Arab summit draft raises concerns I just hope that the State Department is keeping a close watch on this!
If the Bush administration was left a little uneasy by South America's rapidly growing ties with China, Russia and ''Old Europe'' last year, it better get ready for the next blow: a first-of-its-kind South American-Arab League summit to be held in Brazil.
Judging from a 28-page draft final declaration of the summit that I obtained this week, it's no surprise that U.S. officials and pro-Israel groups are concerned. Unless foreign ministers from South America and Arab countries change some of the document's language, it will amount to a tacit statement of support for Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
The summit of South American and Arab countries, to be held May 10-11 in Brasilia, the Brazilian capital, was convened by Brazilian President Luiz Inäcio Lula da Silva.
The Brazilian leader has already expanded his country's ties with Russia, China, India and other emerging powers as part of an effort to diversify his country's exports, offset U.S. influence in world affairs and get support for Brazil's campaign for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
TRADE BRIDGES
The meeting was supposed to focus on promoting commercial and cultural ties. Nothing wrong with that; there are an estimated 17 million Arabs and Arab descendants in Latin America, according to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, and they could help build trade and cultural bridges with the Arab world.
But Arab countries have argued the summit will not be taken seriously if it shuns political issues, and South American countries have agreed to include a political section, organizers say.
According to a copy of the draft declaration in my hands, there are several Arab-proposed paragraphs that would strongly condemn Israel and tacitly endorse violent Arab groups that are on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
In the document's section entitled Strengthening Biregional and Multilateral Relations, for instance, paragraph 2.9 calls for a U.N. conference ''to study'' terrorism and ``define the terrorist crime, and distinguish terrorism from the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation with a view to reach national independence.''
JUSTIFYING HAMAS
What? ''Study'' terrorism? ''Distinguish'' it from ''the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation''? By suggesting that, the summit declaration would tacitly justify Middle Eastern groups such as Hamas -- which is on the State Department terrorist list -- and their practices of blowing up buses filled with Israeli schoolchildren in the name of ``resisting foreign occupation.''
That would take us back to the stone ages.
There is nothing to ''study,'' ''define'' or ''distinguish'' about terrorism. Terrorism is killing innocent people for political purposes, and that's a crime. Period.
Asked about it, a U.S. State Department official told me Wednesday that while a trade, development and culturefocused summit could be very productive, ''we are withholding comment'' on the draft's language on terrorism until the final declaration is issued.
''But there is no justification for terrorism, and we expect the responsible leaders of South America and the Arab world to affirm this fundamental principle,'' the U.S. official added.
DON'T PANIC
Brazil's undersecretary for political affairs, Ambassador Vera Pedrosa, told me in a telephone interview not to panic over the draft, which she said should have never gotten out of the negotiators' hands.
''It's a very early draft, which can be profoundly altered between now and the end of the process,'' she said. And a well-placed official from Argentina, a country that has suffered two terrorist attacks on Jewish institutions, told me his country will not go along with the terrorism language.
''The idea that there can be pseudo-liberation movements that can practice terrorism is unacceptable to us,'' he said. 'There is no such thing as `good' terrorism.''
Still, Venezuela is likely to support the Arab-proposed paragraphs, and other South American countries may accept an only somewhat lighter version of them.
My conclusion: South American countries are playing with fire by extending the focus of the summit to Middle Eastern politics. That is bound to grab headlines, add tension to U.S.-South American ties and, what may be worse, introduce the Middle East's tensions into a hemisphere where Jews and Arabs have lived in harmony for centuries. That's the last thing South America needs.
#3
For once I agree with State. I suspect that they are carefully watching developments, but have no real basis from which to react upon at this juncture. All speculative at present.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/08/2005 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
Partygoers, Parade Watchers and Hotel Guests Will Face Multiple Screenings
The Secret Service and D.C. police plan to erect roadblocks and screen pedestrians as far as three blocks from Pennsylvania Avenue in the tightest security cordon ever for a presidential inauguration, downtown businesspeople say. Property owners, building tenants and private security officials said they have been told that vehicles will be barred from the blocks surrounding the historic avenue, which President Bush's motorcade will travel before he is sworn in at noon Jan. 20 at the U.S. Capitol and afterward when he leads a parade back to the White House. ... An announcement on the restrictions is expected next week. Privately, officials have met with those who do business along Pennsylvania Avenue as they prepare for the event. The plans are fluid and could change depending on the government's threat assessments. Access to buildings in the area will be limited. Employees will have to present government-issued identification cards, hotel guests will be required to show their room keys, and others attending private inauguration parties must have their names submitted ahead of time to the Secret Service, several business owners and executives said.
