http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206

The media is so liberal, surely they have to report on it.  Nah, they'll downplay the Bush angle and blame Rumsfield.

That's why Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous organization in America."  Don't you see they're putting our victory over terror in jeopardy?
::)

Anyway, I'm surprised the Bushies haven't tried to do away with the FIFA yet.  They would instate the Freedom in Patritoic Unity Act, or something.  That's the act that allows you to do whatever the Republican majority tells you and shut yer mouth!

You're right, though, if this story does get out of control, they'll fry Rummy and "leave the FBI holding the bag."

That's why Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous organization in America."  Don't you see they're putting our victory over terror in jeopardy?
::)

Anyway, I'm surprised the Bushies haven't tried to do away with the FIFA yet.  They would instate the Freedom in Patritoic Unity Act, or something.  That's the act that allows you to do whatever the Republican majority tells you and shut yer mouth!

You're right, though, if this story does get out of control, they'll fry Rummy and "leave the FBI holding the bag."



I can imagine that Amnesty International isn't going to happy when they here about this.

I can imagine that Amnesty International isn't going to happy when they here about this.

Amnesty Interational?  I smell a rat, a big commie rat!
;)

Amnesty Interational?  I smell a rat, a big commie rat!
;)


Amnesty Interational?  I smell a rat, a big commie rat!
;)

Rat moi?  I am no stinking rat!  ;D

It is interesting what they consider "torture".  Let's look at a few lines here.

"A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq." (emphasis mine)

Notice the word suggests.  That does not mean it allows torture.  It only allows what some people might consider torture.  Now let's look at what is actually authorized:

"the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc."

What, no rubber hoses?  No whips and chains?  No electric shocks to the genitals?  Sleep deprivation, stress positions, and sensory deprivation through hoods?  That hardly seems like torture to me.

Before people get all bent out of shape about something as trivial as this, why don't they get bent out of shape about something that really matters, like maybe people who take civilians hostage, terrorize them for days on end, then cut their heads off in front of a camera.

Or you can ask the POWs who were captured in Vietnam.  I am sure most of them would rather have gone through this form of torture, instead of what the loving North VIetnamese gave them.

I think the ACLU has forgotten that these are terrorists.  And while they go on about "legal treatment", they are also foregtting that these people are illegal combatants.  Because they themselves do not follow the Geneva Convention, they are not eligable for any of it's protection.  Legally, they could all be lined up against a wall and shot.  So any "rights" they are given, is at the discretion of the country that imprisons them.

It is interesting what they consider "torture".  Let's look at a few lines here.

"A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq." (emphasis mine)

Notice the word suggests.  That does not mean it allows torture.  It only allows what some people might consider torture.  Now let's look at what is actually authorized:

"the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc."

What, no rubber hoses?  No whips and chains?  No electric shocks to the genitals?  Sleep deprivation, stress positions, and sensory deprivation through hoods?  That hardly seems like torture to me.

Before people get all bent out of shape about something as trivial as this, why don't they get bent out of shape about something that really matters, like maybe people who take civilians hostage, terrorize them for days on end, then cut their heads off in front of a camera.

Or you can ask the POWs who were captured in Vietnam.  I am sure most of them would rather have gone through this form of torture, instead of what the loving North VIetnamese gave them.

I think the ACLU has forgotten that these are terrorists.  And while they go on about "legal treatment", they are also foregtting that these people are illegal combatants.  Because they themselves do not follow the Geneva Convention, they are not eligable for any of it's protection.  Legally, they could all be lined up against a wall and shot.  So any "rights" they are given, is at the discretion of the country that imprisons them.



Some of the most sadistic torture techniques don't involve blunt trauma or blood-letting at all.  You can drip water onto a man's forehead until he goes insane.  You can gently rap on the soles of his feet until his nerves are so agitated he'll say anything.  How about just making him lean against with his arms flexed...for ten hours!  BTW, three days without sleep, and you'll tell 'em everyithing you know.  (I don't mean to be gender biased, they all work on women, too.)

These are all forms of torture.  Information gathered under extreme duress is unreliable, and if we torture their guys, they're sure as h*ll to torture ours. 

Basically, a*sh*les such as Dubyas enjoy inflicting pain and death upon other people.  When pain and death is inflicted upon people on their command, they get a vicarious charge that's almost as good as doing it themselves.

Dubya's "culture of life" exists only for fetuses.

Basically, a*sh*les such as Dubyas enjoy inflicting pain and death upon other people.  When pain and death is inflicted upon people on their command, they get a vicarious charge that's almost as good as doing it themselves.

Dubya's "culture of life" exists only for fetuses.


