TCS Daily


Should We Close Gitmo?

By Gordon Cucullu - May 15, 2006 12:00 AM

What is happening with Guantanamo? We hear President Bush say in Berlin that he would "like to close Guantanamo," but is "awaiting the Supreme Court to make a decision." What would he do with the detainees? "Put them on trial," according to the President. In fact Mr. Bush needs to be briefed that Military Commissions -- on hold for months while U.S. courts made glacial progress -- are finally underway as you read this. Detainees standing in front of the Commissions this week include the only white detainee in Guantanamo, Australian terrorist David Matthew Hicks, a veteran of the Pakistani LET, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and al Qaeda.

I recently debated one of the attorneys for some of the detainees on BBC radio. Clive Stafford-Smith, a hard-left human rights lawyer who seems to find desirable clients principally from among the oppressed anti-American terrorist community, wistfully hoped that the "innocent" detainees would only get a "fair hearing." An admirable desire to be sure, and one that I personally wish would also be applied by irrational critics to America's actions -- practically alone -- in combating Islamofascism worldwide, including the need to detain and interrogate these thugs in places like Guantanamo.

Not to be outdone by the President's expressed wish, the British government's top legal advisor, Lord Goldsmith, meanwhile issued a pontificatory statement informing us that "the existence of Guantanamo is unacceptable." One wonders if his Lordship would prefer that the fewer than 490 terrorists now detained at the facility take up residence in his Parliamentary district. Since at least two of the detainees have advanced degrees in economics from the London School and are proficient in terrorist money laundering and fundraising, they could have useful skills. No doubt in some areas of the UK that are already rapidly undergoing Islamification the idea of terrorists relocating to the neighborhood might be more than a hypothetical possibility.

Meanwhile in the real world, the part that looks askance at the idea of taking hundreds of the "worst of the worst" terrorists and turning them loose again, the efficacy of Guantanamo needs to be discussed in more practical, serious tones. Consider if you will the artificial "wall" that Clinton-appointed Assistant Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick erected to enforce a separation between law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies is by now well known. It was loudly but hypocritically condemned by the 911 Commission since wall architect Gorelick was, herself, a member of the Commission. Not only did she fail to recuse herself from discussion of the aberration that she created, but some say she ought to have been subpoenaed to testify. Nevertheless the point was made: intelligence and law enforcement missions have become blurred and overlapping in this war. Information sharing must be conducted in a timely manner. It follows that analyzed material derived from interrogations and operational data sharing must take place as well.

But is that happening? Word in the intel community seems to indicate that necessary exchanges are not taking place in a timely manner.

Even more significantly since the missions of various agencies conflict with one another, focus is naturally on the needs of the particular agency perhaps to the detriment of others that ought to be involved.

Disposition and handling of individual terrorist detainees has brought this issue to a head. This is an historical, not recently emerging issue. For example, back in the highly confused first few months of 2002 when Guantanamo Bay was hastily opened as a detention/interrogation center for enemy combatants captured for the most part in Afghanistan and Pakistan, several agencies were interested in these thugs, each for its own reasons.

Primarily domestic-focused, law enforcement agencies such as Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and major cities' police agencies were out to build cases against individual detainees that would stand up in the harsh light of a criminal court. They were concerned with niceties of a highly refined American legal system preoccupied with defendant's rights, rules of procedure, and evidentiary processes. While they were properly concerned with potential future attacks, FBI and other similar groups were focused in large part on alleged past criminal acts for which they could prosecute.

Military and Central Intelligence Agency interrogators, on the other hand, were less focused on building a court case than they were in what would be properly classified as national security or military intelligence information. In a phrase they were out to learn the capabilities and intentions of the enemy especially regarding current operations and future attacks. They wanted to know everything about the al Qaeda organization, training, recruiting, financial processes, tactics, personalities, alliances with outside states and movements, technical and tactical proficiency, and planned operations. They were considerably less focused on prosecution of an individual and sought more to defeat a movement.

Analysis of these early, admittedly confused months in Guantanamo shows that all too often the "wall" still existed and was a great impediment to proper interrogation of the detainees. Agencies operated without an overall, coordinated interrogation plan and with few common objectives. The result was akin to researchers conducting multiple science projects in the same Petri dish: each participant ruined the other participants' projects. On several occasions, according to present day Gitmo interrogators, detainees actually complained about the unprofessional nature of these early interrogations and some astoundingly even offered advice to the interrogators on how to conduct a more effective session. Some actionable information was derived but how much was lost is impossible to say.

In these early days the interrogators argued and competed among themselves. Not only did they not share information, plans, and acceptable techniques but it was rare that they even discussed the situation civilly with each other. Principals in each competing agency exerted absolute control over their people. So rather than having unity of command -- the first principle in the art of war -- each organization stove-piped right down to the actors on the spot. Exacerbating the problem was that even within the military jurisdiction over the detainees was initially split between two Task Forces, TF-160 and TF-170.

