revprez

If you're going to describe someone's position, do it accurately. Falwell said: He clearly accuses liberals, in the very least in a theological sense, of aiding and abetting the terrorists, not the United States. I have no problem with that argument, but Karl Rove's is far more basic. Liberals are weak pansies who'd sooner sell out their own country than kill the enemy. And predictably the single most important 527 and arguably a key factor in Democratic general election prospects during the 2004 elections did just that. Which considering their behavior since demonstrates a remarkable sense of self-preservation on their part. I think the appetite to be the party of appeasement on the day your country goes to war with an enemy that hit your homeland went out of style with the Federalists. Karl Rove has revealed one of the reasons why Washington "can't get along." There is a sizable liberal minority in this country that wields a tremendous amount of power in the national Democratic party. For thirty five years this bloc has been extremely effective at undermining American security interests and just generally making a shithole out of the capital. If you're wondering why people are so shocked by Rove's comments its simply that you don't hear them often--not even on radio talk shows or anyone not to the right of Ann Coulter; its simply impolitic to actually reveal how much red-blooded Americans despise liberalism and even more so the true believers. [ Since 50 percent of the country doesn't identify as liberal, how'd you come up with that number? That's right. This isn't frigging playtime in the sandbox. A large swath of conservatives feel just as Rove does, and a similarly large section of the party agrees with every word Falwell said shortly after 9/11. Its angering. Its sickening. And its probably very tiring considering how few will actually come out and say it. And on the broad points they're probably right. That wouldn't be thinking for yourself, that would be operating on shallow gut reaction. I chalk it up to some defense mechanism whenever someone declares they honestly believe critical thinking includes the ability to hold two generally contradictory positions. Yours, yes. Rove's, no. And simply demanding that conservatives get over forty years of liberals betraying the notion of American exceptionalism and campaigning against American defense isn't going change a damn thing. Rev Prez

Well, to be fair to Durbin he got shitted on by damn near every Dem to the right of him and was eventually forced to capitulate; Rove got full White House support. It's hard to tell 8 out of 10 Americans that they're for concentration camps, gulags and commie reeducation centers. Rev Prez

More here.

No, it is dishonest because there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. No, there are not. There are two views, one held by 80 percent of Americans and one held by the cretins on the other side. I wonder which side of the divide better reflcets your view? Because, in your view, they're either slaves or idiots. You were. You then said even if they were given lawful orders they lacked the ability to interpret them within the constraints of their mission. You now say they are absolved of all wrongdoing because they have no choice. So either they're idiots or slaves--in your opinion. Once again, I suggest you actually edit your posts so that there are paragraph breaks in between quote seperated sections. I'm sure even a 2-year-old with a severe mental handicap, who's been kicked in the head by a horse and is extremely impatient could spare the extra time it takes. Then you've failed. Bye. Rev Prez

More to the point' date=' I'm still waiting for the critics to start jumping on the French for their treatment of terror suspects. And here is the real issue: If only Europeans had as much sense as their security institutions. Rev Prez

