A quagmire is a situation from which extrication is very difficult. If the most recent events have taught us anything it is that the War in Iraq for the past three years has dragged this country deeper and deeper into a situation that doesn't seem to have any clear strategy, let alone a path to success. We are mired in a situation, that when looking at it all you can say is, "damned if we do, damned if we don't."
First, the NIE is a set of long-term assessments of strategic intelligence issues put together for the president and senior administration officials. It is developed by the National Intelligence Council, a group composed of current and former senior intelligence and national security officials. Some of the most notable quotes from this year's NIE are as follows:
"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." "threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide."
"The underlying factors that are fueling the spread of the extremist Muslim movement outweigh its vulnerabilities. These factors are entrenched grievances and a slow pace of reform in home countries, rising anti-U.S. sentiment and the Iraq war."
"While Iran and Syria are the most active state sponsors of terror, many other countries will be unable to prevent their resources from being exploited by terrorists."
It is no wonder Democrats started salivating once these excerpts were released. But supporters of the Bush administration fired back with some other excerpts from the report; the most important one being:
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
This provides a rationale for "staying the course," as Bush like to say. For, if we "cut and run," another popular Bushism, then Jihadists will be able to validate their fight and instill more condfidence in their resistance.
So, what are we supposed to do? It seems like our very presence in Iraq fuels terrorism, extremism, and recruitment for jihadists. So, we should get the hell out, right? But if we just leave, it seems like we will embolden the jihadist movement. So, we should stay and fight until we are victorious, right? What are we supposed to do? One thing we can glean from these assessments is that no matter what we do now, we are emboldening the jihadist movement. Not an ideal situation in which to find ourselves.
The NIE does not provide any policy or strategy recommendations; that is left up to the President and his administration, the same people who led us into this mess in the first place. So, needless to say I have little confidence in how the Bush administration will react to the report. For example, the report was completed last April, yet Bush has done very little to alter a strategy that has created a more hostile environment in the Middle East and generated an increasing level of attacks on US forces.
Second, Bob Woodward's book, "State of Denial," doesn't provide much hope either. I have not yet read the book, but I did watch his interview on 60 minutes and read a couple segments, and it is clear to me that even as things get worse, Bush will still portray the war as a success. This is a dangerous road to go down. Wishful thinking that flies in the face of facts generates a tenous grip on reality.
I cannot help but make the connection to Enron's downfall. Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, and Andrew Fastow created a company based on what some people would call wishful thinking, but what most people would call outright dishonesty and lies. When things were getting worse with the company, they were reporting success. All the while, the idea of Enron was becoming a house of cards, lacking no real foundation in reality. We all know how that one ended.
The Bush administration has their lot of leaders employing the very same, dangerous tactic. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice go to their investors and employees - congress and the American people - claiming that the war is creating progress in the region, defeating terror, spreading freedom, liberating Iraqis, and making America safer. When in reality there has been an increasing level of extreme, jihadist sympathizers in the Middle East, terrorist attacks have drastically increased across the globe since 9/11, and our ideals of freedom have been eroded as our president claims that "outrages against humanity" is too vague of a statement. As a result, the American government is tasked with creating an "acceptable" definition of torture. And to top it all off, about six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, which explains why the number of attacks on American troops in Iraq has been steadily increasing since 2001 to now over 800 attacks a week. This is not success.
The most frustrating thing about this quagmire is that politicians only make it worse by refusing to engage in honest debate. Too many politicians have drunk the kool-aid of their parties. This war has got to be about more than politics and elections. The debates have got to go beyond quibbling over past votes and spouting party talking points. People should not be so concerned with refusing to admit mistakes in judgment in an attempt to secure their own power and save face, because they do it at the expense of figuring out a way to get us out of this situation, end the fighting, and bring peace to the Middle East and across the globe. We need real ideas, not an incessant barrage of the same 'ol crap.
So what does one do when stuck in a quagmire. You stop flailing your arms and stop thinking that doing the same thing over and over again will produce a new result. You re-evaluate your situation. You stop squirming and you ask for help, you reach for a branch, you try and re-set your footing. Whatever you do you stop with the same 'ol crap.
In the spirit of providing more that just criticism, I will present some of my own ideas.