It was during these early months that accusations of abuse -- real and fabricated -- emerged from the fog of Guantanamo. FBI agents were unfamiliar with the latitude that military interrogators had, and CIA interrogators played their own secret hand. Partially as a result, a few poorly prepared FBI agents -- never briefed or trained to deal with wartime enemy combatants but accustomed to Mirandized accused criminals in a Stateside environment -- panicked and sent hysterically overstated "reports" back to the U.S. One of those emails made the floor of the Senate as Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) used it as a political club to smack the Administration, tangentially attacking American troops. He carelessly, thoughtlessly besmirched our soldiers' worldwide reputations along with that of his country.

But that was then, this is now. These issues have been long resolved and for several years Guantanamo interrogations have been extraordinarily professional and effective, a success totally ignored by the legacy media. Investigations such as that conducted independently by Admiral Church and his committee and by former Defense Secretary Schlesinger and his blue-ribbon, bipartisan panel, have given Joint Task Force Guantanamo the highest marks for humane treatment and proper interrogation procedure.

But despite this amazing progress we still have evidence of the artificial wall keeping agencies apart and hampering American efforts. We are not so well off in our intelligence efforts against al Qaeda and other terrorists that we can afford to squander the small amount of precious human intelligence that we can access. Yet because of our "walls" we are doing exactly that. At this stage of evolution, Guantanamo is highly controlled, under intense scrutiny including 24-hour International Committee of the Red Cross oversight, and is functioning as the most effective detention/interrogation platform in the world.

Yet we are using it for only a tiny number of those who merit proper interrogation, most especially the cell members and terrorists who have been apprehended and in many cases tried and convicted, in American courts. If someone like Sammi al-Arian is sentenced to jail time he ought to be assigned to Gitmo to fill out that time. During his confinement he can be properly interrogated. Otherwise he and the others such as John Walker Lindh, Zaccarias Mousaoui, the Beltway Snipers, the Lackawanna Six, and every one of the others who are just rotting in Federal prison cells while the information inside their heads is forever secret.

Every terrorist captured abroad deemed sufficient threat or to possess actionable intelligence information ought to be evacuated and kept at Guantanamo. Similarly every terrorist convicted in American domestic courts should be assigned to Gitmo to serve their sentences. Our needs for this information are too great to give it up voluntarily in time of war by ignoring these potentially rich intelligence sources.

Gordon Cucullu is a former Green Beret lieutenant colonel and author of Separated at Birth: How North Korea became the Evil Twin.

Categories:

77 Comments

Should we vote to withdraw from the Geneva convention?
How about the repeal of the Bill of Rights?

How about institutionalizing torture and creating a special school to train skilled torturers?

Why mess around?

If anything needs closing...
I'd say it's the prison that exists outside the fences at Guantanamo.

the upside?
Is Gitmo "the most effective detention/interrogation platform in the world?" Why would anyone think that? How hard is it to make a prison? As for interrogation, the experts I've read say torture doesn't work. It makes the torturers (Bush surrogates) happy, the prisoner miserable (many Gitmo inmates are innocent), and everyone else revolted.

We should put our democratic principles before "effectiveness" even if it were effective.

That place is a club.
That place NEEDS TO BE RUN LIKE A PRISON and not a fraternity house. Those rats are cleaner, eating the best, and having clean clothes everyday unlike what they had their whole lives. They need to be tortured as we always did in every other war and stop being coddled. I dont see anyone or anywhere complaining about all the non-islamic prisoners being killed and beheaded. These skirts have dogs barking at them and the world THINKS THAT IS SO TERRIBLE. Kick their asses and make them regret taking up weapons against civilians. They have no rights or protections as they dont belong to any official army so therefore they are classified as partisans or guerrillas WHO ARE AFFORDED NO PR0TECTION UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. If the world does not like it than they should actually help us in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or shut up. These same terrorist SOB's will soon be coming to a neighborhood near them. General Patton and MacArthur where are you today? See what your America has become.

Two misconceptions
1) "Kick their asses and make them regret taking up weapons against civilians."

Most of them have not been charged with taking up arms against civilians. In fact none, to my knowledge, have been so charged. In fact hardly any have been charged with taking up arms against American military personnel.

David Hicks, for instance, is typical in that he has been charged with no terrorist act, and has not taken part in any action against the US military. His crime consists of membership in a group.

2) "They have no rights or protections as they dont belong to any official army so therefore they are classified as partisans or guerrillas WHO ARE AFFORDED NO PR0TECTION UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION."

You are quite mistaken. There are more than one Geneva Convention. Read them all and you will find treatment of partisans and irregulars carefully proscribed.

Be sure to read the parts about the punishment of civilian populations for acts of guerrilas in their midst. This is a big one we routinely trespass against.

Roy, Roy, Roy...
In your misguided views I get the impression that NO MUSLIM ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME has ever committed acts of terrorism, sabotage, bombings, etc. Is there anything that you would agree regarding American actions anywhere? David Hicks is a misconception in your view and I am quite familiar with Genva Convention. It is in my office at this time.

partisans and irregulars
Partisans and irregulars only have Geneva Convention protects when they they are local residents who join with their country's military, take orders from the government leadership, and folder the rules of the Geneva Convention.

