Bomber's Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing Gitmo

christianchris21 said:

Oh lets see, ppl arnt being blown up daily and iraq is starting to manage itself as far as i can tell.

Click to expand...

Without US support, the government would collapse ASAP.

christianchris21 said:

Oh lets see, ppl arnt being blown up daily and iraq is starting to manage itself as far as i can tell.

Click to expand...

Um... I hadn't heard anything to the effect that violence in Iraq was decreasing. You got anything to back up the claim?

The reason things are getting better in iraq is because the shi'ites death squads have basically finnished their work. Iraq is now pretty much segregated with shi'ites in some areas and sunnis in others, no more mixed regions.

It's only (more) peaceful (than before) because upwards of 2 million people of the wrong creed have been forced to flee their homes.

Nathan45 said:

Yeah, it's pretty questionable.

I honestly don't understand why congress didn't just declare war on the taliban before going into afghanistan. I think it should just be treated like there is a de-facto war in afghanistan even if it's undeclared, any POW's should be considered prisoners of that war or the iraq war, not this vaporous "war on terror".

Click to expand...

The issue is that the Taliban are not the recognised government of Afghanistan. By declaring war on the Taliban, you are, in effect, granting them nation status, which creates all sorts of difficulties. At the moment, the Taliban can be fought in a police action in various countries. However, if you Declare War on Afghanistan under a Taliban government, its a much bigger deal.; Fdirst of all it helps the TB consolidate power at home and abroad, and it also makes operations against them in other countries that aren't Afghanistan (Pakistan, say) much more diplomatically tricky, up to and including declaration of war against any country harbouring Taliban opertatives.

Whole big kettle of fish thing.

LightHorseman said:

Um... I hadn't heard anything to the effect that violence in Iraq was decreasing. You got anything to back up the claim?

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraqcivcas.png



Note that this is obviously not a complete count of civilian deaths just the ones that were reported by specific people. But deaths are still decreasing. Also the trend continued i believe but i couldn't find a more recent chart.

coalition deaths are also declining:

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

LightHorseman said:

The issue is that the Taliban are not the recognised government of Afghanistan. By declaring war on the Taliban, you are, in effect, granting them nation status, which creates all sorts of difficulties.

Click to expand...

I don't see why. Just make the declaration of war explicitly say you dont' recognize them as the legitimate government of afghanistan. Is there some rule that you can't declare war on non-legitimate governments?

Nathan45 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraqcivcas.png



Note that this is obviously not a complete count of civilian deaths just the ones that were reported by specific people. But deaths are still decreasing. Also the trend continued i believe but i couldn't find a more recent chart.

coalition deaths are also declining:

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

Click to expand...

Well hooray! Some good news at last(at least)

LightHorseman said:

Well hooray! Some good news at last(at least)

Click to expand...

If you notice the downward trend in iraq war deaths came immediately after they fired Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah i know, post hoc ergo propter hoc... but good grief, that guy was a jerk.

Nathan45 said:

I don't see why. Just make the declaration of war explicitly say you dont' recognize them as the legitimate government of afghanistan. Is there some rule that you can't declare war on non-legitimate governments?

Click to expand...

Um, well yeah, actually. Its all wrapped up in the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which are pretty firmly rooted in 19th century ideas. They were pretty progressive for their time, but they havn't really kept up with shifting geopolitics. LOAC were devised and convened at a time when war was all about large numbers of uniformed regular troops marching towards each other and then killing the other guy until one side or other said "uncle". Since only nation states can field an Army, the whole thing is built on the presuposition that any of the players will be a nation state. Also, given that it was the product of a time when nations were percieved as big, stable, eternal bodies, no one really sort of contemplated asymetric warfare, as practised by Taliban and Shi'a insurgents in the devising of them.

So, a state of war can only exist between two countries. If you want to have a war on the taliban, you have to declare war on their country. That means war on Afghanistan, at least until you can assist a prefered government into power.

Short answer? Its complicated. Although the original writers of LOAC had exemplary intentions, and did their very best to work out a system to minimise harm and injustice in warfare, they simply did not think in terms that adequately cover some of the events of the past 60 odd years.

Dogbean said:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html

It is beyond me why Obama wants to close this prison at GITMO and release the terrorists. This article states that most of the terrorists released have rejoined the fight against us.

Click to expand...

Hogwash. The Fox News piece "states" no such thing -- we all can read just fine, thank you very much.

Instead, the Fox News piece reads: "...terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies."

Terror suspects, not "terrorists".

Increasingly, not "most of the".

What it means in the real world is that out of the 700 odd detainees whom the United States of America has put through the Guantánamo system, 18 have confirmed of having returned to the fight, while 43 are suspected -- but not confirmed -- of having returned to the fight. That's 61 confirmed or suspected cases, while the previous Pentagon report number stood at 37.

That's what "increasingly" means in Fox News speak. And 18 out of 700+ is nowhere near "most", do you agree? There's a gap of, oh well, some 333 odd to warrant the word "most".

Furthermore, we do not know whether the 18 confirmed cases had actually been involded in the "fight" before the United States of America captured them and sent to Guantánamo -- after all, they were released by the United States of America so obviously the Pentagon thought they were of no threat -- or if these 18 were innocent to begin with and were then "radicalized" by the Guantánamo experience, courtesy by the Bush administration.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4340

DoD News Briefing with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon
January 13, 2009

I can disclose with you the fact that we have a new -- we have updated recidivism numbers of people who have been at Guantanamo, and these are the latest numbers we have as of the end of December. And it shows a pretty substantial increase in recidivism. I think prior to this report, I think the rate had been about 7 percent of those who had been held at Guantanamo and released who have been confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight. At that time we suspected that 30 -- confirmed or suspected that 37 former detainees had returned to the fight. We now believe that that number has increased and that the overall known terrorist reengagement rate has increased to 11 percent. The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight.

Now this is the total number from the history of detainees at Gitmo.

Click to expand...

ArnautDaniel said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...


The inmates at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to the same due process as anyone else under the US government. The US government has failed to provide that process.

Blame the Bush administration for ignoring due process of law and acting in a high-handed and immoral manner.


No one ever said doing what was right would always be convenient.

...

Anyway if you, OPer, think what is convenient is more important than what is right, then I imagine you are pro-choice.

Click to expand...

Why are they entitled to the laws of a land they wish to destroy? Consider one of our countries greatest Presidents (and a supposed influential figure to Obama):

Whereas, It has become necessary to call into service, not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection. Now, therefore, be it ordered, that during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commission.
Second: That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President.

Abraham Lincoln SUSPENDED Habeas Corpus during the Civil War- and this was to be imposed against AMERICANS. Guess why? He wanted to preserve our nation and win the war.

Dogbean said:

The man was a mass murderer. Used chemical weapons on his own people.

Click to expand...

And where did he get all these weapons from?

Anyone know?

No apology from Dogbean for the blatant untruths.. colour me surprised.