Rumsfeld hides prisoner from the Red Cross
 

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Iraqi prisoner was held at a secret prison near Baghdad for about nine months, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last October ordered the high-value Iraqi prisoner held in secret at the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Pentagon officials disclosed.

But the officials insist their motivation was to protect U.S. troops, not hide the prisoner from the Red Cross, and that his so-called secret status was supposed to be temporary.

Some soldiers dubbed the prisoner "Triple X."

Officials say the Pentagon was asked by the CIA to take custody of the prisoner and to hold him incognito because he had been involved in ongoing military operations against the United States and the disclosure of his capture would compromise his intelligence value.

The prisoner was not assigned a number, nor was his presence disclosed to the International Committee of the Red Cross, but officials say his secret status was supposed to be temporary and deny he was a "ghost detainee."

A senior defense official admitted that both the CIA and the Pentagon "dropped the ball" by failing to review his status for more than eight months despite two requests by low-level military personnel to reclassify the prisoner, and integrate him into the general prison population.

Pentagon officials deny they were trying to hide the prisoner from the Red Cross, but concede he was classified as a type of enemy combatant that, under the Geneva Conventions, does not have to be immediately disclosed to the Red Cross.

The prisoner has been identified only as a "high official" and "paramilitary leader" of the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group and remains at the U.S.-run "Camp Cropper" detention facility.

The Pentagon said after a third request -- the latest one by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- the prisoner is in the process of being reclassified assigned internee security number.

"It was assumed the CIA would want him back at some point," an official told CNN, but the official said while the prisoner was questioned by military interrogators, he was never interrogated again by the CIA.

Pentagon officials insist that the prisoner "Triple X" was never held at the Abu Ghraib prison, where an Army investigator found that some detainees were hidden from Red Cross inspectors.

In Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report on prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, he criticized the 800th Military Police Brigade for allowing "other government agencies" -- a euphemism that includes the CIA -- to hide "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib.

"They moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross," Taguba wrote, calling the practice "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

The Pentagon says the prisoner known as Triple X was never given the status that would entitle him to Red Cross visits.

Pentagon officials said while it was Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who issued the order to hold the prisoner in secret detention, he was only carrying orders from Rumsfeld, who in turn was acting at the behest of the CIA."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/16/gho...ner/index.html

Rumsfeld (and it seems the CIA too) sure does seem to dislike that "International Law" stuff. I wonder just how much more information will come out before the Novermber election. I'm willing to bet that Rumsfeld gets canned in say mid-August. That is just a wild prediction, but I bet it will be rather accurate.

Yeah, because he broke the law where?

From what I get from that article, they listed this guy in such a way that he didn't have to be revealed to the Red Cross at the time. The only problem is that it took eight months for him to be reclassified, and personally, my bet is that's how long it took to get the intelligence they needed out of him.

"They moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross," Taguba wrote, calling the practice "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

That action is the problem and in violation of international law.

"Pentagon officials deny they were trying to hide the prisoner from the Red Cross, but concede he was classified as a type of enemy combatant that, under the Geneva Conventions, does not have to be immediately disclosed to the Red Cross."

I don't see the problem. Of course they hid him from the Red Cross; if he was classified as a prisoner whose existance should not be disclosed then they certainly wouldn't leave him out where the Red Cross could find him. I'm inclined to believe the word of the Pentagon when they say it was nonmalicious and a administrative mistake.

I don't like the connotation suggesting that Rumsfeld hid the prisoner in question. It sounds to me like the information presented by this prisoner was of such importance that he deserved special consideration, and Rumsfeld ordered that the prisoner be classified as such.

There is a difference between given special consideration and from being "hidden" from the Red Cross.

From a lovely June 2004 White House Press Release...

" Q Government statute contain as it relates to the POWs and the Iraqi prisoners currently in American military custody, as it relates to the ICRC going in to visit them?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I expect we will continue to grant access to detainees who are in our custody. In terms of detainees that would be in the custody of the new government, that will be a sovereign government and you need to direct those questions to that government.

