b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense." b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats? Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11.

In article <Ab70i.7495$2v1.6076@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, "bat" <bat@bats.com> wrote: > b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little > b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on > b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the > b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be > b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense." > > b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats? > > Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - > interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to 9/11 who they could have tortured for info?

??>> Obviously, pre-9/11 attitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that ??>> - interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. SH> Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to SH> 9/11 who they could have tortured for info? The same kids and taxi drivers they have in custody now. Everybody can see that now with all new security measures, trillions of dollars spent and hundred of thousands people killed, we were able to catch many real terrorists, all of whom were tried in court of law with evidence, and convicted; including, of course, all the perpetrators of 9/11. I only forgot how many? oh, I guess the sole approximation to that utopia of justice was Jose Padilla?

In article <srhi-86096B.21124309052007@newsgroups.comcast.net>, srhi@comcast.net says... > In article <Ab70i.7495$2v1.6076@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > "bat" <bat@bats.com> wrote: > > > b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little > > b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on > > b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the > > b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be > > b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense." > > > > b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats? > > > > Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - > > interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. > Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to 9/11 > who they could have tortured for info? Ramzi Yusef? -- Get Credit Where Credit Is Due http://www.cardreport.com/ Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

b> What proportion of the people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (not to b> mention the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe, Egypt and b> elsewhere) were *properly* convicted of anything? as I understand, it's zero. Properly or not. The only attempt - *attempt* - I heard about was Jose Padilla, with ridicolus charges first about dirty bomb, then planning to blow up buildings using gas stoves or something like that nonsense. They eventually tried, but the judge declared mistrial because Padilla went nuts after all torture he was subject to. Other than that, as I understand, not a single person ever was actually tried for anything. That also includes London bombings, liquids, etc. Of course there were plenty of people who were tried for things like arguing with flight attendants on a plane, reacting to TSA abuse during search, trespassing out of "free speech zone", etc., etc. Or those who relatively recently caused bomb scare panic in Boston by planting some advertising toys. I think those are the only terrorists found so far in this "war". It's mind-boggling that this hysteria is going on and in fact spreads wider and wider without a single piece of evidence that the danger actually exists. I think any brainwashing that ever took place in Communist USSR or China pales in comparison with this. b> How many convictions compared to the number held without charge whom we b> will eventually have to release to nurse their resentment against our b> nation? I suspect there are many we will not released ever. Enemy combatants can be held indefinitely. Those few who will, will be completely broken, like Padilla. No danger here. I'm much more concerned about the resentment from God for all my taxes that kill people - even though I'm 99.9% not religious, still, even that 0.1% must be enough for me to burn in hell. With all the rest of us, of course. b> What was the cost to those who were imprisoned but never convicted of b> anything? What has been the cost to the United States in terms of b> individual liberty, global prestige and world leadership? Today's United States are effectively owned by corporate interests and certain foreign interests. If you look from that standpoint, you will see that things are just dandy, and Bush is actually the greatest president in the history. I seriously believe he indeed has made a really huge contribution to the history of this country. Of course this contribution is not in the favor of American people, but it's not American people who own America today. For those entities who do own it, he is really great leader, possibly the greatest in history. regards

bat <bat@bats.com> writes: > The same kids and taxi drivers they have in custody now. Oh, bullshit. You come across like the radical lawyers of the Sixties and early Seventies who took it as axiomatic that anyone who was black and in prison was a victim of racism. Let's apply a bit of elementary reasoning here: Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless. If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to lose, credibility-wise. > Everybody can see that now with all new security measures, > trillions of dollars spent and hundred of thousands people > killed, we were able to catch many real terrorists, all of > whom were tried in court of law with evidence, and convicted; > including, of course, all the perpetrators of 9/11. Terrorism is warfare, not criminality. Therefore, dealing with terrorism is properly handled by the Defense Department, not by the legal system. > I only forgot how many? oh, I guess the sole approximation to > that utopia of justice was Jose Padilla? Yeah, he's gonna get his at long last. They're going to toss that SOB so far back that they'll have to pipe beans to him. Incidentally, I noticed that the news media eventually dropped the Hispanic pronuciation of his surname -- "Pah-DEE-ah" -- and began pronouncing it to rhyme with "chinchilla." What's up with that? It reminds me of the way the newsdroids suddenly started saying "Pee-no-CHETT" in lieu of "Pee-no-SHAY," or the way that Slobodan Milosevic's last name acquired an additional "h" every week or so during the Bosnia/Kosovo thing. Geoff -- "Ya'll know the difference between a Florida orange and a California orange? The California orange sucks back." -- flimflam

GM> Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to GM> waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture GM> and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless. GM> If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to GM> lose, credibility-wise. I think you kinda turn things upside down. Primary here is the fact that armed forces, CIA, and anything within 100 miles radius from security topic have gained immensely since 9/11, in terms of budgets and powers, because they are supposed to fight war on terror. Secondary is the fact that they obviously have to demonstrate some result, and, given the absence of anything real, they don't have any other choice than to lock up taxi drivers. It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime, people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and gulags were full with "enemies of the nation". If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real terrorists, then, again, where are they? where are trials? evidence? convictions? where are those who we are to thank for the liquid-related limitations - I guess they were planning to blow something up? were they tried? no? why no? don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists" locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence, etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence indeed? or maybe you have another? or perhaps the media that is so happy to feed us all those laughable hoaxes like Osama's video tapes, wouldn't report those real trials if any took place?

