User talk:Randy2063

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Randy2063, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 16:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moazzam Begg

Listen to his Democracy Now interview a few weeks ago -- he clearly admits that it was coerced testimony and has been exonerated by the powers that be on both sides of the Atlantic.
-- unsigned comment from User:HasanDiwan 10 Aug 2006 pertaining to Moazzam Begg

This was originally posted on my user page and responded to here: User talk:HasanDiwan

[edit] Your use of the word "loonfest"

Your use of the word "loonfest", on Talk:Carolyn Wood is a violation of the "no personal attacks" rule. Please be more careful in future? Criticize ideas, not people. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


As I've just addressed on the article's talk page, there was no insult intended. I'm just concerned that the article has strayed too far into the realm of propaganda. Note that I also said "kangaroo court." That's fully in the context of the section I was responding to. -- Randy2063 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanamo military commissions

Arctangent placed the disputed tag there. They never made more than a dozen edits to the wikipedia. I am not sure if you still support that tag. If you don't I am going to remove it. Let me know please. -- Geo Swan 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections on my end. It was almost a completely different article when that was added. I just noted this in the article as well. -- Randy2063 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [{Carolyn Wood]]

If you have time, would you please take a look at my comments today on Carolyn Wood. Thanks Joaquin Murietta 06:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your use of the term "Jihadist"

Early today you commented on Talk:Carolyn Wood that:

"Why do the jihadists' locked up in Gitmo with their theatrical "suicide attempts" in front of their lawyers get treated as legitimate on Wikipedia while decorated military officers are opened up to defamatory articles?"

Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary is the only Guantanamo detainee to have tried to commit suicide in front of his lawyer, so I assume he is the Guantanamo detainee you were talking about.

I contributed to the article about him. I would welcome hearing about any verifiable source you have come across that indicates he was a "jihadist".

If you have a specific concern about the Al Dossary article I encourage you to say so on Talk:Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary.

You realize that when the allegations against the Guantanamo detainees were examined, in detail, it turned out that the Bush administration and the DoD claims fell short of the public statements of Rumsfeld and others. The Denbeaux study, through methodical examination of the allegations, determined that 55% of the detainees were not accused of hostile acts.

You were worried that the Carolyn Wood article libeled her. Aren't you concerned that you libeled al Dossary, who may, very well, be totally innocent?

Ah, as a courtesy to JM, who said it offended his people, I no longer use colloquial short forms for Guantanamo. -- Geo Swan 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jihadist can be defined in broad terms. :) In any case, I put Carolyn Wood in a different category worth greater consideration on my part.
The definition of a "hostile act" could be broadly defined as well. I don't know that the WWII German saboteurs that FDR executed had done anything yet either. Holding these serves purposes other than punishment or containment.
I didn't know that Gitmo was considered an offensive term. That's interesting.
-- Randy2063 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism

Please come help out at Socialism. There is currently a rather intractable debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&action=history

Thanks, Sam Spade 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. -- Randy2063 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lawless terrorists

I decided not to reply on talk:carolyn wood, but on your talk page, because my reply didn't have so much to do with her.

Thanks for continuing to take my comments in a spirit of cooperation.

It is true that no one from the 519th was charged with murder. But no one from the 377th MP Company was charged with murder either. No one at all was charged with murder. From Golden's articles it sounds like Sergeant Loring, Wood's most senior subordinate would have been charged, except he had resigned from the Army during the years between when the murders and abuse took place and when charges started being laid. That is a real weakness of the military justice system, if you can manage to resign before you are charged you can get away with your crimes.

The Corsetti penis incident she may not have known about. The sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners was found out, and he was punished promptly for that -- but his punishment was very light when you take into account what happens to Iraqi women who are sexually abused in prison. They often commit suicide. US forces were capturing Iraqi women as hostages in Iraq, when they couldn't get their hands on their male relatives. As you pointed out her command was small in Bagram. While she may not have known of Corsetti's unauthorized penis use, I expect her to know that he was called on because he was especially intimidating. So I would have expected her to keep a particularly close eye on him, to make sure, in his enthusiasm, he didn't cross the lines she had set. And, if the lines she had set were too loose, I expect her to be held accountable for that.

Concerning the Geneva Conventions -- they say, in article 5 of the third convention, that all prisoners are to be accorded the protections of POW status, until a "competent tribunal" convenes to determine whether the prisoner should not qualify for POW status. Maybe there were prisoners, captured in Afghanistan, who weren't lawful combatants, and wouldn't have been protected by the Geneva Conventions. But the USA didn't convene any competent tribunals in 2001, or 2002, or 2003, or 2004, or 2005, or 2006. The stand of the Bush administration remains that they are not obliged to abide by this section of Geneva Conventions. Yes, I know that the Bush administration tried to claim that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals they started holding in 2004 counted as "competent tribunals". However the mandate of the officers who sat on those tribunals were highly circumscribed. They were not allowed to consider whether the Guantanamo detainees qualified for POW status. See Moazzam Begg's Guantanamo dossier for the details. When that claim failed during a court challenge Bush administration spokesmen started to claim that the CSRT were better than article 5 tribunals, because the detainee got a "personal representative". The article on the Denbeaux study needs a lot of expansion. Let me encourage you again to read about it.

Assuming all captives are "lawless terrorists", and therefore interrogators are free to use harsh interrogation methods on them is exactly how innocent guys like Dilawar got killed. I can't agree with calling an illiterate, monoglot, speaking an obscure language like Pashtun a "lawless terrorist" as if he actually represented a threat to anyone but someone invading his country. The rounding up of innocent guys like Dilawar was not unusual. What was unusual was that he was captured by American forces. Rumsfeld wanted to fight the Afghan war on the cheap. So the USA paid a bounty of $5,000 to anyone who handed over someone they said was a Taliban. I can't remember what percentage of the Guantanamo detainees fell into US custody this way. But it was very high. Some of those in Guantanamo were "Taliban fighters", who said that they were last minute conscripts, press-ganged to serve as cannon fodder, after 9-11, and kept locked in a cellar, for the moment when they would be used, when the real Taliban were attacked. A guy like that, if his story is true, are you really prepared to call him a "lawless terrorist"? I don't think it is right to call any Afghani who thought he was fighting a foreign invader a "lawless terrorist" just for fighting that invader. No one called the Afghanis who fought against the Soviets during their ten year invasion of Afghanistan "lawless terrorists", just for fighting an invader. Should the Soviets have treated the Afghani fighters they captured as POWs, until they convened a Geneva Convention competent tribunal to determine whether they had committed atrocities, or otherwise violated the customs of war?

You spoke of the unfortunate conflation of guys like Dilawar with real terrorists. The USA did capture some real terrorists in Afghanistan. Can we confine the use of the term to real terrorists? Following a Geneva Convention competent tribunal, to show the other signatories to the GC that the USA had not abandoned the rule of law, I don't think anyone would question classifying anyone who helped train the 911 hijackers as a terrorist. I don't think anyone would question classifying anyone who was being trained to hijack planes as a terrorist. I don't think anyone would question classifying anyone who was recruiting hijackers or suicide bombers as a terrorist.

Some, in the press, or on blogs, are prepared to say any fighter who wasn't wearing a uniform was a terrorist. US soldiers, and soldiers in the armies of other nations have complete uniforms, from head to toe. Uniform boots, uniform socks, pants, skivvies, shirts, belts, packs, armor, and helmet. But the section of the GC isn't that specific. A distinctive marking is sufficient to satisfy that requirement. In some of the Taliban or al Qaeda training videos we see, we can see that the trainees are wearing the same kinds of clothes, the same kind of long vest. Alternatively, during the invasion of Iraq, we saw footage of the USA's "Northern Alliance" allies. They weren't wearing the kinds of uniforms soldiers in Western armies wear either. To the unaided eye they didn't seem to be wearing any kind of uniform at all. But, for the sake of argument, if the Northern Alliance wore a different colored scarf in a distinctive way, and the Taliban wore something else, in a distinctive way, I think that might qualify for the distinctive markings section of the GC. I don't think any fighter captured in Afghanistan should be classified as a terrorist simply for not wearing a western style uniform, if whatever he was wearing was as distinctive as what the Northern Alliance wore.

