All Articles All Articles

DennisLoo.com

Support the Gitmo Hunger Strikers

483341 10151555592677534 1622289121 n

See World Can't Wait at Facebook. See also, for more background, The New York Times' story here.

In a related story, Democracy Now! reports in "BBC-Guardian Exposé Uses WikiLeaks to Link Iraq Torture Centers to U.S. Col. Steele & Gen. Petraeus" -

A shocking new report by The Guardian and BBC Arabic details how the United States armed and trained Iraqi death squads that ran torture centers. It is a story that stretches from the U.S.-backed death squads in Central America during the 1980s to the imprisoned Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. We play extended excerpts of "James Steele: America’s Mystery Man in Iraq," which exposes the role the retired U.S. colonel James Steele, a veteran of American proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played in training Iraqi police commando units. "We spent maybe six months trying to track down young American soldiers who served in Samarra," says the film’s executive producer, Maggie O’Kane, who notes the investigation was sparked by memos found in the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks. "But many were too frightened because of what happened to Bradley Manning." A Pentagon spokesman told The Guardian it had seen the reports and is looking into the situation. "As you know, the issue surrounding accusation of abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees is a complex one that is full of history and emotion," said Col. Jack Miller. "It will take time to work a thorough response."

Comments   

 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-25 18:36
It is required that the detainees either be tried or released *when the war ends.*

When the critics are unwilling to demand that their friends stop fighting and support U.N. supervised elections, it's a bit odd to be blaming the U.S. for not releasing the detainees who still support the war.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-25 21:50
I don't know where to begin to untangle all of the things wrong with your comment.

1) This is a war that Cheney said would last generations. Do you suppose that anyone now being held can be released after generations?

2) The detainees are mostly people who were turned in for bounty and other reasons unrelated to the war. Many of them have been previously scheduled to be released but are still being held after years.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-25 23:51
1) I'd be more sympathetic about this being a long war if the detainees wanted the war to end with a peace settlement. For the most part, they don't. The detainees' supporters (e.g. Cageprisoners) are unwilling to ask Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban to stop fighting and support elections.

2) None of the current detainees are believed to be innocent. All the detainees currently there had a tribunal, and then annual reviews.

Of those who would be allowed to leave if their home countries had govts capable of monitoring them, they're simply low-level cases that we don't care enough about.

When they are released, and occasionally rejoin the war, they usually wind up killing non-Americans. Sad to say, it's easier for politicians and activists to accept those deaths.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-26 00:56
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact that you can claim that "none of the current detainees are believed to be innocent" indicates that you are either badly ill-informed or have purposely redefined reality in order to suit your own ideological agenda. Your comment is so full of non-facts that it would take too long to straighten them all out. You have demonstrated that it doesn't matter what facts and arguments are set before you.


No matter what the issue, you have consistently taken an adversarial position.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-26 01:01
You're for, and this is an abbreviated list:

Torture
Drones killing thousands, including children
Wars of aggression
Indefinite detention of innocent people, some of whom have committed suicide from despair or murdered under custody
Killing reporters and civilians strolling through an Iraqi neighborhood ("Collateral Murder")

Why should we continue to post your comments? Are you interested in getting at the truth, or merely setting forth arguments and fanciful facts to support your ideology? I don't ask this as a rhetorical question but one that we are seriously considering the answer to and what we ought to do. We are committed to truth and the earnest pursuit of it. We are not interested and it's a waste of precious time to debate someone who isn't interested in truth.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-27 03:58
This isn't simply my own opinion. Nor are they only my facts. They're the tribunal decisions under procedures accepted by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law.

It's fine for you to say that you don't like the law. But you shouldn't say this is illegal.

The U.S. captured tens of thousands of men since the war in Afghanistan began. Less than 800 were sent to Guantanamo, and only 166 remain. And yet you seem to think that these 166 were the innocent ones.

You don't have to post these numbers, but they'll remain as facts regardless.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-27 21:33
I invite others to comment on the fallacies in your "facts." One hint - the tribunals accept evidence obtained through torture.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-29 00:55
It's not as simple as that, but I'm not going to argue over it now. They can get full trials when the war is over. This is how the Geneva Conventions work.

Yes, that's a very long wait, but most of the detainees' supporters are unwilling to ask that the insurgents stop fighting.

In fact, it's not just their supporters. Almost all former detainees refuse to ask that the insurgents stop fighting. If they want the war to continue, it's a bit silly to ask that we let them go.

Maybe somebody else will be willing to say that the insurgents should stop fighting and accept U.N. monitored elections.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-29 02:12
"a very long wait..." Generations actually.

How do you end a war that is a war on a tactic? Do you abolish the tactic of terrorism by making everyone forget that there is such a thing? How do you do that when the means being used to fight terrorism is state terrorism?

The people being held, I'll say it once again and then I'll stop, are mostly non-combatants and therefore non-insurgents.