Q It's in your benefit at this point now to have the International Red Cross come in and take a look and make sure these atrocities --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's not "now," April, we always work very closely with the International Red Cross, and it's important that they do have access to detainees so that they can carry out their important role.

Q But the ICRC does have a concern about this new Iraqi government statute that may or may not give them the freedoms that they've had thus far.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, in terms of the detainees that would be in our custody, I fully expect that we would continue to grant the International Committee for the Red Cross access to those detainees. In terms of the new government that will be in place, it's going to be a sovereign government and those questions need to be directed to that government.

Q Will you push -- will this White House push for the same kinds of access, or even more that was given to the ICRC when -- when the U.S. military --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said I fully expect that we will continue to grant access to the Red Cross for our detainees.

Q Will this White House push for the new Iraqi government to give the ICRC --

MR. McCLELLAN: And those are questions you need to address to the new government that will be in place in Iraq. I think they fully recognize the importance of that, as well, but I don't speak for that new government. It will be a sovereign government, they will have the authority to make those decisions on their own. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040615-7.html





The White House (Bush) gives full consent for the International Red Cross to see that prisoners are being taken care of. This prisoner was denied access to the Red Cross for eight months, a clear violation of army policy, white house directive and international law.

Also, I would believe the Pentagon but after Abu Garib; the Pentagon is starting at a credibility level of zero. They lost all their political capital with this scandal and have to rebuild it from nothing.

It's really disgusting how we created a new classification, Enemy Combatant, to get away with not abiding by the Geneva Convention.

Feel free to castigate me but I don't care. First, according to the article, he was classified as a prisoner type that doesn't need to be disclosed to the Red Cross, so the headline of the thread is a lie. Second, he is a high ranking combatant who would like nothing better than to kill my friend(s) who are over there and likely any other Americans he comes across. Third, he apparently had significant intelligence that likely helped keep our soldiers or citizens safe and alive or helped to disrupt enemy attacks and disclosing his capture would have invalidated that information.

Hearing about how horrible some notorious and brutal prisoners are being treated by the US is getting old (especially when the supposed article "exposing" it even says that it wasn't inapproprieate). I don't hear about how horrible our troops are being treated when they're blown up by roadside bombs, burned alive, in their Humvees, etc, etc, etc. Or how horrible the innocent Iraqi civilians are being treated when they're slaughtered by the same actions. I guess that's all ok because we are the evil "invaders" and the Iraqi civilian deaths are our fault and not the fault of the respected terrorist freedom fighters.

It's accusations like these that make me doubt the alleged dedication to the troops spouted by so many on the "left" (yes I am generalizing here and I know there are many on the "left" who do really support the troops but it's pretty obvious that there are plenty on your side of the fence who do not.) It's more of the "yeah we support the troops" but they're wrong for doing this, and they shouldn't shoot back at the terrorists shooting at them from mosques, and they should have pulled back rather than dropping a mineret, etc, etc, etc.

I'm actually ok with what they did with this guy. If the knowledge of his capture could have ruined any offensive or defensive plans the military has while our troops are being consistently attacked then I am fine with him being secret for a while.
I am just expressing my generally disgusted with the whole mess of "enemy combatant" which is just a made up term.

Have you guys actually read the Geneva Convention? It has some really odd requirements. Among other things:

1. You cannot insult prisoners.
2. Prisoners are supposed to keep their protective equipment such as helmets and gas masks.
3. Before a conflict, the opposing parties are supposed to let each other know what the titles and ranks of their soldiers are.
4. Prisoners are supposed to be paid a monthly allowance, starting at about $6.40 a month for privates.
5. Prisoners who labor are to be paid about $0.20 a day, and are to know how much they are paid.
6. Prisoners are to elect representatives every six months.
7. Prisoners are to be allowed to mail and telegraph home.
8. Prisoners of war may not be denied rank, or prevented from wearing badges of rank.
9. The worst punishment you can inflict on a prisoner is "fatigue duties" for 2 hours a day; this cannot be applied to officers.
10. Officers may not be quartered with non-officers.