Tens of thousands of paradegoers also will be screened and directed separately to viewing spots. ... The pomp and pageantry of Inauguration Day has long been accompanied by tight security, such as the posting of snipers on rooftops and the sealing of windows on buildings facing Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet preparations this time far exceed those for George W. Bush's first inauguration four years ago. Security officials have refined practices used to defend against car or truck bombs and have improved their ability to screen people as they ratcheted up security at a series of major events since the 2001 terrorist attacks, such as the funeral last year for former president Ronald Reagan, meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and the presidential nominating conventions in New York City and Boston. Followed by the obligatory, "There is too much unnecessary security,it impinges on the right of the peepul to enjoy a parade" nonsense from one of our sillier politicians. I'm not sure which one, 'cause it didn't seem worth my time to read the full quotation.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
01/08/2005 12:37:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great choice. Clever guy, much experience in getting things done across Asia, Latin America. And as a trade negotiator he certainly knows where those nations are most vulnerable and most desirous of help.
#3
Long past time we stopped wasting so much time with Europe. Sorry in advance to our Euro friends and True __ Allies, but it's imperative that we start focusing, seriously, on Asia. Zoellick will help in this regard. The Asian challenge is at least as much economic as military, and neither Powell nro Armitage had a clue on economic matters.
Maybe this is a sign that the first phase of the War on Terror is drawing to a close, and that we can soon get back to the really big issues facing us in this century: managing China's rise and the disturbance to the international state system it heralds, dealing with our weird status as both superpower and super-debtor nation, helping Japan integrate itself into the international power balance again, forging a productive relationship with India....
Note that none of the above really has much to do with NATO or our relations with Europe. Look west, Americans. Asian Century now.
#4
And it speaks well of Rice's grasp of the Big Picture and simple get the job done attitude, utterly devoid of political scheming, which was wasted before the 9/11 Commission's professional politards - but not on everyone who watched and listened. That was when I realized why Dubya trusts her, both personally and in her judgement.
On the other hand, everything angers Moose limbs...
A HIGH profile Australian charity headed by a Catholic priest today backed away from plans to set up an orphanage in tsunami-shattered Aceh after the plan enraged hardline Muslim groups. Youth Off The Streets founder Father Chris Riley arrived in the provincial capital Banda Aceh last night with plans to set up a tent orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 Acehnese children with dead or missing parents. The plan was backed with a $100,000 donation from NSW clubs and media mogul Kerry Packer's Channel 9 funded Riley's trip.
But after the chief of the radical Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), Hilmy Bakar Almascaty warned Youth off the Streets to stick purely to humanitarian work, Father Riley said the orphanage plan had only ever been a last resort. If there were too many sensitivities involved, he was happy to drop the plan or funnel support into an Indonesian organisation, he said. "Youth off the Streets has no religious basis at all," he said. "It is Christian I guess, but we've got Muslims in our services in Sydney. There is never any conflict there. I'm not going to force myself into a community like this and if they've got things in hand, so be it. We are going to look. If it means we look elsewhere or go back to Australia, I don't have any problem with that at all. It's predominantly Muslim so you accept that. We're not going to fight that."
The issue is sensitive in Aceh, which is the only Indonesian province to have fully implemented Islamic sharia law and said to be the veranda of the holy city Mecca. Radical and mainstream Muslim organisations have warned against encroachment by other religions in the province and the Indonesian government last week barred orphan children from leaving the region to preserve Aceh's culture and future.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
01/08/2005 12:19:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't want to piss off the Islamo fascists, it's feeding time in the shark pool.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/08/2005 1:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
One has to ask, "Is there anything that doesn't 'anger' Muslims - even when they can't handle the job or are still trying to get it out of their pants?"
#5
Actually I don't give a shit what these moose limbs think. When it comes to kids they have to put up, shut up or get out of the way. The Indonesian goverment is clearly able to tell them to do it too. Isn't the Islamic Defenders Front in line for some good old down home governmental repression? It hard to talk with a gun in your mouth and it's hard to get heard when your ass is in jail. Time for a hot steaming cup of STFU.
#8
On a semi-serious note, anyone familiar with how sharia determines property ownership and rights of inheritance knows that pretty much all of Aceh is up for grabs--no one survives to sell, inherit or execute estates. Bargains will be arranged between the resort corporations and the corrupt Indonesian government, and maybe Aceh will become the next great "undeveloped" tourist location.
As for the orphans, there's lots of Islamic rhetoric about taking care of orphans, but the reality is that adopted children lack the legal standing of their natural-born siblings, a sore thorn when it comes to dividing estates. These orphans not only have nothing now, but they have no claim to anything, ever, under sharia. The West needs to be aggressive in protecting their rights, in protecting their legal claims to properties (if any can ever be determined), and in making sure they are properly cared for and schooled. If not, I can guarantee you that they will be warehoused in Saudi-funded madrassas until they're old enough to breed or become cannon fodder, which is only a decade from now. And that's exactly what the "Islamic Defender's Front," an organization that didn't exist till someone telephoned a news reporter with the threat, wants.
