of the future.
Americans see quite transparently that when Europe piously preaches about
the UN it is only because France wants a veto over America's actions.
France never once asked the UN's permission before it sent paratroopers
to enforce its imperial will across its "ex" African colonies
when they got out of line.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Oh, so you´re
a SpecWar buff as well now, are you? Where did you get all your superior
knowledge, since you stated before that you weren´t in the military?"....and
also... "Like I said, who died and made you a Navy Seal?"
Well, it really isn't necessary to be a grizzled, hard-bitten combat veteran
to have a basic understanding of how stuff like cruise missiles work.
If you spend some time reading the novels of Tom Clancy, you will get
a lot of really good information. I'd suggest starting with "The
Hunt For Red October" and then proceeding to "Red Storm Rising".
You will learn a lot.
Cruise missiles work using the same basic principle as ballastic principles.
The missile guidance system uses gyroscopic controls, aided by GPS. The
missile is first programmed with the geographic coordinates of the missile's
starting location (the "From" coordinates), followed by the
geographic coordinates of the ending destination (the target). Once the
missile's fired and on its way, the guidance system takes over. It's not
"rocket science" (if you'll pardon the pun).
Unfortunately, a cruise missile is the wrong kind of weapon to use against
terrorists. Cruise missile technology is over 20 years old, and was designed
for use against Soviet-Bloc fixed installations -- airfields, barracks,
etc. Things that don't "move", in other words. Cruise missiles
cannot track moving targets. And once the target coordinates are programmed
into the missile and the missile is fired, the destination can't be changed.
Thus a cruise missile is not a useful weapon against an individual, human
terrorist like Bin-Laden who could put himself safely out of the "kill-zone"
merely by walking 100 yards away from the target to use a latrine.
The technology of unmanned, remotely piloted drone aircraft equipped with
Hellfire missiles and video cameras to track targets in real-time, did
not yet exist during the Clinton Administration. Clinton ordered the launching
of cruise missiles against Bin-Laden in Afghanistan because it was the
most expedient option available to him at the time. But had Clinton ordered
an invasion of Afghanistan in 1998, invasion forces might have caught
or killed Bin-Laden before he had a chance to flee Afghanistan. And 3,000+
people in New York City and Washington D.C. who perished on 9/11 might
still be alive.
Michel Bastian wrote: "(a) Aha, so extending
the man (Saddam Hussein) a 400 million dollar credit guarantee for US
exports doesn´t count? (b) Providing him with reams of satellite
and other intelligence to carry out attacks on the front doesn´t
count either? "Defensive in nature"? Indeed, Phil, defensive
like a kick in the privates, that was.
My response:
(a) Credit guarantees for what US exports? Corn, wheat, soybeans? I haven't
noticed anyone being killed or grievously injured with a corn cob, unless
they were using it for some rather bizarre sexual practices.
(b) Correct, it doesn't count either. Satellite intelligence is not a
"weapon" at all. Satellite intel is Data. It can be used for
either offensive or defensive purposes. Saddam's regime used it for defensive
purposes, to predict the location of Iranian attacks upon Iraqi forces.
I patiently explained all this already to FancyPants, which is probably
why he stopped coming here.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Now you´re
way out of line, Phil. I´m pretty tolerant of rantings, but you´re
using a comparison the German Neo-Nazis (ab)used just a few days ago during
the Dresden commemoration ceremonies, and that takes it just one step
too far. Kindly remember who started that war (and also started bombing
cities). It certainly wasn´t the Brits.
Well, Michel, (a) I wasn't ranting. If you perceived it to be ranting
on my part, then that's unfortunate, but that isn't how it was intended.
I was simply pointing out that where "carpet bombing" was concerned,
the US was far from the first or the only nation to use such tactics in
pursuit of victory, and that "glass house-inhabiting" people
who wish to avoid the charge of hypocrisy should avoid throwing stones.
