The camp administration says: It is unfortunate that despite the promises of those released, some of them - at least 20 if not more - have returned to fighting. One of those, Abdullah Maqsud, claimed that he was a clerk and a driver for Taliban, and had denied any links to Al Qaeda. Maqsud said that he was forced to join the battalions of the Taliban, and that he did not receive any military training, or training to use weapons. After he was released, it became apparent that he was behind the orders given to an armed group to kidnap Chinese engineers. Another detainee, after being released, assassinated an Afghan judge. Many of the released detainees have been killed after returning to fighting.
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=6170
How's it feel to be spun, guys?
They say "secret prisons" and gasp, looking at you with big, disappointed eyes, and you drop your pants and start a protest without even an effort at a second thought. If there ever even has been one, I am not aware of a war fought by any country without POW camps. Those are by defintion "secret prisons," and for damn good and excruciatingly obvious reasons.
Let's focus for a moment and ponder the possible opportunities provided to our enemies were we to publish the location for these "secret prisoners," shall we?
I'm using my vivid imagination to picture immmediate attacks on those "secret prisons" based in hope that either their buddies could rejoin the fighting or (and this is easily just as advantageous for these folks) everybody just dies. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see what the western media would do with a "secret camp" full of 1,000 or so dead bodies? Somebody's headline is eventually gonna contain the word "genocide." Geggy's far from a unique individual, unfortunately, so I'm thinking a lot of people are going to believe it when Al Jazeera reports those detainees were exterminated by the Great Satan.
Here's the kicker, guys: Why the fuck do YOU need to know where these prisons are located? Personally, I am just tickled to know they have locations! Alternate Option #1: a glass Iraq... not my favorite... Option #2: Immediate trials for suspected terrorists. Let's look into that second one, Ok?
Where the hell are we gonna get our evidence for these trials, Mr. Matlock? War Crimes Trials are held AFTER the war. Until the dust settles, we simply do not have all the information we need to know what these jokers have done or were prepared to do. A FAIR trial is fair on both ends. Until we have defeated the organizations we are currently fighting and have access to all their plans and history, we could not hope to know for what to prosecute them. Personally speaking, I am not at all comfortable with the notion of letting even one mass murderer loose to assist in the next 9/11... are either of you?
As for torture, Max, your definition was more of a condition. In that vein, I'd offer you some reality: Our enemy has proven itself to be not such a big fan of interrogation... much closer to (if not surpassing) the sickos you seem to think our soldiers are, preferring mutilation and beheading pretty much immediately after capture in most cases. Theirs is a war of propaganda and manipulation where ours is a war of information.
As for acceptable conditions for torture, I'm falling on the side of whenever even a single innocent life is at stake and offers of cigarettes and candy fail. We've previously shaken out our personal differences regarding human nature, so I'm not gonna attack your sad and bleak near total lack of belief in the innate integrity of most people. I'm not sure I believe in it, either, but I question your own position's credibility based on it's inherent and unavoidable foundation in the value of human life. What I do know is, however, without the belief of torture being an available option... without the pretense that we can fight just as dirty as they do... all our detainees have to do is wait out their detentions. In that case, and in light of the actual enemy we are currently fighting, innocent people WILL die... unnecessarily, in my opinion.
That being said, even the most horrible means of information extraction MUST be a tool at our disposal as a necessary condition of our eventual victory. I hope you know by now that my feelings on this are not based in any sort of bloodlust. If I am a "hawk," I follow that path unwillingly. I would have much preferred a Colin Powell victory, or no war at all. My support for this effort comes only from my belief that the WOT is a war to end war and that the closing of Globalization's gap will benefit mankind as a whole beyond my abilities to explain it.
The greatest mistake a person of virtue can make is the assumption that all others already are equal in virtue. To anthropomorphize those of such a terribly different culture is to commit such an error. Our enemy simply does not share our modern and distinctly Western respect for human life and we can't make them fight on our level anymore than they'll submit to living on our level. They are betting they will win by overcoming our incredible power with sheer inhumanity. To avoid fighting this fight from 50,000 feet... again, not my favorite option... we must meet their fight to as much a degree as is possible on the lowest level necessary to prove to them they are wrong.
It might make you feel a bit better, though I still doubt the reasoning behind your outrage and so doubt you'll ever feel better about anything Bush-related, to consider that our side won't be fessing up to much in regards to actual torture being practiced institutionally until well after the war is won. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that we are actively promoting the rumor that we are, in fact, doing much more than we are being caught at. The obvious conclusion coming from that is we are, in fact, NOT institutionally torturing to a very high degree, but only keeping a rumor alive for psy-ops purposes.
Does that make you feel better, Max?
Linear Mode
