Thomas Friedman on Gitmo

[Campy]

WAS like that. Not now.

346756[/snapback]

Nicarauga is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Among their leading industries is the transhipment of coke from Columbia to the US.

 

Yep. I'll be booking my ticket to vacation there soon.

[KRC]

Whatever it takes to have our government operate within the law while respecting the sensitivity of the most compromising intel. 

 

I imagine there are ways to make it happen.  A military tribunal where we can censor and seal the most sensitive information (specific names, specific intel gathering methods, etc) by allowing one camera in the court and treat the footage like the censored pool footage released during Iraq I?  I dunno, but that might be one suggestion. 

 

I don't claim to know all of the answers, but we are Americans - If there's a solution, we can find it.

346720[/snapback]

 

The problem I see with military tribunals with sealing sensitive info, is that the political operatives will use it against the current administration. They will start crying "they are keeping information from us. What are they trying to hide? Why is this administration so secretive? blah...blah...blah."

 

While the idea is a good one, there is no way the media, opponents of the military in general, political operatives, etc will allow it to happen. Any time you announce that person X was tried and convicted and you refuse to release the information that convicted them, you are opening yourself up for cries of "Foul!" There is no way, IMO, it would work in our current political climate and the Hot Pockets mentality bred by the media.

[Nanker]

Convicted without a trial

 

Due process, due schmocess.

[Ghost of BiB]

Convicted without a trial

 

Due process, due schmocess.

347030[/snapback]

 

Well, my thoughts on the subject are pretty clear. As I said in another spot, this is a no quarter deal. Both sides understand it. And, practically speaking-it doesn't really matter what our respective populations think of it. Moan about rights and due process all day long. They should be content that they weren't lined up against a wall and shot. No fun to be martyred in annonymity. I wish people would shut up about carpet bombing the middle east too. That's just stupid. I don't care for extreme liberals, either-but I'm not going to advocate bombing Boston. (I might have to think about Berkley, though...).

 

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and separate the enemy from those who just plain don't like us. NEWSFLASH! Most of them have never liked us, and they certainly aren't going to start now. I'm "guessing" our goal is to help to install a series of "moderate" governments in the regions giving us trouble. As far as what the man on the street thinks, it's unfortunately a big "so what". A series of fundamentalist radical minded Islamic theocracies with a handful of deliverable nuclear weapons is not a good thing, folks.

[Chilly]

Well, my thoughts on the subject are pretty clear. As I said in another spot, this is a no quarter deal. Both sides understand it. And, practically speaking-it doesn't really matter what our respective populations think of it. Moan about rights and due process all day long. They should be content that they weren't lined up against a wall and shot. No fun to be martyred in annonymity. I wish people would shut up about carpet bombing the middle east too. That's just stupid. I don't care for extreme liberals, either-but I'm not going to advocate bombing Boston. (I might have to think about Berkley, though...).

 

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and separate the enemy from those who just plain don't like us. NEWSFLASH! Most of them have never liked us, and they certainly aren't going to start now. I'm "guessing" our goal is to help to install a series of "moderate" governments in the regions giving us trouble. As far as what the man on the street thinks, it's unfortunately a big "so what". A series of fundamentalist radical minded Islamic theocracies with a handful of deliverable nuclear weapons is not a good thing, folks.

347033[/snapback]

 

Neither is installing all those governments, pissing more of em off to the point of terrorism, and still not being able to flush out the terrorists.

[Ghost of BiB]

Neither is installing all those governments, pissing more of em off to the point of terrorism, and still not being able to flush out the terrorists.

347070[/snapback]

 

So? Seriously - besides a complaint, what is your solution?

[Chilly]

So? Seriously - besides a complaint, what is your solution?

347081[/snapback]

 

I have a pretty cynical outlook on the current world - I don't feel there is a solution, at least not currently.

 

The best solution I can offer you for a short-term resolution of the US' terrorism problems is to continue to increase homeland security without giving up too many freedoms and liberties.

 

I say this because I don't think that spreading democracy into the middle east will stamp out terrorism. The deep hated rooted in their souls, combined with the terrorists' intelligence, organization, mobility, and elusiveness provides them a very good set of terrorist warfare tactics.

 

This means that simply turning these countries into democracies will not do the job - it will take decades, maybe even centuries before the middle east countries recover from all the wars, and then develop enough to have the funds to build strong technological intelligence forces as well as the staffing and security to commence such a plan, IF all these countries stay pro-west over the test of time.

 

I don't believe that we have the resources, especially after having to go through several wars in that region, to step in and provide temporary intelligence for the whole region, as well as the security forces needed to stamp out terrorism.

 

This is why its going to have to be a long-term solution, with increased security measures taken at home first. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, had a great article in Foreign Affairs magazine this issue. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faes...-at-the-un.html

 

Here's the summary from FA:

"Dealing with today's threats requires broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation. Thus the states of the world must create a collective security system to prevent terrorism, strengthen nonproliferation, and bring peace to war-torn areas, while also promoting human rights, democracy, and development. And the UN must go through its most radical overhaul yet."