And you share this dishonest view. I know you do, and I know you believe that there is a pattern of abuse at Guantanamo without any evidence whatsoever. And in every circumstance soldiers are required to interpret their orders and act in the best interests of the unit, the service and the country. You dishonestly accuse them of generally failing in this regard. More dishonesty. You've admitted that they appear to have acted unlawfully, under orders or no. Sure it is. Unwarranted contempt for the American serviceman is at the heart of this issue; it goes to the critics' motives. I did not. I quoted exactly what you wrote. Then fix your paragraphs. It is entirely relevant. If they don't, then you're just being plain dishonest. That wasn't your point. As you mistakenly claimed: "i have met your challenge to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy." All you've shown us is a recursive definition for public support of terrorism. By definition. The authors quite explicitly state that equations 1 and 2 are assumed. Which goes to the question of net material benefit. Surely you're not this thick. Which has nothing to do with a net material benefit for the terrorists. Losing less than you would have, although not necessarily intolerable, is not a gain. An increase in the number of terrorists does not necessarily correspond to an increase in effectiveness (defined here as the the number terrorist attacks) [imath]T_t[/imath]. In fact, you haven't even shown that there is an increase in the number of terrorists; you'd have to show that the membership decay rate is to low to offset the influx of new recruits. I really think you've fundamentally misunderstood what this paper is presenting. It's a metric similar to the one used by DoD, although one in which the authors admittedly use parameters that haven't been empirically measured and use units of incidence instead of casualties. I'd argue its an inevitable but manageable consequence of depleting the terrorists. You'll not that as the recruitment effectiveness goes down, the effectiveness (as defined the paper) goes up. Once again, there are some second order problems with this model (usually in units), but the relevant information can still be reasonably expected to exist in the parameters α, β, δ, λ, ω, a and b. My challenge was for you to show us that there is a net material benefit. I don't know what the strength of the relevant terrorist organization is or how it fluctuates. But if I must, then we can look at the Patterns of Global Terrorism report to see if we can at least find some evidence that global and regional terror effectiveness (in terms of incidence Tt) is showing a long term pattern of increase. Here are the statistical overviews from 1991 to 2003 ([1],[2], [3]). And here is a trendline: You should address the challenge. No, you haven't. You've dishonestly or ignorantly presented the definition of terrorist recruitment as evidence of a net material benefit. I ask you this, given just that definition when would you have negative recruitment? If you can't grasp that then you have no business continuing this line of argument. You are clearly unable to do so. No, its not. If you can't understand what you read then exactly how can you present it as evidence? Yes, I think we all got the point. You resorted to tautology. Not even God knows what you're saying. You're so confused about this paper its obvious that the only reason you persist is for sick egotistical reasons. And that you're willing to defame American servicemen and women in the process is just plain despicable. No, you didn't. You still haven't. Which is another tautology. I'm suggesting you've set up a tautology, and that if I ask you to explain why the trendline is as it is you'd say "well, America wasn't being hypocritical at that time because otherwise we'd see terrorist incidences fall off." I'm sorry, this is just too ridiculous. You're done. Rev Prez

Which at the very least means you believe the charges are plausible. So you believe soldiers are idiots or slaves, and that they have an obligation to accept unlawful orders. Either way, you are insulting them; exactly the sort of pettiness I'd expect from the critics. So you believe that unlawful orders were given that the soldiers can't disregard? I directly quote you. Then clean up your posts. And that they have a credible case to make. Which you fail to even begin to show. No, we will use that definition because I asked you to show a net material benefit. Unless you can show that underlying public support grows at a rate vaster than Ω, then you're full of it. I'm sure even you know substitution. [math]T_t = \alpha (a + b S_t) + \delta T_{t-1} - \Omega [/math] I chose it because it is the difference equation characterizing terrorist activity. If you cannot replenish the ranks faster than counter-terrorism efforts diminish them, there is no net material benefit to whatever St is at that time. That's a laugh. You stopped at page 3. You'd have to ignore the rest of the paper to show that Rt is good enough as any variable to character a net material benefit. Rt is always zero or positive. I suggest you try brushing up on your math and actually reading your sources. Which you did not state. You said that hypocrisy makes the US look hypocritical. Say we have Ph represent the public perception of American hypocrisy in units such that [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] is common with [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath]. You haven't even shown that the parameter [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h} >> 0[/imath], let alone that the term [imath]\frac{dS}{dP_h}[/imath] increases faster than [imath]\frac{dT}{d\Omega}[/imath] decreases. Rev Prez

Which, of course, is blatantly untrue. In your own words: "i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly." Either you believe the charge has substance or you do not... ...and apparantly you do. Then again I'm not arguing that the critics are honest, no am I? Which is something you'd expect the dumbest of critics to say. After all, who else would claim that Israel is not criticized by her allies and a minority within her own borders? Read: "I cannot fail how being perceived as hypocritical isn't damaging, after all you have the appearance of hypocrisy." Care to rephrase? I think you need to re-read the paper, and maybe brush up on your math. Let's define net material benefit to be the net strength of terrorist organizations in terms of bodies; specifically trained and operational ones. I suggest you actually apply equation (3'') to show that terror recruitment is up. Pointing out a tautology (an effective recruiting campaign increases the number of recruits) doesn't address my challenge even remotely. No, it doesn't, anymore than pointing out that deadly terrorist attacks kill people or the sky is blue. No, they are the only two options advanced by the critics. Close Guantanamo and try the terrorists or release them. Keeping them in close custody without charge is anathema to them, and throughout this discussion its clearly been bothering you. There is an independent "commission." The Red Cross. And they've been no help. Throwing out non-answers doesn't separate you from the pack of dishonest, America-hating critics clamoring shutdown Guantanamo. Rev Prez