-- Geo Swan 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think Corsetti's penis incident was revealed until later. Golden says investigators were told of this in June 2004 (which may be in the Abu Ghraib investigation). I don't deny that the guy went beyond the line. It's a matter of relevance to Wood's case, and scale in the big picture.
Uniforms are important. The Nazi saboteurs I mentioned wore uniforms until they thought they were safe on the beach. That's because they wanted to be treated as POWs if caught.
Geneva isn't just a matter of wearing uniforms. The laws of war include a lot more than that, such as the atrocious way they conduct their operations. Much of this breaks down here because "operations" aren't conducted by individual soldiers acting on their own. It's an army or an organization that does that. That makes the organization itself an outlaw, and every member a war criminal whether or not they are personally guilty of specific war crimes. As strict as this sounds, it also applies in civilian law where being a willing part of a conspiracy is itself a crime. That's one of the charges against Jack Abramoff, and nobody's complaining about that.
The only question in my mind is whether somebody was a willing part of the conspiracy. Those who may fit Dilawar's category are more like Goering's brother, who also had to go through the wringer. It's unfortunate but there aren't too many ways we can do this. I wouldn't put the Taliban's press-ganged conscripts into the same category as Dilawar. They're more like Patty Hearst, who may have been pardoned, but was first charged and convicted.
It's fair to point out that we need to treat them humanely until such time that we hold a tribunal, and that international law restricts how we may treat prisoners. But it's been argued that we never signed on to that interpretation.
I'd be very surprised if the Soviets gave much thought to the Geneva Conventions when took prisoners in Afghanistan. And more surpised, still, if any ACLU lawyers went there to defend them. Amnesty must have examined this at the time but I haven't looked into it. One thing I do know is that most activists were more upset that President Carter withdrew the U.S. from the Moscow Olympics in response, and some of our allies saw their athletes break the boycott.
Yes, it's possible that the Northern Alliance wouldn't have qualified for POW status. Some have also argued that about some of our special forces. Frankly, I don't think it's relevant until more people start to hold our enemies responsible for how they treat lawful prisoners. Many of the civilians killed in this war were killed by our enemies. Of those directly killed by our actions, many of them were due to their proximity to our enemies, and that's also due to our enemies' violations of the laws of war (it's that "operations" thing again). HRW noted something about this at one time, but such calls are drowned out by their greater contempt for people like Carolyn Wood. If it's not contempt, it may just be fundraising value.
-- Randy2063 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controlling Corsetti

Someone recently compared Wood's responsibility for the GIs who abused the captives to the responsibility the Principal of Columbine High had over the two teenage killers. I didn't say so at the time, because it didn't occur to me until later, but soldiers are under military discipline, and high school students aren't. High school students can play hookey, or pull stunts, without fear of sanctions any more serious than after school detentions, suspension or expulsion. And they don't have more senior NCOs who are supposed to be keeping the commissioned officers informed. One of the important distinctions between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants is whether they answer to a lawful chain of command that traces its chain of legitimacy to a civil authority. If Wood couldn't make sure Corsetti followed the orders of his lawful chain of command she had let him slip into "unlawful combatant" territory. That is serious.

[edit] Uniforms and the laws of war

I got into a long discussion of uniforms and the laws of war about fifteen months ago, when Kevin Sites taped a Marine shooting an unarmed, wounded Iraqi captive. Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell had written a column where he claimed that GIs had the authority to kill any prisoner they believed had been fighting out of uniform. He claimed that GIs had openly used summary battlefield execution when they found Germans wearing American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.

Well, I was tenacious. I found that there was a kernel of truth in the portrayal of Germans wearing American uniforms in the famous movie. The half-company of infiltrators did include a small number of Germans who were believed to speak American English well enough to pass for Americans. The half-company had 12 captured American jeeps at their disposal. The Germans sent the Jeeps out with four Germans per jeep. What they failed to anticipate was that, apparently, American rarely put four GIs in a jeep. Once the Americans were alerted to the existence of infiltrators this was a big clue.

The guy who commanded this half-company was a famous commando leader named Otto Skorzeny. Prior to the attack German experts in military law informed him that merely wearing the American uniforms was not a violation of the customs of war -- was not a war crime. He was told it was a legitimate ruse de guerre, provided his troops didn't use their weapons while wearing the American uniforms. Presumably, If Americans started firing on them, theey were to remove the American uniforms, and put on their Wehrmacht uniforms, before firing back.

Some of the infiltrators made it back to German lines -- half a dozen, or less IIRC. Three of the infiltrators were captured. Captured, interrogated, court-martialed, convicted, and sentenced to death by firing squad. Most of the infiltrators were killed in the battle. Might some of them have been the victims of summary battlefield executions? Maybe, but not the open, admired ones Sowell claimed.

Skorzeny was captured, following the war. He was tried for war crimes, including commanding this half-company of infiltrators. He was acquited.

The final interesting thing about the Skorzeny story is the massive hysterical over-reaction of the American forces to the presense of infiltrators wearing American uniforms. There wasn't a lot of time for the Germans to prepare for the attack. When Skorzeny briefed the infiltrators, when it came time for questions, one fresh-faced 19 year old recruit asked Skorzeny, the grizzled veteran, and realist, what their orders were if they did penetrate all the way through the American lines. Skorzeny apparently joked, "in that case, make your way to Eisenhower's chateau, and take him prisoner."

Well, the kid Skorzeny joked with was one of the three who was captured. Under interrogation he revealed the plan to capture Eisenhower. The result was that the theater was paralyzed by all these trigger-happy GIs manning road-blocks, who posed questions about American trivia to every passing GI they didn't recognize. Several real Americans were killed at these roadblocks because they didn't satisfy the roadblock GIs that they were real Americans. Two general, including Omar Bradley, were held captive, because their answers to the trivia questions didn't satisfy the roadblock guards. I can't recall whether it was Bradley or the other general, who had been asked "which state is Boston in". The General said Boston was in Massachusetts. The roadblock guard said, "Only a lousy kraut wouldn't know that Boston is in Illinois."

No, I am not making this up.

Between you and I the abuse of guys like Dilawar, and similar incidents, strike me as symptomatic of the same kind of hysteria. There was an Iraqi named Nagam Hatab who died of the beatings he was subjected to within a few days of his capture. He was captured, in a bazaar, trying to sell an M16. The serial number on that M16 showed it had been issued to a GI in that included plucky young Jessica Lynch. The GIs at the camp were particularly brutal to Hatab because they believed that his possession of the M16 showed that he was implicated in her brutal rape and torture.

What we know now is that she was brought to a civilian Iraqi hospital a few hours after the skirmish. We know that the blond who held out to the last bullet was a more senior sergeant, a guy, who didn't make it. He is a hero, and deserves recognition for his bravery. Lynch was brave enough to volunteer to wear her country's uniform, and enter a combat zone. She deserves recognition for that. But, we know now that she didn't get off a single round, that she wasn't directly wounded by gunfire, that she incurred her wounds, and was knocked out, when her vehicle crashed into something. We know that when she was brought into the Iraqi hospital, a few hours later, she was still unconscious, and still full clothed.

Iraqi officials set up an HQ in the hospital -- probably a violation of the laws of war. But the hospital staff hid her from the Iraqi officials. She wasn't tortured by Iraqi sadists. Rather the hospital staff gave her the best, kindest, most professional treatment they possibly could. Sand-beds prevent severely injured, bed-ridden patients from getting pressure sores. They are expensive, and the hospital only had a single one. Which they allocated to Lynch. Iraqi nurses, to ease her well understood anxiety, sang lullabies to her, to try to get her to sleep.

The Iraqi hospital staff didn't give her a rape kit. Since she was unconscious, badly injured, and her clothes did not look like they had been removed, it didn't seem necessary. When she was shipped to the Army hospital in Germany three weeks later, their examinations backed up the Pentagon spokesmens' spin that she had been raped. And her ghost-written book says she was raped. But Lynch has no memory of being raped. And the window of opportunity was extremely narrow. I think it was extremely unlikely.

Hatab's death was brutal and undignified. Various GIs had taken their licks at him. A sergeant Gary Pitman had drop-kicked him when he was bound and hooded. Hatab had lost control of his bowels, and was covered in diarhea. He was so disoriented that he had fallen into a bale of barbed wire, without feeling the obvious distress one would expect. The last GI to have contact with Hatab was a Corporal Christian Hernandez. His CO, a Major Paulus had ordered him to drag Hatab out of the cell he was sharing with a dozen other detainees, hose him off, and stake him outside, where he wouldn't get any feces on the other detainees. He ordered Hernandez to drag Hatab by the neck, so he wouldn't get feces on his uniform. The initial post-mortem blamed his death on a broken hyoid bone, a little, fragile bone that floats right near the adam's apple. It seems likely that Hernandez may have broken this bone when he obeyed Paulus's order. It would be unfair to hold Hernandez responsible. But Pitman and Paulus I believe should have been held responsible. IIRC Pitman got a year, and a dishonorable discharge. I can't remember what happened to Paulus. But I remember that the judge presiding over the court martial was furious to learn that Hatab's body parts had gone missing, and were not available to be used as evidence, and that this played a factor in the relatively light sentences.

A colleague of Graner and Frederick, a sergeant Lisa Girman, was also alleged to have beaten Iraqi captives in retaliation to the brutal rape and torture of Lynch. Girman wasn't court martialed. IIRC she was given some kind of dishonorable discharge. She appealed this, and after some delay, she got her discharge status upgraded to honorable. A fair court martial would have more unambiguously made clear whether or not the allegations held any merit.

You may have gathered that I have been following the cases of the Guantanamo detainees pretty closely. Omar Khadr, who was fifteen when he was captured, has relatives living here in Toronto. His maternal grandparents have always lived here. His elder brother Abdurahman Khadr returned to Canada in late November of December 2003? Prior to 911 his father was an obscure worker for an international charity, who had once been mistakenly taken into custody by the Pakistanis, as a suspected associate of terrorists, in 1995. But, by 2003, it was recognized that he had been an associate of Osama bin Laden, and it was believed that he had been diverting money collected in Canada, that was supposed to finance shelters for Afghani orphans and widows, and put it at the service of al Qaeda.

