NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm
-- The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the sovereignty of other countries.

-- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.

-- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.

-- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.
And that is what we get. Absolutely nothing. Less than nothing - we get an all-out lie.
This is disgusting. No "we screwed up, we won't do it again", no "we're sorry to what we did to your countries, and we still respect you as friends and allies" - but we do get a "You better be grateful!"

And not only that, no, now we also get to know that my own f*cking government did nothing.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388652,00.html

And another interview regarding the matter.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388609,00.html

I'm lost for words.

Oh, and I found this analysis of her statement. It focuses on the definition of torture, because that is clearly the key to all this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4499528.stm

Sure isn't the friendliest thing she coulda done. I believe the phrase 'shoot yourself in the foot' springs to my mind.

She used the word "rendering" for taking people to other countries for interrigation. I looked up rendering and render. Couldn't find anything about taking people to other countries. The closest is selling for a fee. Or maybe she was thinking of putting animal fat in a pot and cooking it until the liquid oil runs out. Yea, I'll bet she meant that running liquid oil thing.

I am lost for words too. The USA seems to think it owns the entire world, and that the EU is nothing but an extension of its power. Although, we are talking about a woman here who would not even raise a word against the Arab state leaders for the way they treat women. She picks and chooses her fights it seems.

While I appreciate that we have every reason to be suspect of American motives, I feel it may be wise to allow the investigations to complete.

However, if it turns out that this is indeed a bare-faced lie on the part of the US administration, I fear the worse for the security of this planet... And for that half of the American public that wishes to make a stand against their representation...

When push comes to shove, people will only glance at labels in order to make up their minds...

It is proven again the Bush White House suffers from delusions of grandeur.

It is proven again the Bush White House suffers from delusions of grandeur.
Grandeur? No, those aren't delusions, unfortunately. Recent history has demonstrated that. The delusions the Administration suffers from are those of justification.

Those can be far more horrifying...

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm

And that is what we get. Absolutely nothing. Less than nothing - we get an all-out lie.

Another lie?

We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people.

Can Americans be held without legal advice or without being charged?

*head explodes*

Another lie?

We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people.

Can Americans be held without legal advice or without being charged?


Under the USA PATRIOT Act, we can. Don't you just love a response of "Do we torture? Tell the people of your countries to stop asking."?

The EU is sovereign over its territories. US law applies only by grace of our tolerance.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm

And that is what we get. Absolutely nothing. Less than nothing - we get an all-out lie.
This is disgusting. No "we screwed up, we won't do it again", no "we're sorry to what we did to your countries, and we still respect you as friends and allies" - but we do get a "You better be grateful!"

You expected something else? Haven't you learned by now not to expect sense out of this administration? Or honesty? Or shame?

(Three more years. That's all. Just hang on for three more years. Our next president will be better. He could hardly be worse...)
:rolleyes:

The EU is sovereign over its territories. US law applies only by grace of our tolerance.


Agreed. We do not and should not have the right to tell you what to do.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, we can.
Scary huh?

Don't you just love a response of "Do we torture? Tell the people of your countries to stop asking."?
So they don't have to lie?

The EU is sovereign over its territories. US law applies only by grace of our tolerance.

The EU isn't really sovereign over anything, is it?

The EU isn't really sovereign over anything, is it?
You are deluding yourself. Its becoming increasingly powerful over its national parliaments. It is the representation of its 25 nations. Do not underestimate it.

You are deluding yourself. Its becoming increasingly powerful over its national parliaments. It is the representation of its 25 nations. Do not underestimate it.

But it doesn't have any actual control over the 25 nations. At any time one or all could decide to leave.

But it doesn't have any actual control over the 25 nations. At any time one or all could decide to leave.
At the peril of economic devastation, sure. :) If and when the constitution passes, it will be even more powerful. Sure, nations will be able to exit freely. Yet, doing so will lead them into trouble, in terms of consequences of exiting.

I'm lost for words.

That you are surprised by this at all surprises me. If we could get honest answers from their governments, I would bet my next paycheck that Germany wasn't the only country that knew but doesn't want to admit it. How do you think the Cold War was fought for the last 50 years? Actions like this have been committed by the USA and just about all of the other European countries on a routine basis from 1945-1991. See the phrase: plausible deniability.

I don't remember this number of complaints about American actions during the Cold War, why have the rules changed all of the sudden? Is is because people are biased over the war in Iraq? Is it because the enemy isn't on Europe's doorstep anymore, like the USSR was? Or have the complaints always been there and I wasn't paying attention?

Don't bother with "It's because of George" answers. That won't work. Gimme real answers.

I'm not being sarcastic, this is a genuine question.

We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people.


Aah, here is the rub. She says must. It doesn't mean that they do. Just another piece of rubbish meant to sound nice while providing wiggle room if she gets caught.

That you are surprised by this at all surprises me. If we could get honest answers from their governments, I would bet my next paycheck that Germany wasn't the only country that knew but doesn't want to admit it. How do you think the Cold War was fought for the last 50 years? Actions like this have been committed by the USA and just about all of the other European countries on a routine basis from 1945-1991. See the phrase: plausible deniability.

I don't remember this number of complaints about American actions during the Cold War, why have the rules changed all of the sudden? Is is because people are biased over the war in Iraq? Is it because the enemy isn't on Europe's doorstep anymore, like the USSR was? Or have the complaints always been there and I wasn't paying attention?

Don't bother with "It's because of George" answers. That won't work. Gimme real answers.

I'm not being sarcastic, this is a genuine question.

Because Iraq was not, and would never have been, the USSR. Iraq did not even begin to think about considering being remotely thought of as approaching the USSR in terms of threat to the West. By many, Iraq was not considered enough of a threat to warrant actions like those taken against the USSR in the Cold War.

At the peril of economic devastation, sure. :) If and when the constitution passes, it will be even more powerful. Sure, nations will be able to exit freely. Yet, doing so will lead them into trouble, in terms of consequences of exiting.
Hardly "sovereign" from the clasical viewpoint of the word

Hardly "sovereign" from the clasical viewpoint of the word
Its laws are still the laws of the land. In terms of legislation, the European Court of Justice is binding authority. It is, thus, sovereign.

I would welcome the CIA to tear the skin of terrorist scum for information extraction and if they snatch them in or drag them through my country, I am happy with that.
The problem is, there are still too many, who want to fight terrorism with indictments as if it was a law enforcement issue.

Aah, here is the rub. She says must. It doesn't mean that they do. Just another piece of rubbish meant to sound nice while providing wiggle room if she gets caught.
Good catch there squire!! Must and do are two entirely different action words for sure.

Condi is certainly a better qualified puppet than Colin was.

Its laws are still the laws of the land. In terms of legislation, the European Court of Justice is binding authority. It is, thus, sovereign.

Yeah, the Factortame case made that pretty clear. Though the UK could withdraw from the EU at any time, so the fiction of parliamentary soveriegnty is maintained.

Because Iraq was not, and would never have been, the USSR. Iraq did not even begin to think about considering being remotely thought of as approaching the USSR in terms of threat to the West. By many, Iraq was not considered enough of a threat to warrant actions like those taken against the USSR in the Cold War.

So, you're saying that the rules may change according to the level of risk? I might agree with you on that point, but the actions by the CIA are against terrorists, not Iraq.

How do the rules apply against them?

Yeah, the Factortame case made that pretty clear. Though the UK could withdraw from the EU at any time, so the fiction of parliamentary soveriegnty is maintained.
I won't argue there. I just wanted to point out that the EU does in fact have sovereignty over judicial systems.

I don't remember this number of complaints about American actions during the Cold War, why have the rules changed all of the sudden?
That is a good question.

Is is because people are biased over the war in Iraq?
Probably not. Iraq was a symptom rather than a cause.

Is it because the enemy isn't on Europe's doorstep anymore, like the USSR was?
Bingo. Well, kinda. Germany is a special case with this, because it wasn't allowed to open its mouth for a long time, and when it was, it still had reunification to think about.

But anyways, here's how I see it. The Soviet Union was a very real threat. It stood there, across the border, with tanks, planes and nukes.
"Terrorism" is not an enemy. It doesn't fight us, nor can it be defeated. It is a concept. The vast majority of people captured don't belong to Al Qaeda either.
What we are facing is a crisis of a religion, a crisis of a generation of immigrants and a crisis in democratising the Arab world. No more, no less.
These crises put forth a few individuals who will kill hundreds, or thousands of innocent people. As horrible as that is, it is nowhere near the devastation the Soviet Union could have caused at any given second.
Even in the worst case scenario, terrorists could get one or two nukes, and kill maybe 20 million people. That is still nowhere near what WWIII would have done.
Our values and our culture are not under threat from terrorists. They can kill a few of us, but they can not win. The only people who can destroy our way of life are ourselves.

What things like these torture cases, the strain the US behaviour puts on trans-atlantic, and indeed worldwide diplomatic relations, or the anti-terror laws do to us is far, far worse than any terrorist attack.

Maybe this is the reason that an admittedly new breed of European politicians has, or maybe it's not. But it is mine.

Or have the complaints always been there and I wasn't paying attention?
By some maybe, but the vast majority of at least German politicians never doubted what the US did. Regardless of what it was, it still had to be better than a war with the Soviets.

I would welcome the CIA to tear the skin of terrorist scum for information extraction and if they snatch them in or drag them through my country, I am happy with that.
The problem is, there are still too many, who want to fight terrorism with indictments as if it was a law enforcement issue.


Damn straight! Fight barbarism with barbarism! :rolleyes:

And not only that, no, now we also get to know that my own f*cking government did nothing.

never trust any government. it saves time and mental anguish.

Damn straight! Fight barbarism with barbarism! :rolleyes:
Then what seperates us from them?
If we both engage in barbarism

Then what seperates us from them?

hats of different colors

You are deluding yourself. Its becoming increasingly powerful over its national parliaments. It is the representation of its 25 nations. Do not underestimate it.

So how's that Constitution comin' along?

But to the point: the EU will do what it always does. Bitch. And that is all.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm

And that is what we get. Absolutely nothing. Less than nothing - we get an all-out lie.
This is disgusting. No "we screwed up, we won't do it again", no "we're sorry to what we did to your countries, and we still respect you as friends and allies" - but we do get a "You better be grateful!"

And not only that, no, now we also get to know that my own f*cking government did nothing.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388652,00.html

And another interview regarding the matter.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388609,00.html

I'm lost for words.


Surely, you weren't expecting anything less from Bush and his administration. Consistent on lies and corruption right down the line. Well done Mr. President!

I would welcome the CIA to tear the skin of terrorist scum for information extraction and if they snatch them in or drag them through my country, I am happy with that.
The problem is, there are still too many, who want to fight terrorism with indictments as if it was a law enforcement issue.

When they came for the ....

Then what seperates us from them?
If we both engage in barbarism



sarcasm
One entry found for sarcasm.


Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>


Dictionaries: Gotta love 'em.

Condi didn't lie. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I would welcome the CIA to tear the skin of terrorist scum for information extraction and if they snatch them in or drag them through my country, I am happy with that.
The problem is, there are still too many, who want to fight terrorism with indictments as if it was a law enforcement issue.



The main reason why enlightened nations don't practise torture today is not because it's wrong but because it doesn't work.

It's only backward countries that still carry it out

Surely, you weren't expecting anything less from Bush and his administration. Consistent on lies and corruption right down the line. Well done Mr. President!
I think people just don't quite get how serious this is. The opponents of the Iraq War were just getting over this, there was going to be cooperation on Iran - there was going to be a united front again.

And then this. This is just spitting into the faces of the oldest and best allies the US ever had and ever will have.

I'm thinking that this and what develops from it may be the final straw...there won't be a "Western World" in the future, there will be the US and the EU, and there will be nothing left that unites them.

I'm really looking forward to some new camps in Australia, the US best buddy.

I think people just don't quite get how serious this is. The opponents of the Iraq War were just getting over this, there was going to be cooperation on Iran - there was going to be a united front again.

And then this. This is just spitting into the faces of the oldest and best allies the US ever had and ever will have.

I'm thinking that this and what develops from it may be the final straw...there won't be a "Western World" in the future, there will be the US and the EU, and there will be nothing left that unites them.

Business and money unites them at the hip.

That said, yes it is serious. But I was watching a show about Perfect War on the Discovery Times channel, and it examined in part why the US is willing to go it alone in the war on terror. And it came down to two reasons.

1. The US, as a result of 9-11, is convinced that they are at war with a global insurgency that is driven by a radical Islamic ideology - an opponent that has no intention of negotiating or surrendering or ending the war. Europeans, on the other hand, see ALL acts of terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and with the exception of the UK, are loathe to treat it any other way.

2. The US has acquired a unique ability in the world - not only do they have the most modern weapons, but the majority of the weapons and sensors are networked together. The synergy that the US gets from this combination allows it to attack, defeat, and conquer almost any nation it would wish to invade (and things don't go badly until there's an insurgency). In fact, the US has experienced a five-fold increase in overall combat effectiveness on a large scale, and an eight-fold increase in combat effectiveness on a small arms/infantry combat scale. Not that either of these things wins an insurgency, but it does make it practical for the US to invade virtually any country on earth with a much smaller force than anyone previously believed.

Both of these things encourage the US to act alone.

I think people just don't quite get how serious this is. The opponents of the Iraq War were just getting over this, there was going to be cooperation on Iran - there was going to be a united front again.

And then this. This is just spitting into the faces of the oldest and best allies the US ever had and ever will have.

I'm thinking that this and what develops from it may be the final straw...there won't be a "Western World" in the future, there will be the US and the EU, and there will be nothing left that unites them.

I think I get how serious this is.

What Rice really says, translated into blunt speech, is this:

1) ANYTHING is ok in the "war on terror".
2) We will do as we see fit, anytime, anywhere.
3) Nobody is going to stop us. Most certainly not these EU states, who are all, more or less, in it as well, so they better shut the #### up, right now.

Both of these things encourage the US to act alone.
but does that give the US in this case, carte blanche to just waltz across other sovreign states like they didn't exist and don't matter. Despite the current bump in the road, Europe as a whole and the United States have always been the closest of friends and allies.

This is surely not the way to go about business, is it? The current actions might well be screwing over the next generation or two's relations with both blocs.

Business and money unites them at the hip.

That said, yes it is serious. But I was watching a show about Perfect War on the Discovery Times channel, and it examined in part why the US is willing to go it alone in the war on terror. And it came down to two reasons.

1. The US, as a result of 9-11, is convinced that they are at war with a global insurgency that is driven by a radical Islamic ideology - an opponent that has no intention of negotiating or surrendering or ending the war. Europeans, on the other hand, see ALL acts of terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and with the exception of the UK, are loathe to treat it any other way.

2. The US has acquired a unique ability in the world - not only do they have the most modern weapons, but the majority of the weapons and sensors are networked together. The synergy that the US gets from this combination allows it to attack, defeat, and conquer almost any nation it would wish to invade (and things don't go badly until there's an insurgency). In fact, the US has experienced a five-fold increase in overall combat effectiveness on a large scale, and an eight-fold increase in combat effectiveness on a small arms/infantry combat scale. Not that either of these things wins an insurgency, but it does make it practical for the US to invade virtually any country on earth with a much smaller force than anyone previously believed.

Both of these things encourage the US to act alone.
Really? I thought it has been suggested that the US would never have gone into Iraq in the first place without support from other UN countries.

Really? I thought it has been suggested that the US would never have gone into Iraq in the first place without support from other UN countries.
Ever the cynic, aren't you?

What I find interesting is that since Europeans believe that all terrorism is a law enforcement problem, and largely one where you wait until someone actually does an act of terrorism and THEN you go after them, capture them, and put them on trial, the US belief that it is a real war makes them want to detain them indefinitely, torture them if necessary, and kill them where possible.

All of the actions that everyone is so upset about are stemming from the basic assumptions about the nature of terrorism - and they are two completely separate worldviews.

Reconcile the worldviews, and you'll reconcile the problem.

......
All of the actions that everyone is so upset about are stemming from the basic assumptions about the nature of terrorism - and they are two completely separate worldviews.
....

Rather well put.

Reconcile the worldviews, and you'll reconcile the problem.

Neither side will budge on their views and unless some greater understanding is created, it simply will not change. And by what miracle is that going to happen?

As Jean Baudrillard noted, and Hegel would have agreed, terrorism is neither a physical force nor a mental concept, it is a spirit, with all the indomitability that this definition implies.

As the clumsy clods of American Empire try to defeat this spirit with lies, guns, bombs, torture and jails, it loses its legitimacy bit by bit in the eyes of the world and of its own people. The legitimation crisis that is not too far down the road will signal the end of its imperialist possibilities, but, alas, not the end of its imperialist spirit. Thus it will drive itself forward to destruction and dissolution, from red giant to white dwarf, as have all putative empires of the past.

Thus go the Viconian cycles of history. How will we ever put an end to this tedious and predictable circularity? Who will save us from these turbulent priests?

Neither side will budge on their views and unless some greater understanding is created, it simply will not change. And by what miracle is that going to happen?

Well, either the Europeans are right, and there is no worldwide desire on the part of Islamic radicals to act in a decentralized manner to attack and overthrow the West and the US will eventually be convinced, or the US is right and sooner or later the number and type of attacks will convince the Europeans.

American government - Fucking liars. They have such a nerve...

Well, either the Europeans are right, and there is no worldwide desire on the part of Islamic radicals to act in a decentralized manner to attack and overthrow the West and the US will eventually be convinced, or the US is right and sooner or later the number and type of attacks will convince the Europeans.

...or something inbetween...

...or something inbetween...
Highly unlikely.

I don't remember this number of complaints about American actions during the Cold War, why have the rules changed all of the sudden? Is is because people are biased over the war in Iraq? Is it because the enemy isn't on Europe's doorstep anymore, like the USSR was? Or have the complaints always been there and I wasn't paying attention?

Don't bother with "It's because of George" answers. That won't work. Gimme real answers.

I'm not being sarcastic, this is a genuine question.

Okay, so I wasn't around during the Cold War, however, here's my take on this:


During the cold war, this was a _real_ enemy. Not an enemy we created, not someone that's been blown out of proportion like *cough* Iraq.
This is your fault (although admittedly, the UK government has done its part too). You trained these guys, gave them weapons, funded them (via the Saudi's) when it helped you, and now we're all dying because of it.
Your government delivered an 'ultimatum' to other nations - "If you're not with us you're against us." That isn't a good way to make people like you.
A lot of your nation are in favour of the 'war'. Over here (in the UK), though, there's a lot less support, yet our government just seems to back yours.
You had plenty of opportunities to resolve Afghanistan without resorting to war - the Taliban were willing to disband and face trial in Saudi Arabia (because they feared torture/impromptu execution in America). I'm sure you'll scoff, but think - how many of the leading Taliban have actually been brought to trial (ie. Justice?). That's what our governments said they wanted, isn't it?


My main reason for opposition is that your (and our) governments are lying to us. If they wanted to capture terrorists in Afghanistan, they had the opportunity to do so. Instead, they invaded, and took the oil and strategic position for themselves. From looking at reports before the Iraq invasion (from the UN and other sources), a lot of the anti-war movement knew (or were damn certain), that Iraq didn't have Big Ruddy Weapons. A UN investigator said (paraphrasing, read this a loong time ago):

"Iraq has no WMD, or at least not enough WMD to pose a threat."

We now know they had none.

I think I've established that we don't think you're doing anything to try to help us. So why should we be in favour of you arresting, intimidating, torturing and detaining citizens of our sovereign nations?

Well, either the Europeans are right, and there is no worldwide desire on the part of Islamic radicals to act in a decentralized manner to attack and overthrow the West and the US will eventually be convinced, or the US is right and sooner or later the number and type of attacks will convince the Europeans.

Even if there were no cohesive plot by the Islamic radicals to overthrow the west, the US has been telling the world and its people that it has been the best ever since the beginning of the cold war, and even before that I wager. The ingrained mentality is going to be very, very, hard to break.

Europe on the other hand, remains uncertain if either view appears. National level self preservation may take a form unexpected by either side.

What I want to know is why it's always the African American in the administration that gets the fun job of lying before the whole world? First Powell and now Condi...

Even if there were no cohesive plot by the Islamic radicals to overthrow the west, the US has been telling the world and its people that it has been the best ever since the beginning of the cold war, and even before that I wager. The ingrained mentality is going to be very, very, hard to break.

Europe on the other hand, remains uncertain if either view appears. National level self preservation may take a form unexpected by either side.

What's interesting is that so far, with the exception of the UK and US, no Western nation actually believes that terrorists pose a national threat.

What's interesting is that so far, with the exception of the UK and US, no Western nation actually believes that terrorists pose a national threat.

Correction with the exception of the US no other Western Nation believes terrorists prove to be such a threat that the legal process should be suspended.

Correction with the exception of the US no other Western Nation believes terrorists prove to be such a threat that the legal process should be suspended.
Plenty of people in the UK trying to pass laws that would suspend major portions of the legal process - only moderate success so far.

What's interesting is that so far, with the exception of the UK and US, no Western nation actually believes that terrorists pose a national threat.

Correction: that international terrorism poses a serious national treat. People living in certain areas of Spain or Northern Ireland for instance are well aware of what terrorism is, but that is a domestic isssue.

Objectively, if one limits him/herself to looking at the number of victims from international terrorism, one can indeed call it "relatively insignificant", when compared to e.g. disease, traffic accidents and so on.
Where the US and Europes opinions mainly differ is if it is worth it to sacrifice much of the normal way of life to prevent terrorists attacks, or that it is better allround to consider it yet another possible cause of death and deal with it after the fact - not worth disrupting daily life for.

Correction: that international terrorism poses a serious national treat. People living in certain areas of Spain or Northern Ireland for instance are well aware of what terrorism is, but that is a domestic isssue.


Yah, its not as if Europeans haven't been living with terrorism for decades, Crosican seperatists, Basque seperatists, Irish Republicans, Red Brigades etc etc. Jesus, get over yourselves. :rolleyes: Sorry, that should "Welcome to the party, better late than never".

And it doesn't matter whether its international terrorism or domestic terrorism... the bombs are the same and the end result is the same... dead people.

That STILL doesn't give the right of one state to piss all over the laws and sovereignty of others- especially those with such a close friendship over several hundred years, such as Europe and the United States have had.

The main reason why enlightened nations don't practise torture today is not because it's wrong but because it doesn't work.who makes the judgement, what is "enlightened"? where is it written that torture is "uncivilized"?
we would fall back into barbarism if we allowed violations of the laws and customs of warfare to go by as if nothing happened. for the good of the civil population the prosecution and punishment of these illegal combattants has to be swift and severe or else the rules, whos purpose it is to protect the civilian population, will become worthless.
i dont advocate torture as a form of (cruel and unusual) punishment, but for information extraction.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]snip[QUOTE]
Don't worry. I have a plan. I'm going to make Ms. Rice my wife. Then I can use my masculinity to set her straight.

*looks at picture of Condoleeza Rice*

Nevermind.... I think she can take me.

i dont advocate torture as a form of (cruel and unusual) punishment, but for information extraction.
According to a retired FBI agent (former Al Queda expert), states that it is illegal, immoral, and unethical, and that it can produce "unreliable information".

Other FBI agents suggest that such information obtained by torture is "suspect at best".

Check out what other high ranking Americans have to say in this PBS documentary (http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/video/PBS_News_Hi.wmv).

All of the actions that everyone is so upset about are stemming from the basic assumptions about the nature of terrorism - and they are two completely separate worldviews.

Reconcile the worldviews, and you'll reconcile the problem.
I'm impressed. Who would've thought you'd show such insight. :p

But I have to agree with The Squeaky Rat and Psychotic Mongooses here:
Europeans have lived with terrorism for decades. AQ may claim they want a giant caliphate, but that is really no more outrageous than what some other groups have come up with...and particularly the Red Brigades and the German RAF were pretty committed not to achieve some isolated political goal, but to bring down society.
Maybe the fundamental difference is a more simple one: America has never suffered an attack like they did in 2001, and it never really took notice of what happened in Europe throughout the century. That's why it seemed so outrageous all of a sudden.

Aryavartha loves me saying this, so I will: Falling Coconuts have probably killed more people than Terrorists...yet we do not all wear helmets. There are certain "acceptable risks" that we simply have to deal with.

Life will never be 100% safe, and we have seen that everything that was done since 9/11 did not exactly make the world a safer place. Regardless of how much it may seem like quitting or giving up to you...if something doesn't work, one needs to try something else.
I'd much rather support the natural democratic process in the Arab world, give Islamist voices there the chance to take part in their destiny.

I just read this piece from "Der Spiegel" (once more they seem to be doing a great service to the Federal Republic), and it sums up the situation rather nicely.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388917,00.html

That the secretary of state is even forced repeatedly to assure the United State's friends and allies that the country does not violate the most basic human rights is the surest sign that Washington has long since lost the battle for hearts and minds of many Europeans. In Germany and elsewhere, America is simply no longer given the benefit of the doubt.

-- The United States has respected - and will continue to respect - the sovereignty of other countries.

-- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.

-- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.

-- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

Now that's BULLSHIT!!!

Now that's BULLSHIT!!!
Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? I think most of the board seems to have forgotten it. I'm not saying I don't think the US is guilty, but everyone sure is eager to believe the worst of it. I'm from Canada, and I believe you are, as well, and I'm not going to think the worst of my neighbour without a solid legal case.

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? I think most of the board seems to have forgotten it. I'm not saying I don't think the US is guilty, but everyone sure is eager to believe the worst of it. I'm from Canada, and I believe you are, as well, and I'm not going to think the worst of my neighbour without a solid legal case.
Well it is as obvious a lie as there ever has been.

I'll use this example:
"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured."
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388550,00.html - using the airspace to transport detainees (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,11762,00.html)...

As for the places these flights go to...does Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001980_pf.html) ring a bell? And in case you don't believe that one, how about this (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,386033,00.html)?
The State Department's human rights report on Syria (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41732.htm) tells me that torture is normal there by the way.

Well it is as obvious a lie as there ever has been.

I'll use this example:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388550,00.html - using the airspace to transport detainees (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,11762,00.html)...

As for the places these flights go to...does Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001980_pf.html) ring a bell? And in case you don't believe that one, how about this (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,386033,00.html)?
The State Department's human rights report on Syria (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41732.htm) tells me that torture is normal there by the way.
lol this reminds me of those pictures of Bush with his hands dipped in cocaine saying "I don't do dope" :p

I'm from Canada, and I believe you arebelieve? :D

Well it is as obvious a lie as there ever has been.

I'll use this example:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388550,00.html - using the airspace to transport detainees (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,11762,00.html)...

As for the places these flights go to...does Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001980_pf.html) ring a bell? And in case you don't believe that one, how about this (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,386033,00.html)?
The State Department's human rights report on Syria (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41732.htm) tells me that torture is normal there by the way.
As I said, I think the US is guilty. I just don't believe in pronouncing them guilty before some sort of legal action has taken place and proven as much. If they have been caught as dead to rights as it seems here, I don't see how some slap on the wrist won't be forthcoming.

believe? :D
Well, hey, can't know anything for certain on this here internet ;)

I think the US is "guilty", and I don't care. Because honestly, what are you gonna do about it?

Because honestly, what are you gonna do about it?
Nothing.

But never expect any sort of help from a European country ever again.

Nothing.

But never expect any sort of help from a European country ever again.
No, some are so self serving that they would actually help the USA if it suited them. At least until the EU becomes a sovereign body.

But never expect any sort of help from a European country ever again.

Are you saying that NATO is going to be dissolved?

Are you saying that NATO is going to be dissolved?
Well, maybe. If this really is going to constitute the end of the little bit of respect and partnership that was left, then NATO will eventually be abandoned.

It won't happen immediately, but this seems to be a symptom of the movement apart - and obviously the US Administration doesn't seem to care.

It is inevitable that NATO will be dissolved in any case, at some point in time. As the EU becomes more independent in developing a military force, it will have little need of the afforemention body.

Well, maybe. If this really is going to constitute the end of the little bit of respect and partnership that was left, then NATO will eventually be abandoned.

It won't happen immediately, but this seems to be a symptom of the movement apart - and obviously the US Administration doesn't seem to care.

Thing is though, international realtions are exceptionally fluid. It's impossible to tell what the world situation will be in fifteen years time. Not so long ago, plenty of countries in Europe were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the US's behavior. (In fact, I suspect they were secretly quite happy about it). It could happen again.

And if European history has taught us anything, it is that Europeans are quite happy to kiss and make up, even after the most grevious injuries.

In any event, I am sure that EU governments were complicit in this. Airspace is quite closely scrutinized these days, and it's not like they were transporting detainees in spirit bombers. So, I can't see this being a source of lasting outrage. (Nor can I see it being investigated too closely).

I do have a question for you though: Would you have been happier if Condi had 'fessed up to the torture thingy?

It is inevitable that NATO will be dissolved in any case, at some point in time. As the EU becomes more independent in developing a military force, it will have little need of the afforemention body.

Nah, it's not inevitable. The force structure integration of NATO makes war unthinkable between the members. That's a good thing.

Nah, it's not inevitable. The force structure integration of NATO makes war unthinkable between the members. That's a good thing.
So long as those members trust each other.

So long as those members trust each other.

Nah, nations don't trust each other. That's why you have treaties in the first place. If everyone could trust everyone else you wouldn't need them.

Anyway, the good thing about NATO is that it makes going to war with another member exceptionally difficult because of the way forces are structured and the amount of integration.

I'd rather have a system where it is harder to go to war than easier.

Would you have been happier if Condi had 'fessed up to the torture thingy?
Yes.
Not only would that have been a way for the victims of it (a good number of which were apparently innocent, like El Masri from Germany, who's now sued the CIA), but it would have shown that the US was committed to openness and cooperation, not only with other governments, but with other peoples.

I don't quite know why I wasn't more cynical about this, but I thought to myself that they had this chance between doing their bit for American-European relations, and they were too narrow-minded to take it.

Nah, nations don't trust each other. That's why you have treaties in the first place. If everyone could trust everyone else you wouldn't need them.

In the form of regulation due to mutual distrust, yes. I see your point.

Would you have been happier if Condi had 'fessed up to the torture thingy?

Assuming the torture thingy actually happened ? Yes. Currently the world seems to view the USA as a country of lies & deceit and completely devoid of respect to others. If the USA really wants to be the worlds protector, it should first regain its trust.

Yes.
Not only would that have been a way for the victims of it (a good number of which were apparently innocent, like El Masri from Germany, who's now sued the CIA), but it would have shown that the US was committed to openness and cooperation, not only with other governments, but with other peoples.

I don't quite know why I wasn't more cynical about this, but I thought to myself that they had this chance between doing their bit for American-European relations, and they were too narrow-minded to take it.

Well considering that they haven't 'fessed up to the voting public or the american press, I don't know what you were expecting. Why should Europeans get better treatment than American citizens?

What's more, you don't know what they are saying in private to other administrations, or vice versa. Every government has two positions: its official one - for public consumption - ; and its actual one. They deal with each other on the basis of the actual one. (Which is partly why even allies spy on each other). And it's a good job too, otherwise there would be wars every fifteen minutes.

Assuming the torture thingy actually happened ? Yes. Currently the world seems to view the USA as a country of lies & deceit and completely devoid of respect to others. If the USA really wants to be the worlds protector, it should first regain its trust.
Meh its too late for that now. At best, it will be seen as remorseful manipulator. At worst, a liar to be avoided. The EU is simply too unstable at the present to distance itself excessively from the USA.

Every government has two positions: its official one - for public consumption - ; and its actual one.

Then what is the point of democracy ?

Then what is the point of democracy ?
To seem as if they actually care about what we think? :p

This is just spitting into the faces of the oldest and best allies the US ever had and ever will have.

And, whom would that be, pray tell? Britain is the only ally the U.S. need concern ourselves with. Everyone else has since proven themselves to be either treacherous and/or unreliable, or both.

Then what is the point of democracy ?

Well, it makes people feel like they have a say in things I suppose. Remember we are talking about foreign relations here, not domestic policy. Of necessity the later is conducted quite differently.

I mean, imagine the chaos during the cold war if the US/UK/GDR &c. had radically altered its actual foreign policy with every new administration. Or do you actually think that had a labour government come to power in the mid-eighties, the Greenham Common women would have got their way?

And, whom would that be, pray tell? Britain is the only ally the U.S. need concern ourselves with. Everyone else has since proven themselves to be either treacherous and/or unreliable, or both.
Assuming popular support for governments who align themselves with the USA remains high. This is changing, as more and more Britons are becoming anti- US in their stance.

And, whom would that be, pray tell? Britain is the only ally the U.S. need concern ourselves with. Everyone else has since proven themselves to be either treacherous and/or unreliable, or both.
I feel obliged to answer, but I've really got nothing to say.
If you don't think the democratic world, the ones upholding the same freedoms that you hold dear, are your allies, if you prefer to simply demand unquestioning obedience...well, you don't have any friends in the world.

Well, it makes people feel like they have a say in things I suppose. Remember we are talking about foreign relations here, not domestic policy. Of necessity the later is conducted quite differently.

I mean, imagine the chaos during the cold war if the US/UK/GDR &c. had radically altered its actual foreign policy with every new administration. Or do you actually think that had a labour government come to power in the mid-eighties, the Greenham Common women would have got their way?
In other words, governments are more authoritarian in how they conduct foreign policy?

And, whom would that be, pray tell? Britain is the only ally the U.S. need concern ourselves with. Everyone else has since proven themselves to be either treacherous and/or unreliable, or both.

Wow, you really did buy into Bush's with-us-or-against-us rhetoric. It must be a lonely, lonely world you live in.

I feel obliged to answer, but I've really got nothing to say.
If you don't think the democratic world, the ones upholding the same freedoms that you hold dear, are your allies, if you prefer to simply demand unquestioning obedience...well, you don't have any friends in the world.
That is assuming Britain is even willing to give such "obedience." Britain's affiliation with the USA is largely a matter of convenience, more than anything else. And its not ever lasting, as public opinion is fast turning around.

In other words, governments are more authoritian in how they conduct foreign policy?

They have to be. There needs to be a degree of external consitency maintained. I am not saying that foreign policy can't and doesn't change: it just has to change more slowly.

Of course, sometimes things happen which cause radical changes in policy for a given nation. But that is the exception. Doubly so when you consider that third parties are always making their own calculations based upon your behaviour. Who is going to sign a treaty with a nation that bounces in and out of compliance every few years, or constantly joins and then leaves international organizations.

They have to be. There needs to be a degree of external consitency maintained. I am not saying that foreign policy can't and doesn't change: it just has to change more slowly.

Of course, sometimes things happen which cause radical changes in policy for a given nation. But that is the exception. Doubly so when you consider that third parties are always making their own calculations based upon your behaviour. Who is going to sign a treaty with a nation that bounces in and out of compliance every few years, or constantly joins and then leaves international organizations.
Indeed. No one wants an co-signatory who is unable to maintain a somewhat predictable attitude.

Indeed. No one wants an co-signatory who is unable to maintain a somewhat predictable attitude.

Yes, which is why the US should suck it up about the Canadian lumber thing.

And the member nations of the UN should draft a codicil that fully anotates the charter in respect of permissible millitary sanctions. Because the current definition of legal war, is not very satisfactory*.

*As far as I can tell, offensive millitary operations are legal iff canada is involved.

Yes, which is why the US should suck it up about the Canadian lumber thing.

And the member nations of the UN should draft a codicil that fully anotates the charter in respect of permissible millitary sanctions. Because the current definition of legal war, is not very satisfactory*.

*As far as I can tell, offensive millitary operations are legal iff canada is involved.
Which would require Canada to participate in them I imagine, so as to be legal.

Wow, you really did buy into Bush's with-us-or-against-us rhetoric.

Exactly so. If you aren't part of the solution, don't be part of the problem. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But DO something besides criticizing those who are willing to act. Try something constructive besides endlessly bitching about someone who DID act. Negotiating with terrorists is and always has been utter insanity. They respect no-one. And some certain nations' very carefully crafted neutrality in this issue has gained them nothing, particularly not immunity from terrorist attentions. Canada is learning that now. They have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this little police action of ours, but that did not prevent Canadians from getting abducted, now did it?

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2211.shtml

Exactly so. If you aren't part of the solution, don't be part of the problem. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But DO something besides criticizing those who are willing to act. Try something constructive besides endlessly bitching about someone who DID act. Negotiating with terrorists is and always has been utter insanity. They respect no-one. And some certain nations' very carefully crafted neutrality in this issue has gained them nothing, particularly not immunity from terrorist attentions. Canada is learning that now. They have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this little police action of ours, but that did not prevent Canadians from getting abducted, now did it?

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2211.shtml

1- acting like you know what's best doesn't mean you do. Acting for the sake of acting is wreckless folly, and I think Americans (if polls indicate anything) are finally starting to wake up to that fact.
2- The stance that terrorists are just insane only serves to dehumanize these very real people, and their cause. You CAN talk to, and negotiate with terrorists, because they're just people who want something, and are willing to take extreme measures to be heard, because they feel they cannot be heard any other way. Please look to English examples of negotiating with terrorists, and how it has worked.
3- As far as the terrorists are concerned, anyone in Iraq is fair game. If Canadians go there, they know the risks they take. As of yet, we haven't seen anywhere near similar actions taken against our country as have been taken against the US.
4- Please stop spouting the Bush party line as gospel. It's revolting. If I want to hear that, I'll turn on a tv and listen to one of Bush's "We'll keep on going as long as we have to" speeches. If you have something new to add, it might be more interesting than this drivel.

1- acting like you know what's best doesn't mean you do. Acting for the sake of acting is wreckless folly, and I think Americans (if polls indicate anything) are finally starting to wake up to that fact.
2- The stance that terrorists are just insane only serves to dehumanize these very real people, and their cause. You CAN talk to, and negotiate with terrorists, because they're just people who want something, and are willing to take extreme measures to be heard, because they feel they cannot be heard any other way. Please look to English examples of negotiating with terrorists, and how it has worked.
3- As far as the terrorists are concerned, anyone in Iraq is fair game. If Canadians go there, they know the risks they take. As of yet, we haven't seen anywhere near similar actions taken against our country as have been taken against the US.
4- Please stop spouting the Bush party line as gospel. It's revolting. If I want to hear that, I'll turn on a tv and listen to one of Bush's "We'll keep on going as long as we have to" speeches. If you have something new to add, it might be more interesting than this drivel.

wow truly astounding

1) Polls mean less than nothing. You can get the answer you want from anyone if you word the question as a yes or no answer that appears on the surface to reinforce the viewpoint you want to promote. Example: Should Canada have participated in the liberation of the Iraqi people?, or Should Canada have assisted the U.S. in a unnecessary criminal takeover of a helpless third world nation?
2) Cause? What cause? :headbang: And moreover, not true. Any terrorist with a camcorder or a tape recorder can get their moment on Al-Jazeera.
4) Sorry you find it offensive. Frankly, I find living with your head buried in the sand to be a far more risky way of living one's life.

Nothing.

But never expect any sort of help from a European country ever again.

Since you can't tell, I'm on the verge of weeping. How we will ever manage without your 1000-man token military forces, I have no idea. I was going to continue with a sarcastic list but I can't bring to mind any other use you fill.

Do you know what an ally is? I'll tell you what an ally isn't. An ally doesn't sell your enemy weapons technology (France, Russia). An ally doesn't make hatred of you a plank in their campaign platform (Germany). An ally doesn't ditch you when the going gets a little tough (Spain). You Europeans are not allies, and haven't been for some time. You are people we can occasionaly make use of.

Since you can't tell, I'm on the verge of weeping. How we will ever manage without your 1000-man token military forces, I have no idea. I was going to continue with a sarcastic list but I can't bring to mind any other use you fill.

Do you know what an ally is? I'll tell you what an ally isn't. An ally doesn't sell your enemy weapons technology (France, Russia). An ally doesn't make hatred of you a plank in their campaign platform (Germany). An ally doesn't ditch you when the going gets a little tough (Spain). You Europeans are not allies, and haven't been for some time. You are people we can occasionaly make use of.

Funny, I seem to recall the 'French' thing being an issue with you guys for a while?

But you know, I think you're right, and the honesty's appreciated. Europe is effectively impotent now, almost a US client state like Saudi Arabia, and if you guys decide to invade, there's little we can do. Orwell's nightmare is pretty much realised.

That alone is why I'm getting out ASAP, moving east (China/Japan). Although I'm not sure if this thing will explode in my lifetime, it'll help my kids (when I have 'em) to not be living on the battleground.

Since you can't tell, I'm on the verge of weeping. How we will ever manage without your 1000-man token military forces, I have no idea. I was going to continue with a sarcastic list but I can't bring to mind any other use you fill.

Do you know what an ally is? I'll tell you what an ally isn't. An ally doesn't sell your enemy weapons technology (France, Russia). An ally doesn't make hatred of you a plank in their campaign platform (Germany). An ally doesn't ditch you when the going gets a little tough (Spain). You Europeans are not allies, and haven't been for some time. You are people we can occasionaly make use of.


And I get flamed for calling America "The biggest bully in the playground"... :rolleyes:

Since you can't tell, I'm on the verge of weeping. How we will ever manage without your 1000-man token military forces, I have no idea. I was going to continue with a sarcastic list but I can't bring to mind any other use you fill.
One of these days you'll realise that there will always be a guy with a bigger bomb than yours.

Since you can't tell, I'm on the verge of weeping. How we will ever manage without your 1000-man token military forces, I have no idea. I was going to continue with a sarcastic list but I can't bring to mind any other use you fill.

Do you know what an ally is? I'll tell you what an ally isn't. An ally doesn't sell your enemy weapons technology (France, Russia). An ally doesn't make hatred of you a plank in their campaign platform (Germany). An ally doesn't ditch you when the going gets a little tough (Spain). You Europeans are not allies, and haven't been for some time. You are people we can occasionaly make use of.
Get over yourself. America put itself in this position when it decided that the war on terror would be better fought by provoking the terrorists. Sure you may of stopped a few attacks but you can't stop all of them. All your government has done so far is tarnished it's reputation and giving the terrorists the ammunition they need to increase recruitment. What exactly has anyone done to address the many causes? Can anyone honestly blame Europe for wanting to distance themselves from America?

You Europeans are not allies, and haven't been for some time. You are people we can occasionaly make use of.

You know, you are wrong. Regretfully, our current politicians still think of you as allies. But younger people, from Left and from Right are starting to consider you as irritations. Those that are young today, will be the politicians of tomorrow. And you know what? They will be all anti-american.

When I vote, pro-americanism is a think I try to snub. Of course, most politicians still are afraid to ask for things as "US bases out", or "Europe out of NATO", but that is changing, you can see the trend. Wait 10, 15 more years and you will find out how hard it will be for you guys to conduct a way without bases in Europe, wage your global hegimony while Europe stands complacent.

Oooo seems Condi is backing of o.o HOW CAN THAT BE? MASTER BUSH NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG!

Clicky (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=fundLaunches&storyID=2005-12-07T111145Z_01_HO736212_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA-TORTURE.xml)

Oooo seems Condi is backing of...
Awesome. One's gotta start somewhere...
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

I'm curious, does this include the CIA as well and its proxy agents? I know the Bush admin was pushing very hard to exclude them.

I'm curious, does this include the CIA as well and its proxy agents? I know the Bush admin was pushing very hard to exclude them.
We'll find out tomorrow...it'll be all over the news I think.

But now, time for sleep...with 30°C outside still. Goddammit this country is just screwed sometimes...:p

Condi, and the entire Bush administration, can't tell the truth. There's an existential necessity to keep lying, especially if one knows how to manipulate the media.

She can't admit that they are torturing people without trial, because of what that could imply. If she says, "yeah, we are. We're torturing people because we think they're a threat and that they have information about other threats," then people will start asking questions.

Like...if you lied to us now, and you admit it....when else have you lied?

And if some of these people turn out to have been wrongly tortured, people will ask "well, who ELSE did you torture for no reason?"

And the whole moral authority thing just comes undone. Lying is better than telling the truth. Some people will always be willing to believe a lie, but tell people the truth, and you unleash a shitstorm.

And the whole moral authority thing just comes undone. Lying is better than telling the truth. Some people will always be willing to believe a lie, but tell people the truth, and you unleash a shitstorm.

Yes well, you can unleash a small shitstorm now, and deal with it, or we can let this shitstorm build up for the next 20 years and let the next generation deal with it. If they told the truth, they'd be exposed to what they are: Little more than a government sponsored terrorist cell itself. The CIA sneaks around the world, kipnaps people for something as erroneos as having a "similar name" to a suspected terrorist. These people are drugged, their clothes are stripped, they are outfitted with an adult-sized diaper, and flown to legal blackholes like Camp Delta, where they could be held indefinitely, without charge, without trial, with no means of communication and no legal representation whatso ever, the US calls this "rendition". If this isn't illegal, unethical, and just plain god damned wrong, I don't know what is. Maybe I should start kidnapping Americans and drugging them and holding them in my basement untill they admit all the genocide and war crimes the US has, and will in the future, commit. I'd like to see how the U.S. would respond if one of it's citizens was kidnapped, drugged, and taken to a prison camp to be held arbitrarily. Hell, the U.S. would probably go to war.

Get over yourself. America put itself in this position when it decided that the war on terror would be better fought by provoking the terrorists. Sure you may of stopped a few attacks but you can't stop all of them. All your government has done so far is tarnished it's reputation and giving the terrorists the ammunition they need to increase recruitment. What exactly has anyone done to address the many causes? Can anyone honestly blame Europe for wanting to distance themselves from America?

No, can't blame them. But ask any good general for a plan, and he'll tell you that the best defense is a good offense. As aggressive as possible.

We seem to be doing that. So far, the US hasn't had a repeat of 9-11, but the terrorists seem to be focusing their attention on other countries (the UK, Spain, etc).

Maybe not a popular method, but it's better than sitting quietly in the US, behind rows of sandbags.

We seem to be doing that. So far, the US hasn't had a repeat of 9-11, but the terrorists seem to be focusing their attention on other countries (the UK, Spain, etc).


Either that, of they've spent the last few years infiltrating the US for an even bigger attack. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few people out there, some where in the world, who aren't currently terrorists, but will one day become one. You don't need training or experience to become a terrorist. You need a cause to fight for, and enough C4 to fight for it. What exactly they decide they want to die for is up to them. "Terrorist" is a very broad term. I havn't, at any given point, seen any real explanation of what these "terrorists" are trying to do. Killing people for the sake of killing people? I don't think so. There are so many differant groups, with so many differant agendas, that I doubt in my lifetime, or any one else's to come, there will be any end to the "war on terror". I mean, some one could easily live their life as totally innocent, tax-paying, vote-casting, citizens of any given government, and then one day decide they've had enough, and it's time to strap on some explosives. I've had days like that. I can't say I've ever participated in any terrorist act, but I've had days where I _really_ wanted to kill alot of people for no reason (and reasons I won't discuss). The only difference, is I don't have access to mass quantities of explosives or small arms. "Terrorists" do. But back to the main point. What are now innocent civilians, can easily become terrorists. All it takes is enough aggitation. I mean, take myself for example. I have a totally clean slate, no criminal record, a good day job, I pay taxes, I vote. I'm definetly NOT a terrorist. But what's going to stop me from moving to the states, accumlating massive amounts of guns and explosives, and blowing up ahh.. any given shopping center? Nothing. Other than deciding, on my own, not to become a terrorist. I could live in the states with a day job and pay taxes for years, and I wouldn't be a suspect. Why? Because my name doesn't sound, or look like, "Ahkbaar Mustafi Naaser" or any thing else arabic/muslim/middle eastern. I could slip into the states, and plan, for years, how to kill and main thousands of Americans. And there would be nothing to stop me. The same goes for just about any one. Including would-be terrorists. If they want to attack you, they are going to. If it takes 10 years for them to do it, then it will take 10 years for them to do it. Chances are, the only reason thier attention is focused elsewhere, is to focus our attention elsewhere.

who makes the judgement, what is "enlightened"? where is it written that torture is "uncivilized"?
we would fall back into barbarism if we allowed violations of the laws and customs of warfare to go by as if nothing happened. for the good of the civil population the prosecution and punishment of these illegal combattants has to be swift and severe or else the rules, whos purpose it is to protect the civilian population, will become worthless.
i dont advocate torture as a form of (cruel and unusual) punishment, but for information extraction.
Sorry, I was in the process of reading the whole thread before jumping in, but I just couldn't slide by this one. "Punishment" implies that a crime has been proven. "Information extraction" requires no such proof. Therefore, you are advocating the use of extreme, painful, inhumane measures to accomplish a task in prevention of someone else doing something, but not as a punishment for someone who actually has done something. This is nonsense and is typical of the self-serving, shallow arguments of people who advocate torture but try to pretend they don't -- like Condoleez Rice. Torture is not only bad, it is counter-productive. Throughout history it has proven to be utterly useless in getting true information, and has always devolved into nothing more than a tool of political oppression. Only a fear-ridden fool would buy into this pro-torture propaganda. Don't do it.

You know, you are wrong. Regretfully, our current politicians still think of you as allies. But younger people, from Left and from Right are starting to consider you as irritations. Those that are young today, will be the politicians of tomorrow. And you know what? They will be all anti-american.

When I vote, pro-americanism is a think I try to snub. Of course, most politicians still are afraid to ask for things as "US bases out", or "Europe out of NATO", but that is changing, you can see the trend. Wait 10, 15 more years and you will find out how hard it will be for you guys to conduct a way without bases in Europe, wage your global hegimony while Europe stands complacent.

And again, what exactly are you going to do to stop "American hegemony"? Cut off our supply of Nutella?

1. The pass-through countries probably didn't know who was on those planes or where they were going, although they did probably give them permission to land without that information, so they should have known something "spooky" was up. Maybe they didn't think it was this, but considering who's in charge of the US, they could have guessed.

2. The secret site host countries almost certainly did know what was up -- at least part of their governments had to be in on it. I base this on a minor detail from the very first day of reporting on this, to wit: The Czech Republic confirmed that the CIA had approached them about this project and the Czechs turned them down. The report didn't state whether the Czechs were told that the sites were to be used for secret prisons/interrogation centers or if they were just suspicious -- but even if they were just suspicious, then they were more on the ball than the rest of the world.

3. The Europeans have been major players (manipulative style) in the world for centuries. The US is making use of them? Ha. They've made good use of us for the last 100 years, exporting their poor and benefitting from our military. The Europeans are ruthless realpolitik bastards who, if we cease being a benefit to them, will be only too happy to sit back and let us and the terrorists ruin each other for the next 100 years, while they just do whatever they have to to stay out of it (with acceptable euro-casualties). And when the Mid-East is in physical ruins and the US is in economic ruins, Europe and Asia will get rich salvaging what's left. Why would we want to keep them as allies? Because that same ruthlessness and back-room politicking has helped us time and again. We would not be the power we are without the support of Europe.

Bottom line:

A. The western Euro complaints at this time seem like they're "shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that there is gambling in this establishment." They knew perfectly well what the US was up to and are just picking this Condi Rice visit to call us on it, for their own reasons.

B. Condi Rice doesn't have a single useful or original word in her mouth. She is nothing but a mouthpiece, and the Euros are right to treat her with disdain. Her condescending attitude and veiled threats only let them get even more political capital out dumping on her. Typical of her diplomatic skills that she couldn't figure that out.

C. The only thing the US government can do well is pedal in reverse. The fact that every day brings a more clear and strident assurance that the US does not torture, has never tortured, and will never torture again is circumstantial evidence of both their guilt and their weak position, and that the Europeans are kicking us while we're down.

Good for the Europeans!

Maybe they should try "we have THE BOMB so go *^$# yourselves" like in the old Cold War days ;)

And again, what exactly are you going to do to stop "American hegemony"? Cut off our supply of Nutella?
Do you realize what a tariff of even 20% on Us import would do to the economy?

I'd like to see the US trying to find creative ways to produce the things they import if Europe stop selling to the US.

But more importantly, Europe can call the debt of the US due. The US is running huge deficits. Calling one day and asking the money back would cripple your military as the budget would be slashed dramatically.

So, yeah, we can cut your supply of nutella and you would cry "mommy!" and "unfair".

"Punishment" implies that a crime has been proven. "Information extraction" requires no such proof.boldly we are just going to assume, that an illegal combattant has information does have information on his accomplices. once he has been found to be an illegal combattant, which shall require a tribunal of at least 3 comissioned officers, we should extract anything about how he was recruited, who his controllers are, where he got his money and weapons from, where his hideout is etc.Torture is not only bad, it is counter-productive.it is not universally bad, we can use it for good. and it is not counter productive, it is very effective.

boldly we are just going to assume, that an illegal combattant has information does have information on his accomplices. once he has been found to be an illegal combattant, which shall require a tribunal of at least 3 comissioned officers, we should extract anything about how he was recruited, who his controllers are, where he got his money and weapons from, where his hideout is etc.it is not universally bad, we can use it for good. and it is not counter productive, it is very effective.
Everything you listed as good reasons to torture people are based on nothing but assumptions:

You assume a guy is an "illegal combatant." Then you assume there is a tribunal. Where and when? If there are tribunals being convened at those secret sites, then why wouldn't Condi point to them as proof that the US is doing nothing wrong? Finally, you assume that the only way to get this information is to torture. So therefore, are you saying that torture is a first choice way to go? Hiya, Saddam, when did they let you out?

As for whether it is counter productive, I didn't just assume that. I took it on the word of various interrogation experts of the CIA, the FBI, and the US military who, ever since 9/11 have been saying on every available media outlet that torture does not produce truth, does not give useable intelligence and only serves to strengthen the resolve of our enemies.

Here's a convenient list of quotes from intelligence officers. Yes, it's from Amnesty International USA's anti-torture site, but the speakers are legitimate, even if the site that collected them all in one place is biased. I chose this only for convenience:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/officersquotes.html

[EDIT: PS: It's not bold to torture people on assumptions. It's lazy. Extremely so.]

You assume a guy is an "illegal combatant." Then you assume there is a tribunal. Where and when? If there are tribunals being convened at those secret sites, then why wouldn't Condi point to them as proof that the US is doing nothing wrong?the usa messed this up, just putting (alleged) illegal combattants in detention centres is a mistake imo, quick tribunals and executions would have been favourable. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/usmillaw.htm has a bit about the apropriate procedures.you assume that the only way to get this information is to torture. So therefore, are you saying that torture is a first choice way to go? ... As for whether it is counter productive, I didn't just assume that. I took it on the word of various interrogation experts../it is not the only way, threats, bribes and tricks can be used as well, but torture is an important instrument too. you can qoute experts, who say torture does not work, i can quote experts that say it does, nothing gives. if it is so uneffective, then it will not be applied anyway and you have nothing to worry about.

the usa messed this up, just putting (alleged) illegal combattants in detention centres is a mistake imo, quick tribunals and executions would have been favourable.
What exactly does an Illegal Combattant do that a POW doesn't do?

You need to have some case to execute someone, military tribunal or not...and except maybe that the Taliban and AQ didn't hand out uniforms, they didn't seem to do anything different from what any other soldier would do.

I've been warning people in the past: Just because they were fighting with a rifle or an RPG to stop the US from taking out a training camp does not automatically mean that they were actually terrorists who would kill civilians with a car bomb.

What exactly does an Illegal Combattant do that a POW doesn't do?an illegal combattant does not wear uniform, is not part of a military hierarchy, does not carry weapons openly or des not adhere to laws and customs of warfare....and except maybe that the Taliban and AQ didn't hand out uniforms, they didn't seem to do anything different from what any other soldier would do.well, then it is too bad for them, that the hague convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land has been international law for a hundred years now. nobody is even demanding a fancy uniform, clearly visible, nonremovable distinct military insignia in any form would suffice. i would recommend them a t-shirt with a big fat crosshair in bright yellow.

And again, what exactly are you going to do to stop "American hegemony"? Cut off our supply of Nutella?

We might stop eating your burgers. So there.

an illegal combattant does not wear uniform, is not part of a military hierarchy, does not carry weapons openly or des not adhere to laws and customs of warfare.
They didn't wear uniforms.
They were part of a hierarchy, although not an official "national military" one.
They did carry weapons openly.
As for laws and customs of warfare...well, neither side has been doing that very well lately.

You seem to think Illegal Combattants are certain shifty people. When I hear that word though I remember first and foremost David Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks).

Not a freak, not a monster, just a kid who ended up taking the wrong path in life. There's a very good film about him, which I hope you'll watch if you get the chance - it's called "The President vs David Hicks".

an illegal combattant does not wear uniform, is not part of a military hierarchy, does not carry weapons openly or des not adhere to laws and customs of warfare.
Wow, you realise you have just described the resistance movements of dozens of countries throughout history.
The French Resistance, the Maquis. The original IRA/IRB. The Mau Mau, even possibly the colonial militias in the American War of Independence. The FLN in Algeria etc etc

*clap clap*

Wow, you realise you have just described the resistance movements of dozens of countries throughout history.yes, and they can be described with several words: spies, saboteurs, partisans, terrorists, illegal combattants.

when poland was occupied in WWII there were two polish resistance movements, one was the an underground army fighting germans in poland as illegal combattants and the other an army of polish fighting in uniform alongside the allies. one were illegal combattants, the others soldiers. when the germans captured a member of the uniformed forces, he was treated as POW, captured members of the underground army were executed. (plus germans had the right to execute civillians in retaliation for attacks by the underground army, but that right was removed after WWII)

Exactly so. If you aren't part of the solution, don't be part of the problem. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Neither of those is equivalent to "if you're not with us, you're against us." You display three choices, Bush displays only two. A false dichotomy.

Negotiating with terrorists is and always has been utter insanity.

A total strawman.

And some certain nations' very carefully crafted neutrality in this issue has gained them nothing, particularly not immunity from terrorist attentions. Canada is learning that now. They have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this little police action of ours, but that did not prevent Canadians from getting abducted, now did it?

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2211.shtml

Let's see, they were in a war-torn Islamic country and called themselves "Christian Peacekeepers." Doesn't sound like "getting out of the way" to me.

yes, and they can be described with several words: spies, saboteurs, partisans, terrorists, illegal combattants.

when poland was occupied in WWII there were two polish resistance movements, one was the an underground army fighting germans in poland as illegal combattants and the other an army of polish fighting in uniform alongside the allies. one were illegal combattants, the others soldiers. when the germans captured a member of the uniformed forces, he was treated as POW, captured members of the underground army were executed. (plus germans had the right to execute civillians in retaliation for attacks by the underground army, but that right was removed after WWII)

Oh so it was ok that the Polish resistance movement was slaughtered, and its a shame that the SS didn't do similar to the French Resistance? Okay then, at least I know where you stand on any moral axis then.

Do you realize what a tariff of even 20% on Us import would do to the economy?

I'd like to see the US trying to find creative ways to produce the things they import if Europe stop selling to the US.

But more importantly, Europe can call the debt of the US due. The US is running huge deficits. Calling one day and asking the money back would cripple your military as the budget would be slashed dramatically.

So, yeah, we can cut your supply of nutella and you would cry "mommy!" and "unfair".

Trade wars go both ways, remember that.

The USA does a major portion of trading with the EU. It would suffer.

Ok, General summaries here:

- There is ALREADY evidence that should the US enter another war, Britain would not go along. It would be political suicide.

- The EU, as has been stated already, is no longer willing to give the the USA the benefit of the doubt.

- Trade tariffs on the USA, despite the fact that trade wars work both ways, would screw you guys more than us (especially Britain, which can maintain trade with the Commonwealth).

- Anti-Americanism in Britain is surging. I swear this to be true; I could walk up to fifty people in the streets, and ask them how they view the USA's foreign policy. Be they young or old, I guarantee that at least 40/50 would complain that the USA is going too far.

- The USA thinks it can go it alone. It cant. Why do you think the US kicked up such a fuss when France and Germany expressed opposition to the War in Iraq?

- Bush, and to a lesser extent, his Administration, appear to have skipped the last 200-300 years of world history. The Age of Enlightenment, with the Philosophes, taught people that it is plain stupid to believe in things without being given some sort of concrete evidence. Yet Bush still goes on the word of God, and his own gut instinct (though I doubt if he can discern between the two).

- As far as the "world policeman" goes, the international community has lost a grizzled veteran in the form of Britain, and seen an impetuous rookie replace it, eager to show everyone how great it is.

- Finally; not strictly on topic, but still - the biggest problem Britain faces is the fact that it is neglecting the Commonwealth. We should be far better off as part of a strong and united Commonwealth than as a part of the EU. After all, for years British Foreign Policy has aimed at creating a dis-united Europe.

Indeed, Britain is experiencing a major surge in anti-americanism. I would agree with you that if it dislikes the EU so much, it should forge closer ties with the Commonwealth and let us go on with integration. Which countries do you mean specifically? Canada and Australia are still ruled by the Crown, so I could see them as immediate allies of the UK. A united Commonwealth would be ideal for Britain, and could make the EU a good ally, rather than an angry Britain.

And again, what exactly are you going to do to stop "American hegemony"? Cut off our supply of Nutella?
Hey! I like Nutella :p :D It's good on bread...