Come on, you can't really mean that!

And remember what I said.  Because the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention and the "Laws Of War", they are also not eligable for legal protection.  Legally, they can all be executed as war criminals.  This is why spies can be shot.

And as for the claim that if we torture them they will torture ours, they already do!  And here is a shocker, they have been doing it for years!  One of the favorite forms that the Red Army Faction used to do was use a power drill in the kneecap.  And I do not have to do more then mention the torture chambers that Saddam had all over when he ran the country.

If you doubt this at all, just look at what Hezbollah did to Col. William Higgins.  Or Daniel Pearl, or many of those recently taken hostage in Iraq.  I still can't compare forcing somebody to wear a hood in the same way as what happened to Eugene Armstrong.

And remember what I said.  Because the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention and the "Laws Of War", they are also not eligable for legal protection.  Legally, they can all be executed as war criminals.  This is why spies can be shot.

...snip...

I think the ACLU has forgotten that these are terrorists. 


Perhaps you've forgotten which war is which.     
Iraq = hunt for WMDs.  War against a nation -- the rules do apply. 
Afghanistan = hunt for terrorists.  Response to terrorist action -- the rules do not necessarily apply.



 

Come on, you can't really mean that!
I do.  Dubya displayed sadistic tendancies in his cruelty to animals as a child and his abuse of frat pledges in college.  He and Gonzales tried to execute as many people as possible when Bush was governor of Texas and Bush even thought it was funny to portray Karla Faye Tucker as saying, "Oh, please don't kill me!"
Policy-wise, my statement may be a bit of an exaggeration.  The new Republican party is solely about greed, the further concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and huge government give-aways to giant corporations.  People, animals, and the ecology are simply casualties of this one-track agenda.  Of course, the agenda as-is is not palatable, even to the brainwashed minions of the Right, so the Bushies have to couch their intentions in Orwellian doublespeak such as "Culture of Life" and "Ownership Society."

And remember what I said.  Because the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention and the "Laws Of War", they are also not eligable for legal protection.  Legally, they can all be executed as war criminals.  This is why spies can be shot.

And as for the claim that if we torture them they will torture ours, they already do!  And here is a shocker, they have been doing it for years!  One of the favorite forms that the Red Army Faction used to do was use a power drill in the kneecap.  And I do not have to do more then mention the torture chambers that Saddam had all over when he ran the country.

If you doubt this at all, just look at what Hezbollah did to Col. William Higgins.  Or Daniel Pearl, or many of those recently taken hostage in Iraq.  I still can't compare forcing somebody to wear a hood in the same way as what happened to Eugene Armstrong.

Whether or not the Geneva Convention "Rules of War" apply to terrorists (or suspected terrorists) is debatable.  Regardless, I don't believe torture is a good plan.  It does not reliably elicit good information, it provokes the wrath of the enemy, it is fodder for the enemy's propaganda.  Furthermore, torture is immoral.  Period.

I'm not a fan of Deepak Chopra myself, but he is one of the only people who has attempted to explain what I believe.  He talked about the War on Terror in terms of preventitive medicine.  He said, "If I find a tumor in a patient, the tumor must be removed.  Then it is important to discover the reasons why the tumor appeared in the first place..."  Of course Bill O'Reilly then began to interrupt him.

I do.  Dubya displayed sadistic tendancies in his cruelty to animals as a child and his abuse of frat pledges in college. 


Oh, you must be talking about Bush belonging to the "Skull And Bones".

Well, get ready, because you should also be bashing John Kerry.  Because guess what, he belonged to the same fraternity!

Perhaps you've forgotten which war is which.     
Iraq = hunt for WMDs.  War against a nation -- the rules do apply. 
Afghanistan = hunt for terrorists.  Response to terrorist action -- the rules do not necessarily apply.


For the first, you are right, and wrong.

The Iraqi Military is protected by the laws.  In the same way that the NVA were protected by them in Vietnam.

This current insurgency however is NOT protected.  In the same way that the Viet-Cong were not protected.

The list of war crimes comitted by the insurgents is long.  FIghting from religious shrines, fighting from hospitals, feigning death and surrender in order to attack, killing noncombatant civilians, etc etc etc.

Remember, the vast majority of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi citizens.  They are from other nations, going there simply to carry out acts of terror on the civilians of that nation.  This is easily shown in the numbers of "suicide bombings".  That is not a tactic that Iraqi people have ever used.  And as far as I know, none of them have been comitted by Iraqi citizens.