Within a few hours of Abdurahman arrival in Canada he gave a press conference. He was then only 19 or 20 years old, only had a few years of formal schooling, had spent his early teenage years in the repressive, backwards Afghan society, and the last two years in US custody.

His cover story collapsed withing the first ten or fifteen minutes of his press conference. He was asked whether it was true that he had had military training in Afghanistan. Of course, he said, everyone has military training, in Afghanistan. Un Afghanistan a boy learning to shoot a gun was as common as a Canadian boy learning to shoot a hockey puck was in Canada. Then he was asked if he got that training at an al Qaeda camp. No, he hadn't.

He probably would have gotten out of the press conference without more questions if he had stopped there. But he then added that the camp he had been trained at was only an al qaeda related camp.

It is something you don't usually see at a press conference. It is as if Tom Delay accidentally admitted he really had stolen millions, and raped the constitution, or if Clinton had accidentally admitted that he had had sex with Monica, and all those other gals.

There was a frenzy at the press conference. The reporters smelled blood. He wanted to draw the press conference to an end then and there. But he was just a 19 year old kid, and a press conference had a momentum of its own, and he didn't know how...

Editorial writers went nuts.

Well, a really skilled Canadian documentary maker produced a one hour documentary, called "son of al Qaeda". PBS Frontline acquired it. The story Abdurahman tells there is that he was the black sheep of his family. That while his parents kept sending him to military training camps he kept running away and playing hookey. He described his father deriding him, and telling him what a disappointment he was. He described his father trying to talk him into becoming a suicide bomber. He described being disgusted when everyone around him celebrated the death of the 3,000 occupants of the WTC.

When the Americans invaded he defected. He showed his American handlers all the al Qaeda houses he knew of, and identified all the captured al Qaeda personnel his handlers asked him to identify. His family had lived in Osama bin Laden's compound, so even though he had only been a teenager he was a valuable source.

His CIA handlers gave him some cash bonuses, and assured him that they would deposit $3,000 per month to a secret bank account. Ordinarily $3,000 is pretty good pay, even in the USA, for a teenage grade school dropout. But, it is not such good pay once you consider what danger it would put him in.

I believe his story. It really captured my imagination. I think he got a raw deal.

When his usefulness in Afghanistan waned, as all the hideouts he knew about were identified, and the easily captured senior cadre who were easily captured were captured, he was asked to volunteer to serve as a mole in Guantanamo Bay. With his background he could credibly pass as a real jihadist, and earn the confidence of real jihadists, and learn which detainees were real jihadists, who were trying to pass as illiterate monoglot villagers, or misguided amateur aid-workers.

His handlers weren't as happy with him in Guantanamo. First, he found the brutality and monotony of his treatment there very hard to take. Second, the message he was conveying to them was an unwelcome one. His opinion was that most of the detainees were who they represented themselves to be, that those who presented themselves as illiterate monoglots or misguided amateur aid-workers were illiterate monoglots or misguided amateur aid-workers, not sneaky al Qaeda masterminds pretending to be illiterates or innocents.

Eventually he was assigned a third mission. He was given a minimal amount of training, and told that he would be sent to Bosnia, where he was assigned the task of penetrating the ranks of al Qaeda sympathizers in Bosnia.

Given his inability to keep to his cover story for fifteen minutes during his press conference I think this was a suicide mission. Maybe I have read too many spy novels, but if this was a spy novel the CIA would have tried tipping off the people they suspected as being al Qaeda sympathizers to the fact that Khadr was a mole, as a kind of bait, to see who was sent to kill him.

[edit] McCarthy on the Geneva Conventions

I am doing my best to read the NRO article you referred me to. I am finding it difficult because I find McCarthy, whoever he is, to be a tricky writer. He chastises Rice for assuring Eurotrash that proscriptions against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment apply to the treatment of US prisoners anywhere in the World. He writes:

Consequently, with respect to CID, the Senate adopted a crucial reservation:
[T]he United States considers itself bound by the obligation ... to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," only insofar as the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. [Italics mine.]

So, is McCarthy agreeing that the detainees are entitled to the protections of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments? Do you agree that the detainees are entitled to the protections of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments?