I read through the Geneva Convention, and Article 126 suggests that the ICRC can be barred from entering specific areas in the event of "military necessity."

In addition, Article 122 indicates that information pertaining to prisoners should be provided "in the shortest possible period."

As I understand it, when a war breaks out both sides are supposed to create an administration to handle prisoners of war. This administration obtains the necessary information and then transmits this information to the necessary authorities in the international community. I don't really see any provisions for delaying the transmission of this data, but I might have overlooked something.

Maybe you should make the effort to learn how they are different instead of just assuming that it's something sneaky that Bush did to get away with touching the genitals of prisoners? ;)

the bush administration has been consistent in its contempt for international law as such--from the american refusal to submit to the jurisidiction of the international war crimes tribunal to the flurry of legal briefs that have come out in the past couple of weeks outlining strategies for slipping under the radar screen in terms of complying with the geneva convention, to this.

the rationalizations for american use of torture are no more than that. whether this will be an element in the ouster of the mayberry machiavellians from office remains to be seen--i hope it does. but i am amazed to read posts from conservatives that would seek to justify the american use of torture in iraq---i assume that if it was your kids who were being treated in this way, you would be among the first to scream.

I don't understand how our society can be so proud of it's own rule of law and then completely discount the rules of the international community. To pretend that american law is more "right" than international law is insulting to the international community that we must be a part of.

The problem with international law is that much of it is more idealistic than realistic. Take the Geneva convention for example; do you really think countries do ALL of it, down to providing wages to prisoners and having them elect representatives? Our world has changed, but our international rule of law has not.

How many countries abide by "international law" when to do so is against their best interest?

I'm sure the US armed forces will be happy to disclose classified information.

However, the classification is not "Enemy Combatant." It was "a type of enemy combatant".

From an article in October 2003

We have three official classifications:

'security detainee' is any individual who has committed a crime against US-led coalition forces
-US Brig-Gen Janis Karpinsky (in charge of all detainees in Iraq)

"high-interest detainees" Same thing as security detainee.

enemy prisoners of war (POWs) is a soldier who is imprisoned by an enemy power during and immediately after an armed conflict.
Link to the rest of the def

No matter what their crime, the prisoner-of-war system was created to set a clear set of standards governing the treatment of all detainees in wartime. The new categories created by the US did not have a legal basis within the Geneva Convention and could be used to classify any combatant as a criminal.

This is the most interesting sentence.
Remember, that was said in October 2003. It was said to assuage fears that these new classifications would be used to get around Geneva Convention guidelines so we could abuse the "detainees"

"Security Detainee"
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/ira...d_60min2-o.jpg

I'd say POW status should only be given to enemy *soldiers* who are recognisable as such. Terrorists and/or partisans don't follow the Geneva convention's rules, and therefore aren't protected by it.

The Bush Administration has its own philosphy in regards to international agreements and conventions; they do not care for them. They are strong proponents of "the ends justify the means". They also have some very astute lawyers who help them walk the fine line between "legal" and "illegal" which are actually terms they seem to care very little about.

This administration has a "go it alone", "my way" mentality. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world(something I agree with them on) and since we know our intentions are good we can and frankly should do as we please(something I disagree with them on).

There is a large segment of the American population that agrees with these ideas and ideals and therefore the Administration still has strong support. However, IMO, these policies are frightfully short sighted and will, in fact, do greater harm in the long run.

If this incident was the first we had seen, I frankly would shrug it off as overstepping a bit in time of war; something that has happened in every war. However, there is a history with this Administration of bending and breaking international laws and commitments as well as U.S. and Military laws and conventions. The long litany of ignoring laws and agreements or bending them to suit their purposes has damaged our reputation and our ability to be a responsible player in world politics.

Maybe you do not agree, but I am not alone in my opinion:


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...plomats17.html

Bush must be defeated, bipartisan group says

William Douglas
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Jun. 17, 2004 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders said Wednesday that President Bush needs to be defeated in November for pursuing an overbearing, insensitive and ideology-driven foreign policy that has cost America credibility around the world.