#11
Don't the filthy pig-dog kafirs see that it is the will of Allah that these children be orphaned? Do they not realize that it is the exclusive provenance of Allah to care, or not care for orphans? Fight not the will of Allah...
*blink.* Sorry, I've been trolling for Islamic moderates elsewhere.. that just kind of slipped out. But I believe it's fairly accurate.
Note, and I can't remember which thread it came up on earlier, but Sharia is in effect in Banda Aceh
Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri said that Iran will not accept the European Union's proposal to provide nuclear fuel to the country. Iran has not yet observed any indication that the Europeans intend to waste time, he said in a conference in Mashhad entitled "Nuclear Dossier, Victory, Defeat or Withdrawal", the Qods daily reported on Thursday. "The fact that the Europeans have proposed to offer fuel to Iran is considered in itself a victory for the country, although this was not what we were aiming for," said Naseri, who heads the Iran-EU nuclear working group. "If they had suggested this seven or eight years ago, we might have accepted, but now we won't," he added.
Naseri predicted that an extensive propaganda attack would be initiated about Iran's nuclear program in the next six months. "Of course we have also taken the necessary precautions," he stressed. Naseri said the nuclear issue had become a challenge for Iran, adding that there is a certain potential in the nuclear program that could provide exceptional opportunities for the country. Pointing out that the recent negotiations between Iran and Europe were their most intense in the past 25 years, he said Iran-EU ties would be seriously damaged if the process of talks failed to reach an appropriate conclusion. The nuclear negotiator added that Iran has followed a very difficult path with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the past 16 months.
He said that terrorism is one of the issues on the agenda of Iran-Europe political-security working group but added that discussions would only focus on the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. The Europeans are well aware that Iran will simply break off negotiations if they use threatening language or attempt to deceive the country, he stressed. "If they make mischief, it will not be difficult to end the whole show," he observed. Asked about Europe's agreement to help Iran join the World Trade Organization (WTO), Naseri stated that this was not a response to a demand from Iran "but a proposal from Europe". However, it seems that they have failed to live up to what they proposed themselves, Naseri said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/08/2005 12:45:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"If they make mischief, it will not be difficult to end the whole show," he observed.
Those may well be prophetic words, although the particular 'they', 'mischief' and 'end' are not who and what he thinks they are. I wonder what the global market for fused, radioactive sand is?
#11
The western-leaning people in Iran are running out of time. They had better summon the courage to change things or prepare to die.
Posted by: Tom ||
01/08/2005 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Would it help to confuse them by appeasing them more?
Posted by: Brave Sir EU ||
01/08/2005 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm serious. This shit isn't funny anymore. The EU clowns are working against us here: the goal is to contain the US hegemonic warmonger, not to do anything substantive to prevent a nuclear Iran. We'd be much better off if we shut down the circus altogether.
#14
lex - I'm with you here - nothing about Iran is funny, especially to anyone in Tel Aviv. I truly believe a major Mad Mullah Day of Reckoning approaches, courtesy of Dubya - who's kept his word every time given thus far since 9/11. Of course, I hope I'm right due to the magnitude of the consequences, but I understand the disbelievers. We shall see.
Brave Sir EU - One OT comment - Coco reminds me of my Samoyeds - I miss them all immensely, as well.
#1
If there's on guy who doesn't need a Rantlanch...
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/08/2005 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is the first visit I've paid to the Puppy Blender in a couple of months. He invites Megan McArdle to post - and she's one of the larger asshats around, IMHO. Sent me to the Email point more than once. Screw Glenn.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
MS: One Sunni drowned, and one Sunni walked away.
Really? Where's his body? You gotta love how his parents identified someone else's body as his. Maybe he was killed shooting at GI's. But that's Mike Sylwester for you - when he has to decide whether to trust a GI's word or a Muslim's word, he'll always side with the Muslim.
#8
Re #7 (Zhang Fei) to decide whether to trust a GI's word or a Muslim's word
The GIs were lying, and now they have admitted it. A major in the unit testified in court that the lieutenant colonel in charge ordered people to lie about the incident.
The US Army investigators who officially investigated the matter concluded and testified that the unit as a whole was lying to cover up the incident. Here's a quote from another article:
Sgt. Irene Cintron said soldiers who ordered two young Iraqi men into the water at first denied the event took place â then said it happened but that nobody died. Because of earlier efforts to cover up, subsequent tips were deemed unreliable, she said. "I believed the whole chain of command was lying to me," Cintron testified during the military trial ....