  • In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
  • The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
  • "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
  • "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
  • "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
  • Allow me to suggest that shackling a prisoner so long that they are forced to soil themselves meets the criteria for cruel and unusual punishment listed here.
  • Have you read about the introduction of restraint chairs in the force-feeding in Guantanamo? The detainees are strapped into these chairs. The feeding tubes are inserted. Their stomachs are loaded up with baby formula, or something similar. And they remain strapped into these chairs for hours on end. This part of the story is acknowledged by camp authorities.
  • What the detainees reported was that they were not released from their bounds even to void their bladders or bowels. They reported that they were forced to soil themselves. They reported that they were fed excessive amounts of formula, enough to painfully distend their stomachs. They reported that they believed the formula were mixed with laxatives or noxious substances, in order to cause painful cramps. The most extreme intestinal cramps I have had have been painful enough to meet my standard for torture, when combined with restraint and being unable to use a toilet.
  • U.S. spokesmen have claimed that the feeding tubes were no larger than necessary and were inserted or removed under sanitary conditions by properly trained medical personnel, who were as gentle as reasonable.
  • The detainees have claimed that the tubes used were painfully large, and were inserted and removed by ordinary guards, who were as brutal as possible. They reported that guards would put a boot on the detainee's chest, and yank, to remove the tubes, which would emerge covered in blood and vomitus. They reported that the guards would then re-use dirty feeding tubes without even wiping them off.
  • I know U.S. spokesmen have been claiming that all the claims of abuse from detainees can be explained away by referring to the al Qaeda training manual, which trained al Qaeda recruits to always lie about being tortured. So I hunted up this famous training manual. Guess what. It doesn't say what Bush administration apologists claim it says. In particular, when captured, it encourages recruits to do whatever they can to get a full medical examination as early as possible, prior to their interrogation. The manual encourages the recruits to do this because it assumes that detainees will be tortured. Note: a prior medical examination is useful to document subsequent torture. But it would undermine false claims of torture.
  • Even if, for the sake of argument, some of the detainees who claim they were tortured, are lying, to spread confusion, I think you recognize that Dilawar is far from the only innocent guy who was tortured. Dilawar's cab had passengers, three passengers as I recall. They didn't die. They ended up being shipped to Guantanamo. Much later the Americans learned that the person responsible for the rocket attack was their local ally, the local warlord, who had captured Dilawar and his passengers. They were, eventually, released. -- Geo Swan 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Geo, I replied to both posts here.
You needed time to think for a while before you came to the perspective that the principal at Columbine didn't have the same command authority as at a school. They don't have the luxury of time now or in WWII. An "hysterical over-reaction" may be natural in wartime.
Sowell could be right or wrong. You did say they killed most of those masquerading German troops one way or another but you didn't say what happened to their wounded. That they didn't perform summary executions on all of them could very well be due to the fact that they wanted a few prisoners for interrogation. As for the Marine that Kevin Sites taped, the "unarmed, wounded Iraqi captive" could not be called a captive if he had not surrendered. Would it have been nice to give that Iraqi the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps. Would it have been reasonable? No. The enemy determined that honorable rules for surrender do not apply. Funny how the human rights activists aren't all that concerned about that.
The Germans may have been right that it was a legitimage ruse, and not a war crime. But that doesn't mean they were entitled to the rights of a POW.
In any case, one could say Columbine's principal was responsible for how the school was run, and for the hostile climate that provoked the rage within the killers. That doesn't mean I think it would be reasonable to hold him accountable. There is only so much we can expect of him. And likewise for Wood.
In Corsetti's case, the Army fulfilled its treaty obligations by investigating and charging him, and then examining the links in the chain of command. Wood was responsible for Corsetti but the level of criminal culpability is also to be taken within reason. Even if you want to go beyond that, there's still the matter of the UCMJ requirement for a fair trial and the rules of evidence. Wood had her own side of the story. She might have been more willing to go public with it if not for the witch-hunt atmosphere, or -- dare I say it -- over-reaction.
I think you may be missing the biggest reason for uniforms. It's not simply for the two sides to tell each other apart. The bigger reason is to keep the civilians (like Dilawar) out of it. The near-total lack of outrage at not using uniforms is astonishing. As much as those who share your views love to bash the U.S. for Dilawar's death, there is an almost universal silence at the absolute loss of this, one of the most important principles in the laws of war.
This isn't a mere technicality, nor is it even a breakdown. It's an abandonment. The enemy thought that they might succeed if they ignored the laws of war, and then they found that they could get away with it because those who said that they cared about these things didn't.
You can criticize the Bush administration's hyper-technical reading of the Geneva Conventions, and even if I were to suddenly believe it to be wrong, which I don't, it still wouldn't come close on the scale of wrongdoing as the enemy's abandonment of the laws of war, and those who sanction it by their silence.
Considering what we're up against, I'd say we're doing better than anyone should have expected.
How is that Army doctors' "examinations backed up the Pentagon spokesmens' spin that Jessica Lynch had been raped" are discounted, but the Army doctor who examined Dilawar was sufficiently credible for you?
Regardless of whether Jessica Lynch had or hadn't been raped, it was natural for soldiers to think that she had. I'm not saying what they did was legal, or that it shouldn't have been investigated, but it's quite human given the facts available at the time. Two women had been captured in the first Gulf War, and both of them were either raped or molested. One was injured in a helicopter crash, already a bloody mess with two broken arms and a bullet in her back. Where did you get the idea that the Iraqis who brought Lynch in must have been finer gentlemen?
Did Saddam's Iraqi army follow up with an investigation? Of course not. The activists weren't all that concerned about that either. For all its faults, real or imagined, the U.S. military has the highest standards in the world, and this current one has the highest in its history. It's not at all reasonable for you to assume that U.S. Army doctors are less truthful than the Iraqi doctors.
"So, is McCarthy agreeing that the detainees are entitled to the protections of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments? Do you agree that the detainees are entitled to the protections of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments?"
Nope. It didn't explicitly say they had all the protections of those amendments. It was only the ones pertaining to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Ruling out the contents of the al Qaeda training manual doesn't automatically mean that the prisoners were truthful about their treatment. I don't know what it takes to force-feed someone. Aside from the likelyhood that they're lying, or that they soiled themselves on purpose, it's quite possible that the process is long enough that they can't be released to go to the bathroom. Three things are certain: They did need to be fed; they do need to be restrained for that, and the mess wasn't cleaned up by the prisoners. Given that, it doesn't seem to violate Justice Brennan's four principles for "cruel and unusual."
-- Randy2063 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my comment about "hysterical over-reaction"... I agree, I expect it is very common in war, and other crises. Which is why you want the military, and other emergency workers, to be well-trained, and to have that training take the hysterical over-reaction factor into account. Similarly, those who lead, or set the policy for the military and emergency workers, must be prepared to take the hysterical over-reaction factor into account.
Geoffrey Miller, the most infamous of those responsible for the Guantanamo detainees, is said to have stoked the hatred of the guards and interrogators for the detainees. If true, it was highly unprofessional of Miller. If true, I would argue that it was highly counter-productive. I'd argue that calm professionalism should have been the order of the day. Safer for both the staff and the detainees. And, I would argue, safer for those on the front who relied on the accuracy of whatever information intelligence personnel thought they learned in Guantanamo.
Sowell argued that GIs were -authorized- to dish out summary battlefield executions. He said they had been carried out -openly- during the Battle of the Bulge, and that the action was openly endorsed by higher authority. He went on to state that American GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan should feel authorized to kill prisoners, at will, because they thought they had been fighting out of uniform.
I believe that both the Geneva Conventions, and the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, are completely clear about this. Once someone's surrender has been accepted, or you have otherwise taken them into custody, and disarmed them, you are obliged to take all reasonable steps toprotect them, protect their lives, protect their health, protect them from retaliation and humiliation.
What Sowell advocated was a hateful war-crime.
Human nature - some poorly lead soldiers surreptitiously retaliate against their captives. They shouldn't get a walk on it. Saddam was, technically, when he was captured, a Geneva Convention POW. Showing a medic examining an unkempt, dissheveled Saddam's hair for lice -- the widely broadcast first images of him, was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Those images violated his Geneva Convention right to be protected from humiliation. Yes, I know he was a vicious dictator, who was guilty of crimes orders of magnitude worse than that. But we can't apply one set of laws to our own actions, and another set to the actions of our enemies, and still claim we respect the rule of law.
The Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, do allow legitimate ruses. So, if it was a egitimate ruse, the Germans were entitled to the rights of POWs.
What happened to their wounded? I don't think, officially, there were any wounded. Officially, with the exception of a very small number who made it back to the German lines, and the three who were court-martialled, I believe the remaining men were all KIA. Sowell may be right to think some of them were captured, and then killed. But they weren't done so openly, with the action endorsed by HQ. For all we know, some may have been shot while trying to change uniforms. For all we know, some may have ignored the instructions from German lawyers, and shot at Americans without changing uniforms. If some Germans did that, they would be war-criminals. But my understanding of the laws of war are that if their surrender was accepted the GC required their captives to keep them safe and secure as if they were ordinary POWs, and hand them over HQ, where a competent tribunal could determine they didn't qualify for "lawful combatant" status.
Sowell was absolutely wrong to assert the GI in the field could make that decisions.
Not only would allowing the GI in the field to kill prisoners on a whim be a war crime, but it potentially robbed intelligence officials of valuable intelligence.
Shortly after the Kevin Sites footage that prompted Sowell's comment I conducted a thought experiment. I asked, on my online journal, suppose there was a sneak attack on the USA, when all the uniformed troops were engaged overseas. Suppose American patriots spontaneously met, and organized, to resist the invaders. To meet the requirement that they were distinguishing themselves from civilians what should they wear? Would a special armband be sufficient? One of my correspondents said that t-shirts with an American flag on them wouldn't be enough, because ordinary citizens wear those. My recollection is that, under the circumstances I laid out, the requirements were low. And that a special armband, or pair of armbands, or hat, would be sufficient. This corresponds to my reading of the GC.
Whatever distinguishing armband, or whatever, should be something civilians, like Dilawar, wouldn't be wearing.
I don't think I have read anyone who I thought was showing that they loved to bash the U.S. for Dilawar's death. On sites where advocacy is allowed, as it isn't here on the wikipedia, I have tried to point out that there is a big difference between criticizing a political leader's policies, or how they carry them out, and bashing their country. George Bush is not the USA. He is not even the US government. He is just the current leader of the US government's executive branch.
Criticizing Bush's policies is not an attack on the USA.
Criticizing GIs who violate the UCMJ is not an attack on the USA. Defending GIs who violate the UCMJ is not defending America.
Criticizing officers who allowed GIs to violate the UCMJ, or who lead GIs to violate the UCMJ is not an attack on America.
It doesn't matter if the person criticizing the policy of a political leader, or criticizing the actions of a leader, or criticizing a soldier or official is an American, or a foreigner, like myself -- this is not an attack on America.
You don't have to be an American to honor the principles America is widely believed to stand for. And I am sure you recognize that some of those who voice opinions in the policy debates around the GWOT, who try to wrap themselves in the flag, are willing to abandon some of the key principles America is widely honored for.
In my experience there are two kinds of American patriots, just like there are two kinds of loving arents. Some loving parents will not let anyone crtiicize their children. They won't even allow others to utter criticisms of their children, they won't consider criticisms. They dream up excuses for their children. Or they deny that the observations of their children's critics are accurate. The critics are lying. Or it is a case of mistaken identity.
Other loving parents are more realistic. They realize that children learn right and wrong, in part, through experimentation. And that even good children will make mistakes. Some of these parents will listen to their children's critics. They won't assume the worst. But they won't whitewash it either. And, if they believe, or suspect there critics got it right, or believe their criticisms contain a grain of truth, they give realistic consideration about how to root out the bad behaviour before it gets worse.
Similarly, some American patriots try to whitewash, deny, obfuscate all the instances of misbehavior of US government leaders or personnel, while others consider the evidence realistically, and welcome news of the beginning of outbreaks of misbehavior, so they could be rooted out before they get more serious.
There is no doubt in my mind which kind of parents actions are more loving, which one is more likely to raise a well-balanced adult. And there is no doubt in my mind which kind of patriot is more likely to be preserving what is most honorable about America.
One doesn't have to be an American to honor the principles America is honored for.
One doesn't have to be an American to want to see America continue to live up to the principles it is honored for.
On a very practical level a decline of America would be very bad for Canadians like myself. Up until a year ago Canada was the USA's largest trading partner. Canada had been the USA's largest trading partner since, at least, WW2. President Nixon and President Reagan both got this wrong. They both praised Japan for being the USA's largest trading parnter. Well, the USA is overwhelmingly Canada's largest trading partner. Something like 77% of Canada's foreign trade is with the USA. If your economy goes down the tubes it will take us with you.
FWIW, within the last year China became the USA's biggest trade partner. You have a huge trade imbalance with them. George Bush's war has been paid for by borrowing. His tax cuts, and his war, are financed with borrowed money. And, with China having that huge trade imbalance, China holds a big share of your debt. This is a huge threat to the USA's economic sovereignty. And possibly, in the not too distant future, the USA's political sovereignty. They aren't shoving you around, yet. But they could use that debt they hold to buy entire US factories, dismantle them, and ship them to China.
Any kind of serious problem in the USA will be a serious problem for us. Of course no serious Canadian would take pleasure in something that damages the USA.
I don't agree that clearly examining the misbehavior of rogue soldiers like Corsetti is an attack on America. America is stronger if rogues like Corsetti are rooted out, and really held to account. America is really stronger if rogues like Corsetti or Lewis Welshofer are really held accountable in a more serious way than being confined to barracks, or docked a couple of month's pay.
I wouldn't call the Bush administration's reading of the Geneva Convention "hyper-technical". I would call it deceitful and dishonorable. I would say it is just what you say the enemy has done - an abandonment of the laws of war. I was taught, when I was a kid, that "two wrongs don't make a right." I've challenged you on your description of some suspects as "jihadists", when that is not known, when it is just a speculation or an allegation.
No one I know of is defending Zarqawi, or any other fighter in Iraq or Afghanistan, who builds suicide bombs, recruits suicide bombers. I don't know of anyone who is sanctioning any of Zarqawi's actions.
But I think it is irresponsible and dishonest for Bush administration and Pentagon spokesmen to conflate all resistance fighters in Iraq with Zarqawi.
One point that I read, that I think really deserves to be repeated much more widely, asks observes to note how Saddam's capture affected the intensity of the Iraqi resistance.
The Bush administration, Rumsfeld, Cheney, banged pretty heavily on the drum that those resisting in the first months after the occupation were Saddam loyalists. Remember "dead-enders"? When Saddam's sons were killed it was predicted it was the start of the end of the resistance. When Saddam was captured or killed it was going to be a death blow.
That is the exact opposite of what happened.
And the explanation I read was that almost all Iraqis who hated the idea of foreign occupiers stealing their oil revenue, busting up their sacred antiquities, allowsing a complete breakdown of law and order, shooting their civilians, not fixing the water, sewage, electricity, hated Saddam even more. According to this explanation they held back from trying to throw out the occupiers because they feared doing so might put the hated Saddam back in charge. It was only when Saddam was captured, and they didn't fear that resisting the occupiers might allow him to regain control that they felt free to try to throw the foreigners out.
What the capture of Saddam should have proved to the Bush administration was that their theory that the resistance was lead by Saddam loyalists was wildly incorrect.
The Bush administration has also tried to claim that the resistance is lead by foreigners, like Zarqawi. But Bush, accidentally revealed that this was a crock of shit. He gave a speech. I was going to say it was recent, but maybe it only seems recent to me. Cyrus Kar was captured about a year ago. And his speech wasn't that long after Kar's release.
In his speech Bush was trying to claim great success in fighting the resistance, by talking about the suspected foreign fighters that had been captured. He said that "hundreds" of foreigners had been captured.
Hundreds? A number was published not long after his speech. 420. That was a pitifully low number to support the claim that foreigners were at the heart of the resistance.
As I am sure you remember, the USA had about 10,000 Iraqi suspects imprisoned, just at Abu Ghraib alone. And the USA maintained other prisons for more Iraqi suspects. So the foreign suspects were less than 5% of the total number of suspects.
I mentioned Cyrus Kar. Kar was a foreigner -- to Iraq. He was an American, who had been born in Iraq, and who had moved to the USA when he was two or three years old. He was a patriotic American who had served a hitch in the USN. He was a film-maker. And in 2005 he had traveled to the country of his birth to make a documentary. In some kind of stupid SNAFU he fell under some kind of bone-headed, hysterical over-reaction suspicion. He remained in detention long after the FBI had investigated his background back in California. He had friends who pulled strings, so he only spent a few months in detention. But boneheads allowed his tens of thousands of dollars of professional camera equipment to be stolen. And all his footage was ruined.
Even after higher-ups in Washington ordered his immediate release he wasn't able to return to America because boneheaded intelligence types had destroyed his passport, while trying to prove it was a forgery.
The reason I mentioned him is that I suspect, given how deceitful Karl Rove is, that Kar, the patriotic USN veteran, was counted among the captured foreigners that Bush cited as proof that the insurgency was being crushed.
Here in Toronto I am on a local mailing list, that formed when the very first ISP in Toronto, the geek friendly one, founded in 1993, was shut down by stupid venture capitalists in 1996. Some of us still have the kind of free-wheeling discussions we used to have on the local newsgroups. We discussed the upcoming invasion of Iraq at great length. We were almost totally skeptical of Bush's claims, that have turned out to have been just as false as we suspected. But there was one very dogged guy on the list, who very doggedly defended the idea of an invasion. He acknowledged that it would almost certainly cause an unfortunate number of casualties. But he thought, in the long term, it would save lives, because it would end sanctions. He had read a very convincing account that sanctions were killing all these children who were dying because sanctions were denying them clean water, sewage removal, reliable electricity, access to ordinary pharmaceuticals, and nourishing food. He thought that the reconstructions would be complete in just a few months, and then the net death toll would favor the overthrow of Saddam.
Last time I looked the infrastructure still hadn't been restored to pre-war levels, let along pre-Desert-Storm levels.
I am definitely not sanctioning Zarqawi, or anyone who recklessly kills civilians, violates the laws of war.
Anyone who uses terror, or recklessly kills civilians, should be held to the fullest possible account. I am not attacking America when I say that this includes some Americans.
The First Marine Division was assigned the first, highly misguided, attack on Fallujah, in April 2004. And, in an act of very poor judgement, they were assigned a return engagement, in November 2004.
Ilario Pantano, who bragged about planning out a premeditated act of terrorism, was a member of the First Marine Division. The shooter who killed the unarmed, wounded Iraqi prisoners, was a member of the First Marine Division. Guilana Sgrena, the Italian journalist, published that she had found evidence that the Marines were using chemical weapons in Fallujah. Unfortunately, she is not technical, and her articles were marred by translation problems. She did not seem able to distinguish between chemical weapons and napalm.
What we know now is that she was trying to report that the Marines had made widespread, indiscriminate use of incendiary weapons, without regard to the collateral damage it would cause innocent civilians.
Pentagon and Bush administration spokesmen vehemently denied these claims. They mocked them. But all their efforts were undermined when two junior artillery officers bragged about their use of white phosphorus in Fallujah. "Shake and Bake" they called it. They had written an article for a technical journal for artillery officers, about how they combined the use of HE and WP. And their article substantiated the Italian reports in all important details.
You probably remember that the trigger for the first assault on Fallujah was the desecration of the bodies of four Americans who were described as "contractors" -- a euphemism. They were actually mercenaries -- private soldiers. On of Bremer's decrees was that American GIs would be protected from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Another of his decrees was that contractors would also be protected from prosecution in Iraqi courts. These mercenaries are very highly paid. One month off in three. Six figure incomes. Looser discipline than in the Army. And they are not accountable through the UCMJ.
You knew that there were tens of thousands of these mercenaries in Iraq? You knew they had a terrible reputation for arrogance and brutality?
I think it was a terrible mistake to have allowed them to be used in Iraq. It was part of Rumsfeld's plan to run wars on the cheap. One reason it was a terrible mistake was that they looked like soldiers. And it would be unreasonable for Iraqis to understand that the mercenaries were not American soldiers, and that America was not responsible for their brutality. Ultimately the USA was responsible for them.
Don't mistake me, I am not sanctioning the desecration of their bodies. But there is no way it justified assaulting a whole city full of innocent civilians.
During the first attack the Marines had limits imposed on them. They weren't allowed to shoot at mosques, unless a senior officer okayed doing so. The attack didn't go well. And there was an attempt at a ceasefire. The American HQ in Iraq had tried to arrange a ceasefire. And the members of the First Marine Division, weren't complying.
I remember CNN interviewing a young Marine in Fallujah, during the ceasefire. His answers, to the interviewer, were very revealing. Here is my paraphrase, from memory:
"Well, we are supposed to be holding our fire, because the high command wants to set in place a ceasefire. But, if we think we have been fired on, or we are in danger, we respond with overwhelming force."
  • First, the use of "overwhelming force" is totally inappropriate in a city full of civilians.
  • Second, while you in the USA were fighting in Vietnam, Canada sent troops on peace-keeping missions -- classical peace-keeping missions. In a classical peace-keeping mission the senior leadership of both opposing sides want a ceasefire, or armistice, but they need help, because minor incidents keep escalating to where full-scale hostilities break out. What our troops would do would be rush to location of shooting, hunt up the Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain who is in charge -- on both sides. Remind them that a ceasefire was in effect. Often the local officer in charge might be drunk, or half drunk. And they would have to get his HQ on the line, to remind him that a ceasefire was in effect. Often, the precipitating incident would not be a hot-head taking a pot-shot. It would be a vehicle backfire, or a door slamming -- something innocuous.
What this interview revealed to me was that this Marines, and his buddies were out of control, and were not complying with the orders from HQ. Technically, you could argue that there had been a breakdown in the legitimate chain of authority required to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants.
My interpretation of his comments were that he was not a rogue soldier, in a small unit of rogue soldiers, but rather that his officers were at fault, because they were not leading their troops to comply with the order from HQ.
I know that it is an accepted article of faith, among most Americans, that their soldiers were the tops. That American GIs were the best armed, best equipped, best trained, best disciplined, best lead, bravest, most honorable soldiers in the World. Please do not regard this as an attack on America if I suggest that there is a strong element of local boosterism in this article of faith.
This Marine was not well lead.
The Geneva Convention imposes an obligation on an attacking power, when they plan an attack on a city, like Fallujah. The attacking power, if possible, has to provide transportation to evacuate the civilans, prior to the attack. And, if possible, they have to provide accommodations for those civilians. This was possible in the attacks on Fallujah. But the USA made no effort to aid in the evacuation or accommodation of civilians, other than warning that the attack was imminent.
Press reports described some inhabitants leaving, and some, who couldn't afford to travel, or who had no friends or relatives they could stay with, felt they had no choice but to try to ride out the attack.
How many avoidable civilian deaths was the Bush administration responsible for, for authorizing this attack?
You wrote: "Considering what we're up against, I'd say we're doing better than anyone should have expected."
I can't agree with that. I think the rest of the World had a right to expect the USA to abide by the GC and arrange for the transport and safe accommodation of the civilans.
Your question of why I doubt the claims of US doctors who said Private Lynch was raped, but credited the pathologists who examined Dilawar and Habibullah is an excellent question. You got me. I should be more careful. I'll try to be more careful. I do find the version of the hospital staff credible, because they were on the ground, at the moment, and I heard some of them interviewed.
Was it natural for soldiers to suspect that Lynch had been raped? To what extent was this suspicion the result of a well-designed media campaign?
Where did I get the idea that Lynch's captors didn't rape her? Because her clothes didn't seem to have been disturbed, she arrived unconscious, and she had only been in the custody of her captors for a few hours.
Yes, Saddam, and those in the Iraqi chain of command responsible for overseeing the Desert Storm incarceration of those the US prisoners who were abused during the War had a responsibility to get to the bottom of the evidence of abuse. Failing to do so would probably strip them of POW status, should they have been given a "competent tribunal".
You say that the contents of the al Qaeda training manual doesn't mean that the prisoners were truthful. I've spent a lot of time looking into what has made public about the Guantanamo detainees. Abdurahman Khadr felt that most detainees were either completely innocent, or essentially innocent -- not terrorists in any case. Even guys with no association with terrorism are reporting observing of being victims of abuse.
You say it is certain that the detainees need to be fed? How do you figure that?
Being a prisoner, in a civilized country, doesn't curtail your right to give or withhold your informed consent to medical treatment.
The conditions of their incarceration are so painful, hopeless and depressing that some of the detainees have made the decision they would rather die. That decision is part of their human rights. I am certain it is part of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which they all remain entitled to, since the Bush administration has still not conducted a single competent tribunal for any of them.
Time magazine acquired a copy of Mohamed al Kahtani's interrogation log. Have you read any of it? It is long. It describes the steps his interrogators took to keep his failing body going during his interrogation. Forced enemas. Force feeding. Dreadful.


I did make a mistake before by putting too much emphasis on uniforms, as that's only one small part of it. Geneva does make allowances for insurgents providing that they wear a badge, but the key is that they must follow the laws of war. Neither al Qaeda, nor the terrorists in Iraq, are even making an attempt to do that.
The Geneva Conventions could never have come into existence if it were expected to work the way you say it should. Such a treaty could only be ratified by countries that have no intention or expectation of following it anyway.
I don't mind if you criticize the U.S. Our politicians are fully prepared to be punching bags, and President Bush has plenty of personal protection. But I think going after lower-level individuals with charges that open them up to potentially serious harm requires a bit more substance.
I found Sowell's column and don't see it the same way you do:
Assuming that somehow you are certain that an enemy is unarmed, perhaps because you have already searched him or disarmed him, is it ever justified to kill him anyway? That question was answered more than half a century ago, when German troops wearing American uniforms and speaking English infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge.
Those German troops, when captured, were lined up against a wall and shot dead. And nobody wrung his hands about it.
Even if you take "when captured" to mean they were shot immediately, you'd still only have a minor point. They were indeed lined up against a wall and shot dead. The Geneva Conventions do not say otherwise. Its phrase "having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" should make this clear. (Note the word "distinctive".) The article on Otto Skorzeny says he was found not guilty only because the Allies had done the same. At best, that only means it hasn't been determined to be a war crime. A ruse like that isn't an atrocity against civilians. That does not change whether or not they'd be eligible for POW status.
So, what Sowell advocated was respect for the laws of war. I'm not merely arguing that my position is the legal one. It is also the moral one. When we ignore massive violations committed by the other side, we lay the groundwork for more violations on a greater scale. Terrorists see little downside to using mosques, hospitals, schools or even children for cover -- or even for targets. Any of the outrage that might be muttered over truly horrific atrocities is drowned out by the screeching complaints about Dilawar, and how we checked Saddam's teeth on camera, and Dilawar, and we "humiliated" some thugs, and Dilawar, and we force-fed some terrorists to keep them from dying, and Dilawar.
And yes, they do need to be fed, even if it's by force. Allowing them to starve to death would just be another propaganda victory.
I don't see that big a problem with China buying U.S. notes. It would be worse if it was the other way around. We could be safer owing them money in the same way that Saddam felt safe by being in hock to Europe. America's decline has been forecast since the early Cold War. Parts of Europe will fall long before we do.
Where did you hear that the U.S. was obligated to transport civilians before a battle? I can find nothing in the Fourth Geneva Convention to indicate this is even contemplated, let alone mandatory. The best I can find is this:
Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
That's not the same thing. It says we can clear that area, but not that we have to, and not that we need to provide transportation. This is one problem with being hyper-technical. Bush has lawyers find out what the law says, and everyone else goes by what they want the law to say.
It's a fair point that Zarqawi is only a small part of the enemy but that doesn't turn the other terror factions into freedom fighters. You still need to consider who it is they're fighting against. The terrorists have killed more Iraqis than Americans. They're killing more Iraqi Army and police than Americans. Some people didn't like the way the U.S. Civil War ended either. White supremacy and its privileges were eroding as freed blacks were able to vote and run for office. And so they started the KKK to end it, and then to fight the federal occupation. Would you have called them legitimate? What's the difference? There isn't much.
Giuliana Sgrena is an anti-American communist. Nothing she says should be taken seriously, particularly if she puts our use of white phosporous into the same category as chemical weapons. I understand that it could be used that way, but we're only using it as an incendiary. Don't forget that all weapons systems are looked at by lawyers. One had banned a sniper rifle for a few days recently until that was determined to be an idiotic idea. If WP was illegal, it would have been banned decades ago.
Yes, I'm aware that we're using mercenaries. Companies that do business there need to hire protection. If the U.S. military provided it then someone would complain about that. More important though is your charge that they went into Fallujah as some kind of revenge for the killings of those four contractors. I know a lot of people like to say that but I can't believe anyone seriously believes it. Fallujah was the source for most of the bombings at that time. It was well known as terrorist haven, and there is no doubt that was a correct assessment. What possible reason is there for you to think that Fallujah would not need to be cleaned out?
For some Iraqis, the electricity is better now than under Saddam. Of course, more work remains to be done but there are two other reasons they have blackouts: the Sunnis aren't getting as big a share because electricity is now more equitably distributed than before; and people are using more electronics and appliances as the economy is coming back. Those are generally good things that you've turned into a negative.
The Iraqi government can ask us to leave at any time.
I've read some of Mohamed al Kahtani's interrogation log. Look at the dates: Nov 2002 to Jan 2003. Curiously, it ends right before Mora stiffened the rules for what was allowed, so what you're looking at is some of the worst that was authorized. I wouldn't want a forced enema either, but again, that hardly compares to what the other side does.
-- Randy2063 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