The 27-member group, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, didn't endorse Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, but members said the only way that U.S. policy is going to change is by removing Bush from the White House.

"When there is one prominent rival to President Bush in this election, obviously we think Senator Kerry should be elected," said Bill Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and ambassador to Guinea in 1975 by President Ford.

Members of the group include:


• Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan and ambassador to Great Britain under President Clinton.


• Charles W. Freeman Jr., ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush.


• Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to the Soviet Union under Reagan.


• Retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar.


• Jack F. Matlock Jr., ambassador to the Soviet Union under Reagan.

We gave POW status to the Vietnamese and Koreans who weren't in any type of military uniform.

Just cause the other side does not follow the Geneva Convention rules does not free us from acting under it as well. We signed the Geneva Convention. We were there to draft the document and discuss its nuances.

true for terrorists, but they are therefor criminals and should be treated as such.

there are two possible status for prisoners:

POW: enemy soldiers and partisans. It is perfecty legal to fight an enemy occupation. therefore the iraqis who fight the US Troops are legal combatants, if they are caught they are POWs.

Criminals: they should be treated as such, meaning they should be brought before a court

There is no such thing as "unlawful combatant" who can be hold without a accusation for an undefined time.
POW or odinary criminal.

and BTW: if the enemy isn't violanting international law doesn't mean that we can do it too. We are the good guys remember?

I found this as part of another article...

"Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law"

All this legal wrangling and re-definition reminds me of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

It seems like the administration is busily interpreting laws in new and innovative ways to justify immoral acts. Remember a few weeks ago when memos were revealed that showed how they were trying to justify torture? Cheney energy commision? US citizens as "enemy combatants" held indefinitly without charges? The list goes on and on.

The only good thing I can think is that it's starting to seem like a house of cards that's collapsing. Faster, faster.

Well, since laws, especially international laws, are usually quite vague, it's quite easy to interpret them in different ways.

For example (to Pacifier):

if the Iraqis are nominally in control of their country, after the handover of power, and some people still fight the US troops... They wouldn't be resisting an enemy occupation, they'd be in fact fighting against their own government. That would kinda make them into criminals, now wouldn't it?

Also, resisting an occupation by killing innocent civilians, or by violating other rules of war, turns the same resistance fighters into war criminals.

Next, if the "insurgents" (or whatever you call them) don't wear proper uniforms, one might argue that they can actually classified as spies and saboteurs, allowing them to be shot on sight.

correct, also after the "handover" saddam hast to be charged for his crimes or released from prision.

also correct, but a war criminal is still a POW and has to be treated as one. After the war he should be charged for his crimes.

well if you look at the picture from the nadschaf and other cities, those people carry their weapon openly and appear to be in some sort of resistance group, that would make them a legal combatant

what, in your opinion, is a spy? what is the definition of a spy? What do you you suggest? shoot every iraqi who dares to fight on sight and execute those who are caught immediately?

Exactly, every Iraqi that is not part of the police force or new Iraqi army and is carrying a weapon should be shot on sight.

We need to bring that kind of thinking to the US!

Actually, that is what happens right now in areas like Najif.

If you have a weapon and aren't US military or Iraqi police, you will be shot.

And I assume that if YOUR kids were held hostage and beheaded by these animals YOU would be the first to scream?

Yes, this position is totally correct and what we need more of in America. If we want to beat the concept of terrorism and retain our civility, we must use terrorist actions as a measuring stick of what is okay. See, BushCo is actually in the right because they haven't done anything as bad as the terrorists. I am glad to see that upstanding Americans everywhere realize that as long as our adminstrations stays one step behind the terrorist's actions, everything will be allright.

Frankly, I'll take national security over international law any day, thanks.

The United States has done more than any other nation in history to bring freedom and safety to billions of people across the world. We don't need a permission slip from the UN, the Red Cross, or corrupt French politicians to defend ourselves when we come under attack.