1. We stop fighting the insurgency and start building more schools, roads, homes, electricity and water plants. It seems like we have been drawn further and further into multiple venues of urban warfare, which is exactly what bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and the jihadist movement wants. If we stop shooting and stop reacting violently maybe people will stop supporting the insurgents. Maybe if we spend more time doing the valuable work of building a viable infrastructure and other things that Iraqis need, the majority of the population will support us instead of the jihadists. After all, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, and constant machine gun fire do not help revitalize and damaged country.
2. We close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and provide legal counsel to all detainees. Our reputation has been severely tainted as a result of our treatment of detainees. Abu Ghraib speaks for itself, but Guantanmo Bay still remains a festering wound in our ideals.
3. We drastically reduce the number of US forces in Iraq to under 75,000. Its time for these troops to come home!! The remaining troops would work in conjuction with a peace and revitalization force made up of peace corps volunteers, non-governmental organizations, UN peace keepers, and most importantly Arabs who want to bring an end to the fighting (and believe me, there are more of them then there are those who want to keep fighting). This new deployment would help to truly rebuild Iraq's cities and communities. Construction projects would be protected by peacekeepers. We would also open a number of recruiting stations for this effort across the Arab world. The bottom line is that we NEED IRAQIS AND OTHERS IN THE REGION ON OUR SIDE! We do not have that right now.
4. We help set up a truth and reconciliation committee much like they have in Rwanda and what they had in South Africa. Right now justice is most visibly presented in the form of Saddam Hussein's trial, which has done very little to quell any hatred that exists between the different sects within the country. We need victims facing perpetrators. We need people telling their stories and we need those stories documented. We need to encourage communication and understanding withing a population that was at one time kept under control by a dictator and is now engaged in a bloody and vicious civil conflict.
5. Donal Rumsfeld needs to resign. He has lost the confidence of many of the generals who are conducting this war. He has lost much of his credibility with the American people and he needs to be held accountable for his drastic errors of judgment that have continued to plagued this war.
6. The United States needs to join the Internation Criminal Court and any US forces or government officials (president included) that are charged with war crimes need to be tried on the world stage. The vast majority of US troops serve their country in the most noble manner, but those who discredit the integrity and hard work of the US military need not the protection of the US government; they need the world to try them. After all, this war has become part of the global war on terror, hence our efforst should be held to global standards.
Some may find my suggestions too "radical" or "idealistic", but if you do, then ask yourself why? Why do you think these ideas are so ridiculous? It may be because we have been under a blanket of pompous rhetoric. We have been living under leadership that stifles criticism within its ranks and tries to make us think that changing our minds as a result of learning from our mistakes is a sign of weakness.
Here are some links to important stories used to write this entry and others related the above mentioned topics.
Released Part of Intel Study Notes New Threats, USA TODAY
US Intelligence Report: Iraq War Breeding More Terrorists, CS Monitor
Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight, Washington Post
Republican Torture Laws Will Live in History, Alternet
The Secret Buried in the Torture Bill [Video], Alternet
Peace Out,
Daryn
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
Excellent piece! The main thing you point out is that the current tragic path we are walking down does not, nor will it ever lead to either the "glorious victory" the right thinks will occur nor even an honorable withdrawal.
1. We stop fighting the insurgency and start building more schools, roads, homes, electricity and plants.
This has been an ongoing evolution in Iraq. Unfortunately, often times the insurgents attack infrastructure improvements to hamper progress. What needs to be asked under this suggestion is "what do you do about the insurgency" while your doing your goodwill effort?
2. We close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and provide legal counsel to all detainees.
Where do we put them, if not at Gitmo? They currently have legal counsel, and per the Supreme Court, these terrorists now have many of the same rights Americans have. I think the real question being debated today is "do they have the same rights as Americans".
3. We drastically reduce the number of US forces in Iraq to under 75,000. Its time for these troops to come home!! The remaining troops work in conjunction with a peace and revitalization force made up of peace corps volunteers, non-governmental organizations, UN peace keepers, and most importantly Arabs who want to bring an end to the fighting.
Sounds great! Why is 75,000 the correct number? Most NGO's, etc. are willing to do just this…once stability has been attained. How do we attain that stability?
