Newsweek. Amnesty International. Jimmy Carter. Dick Durbin.

....and Mel Martinez (R-Little Havana).

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 9:03 AM

One Can't help asking why left wing Ideologs like Dick Turbin feel compelled to reach such a unrealistic, and literally irrational description when giving a description of Guantanamo? And right on que with Amensty Internationals muslim leader

Posted by: Mackie at June 22, 2005 9:18 AM

Time and time again President Bush and Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld have asked congressman for suggestions on how to prosecute the war against terrorism and yet all you get is this left wing criticism.

Is there anybody out there who lives In Illinois that has a compiled list of exactly how Senator Dick Turbin wants to handle the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo? where does he want to keep them? Has he laid out his own procedures as to how to handle them ? And has he shared those procedures with the President, and Secretary Rumsfeld? After all they have been requesting ideas on how to prosecute these terrorists and the war on terrorism since 9-11.

Posted by: Mackie at June 22, 2005 9:46 AM

In Contrast to Guantanamo, I always find it fascinating that you hear very few comments with the exception of the ACLU about Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's tent city prison out in the Arizona desert where temperatures can touch 120 degress and prisoners have no airconditioning and limited television and magazines and live on bologna and cheese sandwiches. Of course the People of Phoenix have told all the bleeding heart liberals to take a walk of a short bridge when it comes to the money the county saves plus a reduction in recidivism in Sheriff Arpaio's Gulag

Posted by: Mackie at June 22, 2005 10:52 AM

"Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters"

King: If they are terrorists, PROOVE IT, DAMN YOU!

These people were not just plucked off of the street, then again, maybe they were. Whow knows?

Is it an accident that Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the most isolated and impossible to reach American military base in this hemisphere, was chosen to act as a detention camp? I think not. Gitmo is completely off-limits to fly-overs, sail-bys, satellite surveillence, and all other sorts of monitoring other than who the government allows in. If we are a democratic nation and feel that we are the most just country on earth, why not put up or shut up? If there is evidence of wrongdoing, let's see it. If not, you've got yourself a gulag.

This is yet one more reason why Bush's arrogance, ignorance and incompetance will breed more anti-American hate in parts of the world that are already fed up with his shit.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 22, 2005 11:33 AM

KingMoralEquivalence:

I know this isn't likely to make a dent in the wall of denial you've constructed, but at least one of the Gitmo detainees is one of the four infamous Khadr brothers, who killed a US army medic.

Daddy Khadr and at least one of the sons were killed helping the Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan. This after Daddy Khadr conned the Canadian Prime Minister of the day into getting him sprung from the custody of Pakistani security forces.

One brother is back in Canada and admits to having attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and confirms stories of his late father's close relationship with Osama bin Laden. The other's whereabouts may yet be unknown. A Khadr daughter was recently in a Toronto court, fighting for the return of a computer seized by the Mounties when she was returning from wherever that contained terrorism-related files, and lost, but remains at large.

I have also recall accounts of released detainees being caught resuming terrorist activities shortly after release.

The Gitmo detainees were not rounded up at random and they are there because they are extremely dangerous.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 22, 2005 11:53 AM

King Kong wants 'proof!'

He who proves nothing, he who blows bubbles like the arrogant toad he is, without ever scratching the surface of a debate: He wants proof!

King:
Only because of Americas incredible naiveté and good-hearted-less they are still alive. Why? There are many here among us who question the wisdom of that: They wanted to die for Allah and they should be exported (at once) to the 24 boys and the 72 virgins. I hate to see them suffer so much in Gitmo.

King:
The coffee-filter is impenetrable. But only for rational, critical thought.

Inspite of what you may believe, the coffee-filter is not bullet-proof. Don't take my word for it, I prove it to you any time!

Posted by: Terminator at June 22, 2005 12:23 PM

I remember a remark by Rumsfeld way back when the first terrorists were apprehended in Afghanistan:

"These are the type of men who will chew through airplane cables with their teeth!"

He meant of course that they must be fully restrained while being transported.

I believe his assessment - and I believe that most Westerners have no idea of the burning hatred most terrorists have for us.

I'm a former member of Amnesty International (10 plus years of hard work)and I still believe its work is vital, but I also believe it's a danger to underestimate the forces of evil. I use that word as a blanket term for those who fuel themselves with hatred without regard for the facts, and delight in death and destruction.

Although I still support the work of AI, I'm not so "bleeding-hearted liberal" as I used to be. More than anything I believe this shift in my thinking came from living and working in Turkey for one year. Talk about a paradoxical situation!