I think you may be under some illusion here.

The US brought freedom to the billions across the world only when it began to effect themselves. World War II was an excellent example. Did the mass killings in Europe and the UK standing alone as the whole of Europe had fell to Hitler bring the US into the war?

No.

It took the destruction of a large part of the Pacific Naval Fleet.

Again and again the US only helps others when it can kill two birds with one stone and also help its own objectives.

To be fair this is true of most countries but please don't be fooled that the US is this magnificent country that helps the world out without doing something for itself.

Excuse me?

Just off the top of my head:

WWI?

Bosnia?

Somalia?

Not to mention the tons of war material we were sending the British before Dec. 7 1941?

Lebell, I just want to point out that it was after (and because of) WWI that the US adopted a very isolationist policy that kept us from being involved in WWII, despite offering our neighbor the hose because his roof was on fire. Also, weren't the actions in Bosnia and Somalia railed fiercely against by people who claimed we shouldn't be sticking our nose in?

Actually our isolationist tendencies go back further than WW1, but close enough.

And yes, there were those that said we shouldn't stick our noses in.

The point I was replying to was that while the US certainly acts in its own interest (like other nations) we also have been known to act out of compassion.

When the shit hits the fan around the globe the US is always there lending a hand, usually at the front of the line.

But, I don't get that sometimes - people like to say this but at the same time they say the U.S. should leave the UN and other international organizations where they do work to do as you just said... make up your minds :confused:

We should leave the UN, the UN is a joke and broken. The UN exerts no authority, and rightfully so, NWO be damned. The UN has nothing to do with it.

Yet you still say the U.S. is always there at the front lines...

It probably WOULDNT be there if it had a choice of not being in the UN

But you know what? The country's leaders have kept the country there...

U.S. is lending its hand largely because its in the UN - but you want them to leave? :confused:

I don't think its too good to say "get out of the UN" but also give the U.S. for giving a lending hand when a lot of times it wouldn't have been there (peacekeeping missions in areas it has no interests or feeding countries we have little to do with) in the first place.

We shouldn't get out of the UN. Superpower or not, America is still a member of the international community. We have to cooperate with other nations if our economy and livelihood is to survive, and that means subjecting ourselves to international rule of law. The problem comes when we find that the international rule of law is directly contradictory to our best interests.

Our main fault in this war was not getting international support.

The support was never there to begin with, thats where my beef lies. I have no problem being a member of international treaties and organizations, thats our responsibility as the sole hyper-power. But when other countries work through organizations like the UN to try and cut us down, which is what the UN has largely become, I do have a problem.

The support was never there so I don't see why one needs to argue against others going against us when they didn't support it.

It's like domestic politics, no different. If a bill passed by the slimmest of majority (1 vote) - you wouldn't expect too much support from the other side at all. They'll try to cut it down and at least get a compromise.

In this case though, it wasn't even near a majority that went for the war.

So I don't see a difference AT ALL - international or domestic politics, this is the same kind of politics, just on a different scale.

And to be honest, for all those who say support the government: the government has chosen to stay in the UN when it could have left. So why not support the government's choice if you tell others to? I just hate contradictions, i want consistency.

As for this relating to the original topic - I don't know, its the friggin Red Cross. They help everyone regardless and heck they were founded here in the U.S.

LoL!!! I'm all for a debate...but in this case I'll keep it simple.

How is beheading someone on video comparable to hiding a prisoner from the Red Cross? For that matter - what separates killing someone by beheading and dropping a 'smart bomb' on some building? Are you implying that there are "right" and "wrong" ways of killing? Or just that killing is bad in general? If the latter - OF COURSE it is!!! I don't think ANYONE would debate that fact...but how to stop the killing? Just withdraw from Iraq and let what happens happen? Let terrorists roam amuck killing at will yet refrain from killing them because its fundamentally wrong?! What's your idea? If you were president, what would YOU have done?