6. The United States needs to join the International Criminal Court….
I would strongly disagree. Why should we turnover our Constitutional rights and protections to a World Court who often times does not share our values, opinions, and standards. The recent debate on interrogation procedures illustrates clearly that we (the U.S.) cannot even achieve partisan agreement on how to deal with terrorist. Exposing U.S. Citizens it to the fuzziness of World Politics and International law would only compound this debate
Finally, I find your claim that the leadership stifles criticism to be somewhat suspect. From what I see daily, criticism rules the day…everyday.
Notwithstanding my above questions and comments, I do salute you for presenting ideas and not rhetoric.
They will perhaps put more combat people in Al Anbar and try to win this thing. They may even finally admit they are wrong and let Rumsfeld retire in December after he becomes the longest running Defense secretary.
In response to Thomas W.: Thanks for the questions. In response:
1. The insurgency commits a number of attacks that are of no benefit to the Iraqi citizens. They destory markets, businesses, essential infrastructure to make the US look bad, but they are also hampering Iraqi progress. Yet for some reason they are still getting majority Iraqi support, which in turn strengthens their cause and tactics. If the US can lead an effort that is clearly for the benefit of Iraqis then the insurgency would lose much of its support and hopefully the attacks would start to dwindle. You would probably get a lot more informants within Iraq who would give key intel on where insurgent attacks are being planned and they can be thwarted before they even take place.
2. The Supreme Court decision was a breath of fresh air. I think it was a surprise since the two new justices on the court (Alito and Roberts) were appointed by Bush and many assumed they would tilt the balance to favor his strategies and ideology. Where would keep them? We would keep them in jails in the United States. I honestly think the war on terror should be conducted in a law enforcement manner; a group of individuals commit a crime, they should be caught and brought to justice...Entire countries do not need to be destroyed. The bottom line is, Guantanamo Bay is far too isolated from the watchful eye of human rights groups to ensure that no abuses are taking place.
3. I admit, 75,000 might seem a bit arbitrary, but it is a little over half of the current troops stationed over there. My number reasoning behind this number is I just want these people to get back home and continue their lives with friends and families. But I still feel like 75,000 is needed to help with security, albeit I am not a military expert by any means.
6. I understand the argument against joining the ICC, but I do not agree with it. Considering how much we meddle in the lives of people across the world, we should be held accountable by some world standard. When it comes to domestic issues sure...no ICC...but when it comes to global affairs and our involvement within them, we need to be held accountable by a global court. It is funny how we demand people like Milosevich be tried, but when it comes to us...no way.
Hopefully this clarifies some of my points...I would love to get some more back and forth going.
Re: Tony S. I totally agree. The UN is only as effective as the member countries make it. Many US officials talk about it insignificance, when in reality it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we think its worthless, it becomes worthless. The UN is a great creation and should be strengthened.
Definitely one of the most balanced pieces I've read on Iraq and the Middle East. Far too many on the Left (mainly) come here to bitch about this or that, and don't even try to be level-headed. We in the Conservative camp are too damn tired of listening to these rants. Thanks for going the extra mile to see the other side. I just hope some folks see your example and emulate it.
1. The insurgency commits a number of attacks that are of no benefit to the Iraqi citizens. They destroy markets, businesses, essential infrastructure to make the US look bad, but they are also hampering Iraqi progress. Yet for some reason they are still getting majority Iraqi support, which in turn strengthens their cause and tactics.
I would opine that all attacks are of no benefit to the Iraqi citizens and they are not only designed to make the US look bad as you stated, but that they are also designed to demoralize the population and keep them in fear. I'm personally not comfortable with any of the polls coming out of Iraq because they can all be manipulated depending on what is trying to be portrayed. That aside, I would surmise that a large majority of Iraqis are just too timid or afraid (and rightly so) to take an overt pro-democracy stand absent a secure environment in which to speak. As we have seen, they could be pulled out at any time and slaughtered by either insurgents or sectarian opponents. Does their reluctance strengthen the insurgent's cause, perhaps! Does it strengthen their tactics, absolutely!
I would agree with you that the U.S. needs to lead an effort that benefits the Iraqis, but the first step must be to establish a secure environment from which other efforts can flourish. We are attempting to accomplish many things simultaneously (i.e. security, reconstruction, job growth, economic growth, etc.) and unfortunately many areas meet frequent setbacks absent the security. As we all know, this is a complicated problem that needs to be solved, but it can only be solved through honest debate without the tiresome rhetoric we see being thrown by both sides. To that end, I again thank you for your well thought out Article and I look forward to sharing ideas with you in the future.