And,(b) I sense a certain degree of hypocrisy and shifting of standards
on your part. When the subject was the "vigorous" interrogation
of illegal combatants at Git'mo, you went on record as saying the following:
"I consider it inhumane to torture anybody for ANY reason. I think
you betray your own principles if you do that..". But when the subject
of the bombing of cities and civilians was discussed, your indignant comment
was: "Now you´re way out of line, Phil. I´m pretty tolerant
of rantings, but you´re using a comparison the german Neonazis (ab)used
just a few days ago during the Dresden commemoration ceremonies, and that
takes it just one step too far. Kindly remember who started that war (and
also started bombing cities). It certainly wasn´t the Brits."
I'm actually not claiming that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime
or not justifiable; I would probably chosen to bomb Dresden, too, given
the same circumstances and choices. I can understand the view at the time
that such action was believed necessary to win the war for the Allies.
By the same token, I can cheerfully accept and live with the rough treatment
of a few fanatical Islamic terrorists, especially in the greater context
of obtaining vital information that could save the lives of thousands
of innocent civilians and help win the War On Terrorism.
I'm confused, Michel. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
When it comes to the rough handling of a few (less than 1,000) fanatical,
murderous and self-avowed Islamic terrorists (whose leader, Osama Bin-Laden,
arranged the slaughter of thousands of civilians in NYC and Washington,
D.C.), you claim that such rough handling of the detainees is "inhumane",
a "betrayal of our own principles" and absolutely shouldn't
be allowed under ANY circumstances. The fact that such less-than-pleasant
treatment of the detainees might reveal vital information about future
terror attacks, that it might save the lives of thousands of innocent
people, does not impress you in the slightest; you believe such treatment
of detainees should never be permitted. You take a moral absolutist position,
in other words.
Yet when it comes to the incineration of thousands of German civilian
residents of one of the loveliest of all European cities, you implicitly
claim that such action was (and still is) morally defensible during a
declared all-out war because I am supposed to (to use your own words)
"kindly remember who started that war (and also started bombing cities)".
You take a moral relativist position, the gist of which is (to put it
simply), "Well, YEAH, BUT THEY STARTED IT!! AND THEY DID IT FIRST!!"
Please explain to me, Michel: How do you reconcile your positions? How
do you resolve these contradictions?
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> A "few hundred thousand"? Do you have any "evidence"
to support that claim?
I based this on the study done by researchers for The Lancet, a british
medical journal (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1109134800&en=e6f7929deb7faf34&ei=5070 ). I´ll grant
you that they did a statistical job, not an actual bodycount, and they
also took into account deaths due to insufficient medical supplies, failing
infrastructure etc., i.e. causes of deaths that were only indirectly linked
to US military or insurgent activities. That doesn´t absolve the
Bush administration from their responsibility, though.
> There aren't any "camps" for illegal combatants other than
at Git'mo.
Sure there are. They´re just not as well known: Baghram and Kandahar
in Afghanistan, Abu Ghuraib in Iraq, Diego Garcia in the Pacific (Solomon
Islands).
> There are less than a thousand illegal combatants housed at Git'mo.
And that number is being steadily reduced as the US, under pressure from
its erstwhile "allies", releases terrorists so that they can
then commit more terrorist acts.
The last ones they released were three british inmates, which were released
from custody shortly after their arrival in Britain because they had no
ties with any terrorist organisations. Those people were imprisoned for
THREE YEARS without any charges, proof or motive for punishment just because
they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they were
only released because Tony Blair personally intervened on their behalf,
otherwise they wouldn´t even have had any contact to the outside
world.
> See below:
Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight
By John Mintz
<...>
So much for information gained through torture. BTW, the US authorities
seem to have a knack for arresting the wrong people and letting loose
those that deserve to be put behind bars. The US actually managed to sabotage
the trial of one of the german-based 9/11 accomplices because they wouldn´t
give out information to the german court. The court actually had to let
this guy walk because the evidence linking him to 9/11 was not given out
by the US authorities.
> I think the real reason you're choosing to "pass" is because
there really WEREN'T "100,000+ Iraqis killed in the war", and
because you do not have any "evidence" that there ever were
100,000+ Iraqi deaths.
