Is an Open-Ended War Without Boundaries Justifiable?

[Cyrus]

Our point, if you were paying attention, is that most of those people were not caught in the middle of combat. They were rounded up and flown over in the dead of night to a prison in Cuba, with little to no explination or rights afforded to them.

We even had a Candian at one point, who was finally let go after the Candian government demanded his return. The US government returned him with no apology. This is not an isolated incident.

 

[drankin]

Our point, if you were paying attention, is that most of those people were not caught in the middle of combat. They were rounded up and flown over in the dead of night to a prison in Cuba, with little to no explination or rights afforded to them.

We even had a Candian at one point, who was finally let go after the Candian government demanded his return. The US government returned him with no appology. This is not an isolated incident.

This is my point, they should have either been executed or let go. That simple. Most, IMO, should have been let go. But I don't know all the details. But if some were a clear threat, they should have been executed. Torture wouldn't even be necessary, just line them up and put them down until someone gave some info. If that info turned out to be no good, put him down too. War was never meant to be civil.

 

[Cyrus]

No, that is not a valid point. http://www.judoinfo.com/pdf/USMCcombat.pdf Scan down to page 4 and 5. No where does it say a Marine is authorized to kill anyone after they are detained. If they do, there ass will be put in jail, and rightly so.

When you detain someone, they are not a 'clear threat', they are a captive.

War was never meant to be civil.

So anything goes in war? Well, the United States Military and the rest of the world disagrees with you on that one, thankfully.

You know, there's a saying...enemies today, friends tomorrow.

 

[drankin]

I understand that what I am suggesting does not hold up to the "standards" that have been created over years for "proper" warfare.

And, unfortunately, our enemies do not practice what we have established as "proper" warfare.

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

"Proper" warfare and the current "rules of engagement" pretty much makes becoming the "authority" in this war impossible.

 

[Futobingoro]

Art, I can only speak for myself, but I think Russ Watters and I share a desire to correct some of the fallacies surrounding George Bush's performance as president. Yes, there are some well-founded criticisms of his decisions. I think, however, that several unfounded accusations have been stirred up in the resulting firestorm and absorbed into the mainstream (like how Bush connected Saddam and 9/11, and claimed Iraq had purchased yellowcake from Niger).

So when Russ Watters questions an accusation against the Bush Administration, he becomes somebody who hangs on Bush's every word:

Russ it seems you are one of the handful of people in the world who still believes Bush's rhetoric of how muslims in general a) hate you because of your freedoms or b) because they are just evil.

It seems that as far as these issues are concerned, if Russ is not with you, he is... well you know the rest.

 

[Cyrus]

I understand that what I am suggesting does not hold up to the "standards" that have been created over years for "proper" warfare.

And, unfortunately, our enemies do not practice what we have established as "proper" warfare.

Sorry, but it does not work that way. You don't go down to their level. Thats a huge no, no.

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

Correct, but what does that have to do with the people in Gitmo?

Proper" warfare and the current "rules of engagement" pretty much makes becoming the "authority" in this war impossible.

Not really. Putting people in prisons without reason makes winning wars impossible because you recruit more people to fight against you via your actions,...exactly why you can't do the things you propose.

 

[drankin]

What do you mean by "go down to their level"? Can you be specific?

My point about Gitmo is that they should either be executed or freed.

Again, I agree, they shouldn't be imprisoned. It doesn't do us any good. Execution or freedom. Why take prisoners? Prisons are for domestic criminals.

 

[Kurdt]

I don't know if drankin is deliberately trying to sound like a fascist to be ironic or not. Somehow I suspect not.

What Cyrus was saying about going down to their level was that your country holds certain values and if you discard those values when dealing with others then they must be worthless. You also lose any credibility with anyone else when they see how little you respect those values. Thats what fascism is. Simply put its do as I say and not as I do.

 

[Astronuc]

Why do you think that Gitmo prisoners have had their basic human rights violated and that they have no recourse to justice? The Supreme court of the US has ruled that they shall have access to our legal system. The court hasn't yet ruled that every case shall be decided in their favor.

