OT - Innocent men held as Guantanamo Bay prisoners

Yes, but what you miss is that "nothing happened" is the best outcome that can be hoped for in Iraq for the next generation or so. As a result, it was an overwhelming success.

People taken into custody for prosecution are criminal suspects, and should be treated as such (informed of their suspected crime, access to lawyers, charged or released after a short time, etc.) regardless of where they are captured, and where they are kept. If they are captured and detained by Americans, then they should be treated by American standards as any other criminal suspects. That's what any country's police do when arresting foreigners.

If they were not taken into custody for prosecution, but for interrogation and segregation during the course of a war, then they are quite simply prisoners of war. That's fair enough, and what most people would expect of people captured during the Afghan or Iraqi wars. Prisoners of war have no rights to lawyers or such - they have no need. The Geneva convention says exactly how they should be treated, including their release at the end of the war.

The only possibility beyond that is if the people in question are suspected war criminals, in which case they are to be treated basically as suspected criminals.

You can't have it both ways. Either the prisoners at Guantanamo are suspected criminals and should be treated as such, or they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.

The phrase "those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it" springs to mind...

And how will history, at least within the USA, be the judge when Bush & co. are already working hard to change it? Historians need to be objective to have any claim to the truth - look at how the USA is viewed in the eyes of the rest of the world. The rest of the world looks on and wonders what happened to the great idea that was America.

What does ME mean? I hope it doesn't mean Middle Eastern, because I wasn't aware that the US was a middle eastern nation.

Norm Strong

Certainly some Iraqis are better off without Saddam - but others are worse off. As to the world in general, Saddam was not a threat to anyone but his own people, at least not on his own (i.e., without the USA pushing him).

I didn't know anyone still believed Bush knows what he is doing, and is doing a good job. There are still a number who think that attacking Iraq is a good idea "because of all the terrorists", but I don't think many of them think Bush is doing very well.

And anyway, if Iran or Syria was the problem, why didn't the US just repeat their last grand effort - give Saddam chemical weapons and tell him to invade Iran?

Some were already pushing for sanctions to be dropped, because they were unduly punishing the Iraqi people, because Iraq was no longer a threat to others, because weapon inspectors had (at least for the most part) had access to facilities in Iraq, and because international experts (including those from the USA) were convinced that Saddam did not have any "weapons of mass destruction", did not have facilities to produce them, and would not be able to get them without being noticed.

I can't believe people are still falling for this stuff. It's all old reports, because no respectable news source is still actively regurgitating those lies. Certainly no one in Britain gives Blair any credit on the subject - they all know he was talking through a hole in his head because his god Bush ordered his support (the British voted Labour despite Blair, not because of him - they actually voted for Gordon Brown because of his success with the British economy).

There is no doubt that Saddam and bin Ladden had a relationship - they hated each other. No one laughed louder at the fall of Saddam than bin Ladin.

Yes, Iraq is *so* stable now. If the US forces pull out, there will be full scale civil war (many classify the current situation as civil war). Iraq has three main population groups that all dislike and distrust each other with a long history of violence. There are only three ways to keep such a group stable - unite them against a common enemy (the USA is trying hard to be that enemy), rule them with a hard hand so that they are more scared of the dictator than each other (worked for Saddam), or unite them by religion (like Iran).

North Korea withdrew from the NPT in January 2003.

They said they had nuclear weapons in February of 2005.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Read it again with your brain engaged.

In article , Jim Thompson wrote: [... me ..]

Without US aid:

The most likely outcome is that the contry will split into 3 parts. The north and south will be somewhat moderate and the middle will be extremist.

A new strong man, Saddam-MK2, could emerge and hold the place together through brutal means.

A Iran style extremist group holding the place together is less likely.

A deomcracy holding th eplace together is, at this point, not very likely.

If we are to now consider the outcome with US aid we have to consider what the word "aid" would mean.

The folks currently in charge in Washington have so far gotten absolutely everything wrong about Iraq and don't seem to be ready to admit that failing and correct the problem. Given that, if the US aid means US troops etc, the results are not likely to be better than without it.

If the US funded some 3rd party to aid in the reconstruction, perhaps it could help. Indonesia has proven that a democracy can work in a muslim country. They have their extremists, their Timothy McVeys if you will, but the government has remained in control.