See my comments above.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Long rant, (hopefully) short answer:
so now you need Saddam´s murders (which I am indeed outraged about,
just as you are, since I don´t "select" deaths; all of
them are terrible, regardless of nationality) to justify the Bush administration´s
position? Basically you´re saying: Saddam killed a few million,
so it´s ok if we kill a few hundred thousands. Some argument. No,
really, a very cute exercise in sophistry."
(1) We didn't kill "100,000+ Iraqis" and "100,000+ Iraqis"
did not die. I am still waiting on you to supply evidence of your claim.
Cf. above.
> And (2) Casualties sustained and inflicted in the course of liberating
a nation of 25 million people from Sadly Insane Hussein ARE acceptable.
60 million people died in WWII, and many of those people died during the
fight to liberate Europe from Naziism, but I don't hear anyone claiming
that those deaths were "wrong" or "immoral".
Oh, they were wrong and immoral, since the war itself was wrong and immoral.
The difference is that the US didn´t start the second world war
and therefore weren´t responsible for it. The Nazis and the Japanese
were.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "So all the european leaders are like
Chirac, eh? Even if he was elitist, arrogant and all that, I doubt very
much Mr. Blair, Mr. Zapatero, Mr. Schröder, Mr. Fogh-Rasmussen, Mr.
Balkenende etc. etc. would care for your argument." I don't care
whether they care for it or not. Mr. Zapatero is a great deal like Chirac
and is part of the problem.
"Bambi" is like Chirac? Man, you couldn´t get two european
politicians more different from each other than those two. Don´t
be fooled by the fact that Zapatero was also opposed to the war and that
they share a common view on the EU constitution. In most other respects
he´s probably one of the most "anti-Chirac" politicians
in the EU.
> See below:
Old Europe's New Alliance
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1327552,00.html
A Franco-Spaniard-German Axis
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/UnitedEuropeStories/unitedeuropestory04-49.shtml
All this is related to Iraq and to nothing else. Also, how does this support
your theory that France wants (and is actually able) to get supremacy
in the EU?
> Michel Bastian wrote: "ROTFL! So if Bush can´t find any
terrorist ties, he has to pull out the old ones and the classic "anti
Israel" story. Achille Lauro? Come on, Phil, surely there must have
been some terrorist attack at least in the nineties you can pin on Saddam´s
back. Put in a little more effort, will you.
Certainly, Michel. M<.....>
Well, so he promised money to palestinian terrorists. Everybody else in
the arab world did as well, so what´s so special about this that
it should justify invading Iraq? Also, the Bush administration was basing
their argument specifically on 9/11 ties Saddam alledgedly had. That´s
what they told the public, knowing full well that there wasn´t any
proof linking Saddam to 9/11.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Right, so you didn´t incite the
war, you just supported it. Big difference!" Yes, it IS a big difference.
If you're unable to understand that huge difference, that's unfortunate,
but it sounds like a personal problem on your part to me.
Oh, it´s not personal, since I´m not the only failing to understand.
There is no difference, at least if you claim the moral high ground for
US foreign policy in those days. BTW, before you point it out, the US
weren´t the only ones to court Saddam during the war (yes, France
did that as well). However, you can´t claim they were the innocent
do-gooders you make them out to be. They had their share of responsibility
for it.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "And yet another dead horse: comparisons
between Germany, Japan and Iraq are skewed. It´s not the same situation
by far. Read the other posts on this thread." Correct, it's not the
same situation by far. Iraq was FAR MORE DANGEROUS to American interests
than Germany or Japan ever were. <...>
In what way? Like I said, no WMDs, no ties to 9/11; where´s the
"direct threat" to America´s security interests? Truth
be told: there wasn´t any!
> Michel Bastian wrote: "The point is that before the war there
wasn´t a united front against the US in the arab world. Now, due
to the war, there is. Ask any arab what he thinks about the US and you´ll
find disdain at best and pure hatred at worst. That´s what Bush
managed to do: make Iraq a focus point for the arab world. He effectively
destabilized the whole region." What planet have you been standing
on?