What basic human right has been violated? Their right to evade capture? Their right to demand release?

Because they were kidnapped. And I am not talking about true 'enemy combatants', who are fair game. I am talking about innocent people, who are not combatants, but who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and terrorized.

Many Gitmo (and other) detainees have been released without charge. It is entirely true that some, like Khalid Mohammed may have been involved in hostile acts against the US or its people. However, since many have been released without charge, it would appear they were innocent.

So the US government IS terrorizing innocent people, IS kidnapping innocent poeple, IS torturing innocent people, and GW Bush is in the top position and the primary instigator of this behavior. Bush and his cronies have orchestrated this, whether or not explicit orders have been given. It certainly appears, from the circumstances, that there is a lot of nod, nod, wink, wink - I don't want to know about - in addition to a depraved indifference to fellow human beings.

 

[daveb]

But, the reality is, if a force is going to war, the intent of that force is to kill the enemy until it submits to its authority. That authority is determined by that which has has subdued the other. Until it is subdued, the war continues. In this case, there will most likely not be an "authority" and the battle will wage indefinately.

If this is your point, then at what point is someone consiered to have submitted to the authority? For those enemy combatants who were not captured during combat, how and who is it that says they are an enemy? For those captured during combat, if they surrender is that considerd submission? If not, then why in the world should they ever surrender?

 

[turbo]

Those "detainees" not captured in battle may well have been turned in for reward money or to settle old grudges. Afghanistan is a very tough place with lots of rivalries amongst clans. Let's not forget that the US government cemented the power of the Taliban by funneling money and weapons to them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The very same US government also helped build up the strength of Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran and helped him decimate the Kurds.

 

[chemisttree]

Habeas corpus anyone?

Obviously from your post you are somewhat misinformed here. Your sarcastic comments about rights leads me to believe that you consider them guilty because they are prisoners. This is the reason for Habeas Corpus. The right to appear before a court to challenge your detention. Without Habeas Corpus, (which AG Gonzales doesn't believe in) a person can be detained (imprisoned) indefinitely.

The Supreme court has ruled yet, what has been done?

How many of the Guantanamo prisoners have had access to our courts to challenge their detention?

I suggest a little more research before making such a blanket statement.

What statement? I merely asked a question regarding the source of someone else's statement regarding the detainee's lack of basic human rights and access to our legal system.

But since you brought it up... I am aware of the status of the detainees. Their rights to habeas corpus has indeed been limited in federal court and has been passed to the military trubunals. This was a result of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which was amended, after Supreme Court review, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been challenged and upheld in court (this is what is referred to as 'access to our courts'). Hamdan's new petition of habeas corpus was dismissed (in court - again that 'access' thingy), the federal court ruling that the Military Commissions Act was not an unconstitutional limitation of the petioner's right of habeas corpus. All other detainees request for review in Federal Court was dismissed based on similar reasoning. The Supreme Court has denied petitioner's request for review of their cases. All cases of habeas corpus are being held in the military court.

Sorry, but that is our legal system. You have a right to try... not a right to win. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and when it says 'NO', that's it.

How many of the Guantanamo prisoners have had access to our courts to challenge their detention?

All of them. They were denied the right to have their cases heard in Federal Court. Their cases are being heard in our military courts. (access, access, access...)

 

[drankin]

If this is your point, then at what point is someone consiered to have submitted to the authority? For those enemy combatants who were not captured during combat, how and who is it that says they are an enemy? For those captured during combat, if they surrender is that considerd submission? If not, then why in the world should they ever surrender?

What determines that a war is won? With our current method of waging war, it cannot be won on our side. We can't prosecute ourselves to victory. The enemy has to be defeated.

How are the hostile muslim extremist defeated? They have to be killed. Surrendering does not work for this particular enemy. It works for us because when faced with a no win situation we will surrender, submit, and adapt in trade for our lives. But this type of enemy will not submit.

Basically, we should either fight brutally or quit altogether. It seems we are doing neither and because of that there will be no victory.