This Tireless Contributor Barnstar is presented to Randy2063 for his patient work on Carolyn Wood Presented by Joaquin Murietta 16:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This Tireless Contributor Barnstar is presented to Randy2063 for his patient work on Carolyn Wood Presented by Joaquin Murietta 16:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JM! I'll hang it on my virtual wall. -- Randy2063 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Greetings,

Randy, you and I have differences of opinion over some aspects of the Carolyn Wood article. And I appreciate that you have been willing to discuss them.

JM and I have a history going back to last September. When I realized that JM and I had a serious dispute I made a big effort to reach out to him, and try to reach a compromise.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Those efforts proved fruitless. When I realized that I had, somehow, earned his enmity, and called him on his continual misquotes and distortions he responded by applying his first bogus tag to the Carolyn Wood article -- an {afd} -- claiming the article's topic was "inherently POV". Various people pointed out to him that a perception of a biased POV was not a valid criterion for deleting an article. He still hasn't offered an explanation for why he violated procedure. It was the first of close to a dozen articles I started that he nominated for deletion. He was nominating close to one a day for a while.

I believe that I have followed procedures, and that he hasn't. After his repeated bogus {afd}s started blowing up in his face, he started using other tags, like the {dispute} tags you have already seen instances of. All of these activities had the effect of wasting the time of those with a serious interest in improving the articles in question.

I suggest that you and I continue to work, jointly, to improve the articles we are both interested in, as if he hadn't filed a request for mediation. -- Geo Swan 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carolyn Wood Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Carolyn Wood]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joaquin Murietta (talk • contribs).