Same one as you, obviously, unless you´re posting from the moon.
> There was always a disdain of and pure hatred against the US, BEFORE
we liberated Iraq. The Arabs' hatred had nothing to do with Iraq. It had
to do with the US continuing to expect the Arab world to face reality
once and for all and acknowledge the fact of Israel's permanent existence.
The focus point for the Arab world was, and remains, Israel's existence.
And we will NOT compromise on that issue.
You won´t need to, after what I hear from Israel these days (unless
some fanatic shoots Sharon for giving up the settlements again).
> Bush in liberating Iraq and in creating democracy has STABILIZED
the whole region.
So much so that islamist insurgency in Iraq is on the rise, and it´s
now fueled by non-Iraqi sources as well. So much so that now Iran and
Syria are forming alliances against the US under the banner of self-defence.
So much so that the Egyptians, the Pakistanis and the Saudis have to deal
with rising islamist, anti-government organisations because of Iraq. So
much so that even the Indonesians have an islamist uprising on their hands
now (so the negative effect isn´t even limited to the middle-east).
Stabilize the region, did he? Well if that´s stabilizing the region
I can see dark days ahead for the american dollar if Bush tries to stabilize
that as well.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Ok, I´m willing to be convinced
here: what are your sources for the fact that George Bush Sen. Called
upon the Shi´ites and Kurds? Incidentally, even if you were right,
he only needed to protect the Shi´ites and Kurds. No need to invade
the whole of Iraq, which is why he didn´t do it even after the massacres."
Here you are, Michel:
The Ghosts of 1991
By Peter W. Galbraith
Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
> The writer, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, is a professor at
the National War College. He was in rebel-held Iraq during the 1991 uprising.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
I´ll try to get that book and get back to you as soon as I read
it.
> Michel Bastian also wrote: "Incidentally, even if you were right,
he only needed to protect the Shi´ites and Kurds. No need to invade
the whole of Iraq, which is why he didn´t do it even after the massacres."
False. Pres. george Bush #41 didn't even do anything to protect the Kurds
and Shi'ites. He didn't order the invasion of even the parts of Iraq predominantly
inhabited by the Kurds and Shi'ites, when doing so could have and would
have saved thousands of lives. He was criminally wrong to NOT have invaded
Iraq, which is why Saddam was allowed to remain in power and continue
to be a threat to other Iraqis and to the Middle East for another 12 years.
Again, wrong. Saddam was a threat to no one outside Iraq, and no amount
of wishful thinking on the part of the US administration is going to change
that.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Again, just trust me on this." Uh,
sorry, Michel, but NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
Old Indian saying: <...>
The problem is I´d have to pull a massive lecture on german and
international criminal procedure to explain it to you. If you don´t
trust me, well, perhaps you´ll trust Kay Nehm. He officially refused
to prosecute Rumsfeld on the 10th of february citing that only US courts,
not german courts, have authority to prosecute and judge Rumsfeld. Like
I said, QED.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Oh my god, this is the decline of the
western world. Cuba and Zimbabwe will actually be on a panel (with several
other states) which will decide on an AGENDA! This is the end! I mean
honestly, get off it, Phil, or you´ll end up in hospital with a
coronary."
Michel, if you don't recognize the utterly Orwellian absurdity of selecting
some of the worst human-rights violators on the planet to decide what
the agenda should be for the U.N. Human Rights panel, then maybe you're
just not as intelligent as I gave you credit for.
And here I thought the French built an entire domestic film industry out
of making three-hour long and totally incomprehensible movies filled with
dialogue about absurdities of life....
Yeah, well, there are more absurd things than that in any administration,
including your own.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "There you go again: "hey, we´re
not as bad as Saddam, we just humiliate people; he actually TORTURED them,
you know!". That's absolutely correct. Have you ever seen a Death
Certificate that read "Cause of Death: Acute Embarassment and Humiliation"??
No? I didn't think so. People can survive embarassment and/or humiliation
quite nicely, Michel.
And they can be broken psychologically for the rest of their lives. That´s
not torture? I wonder what is, then.