Unless you 1) have access to information we don't, 2) take the word of unknowns at face value, and/or 3) magnify a small set of allegations beyond all reasonable proportion, you have no basis for that belief. Based on this statement... ...it appears 2) dominates your reasoning. That's pretty short shrift you're giving Americans in uniform. I'm not sure if you'll ever understand this, but 3GC doesn't offer protections to unlawful combatants period. We do not address international crime according to 3GC, so why would it apply in the case of terrorists? Its not so damaging, but in that it is we can point to the dishonesty of the critics. The US is experiencing a global character assassination effort that only rivals the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel. We've heard countless assertions about the alleged positive impact of anti-Americanism on terrorist recruiting efforts. I challenge you to quantitatively show that terrorists are achieving any net material benefit as a result of problems in public diplomacy. Let's see. Unlawful combatants are held in facilities where they receive the highest standard of humane treatment 3GC expects prisoners of war to enjoy. The only difference between their treatment and that ideally of POWs is that we interrogate them and we restrict their ability to communicate with the outside world. The critics offer only two alternatives--release some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world or try them as civilians. In a game with guns and bombs, we can weather slander better than we can weather turning over terrorists to a permissive system of criminal justice. Rev Prez

Just to be clear, the tribunals going on presently are to offer detainees a chance to show they qualify for POW status. Rasul v. Bush was very clear that the non-American captured deserved this much due process. Rev Prez

To what purpose? Does anyone actually read beyond the torture provision in 3GC? Properly treated POWs have extensive rights not only to humane treatment, but to congress amongst themselves, send and receive mail, and take pay from the Detaining Power. Rev Prez

Once again, why don't you actually press "enter" after each quote block? Parsing through a single paragraph with no spaces after sentences is annoying as hell. No, they're subjected to much worse. Prison rape isn't even raised as an issue by the Guantanamo critics. So what? Police detain people all the time without charge. If you're a clever enough ADA you can turn a 24 hour detention into a week long one. And what evidence is there that there is a pattern of psychological torture at Guantanamo? Physical abuse is at issue here precisely because there's very little evidence of even single confirmed cases, let alone a pattern. Its an issue because you're forced to make a hamstring case for mental torture when in fact you have no evidence that any detainee has suffered any psychological trauma as a result of any of the interrogation techniques. There you have it--a detention facility that is arguably more humane than the American prison system. In short, you have no point. It is dishonest to equate legally defined terms like "abuse" and "torture," its even more so to think of them synonymously with "pressure." Finally, its the height of dishonesty to summarize the investigations as confirming a policy of using torture other means of abusive coercion when they have found none. Its not a valid question. It is asked in either unconscionable ignorance or out of dishonesty. The detainees suffer no worse than the American incarcerated. If you had any genuine criticism to make, you'd stick to complaining about their legal avenues compared to POWs or common criminals. Unfortunately, that doesn't carry nearly as much emotional weight with Americans as appealing to the fantasy of an innocent man laid up in Guantanamo suffering some nebulous, unsubstantiated abuse. Does it? Then you can move on. There's enough idle speculation in the other forums; strangers popping in with alleged special knowledge of Einstein's deathbed thoughts and theories that begin with "I have a feeling..." Then give me something to work with. By human behavior I mean just that, human behavior. And human behavior can be studied scientifically. Which has little to do with what I said, and is given lie by your remark below. You have nothing to substantiate the accusation. Particularly you have no evidence that detainees like these have been treated as POWs. I dare you to examine the history of the European experience with terrorism out of the Balkans, Greece and North Africa in the past half-century? Tell me exactly how many POWs did they take in the 1980s? You haven't even shown it to be grave or serious. Rev Prez

As can I, but that doesn't mitigate the harm such people can do when they use what power they have to aid their fellow travelers. Let's be clear, the other side is advocating a dangerous course of action--releasing suspected terrorists or surrendering them to the forgiving auspices of civilian law--on a principle they can't consistently sustain. I don't respect atm or dak's views and I won't apologize for being abrasive on these issues, but I do apologize for airing out dirty laundry in someone else's living room. Rev Prez