Commenting on Thomas W.'s "I would surmise that a large majority of Iraqis are just too timid or afraid (and rightly so) to take an overt pro-democracy stand absent a secure environment in which to speak. As we have seen, they could be pulled out at any time and slaughtered by either insurgents or sectarian opponents."
I don't think people realize this as much as they should. For goodness sake, I have been active in seeking/petitioning help for Afghanistan women/girls and I am always aware of the risk I am taking and I live in the US! You would be surprised at the number of US citizens that take offense to me asking them to sign petitions. I can only imagine the fear Iraqi's live in!
I think if we were more out spoken and went public with our opinions the world would see the "real" America. Perhaps web sites like this will spark us to come out of our four walls and into the streets of our country to protest this war!
So, we must do the research that we can, try and listen to others, but realize that we will never know everything.
Thanks again for the comment. I would also like to read more about your work helping Afghani women and girls.
Im glad you put this as number one. The fact that we are not exactly acting in a way that benefits Iraqi citizens is a glaring one to American liberals and many others. While some of us left-wing nuts may find remaining right-wing denial of this fact annoying or ignorant, our perceptions of the war, and our arguments over them, are not going to change anything in Iraq anytime soon. According to Woodward, Bush will stay his current course even if only his wife and his dog are left supporting him.
A shift in Iraqi opinion regarding our intent in being in their country would most definately bring change. But before we start building schools and and churches we need to make the decision to actually turn this war into an effort for Iraqis. Otherwise our efforts to help iraqi citizens will be nothing but a ploy to gain ground and will therefore be shortlived and hopeless. I'm skeptical of the posibility of an honest shift of intention on our part; I don't beleive this war ever was or ever will be about "Iraqi freedom". But I sure as hell would love to be proven wrong.
To elaborate on your suggestions:
Yes, Donald Rumsfeld must resign and face the music for his war crimes. America must observe the International Criminal Court (one of the reasosns for global anti-Americanism is the opinion expressed by Thomas W. above: "Why should we turnover our Constitutional rights and protections to a World Court who often times does not share our values, opinions, and standards." Why shouldn't Americans be subjec to the world court if people from other countries should. There should be no double standard here.
President Bush keeps saying that setting a withdrawal date will only encourage the insurgents. Okay, so let's not encourage them but give them incentive instead. The US should publicly announce to Iraqis five or six infrastructure renewal goal (say: fully restored and secure power for Baghdad, water & sewer, XX schools, XX hospitals and a military base of operations for the Iraqi army). They should set a date for the completion of these projects. Then they should announce that they will leave the country completely when they are done. They should caution that any acts of terror that slow down, impede or damage any of the work will only delay the completion and postpone the date of withdrawal of US forces. This will encourag the insurgents to hold the peace while the work gets done. Then, live up to your word and get the hell outta Dodge!
Halliburton must be taken out of the loop and let Iraqi and other Arab companies take over the rebuilding and supplying contracts. This will help spur the Iraq economy and bring other Arab nations into the process, giving them an economic interest in the rebuilding of the country. This might also lead other Arab nations to put up peacekeepers to help stabilize the country while the rebuilding goes ahead.
The USA should, as Tony S. suggests, do a big mea culpa to the world at the UN, apologize for the false justifications for starting the war, ask in all humility for help in the peacekeeping and rebuilding effort. The US troops that remain in Iraq, with other peacekeeping forces such as those from Arab nations involved in the rebuilding, should wear the blue helmet of the UN and be under UN command. This will remove the US as the main target for the insurgents.
The prisoners in Guantanamo can hardly be housed in overcrowded US prisons. To build more will take too long to alleviate the congestion of prisoners there. If they have lawyers and their Geneva convention rights are now being observed, how come there are no televised trials going on? Lets get them tried, convicted and incarcerated properly, or exonerated and released posthaste. If this means extra money for judges, lawyers, etc. to expediate, maybe the funding could come from the money saved when American troops in Iraq are replaced by Arab troops. Once the last Guantanamo prisoner has been dealt with, close the prison, withdraw all US personnel and return this territory to the people and government of Cuba and end an illegal occupation now going on for 46 years.