> But they might have a whole lot more trouble surviving horrendous
actual physical tortures... the kind of torture that involved people having
their arms pulled out of their sockets, being beaten half to death, being
burned with red-hot irons, watching their limbs amputated with chainsaws,
or being subjected to high-voltage electric shocks in their genital areas.
You know, the kind that Saddam's minions practiced on helpless people.
You mean the kind that was inflicted on two inmates at Baghram airbase,
the kind that actually killed them? BTW, torture doesn´t necessarily
mean killing people. It doesn´t even necessarily mean physical abuse.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Interesting definition of torture, by
the way. So humiliating people systematically isn´t torture?"
That's right - it ISN'T Torture. If it were, every US Marine drill instructor
who ever taunted or chewed out a recruit would have been accused of "Torture".
But they weren't accused of "Torture", because it wasn't "Torture".
Hmm, I remember a scandal a few years ago where marine instructors in
San Diego were prosecuted for torturing recruits and where the whole drill
system was questioned. Forgot about that, did you, Phil?
> As for the detainees at Git'mo -- the poor widdle Dears... did the
Big Bad American Interrogators "psychically damage" the detainees'
"Inner Terrorist-Child"? Did we "commit injury to their
self-esteem"? Awwwww, such a shame!!! Such a tragedy!! The Horror
of it all, those Big Strong Tough Mass-Murdering Al-Qaida Terrorists being
reduced to weeping babies by a 5-foot tall American woman in a thong bikini.
My heart positively BLEEDS for them.
It shouldn´t only bleed for them. It should also bleed for yourself.
Like I said, part of the "evil" of Git´mo is the fact
that the US is debasing itself, using the same methods as the people they´re
fighting.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Case in point: the Git´mo inmates
have been subjected to inhumane treatments for the best part of three
years now and what information did the US military get? Zip!" Oh,
you were there in person, huh? How would you have the slightest knowledge
of how much or how little vital information we obtained from the detainees
at Git'mo?
So, you think that interrogation of the detainees at Git'mo revealed "Zip"
in the way of vital information, huh? Michel, Michel, Michel..... You
disappoint me.. and here I thought you were so knowledgable and well-informed.
> Guantanamo tip tied to arrests of 22 in Germany
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 24, 2005
< ....Rodriguez said.>
Only goes to prove my point: you don´t have to torture people to
get valuable information. Intelligent questioning and cross-checking information
is sufficient. And you don´t have to build an extra-legal facility
to do it. The methods they alledgedly used in the questioning of the above
detainees would have been perfectly ok in any prison in America, as long
as there´s no torture involved. However, as soon as you use those
"stress inducing" methods, you start to get sketchy or false
information because the man you´re questioning will be tired, depressed
and prone to say anything just so the "stress" stops.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Well, it really isn't necessary to be a grizzled, hard-bitten combat
veteran to have a basic understanding of how stuff like cruise missiles
work. If you spend some time reading the novels of Tom Clancy, you will
get a lot of really good information. I'd suggest starting with "The
Hunt For Red October" and then proceeding to "Red Storm Rising".
You will learn a lot.
Learn what that I didn´t already know? Tom Clancy isn´t the
last authority on military matters, he´s a novellist. Incidentally,
forget "Hunt for Red October" and "Red storm rising"
if you want information. If you´re interested in this stuff, his
non-fiction books are much more informative, and more concisely researched
("Submarine", "Carrier", etc.).
> Cruise missiles work using the same basic principle as ballastic
principles. The missile guidance system uses gyroscopic controls, aided
by GPS. The missile is first programmed with the geographic coordinates
of the missile's starting location (the "From" coordinates),
followed by the geographic coordinates of the ending destination (the
target). Once the missile's fired and on its way, the guidance system
takes over. It's not "rocket science" (if you'll pardon the
pun).
Basically, you´re right, although it´s a bit more complicated
in practice of course (terrain-following stuff, waypoints, enemy radar
cover etc.). However, we´re digressing.