bat <bat@bats.com> writes: : Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to : waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture : and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless. : If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to : lose, credibility-wise. > I think you kinda turn things upside down. Primary here is > the fact that armed forces, CIA, and anything within 100 > miles radius from security topic have gained immensely since > 9/11, in terms of budgets and powers, because they are sup- > posed to fight war on terror. Secondary is the fact that > they obviously have to demonstrate some result, and, given > the absence of anything real, they don't have any other > choice than to lock up taxi drivers. That strikes me as paranoia and conspiracy mongering. The results of incarceration are demonstrated by the amount of useful intelligence that's obtained through interrogation, not simply by the number of people who are under lock and key. Obviously, if the ratio of the volume of useful intel to the number of detainees is unfavorable, the CIA and the armed forces aren't going to look good. Those who provide money tend to want results in return for it. > It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime, > people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and > gulags were full with "enemies of the nation". In Stalin's time it was due to the ruthlessness of Stalin and his regime and the oppressive nature of the Communist system generally, not because of a need to demonstrate results by meeting Gulag quotas. Anybody who so much as thought about criticizing the System got a ticket to Siberia, as a way of maintaining a climate of fear among the populace. > If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real > terrorists, then, again, where are they? In Guantanamo and in those secret prisons that the Left is so exercised about, of course. (Why would there be any need for those secret prisons and offshore interrogations if most of the detainees were mere taxi drivers and the equivalent?) > where are trials? evidence? convictions? where are those who > we are to thank for the liquid-related limitations - I guess > they were planning to blow something up? were they tried? no? > why no? You're taking it as a given that such people would or should be tried. What many fail to grasp is that these guys are neither fish nor fowl: they're not criminals, and not being uniformed members of the armed forces of a recognized nation-state that's a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they're not POWs. Hence the use of vague terms like "detainees" and "enemy combatants" to describe them. That means two things: that there's no generally accepted mechanism in place for dealing with such people, and that Bush, Rummy-poo et al. got to (indeed, _had_ to) improvise and make their own rules. In short, if someone's stashed at Gitmo, then his butt belongs to Dubya...and he'll remain there at Dubya's pleasure. Realistically, though, prisoners of war have always been incarcerated until the end of hostilities. Why should this case be any different, particularly in light of the fact that so many criticize the Bush administration for _not_ treating the Gitmo detainess as POWs? If these guys want to wage perpetual jihad, then it logically follows that those of them we capture will have to endure perpetual incarceration. They made their own collective bed. Let them lie in it. After all, if we were to let them go, they'd just rejoin the fight. And it isn't *our* fault that they elected to fight as irregulars, and by so doing, to forego any right to treatment as legitimate, conventional POWs. They can all stay in there until they rot, as far as I'm concerned. When they leave Gitmo or wherever, it'll be feet-first in a cheap pine box. And you know something? That's suits me just fine. Of course, the international Left thinks this is terrible. Poor terrorists; poor, poor terrorists. Then again, since these are the same waterheads who make heroes out of bipedal vermin like Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier, and who hold candlelight vigils outside the gates of San Quentin anytime some waste of skin like Stanley "Tookie" Williams gets drop-kicked into the Great Beyond, I'm not inclined to take their objections very seriously. > don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists" > locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence, > etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence > indeed? or maybe you have another? Indeed I do: national security. One of the fundamental tenets of intelligence collection is not to let the other side know what you know or how you came to know it. If these guys went to trial, not just intel, but sources and methods would be compromised. > or perhaps the media that is so happy to feed us all those > laughable hoaxes like Osama's video tapes, wouldn't report > those real trials if any took place? If they would, that's all the more reason not to hold any -- for the reason given above. ("...media that _are_ so happy...") Geoff -- "Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants." -- E. Blackadder

GM> Obviously, if the ratio of the volume of useful intel to the GM> number of detainees is unfavorable, the CIA and the armed GM> forces aren't going to look good. Those who provide money GM> tend to want results in return for it. This heavily depends on the definition of "useful intel"; useful for what? if we agree that the whole war with Iraq makes no sense and does not benefit anyone but military contractors, then "useful" means "able to keep the war going as long as possible". I don't think it's in the interests of the people whose taxes pay for CIA. ??>> It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime, ??>> people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and ??>> gulags were full with "enemies of the nation". GM> In Stalin's time it was due to the ruthlessness of Stalin and GM> his regime and the oppressive nature of the Communist system GM> generally, not because of a need to demonstrate results by GM> meeting Gulag quotas. Anybody who so much as thought about GM> criticizing the System got a ticket to Siberia, as a way of GM> maintaining a climate of fear among the populace. No, that was much later, in Brezhnev times, and in very modest amounts. In Stalin times, nobody was criticizing the regime, Stalin was very popular and beloved by absolute majority of people. But the general political climate was that the country was "fighting", that there were enemies around, that the times were difficult, etc., etc., and that required enemies. So the enemies were produced, and camps were full with people who in fact were absolutely loyal, but who were accused in various political plots, completely made up. The political climate was not fear, it was rather "be on alert", so whoever was feeling uncomfortable with their neighbor, always could inform the authorities, and the neighbor would be rounded up the same night as potential political assassin, or plot participant, or anything else. This was happening every day with millions (not even thousands) of people. All others, at the same time, were sure that this was indeed fight with enemies, and that those rounded up were indeed hidden enemies. When they themselves were arrested little later, they were thinking that their case was a sole tragic mistake, while everyone else in their camp is a real enemy. That's human nature, it happened before, it's happening now, it will be happening again. As soon as there's political opportunity and demand for incarceration, it always will be satisfied, with the only difference being the label - enemy of nation, terrorist, whatever. The process of political persecution is always totally and completely disconnected form the reality, in all times and all caountries. ??>> If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real ??>> terrorists, then, again, where are they? GM> In Guantanamo and in those secret prisons that the Left is so GM> exercised about, of course. (Why would there be any need for GM> those secret prisons and offshore interrogations if most of GM> the detainees were mere taxi drivers and the equivalent?) The purpose of offshore interrogation is to be able to do things that would be impossible in a country bound by international agreements. We participate in agreements, so we must torture in countries that don't. As for the reason why we must torture - see above. Because we have to satisfy the demand. It does not mean that we indeed extract more useful information. For example, shall I remind, all that interrogation so far has not produced one credible name of someone who did 9/11, or anything else that was not quietly dismissed little later as another hoax, panic or histeria. GM> You're taking it as a given that such people would or should be GM> tried. What many fail to grasp is that these guys are neither GM> fish nor fowl: they're not criminals, and not being uniformed GM> members of the armed forces of a recognized nation-state that's GM> a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they're not POWs. Hence GM> the use of vague terms like "detainees" and "enemy combatants" GM> to describe them. So far, we were talking about war on terror and terrorists, right? terror is defined as an act against civil population in order to advance political agenda. If so, since you yourself admit that they are not "uniformed members of the armed force", and since we define our war as war on terror, then all "those guys" have committed some terrorist acts against population, right? do you really think they have? one example please? and if they were, why not to try them, indeed, for those acts? GM> Realistically, though, prisoners of war have always been GM> incarcerated until the end of hostilities. Why should this GM> case be any different, particularly in light of the fact GM> that so many criticize the Bush administration for _not_ GM> treating the Gitmo detainess as POWs? Prisoners of war, i.e. enemy fighters who fight against enemy's armed forces - agreed; but we were talking about terrorists, not prisoners of war. Terrorists strike civil population. This is war on terror. Where are the terrorists, i.e. those who committed terrorist acts against civil population in order to advance their political agenda? GM> If these guys want to wage perpetual jihad, then it logically follows GM> that those of them we capture will have to endure perpetual GM> incarceration. They made their own collective bed. Let GM> them lie in it. They don't want to wage perpetual jihad. They want us to get out of their country that we have invaded. GM> After all, if we were to let them go, they'd just rejoin the GM> fight. And it isn't *our* fault that they elected to fight as GM> irregulars, and by so doing, to forego any right to treatment GM> as legitimate, conventional POWs. What do you mean by "irregulars"? even speaking of those who were fighting with us in Iraw and whom we actually captured - we have invaded their country and killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Naturally, everyone who can fight, fights. How is that they are not "regular"? what makes "regular"? GM> Of course, the international Left thinks this is terrible. Poor GM> terrorists; poor, poor terrorists. Would you explain what they actually did so they deserve to be punished. Specifically. ??>> don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists" ??>> locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence, ??>> etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence ??>> indeed? or maybe you have another? GM> Indeed I do: national security. One of the fundamental tenets of GM> intelligence collection is not to let the other side know what you GM> know or how you came to know it. If these guys went to trial, not GM> just intel, but sources and methods would be compromised. It seems you are again seeing the black cat in dark room, even though there's no evidence whatsoever that it exists there. Obviously, you have the right to believe anything, including the existence of terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda, etc., etc.. It's not unusual - those Russians under Stalin also believed in thousands of enemies around every corner who were plotting against the state and Stalin personally day and night. Though, even under Stalin, those "enemies" were promptly tried, in order to maintain at least an illusion of due process. This war, as many other things, ir being driven by the state of our economy, that increasingly relies on artificial stimulators in order to function. From that perspective, Y2K business and war on terror are coming from the same source. Like a drug addict, once we rely on made-up dangers, we can't go back, and each next stimulator must be more powerful than the previous. After security theme eventually wears out, there will be promptly made up the next one - global warning maybe, or something else. Open your eyes and learn to see what's real and what's made up.