Now these same liars are trying to peddle the yarn that the young man did not drown. Why should we believe them now?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
MS - nobody here believes the tripe you keep peddling as "world truth"; to quote you: "Why should we believe them you now?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/08/2005 22:30 Comments ||
Top||
A U.S. general warned Friday that insurgents may be planning "spectacular" attacks to scare voters in the three weeks before Iraq's landmark elections, and Shiite and Sunni religious leaders voiced sharply divergent views on whether the vote should be held at all. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, who is deputy chief of staff for strategic communications in Iraq, said the United States has no intelligence indicating specific plots, but he said American leaders expected a rise in attacks. He said the insurgents' biggest weapon was their ability to instill fear.
That's why they call them terrorists...
"I think a worst case is where they have a series of horrific attacks that cause mass casualties in some spectacular fashion in the days leading up to the elections," Lessel said. "If you look over the last six months, they have steadily escalated the barbaric nature of the attacks they have been committing. A year ago, you didn't see these kinds of horrific things."
A year ago was just after Sammy was captured. The Bad Guys were pretty much in disarray until Zarqawi hit his stride...
In Washington, President Bush expressed optimism about the Jan. 30 elections, saying they will be "an incredibly hopeful experience," despite rising violence and doubts that the vote will bring stability and democracy. "I know it's hard but it's hard for a reason," Bush said, adding that the insurgents are trying to impede the elections because they fear freedom. He acknowledged security problems in four of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/08/2005 12:40:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He said the insurgentsâ biggest weapon was their ability to instill fear.
What about surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Allah?
#2
The vibes I'm getting say the Iraqi military buildup is not going well. Stands to reason, infiltration by Sunni mafia would create the same type of intimidation that goes on in the civilian population, and intel leaks would reduce the element of surprise in offensive ops. My $.02 says we should take advantage of our current quasi alliance with the Shias and Kurds. Consolidate their ability to protect and defend themselves in their native areas. Build up all-Shia and all-Kurd militias under the label of the ING. Make sure whatever happens we don't lose those areas. In the Sunni area, we should either radically increase or decrease our profile. Either abandon them to their fate, or ... scorched earth?
#5
Agreed. But perhaps, like in Afghanistan, it would be better to create the units as mixed Kurd and Shia, to start the people moving past the tribal mindset, and the potential for corruption when the troops are either among their own people (helping the brothers against the cousins) or in another area (what do we care about those other guys). Then when the Sunnis have become, perforce, reasonable, they can more easily be slotted into Iraqi units on an individual -- vetted -- basis. If the Iraqis cannot be moved beyond tribal groupthink, even as a federation the country will not hold together...unless another strongman of the Saddam (God forbid) or Tito (Yugoslavia. Somewhat better, but still not good) type grabs power.
#6
The downside is that it could easily lead to civil war and a division of Iraq into three parts after we leave. If we want to do that, we should have done it before or now at the latest. But there are a number of reasons it is a bad idea. Better is to cut the Sunni problem off at its source...Syria. I hope Luck is going over to assist in plans to reduce that problem in coordination with the Iraqi forces.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/08/2005 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why is civil war necessary? Iraq's government is yet to be made. The Iraqis could create a federation with different strokes of sovereignty for different folks: more sovereignty for the Kurds, a bit less for the shi'a south, and no separatism/sovereignty for the sunni triangle. Works for Britain: think of the Kurds as Scots, the shi'a as English, and the sunni triangle as Ulster.
#9
The Army has had an established Lessons Learned system since the 1980s. Google Center for Army Lessons Learned. All operations and major training exercises are subject to observation, data collection and review in order to evaluate doctrine, tactics, policies, training, etc. In general terms, it is a feedback process to identify shortcomings and deficiencies, evaluate solutions, validate implementation and incorporation into organizational behavior. Its one of the factors in how you built the better fighting force you have today.
#10
I can't help but to think that the Sunni issue will be Iraq's downfall. Don't know if it's possible to cut them loose, but seems to be worthy of consideration.
From Reuters (posted on Khalifah)
A senior U.S. Army officer ordered soldiers to lie to investigators probing an incident in which two Iraqi civilians were pushed from a bridge and one may have drowned in the Tigris River, an army major testified on Thursday. At the first of two military trials at Fort Hood this week over alleged abuse of Iraqis by U.S. occupation forces, Maj. Robert Gwinner said Lt. Col. Nate Sassaman had ordered soldiers to lie about the bridge incident to the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, or CID. "They (senior officers) did not want CID to know that the Iraqis had gone into the water," Gwinner said.