It is theoretically possible that some of those at Guantanamo Bay could fit this category of legal combatants. That is why the courts should allow the military tribunals to proceed.

The Geneva Convention give military tribunals only one penalty for unlawful combatants and it is not "free room and board" at Gitmo.

Not at all
I have never supported the view that "no Muslim anywhere at any time" has committed an act of terror. Nineteen of them did, as a matter of fact. Those nineteen are no longer available to our judicial system.

There are also over a billion Muslims who have never committed any act of terror, and who live quite ordinary lives.

Since you have a copy of the "Geneva Convention" in your office you will have no trouble reading Article Three of the Third Geneva Convention (1949), which reads in part

" (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

Every one of these provisions has been violated by American troops in Iraq, except for summary executions (so far as I know).

Now consider this, in Article Five:

"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 [that is, members of a regular armed force or organized militia] from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 , such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

What this means is that anyone SUSPECTED of bearing arms against a member of the armed forces or planning for or committing an act of suspected terrorism, is to be treated as a legitimate POW until a competent tribunal adjudges them to have other status, or be due other treatment.

As you know, most prisoners at Aby Ghraib were held in detention for a period of months and then let go when no charges were forthcoming. I believe the precise numbers were (in 2004) 43,000 prisoners and 700 indictments.

The remainder of 42,300 individuals were apparently not persons of interest-- i.e. evidence was lacking to point to any wrongdoing on their part. They were just picked up for the most part in random sweeps.

I wonder how they told their neighbors of their experiences in American hands.

If your copy of this third Convention is not handy, try this guide:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

Good point
I notice this, in Article Five of Part One (General Provisions) of the Third Geneva Convention of August, 1949:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 , such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Article Four refers to members of regular armed forces or partisans or guerillas organized into a militia. The actual wording can be found here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

This seems to be saying that until such time as a competent tribunal can assess that an individual is just a lone criminal, rather than a member of some organized fighting force, he is to be treated under all the protections afforded a defined Prisoner of War.

Would you agree with that assessment?

Gitmo was never required
The US government should have turned all the terrorists over to the Kurds for interrogation. The information we were seeking would have become readily available quickly. The way the data was extracted should have been publicized which would have placed Allah's servants what was awaiting them. Fortunately some of these specimens were returned to their host governments for surgerical alterations which resulted in various benefits. In future conflicts of this type the US should always allow an ally to conduct all interrogations. It worked for the Tenth Paras in Algiers and the US should stick to the proven.

Worked for the Tenth Paras??
Except France lost the war in Algeria. And we are and long have been handing people over for interrogation to various places specializing in same ("rendition"). But a very acute suggestion otherwise.

Using the Kurds or another ally IS A GREAT IDEA.
France lost the war because it lost the war of politics back home. It won a great military victory against guerrillas and terrorists, but of course, the French Government threw away its military victory. France today would be a greater and better nation HAD THE MILITARY COUP SUCCEEDED! Think of the reality of how muslim economic immigrants would never consider moving to France if the military coup had been victorious and still firmly in power where the rule of law would reign and not multi-culturalism or other perversions. The burning of all suburban Paris would never had happened last November if muslims had never moved there in the 1950's. I think many Eastern European nations and Israel could be of great help if we choose this option at a later time NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICALLY ERECT IDIOTS MAY SPOUT IN SUPPORT OF ALLAH AND ISLAM.

Sir Roy, the problem is.........
WITH SECTION 1 declaring "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities..." Our definitions is where we have the disagreement. I believe and so do US and other allied troops that these insurgents WERE CAUGHT IN ACTIVE HOSTILITIES and you simply believe they were innocent. These prisoners were not pulled from their farms and factories and arrested for looking innocent. They were all caught in various forms of hostilities against US troops and other western targets. It is your belief and theory that these were just ordinary Afghans or Iraqis, but the reality is something caused US troops to apprehend and arrest the current crop of suicide troops. Therefore, NO PART of the Geneva Convention applies to this group. Also, we do not have the manpower to conduct random sweeps. Our hands are plenty occupied and full dealing and eradicating the active rebels being supplied from Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Regarding the opinion of what the islamic prisoners are telling their neighbors about experiences in US hands I TRULY DO NOT CARE as I am sure neither do the thousands of survivors, widows, orphans, and burn victims of 9-11. It is very obvious that muslims, Saudi Arabia, and the 19 hijackers surely DID NOT CARE OF WHAT THE US OR FREE WORLD WOULD THINK ONCE THEIR MURDERS WERE INITIATED DID TO WESTERN OPINION AND NEITHER SHOULD WE. I do not want to be sarcastic, but regarding the 1 billion muslims you report who did not committ any terrorist attacks, I believe you forgot to include the word "YET." I know muslims do not care for western values or loyalty to western governments from which they draw rich benefits as indicated by their prayer 5 times a day facing Mecca. Is not facing a western country during prayer good enough? Apparently not. The truth is a muslims loyalty will always be to islam, Mecca, and fellow muslims.

P.S. Do you know why CAIR has not issued a fatwa against Osama or Zarqawi to date? I mean if they are great American citizens, than why do they not condemn these murderers during time of war? All they do is complain of the tactics that we use against their brothers during this war. True colors again being shown.

A self fulfilling prophecy
You should be aware that police procedures everywhere there is incomplete control of a civilian population entail pulling in everyone in the neighborhood of a crime scene for questioning. In the case of the streets of crowded Iraqi cities, that everyone includes quite a lot of people.

That is why, as of 2004, some 44,000 detainees had been held in Abu Ghraib, questioned, physically beaten or abused and humiliated for a period averaging several months-- then released. While only 700 were found to be indictable. So these were plainly people NOT caught taking part in active hostilities.

THESE are the people we should worry about. Do you think this experience might turn the average citizen into an insurgent? You opine that the billion now-peaceful Muslims are not planning acts of violence ahainst us-- YET. Yet you condone behaviors on our part that ensure that some day they will.

Reasonable people, born on the other side of the divide we have created, must inevitably come to the conclusion that a United States following its current drive toward world dominion, must be destroyed. There is no other conclusion they can form.

Next issue: you read the Geneva Convention very selectively. Article 3 begins: "each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, AS A MINIMUM (emphasis mine), the following provisions" regarding treatment of civilians (noncombatants), which are described as "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms..."

Basically it says such civilians are not to be mistreated or collectively punished for the acts of copmbatants. Article 3 applies in no way to the treatment of belligerents. One has to purposely misread the text to construe it any other way.

The category of combatant you are seeking ro describe is someone not belonging to any of the groups described in Article 4. And for a person suspected of being such an "illegal combatant" I would refer you to Article 5:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

This means they can be detained, questioned and kept until they are stood before a competent tribunal. Only upon being found guilty of common criminality are they to have Article Four protections removed. Black holes like Guantanamo and other, more obscure detention centers like Diego Garcia ("Camp Justice" in newspeak) are in profound violation of this particular convention.

What do you call someone who quotes a requirement the US has not approved?
A dullard. Roy the yes has never agreed nor have most nations agreed to this provision so the basis of article IV remains that those taken in combat while in illegal status may be executed summarily. Recall the German troops dressed in American uniforms taken during the Battle of the Bulge? Take a guess what happened to them.

Only in Roy's woirld could detention centers where medical staff outnumber the inmates or where the inmates wiegh more upon release than when they were taken be described as "black holes." Perhaps Roy could name one similar 'Black Hole" where American troops had similiar experiences in any war they have served.

When chant and hysteria are called for ask for Commisssar Roy.

Roy's ward-"There's more than one Genevea Convention?"
How many do you think the US ratified Roy? Which one do you think governs the US behavior, the one it ratified or mabo number 43?

Yes indeed the fate of those who ignore the law of nations has been settled for a long time except in the minds of those who will seize upon any pretex to defend the operations of those who act outside the rules of manking.

Who defend those who target civilians.
Who defend those who murder innocents.
Against those who defend the scum that televise the behading on noncombatants as recreation.
Against those whose outrage is reserved for America while ignorning those who bomb kindergardens.

One must ask ourselves who could tolerate those who have no trouble believing the line of people like Saddam and Bin Laden but question the mpotives of our troops and leaders.


For evidence of what type of moral compass it takes and what type of individual it takes to locate a lawyer to defend a child murderer look no further than Roy.

Both your ignorance and arrogance by broadcasting the fact you are aware of the facts but choose to support these scum brand you for the strata of humanity (loosely applied at best) you belong to.

Can someone out there verify something for me....please?
It is regarding General Pershing operating against muslim insurgents in the Phillippines in 1911. He was not a general, but some lower ranking officer at the time. It allegedly involved Pershing capturing appm. 50 islamic partisans who were tied up, and shot using blood from pigs which muslims despise. The legend is that if they are touched by something filthy upon death they are prevented from entering paradise. After executing the 49 partisans the 50th prisoner was released to send back the story to his fellow rebels. No surprise, the muslim insurgency was quiet until WW 2 when the Japanes invaded. There were no complaints from cowards from that proud time of US history and no politically erect morons defending terrorists. Talk about efficiency. Do we need to employ this type of tactic against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think Generals Patton, MacArthur would heartily agree, but I dont know if this story is true. Someone let me know.

This July 7-13 ALL OF YOU PLEASE SEE MOVIE "ISLAM, WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW."
This will be a limited release film regarding ISLAM and plan on having many if not all your questions regarding the "peaceful" group of people answered. Liberals, Conservatives, Apologists, and Traitors would be well served to see this film and I just found out about it. It will be playing in Atlanta, my beloved Chicago, and Washington DC. I hope it goes into wide release as it will not be propaganda as our irresponsible leaders spout everyday. It is likely to be an eye opening experience.

Ah, yes: the old stab-in-the-back theory
The soldiers always win, the politicians always betray them. That's what the German generals said after they lost WWI. The result of people believing them was Hitler.