 

I agree with a lot of that. The only way to completely eliminate terrorism is to strengthen the UN. I don't think that this can be UN-led though, it has to be US-led. The corruption, the apathy, the powerlessness of the UN needs to be driven out of it. This is why I think Bolton is a good nominee - he seems to be a man who is going to take these measures.

 

After the strengthening of the defenses at home, and the UN as a whole, then its time to play offense. I don't subscribe to the theory that a good offense is a good defense, in the war on terrorism or football.

 

The only solution to terrorism is a complete overhaul of the way the world fundamentally works - a strengthening of the world working together for a common goal: promoting human rights, democracy, and development as the solution for terrorism, through whatever means possible.

[Ghost of BiB]

I actually agree with a lot of that. Especially the part about there not being a short term solution. and, yes-it is going to take a global change of thought to reel things in.

 

Homeland security, though - is not based soely in the homeland. the first, and most effective step is to take the fight to our adversaries - which is what has a lot of people up in arms. With our society, there is absolutely no way -none-to have a leak proof security system. The only chance we have is to confront it beyond our borders and attempt to keep the current fight on their turf. The medium term solution is to cut down/prevent/reform any Radical governments existing, and trying to help grow those that are in place. Everyone focuses on Iraq - but Iraq is but a piece of the puzzle. Anyone take a look at Libya lately? Anyone notice how Pakistan and India are playing nice? Anyone see any efforts to intervene and a get a handle on Israel-Palestine? see any support for emerging democracies in the former Soviet States?

 

It's all part of an overall concept, with the hopeful design of maybe, 20 years down the road, having a lot more stable a world. In very simplistic terms, if the friggen Iraqis and their buddies weren't blowing each other to hell and gone, we'd have given them close to a brand new country by now, and could have been on our way.

 

Syria will come around. It's already heading that way. Forget the posturing. With more regional stability, and pressure from moderate states, Iran is going to have to take their ball and go home.

 

I see this last as being key. Not the UN - but the Pan Arab states working in concert.

[Chilly]

I actually agree with a lot of that. Especially the part about there not being a short term solution. and, yes-it is going to take a global change of thought to reel things in.

 

Homeland security, though - is not based soely in the homeland. the first, and most effective step is to take the fight to our adversaries - which is what has a lot of people up in arms. With our society, there is absolutely no way -none-to have a leak proof security system. The only chance we have is to confront it beyond our borders and attempt to keep the current fight on their turf. The medium term solution is to cut down/prevent/reform any Radical governments existing, and trying to help grow those that are in place. Everyone focuses on Iraq - but Iraq is but a piece of the puzzle. Anyone take a look at Libya lately? Anyone notice how Pakistan and India are playing nice? Anyone see any efforts to intervene and a get a handle on Israel-Palestine? see any support for emerging democracies in the former Soviet States?

 

It's all part of an overall concept, with the hopeful design of maybe, 20 years down the road, having a lot more stable a world. In very simplistic terms, if the friggen Iraqis and their buddies weren't blowing each other to hell and gone, we'd have given them close to a brand new country by now, and could have been on our way.

 

Syria will come around. It's already heading that way. Forget the posturing. With more regional stability, and pressure from moderate states, Iran is going to have to take their ball and go home.

 

I see this last as being key. Not the UN - but the Pan Arab states working in concert.

347109[/snapback]

 

I agree with a lot of what you said as well, but we just differ on the way to go about it.

[Campy]

The problem I see with military tribunals with sealing sensitive info, is that the political operatives will use it against the current administration.

347025[/snapback]

True. That would kill any chance Bush had of being re-elected in '08, wouldn't it?

 

[Bill from NYC]

Yes, let's return to Nicaraguan death squads and smuggling coke to arm counter-insurgents.  Those sure were happier times under Reagan.  It's Morning in America all over again.

346729[/snapback]

 

When was the last time a Nicaraguan bombed our country and killed thousands of civilians, police officers and firefighters?

Reagan must have done SOMETHING right down there.

[Bill from NYC]

Nobody.  But that's why the detainees should be given due process.  It's nothing sinister I'm talking about.  Charge them, provide evidence of their guilt, and if found guilty, punish them.  If found innocent, let them go on with their lives.

 

Again, the concept of this land's governing body detaining people without due process has already led to one famous revolution.

346518[/snapback]

 

Campy, seriously....why are you SOOO concerned about the rights of those that YOU admit would slice our throats? Do you view the world in such an abstract way that you would trade the safety of your family for the rights of a few scumbags?

As for creating more terrorists, please. All someone has to do in the Middle East is yell the word "Jew" and there are hundreds of filthy, brainwashed scumbags happily blowing themselves up in order to murder others.