In the very long term, there is a chance that the US voters will throw out every one of these chicken hawk neocons by 2009 and some adults will be in charge after that. Iraq has been a sideshow, a distraction, and a set back in the war on terror. At best, the 2010-2019 years will be like the

1990-1999 years in terms of going after the terrorism. This can only happen if the US really looks at just how they got it so totally wrong and takes strong steps to fix the problem.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Until Iraqis can handle their problems themselves.Things are moving along pretty good,getting better all the time.

Except when another attack like Kuwait comes along,or when a nuke or other WMD goes off in some Western city.

It's far cheaper in the long view to have a democratic,peaceful Iraqi government.

BTW,we and the UN have been "watching" N.Korea and Iran,NK now has nuclear weapons,and Iran is working towards making them."watching" along does nothing;it's taking ACTION when necessary that achieves things.

But some people have real problems with actually taking action.They will go to great lengths to avoid taking action,and deny real evidence in order to not have to take action.They think the status quo will always stay the same,or that situations will always go towards the beneficial solution;utopian thinking.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

David Brown wrote in news:4381ae6f$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wineasy.se:

You seem to forget about Iran and Kuwait.He also wanted to invade Saudi Arabia. Saddam was certainly a threat to them. Imagine a Saddam with nuclear weapons and Scud missiles to deliver them. Definitely a threat to others in that region

That says a lot about your knowledge.

Some of us understand the global political limitations forced upon the US in fighting this war.

"tell him to invade",you can tell some whoppers.Yuk,yuk.

All thugocracies are eventually a problem for peace and freedom.

Which was not true. You must have missed all the evidence that shows Saddam was still pursuing WMD,supporting and harboring terrorists,and conducting meetings with Al- Queda.

Here we go with this old lie again."Saddam had no WMD".Tell that to Halabja and the Kurds.(except that Halabja isn't alive anymore to hear your nonsense,they were GASSED.)

A different mess than before,but not more of one.

Your terms for the "Old Media",biased against bush and doing everything in their power to discredit him.

Anything to not face the reality;attack the sources,when you can't dispute the data.

Yah,sure,that's why Al-Queda is now in Iraq.That's why they had meetings while Saddam was still in power.Ever hear the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? It seems you have not.

In the old manner of thinking,that never solved anything,just postponed the problems.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Yeah,I guess that "maturation" began with the US Embassy invasion and hostage taking when Khomeini came into power.

Sure,the MULLAHS rightfully think their grip on the Iranian people is threatened,tha'ts why they are so hot to provide support against the Western forces in Iraq. If democracy and freedom gets entrenched there,it will spread and depose them.

The same goes for the Baath Party in Syria and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

"watching" achieved NOTHING.

What about the NON-PROFLIFERATION treaty? NK has nuclear weapons in clear violation of that treaty. And they certainly had authority to monitor NK nuclear activities,per that NPT.

Yeah,sure;France,Germany,and Russia were all profiting from sales to Saddam,and thus did not want their complicity revealed.THAT is why there was no UN "approval" for invasion.

Where have you been? Saddam violated many of the UN Resolutions. Bush even listed them in his speeches. Nothing like ignoring them to keep on with the "status quo",to avoid doing anything that actually achieves something.

It was obvious that the UN would do nothing,and not allow anyone to do anything;they are corrupt.There would not have been any UN "forcible removal".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

As a goal it's still above average for the history of the region...

One thing we easily forget is that Iraq, before Saddam and even with him and his rightly condemned transgressions, was still a relatively modern, secular state for that area. What replaces him is likely to appear quite a step backwards from the western perspective.

list

and

ie he fired them. IIRC he was *elected*. Some reason why an elected head of state cannot fire people who work for his administration?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

wrote in news:_ZSdnUFfrrZ0hR snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

The threat was to the US,and to ME nations other than Iraq. Perhaps I should have used "nearby ME nations" in lieu of "other ME nations".

Thanks for the notice of my making a grammatical error. ;-}

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

"can be hoped for" is YOUR pessimistic view,not shared by others.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Uh ?

The South, the Shia dominated area is likely to morph into an Islamic Republic with heavy influence from Iran. It will be the most 'extreme' part.

Graham

Yes it was, absolutely.

Iraq had been nicely 'boxed up' and was effectively toothless.

There was *NO* such *evdence*. It was all 'wishful thinking' by a few warmongers. The war proved this was the case too !

I'm amazed you're still suckered in by this 'Iraq was a threat' horse manure.

Graham

In article , Pooh Bear wrote: [...]

I disagree. They are Shia but they have their own mulahs and they have a bit of history of thinking independantly. The folks in the middle have no leaders that I know of who (a) aren't tainted by the US and (b) are moderate.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge