Did someone say "Backflip"?... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 06:02 AM

erm...

I mean "About time! Bravo!"

Quote:

Bush may reconsider Guantanamo
June 9, 2005 - 7:44AM

US President George Bush said today he was ready to examine alternatives to the US camp for "war on terror" detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but defended the treatment of prisoners there.

Asked in a US television interview whether the camp should be shut down, he said: "We're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America. What we don't want to do is let somebody out that comes back and harms us."

The United States has faced international criticism of the detention centre at its naval base in Cuba since it was opened in early 2002 to house alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants. There are about 540 inmates from 40 countries there.

Controversy has risen in recent weeks over allegations about the abuse of Muslim holy books there and former president Jimmy Carter on Tuesday joined US politicians who have called for Guantanamo's closure.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, during a trip to Norway, that the United States was not considering closing Guantanamo.

Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld insisted prisoners at the camp were treated humanely.

The President told Fox News television: "I first of all want to assure the American people that these prisoners are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

"I say in accordance with, because these weren't normal military-type fighters. They had no uniforms. They had no government structure.

"These were terrorists, swept up off the battlefield in a place like Afghanistan, for example. And it's in our nation's interest that we learn a lot about those people that are still in detention, because we're still trying to find out how to better protect our country."

He insisted that all allegations of abuse were investigated. He reaffirmed his comment that an Amnesty International report likening Guantanamo to a "gulag" was "absurd".

AFP

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bus...123927281.html

Not withstanding my tongue-in-cheek thread title, I'm glad to see the inklings of common sense appear in the US Administration's position with regards to Guantanamo Bay.

On the flip side, I'm still disappointed at their frantic obsession on the use of the term "gulag" by Amnesty International. If they want to get pedantic about things, then I'm sure we can bring up some examples of other unfortunate phrases used in the past four years.

Mr Mephisto

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 06:15 AM

That's encouraging - good form, W.! This sounded a bit ominous:

Quote:

Asked in a US television interview whether the camp should be shut down, he said: "We're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America. What we don't want to do is let somebody out that comes back and harms us."

Unfortunately after 3 years of torture and prison, a couple of these guys were just to darn mad at us to let 'em out!

Seriously, this will help us a lot as we try to establish new relationships in the mid-east...

Charlatan · 06-09-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

On the flip side, I'm still disappointed at their frantic obsession on the use of the term "gulag" by Amnesty International. If they want to get pedantic about things, then I'm sure we can bring up some examples of other unfortunate phrases used in the past four years.

Mr Mephisto

I am just as bother by the admins use of the word terrorist to describe someone they say was:

Quote:

swept up off the battlefield in a place like Afghanistan

Here is another way to think about it... Let's imagine the US is invaded by another nation. You don't think for a second that many of the citizens who own guns wouldn't fight back eventhough they aren't in the army? Your damn right they would. BUT would you expect these American citizens, if captured, to be treated like terrorists?

Elphaba · 06-09-2005, 12:30 PM

Rummy was quoted as saying nothing of the kind is being considered. I'll practice my backflip just in case he's wrong.

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Rummy was quoted as saying nothing of the kind is being considered. I'll practice my backflip just in case he's wrong.

Guess we'll get to see who wears the pants in that relationship!

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Here is another way to think about it... Let's imagine the US is invaded by another nation. You don't think for a second that many of the citizens who own guns wouldn't fight back eventhough they aren't in the army? Your damn right they would. BUT would you expect these American citizens, if captured, to be treated like terrorists?

Well said, and a very good point.

After all, the majority of US citizens are not military and do not wear uniforms. But we digress. Surely you know that the US retains the right of self-defense, including the use of aggression and invasion, but does not assign any other country the same right.

Mr Mephisto

alansmithee · 06-09-2005, 03:41 PM

This, along with the other similar thread, are greatly troubling to me. Seeing the Bush administration back down in this way will only be detrimental to the future ability of the US to take part in international affairs. Especially with a looming conflict with China on the horizon.

Mephisto2 · 06-09-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

This, along with the other similar thread, are greatly troubling to me. Seeing the Bush administration back down in this way will only be detrimental to the future ability of the US to take part in international affairs. Especially with a looming conflict with China on the horizon.

It troubles you that the Administration is considering alternatives to Guantanamo Bay?

You think it's fine that there are people held there for over four years with absolutely no proof of their involvement with terrorism?

Mr Mephisto

Charlatan · 06-09-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

This, along with the other similar thread, are greatly troubling to me. Seeing the Bush administration back down in this way will only be detrimental to the future ability of the US to take part in international affairs. Especially with a looming conflict with China on the horizon.

It's called diplomacy...

I know it's been a few years since you've heard the word used in any way but please try to get used to it. It is the method many other nations on this planet use to try and get along.

Don't think for a second that any other nation isn't aware that while the Administration is being diplomatic right now, they are full capable of putting the hammer down.

alansmithee · 06-09-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's called diplomacy...

I know it's been a few years since you've heard the word used in any way but please try to get used to it. It is the method many other nations on this planet use to try and get along.

Don't think for a second that any other nation isn't aware that while the Administration is being diplomatic right now, they are full capable of putting the hammer down.

And other nations will also know that if the US tries to put the hammer down, they only need to have an anti-American organiztion float some vague rumours of misdeeds to have them back down. The hammer is worthless if it never leaves the toolbox

Charlatan · 06-09-2005, 05:53 PM

Yes, because the US has proven so reluctant to use it to date... gimmie a break.

Locobot · 06-09-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And other nations will also know that if the US tries to put the hammer down, they only need to have an anti-American organiztion float some vague rumours of misdeeds to have them back down. The hammer is worthless if it never leaves the toolbox

Riiiight because Amnesty International, Newsweek, and the Pentagon are such rabid anti-American organizations. Sure Alan, whatever you say.

roachboy · 06-10-2005, 07:59 AM

few actions have done the bushcause more consistent harm than the setting up and maintaining of the legal black hole symbolized by guantanomo, but also including the outsourcing of torture, illegal transfers, routine abuse of prisoners in the name of counter-terrorism (an old rationalization)..because the americans are trying to present themselves as defending "the rule of law" and "civilization" even (in the world of vagueness that is bushspeak, there really are no claims too absurd to be made about the righteousness of the Cause) against "terrorists" who by definition operate outside "the Law"....

the bush administration seems to have an uncanny knack for creating situations that legitimate the most cynical possible interpretations of their actions.

for a while after 911, independence hall in philadelphia was something of an armed camp. so you could look at the symbols of american freedom from a distance, but you couldnt enter.

the legal black hole is infintely worse.

even if it were possible to accept alansmithee's arguments about the need for such actions (which obvious i do not accept), you would think that the symbolic damage being done by them would at some point become a problem---in other words, i can imagine supporting the bushites and still finding the entire legal balck hole to be a problem.
i am surprised sometimes to see how few conservatives seem to favor shutting down gitmo on symbolic grounds, since it is their ideological position that is reduced/impacted directly by it, by the theater of it.
you would think that a kind of self-preservation reflex would kick in at some point. but no.

i do not expect that the human rights problems, the legal problems, the fact of torture would sway the right--the ideology seems to afford even less space for thinking about those arrested BUT NEVER CHARGED, NEVER TRIED but tortured/abused anyway (simply by being at guantanomo, and on into explcit abuses) as human beings WHO ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and who can only be proven guilty if they are CHARGED AND ALLOWED A TRIAL, any more than that ideology provides a space for thinking about the poor and uninsured in the states as human beings whose quality of life is significantly diminished by the present healt care system, or of thinking about class divisions as they impact on those disadvantaged by them, etc.