He was testifying in the court-martial of Army Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins, who faces more than 25 years in military prison on charges of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and obstruction of justice. ..... Perkins is accused of killing Zaidoun Hassoun, 19, by having subordinates force him off a ledge about 10 feet to 12 feet above the Tigris at Samarra, Iraq. Marwan Fadil, who was forced off the bridge along with his cousin Hassoun, testified on Wednesday that U.S. soldiers tossed the two at gunpoint into the water and laughed as his relative drowned, after the two had begged for mercy. However, Gwinner said intelligence information had shown that Hassoun survived, buttressing earlier testimony by soldiers called as defense witnesses, who said they saw two Iraqis safely ashore on the nearby riverbank. A pathologist had also testified that a body recovered 12 days later by Hassoun's family and shown in a videotape could not have been Hassoun.
Gwinner, the battalion commander of the troops involved, was testifying under immunity for what he said in court. He has been disciplined for relaying the order he said came from Sassaman. The two Iraqis had been detained shortly before an 11 p.m. curfew on Jan. 3, 2004. Punishing curfew violators by pushing them into water was probably within troops' discretion, Gwinner said. "It was within the scope of nonlethal force, but not one that we recommend, or we will use again." Closing arguments in the case were expected later on Thursday.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 1:13:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Key passage: However, Gwinner said intelligence information had shown that Hassoun survived, buttressing earlier testimony by soldiers called as defense witnesses, who said they saw two Iraqis safely ashore on the nearby riverbank. A pathologist had also testified that a body recovered 12 days later by Hassounâs family and shown in a videotape could not have been Hassoun.
#7
Wait a minute. If I'm reading this article correctly, the soldiers did push the two Iraqis off the bridge, but nobody drowned. This behaviour was within allowable bounds for use of non-lethal force at the time. The dead body was someone else. The case is about the soldiers having been ordered to lie about the incident to CID investigators?
I remember reading about this some time ago, I think on the Instapundit site. One of the Iraqi bloggers was related to the "surviving" cousin, and he appealed to the blogging world to help resolve the family's complaint against the US military.
#10
HealingIraq provides a lot of details about the incident on this webpage.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Slate also had a detailed article by Wendell Steavenson. It's pretty obvious that the Army unit tried to cover the incident up, but failed. Now there's an attempt to peddle this story that the guy did not drown, at attempt that will fail too.
It's a sad situation.
The Rantburgers here who think that torture is a good idea ought to ponder the thought that torture is used not only to collect intelligence, it's also eventually used to help cover up situations like this. Inconvenient witnesses are arrested, questioned, tortured, discredited, silenced. People who have "seen too much" are afraid to report what they saw to authorities who torture people. Such are some of the consequences of using torture.
Back in February in a comment about this incident I expressed my impression that the the American military leadership in that area lacks the integrity to do what they ought to do to punish the culprits. I am satisified that this current trial has proved that I was wrong about that.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Frankly Mike, although I hope we don't descend to their level, we are perfectly correct to adopt less-civil responses to those who would behead innocents, kill children, use human shields, and torture/kill our allies. If it makes you squeamish, make it known and suffer the first lashes when restraints imposed by your ilk result in US dead and Iraqi civilian casualties. You won't do that, tho', will you? It's a "we should be above that" moral superiority crusade that ends up killing Americans. Traitorous scum would do the same....let them be your be-mates. I think the anti-Gonzalez crowd exposed themselves, just as often as you have, Mikey.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/08/2005 17:12 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Glad you brought back up the terrorism thread yourself, MS, so now I can justifiably say this:
It was very clear, in that thread and this one, that we agreed to a certain amount of duress to be applied against a terrorist reasonably suspected to know of a plot that would kill innocent human beings, but which your oh-so-sensitive intellect declares to be torture. This was repeatedly said, so either you deliberately do not read posts that would disturb your fragile ego, or read them and deliberately ignored what they said to pursue a straw man argument in hopes of deceiving casual readers of this blog.
It is a practice among leftists of your ilk that you deem yourselves capable of making moral judgments based on the implications of what other people say. Unless you wish to admit that you are a hypcrite, you must grant that we have the same right as well.
By ignoring the qualifications people have made about interrogative duress, it logically follows that, if given the choice between hard interrogation of a terrorist that would leave no permanent scars, and a reasonable chance of innocents being REALLY injured or ACTUALLY dying in an attack that would otherwise have been thwarted, that you have clearly made your choice: you would rather risk that innocents DIE than terrorists be discomforted. It would seem to me that those bent on mischief (to put it mildly) would certainly want this sort of thinking to be in force, want it to be believed, and applaud people, such as yourself, who advocate it.