Greetings,
Thanks for your thoughtful replies in our interchange.
I decided I would put my agreement to the mediation request JM filed. I was in two minds about it, because so many of my earlier efforts to learn what his concerns were turned out to be wastes of time. But I don't want him to say I was the one who wouldn't make an effort.
I'll respond to your last thoughts later today.
Thanks again -- Geo Swan 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FWIW

"If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
-- LTC Dave Grossman

[edit] Guantanamo detainees who claimed to be POWs

You asked how many detainees claimed POW status, when we discussed how Begg didn't claim POW status because he felt he should be regarded as a civilian aid worker. Fellow briton Feroz Abbasi did according to this BBC article.

A fair number of the detainees claimed they weren't enemy combatants, because they weren't on the front line, didn't ever fire their weapons, ran away to surrender the first chance they got. I don't think a competent tribunal would grant them non-combatant status.

Others acknowledged serving on the front lines, but during the defacto ceasefire that seems to have lasted for more than a year prior to September 11. I wonder if a competent tribunal could classify someone who had stopped being a combatant prior to the USA's entry into the conflict as a combatant. I suspect they would have to be engaged in hostilities during the period when the the USA was engaged in hostilities.

Then there are guys like Nasrat Khan. Elderly -- had a stroke that restricts him to a walker. He acknowledges that he fought his countries invaders. He acknowledges that he fought with a group that the USA now classifies as tied to terrorism. But the invaders he fought were the Soviets, not the Americans. And, the group he fought with was the receipient of funds, arms and training from the USA, via the CIA. Do you agree (1) a group that was tied to terrorism in 2002 might very well have been innocent of such ties in 1990; (2) it is hypocritical to claim he was an "enemy combatant" since, when he was a combatant, he was on your side. -- Geo Swan 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't think being on the front lines is the criteria, nor is being in a combat assignment. Someone like Jessica Lynch would have been considered a combatant.
Feroz Abbasi is a good find. Thanks for keeping an eye out. I doubt the Supreme Court will find for Hamdan, but this could be an interesting topic if they do.
As for your two points:
1) Yes, a group "tied to terrorism" could very well have not had such ties in earlier days.
2) People and groups do change ties rapidly. The real hypocrisy may have been with those who did receive our support, and then turned against us. That began in the 1990s.
Relationships with allies aren't always solid. The Soviets are considered to have been a U.S. ally in WWII even though they had first been partners with the Nazis. We supplied them during a critical period, while still keeping an eye on them.
We even invaded a neutral nation that didn't threaten us (one that we formally recognized as neutral) just to open a second front that would take the heat off the Russians. And, of course, they became adversaries again, after which we abandoned better allies in Eastern Europe.
I know you know all of that, but I'm just putting it into context.
-- Randy2063 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And how could I forget War Plan Red -- be sure to look for Crimson there.
-- Randy2063 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree about Jessica Lynch. If I have read the Geneva Conventions properly the Philippinos, and other third world types that KBR hired to man the cafeterias in Iraq could be considered combatants. Ditto embedded journalists.
The Washington Post published an interesting article about a month ago, entitled something like "My Guantanamo Diary". The author was an Afghani-American law-student, who had traveled to Guantanamo a bunch of times to serve as a translator. One of the detainees she translated for was Nasrat Khan.
Since you mentioned betrayal, let me mention another guy who was being held because of his ties to HiG, a guy named Hamidullah. He had been pushed into joining HiG when he was a teenager. He defected and ran away to Pakistan, while still a teenager. And had lived in Pakistan for the next fifteen years, where he grew up, got a job, and made a mature decision as to who he would prefer to lead Afghanistan -- Zahir Shah -- the last king. I found his story highly credible. I found it consistent with the articles in the Asia Times, that the Northern Alliance was trying to disrupt efforts to restore democracy to Afghanistan. Hamidullah says he was billeted in a house that had been confiscated from a highly placed Taliban leader. He had tried, in a small way, to lobby for the restoration of the monarchy, and had been warned to keep his mouth shut by Northern Alliance types, because Shah was too westernized. He was captured because he was living in a Taliban leader's house - ignoring that the house had been confiscated and used to billet recruits. -- Geo Swan 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think KBR employees could be considered combatants. If you mean that they're mentioned in GCIII, then yes, they are. But KBR employees contracted by the military aren't allowed to carry weapons. I assume this was for compliance with GCIII. It's just academic, though. There may never again be a war where it really matters.
I read "My Guantanamo Diary." by Mahvish Khan and I have to say that it only reinforces my own feelings. The author works for a law firm defending detainees, and she is obligated to not say a single word to harm their clients.
She says, "I can honestly say that I don't believe any of our clients are guilty of crimes against the United States." But look at how carefully that's phrased: "crimes against the United States". A number of genuine members of al Qaeda could say that.
She says of them, "they should be entitled to the same protections as any alleged rapist or murderer." We'll have to see how Hamdan is decided, but so far the answer has been, no.
I'll grant that Hamidullah's story is a sad one, a lot of them are. Here again is where critics may have done some harm. The U.S. government is criticized for casting such a wide net that it includes innocent people. The critics are doing the same thing. They've cast such a wide net that it includes many of those we need to watch. It might have been better had they started with some who have a credible case that's worth defending, like the Innocence Project does for those on death row. I know that's easier said than done, but it's a road they should have started on a long time ago.
And I can't let this go: You said, "One of the detainees she translated for was Nasrat Khan." Well, her name is Mahvish Khan. Okay, I know there's almost certainly no relation. But it is funny.
-- Randy2063 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damien Corsetti was acquitted

Damien Corsetti, who we discussed a month or two ago, was acquitted this week.

Captain Wood agreed to testify at his court martial -- provided she was granted immunity from prosecution. -- Geo Swan 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think the immunity means all that much but I put it in my notes and will think over the implications. -- Randy2063 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors that Guantanamo detainees returned to the battlefield

I think we have discussed this before -- the reports that former Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield.

Today I expanded the article about Shahzada (Guantanamo detainee 952) - captured at the same time as Nasrullah and Abdullah Khan.

There are reports on the blogs that say a "US newspaper" interviewed a former fighter named Mullah Shahzada, who "convinced the Guantanamo interrogators that he had renounced violence" -- and the promptly returned to being a Taliban field commander upon his release May 2003.

Well, the official list only lists one Shahzada. He wasn't captured until 2003. And he wasn't released until 2005.

So, it seems pretty clear to me that the reports that he was released in 2003, and then quickly killed or recaptured are completely false.

I am going to spend a little bit of time trying to get to the bottom of this rumor. If you come across any reports of Guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield will you let me know? Thanks. -- Geo Swan 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The other two guys, Nasrullah and Abdullah Khan were his dinner guests. The three of them were rounded up the next day. Shahzada was one of the 38 deemed not to have been an Enemy Combatant, but his two guests, who had never met before, remain in Guantanamo. Hard to explain that. -- Geo Swan 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I've heard of several. I may have something buried in my notes so I'll look around. If this theme is overblown then it's well worth clearing up.
There's no name on this one. He was supposedly caught entering the U.S. from Mexico, and that in itself sounds very unlikely to me. You'd think someone would have leaked more of it by now if true. But it's volatile enough that you should be aware of it.
-- Randy2063 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I read that transcript. IIRC he is one of the 38 detainees the CSRT determined was NLEC. -- Geo Swan 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Wood

The ACLU has acquired, and made available for download, a transcript from Chip Frederick's court martial.

On page 4 of the .pdf the defense and prosecution have an agreement as to what Wood would have testified.

On page 6 an MP describes one of the abuse incidents photographed by Lyndie England. In his description it sounds like the lead role was taken by MI troops, who would have been from the 205th MI Brigade. Wood's company was part of the 205th. Eventually other elements of the 205th joined her company. I am not aware of Wood's troops, or any other MI troops, faced charges for their roles in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

FWIW, I read that an investigation concluded that none of the Iraqis raped the Iraqi boy that the MI said triggered the incident. -- Geo Swan 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understood that some MI were at fault at Abu Ghraib, although I don't recall that any of the big names were MI. I had previously thought Bagram was where the culprits were all MPs. I still think most of them were, but I think you corrected me on that. For Abu Ghraib, Wood was criticized (as in the Wiki article) for having "Failed to provide proper supervision." I would think they wouldn't have said that if MI were entirely blameless.
I still need to read more. None of this is exactly new but there's more narrative, and it may even be from before everything was tied together. The incident on page 6 has to be incident #3 on page 106 of AR15-6.PDF. That testimony is presumably from SOLDIER-24.
Starting at page 130, you'll see everything summarized more concisely, and there it shows which ones included MI.
-- Randy2063 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research Request

Roger, looking, I'll let you know. --Robp 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] detainees who owned up to their role in combat?

I think you asked me to keep my eyes open for detainees who were willingly candid about their combat role? I think I may have found one. The DoD calls him Yasim Muhammed Basardah. (.pdf) page 9 (.pdf) page 233.

There are newspaper accounts of a hunger striker, named Mohammad Bawazir. I merged the article about him with that of Yasim Muhammed Basardah. It was the closest match of names.

The camp authorities have done such a terrible job of managing the detainees names.