And, sure, the French could have stayed in Algeria indefinitely, as long as they were willing to maintain a huge army and kill lots of people each year. That's not victory, that's just non-defeat. There was no strategy or possibility of wiping out resistence. The result was inevitable. You like the French Hitler option, the right-wing coup. Thanks for making yourself clear. Perhaps you're looking for the same thing here. Others are not, and they are not less patriotic than you.

Nobody is supporting terrorism. The idea that the cure for terrorism is terrorism -- torture, carpetbombing, rendition, secret prisons -- just doesn't get it, and won't. Our freedoms make us strong, not weak. People against torture have no sympathy for terrorism, just reverence for the institutions that have made us great. Figure it out.

Using the enemy's culture against him
The British initiated the tactic of burying Muslim dead in pig offal or inside of hog corpses during the Indian Mutiny. The Americans adopted similar tactics during the insurrection and is detailed in various books of that era.

We will not utilize this type of tactic now lest it offend the sensibilities of the non combatants and hate America types. It should be used. What have we got to lose? I mean look at all these moderate Muslims in the US doing so much to support the war. The ACLU and CAIR just filed suit against the FBI to find out what FBI surveillances are being conducted against Muslims in southern California. Now why would they do this unless its to alert their friends the jihaddies?

France had its moonbats as we do
You got that right. DeGaulle was installed pledging to keep Algiera French. He then betrayed the colones and sold them out for political reasons. These are evident today as we see France whoring itself for commercial gain in the Middle East. Just as we see moonbatism here in these columns, remember the French Leftist deputies who stood and cheered upon receiving news that the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu had been over run. Clearly today's dhimmiecrats model themselves along the lines of these patriotic Frenchmen.

bottom line
France got kicked out of its colonies despite who they tortured or didn't. Is your idea that if only those darned leftists had gotten on board and the paras been allowed free reign, Algeria and Vietnam would still be French today?

How about this: the Soviets got kicked out of Aghanistan - maybe you want to blame that on cowardly liberal moonbats in the Moscow media selling out the heroic troops in the field. Or was it unpatriotic moonbat members of the Supreme Soviet?

Back up. The original charge of the stab in the back was from Ludendorf. He said that the German army would have won the war, if it hadn't been for dissident moonbats at home. We know where that led.

Of course we've approved it
According to the Cornell Law School "The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977." This includes the text under discussion.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Geneva_Conventions

Explain this for me
When Americans wanted to throw off the yoke of British oppression they formed an army under General Washington. France, a leader of the enlightenment, aided us in our efforts toward independence.

When Filipinos wanted to throw off the yoke of Spanish oppression they formed an army under General Aguinaldo. Whereupon the United States, a leader in democracy, dispatched troops that killed over 200,000 of these independence seekers in the most hideous fashions their imaginations could devise.

How does this look?

Not the best questions to ask
I hope by now you have satisfied your curiosity and seen that we did indeed ratify all four Conventions of 1949. Thus every time we blow apart a car with a family in it at one of our checkpoints, the murdered children within are evidence of a war crime.

But your questions are beside the point. The core question to be asked is, why did we go over there in the first place? We had no good intel regarding WMD's, and even less regarding Saddam's intent to supply aid to Al Qaeda. The whole thing was a put up job.

That being said, I think most people would oppose soldiers who invaded their country. Why should the Iraqis feel any differently?

Gulliver you are too far in LEFT field.
What is wrong with the right wing coup? When the crap did Hitler come into the picture? You must love Stalin and Mao-Tse-Tung.Are you left-wing cuz that has problems on all levels. The failure of it today shows a France overrun and waiting to explode with islamic insurrection. Also, people who do not find my suggestions acceptable are part of the problem if not the whole problem. Surrender and appeasement will only lead to greater problems and civil unrest. Has ANY type of appeasement worked in the past...find me an example. I fully believe you do not know what true patriotism means. You obviously never heard the phrase "Fight fire with fire" so please get educated and OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE REALITY OF TOTAL WAR. I am glad you are speaking for everyone in America saying nobody is supporting terrorism, but it is time to truly terrorize the terrorists. They feed on weakness and indecision as you are displaying here. What I have seen is too much freedom on our part is biting us in the ass now and many groups-you know who-are using it against us to undermine America. America has to adapt to this new type of warfare or it will last for decades with no true victory in sight. My suggestion to you Gulliver as you travel for the truth is to ask CAIR why they do not support America in its eavesdropping on phone conversations to suspected muslim sympathizers or terrorist cells. Does anyone care if they truly have nothing to hide in phone conversations? They can listen to mine because I have nothing to hide. The institutions we have are great in the USA, but those same groups need to adapt in order to protect themselves and adopt the same principles of war and nothing less. If we do not than we will face extinction. YOU FIGURE IT OUT.

P.S. Mr. Bleeding Heart I believe your type of mentality would be truly offensive to ANY survivors of 9-11. Our institutions were great on that bloody day and 3,000 people were still killed. Those terrorist bastards did not restrict themselves about respect for law, life, right to privacy and they accomplished everything they planned. Are you still confused?