I don't know what your REAL motivations are for preferring kid-glove treatment of terrorists over innocent lives, but any bawling from you in the future about innocents dying won't be taken seriously. In fact, I really don't need to TRY to find out that real motive, since any single motivation out of the only reasonable possible set would make you the kind of person I do not want near me or my family. It'd make you the kind of person I'd take pleasure in NOT lifting my finger to help in any way. In fact, it'd make you the kind of person that great civilizations are better off without, and whose greatness is enhanced by identifying, morally neutering, and scorning such.
#14
thx Ptah, yours was much more clear than mine, but agreed wholeheartedly - good post
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/08/2005 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Well said, Ptah.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/08/2005 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Re #13 (Ptah):
... in that thread and this one ... we agreed to a certain amount of duress to be applied against a terrorist reasonably suspected to know of a plot that would kill innocent human beings
Who is "we"? Who was talking about "a certain amount of duress"? In yesterday's posting nobody used the word "duress". The word in the postings and in the comments was "torture". You yourself used the word "torture" in your one comment (I understand you were kidding).
Where is yesterday's or today's thread is this "agreement" by "we" about "duress" that "was repeatedly said"?
It is a practice among leftists of your ilk that you deem yourselves capable of making moral judgments based on the implications of what other people say.
Why do you call me a leftist? I voted for Ronald Reagan, for George Bush I, and for George Bush II. True, I didn't vote for Pat Buchanan. Does that make me a leftist, in your book?
Please tell me what I have ever written in Rantburg would cause you to call me a leftist?
you have clearly made your choice: you would rather risk that innocents DIE than terrorists be discomforted
Many choices in life are complex. For example, the policy that the USA establishes for treating captives in Iraq is complex. It's not simply a choice between innocents dying and terrorists being discomforted. There are many other considerations, some of which I pointed out in yesterday's and today's threads.
any single motivation out of the only reasonable possible set would make you the kind of person I do not want near me or my family .... Pretentious pissant.
Dont' get so upset about other people expressing other opinions. If you don't want to discuss public issues civilly with me on this forum, then so be it. There are several people in this forum who are incorrigibly incivil, and I ignore them completely. I can ignore you too, if that's your preference. Keep it up, and this will be our last exchange.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I've stopped paying attention to the southern-european-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned too.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
01/08/2005 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
#18
due to attention-span issues and bitching by others (although actionable) - I have as well.... right TW?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/08/2005 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#19
MS: The Rantburgers here who think that torture is a good idea ought to ponder the thought that torture is used not only to collect intelligence, it's also eventually used to help cover up situations like this.
Exactly how was torture applied to cover up this situation? For intimidation, not to mention silencing people, torture doesn't work as well as actually killing them. Maybe we should order our troops to stop killing terrorists - they might be killing them to cover up situations like this one. Heck, maybe we should forbid our cops to kill people who are shooting at them - maybe they are going after them to silence them.
#20
Mike Sylwester is on some kind of torture-is-the-root-of-all-evil kick. In his narrative, Stalin's gulags and mass killings wouldn't have occurred without torture. Yup - in Mike's view, Stalin used torture to find out the truth. Nah - Stalin couldn't possibly have used it to obtain politically-convenient confessions so he could execute potential political rivals while retaining an image of communist rectitude.
Exactly how was torture applied to cover up this situation?
I should have expressed my thought better. I did not mean to suggest that torture was used in this particular situation.
My thought was that, in general, torture is justified for certain purposes (preventing terrorist attacks) but eventually might be misused for other purposes (silencing inconvenient witnesses to crimes committed by people in authority).
I related my thought to this particular case only because here there was obviously (in my opinion) an attempt by the US Army unit to cover up the incident. The young Iraqi man had witnessed an incident when some US soldiers had pushed his cousin into a river and his cousin had drowned. The witness began to tell others what he had seen.
When the authorities are using torture to cause people to make statements they don't want to make, then the authorities who might be exposed by the witness can easily arrest the witness and subject him to torture on false pretexts. The authorities can force the witness to change his statement, to deny that he saw what he saw.
Also, when a witness knows that the authorities are using torture, he will be inhibited from reporting what he saw to the authorities.
I intended to speak in generalities. I did not intend to say that anybody was tortured in this particular case.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The torture story is the MSM's last best hope for diverting attention away from the fact that the US military has made possible an extraordinary event that will occur in three weeks' time: the first free elections in the arab world in the last three decades.
#23
Re #19 (Zhang Fei): torture doesn't work as well as actually killing them.
I understand your thought here to be that it would be just as easy -- even easier -- for the corrupt authorities to silence an inconvenient witness as it would be to kill him.