Now if these insurgents were carried out by a rogue group of Iraqi military, trying to reinstate Saddam's reign, they WOULD be protected by the laws of war.  But because these are independent groups who follow nobody but their leaders, do not wear uniforms, do not follow a higher political power, and do not follow the Geneva Convention; they are not entitled to this protection.

Anyway, I'm surprised the Bushies haven't tried to do away with the FIFA yet. 

GASP! This is the LAST straw. I LOVE Soccer! He won't get away with this.... NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;D ;D :D ;D ;D just kidding. But I do love soccer and even though it's out of the question, I would seriously be pissed if the FIFA I was referring to was done away with by Bush. The world would unite against us and it would be our doom... nobody f**ks with the soccer, man.

Oh, you must be talking about Bush belonging to the "Skull And Bones".

Well, get ready, because you should also be bashing John Kerry.  Because guess what, he belonged to the same fraternity!

Who cares about Kerry?  He lost the Presidential Auction, he's out of the picture!

I think the ACLU has forgotten that these are terrorists. And while they go on about "legal treatment", they are also foregtting that these people are illegal combatants. Because they themselves do not follow the Geneva Convention, they are not eligable for any of it's protection. Legally, they could all be lined up against a wall and shot. So any "rights" they are given, is at the discretion of the country that imprisons them.

Except that the vast majority of those subjected to such treatment at Abu Ghraib were NOT TERRORISTS - they were people rounded up when sweeping an area: the only "crime" they could have been accused of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Therefore it is a reasonable supposition that these sorts of tactics will be employed, not against terrorists, but against anybody picked up who they suspect might be involved in the insurrection.

Sure, it may seem like a bit of a catch-22: if you can't torture the guy, how do you get him to admit he's a terrorist?  But if you torture 'em enough, they'll probably admit it anyway, and that makes it OK, then?

And "only" sleep deprivation/sensory deprivation/etc?  FFS, try it on yourself for a few weeks, and see how *you* like it.

Except that the vast majority of those subjected to such treatment at Abu Ghraib were NOT TERRORISTS - they were people rounded up when sweeping an area: the only "crime" they could have been accused of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Therefore it is a reasonable supposition that these sorts of tactics will be employed, not against terrorists, but against anybody picked up who they suspect might be involved in the insurrection.

Sure, it may seem like a bit of a catch-22: if you can't torture the guy, how do you get him to admit he's a terrorist?  But if you torture 'em enough, they'll probably admit it anyway, and that makes it OK, then?

And "only" sleep deprivation/sensory deprivation/etc?  FFS, try it on yourself for a few weeks, and see how *you* like it.

The Brits were fond of these tactics against IRA suspects.  They could hold them for what, seven days, without charging them.  A lot can go on in a seven day limbo!

I don't think this business about who's prtected under what is even the issue. Torture is not an acceptable method to deal with prisoners of any kind. It doesn't matter who did what, we are a Western nation and we need to act like civilised people. Torture is reprehensible, fullstop! We do not need to be engaging in torture of any kind, to anyone.

I don't think this business about who's prtected under what is even the issue. Torture is not an acceptable method to deal with prisoners of any kind. It doesn't matter who did what, we are a Western nation and we need to act like civilised people. Torture is reprehensible, fullstop! We do not need to be engaging in torture of any kind, to anyone.

And what did Ghandi say when asked what he thought of Western Civilization?  He said, "I think it would be a good idea."

In other words, Western Civ has a lengthy history of torture and atrocities. We only began to clean up our act after WWII.  For the government to authorize ANY form of torture would be a giant step backwards.  It is disgusting to see certain rght-wingers disparaging the international protocols agreed upon after WWII.  Those protocols came about because the horrors of WWII were simply beyond human comprehension.  The attempts at international agreements begun after WWI were an obvious necessity if mankind was going to survive the industrial age.

The Brits were fond of these tactics against IRA suspects. They could hold them for what, seven days, without charging them. A lot can go on in a seven day limbo!

Hold on a sec: under the prevention of terrorism act, yes a suspect could be held for seven days after which they'd have to be charged or released... none of them came out saying they'd been kept in sensory deprivation tanks for seven days.  There was enough of a brouhaha over here when the MoD recently admitted that they'd use information received from foreign governments extracted using torture.  Now, I'm not saying that it has never happened, 'cause police officers have been sacked for trying that kind of sheesh - but no serving PM is going to sign his political death warrant by officially authorising these tactics.

- but no serving PM is going to sign his political death warrant by officially authorising these tactics.


The weenies in England not to fond of fighting an effective war on terror, huh?

The weenies in England not to fond of fighting an effective war on terror, huh?

I just mentioned the IRA, they've been fighting terror for 90 years!  Look before you leap.

I just mentioned the IRA, they've been fighting terror for 90 years!  Look before you leap.


I went to school and played soccer with an Irish guy who swore that the IRA were responsible for the Irish Free State. Of course, of all the many IRA-wannabes, I assume he was referring to the Old IRA. And I also know that Dáil Éireann and Sinn Féin had plenty to do with it. Not the point. I don't think that the Old IRA qualifies as a terrorist organisation, but that's only thanks to the passage of time... back then, I'm sure the British government did consider them a terrorist cell, even though they may not have used those words. If the dice had rolled differently and all of Ireland were still part of the UK, history would indeed have branded them as terrorists. And if one day, Northern Ireland seccedes from the UK, all the "IRA" activities of late will no longer be viewed as terrorism in the eyes of history. When history favours a particular act of "terrorism" they give it the slightly lighter term of "guerilla warfare." Something which implies more of a necessity. The hit and run strategy that took place in much of the American Revolution will never be noted as "terrorism"... thanks to its success. But if the Revolution had failed, we'd be looking at them as traitorous, terroristc bastards instead of heroes. Just my thoughts on the whole terrorist thing.

I went to school and played soccer with an Irish guy who swore that the IRA were responsible for the Irish Free State. Of course, of all the many IRA-wannabes, I assume he was referring to the Old IRA. And I also know that Dáil Éireann and Sinn Féin had plenty to do with it. Not the point. I don't think that the Old IRA qualifies as a terrorist organisation, but that's only thanks to the passage of time... back then, I'm sure the British government did consider them a terrorist cell, even though they may not have used those words. If the dice had rolled differently and all of Ireland were still part of the UK, history would indeed have branded them as terrorists. And if one day, Northern Ireland seccedes from the UK, all the "IRA" activities of late will no longer be viewed as terrorism in the eyes of history. When history favours a particular act of "terrorism" they give it the slightly lighter term of "guerilla warfare." Something which implies more of a necessity. The hit and run strategy that took place in much of the American Revolution will never be noted as "terrorism"... thanks to its success. But if the Revolution had failed, we'd be looking at them as traitorous, terroristc bastards instead of heroes. Just my thoughts on the whole terrorist thing.

I agree.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

Do you think there's a way for the British eventually to pull out of Northern Ireland while protecting the Ulster Unionists from retribution?  Things have been relatively quiet over there for the past few years, but it seems like the Brits will eventually have to get out.

I'm vaguely familiar with the old IRA from the early 20th century.  I first read about it in Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy.

I agree.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

Do you think there's a way for the British eventually to pull out of Northern Ireland while protecting the Ulster Unionists from retribution?  Things have been relatively quiet over there for the past few years, but it seems like the Brits will eventually have to get out.

I'm vaguely familiar with the old IRA from the early 20th century.  I first read about it in Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy.


I honestly don't know. I don't think that N. Ireland will ever join the Republic, so I think the most practical idea would be either for the separatists to move to the Republic or the unionists to move to Britain. Either that or they could get their crap together and realise that religion is a stupid thing to fight over. One thing is for sure. I don't think that N. Ireland could ever make it as an autonomous nation. It will either have to stay in the UK, or join the Republic. The people are just going to have to come to a solution.

The weenies in England not to fond of fighting an effective war on terror, huh?


::)

The way birth rates are running at the moment, there'll be a Catholic majority in the next decade or so... having said that, there's no guarantee even then that a referendum will vote for unification: there's no real desire for it in the majority of both Northern Ireland or the Republic.  Just a very vociferous and active (and well-funded) minority.

The original IRA could well have been described as freedom fighters: they were supported by the overwhelming majority of the local people in all but the province - what we now call Northern Ireland, where the majority are immigrants from the mainland (over the past few hundred years, that is - thing is, Northern Irish politics has that kind of timespan); only a few tens of thousands of dewy-eyed Irish-Americans could possibly have considered the provos (the Provisional IRA) to be "freedom fighters" - they have been fighting for a goal that nobody really wants... now, they're closer to organized criminals than anything else.


Either that or they could get their crap together and realise that religion is a stupid thing to fight over.

It was explained to me by a Scot who'd lived for the past thirty years in NI that the fighting isn't actually about religion, but that the religious divide just made it harder for the two sides to get together and talk (it doesn't help, for example, if one of the political leaders describes the Pope as "the antichrist").  But basically it's territory that they're fighting over.

And one Southern Irish chap I was drinking with reckoned it was becoming totally irrelevant now that Ireland is having an economic boom caused mainly from its European ties - with ever-closer EU links, Ireland and NI can simply be European... maybe he's being a bit over-optimistic, given the NI Loyalist stuck-in-the-fifteenth-century attitude, but it's something to hope for...