Roy, the answer was simple politics.
We went to war with Spain, beat them, and did not want to pull out after the investment we made in blood and money. It is the same thing EVERY nation has done at least once in its history. Other nations did it more often, but it happens nonetheless. We did give them their independence after WW 2 and today they are the mess where they can only blame themselves.

P.S. If we did not have the Phillippines in the early part of the century, Japan would have invaded anyway in 1941, and we would, of course, had been obliged to liberate that nation.

Duh
What do you think the Protocols of 1977 are idiot? If they were not ratified why do you believe them to bind the US? Only someone who is truly ignorant could stoop so low or seek to distort something so elementary. What next that we are bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Hopeless.

Good question
Not as bad as Lincoln waging war on his fellow Americans because of tarriffs.

That was why the south seceded all right: tariffs.
That slavery thing - both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were all wrong about it having anything to do with it.

Roy's Intelligence
I am sure you spent years in intelligence and national security Roy and have lived overseas for years, correct?

Therefore you should be able to tell us why your sources are to be trusted more than the US or the world's intelligence services.

I'm sure you can explain to us exactly why your knowledge is so much better than the professional.

By the way every time I see a comment about US troops murdering helpless civilians I realize the sort of person I am dealing with. To make such an accusation while ignoring the public broadcast of the deliberate execution of innocents and the bombing of kindergardens describes the character and morality of the individual and the cause he supports better than my inadequate words will ever do.

Troll on.

C'mon Roy demonstrate your education again
You mean it was unconstitutional for the South to lreave the Union and Lincoln was justified in waging war on them?

That's another question
But the main reason for the south wanting to leave wan't tariffs. And I'm a little curious here: it's perfectly all right for the U.S. to conquer and occupy the Phillipines, on the other side of the Pacific, but an effort to preserve the American union is wrong? How does this work?

This is gibble-gabble
What's wrong with a right-wing coup? The same thing that's wrong with a left-wing coup. You have a democratic government that's being destroyed because some people can't accept election results. The :"crap about Hitler" came into the picture because Hitler came to power repeating the stuff about the German army really should and would have won WWI except that leftists/Jews/etc undermined the war effort.

>The failure of it today shows a France overrun and waiting to explode with islamic insurrection.

What does this have to do with France leaving Algeria (or Vietnam, for that matter) Do you think France would now be stronger if it still had its army occupying Algeria?

>Has ANY type of appeasement worked in the past...find me an example.

Who is talking about "appeasement?"

>not support America in its eavesdropping on phone conversations to suspected muslim sympathizers or terrorist cells.

Nobody in the United States, nobody, objects to eavesdropping on phone conversations with suspected Muslim sympathizers or terrorist cells. The object is to eavesdropping on anyone and everyone without a warrant.

>The institutions we have are great in the USA, but those same groups need to adapt in order to protect themselves and adopt the same principles of war and nothing less. If we do not than we will face extinction.

This is nutty. We beat the Germans and Japanese and won the Cold War without totally dismantling our own democratic institutions. We can beat a few hundred thousand loons the same way. Yeah, we took a hit on 9/11. That's not a reason to go running in circles like a frightened chicken and throw hundreds of years of history of respecting rights into the toilet.

Politics as usual
Your politics as usual has a very foul stench, when it involves the barbaric murder of several hundred thousand freedom fighters.

Now we know what the United States stands for. Self interest and nothing else. No nation has done worse anywhere than was done in the Philippines in 1899.

This is utter drivel
You don't even bother to read my posts. Every reference I've made is to the wording of the Conventions of 1949, which we did ratify. I was the one who posted you the information on the 1977 amendments, which we did NOT ratify.

Do you actually think such shoddy argumentation helps your cause?

It's all in the record
First, I in no way exceuse the behaviors of criminals and outlaws like the Chechens responsible for Beslan and the Zarqawi crowd. Not even the insurgents approve of Zarqawi, and he has lost all standing with the Iraqi public because of his horrors.

That does not excuse our destruction of Fallujah following the grisly display of those four bodies on the bridge. It was a war crime, and one calculated in advance. That was why reporters were kept out, as was the Red Crescent and other NGO's hoping to alleviate suffering in the aftermath. No one counted the dead and dying there-- purposely.

I don't lightly make the charge of war crime. Fallujah was clearly one such, and on a par with anything the Chechens or Al Qaeda in Iraq has done, in terms of utter barbarity and lack of humanity.

Baghdad Bob speaks
Only Baghdad Bob could mention Red Cresecnt ambulances and NGO vehicles and not expect to be laughed off any stage, anywhere. You refer to the same Red Crescent ambulances that transported insurgents and weapons during the fighting? You say they should be respected, why to commit more atrocities. Or the UN vehicles that were seized after they were found to be doing the same, you mean those should have been respected?

I wonder what kind of creature can parrot the line of an enemy that slits the throats of airline sttewardesses and use airliners to snuff out 3,000 lives whileaccusing the US of war crimes in the same fashion that a chimp flings feeces.

Shouldn't you be outside Bethesda protesting the wounded troops?

You are a sick man who is beneath contempt, because you lack moral fiber; embrace the foulest of causes; call black white and white black and then drape yourself in the flag and claim to be patriotic. What a losser.