Sure. But that doesn't disprove my point. History is full of situations when corrupt authorities handled such situations by arresting and torturing witnesses instead of killing them.
The Mafia doesn't always kill inconvenient witnesses. Sometimes the Mafia merely threatens or beats them a little, and that suffices.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
#24
#22 (lex): The torture story is the MSM's last best hope for diverting attention away from ... the US military has made possible .... the first free elections in the arab world
I've always supported the USA's military intervention in Iraq, and I've written so several times in Rantburg. It was the main reason I voted for Bush in the last presidential election.
In my opinion, the US forces have caused themselves more problems than they have solved by trying to physically force captives to talk. I think it's foolishness. I think it's based on false promises of success. I think it's counter-productive. I think other methods are better. I think it gets out of control and causes excesses and scandals and embarrassments.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 21:58 Comments ||
Top||
#26
thx Mike - you don't mind if we dismiss anything you say outta hand, as usual, considering the source and motivations.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/08/2005 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Hear him out. The Brits' experience in Ulster has been that torture is counterproductive. Perhaps the jihadists are made of sterner stuff-- I doubt it, but then again I'm biased ;-) -- but let's learn from experience here. Would also like to learn more about the French experience in Algeria.
#28
Re #20 (Zhang Fei): in Mike's view, Stalin used torture to find out the truth. .... used it to obtain politically-convenient confessions so he could execute potential political rivals ....
It's not either/or. In a few cases, when there was to be a show trial, torture was an essential method for ensuring that prominent Communists admitted publicly that they indeed had committed treason and planned terrorist attacks.
Beyond that motivation, though, torture was used in hundreds of thousands of cases that individually were concealed from the public. During the two years, 1937-1938, when torture was permitted and authorized explicitly and used most systematically, about 680,000 Soviet citizens were arrested, investigated, convicted and executed.
In 1939 the Soviet government publicly and actually retracted the authorization to torture people. The reason for this change was that the use of torture had caused too many people to be arrested, convicted and executed mistakenly -- a problem that the Soviet government itself recognized from the experience. Torture produced too much information that was far too false.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 22:23 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Truth is, I love this topic not for its merits, but because it's nice and gray and I can pontificate my ass off and sound authoritative.
If we capture proper soldiers, then we treat them according to the Geneva Conventions. We respect their right to provide only their name, rank and
serial number, and we use only persuasion to try to obtain other information.
In The War on Terrorism and in the War in Iraq, we capture many people who are not proper soldiers. They are not covered by the same rules of the Geneva Conventions. So, how should we treat them?
First of all, I think we can confine them indefinitely, as long as the war lasts, and we decide how long it lasts. If we think someone might be a terrorist, we can simply confine him for months and years without much further ado. We establish only a minimal procedure to review his status periodically.
If he doesn't talk, then he doesn't talk. If he does talk and tells a story we don't believe, then we simply continue to confine him.
We keep talking with him. We ask him what he thinks about politics, about religion, about morality, about current events. We ask him whether he thinks Al-Qaeda eventually will defeat the USA, whether the Iraqi resistance will expel the Coalition, whether the Palestinians will defeat Israel, whether the world's Moslems will establish a new Khalifah. We talk for a while about what he wants to talk about and then for a while about what we want to talk about. We have lots of time -- days, weeks, months and years -- to talk. When we're not talking, he can read magazines and books we give him, and then we can discuss what he's read.
In these circumstances, many people talk truthfully rather quickly. They have families to support, jobs to do, lives to live, and they don't want to stay in confinement indefinitely. They'll make a deal, they'll compromise, they'll rat on people, they'll even change sides openly.
You'll get a lot of information from a lot of people. Focus your time and effort on collecting information from those people and on recruiting them to collaborate with you in the future. Don't waste a lot of time and effort on captives who refuse to talk.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
#31
In these circumstances, many people talk truthfully rather quickly. They have families to support, jobs to do, lives to live, and they don't want to stay in confinement indefinitely
This doesn't square with what the interrogators have reported (see Heather MacDonald's article in the Manhattan Institute's City Paper). Most do not have "jobs to do" or families to support." What if their job is to kill or otherwise hinder the infidel enemy?
#32
Re #31 (lex): Most do not have "jobs to do" or families to support." What if their job is to kill or otherwise hinder the infidel enemy?
You seem to be assuming that everybody who is captured is a professional terrorist. A group of captives is a mixed bag. Some will be fanatic, professional terrorists. Some will be innocent by-standards. Some will be inbetween.
The fanatic, professional terrorists are probably not going to tell you the truth, no matter what you do. They won't tell you if you torture them, and they certainly won't tell you if subject them to moderate physical duress. It's a waste of time and effort, and you engage him in a contest of wills that prevents his eventual conversion.