And for the umpteenth time I'll ask you to stop misrepresenting their authors and content. No shit. Bullshit. No, this is what we call a policy statement. It is not a legal brief. Its a challenge to your claim that these are "the leading world experts." Its obvious that they aren't the only voice on the matter; DOJ and State's lawyers have cleared the process. More importantly, I'm challenging your credibility outright. You're trying to pass off immaterial bullshit as findings of fact. No its not. It doesn't even exist. OCGG is not an adjudicating body. The link you offered is not to a brief and sure as hell isn't cited by anything. It critiques presents policy, gives an informal opinion on the legality of it, and offers an alternative (albeit a ridiculous one). I've asked you to point out those sections of 3GC that cover the detainees. You've already admitted there is no such section. Also bullshit. Its your objection, whether you raise it or you resort to proxy. Just demonizing the humane authority detaining them. Rev Prez

It's an admission that the detainees do not meet 3GC's criteria to be considered a prisoner of war. Whether you think that should be a case is a matter of policy, and that you and "the leading world experts" agree is of little concern here. No, they are not. But to analyze further requires a legal analysis of the underlying moral debate; after all, the most specific objections you and Dak have raised regards the legal process and the disparity between the way we treat POWs and illegal enemy combatants. If you can't make a more general case to morally reconsider law controlling civilian prison populations, you're argument rings hollow. Then you have no point to make. Rev Prez

The question isn't valid. We wouldn't be arguing whether it is morally acceptable to do work if it involved some unpleasant activity--say re-alphabetizing the vitamin rack at your local RX. Civilized societies have long condoned a measure of unpleasant treatment of the incarcerated that is not obviously dissimilar in quality to what the Guantanamo detainees experience. If your not making a general case regarding how we treat convicts here and abroad, then your whole line of argument is hollow. Actually, that has not been said. Their is a process in place to adjudicate their criminal liability. It's patently obvious that they are being treated as criminals. As do the detainees. Your beef is that it is not the same process afforded to American convicts. Even that's not a reasonably accurate claim to make. The conditions--lengthy detention before trial, specifically-- are not terribly dissimilar to what illegal immigrants face on American soil. Physical abuse is the issue here. If you cannot make the case that detainees in Guantanamo are suffering physically worse than incarcerated felons on the mainland, what case do you have? And you would have a case, if you could show that the pyschological treatment of detainees is on average worse than afforded to incarcerated American citizens. As it stands, you can't even cite a single confirmed case of psychological trauma uncovered by any of the investigations. As I said, there's no reason to believe the outrage would outpace that initially felt over their POW status period. Nobody said being a POW was a pleasant way to spend time. I think you have no evidence to that effect, and considering our past experience with POWs who have been treated as humanely by the enemy (as far as "humane" went in the 19th and early 20th centuries) as we've treated our prisoners I doubt you'll find any evidence to that effect. That said, we live in a real world with real enemies with no real inhibitions about murdering captured American civilians, let alone any sense of decency in their treatment of combatants. I put it down to ignorance born out of too much TV, which is disappointing. As rigorous as we're willing to be about issues pertaining to mathematics and the hard sciences, it seems too many prefer mushy cliches to explain human behavior. Rev Prez

Would we call that inhumane? Probably not, especially considering that in the real world terrorists ransom and murder captured soldiers and then deface their mutilated bodies in open forum. Would we like it? Would we like it even when our soldiers are taken prisoner by a humane adversary? Of course not. Especially if those soldiers had some information of value. Rev Prez

Yes, in fact the illegality of key means of collection amounts to the primary distinction between our clandestine foreign intelligence service and the domestic investigation agencies. You don't need a FISA warrant to do shit off American soil. Rev Prez

Show us this is the case, because the Americans insist that they are vetted extensively overseas before their shipped out to Guantanamo Bay and we know for a fact very few have actually been released. "Torture is ineffective" is frequently thrown around by people who know shit about either torture or interrogation techniques. First, there's little public literature for outsiders to support any conclusion. Second, there's the simple fact that highly effective security agencies around the world are habitual practitioners of techniques unfortunately labeled as "torture" (and also unfortunately prone to exaggeration in polite conversation) but do not rise to some level of physical abuse. So my question is what do you about interrogation? Rev Prez