> Unfortunately, a cruise missile is the wrong kind of weapon to use
against terrorists. Cruise missile technology is over 20 years old, and
was designed for use against Soviet-Bloc fixed installations -- airfields,
barracks, etc. Things that don't "move", in other words.
You mean like a bunker where OBL hides out, perhaps?
> Cruise missiles cannot track moving targets. And once the target
coordinates are programmed into the missile and the missile is fired,
the destination can't be changed.
Not true. It´s GPS-based, which means it has a sattelite connection.
Therefore, the coordinates can be changed (limited by things like range,
terrain etc., I´ll grant you that).
> Thus a cruise missile is not a useful weapon against an individual,
human terrorist like Bin-Laden who could put himself safely out of the
"kill-zone" merely by walking 100 yards away from the target
to use a latrine.
It would have to be much more than 100 yards away, depending on what kind
of warhead is used.
> The technology of unmanned, remotely piloted drone aircraft equipped
with Hellfire missiles and video cameras to track targets in real-time,
did not yet exist during the Clinton Administration. Clinton ordered the
launching of cruise missiles against Bin-Laden in Afghanistan because
it was the most expedient option available to him at the time.
It could have been done in several ways: commando action, air strike (non-cruise
missile, ground-guided laser bombs) and what have you. The possibilities
are not endless, but pretty diverse. Mankind has always been very inventive
when it comes to finding new ways of killing people.
> But had Clinton ordered an invasion of Afghanistan in 1998, invasion
forces might have caught or killed Bin-Laden before he had a chance to
flee Afghanistan. And 3,000+ people in New York City and Washington D.C.
who perished on 9/11 might still be alive.
Perhaps we should get back to the point instead of wallowing in military
details (which, quite frankly, I find a little morbid since we´re
also discussing war deaths etc. in the same thread; never forget that
the military is quite fascinating, but its ultimate purpose is always
killing people, so don´t be too enthusiastic about it): the point
is Clinton isn´t responsible for 9/11 any more than Bush is. He
couldn´t have foreseen it and he hadn´t the political base
to launch an Afghanistan invasion. Indeed, one could argue that Bush had
more of a warning since the French (of all people) had warned the FBI
of an imminent islamist attack.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "(a) Aha, so extending the man (Saddam
Hussein) a 400 million dollar credit guarantee for US exports doesn´t
count? (b) Providing him with reams of satellite and other intelligence
to carry out attacks on the front doesn´t count either? "Defensive
in nature"? Indeed, Phil, defensive like a kick in the privates,
that was.
My response:
(a) Credit guarantees for what US exports? Corn, wheat, soybeans? I haven't
noticed anyone being killed or grievously injured with a corn cob, unless
they were using it for some rather bizarre sexual practices.
Well, it gave them money to go and buy weapons to use in the war against
Iran (and ultimately in the invasion of Kuweit as well).
> (b) Correct, it doesn't count either. Satellite intelligence is not
a "weapon" at all. Satellite intel is Data. It can be used for
either offensive or defensive purposes. Saddam's regime used it for defensive
purposes, to predict the location of Iranian attacks upon Iraqi forces.
I patiently explained all this already to FancyPants, which is probably
why he stopped coming here.
I can´t speak for FancyPants, but I do know that there is a basic
thing you don´t seem to understand about modern warfare: it´s
largely about information, not necessarily just raw firepower. Before
you can attack an enemy you have to know where he is, how many troops
he has in what position, what kind of troops he has etc. . The second
"pillar" of warfare, if you want to put it that way, is communication:
getting your own troops coordinated and disrupting the communication of
the other guy (that´s why they have things like "Wild Weasel"
planes, electronic warfare squadrons etc.). And only the third element
is firepower. Therefore, information (sattelite or otherwise) is not only
a bonus, it´s vital to any army activity in the field. Any officer
in any Nato army can tell you that since it´s part of basic command
training. Without the american sattelite intel Saddam would have had a
much bigger problem beating up on the Iranian army.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Now you´re way out of line, Phil.
I´m pretty tolerant of rantings, but you´re using a comparison
the German Neo-Nazis (ab)used just a few days ago during the Dresden commemoration
ceremonies, and that takes it just one step too far. Kindly remember who
started that war (and also started bombing cities). It certainly wasn´t
the Brits.
Well, Michel, (a) I wasn't ranting. If you perceived it to be ranting
on my part, then that's unfortunate, but that isn't how it was intended.
I was simply pointing out that where "carpet bombing" was concerned,
the US was far from the first or the only nation to use such tactics in
pursuit of victory, and that "glass house-inhabiting" people
who wish to avoid the charge of hypocrisy should avoid throwing stones.
And,(b) I sense a certain degree of hypocrisy and shifting of standards
on your part. When the subject was the "vigorous" interrogation
of illegal combatants at Git'mo, you went on record as saying the following:
"I consider it inhumane to torture anybody for ANY reason. I think
you betray your own principles if you do that..". But when the subject
of the bombing of cities and civilians was discussed, your indignant comment
was: "Now you´re way out of line, Phil. I´m pretty tolerant
of rantings, but you´re using a comparison the german Neonazis (ab)used
just a few days ago during the Dresden commemoration ceremonies, and that
takes it just one step too far. Kindly remember who started that war (and
also started bombing cities). It certainly wasn´t the Brits."
I'm actually not claiming that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime
or not justifiable; I would probably chosen to bomb Dresden, too, given
the same circumstances and choices. I can understand the view at the time
that such action was believed necessary to win the war for the Allies.
By the same token, I can cheerfully accept and live with the rough treatment
of a few fanatical Islamic terrorists, especially in the greater context
of obtaining vital information that could save the lives of thousands
of innocent civilians and help win the War On Terrorism.
I'm confused, Michel. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
I´ll try. My comment was made in the light of the recent scandal
in Saxony (Dresden´s the capital of Saxony, for those that didn´t
know). What happened is that the NPD (neonazi party) used a similar argument
to the one you´re using now: they claimed bombing Dresden was a
war crime and tried to use that to hijack the commemoration ceremony as
a platform for claiming moral superiority of the german people upon the
allies. They also linked the bombing to Auschwitz and the systematic killing
of millions of jews, saying that the allies should accept equal blame
for bombing Dresden. That, quite rightly, provoked an outrage (even among
germans that were in Dresden during the bombing), and that´s why
you should be a little more careful with statements about Dresden. I understand
you didn´t mean it the way the Nazis meant it, but it´s a
pretty hot topic in Germany at the moment. Especially avoid comparisons
with the war on terror, since these are not topics that are really comparable.
I wish we had a way of communicating privately, then we could discuss
such things, but I´m reluctant to discuss this on a public forum,
possibly inadvertently providing fuel to neonazi argumentation.
> When it comes to the rough handling of a few (less than 1,000) fanatical,
murderous and self-avowed Islamic terrorists (whose leader, Osama Bin-Laden,
arranged the slaughter of thousands of civilians in NYC and Washington,
D.C.), you claim that such rough handling of the detainees is "inhumane",
a "betrayal of our own principles" and absolutely shouldn't
be allowed under ANY circumstances. The fact that such less-than-pleasant
treatment of the detainees might reveal vital information about future
terror attacks, that it might save the lives of thousands of innocent
people, does not impress you in the slightest; you believe such treatment
of detainees should never be permitted. You take a moral absolutist position,
in other words.
Indeed. You got that right. If you want to use a religious metaphor: to
fight against the devil you can´t use his own methods, otherwise
you wont be fighting against the devil, you´ll be fighting for him.
> Yet when it comes to the incineration of thousands of German civilian
residents of one of the loveliest of all European cities, you implicitly
claim that such action was (and still is) morally defensible during a
declared all-out war because I am supposed to (to use your own words)
"kindly remember who started that war (and also started bombing cities)".
You take a moral relativist position, the gist of which is (to put it
simply), "Well, YEAH, BUT THEY STARTED IT!! AND THEY DID IT FIRST!!"
Please explain to me, Michel: How do you reconcile your positions? How
do you resolve these contradictions?