US military personnel have been captured and tortured. An entire ship crew was captured by North Korea and was tortured for years. Many US pilots have been tortured for years. How many of them provided useful tactical intelligence to the interrogators who captured them. As far as I know, none of them at all provided such information.
What makes you think that if we capture a fanatic, professional terrorist, then we will be able to torture him into quickly revealing to us where all the bombs are hidden?
The people who talk when they are tortured are mostly the innocent by-standers and the casual supporters. They know nothing at all or they know little. Much of what they tell you under torture will not be true.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/09/2005 0:02 Comments ||
Top||
From Jihad Unspun
A number of Clerics from Anbar Governorate, in western Iraq, have issued a "Fatwa" (legal opinion) prohibiting the practice of fishing in the Euphrates river where it passes the cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, Hait, and Al-Qaim. The Fatwa was distributed in a form of a statement to several Mosques in Anbar province. According to the statement, the reason for the Fatwa was the dumping of dead mercenary soldiers in the river by the Americans. The practice of dumping dead bodies has been going on for a while but when the fish size became larger than normal, it became clear that fish in the areas of dumping were feeding on the flesh of the dead bodies which prompted the clerics to rule that these fish should not be consumed by Muslims.
Islam memo's correspondent indicated that a committee was formed in Ramadi to educated citizens about the health hazards of the river as a result of dumping of dead soldiers. In the mean time, fishermen told Islam memo correspondent that they are angry because by dumping these dead bodies, the Americans are negatively impacting the fishermen's only source of income. Fishermen said that Americans dumped 40 bodies from an Apache helicopter in one day alone. JUS [Jihad Unspun] has long been reporting the dumping of the bodies of American soldiers and hired mercenaries into rivers and bury them in mass graves in the desert. We have made an open call to humanitarian agencies to investigate, which has so far gone unanswered. .....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
01/08/2005 12:59:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
have issued a âFatwaâ (legal opinion)
fatwahs issued by fatheads.
Americans dumped 40 bodies from an Apache helicopter
Let's see...the Mayr-cuns are dropping dozens of bodies into the rivers in 2-man gunships. Hmmm.
#2
We have made an open call to humanitarian agencies to investigate, which has so far gone unanswered. .....
They don't believe your lying a$$es either.
#4
This stuff is laughable except most mid east moose limbs believe it's true. They're that backwards unfortunately and do believe everything they read or see on TV. This is even more true if some one with a "religious" stamp on them is making the claim.
#9
OT: Can someone explain how long a posting is open for comment? I want to comment on something posted yesterday, but it has no comment tab. Sometimes it seems current discussions have no comment tabs, either. Appreciate any help.
#10
Not sure, but I think Fred closes out comments on articles at the end of each day to thwart comment-spammers. As for current articles lacking comment tabs, I've never seen that. If Fred ever did that, there'd be peasants with torches pounding on the Rantburg gates within minutes...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/08/2005 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Torches Dave D.? RantBurg peasants use Flambeaux and LandsEnd pitchforks.
#13
It's funny how much MORE attention people pay to lies when you are taking away their income.
And hence making them rely on insurgents for food. Next fatwa: the food coming from aid agencies is not halal. And yes, some people will believe it.
Posted by: Rafael ||
01/08/2005 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I must be a peasant, Shipman. I've never heard of Flambeaux (although it sounds terribly French), and I had no idea Lands End made pitchforks. I have admired their overpriced dog beds in the catalog, though.
...on Japanese military camp in Samawah
Five Iraqi landholders near the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force camp in the southern Iraqi city of Samawah have compiled a written pledge that they will make efforts to prevent attacks on the Japanese troops from their land, informed sources said Saturday. Following their pledge in November, which was also signed by local leaders, the GSDF has not faced any attacks, suggesting the promise has been effective so far, the sources said. Under the pledge, the five noted they will take responsibility for any attacks or trouble caused from their land and that they will inform local authorities when they find suspicious individuals who may launch attacks on the GSDF camp. The camp was attacked on eight occasions between April and October last year.
The article does not note "who" the Iraqis signed the pledge with/for, or what they can expect in return. But is seems like progress.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri said that Iran will not accept the European Union's proposal to provide nuclear fuel to the country. Iran has not yet observed any indication that the Europeans intend to waste time, he said in a conference in Mashhad entitled "Nuclear Dossier, Victory, Defeat or Withdrawal", the Qods daily reported on Thursday. "The fact that the Europeans have proposed to offer fuel to Iran is considered in itself a victory for the country, although this was not what we were aiming for," said Naseri, who heads the Iran-EU nuclear working group. "If they had suggested this seven or eight years ago, we might have accepted, but now we won't," he added.