On the one level I learned a lot about a charming country where hospitality to strangers is astounding in its generosity.

But on another level, I returned with an appreciation of the fact that we, Westerners, were seen as villains and enemies by many in the Middle East. No surprise there really, except that I witnessed it personally.

But more than that, I saw how conditions there are conducive to blindly followed terrorism.

I saw first hand the anger of the young men who blamed America for everything, fueled by wild and fantastic conspiracy theories which they obviously believed, the older woman who spat on the US one dollar bill although her knowledge of America and the West was practically nil, the younger children who knew that America was "bad" but couldn't have begun to tell me why, the hordes of schoolchildren so lacking in internal discipline, but meek and quivering in the face of authority, the older illiterates completely out of touch with the world, and overriding it all, the atmosphere of unquestioning obedience to authority, the unwillingness to tackle a controversial discussion, the fear of open skepticism.

I concluded that what I was seeing was the tip of the iceberg - and these symptoms indicated fertile ground for terrorist propaganda and recruitment.

Humane treatment of prisoners is always a necessity, but it's important not to underestimate the blind passions of some who would bring the West down.

And to King T: No, of course, it was no accident that Gitmo was chosen for this detention centre. The military authorities knew exactly the nature of this enemy.

Posted by: Jen at June 22, 2005 1:25 PM

Jen,

1) What do you believe was, from your experience there, the number one method of perpetuating such a mindset amongst that population?

Clerics? Popular media? Educators?

2) Is that method still number one today?

3) If you had to pick only one counter to such methods, what would it be? And who should deliver it?

Posted by: PRCS at June 22, 2005 2:04 PM

Despite King's constant cry for more concessions for the Religion of Peace©, I think he has a point. If one of the prisoners there killed a medic, (which is a war crime) why hasn't he been tried in a military tribunal and sentenced to death? It's been three years, people.

Are some prisoners in Gitmo serving sentences handed down by the military tribunals, or are they all still awaiting trial? Due process is important.

I have no problem with the prison, the detentions, the trials, the treatment, the "desecration" of the Queeran, the sentences, and even--if applicable--capitally punishing the guilty. But this detention phase has gone on way too long.

BTW in my opinion it doesn't matter what we do or don't do; Muslims will always hate us as long as we resist the jihad.

It's laughable to even imagine a non-Muslim being held prisoner in a Muslim nation and getting ANYWHERE NEAR the kind of respect that the Gitmo detainees are afforded. They probably laugh at us all day long. I daresay most of them have never had it so good: fresh, clean drinking water, daily hot showers, indoor plumbing, shelter, air conditioning; free, hot, food; nothin' to do all day except lay around and read the Koran... what could be finer? Sure they can't have sex (at least not with women) but I doubt they encountered much nookie when they were in the Taliban militias either.

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 3:11 PM

Oh yeah, one other thing. Torture does not work. Here's why: when someone is being tortured, they will SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT to get you to stop. Look at the long record of "witches", "heretics", Knights Templar, Jews, and other misfits admitting to "worshipping the devil" and engaging in all manner of debauchery. We know that was all lies... why did they lie? Because they were broken and just wanted to say what they commissars wanted to hear so the torture would end, even if it meant a sure death.

Why the hell are we even using torture any more anyway? What happened to the "truth serum" drugs?

I have an idea: hook them on crack, heroin, or oxycontin, then withhold it until they spill the beans. It's that easy. Shouldn't take more than a week. Then put them through rehab, if they choose. No harm done. Sure, a couple pounds of crack or heroin (or a few hundred doses of oxycontin) may sound like a lot to you or me, but for Jim Morrison (or Rush Limbaugh) that's just a warm-up.

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 3:18 PM

Jen - I've been to Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan in additon to Israel and very small portions of Palestine. While I did not spend a year there, even collectively, I spent enough time to grasp a completely different understanding than you seem to have gotten in Turkey.

Arab culture is incredibly cohesive and places a heavy premium on what they see as justice. This is why the Palestinian/Israeli issue is so prevalent throughout the Arab/Islamic world and why many Arabs see the Palestinian struggle as a David vs. Goliath situation. Moreover, this cohesivness is so powerful that some Muslims will not denounce terrorism since they see it as a desperate cry for justice. I am not condoning this, I am simply stating what I have learned.

