[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: allen

> >  The majority of people in Guantanamo were *not* captured by U.S.
> > troops - they were turned in by others for reward money or other
> > considerations. That's where the doubt comes in. And Aaron has stated
> > specifically that people nearby when an IED goes off are routinely
> > picked up on suspicion. But there hasn't been any legal scheme for
> > handling them until very very recently.

> Why is the capturing force important?

 You didn't look up Dilawar like I asked you to. An Afghan taxi driver turned
in by an Afghan warlord as being responsible for a rocket attack on a U.S.
base. His companions went to Gitmo, but he himself was beaten to death by U.S.
troops because he "screamed funny".

 Then it turns out the Afghan warlord was behind the rocket attack, and just
grabbed some random people and turned them in to deflect suspicion from himself.
And do I *really* need to explain why a certain level of caution is needed when
dealing with people turned in for *reward money*?

> Since the combatants in this conflict refuse to abide by the 
> Geneva convention they put not only themselves at risk but also 
> uninvolved civilians. It is unfortunate but if it's a choice between 
> American military personnel being put at increased risk of death of some 
> number of Iraqi citizens being put at risk of imprisonment then I choose 
> the latter.

 Well, there are a few problems with that. First off, the choices aren't just
limited to that; not when people can and do get beaten to death in prison.
Second, of course, we're supposedly trying to win some hearts-and-minds and
instilling a respect for law & order and trying to nurture a democratic
government. The Brits went all medieval on the IRA and only succeeded in muddying
the waters and losing the moral high ground in their struggle. When they
started handling things in a more procedural, legal manner the IRA's support
waned. By 9/11 they were already fading, and 9/11 was the deathblow to the IRA.

> > (It's not really
> > clear to me that the current administration has, in fact, done so.
> > They've shown a rather surprising disregard for the law at home; I'm
> > dubious about their behavior when oversight's difficult.)
> >   
> As Aron already pointed out in another response, there are only three 
> cases of waterboarding which a) makes it *not* the default and b) hardly 
> qualifies as torture.

 Three *admitted* cases of waterboarding. It's funny how agencies and govt
organizations that have been demonstrated to have repeatedly lied are given
such credence when they promise, with big soulful eyes, that they *pinky
swear* that *this time* they're really telling the whole truth, *honest*.

 And it's funny how the people who claim that waterboarding isn't torture
never seem to volunteer to undergo it themselves, publicly, to demonstrate
this fact. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has apparently claimed that it's no
worse than fraternity hazing, but hasn't stepped up to prove it.

> I've already looked up the Geneva convention and found you're 
> quotation misrepresentative of the document.

 In what way, specifically? I've already pointed out the 'doubt' issue,
what else is wrong about how I've presented it?

> Between that misrepresentation and your hyperbolic claim of torture as 
> the default U.S. manner of treatment of prisoners,

 But I didn't say that - though I admit that the wording at the beginning
of the paragraph there was unclear. I was saying that "even at that point"
(i.e. when someone's been determined by a competent tribunal to be an
illegal combatant) "torture shouldn't be the default, go-to tactic." I did
*not* state that prisoners in general are tortured by default.

 No one's disputed that the current 'illegal combatants' haven't been put
in front of even a tribunal, and that's stupid. In WWII, the United States was
the country that pressed for the Nuremburg trials - Britan and the USSR were
all for summary executions. But we felt the need to make sure that there was
no way that the butchers could claim they hadn't gotten a fair shake. And that's
helped keep things like that from happening again. (Not perfectly, or even well
enough, but Holocaust denial is a lunatic fringe position precisely because all
the evidence was gathered and put into the light.)

> the similarly 
> hyperbolic comparison to Soviet gulags and the rest of it, I'm 
> disinclined to spend more time picking your claims apart.

 Um... I specifically said that the U.S. prisons are *better* than Soviet
gulags. What, do you think they are *worse*?

 I might be worried about you 'picking my claims apart' if I were sure that
you were actually clear on what my claims really *are*.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                            (313) 227-2317

     Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.