The interrogation techniques? Why not? The three alleged abuses in the article are 1) that al Qahtani can't get any sleep because of the noise, 2) that he got wet, and 3) that he has to endure deliberate play on his phobias. Everything else--isolation for thirty days or more, poking and pushing, forced physical activity--these are all conditions that incarcerated criminals in the US face on a regular basis. I find it amazing that none of the critics can't come up a single confirmed case of a prisoner beating at Guantanamo; simply because its been in operation in two years and in American prisons beatings are an frequently tracked statistic. You mean the terrorists would start accommodating captured Westerner's religious beliefs, feed them well during their captivity, and prosecute their own for abuses? Rev Prez

Blah blah blah. I asked where Convention III covers the combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Your entire post is a very round about admission that they are not legally covered. Its only a moral tightrope for people who failing to even grasp the basics of criminal justice then abandon all sorts of commonsense. The prisoners at Guantanamo are distinct from the criminally incarcerated in that they were picked up on a field of battle and distinct from prisoners of war in that they do not fight under a flag party to any of the conventions on law in land warfare. And even so, is the conditions of not only their imprisonment but the process keeping them there significantly worse off than someone locked up at Rikers Island? The government does classify them as illegal enemy combatants--a criminal charge. They do hold them indefinitely as we do particularly dangerous persons without bail or prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict. We do have a process for adjudicating their status and fate--military commissions, and we're speeding them through that process just as quickly if not more so than what you'd expect for a well financed defendant who may spend months to more than a year behind bars before conviction or acquittal. And most importantly, they're being held in conditions that greatly exceed the comfort and security of Rikers Island. So what are the critics really complaining about? Rev Prez

Do you even bother to read your own stuff? Point out where it says that POW status would be devastating to the Administration's detention policy. Rev Prez

Why? They weren't granted POW rights because they're not legally POWs. Here's the Convention III. Show us how these combatants meet the standard where they rate Convention III protections. Yes, I meant charged. You ignored my first point that POWs aren't charged. So clearly your problem isn't with that they are charged. Your problem is that these terrorists are held indefinitely, possibly after the war is over, with no process to resolve their status. Specifically, you want a civilian judicial process to resolve their status. Well, some will be resolved that way. Others resolved by military commission. And others will simply be released as they have. In short, they have one more avenue of resolution available than illegal aliens do. So what? 1. All detainees who aren't eventually released or still of intelligence value will ultimately end up tried in either in civilian or military court. The process is slow, specifically as the detainees' counsel challenge the due process protections (or lack thereof) afforded to the defendants. 2. Its not true they're held without charge. They're accused of being illegal enemy combatants. That is their official legal status for right or wrong, and the only question is what burden does the executive have to meet in order to maintain this distinction and whether or not terrorists have a right to such procedural protections as "bail hearings." Those in Guantanamo. Then I suppose you'd even object to holding terrorists if they refuse bail on their own recognizance. Get real. Uh, really? In which case? And people get their cases ACD'ed all the time. What's your point? Why? There are international human rights and their are constitutional rights. Asserting the right to fall under the jurisdiction of US courts regardless of where you are is absurd; no other country affords to even American citizens. Tim McVeigh isn't an illegal enemy combatant picked up on a foreign battlefield. He was caught and detained on American soil in the jurisdictional territory of functioniing civilian courts. And the three top nuclear armed countries include Russia and China. What's your point? That killing bad guys is bad? I'm sure I'm only interested in where they can be found and how swiftly and thoroughly they can be eliminated. Rev Prez

Why? Prisoners of war are held against their will for indefinite periods of time--and they are not charged or tried. But let's say we are going to try these people. What's so important about a charge? What about a trial date? American convicted of grand larcency can wait months before they get one. So what if a terrorist waits years? What's the difference between months and years, especially if these guys are eating and living better than they have in their entire lives? Then you have a more expansive (I think foolishly so) view of human rights than I do. Depends. If it were Ted Bundy or Jane Fonda, there probably wouldn't be any uproar. Your analogy is stupid. We're talking about enemy combatants taken off the battlefield, not some law-abiding Virginian plucked off his porch. Once again, a stupid analogy. In communist China or Hussein's Iraq, you'd expect summary executions. I imagine that is why the US is hated by whatever amount of the world hates us. The question is whether I do care or should care. In a nutshell, I don't and I don't have to. That's a whole other thread, though. You can laugh all you want. Its not as if the United States really needs your approval or advice. Rev Prez