"When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies. When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values. When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror." - Norman Solomon from "Orwellian Logic 101 - A Few Simple Lessons".

;)

Hmmmm....I shall ponder this...

Pacifier, it's the mind *behind* the killing that matters.

If a terrorist blows up innocent civilians, he does it to kill as many people as possible, and to prolong a conflict.

If a US combat pilot drops a bomb onto an enemy position, the goal is not necessarily to kill the enemy, but to end the conflict.

The difference is quite obvious: terrorists kill to kill, while the US army wants to kill to *stop* the killing.

...right?

Eh, does it really matter behind the mind?

In the end they still go out there knowing they'll have to kill, regardless of motive

I don't really care to much about motive - killing is still killing, isn't it?

Remember that quote from Patton? "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "

Whether you're out to end a conflict or to start one, you're still going to kill - i dn't think there's much of a point in equating one or another when this same stuff happens at home

I think you missed the point of what I said. I was mocking people who answer BushCO actions with "the terrorist did X", where X is the next terrorist action. These people seem to think that as long as BushCo isn't quite as bad as the terrorists, everything is fine. If the actions of BushCO are comparable to terrorist actions, (I'm not saying they are) the Senate needs to start impeachment trials.

Yes, of course it does. Killing isn't necessarily bad. If I were to kill a terrorist that is preparing to kill tens of people, I've just saved the lives of those potential victims.

What's your thought on the US soldiers killing German soldiers to end the second world war? Isn't there a difference between the two sides? And if you want to move into the extreme... there surely is a difference between German SS soldiers killing innocent French civilians, and US soldiers killing those same SS guys?

...now, if you don't see any difference, there's not much left to discuss. It'd mean that people would not be allowed to defend themselves against an enemy, regardless of how evil this enemy is. I simply won't accept that.

No what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter in the end - killing is still = killing. Whether you're saving people or not, the end is the same.

And what do you mean by not allowing me to defend? Thats one big huge assumption. I said it doesn't matter in the end - doesn't mean it doesn't happen nor does it mean I dont think it should. When there is war, people are killed. I don't think there is a point in saying one side is better than the other when the end result is the same - someone is killed.

If you think I'm suddenly a pacifist because I don't think that one side is better than another, then boy are you wrong.

< hypothetical >
So if a US soldier kills a not guilty suspect by torturing him that "kill" is better than the beheading of a US civillian?
< /hypothetical >


wrong, you see the terrorists as mindless killing machines without any kind of goal or reason. You see them as their only reason to live is to kill.
That point of view is so black/white that it hurts.

Terrorists might have a goal, but they are still sociopathic cowards.

Well, at least you agree they have a goal which is what we were getting at.

the sad fact is that killing *IS* killing and that no matter how much justifying you do to prove that the killing that we did is somehow better than the killing done by others is just an effort to dehumanize the enemy. not only does it trivialize the issues that are being fought over ("we're right, the're wrong and that's all there is to it!") but it is predicated on the assumption that our side doesn't make mistakes. This is a horrible form of denial because it allows out government in our name to kill innocent people. obviously it is necessary to do something to combat terrorism and the harsh reality is that blood will be spilled -- but i would like to think that every other avenue would be exercised first and that we would still regret whatever death had to occur. Iraqi's are people with families and lives and gods and to sum up their entire existence with "well the're evil." is a pathetic attempt to comfort ourselves in a time of horrible choices.

Sooooooooo,

Our action of killing German soldiers in WW2 is morally equivalent to Hitler gassing and cremating Jews?

Or perhaps we just didn't try to "understand" him enough?

So when America hides prisoners it is for national security. If any other country do the same, then it is human right abuse. Double standard people?

Well he fell into the category of "Illegal combatant" correct? I think everyone can pretty much agree, that if this guy had information that involved the safety of our boys in Iraq, and we had the power to not reveal him and extract said information, there is no issue.

If not, wow.