None of this will happen while Bush is in the White House. Since he is scheduled to serve until January 20th, 2009, and impeachment and removal from office becomes almost a necessity. That begins with every Republican candidate up for election this November being defeated. Thanks for Foley's follies, this just may happen.
AND Thomas W. is your teacher. Sit down, shut up and learn.
What concerns, no, scares me, the most is statements like yours that suggest that the U.S. join the ICC or other "world" courts. How could anyone possibly believe that a sitting U.S. President be placed on trial by the likes of Iran, North Korea, or even Mexico. Have you any idea how this is totally contray to our constitution? Are you that naive? This single point of your essay tells me that your hatred for Bush and his adminsitration is the foundation of your tirade.
While some or your points do have merit, I'm inclined to dismiss them all as attempts to "get even" with the Bush administration. Nice try; you've duped some, but most of us are realistic in our view of the world and the enemies that are out to destroy our way of life. Want an example? How about England, France, and Spain; traditional U.S. alies. They all attempted to coddle the extremelists while these same extremeists are taking over their countries. There are many of us here in the U.S. that will not allow that to happen on our soil.
Why waste any more time on all of you...
UN - United Notions is a useless organization - Just a plain history of failure starting with Korea. Blue helmeted clowns are useless.
Prisoners at Club Gitmo are not US citizens and do not follow by the Geneva Conventions, therefore should not be afforded any right except military trials.
There is no way, Donald, Pres W, or any soldier should not be marched before any war crimes tribunal because they are executing a difficult but necessary task of ridding the world of Islamo-facists.
Last, Donald serves at the behest of the President and both are liked overwhelming by a majority of the soldiers.
By the way, what is the desire of the Islamo-facist? Oh yeah, rid the world of all infidels (Christians, Buddhist, and Atheist) through death or conversion. We have three choices - Our death, our conversion, or their death. I plan the for their demise.
Major Barb
To Bald 01:
1. I tried to go to www.paterico.com and, unfortunately, it did not work. But here's the thing...I am sure, like many politicized issues, there are sources that say prisoners at Gitmo are being "babied", but if we are honest with ourselves we would not use the word "babied" because that is clearly not the conditions prisoners face at Gitmo. If we want to talk about conditions at Gitmo we can talk about it from a number of angles. We could talk about the Constitution and the principles of a right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to a know what you are being charged with, the right to legal counsel. If you contend the prisoners are not US citizens and not granted those rights, then we can talk about the Geneva Conventions, an agreement and a set of rules our government agreed to adhere to. And if you claim that the UN is worthless then we could talk basic human rights. Do unto others as you would have then do unto you. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a while. Innocent people have been captured and detained for YEARS without due process by our government, that is a fact. The conditions at Gitmo have led some there to attempt suicide. After investigating as much as they could the UN committee on human rights has called for its closure. We would not want other countries to treat our citizens this way so why should we? Isn't America supposed to be the brightest beacon of freedom and justice in the world? Aren't we supposed to stand up for certain principles? I thought so...Gitmo has tainted our good image and deservedly so.
In response to Dave Theis:
2. One of the main points in my article was that "talking points" are preventing us from finding real solutions for getting us out of this mess. I admit, some of my suggestion would probably be considered Democrat "talking points" such as a call for Rumsfeld to resign, but I have not heard any Democrat actively support any of the other points I have made or any of the excellent ideas proposed by Rory.
3. I just find it interesting how we demand that people like Slobadon Milosevich and Charles Taylor be required to answer to the world when charged with a crime, yet our government doesn't have to be held by any such standards.
In response to Major Barb:
4. I do not claim to speak for the soldiers or the generals. I have just been reading that a number of high ranking, former generals, who have served under Rumsfeld have come out against him. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html)
5. In response to Major Barb, I think we just have a different perspective on how to quell a threat from "Islamo-fascists". I do not think "planning for their demise" is a wise course of action. I think it just breeds more hatred, justifies further extremist tendencies, and discourages any and all levels of understanding amongst conflicting cultures. I do not see anything good coming from such a strategy.
T. Fasano
I keep harping on this issue, but no sustainable democracy has emerged after a government overthrow in nations where there was no widespread non-violent movement before the regime change.
I was a little put off by the Daryn's first point, even though I agree with the spirit behind it (and many of the clarifications/supporting arguments). My first thought was "Those people building schools, hospitals, and so on are going to die!" Thomas W. and other are right about "insurgents" targeting those who are attempting to build up the infrastructure.