Debating issues with you is like fighting against Monty Python's Black Knight.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-29 16:49
If I'm the Black Knight, then how is it that I'm the one dealing with fact and law?

The War on Terror is merely the name. The Supreme Court bases its relevant decisions (e.g. holding detainees) on what Congress authorized in its Authorization for Use of Military Force after the 9/11 attacks. It does not pertain to all terrorists. That's why we had to find a place to send the Uighurs. They're terrorists, too (which is why they preferred Guantanamo to going home), but they're not at war with the U.S.

Some people called WWII a "War on Fascism" but its end didn't require that we invade Spain.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-29 16:53
Your notion about what facts and law are is quite amusing.

You do remember, don't you, that the AUMF was and is based wholly on lies?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-30 17:23
You mean, where it says, "Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens" ?

I seem to remember that one being true. That is, unless you think it was done by space aliens.

Of course, even if it was space aliens, that wouldn't let off the Gitmo detainees. Most, if not all, either support the attacks, or those groups responsible. If you want to end the war, you need to ask them to stop fighting, and support elections.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-30 18:22
To Monty Python's Black Knight:

As you recall, the AUMF was used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. What did the Iraqi people and gov't have to do with 9/11 again?

They might as well have been space aliens as far as their connection to 9/11 is concerned.

By the way, in addition, in the Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court found that the military tribunals were unconstitutiona l, contrary to your earlier claims that they were approved by the Supreme Court.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-30 20:27
You're talking about different things on both subjects.

There were two AUMFs in the 2000s. One in 2001 after 9/11, and a completely different one in 2002 for the Iraq War. The one I'm talking about had nothing to do with Iraq.

The Supreme Court found the first Military Commissions Act unconstitutiona l (because of changes to the law after WWII), but then it was revised, and then revised again to comply with the Supreme Court decisions. Most detainees will not get military commissions anyway. This means they can be released when the war is over.

The detainees have received CSRT tribunals. They're not required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, but they got those upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-30 20:42
You're referring to the AUMF right after 9/11, which is exactly the one that I thought you were referring to in the first place. It was used to justify the immoral and unjust invasion of Iraq and its continuing occupation by the US. Thus, the linchpin of your argument that the WOT is justified on the basis of the AUMF is fraudulent. What about this don't you get?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-31 03:08
Ah, so you're saying that since the War on Terror cannot be used to justify the Iraq War, the War on Terror is therefore invalid. Interesting feat of logic.

You'd have been better off sticking with the space alien story.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-31 04:35
Glad to see you finally admit that the war upon Iraq was invalid, which has constituted something like 80% of our debate.

As a practical and concrete matter, the WOT was IN FACT used to justify the Iraq war, or weren't you around during the Bush years and paying attention?

As a matter of logic, to say that the (A)(WOT) cannot be used to justify (B)(War upon Iraq) and therefore (A) is invalid, was not my point, or weren't you paying attention?

The reason that (A)(the WOT) isn't valid would require a much larger argument, which I do in my book, GDS. Suggest you (or others) read it if you/they are sincerely interested in whether or not the WOT is valid or not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-03-31 18:49
No, I don't concede anything of that sort. I'm just separating the issues to avoid your muddying the waters. You're misinterpreting the 2002 AUMF, but that's for another day. I'm talking about the one after 9/11.

My point was that, EVEN IF (a postulation, not a concession) the U.S. had used the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq, that could not work backwards. You cannot say the 2002 AUMF makes the 2001 AUMF invalid. The Iraq War hadn't happened yet. The 2001 AUMF stands on its own. And it's legal.

And yes, I suppose I'll get to your book eventually.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-03-31 20:09
It's not an IF. You know as well as I, and why not concede it since everyone in the world knows this, that the Bush regime used 9/11 to justify its war of aggression upon Iraq. The reason you don't concede this point and stick to making this sophistic "if" conditional statement is because if you did acknowledge it then it would mean that your entire argument on this website in various threads to justify the crimes committed upon Iraqis since the US invasion would fall apart.

The 2001 AUMF is invalid first as to its logic and second as to its concrete use to justify literally anything and everything since its passage. Regarding its logic, again, do read my book because its something that I go into in more depth than anyone else who has commented on the WOT.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # RandyB 2013-04-03 22:55
The Bush administration used 9/11 only to remind people that there are threats out there, and to see the consequences for not dealing with them. They did not use it to justify the Iraq War itself.

The 2002 Iraq AUMF was mostly about other things having to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It mentions 9/11 only six times, and only to stress the urgency.

You had said that the 2001 "AUMF was and is based wholly on lies." EVEN IF you wanted to say they later use it "to justify literally anything and everything since its passage," your complaint might then be with those other things -- not the 2001 AUMF itself, which is completely factual.

Read the 2001 AUMF. You won't find anything untrue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dennis Loo 2013-04-03 23:38
"They did not use it [9/11] to justify the Iraq War itself."

Are you aware of how absurd this statement is?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.


Security code
Refresh