Other cultural tensions notwithstanding, many Arabs almost unanimously see America and the West as a behind the scenes instigator of their oppression and oppression elsewhere - to fuel our greed and gluttony. We suck them dry of their oil, while their wealthy and corrupt leadership is kept in place, further bolstered by corrupt mullahs or clerics who further oppress and anger the masses with their radical brands of Islam. This is the vicious cycle with basic people caught in the morass. As an ex AI member, I am sure you understand what I am talking about here.

I sure as hell do not like radical Islam, either, but I completely understand what fuels it. When other Westerners wake up and see that their governments are certainly not innocent the sooner we can all make the positive changes the world desperately needs. When the masses are happier, radicalism & extremism become less appealing. Herein lies one of the key solutions to stopping radical Islam.

I stop short of blaming the religion, as a whole, and blaming the culture, as a whole.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 22, 2005 3:28 PM

Terminator, yes, King wants proof. If there is no proof, why are they in prison?

Do you not have a problem with people waiting in prison for three years without a trial? How would you like it if you or someone you know was taken to--oh, say--ANGOLA and put in a prison, and three years later they still hadn't stood trial? What if it was your son or your brother? Or for that matter, what if they were just plain, old arrested in America for something and still hadn't been tried three years later?

And HERE'S the big question: With all these indefinite detentions and snubbing the Geneva Convention, etc. what's going to happen the next time an AMERICAN SERVICEMAN is taken as a prisoner of war?

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 3:29 PM

Arab culture is incredibly cohesive and places a heavy premium on what they see as justice. This is why the Palestinian/Israeli issue is so prevalent throughout the Arab/Islamic world and why many Arabs see the Palestinian struggle as a David vs. Goliath situation. Moreover, this cohesivness is so powerful that some Muslims will not denounce terrorism since they see it as a desperate cry for justice. I am not condoning this, I am simply stating what I have learned.

And how do they see the "issue" in Sudan, where millions of innocent people have been murdered?

The problem (one of the biggest, that is) with Islam is that there is no room for constructive criticism. Any calls for moderation are met with charges of blasphemy and apostasy. "We" liberals don't like it when Christians do this, and "we" liberals are quick to denounce them when they have done/do so. It has nothing to do with "cohesiveness" or any faith-based versions of "justice" (like gang raping the sister of someone you don't like or cutting your daughter's throat if she has a late period, e.g.) It has to do with INTOLERANCE and I am frankly saddened that you would try to sugarcoat it.

You say that you don't condone the failure of Muslims to denounce terror, yet you certainly are good at explaining it away as some sort of "cohesiveness" and "demand for justice."
Christianity/Western Culture was reformed because the reformers were allowed to live, plain and simple.

The Arab/Israeli issue is a David versus Goliath. It's a nation of 4 million Jews smaller in area than Lake Michigan versus over 50 nations with more than 1.5 billion people. (That's just the Muslims, nevermind the pisspoor thirdworld hellholes that have jumped on the bandwagon/Arab money train.) It's a pretty-much desert nation without natural resources versus (among others) the five nations that produce most of the world's petroleum.

It's the ONLY liberal, secular democracy in from Senegal to Pakistan that allows gay liberation, women's liberation, the right to assemble, the right to fair trial, the right to run for office, the right to seek redress in court, the right of freedom of the press, the right of religious freedom, the right to choose abortion, the rights of the accused, and the rights of children.
You and you Arab, Muslim buddies are right. It really is David versus Goliath. You've just got it backwards. It may help you to recall how the original David v. Goliath fairytale ended.

It is interesting to compare "palestine" to Hong Kong. In 1950, neither had a history of self-rule. Both were governed by outsiders: European colonists that actually practiced a different religion. Both had a massive influx of poor, landless, desperate refugees in the late '40s.

Because of Arab influence on the United Nations, "palestine" was granted permanent refugee status. Anyone that had lived (or even claimed to) in Israel for as little as just two years, and left for any reason, could claim ancestry and get his UNRWA check, rations, and claim report every month. For the first time in history, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on were to be automatically given refugee status, no matter where they were actually born.

Hong Kong got nothing.

The "refugees" of "palestine" made NOTHING but more refugees and terror, despite billions and billions of dollars in "relief aid." They built nothing; grew nothing; made nothing; invented nothing; and did nothing. Except suffer with their own self-inflicted wounds, invent conspiracy theories, revise history, and complain about Israel.

And just look at what the refugees of Hong Kong did. They worked with their leaders, and made the most beautiful city in the world, the cleanest city in the world, and the wealthiest city in the world. They made Hong Kong.

Similarly, the number of Chinese and the number of Muslims is about the same. The BURNING question for China in 1950 was: "Who controls Taiwan?" And for the Muslims it was "Who controls Jerusalem?"