Elphaba · 06-10-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

Guess we'll get to see who wears the pants in that relationship!

Newsflash: Rummy now says that the US would prefer detainees be held at their country of origin.

Rumsfeld: No Pants?

Elphaba · 06-10-2005, 03:49 PM

Dang, Rummy is giving me whiplash with his own contradictions.

No-pants remains undecided.

irateplatypus · 06-10-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Well said, and a very good point.

After all, the majority of US citizens are not military and do not wear uniforms. But we digress. Surely you know that the US retains the right of self-defense, including the use of aggression and invasion, but does not assign any other country the same right.

Mr Mephisto

you've only told half the story.

terrorism is defined by tactics more than presentation.

if saudi arabia invaded the US and set up a theocracy... the local resistance militia who skirmish the enemy's troops with guerilla tactics would not be terrorists, but those bastards who set up a truck bomb outside the mcdonald's would be. those crazy canadians who cross the border to blow up US women and children in a call for returning for democracy would be terrorists.

the need to morally equivocate knows no bounds these days.

Locobot · 06-11-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

you've only told half the story.

terrorism is defined by tactics more than presentation.

if saudi arabia invaded the US and set up a theocracy... the local resistance militia who skirmish the enemy's troops with guerilla tactics would not be terrorists, but those bastards who set up a truck bomb outside the mcdonald's would be. those crazy canadians who cross the border to blow up US women and children in a call for returning for democracy would be terrorists.

the need to morally equivocate knows no bounds these days.

It's really not this cut and dry. Attempts to morally seperate acts of terrorism from war will always end up muddled. The U.S. Army has had thousands upon thousands of civilian targets in Iraq even though they've been careful to stress their careful selection of targets to strike with 500lb "surgical" bombings. In your Saudi Arabia scenario (assuming our army was mystically vaporized) what do you think the response would be if everyone in, let's say Dallas, was told they had to move out of their homes for immediate Arabian resettlement? Americans don't have readily available explosives, but the resistance tactics would be esssentially the same.

Suicide attacks? One of the basic criteria for becoming an officer in our army is the willingness to sacrifice troops for strategic gain. There is a guise civil culture, but these are still suicide attacks. We may not understand it, but there is an equally complex culture of martyrdom that guides the behavior of our current enemies.

Back on topic: What about the moral negligence necessary to conduct battle under the auspices of spreading democracy through starkly undemocratic means? This not they way to convince people of the superiority of our form of government.

Mephisto2 · 06-11-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Suicide attacks? One of the basic criteria for becoming an officer in our army is the willingness to sacrifice troops for strategic gain. There is a guise civil culture, but these are still suicide attacks. We may not understand it, but there is an equally complex culture of martyrdom that guides the behavior of our current enemies.

Road side bombs, or IEDs as the Pentagon describes them, are not suicide attacks.

Sniper attacks upon US and Iraqi forces are not suicide attacks.

RPG attacks upon HumVee's and Bradley's are not suicide attacks.

So called "execution" of (what the insurrgents call) "collaborators" are not suicide attacks.

The list goes on and on.

The point is that not all "enemy forces" in Iraq are terrorists. And describing them as such is simply incorrect.

Mr Mephisto

Locobot · 06-12-2005, 12:28 AM

Let's not forget in this thread, before we start foaming at the mouth trying to discredit Amnesty International, that GWBush himself used AI reports on SHussein to justify the invasion of Iraq. Apparently they're only a credible organization as long as they can be used to support the neocon agenda.

But I'm probably just bringing this up because of my blind and unreasoned hatred of Bush. Yeah right.

dlish · 06-15-2005, 01:26 AM

im still waiting for rumsfelds gitmo speech about "unknown knowns, that we dont know we know"

as far as the 'illegal combatants' are concerned, the US adminstration can 'render' prisoners over for interrogation, however, they cant hand them back if the US knows that they will be tortured (in the case of the Uighur chinese prisoners). finding a political solution for such prisoners would be a handful for any country.

in the case of david hicks, the australian prisoner in gitmo. he has not broken any australian laws nor international laws, and the prime minister, forein minister and attorney general have all said that if he was to be returned to australia, there would be no law to keep him in captivity. but yet, they have been hesitant to ask for his return. and to think that he was in kosovo fighting with the blessings of the US military only a few years earlier.