Gandhi said something to the effect that it takes more courage to be non-violent than to fight back. History has proven the effectiveness of his approach. Could it work in Iraq?
If so, it would take Iraqis (and probably people of other nationalities) who are willing to lose their lives without any promise of vengeance. Their revenge will be to see the infrastructure built up, society prosper, and more people gain the courage to stand up to the violent ones.
(I'm sure some of you will think I'm smoking crack, but somebody has to put down their weapons or this will keep going until the entire nation is widows and orphans.)
I don't know why not. We have turned them over to George Bush or whoever he designates. We have totally gutted our constitution. We have taken away the writ of habeus corpus and set up a dictator who has the sole power to put away anyone he chooses, for as long as he chooses, without a trial or even if he has a trial without being able to confront his accusors or see the evidence against him. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave, we just gave away everything we fought Fat King George for in the war of independence.
THomas W. also states: " The recent debate on interrogation procedures illustrates clearly that we (the U.S.) cannot even achieve partisan agreement on how to deal with terrorist." The problem was that there really wasn't a debate. There was a four hour dog and poney show. There was no real possibility for debate. The GOP doesn't want to debate, they want to cram their agenda down out throats.
"Exposing U.S. Citizens it to the fuzziness of World Politics and International law would only compound this debate." Given the current state of our own law, we could get a more fair trial in the international courts than our own.
All we hear is that the democrats have no plan. "Stay the Course" is not a plan, it is a sound bite. There have been more plans discussed here than have been discussed by the administration. It is time that the administration admit that they have stepped in it and take a realistic look at how to make the best of a disasterous situation.
Your so called "Blue Helmeted Clowns" have just been given "The Ball" in Afghanistan and US military troops are under their watch. Uhm?
Prisoners of War are still worthy of human rights given through fair and just legal proceedures. As to your reference that they are not US citizens and do not have to "follow by the Geneva Conventions"...WAKE UP! The President (a US citizen) doesn't "follow by the Geneva Conventions" either.
No War Crime Tribunal you say? I guess it's okay to inhumanely torture "Prisoners of War" under your military- so long as you don't get caught! Oh, I forgot, it's okay to rape women/children, too!
If I had a million dollars I would fly to Iraq, put my life on the line and take a solider to solider poll on your comment..."Donald serves at the behest of the President and both are liked overwhelming by a majority of the soldiers." YA' THINK!
As for your last "matter-of-fact" statement..."By the way, what is the desire of the Islamo-facist? Oh yeah, rid the world of all infidels (Christians, Buddhist, and Atheist) through death or conversion. We have three choices - Our death, our conversion, or their death. I plan the for their demise."
YOU ARE ONE OF MANY IN THIS COUNTRY (USA) THAT ARE BEGINNING TO SHOW THE SAME ATTRIBUTES AS THE PEOPLE YOU ARE FIGHTING!!!
YOU ARE BECOMING JUST LIKE THEM...:-(
The Supreme Court never held that habeas relief was available to alien military prisoners such as those at Guantanamo Bay. Quite the contrary: In its 1950 Eisentrager case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution and Section 2241 did not extend habeas relief to alien military personnel held overseas. And unless the Supreme Court were willing to say that Guantanamo is within the United States, Eisentrager, standing alone, would have precluded habeas relief to prisoners held there.
Can you expound on how we have gutted our Constitution? You use the same tired rhetoric we hear all the time, but facts would be appreciated.
You also state: "Given the current state of our own law, we could get a more fair trial in the international courts than our own." Please explain how?
If you would like to add to the debate, we would welcome your thoughts.
Fact: "The Ball" in Afghanistan is under the watch of NATO, not the UN.
Fact: "Prisoners of War are still worthy of human rights given through fair and just legal proceedures...true, but by law, not the same entitlements U.S. citizens are entitled to. The issue, however, was whether Terroist should receive the same entitlements as POWs. The Supremen Court has addressed this to a certain degree in the Hamdi case and as a result many of the Geneva Convention entitlements are now extended to that group.