Today, the burning question for China is still the same question, and the burning question for Islam is still the same... but just look at what China has done and look at what Islam has done.

China is side-by-side with America in terms of mechanization, metallurgy, chemistry, many areas of physics; art, music, and all other humanities; they have eradicated hunger in their nation despite having less arable land per person than India; they have prospered and grown despite a paucity of oil and draconian attempts at population control. They are "communists" on paper but slowly, inexorably, they are coming around to capitalism and embracing the rights of the individual (in no small way thanks to the people of Hong Kong.)

Meanwhile Islam, even with TRILLIONS of dollars in oil revenues, sinks further into fundamentalist dystopia every day, from Nigeria to the Philippines. They have invented NOTHING, written NOTHING and produced NOTHING except oil, oppression, and misery.

Since WW Two China has committed a single massacre and genocide in Tibet (all but forgotten about now, thanks to the "Free Palestine" movement and the Arab-dominated spineless United Nothing) and had a brief border conflict with India (seems for some strange reason the Indian forces were weakened in Kashmir.... I wonder why that was?)

Since WW Two Muslim-initiated wars have killed 1 Million in Egypt-Yemen (1950s,) 1 Million in Iran-Iraq (1980s,) 2 Million in Kashmir-India (Partition, invasion of Kashmir, and two subsequent wars,) Half-a-million in Iraq (aftermath of Saddam's attempt to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,) 2 Million in Bangladesh (Separation in 1971 and the following famine) 100,000 in Israel (Arab invasions in 1948, 1956, 1973, and 2000-pres.,) 700,000 in Indonesia (ethnic Chinese "commies" in 1968,) and another 350,000 in Indonesia (East Timor in 1977,) a quarter-million in Lebanon (1980's,) and over 100,000 in each of the following hellholes: the Philippines, Nigeria, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Somalia, Algeria, and "Kurdistan."

See the difference between rational human beings and religiously-insane, "heritage-conscious", "cohesive", "justice-seeking" zombies? Or one could say, "See the difference between Buddhists/Atheist and Muslims/Fascists?"

The simple fact with "palestine" is this: in the wake of World War Two, 50 MILLION people suddenly found themselves under the control of a new government. They had three choices: move to someplace "better," stay and learn to get along, or stay and fight.

Within four or five years, they were ALL peacefully resettled (and remain so) with the exclusion of two isolated groups: the Muslims of Kashmir and the Muslims in and around Israel. They are two wars that have never ended. The pretexts change, the motives change, the histories change, but the wars never really end. Because when a religious nut feels aggrieved (most often owing to imaginary ideas) he will do ANYTHING to obtain his "justice."

Think about that.

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 4:24 PM

The simple fact with "palestine" is this: in the wake of World War Two, 50 MILLION people suddenly found themselves under the control of a new government. They had three choices: move to someplace "better," stay and learn to get along, or stay and fight.

...including 800,000 Jews expelled from Muslim nations--many lucky to get out with the clothes on their backs--and into Israel. They have no "right of return," they were not compensated, they will never be compensated or allowed to return. How does that square with the over-riding Muslim fetish with "justice?" Probably not too well. Mayhap for Muslims the concept of "justice" is similar to their concepts of "no religious compulsion," "fair taxation," and "equal recourse to the law": they apply to Muslims only (and only Muslim men, at that.)

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 4:32 PM

kj:

Do you not have a problem with people waiting in prison for three years without a trial? How would you like it if you or someone you know was taken to--oh, say--ANGOLA and put in a prison, and three years later they still hadn't stood trial? What if it was your son or your brother? Or for that matter, what if they were just plain, old arrested in America for something and still hadn't been tried three years later?

The people being held in Guantanamo were not, for the most part, arrested. They were captured.

They are no more awaiting trial than were the 400,000 or so German POWs who spent several years in captivity in the US during WWII. They are enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefield, and they will remain in captivity until such time as the war ends.

The fact that this war is likely to go on for decades is their problem, not ours.

The only mistake I see in having them locked up in Cuba is the fact that we're going to be stuck with them essentially forever.

After any useful information was extracted from them, they should have been tried by military tribunals and executed as the unlawful combatants they are.

And HERE'S the big question: With all these indefinite detentions and snubbing the Geneva Convention, etc. what's going to happen the next time an AMERICAN SERVICEMAN is taken as a prisoner of war?