Oh, all right, if you insist, we´ll discuss it: you didn´t
quite get my position on Dresden. I´m not saying the bombing was
morally justified. It wasn´t militarily necessary, so it was morally
questionable. However, to compare this to the Shoa (which you didn´t
do, I understand that) and to conveniently forget german responsibility
for starting the war and starting to bomb innocent civilians is an absolute
outrage. I don´t like to use Dresden as an argument precisely for
that reason. That´s why I reacted the way I did.
To Charles:
> Michael, I was very entertained when you insisted that America must
join the ICC to improve it's relations with "the rest of the world".
Good. Always glad to entertain people :-).
> Apparently the ICC is so universal that every nation everywhere belongs.
Well, this kinda leaves out Asia doesn't it ? China, Japan, India, and
practically every major power in Asia aside from South Korea wants nothing
to do with this European abomination.
Well, might there possibly be a reason for that other than "european
supremacy"? Could it be that some of those countries fear their own
politicians might be indicted (that´s the case of China, notably)?
Japan, incidentally, is in the process of joining up, as is India. The
main reasons why they haven´t joined yet is the fact that the US
didn´t join up and started massive lobbying and pressure on them
not to join.> And that leaves out practically the entire Muslim world.
Nope, it doesn´t. Afghanistan´s in; seems the US slipped up
on that one. Of course, states like Lybia, Syria or Iran wouldn´t
be interested in joining. The reason for that certainly isn´t european
supremacy, but the fear of having their own politicians indicted before
the court.
> Countries with a strong sense of themselves and confidence in their
future see no reason to subject themselves to the political culture of
Europe.
What "political culture of Europe"? In what way is the ICC representative
of the "political culture of Europe", and what the blazes is
the "political culture of Europe" in the first place? Fact is,
the principles the ICC is based on are the same principles most democratic
states (including the US) have used for decades, if not centuries.
> The relationships that will be crucial to America's future will be
with the rising powers of Asia, not the declining powers of Europe who
see "multilaterlism" as a desparate attempt to freeze in place
an increasingly unequal relationship.
No. Multilateralism is just the expression of democratic principles on
the international stage, that´s all there is to it. In essence,
the american unilateralism doctrine means everybody has to dance to the
Bush administration´s tune, and that, besides being incredibly conceited,
is antidemocratic.
> We have little confidence in the future of a continent where in 2002
the most popular baby name was Mohammed and the 12th most popular was
Osama.
I´d be interested to know where you got that information. I suspect
that somebody has been extending the borders of the EU to northern Africa
and the middle east.
> And speaking of which I was amused at a recent article in The Guardian
by Martin Jacques where he practically leapt for joy at the thought of
rising Asian powers superceding the US. Does that fool really believe
that Asian powers will play by European rules ? Does he believe that a
nation that does not even respect copyrights and patents will care at
all for "international law" ?
Since when is Asia a nation? Also, I haven´t read the article and
I couldn´t speak for Martin Jacques, but we´re definitely
not under the illusion that the big asian players (i.e. China, India,
Japan, South Korea) will play by "european rules", whatever
those might be. They won´t be playing by "american rules"
either. That´s the reason why the US and the EU have to work together,
not against each other.
> There is no reason for us to belong to any organization that has
been so thoroughly rejected by the nations of the future.
Americans see quite transparently that when Europe piously preaches about
the UN it is only because France wants a veto over America's actions.
Right, the UN is France, as is the EU, of course, and all we want is a
veto over the US. Actually we might as well set up the UN HQ in the backyard
of the Elysée Palace while we´re at it.
Ridiculous. That´s the kind of uninformed prejudice the average
american seems to have: since the USSR is gone, we need a new scapegoat,
so now it´s all France´s fault.
> France never once asked the UN's permission before it sent paratroopers
to enforce its imperial will across its "ex" African colonies
when they got out of line.
Specify: which "enforcement" exactly are you talking about?
If you´re talking about the Ivory Coast you´re wrong: the
french have a UN mandate (with US backing) for that.