06-09-2005, 05:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Yes, because the US has proven so reluctant to use it to date... gimmie a break. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-10-2005, 07:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	few actions have done the bushcause more consistent harm than the setting up and maintaining of the legal black hole symbolized by guantanomo, but also including the outsourcing of torture, illegal transfers, routine abuse of prisoners in the name of counter-terrorism (an old rationalization)..because the americans are trying to present themselves as defending "the rule of law" and "civilization" even (in the world of vagueness that is bushspeak, there really are no claims too absurd to be made about the righteousness of the Cause) against "terrorists" who by definition operate outside "the Law".... the bush administration seems to have an uncanny knack for creating situations that legitimate the most cynical possible interpretations of their actions. for a while after 911, independence hall in philadelphia was something of an armed camp. so you could look at the symbols of american freedom from a distance, but you couldnt enter. the legal black hole is infintely worse. even if it were possible to accept alansmithee's arguments about the need for such actions (which obvious i do not accept), you would think that the symbolic damage being done by them would at some point become a problem---in other words, i can imagine supporting the bushites and still finding the entire legal balck hole to be a problem. i am surprised sometimes to see how few conservatives seem to favor shutting down gitmo on symbolic grounds, since it is their ideological position that is reduced/impacted directly by it, by the theater of it. you would think that a kind of self-preservation reflex would kick in at some point. but no. i do not expect that the human rights problems, the legal problems, the fact of torture would sway the right--the ideology seems to afford even less space for thinking about those arrested BUT NEVER CHARGED, NEVER TRIED but tortured/abused anyway (simply by being at guantanomo, and on into explcit abuses) as human beings WHO ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and who can only be proven guilty if they are CHARGED AND ALLOWED A TRIAL, any more than that ideology provides a space for thinking about the poor and uninsured in the states as human beings whose quality of life is significantly diminished by the present healt care system, or of thinking about class divisions as they impact on those disadvantaged by them, etc. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-15-2005, 01:26 AM	#20 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	im still waiting for rumsfelds gitmo speech about "unknown knowns, that we dont know we know" as far as the 'illegal combatants' are concerned, the US adminstration can 'render' prisoners over for interrogation, however, they cant hand them back if the US knows that they will be tortured (in the case of the Uighur chinese prisoners). finding a political solution for such prisoners would be a handful for any country. in the case of david hicks, the australian prisoner in gitmo. he has not broken any australian laws nor international laws, and the prime minister, forein minister and attorney general have all said that if he was to be returned to australia, there would be no law to keep him in captivity. but yet, they have been hesitant to ask for his return. and to think that he was in kosovo fighting with the blessings of the US military only a few years earlier. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-09-2005, 12:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Rummy was quoted as saying nothing of the kind is being considered. I'll practice my backflip just in case he's wrong.

06-09-2005, 03:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	This, along with the other similar thread, are greatly troubling to me. Seeing the Bush administration back down in this way will only be detrimental to the future ability of the US to take part in international affairs. Especially with a looming conflict with China on the horizon.

06-10-2005, 03:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Dang, Rummy is giving me whiplash with his own contradictions. No-pants remains undecided.

06-12-2005, 12:28 AM	#19 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Let's not forget in this thread, before we start foaming at the mouth trying to discredit Amnesty International, that GWBush himself used AI reports on SHussein to justify the invasion of Iraq. Apparently they're only a credible organization as long as they can be used to support the neocon agenda. But I'm probably just bringing this up because of my blind and unreasoned hatred of Bush. Yeah right.