Probably the same thing that has happened to almost EVERY American who's been taken prisoner in the last 60 years or so (those held by the Nazis, ironically, being the sole exception), as you very well know.

Posted by: lobo91 at June 22, 2005 4:55 PM

KJ:And HERE'S the big question: With all these indefinite detentions and snubbing the Geneva Convention, etc. what's going to happen the next time an AMERICAN SERVICEMAN is taken as a prisoner of war?

Lobo-tomy:Probably the same thing that has happened to almost EVERY American who's been taken prisoner in the last 60 years or so (those held by the Nazis, ironically, being the sole exception), as you very well know.

I guess time will tell. If you are right, everything will be fine. If I am right, some GIs are going to find themselves in a terrible situation. I hope that you are right, but with Bush, Gonzolez, Rumsfeld and Cheney ignoring the Geneva Convention, I think that our enemies in future wars will "have a field day" with our GIs should they get captured.

Monkey:After any useful information was extracted from them, they should have been tried by military tribunals and executed as the unlawful combatants they are.

Fine with me. I'm sure they would prefer death by firing squad or whatever with a Koran in one hand and a middle finger raised to America in the other and with a full belly; than getting hit by a sniper in Afghanistan and taking three days to die in the middle of nowhere hungry, thirsty and a pants-full of crap and urine.

Posted by: kj at June 22, 2005 5:06 PM

"The Arab/Israeli issue is a David versus Goliath. It's a nation of 4 million Jews smaller in area than Lake Michigan versus over 50 nations with more than 1.5 billion people. (That's just the Muslims, nevermind the pisspoor thirdworld hellholes that have jumped on the bandwagon/Arab money train.) It's a pretty-much desert nation without natural resources versus (among others) the five nations that produce most of the world's petroleum."
Although you probably don't like the term, kj...AMEN!

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 22, 2005 5:31 PM

David = Israel.

Makes sense to me. And remember how well David dealt out the justice.

I'm glad someone besides myself has used the phrase Moral Equivalence with kt, it suits him perfectly.

kj, you gots some good stuff out there, let's see if kt ignores or answers.

AMEN!

Posted by: Gary at June 22, 2005 5:44 PM

PRCS: "1)What do you believe was, from your experience there, the number one method of perpetuating such a mindset amongst that population? Clerics? Popular media? Educators?

2) Is that method still number one today?

3) If you had to pick only one counter to such methods, what would it be? And who should deliver it?"
_______________

I wish I knew. I've thought about it often. I had no direct observation of the clerics and I can only repeat what I was told, but apparently several imams have been forbidden by the government to lecture in the mosques because they were too inflammatory. When I asked a friend what the Friday lesson was about, the answer was usually something along the line of "doing good" - "helping others."

Islam obviously is a sensitive point and many Turks defended it to me, even before we had really discussed it. I heard statements such as, "Islam has never fought a war of offence, only defence." "Islam improved the treatment of women." "Just because a woman wears a head scarf does not mean she is not intelligent." Obviously they were on the defensive. I knew little about Islam at that time and could not counter their arguments. I know more now.

But I see a huge amount of energy devoted to gender issues - avoiding gossip, segregating the sexes, keeping up appearances of fidelity, chastity, family honour, etc. The head scarf issue alone consumes enormous amounts of newspaper space and instigates government versus military wrangling over and over again (this is the legacy of Ataturk). This energy could be put to better use.

The popular media in Turkey has few restraints on it as far as I can see. There are no anti-hate laws there either. Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder I know (shouldn't be, but it is), but many times I told my Turkish friends that the news articles they were reading had a very different spin on them than what I saw on CNN etc. What I noticed was that the press would focus on an American fault over and over again, ad infinitum, while completely ignoring the bigger issues. The press also tends to be sensational with many photos of gory scenes (war, accidents, domestic violence) so that the readers must be in a state of perpetual anxiety - or else they are immune to it. I also saw pictures in the popular press, close to pornographic, which would never be tolerated in a North American newspaper. I was shocked at these, due to the contrast with the usual strait-laced approach to gender issues.

The educators (at least at the elementary level)seem completely apolitical - they are overworked (with class sizes of 60 or more in the public system, and double shifts too!)and probably never address international issues. But this is part of the problem too - the children are given a narrow view of the world, centred on Turkey and Ataturk. There's a warning here (in North America) for our education system too - let's broaden those young minds!

I was there at the start of the Iraq war, not that long ago, and have returned several times since. Everything seems the same but the possiblility of EU membership has kept the government on its toes.