Go peddle your line you to your Democratic Underground brethren. They're IQ allows them to shallow such tripe without question. The utter brutality and lack of humanity is someone who aids this cause.

And people wonder where the ***** found men to man the ovens.

Beyond hope, Roy should stick to the Kos Kiddies
Either you don't know what your talking about (probable) or your a hopeless liar (again highly plausible). If you arguing the 1949 Convention then how can you state illegal combatants cannot be shot?

Since you argued this and cited the 1977 Protocols, one has to assume you never read nor understood the Conventions since the subsequent protocols were never adopted nor ratified by the US.

In short you are a mendacious little troll who has been caught lying. Typical. Have the good grace to peddle your line to grade school children or a Democratic think tank or at the Kos Kiddies. Perhaps they'll believe but don't make the miustake that other readers here have an IQ like yours, which is about equal to brocolli.

Why is it when challenged on the facts you always run?
Exactly where did you go to school. You always get the facts wrong or misunderstand what most people grasp at an early age. I'd get a refund and remedial help quickly.

Just a big "losser"
Your comments are beginning to verge on the impolite. Rudeness never won a debate, brusque fellow.

When I get back from a hard day's manning the ovens, I note that one of the good things that hasn't been broken in Iraq is that after some act of carnage, an ambulance comes to take the survivors to hospital.

That is, unless it's Fallujah, and the Americans keep the ambulances from entering the city. In Israel there are allegations about all sorts of things. But in Iraq there has NEVER.. EVER.. been an instance of terrorists popping up in an ambulance. They don't have to. They're everywhere to begin with.

No, the reason the ambulances were kept out of Fallujah was to intensify the suffering.

Try to engage the issue
I gave you chapter and verse, quoted the actual words of my references and for good measure gave you citations from solid sources for everything I was contending.

You, on the other hand, offer no evidence in support of your theme, and persistently try to confuse the 1949 and the 1977 documents. That's your only trick.

Tell us this: how do you expect to convince anyone if you can't even come up with the actual words of any of the Conventions in your support? Could it be that you're just blowing it out your ass?

Its double speak from the Ministry of Truth
Answer the question *******. Does the US have the legal right to kill any illegal combatant under Article IV of the Geneva Convention?

I love the lies, your inability to admit you've been caught, the inability to answer a simple question. Its been put to you oh torturer of the truth.

Answer or begone.

Dr. Gulliver...you are greatly confused and I need to tutor you.
France has everything to do with everything of today. France surrendered Algeria, humiliated its army back to its barracks, and never looked back. The coming islamic rebellion in France is related for the fact that France can no longer use Algeria as a buffer zone to keep out economic immigrants. Do you think the Algerians of today are doing a better job of running Algeria than the French? You know the answer. Algeria is in going to pieces and many of its citizens are now flocking to France for its insanely generous welfare benefits. Tell me, do you think there were more Algerians in France before or after France lost Algeria. Check the demographics-numbers in any reference book. France really needs to just tighten its immigration policy to 0. I never said France had to occupy Algeria with its army, it can not today even occupy its own territory and keep order...remember last November. This nation must get tough and nothing less if they hope to maintain rule of their own nation.
Eavesdropping again, should not worry anyone as long as they are good citizens. I am and dont care if they listen everyday to me even if they dont use a warrant. This nation is at war. Do you realize how many times FDR bullied and threatened our Congress during his years in power. He did what he thought was necessary and vital to protect this nation. Do you know how long a warrant can take to come to the authorities? How many people can die by the time a warrant is issued? Do you want to take that chance? I dont want to risk the lives of any REAL Americans. I care about our safety in the USA.
Why am I nutty you nutjob? Did you see the US take in German, Japanese, or Italian immigrants into the USA during the war. Today we take in all these muslim economic dregs who immediately abuse our public aid system. Where is the justice in this foolishness? We should be sending out every muslim from this country. They are destroying Europe today and the USA is next on their hitlist. All the Japanese were locked up and that was a responsible thing to do. Pearl Harbor was vaporized by Japan and we could not afford to have these same people walking around our nation. Would you have let them remain in our general population with no supervision? You talk of rights with muslims who have no regard of human rights, dignity, other religions, other languages, women and non-muslims. Again, fo your simplistic mind if this nation does not fight as our enemies fight we will be doomed to war for generations.
It has nothing to do with fear, but we can not take your course which is basically national suicide. I am not talking of throwing away any rights, but to only make it harder for these islamic bastards to exploit my people and government. "People", as these, have shown they do not belong to the human race and have no redeeming qualities. They live to kill, threaten, enslave, and rape others who do not believe as they believe. Do you want to protect these vermin? They need to be exterminated and seen only in the history books. YOU are the one who is horrified to fight these devils with both hands. I do not want to see America fettered by anything as this is a war for our very survival.

Big Commissar says videos constitute allegations
Yup who are we to believe commissar Roy and those innocent ambulances or the videos showing both UN and Red Crescent vehicles carrying combatants and weapons.