Californians... ;)

is the death of a german soldier just as sad as the death of a jew? yes. is woodrow wilson as evil as hitler? of course not. unnecessary death is sad; when you think of everyone involved as complete people it is horribly sad and I think it callous to argue anything else. I am not saying that war is never necessary but i do not think it should be taken lightly and i do not think that we should pretend that the "enemy" (not to mention the civilians that are bound to be caught in the crossfire) is not human.

Too bad that you're dead wrong. I don't see terrorists as mindless killing machines. I understand that they have a goal. I just happen to think that their goal is evil, insane, undemocratic, inhumane and totally against my interests. In other words: they're the enemy, no matter if they have a goal or not.

And yes, I do recognise the difference between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists. I don't think freedom fighters should be striving to blow up innocent civilians, no matter what their reasons; that is wrong according to pretty much every moral system on the planet. The reason it is wrong is the intent.

Perhaps it would be better to say that the US strives for order, while terrorists strive for chaos. Whereas too much order is a bad thing, too much chaos is a very bad thing.

Is war terrible?

Yes.

Should it be avoided if possible?

Yes.

Am I said that the person trying to kill me is dead?

No.


While you are trying to understand them, they are trying to kill you.

i am. i'm glad i'm alive, if it had to be me or him i'm glad it wasn't me -- but i'm not glad someone had to die. i'm not glad that this person's family will have a funeral to go to. i'm not glad that I live in a world where people hate each other this much. i'm not glad to have blood on my hands and i wish that it could have been differently. do you really think that anyone (short of the phycopathic) ever feels *GOOD* about killing another person?

Geez labeling people Californians?

Great for the generalizations, but I think we got over that... or did we?

I'll let you know I've had to fire a rifle in anger before and I know i've killed people - in the end, what does it matter?

The same thing happened - one guy died on their side, one guy on ours. Does it matter in the end? No, they're dead, its just that simple.

I don't care if a person is evil or good or what not, if they got killed, they got killed!

You're going to do what you must in war regardless and survival is #1, and if you have to kill, then you do so. Whether a person is good or evil - who cares. If he got killed, he got killed.

Maybe, but your statement sounded like that.


OK, but I think understanding the goal and motivation of the enemy make it easier to find a solution. A solution that involves not the usage of more violence than the enemy.

yes, somehow thats true, Terrorism work with the fear of the masses.


An additional note to the Nazis comparisons:
Those are irrelevant to the question if the mind behind the killing counts, to see if the mind count you have to compare two identical situations (both armies killing civilians). In that case I don'T see how the mind counts.
In your exaples it is always "kiling civilians" vs. "killing soldiers", in that case the mind behind the killing doesn't matter, killing civillians is always wrong

I am not glad there is war and anger and unnecessary death in the world.

I am sorry that we have to resort to killing at times.

But when we decide that we do, it should be done without hesitation or appology.

The logic is that the civilian population is very much apart of the war machine, as it is they who supply the soldiers, build the tanks, bombs, guns, etc.

If they civilian population loses the will to fight, then the military population usually isn't far behind.

This lesson was very much driven home with Viet Nam.

why should it be done without apology? i don't see what we gain (except maybe some sort of denial) by pretending that killing other people isn't sad.

So you prefer the concept of "total war"?
You realise that with you explanation such attacks like 911 are perfectly OK in the "war on terror"?

Might I point out that there's a difference between explaining the logic behind something and actually agreeing with it? :)

yep, thats why i'm asking ;)

Because once you are my avowed enemy, I am not sorry to see you dead.

As I've explained in the past and will likely explain again in the future, the critical destinction is that Al Quaeda is not associated with any country.

They have no uniform.

They have no government.

They have no territory.


They are instead made up of dissidents from this place and that place who want to kill all the Jews in Israel and kick all the westerners out of Saudi Arabia while bringing Sharia to as many countries as they can.


Is the difference really that hard for you to see?


Edit:

Oh, and as for total war, I am only for it when it has a purpose and when the people we are at war with can be defined.

So while I support the use of the atomic bomb in WW2, I would not support killing Muslims in the US for the sins of Al Quaeda.