I think the mindset I observed in the angry young men represents a synthesis of various factors: Islamic teachings which discourage inquiry and preach their own supremacy; narrow ethnocentric education; and a climate of gossip, sensationalism, conspiracy myths etc. fueled by an unrestrained popular media. There is a great feeling of injustice as well and I can't really account for its origins - entitlement gone wrong, perhaps.

To counter the strong and irrational feelings I observed, I would say that education, education, education is the answer. Trouble is, as I mentioned above, the educators are overworked and they themselves are products of the system. High value is placed on rote learning - and not too much on problem solving or open inquiry. Time, contact with the rest of the world, the Internet - all will bring about change.

The way I see it - challenge the individual mind, make it receptive to reason, cultivate interest in the world and the rest will follow. But how many hundreds of years will that take?

Who should deliver it? Their own people must bring about the necessary changes. It will be a slow process. The crux is "Is there a will for change?" Some Turks do recognize the need. For example, I've heard the question voiced, "Why is there no Islamic country with a good government?

One last example of what I encountered:

At an Internet cafe, I found a high school text book on philosophy. I opened it to a page about Nietzsche - I said to my friend "He's the philosopher who said, "God is dead." My friend handed the book to the operator of the cafe and repeated my remark in Turkish. The operator said, "In Islam we are not allowed to think about those things." My answer, which came across respectfully I hope, was that my God had given my a mind with instructions to use it well.

But the hopeful point here is that a Turkish high school student was studying philosophy. This must be a good sign.

Posted by: Jen at June 22, 2005 5:47 PM

KJ - you've made several long posts and while I'd like to get to all of what you wrote, I simply do not have the time right now. I will, however, pick a few things at random and reply in kind.

KJ: "what if they were just plain, old arrested in America for something and still hadn't been tried three years later?"

King: In the US, you cannot be held for trial without being formally charged at an arraignment. The judge can determine the exent of severety. If deemed severe enough, you can sit in prison for 3 years while awaiting trial. This is how it is supposed to work in America even if you're caught red-handed.

KJ: "You say that you don't condone the failure of Muslims to denounce terror, yet you certainly are good at explaining it away as some sort of "cohesiveness" and "demand for justice.""

King: Not so much "explaining it away" as simply explaining it. Sorry its not an answer you like.

KJ: "It has to do with INTOLERANCE and I am frankly saddened that you would try to sugarcoat it."

King: Once again, not sugar coating but simply stating like it is. Part of your problem is you are trying really, really hard to understand a foreign culture through the eyes of a westerner. I gave that up years ago and it has been clearer to me ever since.

Moreover, I call due attention to the very same sorts of blight in your own back yard, i.e. spousal abuse, child abuse, homophobia, hate crimes, intolerance, etc. All of these are very serious issues in wesetern society, too.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 22, 2005 6:09 PM

Jen:
Your observations about Turkey are correct and I can only second that. I spent a fair bit of time and travelled through Turkey in the early seventies, I am sure it was no better then: The hatred for Jews can not be explained away as there is no rationale for it, but it is omnipotent. The women live in fear, now and then; we went to the University in Ankara and the girls were in constant fear that they would be spat on or kicked or had rocks thrown at them if they were seen without headscarf, tight jeans or talking with foreigners.

KJ:

American soldiers wear uniform and are held to the highest standards, even in the heat of battle.

The freaks in Gitmo came from all over the world to kill Americans on the field in Afghanistan, by any means and by no standards. They are not soldiers but terrorists and murderers for Mohammeds cause, and as such have no protective status under the Geneva convention. They are, at best enemy combatants and their treatment in Gitmo is far too good for them.

The US could, and should have them court-martialled and executed. Keeping them like monkeys in the zoo doesn't resolve this problem, and returning them to their point of origin will see them return to the battlefield or commit other terrorist attacks.

KJ: rest assured that no American soldier will be spared in the hands of the "Mudjaheddin"- regardless of Gitmo.

Posted by: Terminator at June 22, 2005 6:25 PM

Moreover, I call due attention to the very same sorts of blight in your own back yard, i.e. spousal abuse, child abuse, homophobia, hate crimes, intolerance, etc. All of these are very serious issues in wesetern society, too.~ kt

They are, however, NOT institutionalized as they are in islam. Whereas we have laws to protect people from these crimes (created mostly by people coming from a Christian mindset, never mind if any specific lawmaker over the last two centuries counted himself/herself Christian or not), immams, mullahs and even politicos in just about any muslim nation you can mention are pleased to recite passages from the koran or the hadiths to back up the 'legitimacy' of these crimes.