You state: I guess it's okay to inhumanely torture "Prisoners of War" under your military- so long as you don't get caught! Oh, I forgot, it's okay to rape women/children, too! I certainly hope you do not believe this comment. If anyone in the military commits a violation, they should be (and I belived they are being) held accountable for their actions. Please don't condemn the honorable men and women of our Armed Forces for the inappropriate actions that may occur by a few. Should we condemn all Mexican-Americans for the actions of the MS-13...I think not!
Finally, your comment to Maj Barb that "YOU ARE ONE OF MANY IN THIS COUNTRY (USA) THAT ARE BEGINNING TO SHOW THE SAME ATTRIBUTES AS THE PEOPLE YOU ARE FIGHTING!!! YOU ARE BECOMING JUST LIKE THEM." Can you please explain what you mean by that comment. The choices are, actually, quite limited when dealing with terrorist, but I would be interested in hearing about the "attributes" you perceive that are making U.S. actions similar to those we are fighting since I don't see them.
Unfortunately I cannot write my senator or congressman. I am a Canadian living in Canada. I have no congressman but a member of parliament and any senator charged with representing me is a useless retiree who doesn't have the sense to stay home to receive their pension. (The Canadian senate has been characterized as a "taskless thanks", instead of being a thankless task.) I don't think American legislators would listen to me if I had the formula for turning lead into gold.
Good luck getting your representatives attention, I really hope you can.
- The President lied
- The Government has kidnapped democracy
- That our constitutional rights are being changed or taken away, piece by piece.
These are pretty powerful assertions and if you can substantiate your claims, I will be willing to listen. With all the rhetoric being thrown around (from both sides) I attempt to cut through the noise on these issues to determine what is fact from fiction, but thus far, I have been unable to see how you arrive at your conclusions.
First, not everyone (including the U.S.) has signed on to the ICC.
Second, the ICC has serious flaws. I'm fascinated by your zeal to join the ICC, absent much of the due process we are entitled to in the U.S. Who exactly would serve process? I suppose they'd have subpoena power? Would the FBI work for the ICC or would it be my local sheriff's department? Would it be the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in play or the Turkish Rules of Evidence or a combination? Where does one appeal a sentence from the ICC? Who executes the sentence? Is there a probable cause element to bring a charge of genocide — or is it just a bunch of dead people. What about indictments of conspiracy?
Last, and perhaps most significant is the fact that the proposed court is a court of only last resort. Under the principle of complementarities, the court will not be allowed to act when national judicial systems are available and willing to prosecute suspects. If a state carries out its obligation to investigate a suspected crime, even if it decides there is no reason to prosecute a suspect, the international court cannot intercede. The only exception allowing independent court action is when a state intentionally tries to avoid its international obligation by shielding a criminal from responsibility, as has been the case in Serbia. Because the international court is not designed to supplant effective national judicial systems such as U.S. military and civilian courts, it is extremely unlikely U.S. nationals would ever come before the international court.
If I have to pick a political entity as a moral compass and dispenser of justice, between the U.S. and the ICC, without a doubt it is going to be the U.S.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUANTANAMO_ALLEGED_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-06-12-40-28
My zeal comes from the conviction that technology in both transportation and communication and population growth are effectively shrinking our world around us. It seems to me inevitiable that we either move eventually towards a single world federation or else we will destroy ourselves fighting over the place.
Unfortunately, the US (though a great example of a political entity -- despite my reservations about what is going on in America today) may be one of the biggest obstacles to that formation of a unified human political entity due to the fact that Americans presume to have and deserve the best of everything and are unwilling to submit to any other authority ever.
Either the US takes over the world (can't happen without a major fight in which many, many millions die on all sides) or agrees to become just one of the equal partners in it (which at present Americans do not seem to want to be).
The ICC is not perfect, but we must start to have international law or we will have international lawlessness.
PNAC was started in the mid 90's by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfield, Paul Bremer, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes and many more elitist Republicans.
The mission statement from the very beginning in the mid 90's has been to INVADE IRAQ and topple Saddam Hussein. Ironically, Cheney was activily involved with his PNAC group while being the CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton and its owned Company KBR received NO BID Contracts worth BILLIONS to spend in IRAQ.
If you can show me FACTS to back up this comparison, I will support your position whole-heartedly.
3. I just find it interesting how we demand that people like Slobadon Milosevich and Charles Taylor be required to answer to the world when charged with a crime, yet our government doesn't have to be held by any such standards.