To point out the obvious there is a slight problem with your theory, why bother to prevent ambulances from entering if we wanted to prevent medical aid. One only need not give it.


Now have you ever seen a Red Cross report stating the US has not rendered proper medical care? The silence is deafening.

I also note that you tyake great pains not to mention the documented torture rooms, mass graves, and executions your heros carried out-on innocent women, children, old men, and anyone they took a fancy to. Sadists one and all, the kind you defend, the kind you identify with.

Yeah I'll bet you also have an extra job at the gulag.

There is nothing as demeaning and pathetic as a creature who sides with the forces of darkness and attempts to justify the use of terror and torture on innocents to advance an agenda that can only be obtained through a kind of inquisition that civilized man abandoned long ago. But you celebrate it and embrace it. One assumes you are either one of the jihaddies or are from San Francisco.

You sound like a typical muslim.
You ask me a question and I give you the truth. Every nation has done injustices against another. Do you think in your small mind that any nation will not act in its own self-interest? Wow, you need to read...and not that "Kill Americans" crap. It is a fact of life and your repugnant response betrays the fact that you are a vile, bitter, hateful, muslim who loves to see Americans get killed on the "telly". Did you forget your blessed religion of slavers, mass murderers, bigots,sexist and racist relgious comrades are responsible for millions of deaths from India to Morroco and into Europe. YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO SAY THE US HAS DONE WORSE THAN ANYONE OR ANYWHERE? How dare you judge me or any nation when you represent seething hatred and a most vile bloody religion that is hated by everyone on this planet. If it were not for America tell me how would your comrades enjoy the fruits of all our modern technologies to kill us horrible westerners with jets, e-mail, cell phones, cars which are made into carbombs, etc, etc, etc. All courtesy of the same people you are trying to exterminate. You are truly darker than death itself.
You really crossed the line claiming again that those heathen partisans be called freedom fighters. Those same freedom fighters have today killed many Phillippino citizens and have nothing to do with the government in Manila. You muslim fiends bomb, kidnap, execute, and ransom all non-islamic citizens on a daily basis. My parents were from Hungary and THEY REPRESENTED TRUE FREEDOM FIGHTERS TO OUST THE SOVIETS. They only wanted the Russians to leave their nation. Your so called freedom fighters are trying to impose their islamic cult on all foreign nations. Do you see the difference? That is how backwards your group is today. I remember the former Philp. President knew how to deal with your ilk and the rebels were quiet until the weakling took power that is in office today.
Your hatred of the US is obvious and reeks of satanic fires, but love, democracy, and freedom conquers all.

Do not again besmirch the term freedom fighters with just simple terrorists. I believe the stench you smell is coming from your koran. Peaceful book indeed.

Think you nailed it-its Roy bin Laden
He is too filled with hate to be an American and too twisted to be civilized. Must be a goat molester.

Still more gibble-gabble
You need to tutor yourself.

Again: do you really think France would be stronger with its army still pinned down in Algeria dealing with an ongoing Islamic insurrection there. (Review the history of Algeria). French problems with resident Muslims have nothing to do with the decision to get out of Algeria that I can see: if you want to demonstrate that they are related, do so.

As far as the rest: I really have trouble seeing what in the world you're talking about. I mean, this:

>? Did you see the US take in German, Japanese, or Italian immigrants into the USA during the war.

This was a war between nation-states, completely different from the effort against Islamonutters, but even here, we had lots of German and Italian POWs in the states who stayed -- they asked to stay - after the war and became citizens. Maybe you think this was a bad idea.

And this is silly:

>"People", as these, have shown they do not belong to the human race and have no redeeming qualities.

They are humans. Get used to it. And even if we wanted to exterminate them, they don't have markings that distinguish them from non-enemies they live among. If the idea is that we just kill them all and let god sort them out, I respectfully dissent: we don't have to do that, and that won't help us. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. Unless your idea is to kill all of them.

>YOU are the one who is horrified to fight these devils with both hands.

I'm not horrified at all. Except both hands won't work unless we use our brain. You seem to leave it out. Why not try thinking about it instead of just spinning around in a panic. If you spin in a panic, they've won.

Sorry, let my make myself more clear.
No, the French Army would not be stronger in Algeria. I did not say that, stop being confused. I am just declaring that the French government AND army need to be more assertive in their day to day activities. When the muslims start burning again THAN SHOOT THEM AND DEPORT THE REST. Is that clear. How dare these rats take welfare for generations and than complain it is so bad. If you are not happy, please vote with your feet and leave today back to your original homelands.
Next, another threat is heavy islamic immigration to these United States. They did this to W. Europe starting in the 1950's to the boiling point of overpopulation in Europe today. Now that they have 18 million+ they are aggressive
I just accidentally deleted about 3/4 of my response and do not plan on rewriting it. Later, I may redo it as your response really pissed me off. This is not the first time it has happened. I can say 1 thing, stop making so much common cause with muslims you nitwit AND living as a coward.

Answer to a simple question
Up to the point where resistance ceases, and the individual submits to custody, he or she can be killed. Beyond that point the crime is murder.

BTW it's the same within the United States.

TCS Daily Archives