 

[chemisttree]

Those "detainees" not captured in battle may well have been turned in for reward money or to settle old grudges. Afghanistan is a very tough place with lots of rivalries amongst clans. Let's not forget that the US government cemented the power of the Taliban by funneling money and weapons to them in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The very same US government also helped build up the strength of Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran and helped him decimate the Kurds.

I thought everyone knew that the Taliban's power was resultant from Pakistan's support after the Soviet war. The taliban during the Soviet era war (1979-1989) consisted of unorganized groups of religious students (taliban, small 't') who had almost no organization and little real power. These small groups and many others were supported in their fight against the Soviets by the US and other western and pro-western governments. This in no way 'cemented' their power! It was not until late 1994, when a group of Pakistan-trained "Taliban" were hired to open a trade route to Kandahar, that the Taliban began their takeover of Afghanistan. The original assistance to the mujahadeen from the UK, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc.. began during the Carter Administration and significantly expanded during the Reagan years.

 

[turbo]

I thought everyone knew that the Taliban's power was resultant from Pakistan's support after the Soviet war. The taliban during the Soviet era war (1979-1989) consisted of unorganized groups of religious students (taliban, small 't') who had almost no organization and little real power. These small groups and many others were supported in their fight against the Soviets by the US and other western and pro-western governments. This in no way 'cemented' their power! It was not until late 1994, when a group of Pakistan-trained "Taliban" were hired to open a trade route to Kandahar, that the Taliban began their takeover of Afghanistan. The original assistance to the mujahadeen from the UK, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc.. began during the Carter Administration and significantly expanded during the Reagan years.

Apparently some insiders disagree with you about the US involvement in empowering the Taliban. There are many more such articles out there if you want to Google on Taliban and CIA. Our tax money was used to recruit, arm, and train them.

"CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban"

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.

It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (1)

 

[daveb]

What determines that a war is won? With our current method of waging war, it cannot be won on our side. We can't prosecute ourselves to victory. The enemy has to be defeated.

What does this have to do with what I asked?

How are the hostile muslim extremist defeated? They have to be killed. Surrendering does not work for this particular enemy. It works for us because when faced with a no win situation we will surrender, submit, and adapt in trade for our lives. But this type of enemy will not submit.

What do you mean by it doesn't work? Do you mean they don't surrender, or that if they surrender, it's more of a burden on us to take care of them? I'm not sure I understand this statement.

Basically, we should either fight brutally or quit altogether. It seems we are doing neither and because of that there will be no victory.

Again, this still hasn't answered the question. I asked under what circumstances they are considered to have submitted to our authority.

 

[chemisttree]

Ah yes! The quote from the totally impartial Times of India. And Selig Harrison? Wasn't he the one who claimed credit for convincing Kim Il Sung to 'agree' to halt his nuclear ambitions in exchange for economic concessions in 1994?

So the US aid to Pakistan during the war was applied two years after the end of the war? The Taliban were no threat until 1994, two years after the mujahadeen grasped control from the communists and continued fighting amongst themselves.

Took your advice and googled 'Taliban'. Found this:

(Wiki)
"Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals... The other is that the Pakistan-based lorry shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs. In either or both cases, the Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan region, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominately Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan although they retained some independence, often refusing the advice of the Pakistan government."

I can accept that the US helped remove the communist government in control leading to a power vacuum that eventually allowed a Pakistan-trained Taliban to take over after several years of civil war, corruption and so forth, but I see no evidence that the CIA funded Pakistan to aid the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets and by doing so 'cemented' their power.

Selig's warning against encouraging foriegn muslim involvement in the Soviet era war in Afghanistan hardly rises to the importance of being predictive of the excesses of the Taliban regime ('creating a monster')... even if HE thinks so.

 

[drankin]

What does this have to do with what I asked?

What do you mean by it doesn't work? Do you mean they don't surrender, or that if they surrender, it's more of a burden on us to take care of them? I'm not sure I understand this statement.

Again, this still hasn't answered the question. I asked under what circumstances they are considered to have submitted to our authority.

To answer your question: They are no longer declaring war/jihad against the West and the evidence of that would be that Western lives are no longer taken or threatened.