The weenies in England not to fond of fighting an effective war on terror, huh?

I might have known you'd come up with a comment exposing your complete lack of understanding.  Thank you for not disappointing.

I might have known you'd come up with a comment exposing your complete lack of understanding.  Thank you for not disappointing.


I might have known that neither you, nor Bobby, answered that question, with anything more than a pair of rolling eyes or a smarta** response.

England used to be something 50 years ago, aside from the miserable weather.

I might have known that neither you, nor Bobby, answered that question, with anything more than a pair of rolling eyes or a smarta** response.

England used to be something 50 years ago, aside from the miserable weather.


Rolling eyes and a smartarse response is all that you deserve.  ;D

Rolling eyes and a smartarse response is all that you deserve.  ;D

They call him the Oscar Wilde of Georgia!
;)

They call him the Oscar Wilde of Georgia!
;)


;D

And one Southern Irish chap I was drinking with reckoned it was becoming totally irrelevant now that Ireland is having an economic boom caused mainly from its European ties - with ever-closer EU links, Ireland and NI can simply be European... maybe he's being a bit over-optimistic, given the NI Loyalist stuck-in-the-fifteenth-century attitude, but it's something to hope for...

Ireland will never be paradise, but the EU might be the greatest boon to Eire in a hundred years.  Perhaps they will adopt the Euro as currency.
???

I might have known that neither you, nor Bobby, answered that question, with anything more than a pair of rolling eyes or a smarta** response.

OK, if you really want a response to highlight the inanity of your previous quote... but I don't know why I bother, really, as you're not going to give it any thought even if you do try and read through to the end.

When you're fighting against terrorists (note that I do *not* use the innacurate and similarly asinine term "war on terror"), for every bad guy doing the bombing or whatever there will be a whole network of not-so-bad-guys providing safe houses, backup and money: without a certain level of help like this at the grass roots, no terror organization can last for very long.  When your side behaves in an unjust, unfair and bullying manner (such as our government did with internment, and yours has many times over in Iraq, Camp X-Ray, etc), relatively ordinary people are a lot more likely to help the bad guys, 'cause they're supporting the underdog, and they can see the injustice.

The basic corollary is that the *only* way to win a "war on terror" is to swing the hearts and minds of the terror-supporting not-so-bad guys: it's not like a conventional war where you can kill off a load of the enemy's soldiers to make him realize he's lost - the current melting-pot in the middle east is going to breed more terrorists than you can ever kill by conventional means.  In NI, having soldiers patrolling 24-7 kept local trouble to a minimum.. .but the more heavy-handed the soldiers were, the more oppressed the people felt, so the more recruits the local IRA cells got.  NB that there didn't have to be any *actual* oppression, all it takes is a suspicion of local news reporting and a couple of rumours: you should understand that, given the number of internet rumours you've spread over the past few months.  Using torture is tenfold worse: you'd be the first to scream "kill the bastards" if you read about an American being tortured - can you not see that the general population reacts in *exactly* the same way if they see torture being perpetrated by Americans?  *You* might think there's a difference - I certainly don't.

The knee-jerk reaction which says "these people have killed our people, now we've got to go kill them" merely escalates the violence, as is happening in Israel at the moment.

Have I given you cause to re-evaluate your "not fighting an effective war on terror" statement?

To summarize: the current peace in NI, unstable as it may be, has been brought about by talking to the communities concerned (yes, and Sinn Fein), and the IRA had little choice but to follow: the very community-level support wouldn't have kept up, and they recognized that.  The down side is that in trying to keep itself together as an organization, the IRA has had to turn to crime, and helping out South American terrorist organizations.  But it's hard to know how long it can keep going like that, whether it will succeed in becoming an Irish mafia, or simply become irrelevant.  But it's a job for the police now, not the army - which in my book is progress.


Ireland will never be paradise, but the EU might be the greatest boon to Eire in a hundred years. Perhaps they will adopt the Euro as currency.
???

er... they *have* adopted the Euro as their currency.

And Ireland, in places, is rather like paradise (if a rather wet and windy paradise).

Well put, Philbo.  :)

er... they *have* adopted the Euro as their currency.
Oh, duh, now I remember....

So you broke down and gave a lengthy answer to GWB.  Think it'll sink in this time?
;)

I think there is also a sense of apathy among the youth in the North. A lot of them have rejected the Irish language, and many of them are happier to simply move to larger British cities. And as religion becomes more and more irrelevant in their lives, so will the religious divide. If the older generation of separatists fails to achieve their goals (whatever they may be at this time), the movement is in danger of dying.