I know there are several here who have the pertinent hadiths or passages on hand for you, kt, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise on these matters.

Posted by: Gary at June 22, 2005 6:29 PM

Right, Gary. We don't have a 'holy' book actually sanctioning wife-beating: It is a crime.

But not only that: Islam is a blood-cult and King can put that saddle on his goat or on his donkey. It doesn't belong in the West, Islam is a criminal organization and must be stopped.

Mr. Klinklong:

No amount of lipstick turns a pig into a beauty: Thanks for trying to sell it to us, but we won't have any of it!

How was that again about us all being of the 'abrahamic' blood-lines...?

Posted by: Terminator at June 22, 2005 7:27 PM

June 22, 2005--A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%).

The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics. Sixty-nine percent disagree with that comparison. This helps explain why Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized for making such a comparison.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/Gitmo.htm

20% of Americans are officially idiots, in other words.

Sounds about right...

Posted by: lobo91 at June 22, 2005 7:43 PM

Jen,

Thanks for your reply and your thoughts.

The Internet cafe operator stated, "In Islam we are not allowed to think about those things."

You stated, "My answer, which came across respectfully I hope, was that my God had given me a mind with instructions to use it well."

What a difference.

Posted by: PRCS at June 22, 2005 9:51 PM

KJ-

I guess you forgot what was reported, one year ago this week, about the fate of U.S. Marine PFC. Keith Maupin, captured on April 9, 2004 by a jihadist group in Iraq.

http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/62533.html

Your worry "what will happen to American P.O.W.'s?", can't be serious. The terrorists don't consider any who fall into their clutches "P.O.W."'s.

They are considered infidel dogs to be tortured, humiliated and killed, preferably on camera.

May Pfc. Maupin's Marine Corps brothers be kicking ass in Iraq, right this second, to avenge his callous slaughter.

Semper Fi.

Posted by: BigSleep at June 22, 2005 11:03 PM

BigSleep:

Actually, Keith Maupin was a member of the Army Reserve, not a Marine. He was assigned to the 724th Transportation Co., from Bartonville, IL.

Interestingly, he is officially listed by the Army as captured, not KIA, and has been promoted twice since his capture. He is now a sergeant (E-5).

At any rate, you are otherwise 100% correct. There is NO reason to believe that the manner in which we handle prisoners in this war will have ANY effect on how our own captured personnel will be treated, as the jihadists have already proven time and again.

Posted by: lobo91 at June 22, 2005 11:56 PM

"At any rate, you are otherwise 100% correct. There is NO reason to believe that the manner in which we handle prisoners in this war will have ANY effect on how our own captured personnel will be treated, as the jihadists have already proven time and again."

Sadly the jihadists are unlikely to be the last people that the USA fights. It is myopic to say that we may as well mistreat the Guantanamo prisoners because they will mistreat our prisoners. The point is that America should be seen to value its own laws, if it is to be true to itself and have a hope of making others follow. If we show that our laws can be circumvented at will, then the consquences will go well beyond the current war on terror. At this point I expect someone will be tempted to jump in with a hysterical straw man argument, accusing me of wanting to help the terrorists kill babies or saying that the continued existence of the USA is in danger if we fail to torture and degrade terrorists in captivity. Yet for all the posturing nobody has presented a reasoned case of why it is so vital that we tear up the Geneva Conventions. All I've seen thus far is bloodthirsty revenge fantasies and the absurd idea that forcing our enemies to fight until they are killed will somehow make the war easier. This last idea runs contrary to any serious military doctrine that I've seen.

Posted by: Viking5 at June 23, 2005 6:02 AM

"At any rate, you are otherwise 100% correct. There is NO reason to believe that the manner in which we handle prisoners in this war will have ANY effect on how our own captured personnel will be treated, as the jihadists have already proven time and again."

Sadly the jihadists are unlikely to be the last people that the USA fights. It is myopic to say that we may as well mistreat the Guantanamo prisoners because they will mistreat our prisoners. The point is that America should be seen to value its own laws, if it is to be true to itself and have a hope of making others follow. If we show that our laws can be circumvented at will, then the consquences will go well beyond the current war on terror. At this point I expect someone will be tempted to jump in with a hysterical straw man argument, accusing me of wanting to help the terrorists kill babies or saying that the continued existence of the USA is in danger if we fail to torture and degrade terrorists in captivity. Yet for all the posturing nobody has presented a reasoned case of why it is so vital that we tear up the Geneva Conventions. All I've seen thus far is bloodthirsty revenge fantasies and the absurd idea that forcing our enemies to fight until they are killed will somehow make the war easier. This last idea runs contrary to any serious military doctrine that I've seen.