Then, once I read his transcripts, and started to flesh out the CSRT and ARB portions of the article I started to have doubts as to whether they were the same guy. If they aren't then it seems that there is one more guy who is not on the "complete" list the DoD issued on May 15th. If they are it is hard to understand how he could claim to be completely cooperative, if he was in the middle of a hunger strike.

Who makes the best counter-interlligence guy? The ideologue who sees danger everywhere? Or the balanced guy, who is not an ideologue, who understands about coincidence, and "six degrees of separation", who has the imagination to realize that they have to clear people, so they can focus on the most likely threats. Well, there is no question in my mind that the counter-intelligence person with the imagination, intelligence and independence of mind to calculate the most likely threats serves the public best. And it seems painfully clear to me that the ranks of the US interrogators at Guantanamo, and almost certainly everywhere else, are filled with deeply suspicious, and uninformed people whose interrogations are disasters, both short term and long.

Detainee 252 being a case in point. Except for useful clarifications, he acknowledged all the allegations against him in his CSRT. Was he a combatant, after the US entered into the conflict? Yes, he responded to an order for all fighters to retreat to Tora Bora. I think that makes him a combatant, even if he never fired a shot at an enemy. So, how did the counter-intelligence analyst responsbile for his file respond? They dreamed up a bunch of new allegations against him.

Did they move him to a safer camp, where he wasn't exposed to threats from unrepentant jihadists? I'd like to know.

His hope that he be given asylum in the USA is a far-fetched one. As is his hope that he be allowed to enlist in the US Armed Forces.

Is it possible that he has exagerrated how much information he could provide about OBL and other senior al Qaeda types to bolster his efforts to get Asylum in the USA?

Is it possible that his cooperation, and the beatings and death threats he reported are part of a deceitful plot to sneak into one of the camps for compliant detainees, so he can kill or intimidate certain compliant detainees, because he secretly remains a determine jihadist? Possible, but unlikely, and not useful now that the USA recognizes that the intelligence value of almost all detainees has been exhausted.

I'd be interested in your opinion of his case. I think you will agree that he is a combatant, even though he never fired a shot at an enemy. But, does that make him a terrorist? Does it make him a war criminal? Could he be classified as a "lawful combatant"? If not, what kind of punishment does he deserve? Do you believe he has established he is not a threat? -- Geo Swan 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence from Wikipedia. I've got a lot of catching up to do.
I've heard that the word "cooperative" doesn't always mean the same thing. It can mean that a detainee follows the rules and doesn't fight with guards, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he volunteers information. I agree that the hunger strike makes this definition a bit murkier.
Your point regarding "the best counter-intelligence guy" could also be applied to reporters and lawyers involved in the war. Look how readily anything said by an enemy of the U.S. is taken at face value. You may have heard about all the doctored photos that slipped by the editors at Reuters.
Besides that, none of us really knows whether the intelligence being collected is below par. It would have been easy to call U.S. intelligence a failure in 1943 without knowing what amazing successes they've pulled off in 1942. Certainly, Reuters could not have done better.
On the management of detainee names, I think it's quite possible that they had a better filing system internally, but left out such indexing for the papers they released. You have to remember that they're running a war, and some of the people who've requested the documents are doing a favor for a fascist enemy that hides behind and targets children. I'm just speculating about U.S. intentions, of course, but that's how I'd have done it under the circumstances. It's important they follow the law, but not one inch further than that.
Detainee 252 is an interesting case but I wouldn't automatically conclude that he should have been moved to a safer camp. Those who do give up information aren't given a "traitor" t-shirt to wear. Maybe he talked too much in front of his friends. More likely, this may be another example of lawyers piling on charges against the U.S.
On the U.S. having "a bunch of new allegations against him", this really makes sense to me. First, they had more information to work with. That's not dreaming up anything. Then, if you're saying that he should be rewarded in some way for telling the truth, I agree, but the charges need to be made first. That could be a procedural thing.
I agree that he's a combatant. As I now understand it, I think Taliban fighters could be considered lawful combatants, but it's not clear to me which one he is. That doesn't make him a terrorist either. I don't know whether he's a threat but it seems like the U.S. thinks he could be, and I trust their judgment more than I do his lawyer.
Either way, I'm not sure that formal punishment is the best option after Hamdan. Under article 3, most of these remaining detainees could well be locked up the duration of the war. That's not punishment, but it'll seem like the same thing.
BTW: It's worth noting that no one is marching in the streets over Hezbollah's lack of respect for the Geneva Conventions, although there are plenty of demonstrations purportedly on their behalf. Lebanese children are being killed because there are no established safety zones in Lebanon. That's to say nothing of Israeli children.
I say this not to bring Lebanon into the picture but as confirmation of my earlier comments on protest movements being a sham. The Geneva Conventions have been a one-way street since WWII, and it's likely to stay that way. That's another reason we shouldn't give an inch more than we're required by law.
-- Randy2063 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I could tell you were away from the log of your contributions.
I should have updated you, I changed my mind as to whether the hunger striker, Mohammed Bawazir, mentioned in press reports was Yasim Muhammed Basardah, detainee 252. I decided the hunger striker was really Mohammed Ali Abdullah Bwazir, detainee 440. Which solves the mystery of why his participation in the hunger strike wasn't mentioned during his ARB hearing.
No, I haven't heard of doctored photos slipping through Reuters. If you have a reference handy, could you fill me in? Oh, wait, Wolf Blitzer, just this minute, covered the enhancement of smoke plumes in Beirut that lead to a freelancer being fired. Do you know of other instances?
Yes, I would like to have journalist exercising the critical judgement to distinguish between credible and non-credible reports -- from both the authorities on our side, and from terrorists, their supporters, and from those who are merely really angry at the USA. But, if I had to choose, I would rather our side was employing competent intelligence analysts, who weren't blinkered by emotion and preconceived notions, even if that meant being stuck with credulous reporters who believed disinformation -- rather than a wide awake press corps reporting on a bunch of intelligence analysts with really bad judgement.
I am going to have to disagree with you about whether we can know that the intelligence collection at Guantanamo is a failure.
  1. The two biggest intelligence coups from Guantanamo were both the results of using "enhanced interrogation techniques".
    • Ibn Shaiky Al-Libi, confessed, in detail, from receiving help from Saddam Hussein's Iraq in training al Qaeda operatives in how to use Iraq's WMD. This coup seemed to confirm (1) that there were strong ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and (2) that Saddam continued to possess an arsenal of WMD. As we all know now, Iraq had no arsenal of WMD. Al-Libi's confession was cited by Colin Powell before the UN. This coup turned to poo. Al-Libi has recanted. By late 2003 American intelligence analysts should have been acting on the assumption that all the information from Al-Libi was unreliable. Yet, years later, the allegations against some of the detainees, contain the allegation that they received training in how to use WMD from Al-Libi. Al-Libi was detained at Guantanamo, but in CIA custody, not military custody, so he didn't have a CSRT or ARB.
    • Mohammed Al-Katahni was also subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques". He was in military custody, not CIA custody. You can look at his interrogation log now, if you wish. After two months of 20 hour days, his interrogators "broke" him. Among the information he offered were the identities of 30 of OBL's bodyguards. And, sure enough, there are dozens of Guantanamo detainees whose allegations state, "was identified as one of OBL's bodyguards". Al-Katanhi too has recanted the confessions coerced from him.
More later... -- Geo Swan 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia can be pretty fast. The article on the Reuters photos is here: Adnan Hajj photographs. Michelle Malkin has a short video presentation. The staging of photos seems more prevalent than photoshopping but it's harder to catch them red-handed at that.
I don't disagree that it's better to have dispassionate analysts but I don't know that anyone can be dispassionate, and I certainly don't believe we can declassify everything. A lot of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents had been put on the net but that was only because they didn't have time to go through them all. (They were planning to shred them.)
I've seen the Mohammed Al-Katahni interrogation logs. They end right around the time that the rules were changed by Alberto J. Mora. So what you see there is some of the worst that the military interrogators could do at the time, and I didn't think it was all that horrific. Ordinary boot camp may be worse.
But I think you missed my point about the quality of the intelligence collection, and that's that neither of us is really in a position to have seen it. All we've seen is the stuff that gets leaked.
-- Randy2063 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty International and gun control

Randy, thanks for what you said at talk:Amnesty International. Like this, "their partners in that campaign, Oxfam and IANSA, are advocates for gun control. AI has changed." It's great to find people who can see the whole issue and aren't afraid to include all the facts in articles, and aren't afraid to say what's on their minds. Thanks again and nice to meetcha. Whiskey Rebellion 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a surprising op-ed

Did you see the surprising op-ed in today's Boston Globe? I'd like your opinion as to whether you think this summary of mine is fair.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting find. The description you gave it sounds good to me although I certainly don't take Begg's stated opinion as being entirely candid. He does have an agenda, and that does intersect at the moment with Corsetti's motive to redirect the blame elsewhere. It's funny how these things work out.
-- Randy2063 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I'd like to reply to your latest, but I guess petercorless has a point. Are you comfortable with me responding here?

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is as good a place as any.
-- Randy2063 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/n/User_talk%7ERandy2063_4def.html"