@Europa Maxima:

CANZUK - I saw a group trying to petition this a while back. A Commonwealth free trade and protection alliance, centred around Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. This could feasibly be extended to include South Africa.

The idea was, trade between the Commonwealth nations, and with major decisions being decided by a sort of "security council". Naturally each state remains sovereign, this is just another EU/NATO style alliance.

@Europa Maxima:

CANZUK - I saw a group trying to petition this a while back. A Commonwealth free trade and protection alliance, centred around Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. This could feasibly be extended to include South Africa.

The idea was, trade between the Commonwealth nations, and with major decisions being decided by a sort of "security council". Naturally each state remains sovereign, this is just another EU/NATO style alliance.
That would be a good idea. South Africa would definitely benefit from it. :D

Well, lets face facts; we (Britain) have far more in common with the Commonwealth than with Europe. As for Commonwealth Free Trade, I believe the Canadians are already trying to push this.

Well, lets face facts; we (Britain) have far more in common with the Commonwealth than with Europe. As for Commonwealth Free Trade, I believe the Canadians are already trying to push this.

Well, lets face facts; we (Britain) have far more in common with the Commonwealth than with Europe. As for Commonwealth Free Trade, I believe the Canadians are already trying to push this.
Except with South Africa. South Africa is still somewhat continental, and quite different to Britain in many ways. Yet, I think it stands to gain much from a trade union with the UK. This would be a fabulous idea for Britain and its ex-colonies.

When they came for the ....
Funny you should post that - I was about to go into the same direction!

As I said, I think the US is guilty. I just don't believe in pronouncing them guilty before some sort of legal action has taken place and proven as much. If they have been caught as dead to rights as it seems here, I don't see how some slap on the wrist won't be forthcoming.
Yeah, well - funny that this principle is not upheld by the U.S. when it comes to detainees and alleged torture victims.

And again, what exactly are you going to do to stop "American hegemony"? Cut off our supply of Nutella?
Maybe we will start supplying you with a "special brand" of Nutella.
Maybe we will stop supplying your Abrams tanks with the best gun barrel there is?
Maybe we will stop buying all the American products that are consumed in Europe?
And there's plenty more which we have in store - but you'd have to torture me to extract that information. And I might just lie or enjoy listening to heavy metal 24/7. You never know...

(...) [torture] is not universally bad, we can use it for good. and it is not counter productive, it is very effective.
That is one sick conviction and you honestly should know better.

Put a man in a situation where he is under extreme duress, pressure, and pain, a situation he can get out of by saying a few words, and he will tell you whatever you want to hear. Similarly, it has BEEN PROVEN that men have been known to mentally "warp" for want of a better word under psychologically torture, to the point where they believe that what they are saying is true, even when it is complete bullsh*t.

I think that would appear to show that torture is counter-productive.

Finally; not strictly on topic, but still - the biggest problem Britain faces is the fact that it is neglecting the Commonwealth. We should be far better off as part of a strong and united Commonwealth than as a part of the EU. After all, for years British Foreign Policy has aimed at creating a dis-united Europe.

You've been watching too much "Yes, Minister" ;)

But I agree, a united Commonwealth is beneficial, but I'm not too sure the free-trade zone would benefit all the countries. Certainly for the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand though.

Jim Hacker - "Surely the foreign office is pro Europe?"

Humphrey Appleby - "Yes and no, if you'll forgive the expression. The foreign office is pro Europe because really it is anti-Europe. The civil service was united in it's desire to make sure that the common market didn't work. That's why we went into it."

Jim Hacker - "What are you talking about?"

Humphrey Appleby - "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years. To create a dis-united Europe. In that course we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish; with the Germans against the French; the French and Italians against the Germans; and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?"

Jim Hacker - "That's all ancient history, surely?"

Humphrey Appleby - "Yes, and current policy! We had to break the whole thing so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pigs breakfast of the whole thing. Set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The foreign office is terribly pleased. It's just like old times. "

Jim Hacker - "Surely we're all committed to the European ideal?"

Humphrey Appleby - (laughing) "Really Minister."

Jim Hacker - "If not, why are we pressing for an increase in the membership?"

Humphrey Appleby - "Well for the same reason, it's just like the United Nations in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes."

Jim Hacker - "What appalling cynicism..."

Humphrey Appleby - "Yes, we call it diplomacy Minister."


In any case, all this talk about trade wars is just that, talk. The EU is bound by international law not to unilaterally raise tarrifs on US products. Nor can it impose quotas or NTBs.

Nobody expects the American Inquisition...

CANZUK - I saw a group trying to petition this a while back. A Commonwealth free trade and protection alliance, centred around Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. This could feasibly be extended to include South Africa.
Just don't let any of those black people in...

Anyways, to be honest, with the current Australian government, if Australia had to decide between the US and the UK, it'll choose the Americans I'm afraid to say. See Kyoto - or various UN votes on Israeli security fences...

But for the time being, the issue is set aside...although that lawsuit from Germany will undoubtedly be an interesting development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4509250.stm
Nato and EU foreign ministers said Ms Rice had assured them, at a closed-door meeting on Wednesday evening, that the US did not interpret international humanitarian law differently from its allies.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the meeting was "very satisfactory for all of us".

Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, one of those most concerned by the issue, also said he was "very satisfied".

the usa messed this up, just putting (alleged) illegal combattants in detention centres is a mistake imo, quick tribunals and executions would have been favourable. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/usmillaw.htm has a bit about the apropriate procedures.it is not the only way, threats, bribes and tricks can be used as well, but torture is an important instrument too. you can qoute experts, who say torture does not work, i can quote experts that say it does, nothing gives. if it is so uneffective, then it will not be applied anyway and you have nothing to worry about.
If you can quote pro-torture experts, then please do. I have not seen a single pro-torture argument that does not boil down to "people like this don't understand anything else." If there are actual positive results out there, they should be aired.

Please note that by "experts" I mean people who are interrogation professionals who are in a position to have used torture and to report on its results. Think-tank theorists will not do.

Your statement that, if torture is ineffective, it won't be used, so no problem, is nothing more than a glib brush off (of an argument you can't shoot down, perhaps?). If torture were not used, despite ineffectiveness, there wouldn't be international watchdog organizations trying to stamp it out, now would there? Throughout history, governments have used torture not to "extract information" or to enhance law enforcement or military actions, but to terrorize and control populations. It is a tool of tyranny, plain and simple, and all other excuses for its use are just that -- excuses.

If you can quote pro-torture experts, then please do. I have not seen a single pro-torture argument that does not boil down to "people like this don't understand anything else." If there are actual positive results out there, they should be aired.

Please note that by "experts" I mean people who are interrogation professionals who are in a position to have used torture and to report on its results. Think-tank theorists will not do.

Your statement that, if torture is ineffective, it won't be used, so no problem, is nothing more than a glib brush off (of an argument you can't shoot down, perhaps?). If torture were not used, despite ineffectiveness, there wouldn't be international watchdog organizations trying to stamp it out, now would there? Throughout history, governments have used torture not to "extract information" or to enhance law enforcement or military actions, but to terrorize and control populations. It is a tool of tyranny, plain and simple, and all other excuses for its use are just that -- excuses.

Like any other intelligence gathering technique, it is useful only if you can corroborate the information you gain. There are techniques that get results. They got results from Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and that's been documented in the press. However, it was also documented that the same techniques made another al-Q detainee willing to say anything - to the point of uselessness.

It is not ALWAYS useful and it is not ALWAYS useless. Much depends on the interrogator and the subject, and much depends on the methods used, and how well the information is checked against other sources.

Yes, it's a tool of tyranny. But it's not that simple.

an illegal combattant does not wear uniform, is not part of a military hierarchy, does not carry weapons openly or des not adhere to laws and customs of warfare.well, then it is too bad for them, that the hague convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land has been international law for a hundred years now. nobody is even demanding a fancy uniform, clearly visible, nonremovable distinct military insignia in any form would suffice. i would recommend them a t-shirt with a big fat crosshair in bright yellow.


Sorry to burst your bubble - but if you were going by the "laws and conventions of war" that you so proudly hold up as your defense I'd suggest you take a gander at the Geneva Conventions - Protocol I & II. In those you might note that it does actually classify the US's so-called "illegal combatants" as PoWs as per the classification of irregular or guerilla combatant. But you'll be happy to know that the US chose not to sign onto those pesky little protocols, along with other bastions of human rights and respecters of international law like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, China, Libya...

Like any other intelligence gathering technique, it is useful only if you can corroborate the information you gain. There are techniques that get results. They got results from Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and that's been documented in the press. However, it was also documented that the same techniques made another al-Q detainee willing to say anything - to the point of uselessness.

It is not ALWAYS useful and it is not ALWAYS useless. Much depends on the interrogator and the subject, and much depends on the methods used, and how well the information is checked against other sources.

Yes, it's a tool of tyranny. But it's not that simple.
I disagree. I do think it is that simple. My reasons are pragmatic:

Intelligence gathering is one of the most vital aspects of military and law enforcement actions. Bad intelligence is a leading cause of serious failures in law enforcement and military action. So the value in making sure that the information is good is extremely high. According to interrogation experts, torture is more likely to produce false, incomplete or otherwise unuseable results than non-torture interrogation methods, such as reasoning, deception, and non-painful/degrading coercive techniques. Also, according to such experts, torture is not known to be faster at getting information than non-torture techniques -- in fact, it may be slower because it may take longer to vet the information for accuracy (you essentially have to do the process all over again with other sources and no torture). Thus, the problems associated with torture clearly outweigh any possible value by comparison with non-torture techniques.

Further, if you are trying to get information to build a legal case, or if you think you may have to legally defend your actions (for instance, at a war crimes trial), data gathered by torture will not help you as no data gathered by torture is admissible as evidence in a court of law, precisely because it is so unreliable as a source of true information.

So, if the point of the operation is to get the best information as quickly as possible, then torture is not useful. Also, if you want to defeat your enemies while giving them nothing to use against you as a counter-measure, torture is also not useful, as it leaves you open to criminal charges.

However, torture is extremely useful if the point of the operation is to oppress a population with fear of torture as a form of reprisal or punishment -- although this only works as long as the oppressor holds sufficient power. If such an oppressor is seen as weak, then use of torture becomes an extremely effective motivator for revolution.

I disagree. I do think it is that simple. My reasons are pragmatic:

Intelligence gathering is one of the most vital aspects of military and law enforcement actions. Bad intelligence is a leading cause of serious failures in law enforcement and military action. So the value in making sure that the information is good is extremely high. According to interrogation experts, torture is more likely to produce false, incomplete or otherwise unuseable results than non-torture interrogation methods, such as reasoning, deception, and non-painful/degrading coercive techniques. Also, according to such experts, torture is not known to be faster at getting information than non-torture techniques -- in fact, it may be slower because it may take longer to vet the information for accuracy (you essentially have to do the process all over again with other sources and no torture). Thus, the problems associated with torture clearly outweigh any possible value by comparison with non-torture techniques.

Further, if you are trying to get information to build a legal case, or if you think you may have to legally defend your actions (for instance, at a war crimes trial), data gathered by torture will not help you as no data gathered by torture is admissible as evidence in a court of law, precisely because it is so unreliable as a source of true information.

So, if the point of the operation is to get the best information as quickly as possible, then torture is not useful. Also, if you want to defeat your enemies while giving them nothing to use against you as a counter-measure, torture is also not useful, as it leaves you open to criminal charges.

However, torture is extremely useful if the point of the operation is to oppress a population with fear of torture as a form of reprisal or punishment -- although this only works as long as the oppressor holds sufficient power. If such an oppressor is seen as weak, then use of torture becomes an extremely effective motivator for revolution.

The question I have is, "what is torture?"

There are some human rights advocates who say that because a prisoner is in a powerless situation vis-a-vis his captors, even asking them a question is "torture" due to psychological stress.

There are deception techniques and other non-pain techniques (and non-deprivation techniques) that get people to talk - accurately.

There are also drugs. Drugs that not only do not induce pain or fear, but a feeling of well-being and comfort - and you have no memory of ever having been asked a question. So you can't keep up with your own lies, have no motivation to lie, and don't remember being questioned at all.

They even use a deception technique where the person is injected with a harmless saline solution - and told it's a truth drug. Some people who would like to talk, but need an excuse to cover their weakness ("They had a drug that made me talk") apparently talk under the non-drug.

So is it torture to deceive someone like that? Or to comfortably drug them?

The question I have is, "what is torture?"

There are some human rights advocates who say that because a prisoner is in a powerless situation vis-a-vis his captors, even asking them a question is "torture" due to psychological stress.

There are deception techniques and other non-pain techniques (and non-deprivation techniques) that get people to talk - accurately.

There are also drugs. Drugs that not only do not induce pain or fear, but a feeling of well-being and comfort - and you have no memory of ever having been asked a question. So you can't keep up with your own lies, have no motivation to lie, and don't remember being questioned at all.

They even use a deception technique where the person is injected with a harmless saline solution - and told it's a truth drug. Some people who would like to talk, but need an excuse to cover their weakness ("They had a drug that made me talk") apparently talk under the non-drug.

So is it torture to deceive someone like that? Or to comfortably drug them?
If I have time today (I'm at work) I will research the law on this, but my opinion is that questioning -- even intense and prolonged questioning -- is not torture. Deception is not torture. Harmless drugging is not torture. Describing unpleasant, fictional scenarios of future outcomes in order to manipulate the subject's state of mind is not torture. Solitary confinement is not torture.

Beating, electrocution, "waterboarding," prolonged sleep deprivation; binding in painful positions, food/water deprivation, and all other methods that inflict pain, physical injury or illness are torture. Public and/or sexual humiliation, fear tactics such as threats with attack dogs (the Abu Ghraib catalogue), and other forms of extreme psychological abuse are, imo, a lesser form of torture, but still totally unacceptable.

The kinds of humiliations and fear that go with the mere fact of being a prisoner in enemy hands do not constitute torture, imo.

If I have time today (I'm at work) I will research the law on this, but my opinion is that questioning -- even intense and prolonged questioning -- is not torture. Deception is not torture. Harmless drugging is not torture. Describing unpleasant, fictional scenarios of future outcomes in order to manipulate the subject's state of mind is not torture. Solitary confinement is not torture.

Beating, electrocution, "waterboarding," prolonged sleep deprivation; binding in painful positions, food/water deprivation, and all other methods that inflict pain, physical injury or illness are torture. Public and/or sexual humiliation, fear tactics such as threats with attack dogs (the Abu Ghraib catalogue), and other forms of extreme psychological abuse are, imo, a lesser form of torture, but still totally unacceptable.

The kinds of humiliations and fear that go with the mere fact of being a prisoner in enemy hands do not constitute torture, imo.

Ok, as long as we've got that straight.

Ok, as long as we've got that straight.
That's somewhat cryptic. Are we closer now or farther apart on the opinion scale?

That's somewhat cryptic. Are we closer now or farther apart on the opinion scale?
Closer.

I think the primary problem is that the Geneva Conventions, as written and adopted, do not clearly cover people who are not representing a country or an official armed force, who are not fighting in their home nation.

Since the US knew before it went into Afghanistan that it would be fighting people like this there and in other countries, and that it would be likely that prisoners would be taken, they should have negotiated new Protocols for the Geneva Conventions - then both the Europeans and the US would have had a fixed line to draw from, instead of the US interpreting an ill-fitting Convention one way (or multiple ways within the US government), and the Europeans interpreting it another way.

At the very least, a lot of ill will could have been avoided.

Since the US knew before it went into Afghanistan that it would be fighting people like this there and in other countries, and that it would be likely that prisoners would be taken, they should have negotiated new Protocols for the Geneva Conventions - then both the Europeans and the US would have had a fixed line to draw from, instead of the US interpreting an ill-fitting Convention one way (or multiple ways within the US government), and the Europeans interpreting it another way.

At the very least, a lot of ill will could have been avoided.

I agree with the above whole heartedly.

I agree with the above whole heartedly.
They could even have gotten a lot of concessions from the Europeans during that time of sympathy over 9-11 - concessions that the Europeans might come to regret - but there wouldn't be any way to take it back, and little left to argue about.

Might still have Guantanamo, and real prisons in Europe instead of secret ones. But the actions would have been covered precisely and neatly by prior agreement.

Oh the 'moral currency' the current admin had immedietly after Sept. 11th was HUGE. They could have gotten away with a lot of stuff. Now, it has been frittered away to a certain extent.

But this cropped up today in a British court ruling (the highest in the land) regards information from torture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4509530.stm

Lords reject torture evidence use

Secret evidence that might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled.

Also the 'waterboarding' of that particular AQ suspect you are so fond of quoting as a successful use of torture, the info gained from him via this has been deemed inadmissable ;)

Also the 'waterboarding' of that particular AQ suspect you are so fond of quoting as a successful use of torture, the info gained from him via this has been deemed inadmissable ;)

He wasn't being tortured for information to try him on in a court of law.

He was being asked to give up names and addresses of contacts in al-Q. So we could either capture or assassinate them.

That's the other thing - the US views this as a military operation where you kill people - and the best defense is a good offense. Most other countries believe this is a law enforcement problem, where you wait until people actually murder wholesale before you bother to investigate them, capture them, or bring them to trial - in their view, offense is evil.

Oh the 'moral currency' the current admin had immedietly after Sept. 11th was HUGE. They could have gotten away with a lot of stuff. Now, it has been frittered away to a certain extent.

Government always seems to excel at pissing away currency of any kind.

He wasn't being tortured for information to try him on in a court of law.

He was being asked to give up names and addresses of contacts in al-Q. So we could either capture or assassinate them.


Ah, thats the difference,

But surely the evidence gathered from him would at some stage be used in some court of law later down the line? Would it really be that 'behind closed doors'? Is there no effort or attempt to show to the world that this can be treated successfully in a court of law? I mean the trial of Tim McVeigh showed that terrorism can be dealt with in the courts. :confused:

[Genuine question]

Ah, thats the difference,

But surely the evidence gathered from him would at some stage be used in some court of law later down the line? Would it really be that 'behind closed doors'? Is there no effort or attempt to show to the world that this can be treated successfully in a court of law? I mean the trial of Tim McVeigh showed that terrorism can be dealt with in the courts. :confused:

[Genuine question]

No, people like Khalid Sheik Muhammed will never see trial.

The trial of McVeigh showed nothing of the kind. It only showed that after a lot of people get killed, you can convict someone. It doesn't stop organized terrorism.

Organized terrorism can only be reduced (and not completely stopped) by offensive action. Standing around waiting to be attacked, putting up cameras and weapon detectors only allows you to do something after people have been killed - and your consolation prize is that if you do catch some of them, they go on trial.

Bin Laden referred to this in his writings in the 1990s. He called it weakness he could count on from the West.

Organized terrorism can only be reduced (and not completely stopped) by offensive action. Standing around waiting to be attacked, putting up cameras and weapon detectors only allows you to do something after people have been killed - and your consolation prize is that if you do catch some of them, they go on trial.


But you're never going to be able to stop them all regardless of whether you are proactive or not.

After the bombing of the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton in the 1980's, M. Thatcher said "We were lucky [to have escaped alive]."
The IRA responded by saying "You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once."

Being proactive might give a good sense of achievement in the short term, as in "Hey, we're doing something", but in the long run (which is what all true fights against terrorism are) it doesn't really cut down the fact that you still can't guarantee safety by being proactive. They're going to get through at some stage- its when not if.

The problem then arises when people start saying "Well, we've been taking the fight to them for all these years now and it hasn't stopped them. What can we do?" It can severely damage a nations morale by constantly being on the front foot and STILL not being effective.

I don't know where I was going with this point....:confused: :D

But you're never going to be able to stop them all regardless of whether you are proactive or not.

After the bombing of the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton in the 1980's, M. Thatcher said "We were lucky [to have escaped alive]."
The IRA responded by saying "You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once."

Being proactive might give a good sense of achievement in the short term, as in "Hey, we're doing something", but in the long run (which is what all true fights against terrorism are) it doesn't really cut down the fact that you still can't guarantee safety by being proactive. They're going to get through at some stage- its when not if.

The problem then arises when people start saying "Well, we've been taking the fight to them for all these years now and it hasn't stopped them. What can we do?" It can severely damage a nations morale by constantly being on the front foot and STILL not being effective.

I don't know where I was going with this point....:confused: :D

I look at it this way.

Unlike other terrorists in the past, who issued demands, held hostages for demands/ransom, negotiated, etc., there are two types today.

The traditional ones - you see these in Iraq - they kidnap people and issue demands.

The new ones - al-Qaeda - they kill people whenever and wherever they can. Their aim is to destroy the West, America in particular, and bring back their view of Islam to rule the world. They have no intention of negotiating.

We should have discussed this all with Europe before the invasion of Afghanistan. Got it straight so that no one would be surprised.

Closer.

I think the primary problem is that the Geneva Conventions, as written and adopted, do not clearly cover people who are not representing a country or an official armed force, who are not fighting in their home nation.

Since the US knew before it went into Afghanistan that it would be fighting people like this there and in other countries, and that it would be likely that prisoners would be taken, they should have negotiated new Protocols for the Geneva Conventions - then both the Europeans and the US would have had a fixed line to draw from, instead of the US interpreting an ill-fitting Convention one way (or multiple ways within the US government), and the Europeans interpreting it another way.

At the very least, a lot of ill will could have been avoided.
Oh, good. Closer is always better. Easier to hear what the other guy is saying. :D

One of my favorite bits of historical trivia is about Charles the V of France (I believe it was), back in the 1400's. He was, imo, the only good ruler France ever had. He had this hang-up -- rather unusual way back then -- about making sure that every single thing he did as king was 100% legal. Most of his advisors were lawyers. If he wanted to fight a battle, collect taxes, reorganize the gentry, refuse to do something the church was asking, or what have you, he would always get precedents to show why he was allowed to do it, so no one would have any just cause to act against him. And it worked, too. He always got his way, and he died a natural death at a mature age.

The new ones - al-Qaeda - they kill people whenever and wherever they can. Their aim is to destroy the West, America in particular, and bring back their view of Islam to rule the world. They have no intention of negotiating.
Hmm, I agree they are new. But I am hesitant to call every groups that 'has links' to them to be exactly similar or have at least similar goals. I think a lot of groups that have said to have links to them are much more complicated. See the Aceh rebels. Indonesia has always said they were attempting to set up an Islamic state and never discussed with them. Now Aceh, is an autonomous province.

Its very easy to blandly sweep everything under the label of AQ. Individuals (or small cells) are more likely to be members. Groups always have more to them then meets the eye.

But thats only my opinion. ;)


We should have discussed this all with Europe before the invasion of Afghanistan. Got it straight so that no one would be surprised.

Yeah, I think you're probably right. A basic framework on 'how-to' deal with this new era would have been helpful rather then making it up as you go along.

bleh, I hope the UK is going to get shitty about this (they won't, but I wish they would). The Law Lords have ruled that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in a court of law. Whether it be done in the UK or not, or whether it be done by the UK or not matters not. This leaves virtually no excuse for torturing terror suspects, or being complicit in torture.

Its very easy to blandly sweep everything under the label of AQ. Individuals (or small cells) are more likely to be members. Groups always have more to them then meets the eye.

Agreed.

Yeah, I think you're probably right. A basic framework on 'how-to' deal with this new era would have been helpful rather
then making it up as you go along.

The US certainly could have gained a lot more by talking about it up front and getting agreement back then - now they have to bend over and take one up the ass.

bleh, I hope the UK is going to get shitty about this (they won't, but I wish they would). The Law Lords have ruled that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in a court of law. Whether it be done in the UK or not, or whether it be done by the UK or not matters not. This leaves virtually no excuse for torturing terror suspects, or being complicit in torture.

What good is the Law Lords opinion if you're never going to use the information obtained in a court of law?

What if you're just getting the poor guy to cough up a list of names so you can go out and kill the people on the list?

bleh, I hope the UK is going to get shitty about this (they won't, but I wish they would). The Law Lords have ruled that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in a court of law. Whether it be done in the UK or not, or whether it be done by the UK or not matters not. This leaves virtually no excuse for torturing terror suspects, or being complicit in torture.

The UK invented a lot of these "tortures" not so long ago. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh the 'moral currency' the current admin had immedietly after Sept. 11th was HUGE. They could have gotten away with a lot of stuff. Now, it has been frittered away to a certain extent.



Oh yes, it's too bad we couldn't have gotten away with more. It would be so much better if we had written agreements that allowed us to thumb our noses at international law, instead of looking like bad guys for doing so. :rolleyes:

But you're never going to be able to stop them all regardless of whether you are proactive or not.

After the bombing of the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton in the 1980's, M. Thatcher said "We were lucky [to have escaped alive]."
The IRA responded by saying "You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once."

Being proactive might give a good sense of achievement in the short term, as in "Hey, we're doing something", but in the long run (which is what all true fights against terrorism are) it doesn't really cut down the fact that you still can't guarantee safety by being proactive. They're going to get through at some stage- its when not if.

The problem then arises when people start saying "Well, we've been taking the fight to them for all these years now and it hasn't stopped them. What can we do?" It can severely damage a nations morale by constantly being on the front foot and STILL not being effective.

I don't know where I was going with this point....:confused: :D
Well, then let me take it somewhere for you.

The point as I see it is that, if you treat terrorism as something that can be defeated and wiped out once and for all by direct action, then you must be assuming that there is a finite number of terrorists in the world and that there can never be more of them.

This is obviously not true. There is a never ending supply of terrorists, from any number of sources, driven by any number of motivations, and not all of them related to each other, therefore, not all affected the same way by the same actions. Why is this? Because "terrorism" is not a discrete thing or group of people. It is a tactic.

You may defeat a group like the Viet Cong (well, someone might), but you can't defeat a tactic like guerilla warfare, because it's not just the Viet Cong who use it. You can defeat al-Qaida, but you can't defeat terrorism, because al-Qaida are nothing more than the flavor of the moment when it comes to terrorism. Before them, it was ETA and the IRA, etc. After them, it will be someone else with an entirely different beef against the world. Non al-Qaida terrorists don't give a rat's ass what we do to al-Qaida. If we defeat al-Qaida, all that will prove to other terrorists is that al-Qaida were a bunch of losers. Considering the motivations of terrorists, as well as their tactics, I don't see how taking down al-Qaida will act as a deterrent. It will only serve to eliminate those particular terrorists (good enough in itself, but not a victory against terrorism).

So what does that mean? Basically, it means that "terrorism" is not an enemy susceptible to defeat, so if you fight it as if it were, then you will simply never stop fighting. There is no victory to be had.

It is simply unfeasible to expect nations to remain on an active war footing indefinitely. No population will endure for very long a never-ending war, never-ending sacrifice of their children's lives, never-ending instability, and the never-ending costs associated with war. Eventually, the pressures will undermine the social and economic structure of the nation, military actions will suffer, and terrorists will push their advantage.

However, let's consider the alternative approach. Let's accept that terrorism is part of the international scene and isn't going to go away. The job now is to prevent terrorists from attacking civilian populations while not overly interfering with normal civilian business and activity. In other words, we must maintain peaceful order in the face of a threat. This is clearly a job for the cops. It's what they do, after all. So clearly, each nation must commit to domestic security and emergency response at the law enforcement level and treat terrorism as a particularly violent form of international organized crime. I firmly believe this will lead to a permanent security structure that does not harm the social fabric. In addition to this, law enforcement and military must work together, and allied governments must work together, because when a terrorist organization is found -- its training camps, arms dumps, etc -- then military action is the surest way to take those out.

With such an approach, we can maintain the proper balance of on-going civilian security structures with short, intermittant bursts of warfare. This is far more sustainable than continuous war.

*snip*
Thank you. I'm too tired to type out something that long :D :p

Oh yes, it's too bad we couldn't have gotten away with more. It would be so much better if we had written agreements that allowed us to thumb our noses at international law, instead of looking like bad guys for doing so. :rolleyes:

No no. I mean, had there been some agreement on how to deal with upcoming issues (ie stuff thats happening now) then it would have gone a lot smoother for the US. I don't mean saying its acceptable for carte balnche to be given- but some basic pointers / groundrules would actually have helped the US in this circumstance.

What good is the Law Lords opinion if you're never going to use the information obtained in a court of law?

What if you're just getting the poor guy to cough up a list of names so you can go out and kill the people on the list?This is why I said virtually. Anyway, extarjudical killing is considered to be illegal and as such would come under the jurisdiction of the courts if it was found out about.

Where I see torture being used is if the secret services know a terrorist attack is imminent, but are lacking a few key details.

What good is the Law Lords opinion if you're never going to use the information obtained in a court of law?

What if you're just getting the poor guy to cough up a list of names so you can go out and kill the people on the list?
By "kill" I assume you mean a military action against a legitimate military target. Because assination is illegal. Certain types of targets are illegal. And haven't we already told you why we believe torture is not the way to get that information?

Do you think the "war on terror" is well served by just blowing up any old village in the Khyber Pass?

This is why I said virtually. Anyway, extarjudical killing is considered to be illegal and as such would come under the jurisdiction of the courts if it was found out about.

Where I see torture being used is if the secret services know a terrorist attack is imminent, but are lacking a few key details.

Umm. Killing people in combat is not extrajudicial killing.

Thank you. I'm too tired to type out something that long :D :p
I hate my job, so I made the time. ;)

By "kill" I assume you mean a military action against a legitimate military target. Because assination is illegal. Certain types of targets are illegal. And haven't we already told you why we believe torture is not the way to get that information?

Do you think the "war on terror" is well served by just blowing up any old village in the Khyber Pass?


Not well served at all. But, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, long before passing the Patriot Act, the Congress gave the CIA back the ability to conduct assassinations. And the CIA has the military do the work, largely through Special Forces. Yes, you may believe that torture is not the way to get that information, but apparently, they've been able to distinguish when it is accurate and when it is not (by corroborating information from multiple sources).

I may not like it either, but they passed laws to make the assassination a legal option.

Umm. Killing people in combat is not extrajudicial killing.
I see, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I agree with Muravyets' long post. You see I consider that war isn't the best way to disrupt terrorism. Instead, it would be better to spy on souch groups and disrupt them whenever we know they're about to carry out an attack. Even this doesn warrant 'killing', more simply early morning raids, and holding suspects until you know the current threat has passed, and if you have anything on them then convict them and take them out of the system permanently.

I see, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I agree with Muravyets' long post. You see I consider that war isn't the best way to disrupt terrorism. Instead, it would be better to spy on souch groups and disrupt them whenever we know they're about to carry out an attack. Even this doesn warrant 'killing', more simply early morning raids, and holding suspects until you know the current threat has passed, and if you have anything on them then convict them and take them out of the system permanently.

Yes, and my point earlier is that this is the primary worldview difference between Europe and the US - Europe sees it as a law enforcement problem, and the US sees it as a military problem.

Not well served at all. But, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, long before passing the Patriot Act, the Congress gave the CIA back the ability to conduct assassinations. And the CIA has the military do the work, largely through Special Forces. Yes, you may believe that torture is not the way to get that information, but apparently, they've been able to distinguish when it is accurate and when it is not (by corroborating information from multiple sources).

I may not like it either, but they passed laws to make the assassination a legal option.
I'm torn on the issue of assassination, and in the end, I would probably not oppose it. But one thing to remember is that other nations may not recognize our right to assassinate an enemy, even a terrorist. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend our actions in court in case our assassins are arrested as mere murderers, and in case charges and/or sanctions are brought against us for carrying out assassinations in other countries.

Likewise, if we take a military action based on intelligence "extracted" from a prisoner, we should be prepared to defend that action in a court if we are brought up on war crimes charges. If, in fact, it turns out that we just bombed the living shit out of some peaceful village because that was the name coughed up by some prisoner just to get us to stop electrocuting his balls, then we're going to be in trouble. And al-Qaida will be laughing all the way to their next internet video taping.

The UK invented a lot of these "tortures" not so long ago. Ironic, isn't it?I know. The British just seem to be the best at everything. Whether it be a system of morality; a system of democracy; a system of torture; a system of Imperialism; a system of elitist arrogance; a system of EVERYTHING ... except sport... well we can invent the sports, but we can't figure out how to play them. :(

Not well served at all. But, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, long before passing the Patriot Act, the Congress gave the CIA back the ability to conduct assassinations. And the CIA has the military do the work, largely through Special Forces. Yes, you may believe that torture is not the way to get that information, but apparently, they've been able to distinguish when it is accurate and when it is not (by corroborating information from multiple sources).

I may not like it either, but they passed laws to make the assassination a legal option.
Another point I have a problem with -- precisely what do you base this on? The government's say-so? Because they've proven so reliable on so many issues so far. I'm sorry, but I don't believe they have any such ability, and I don't see any real progress being made in this so-called war on terror. Unless, of course, the purpose of the war is to dig us deeper into it. That they seem to be doing very nicely indeed.

You will not persuade me that these command-level and policy-level idiots are doing any of this right until you show me bin Laden and al-Zarqawi in chains and a nice, verifiable disarming of the insurgents in Iraq. Until then, I say all the US's claims so far have been just so much smoke blown up the world's ass.

For the record, btw, I am an American, and I think the Europeans are right.

Another point I have a problem with -- precisely what do you base this on? The government's say-so? Because they've proven so reliable on so many issues so far. I'm sorry, but I don't believe they have any such ability, and I don't see any real progress being made in this so-called war on terror. Unless, of course, the purpose of the war is to dig us deeper into it. That they seem to be doing very nicely indeed.

You will not persuade me that these command-level and policy-level idiots are doing any of this right until you show me bin Laden and al-Zarqawi in chains and a nice, verifiable disarming of the insurgents in Iraq. Until then, I say all the US's claims so far have been just so much smoke blown up the world's ass.

For the record, btw, I am an American, and I think the Europeans are right.

No, I believe it because I've seen it work.

No, I believe it because I've seen it work.
I'm sorry, but what does 'it' refer to in that sentence?
[honest question]
I gathered it's 'torture'... but that can't be it , surely..?

I see, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I agree with Muravyets' long post. You see I consider that war isn't the best way to disrupt terrorism. Instead, it would be better to spy on souch groups and disrupt them whenever we know they're about to carry out an attack. Even this doesn warrant 'killing', more simply early morning raids, and holding suspects until you know the current threat has passed, and if you have anything on them then convict them and take them out of the system permanently.
I would actually be a bit tougher than that. If spying on such groups gives us confirmed information that they are, in fact, terrorists, then that by itself should be enough to take action. You don't have to wait until an attack is imminent. If a terrorist is one who commits terrorism, and terrorism is a crime, then being a terrorist is also crime. Like being a murderer -- you don't get that title until you've actually done the deed. I think we can agree that there is a big difference between an organization of political dissenters and a group of terrorists. If actions against terrorism are taken in full view of the law, then the rights of dissenters can be protected even as terrorists are hunted down.

When it comes to whether killing is warranted or not, I believe that law enforcement should be authorized to use all necessary force up to and including deadly force if the officers on the ground think they need to. This would apply if an attack is imminent. If an attack is headed off, then violence will not be necessary unless they resist arrest.

I'm sorry, but what does 'it' refer to in that sentence?
[honest question]
I gathered it's 'tortute'... but that can't be, surely..?
Go to a NATO SERE school and let them beat you up, freeze you, sleep deprive you, etc.

Everyone talks. That's the lesson you get there. Everyone talks. What you're expected to do is to hold out for at least 48 hours - after which any information you know as a soldier will be useless.

Go to a NATO SERE school and let them beat you up, freeze you, sleep deprive you, etc.

Everyone talks. That's the lesson you get there. Everyone talks. What you're expected to do is to hold out for at least 48 hours - after which any information you know as a soldier will be useless.
Exactly. Everyone talks. With no guaranty, however, that "everyone" only includes people who actually know things. Also with no guaranty that "everyone" doesn't include dedicated terrorists who will talk easily, but with false information. What part of "the information is not reliable" do you have a problem wrapping your brain around? They talk to make you stop hurting them. They'll say anything you want to hear, whether it's true or not. Getting people to talk is not the goal here. We want them to tell the freaking truth.

No, I believe it because I've seen it work.
See also my post about NATO SERE schools. In fact, you haven't seen it work. You've seen it make people talk. You have not seen it make everyone who is subjected to it tell the truth.

Go to a NATO SERE school and let them beat you up, freeze you, sleep deprive you, etc.

Everyone talks. That's the lesson you get there. Everyone talks. What you're expected to do is to hold out for at least 48 hours - after which any information you know as a soldier will be useless.
Ok, I'll do just that. Thanks. Jesus! Did I say people won't break..?
I honestly was trying to make sense of that sentence. I'm sorry I wasn't aware what you had to go through in training... to what ever you are trained for (media guerrilla springs to mind :) ).

EDIT: And what first intrigued me was the opportunity that you had seen torture work... what a scoop: "NS player witnessed torture"... but I was wrong. Sorry again.