Posted by: Viking5 at June 23, 2005 6:05 AM

Viking:

' Dead enemies make the war easier..' You can bet your ass on that.

I know where you are coming from: Theories and wishful thinking, the PC 'balance' has to be upheld at all cost etc.etc. etc.

Who said we need to tear up the Geneva conventions? Obviously, you didn't read the previous posts. Everything that needed to be said on the subject was said. Just read it!

(Why in the f*#@k should we have the write the same thing over and over again if people are to lazy to inform themselves?)

Posted by: Terminator at June 23, 2005 7:27 AM

Viking5-

Normal warfare (what a concept!) between armies in uniform that are both signatories to the Geneva Accords is highly unlikely in the future, since the armaments are about to mutate so much that it is more likely that we will see cyborgs and nanotechnology devices doing the "combat", -therefore your worries about WW II-type battles and prisoners seems quaintly backward-looking.

But, let's look a little backward-

Did the Noth Koreans (& their Chinese Communist "volunteers") follow the Geneva Conventions during the "Police Action" in Korea?

No.

Did the North Vietamese follow Geneva's rules with P.O.W.'s during the Viet Nam War?

No.

Did Saddam Hussein, during the "Gulf War" (what a misnomer.. as if we were fighting fish!) adhere to the Geneva protocols?

No.

With this kind of recent track record, I'd say the entire exercise is a phantasm. A non-existent point of unfollowed 'law' to worry over for those who don't see the harsh reality.

And going back a little farther:

Did the Imperial Japanese military follow the Geneva regulations:

Ever heard of Bataan? Or the hushed-up experimentation on allied P.O.W.'s that would have made Dr. Mengele's giggle? Or the 'illegal' forced labor that thousands of P.O.W.s died as a result of?

So, the answer, for the "Good War", in the Pacific Theater is:

NO.

How about the Germans?

Generally, a highly-qualified maybe... at least if you were British or American. (Russian soldiers had their rights UTTERLY violated, along with most other "untermenschen" nationalities, and these luckless souls died by the tens of thousands as slave-laborers in mines, factories, road-building projects, etc.,etc.)

And, we can't forget the 'violation of Geneva' massacre of 50 escaped P.O.W.'s (as told in the book "The Great Escape"... whose facts were muddied in the film version, althought its heart was in the right place) on direct orders from Hitler... to teach them a lesson.

So, for this European Theater, mostly another

NO,

-unless you were from the select, protected few (Brits and Yanks, and a handful of escaped Dutch, Poles, French, etc. who enlisted in these "special" militaries).

History isn't on the side of those who think that the enemies of freedom will respect freedom's laws as they try to destroy them.

Especially the theocratic maniacs we now face.

I'm hoping, once they're defeated and absolutely tamed, the world can get back to its real work: exploring the micro, meso- and macrocosm.

With the only 'warfare' left - the conquest of illness and mortality.

Civilization has an unfolding vision.

It's enemies have dogmatic blindness.

I'm betting on the expanding heart.

And against the constricting hate.

Posted by: BigSleep at June 23, 2005 5:17 PM

BigSleep,

In all the wars you mention, we obeyed our laws on the treatment of prisoners (except Vietnam) and we won all of those wars (except Vietnam). Hardly a convincing argument of the necessity to end the humane treatment of prisoners, and further, those wars would not have been won sooner if we had started executing prisoners.

You again repeat the straw man that I'm expecting the terrorists to reciprocate, which I'm not. But it's not just about them. It's about American leadership in international relations based on honouring treaties. It's also about our own soldiers. Torture goes against their training and (at least in the Marines) against their code of conduct. War is a barbarous act, and it is important to allow our fighting men to cling to some shred of honour and humanity as they fight it. Torture and cold-blooded killing will not promote morale and discipline, rather it will encourage abuses. The honourable and professional behaviour of the US fighting forces does not come at all easily. Psychologists have shown repeatedly that strong leadership and clear boundaries are required if we are to prevent atrocities under the stress of combat.

Terminator, dead enemies do not come free. Dead enemies come through allied soldiers risking and losing their lives on the battlefield. If enemies can be convinced to surrender, then they become prisoners who can no longer kill our people, and allied soldiers are spared the danger of further fighting with them. If you can dispute this logic, please do so.

Posted by: Viking5 at June 24, 2005 5:35 AM