 

On this Memorial Day, my thanks, not criticism go out to the troops at Gitmo. They are brave men and women and they are the very reason that you and I can sit here and type our thoughts to each other. I also want to thank all who have served in the Military and kept my wife and children safe from the likes of the scum, excuse me, "detainees" being held down there.

 

Sorry, but count me as one with zero interest in the way that these animals are treated. If anything, I hope that they use even stronger interrogation methods and gain more information so we can kill those who would harm our children.

 

But hey, that's just me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Campy, seriously....why are you SOOO concerned about the rights of those that YOU admit would slice our throats?

347676[/snapback]

 

Probably because he doesn't want to give up too much of what makes our society what it is in order to combat those who would kill us. It doesn't make a WHOLE lot of sense to restrict the foundation of this country (i.e. civil rights and freedoms) in the interest of protecting it, after all.

 

At the same time, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to embrace such civil rights and freedoms...and thus leave them open to attack. Like I've been saying for a LONG while, there's a balance between security and freedom that needs to be struck, and we have to decide what that balance should be...and I haven't yet seen anyone give it any thought. The problem I have with Campy's opinions (and others, but we're talking about him...) aren't the opinions themselves...it's the total lack of acknowledgement of any sort of grey area in the issue; he seems to see it as a purely black or white issue, where it's actually VERY ambiguous...

[Ghost of BiB]

Probably because he doesn't want to give up too much of what makes our society what it is in order to combat those who would kill us.  It doesn't make a WHOLE lot of sense to restrict the foundation of this country (i.e. civil rights and freedoms) in the interest of protecting it, after all.

 

At the same time, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to embrace such civil rights and freedoms...and thus leave them open to attack.  Like I've been saying for a LONG while, there's a balance between security and freedom that needs to be struck, and we have to decide what that balance should be...and I haven't yet seen anyone give it any thought. The problem I have with Campy's opinions (and others, but we're talking about him...) aren't the opinions themselves...it's the total lack of acknowledgement of any sort of grey area in the issue; he seems to see it as a purely black or white issue, where it's actually VERY ambiguous...

347682[/snapback]

 

I think a lot of people have given it a lot of thought. Fortunately, they aren't swayed by the Campy Manifesto. America will have their chance to vote them out, and we can go back to buying firetrucks and wringing our hands.

[Chilly]

Probably because he doesn't want to give up too much of what makes our society what it is in order to combat those who would kill us.  It doesn't make a WHOLE lot of sense to restrict the foundation of this country (i.e. civil rights and freedoms) in the interest of protecting it, after all.

 

At the same time, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to embrace such civil rights and freedoms...and thus leave them open to attack.  Like I've been saying for a LONG while, there's a balance between security and freedom that needs to be struck, and we have to decide what that balance should be...and I haven't yet seen anyone give it any thought.  The problem I have with Campy's opinions (and others, but we're talking about him...) aren't the opinions themselves...it's the total lack of acknowledgement of any sort of grey area in the issue; he seems to see it as a purely black or white issue, where it's actually VERY ambiguous...

347682[/snapback]

 

I second that. The other problem though is that we are the proclaimers of the truely free world. We can't be saying one thing, then not living up to what we claim.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think a lot of people have given it a lot of thought. Fortunately, they aren't swayed by the Campy Manifesto. America will have their chance to vote them out, and we can go back to buying firetrucks and wringing our hands.

347689[/snapback]

 

 

Yes, they probably have. Unfortunately, not enough...by it's nature, the issue is one that should be considered through all of society, and not just by the elected leadership.

 

But if I had to guess at what most people would think on the subject...*ding*! Never mind...HotPockets are done! Time for American Idol!

[Thurman's Helmet]

Yes, they probably have.  Unfortunately, not enough...by it's nature, the issue is one that should be considered through all of society, and not just by the elected leadership.

 

But if I had to guess at what most people would think on the subject...*ding*!  Never mind...HotPockets are done!  Time for American Idol!

347760[/snapback]

 

 

Bo Bice got jobbed! Wait, what were we talking about again?

[Ghost of BiB]

Bo Bice got jobbed!  Wait, what were we talking about again?

347828[/snapback]

 

Something shiny. I like shiny things...

 

OH! REAL GILLIGAN'S ISLAND....

 

Do you have any peanuts? I'm out of beer.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I second that.  The other problem though is that we are the proclaimers of the truely free world.  We can't be saying one thing, then not living up to what we claim.

347736[/snapback]

 

Well, that's life. There's no room for idealism in a world filled with people who want to see use annihilated. We either kill them or they kill us.

[Bill from NYC]

Well, that's life. There's no room for idealism in a world filled with people who want to see use annihilated. We either kill them or they kill us.

347944[/snapback]

 

There are 2 choices with terrorism.....to defeat it, or to be defeated by it.

Sound familiar?

[KRC]

I have a pretty cynical outlook on the current world - I don't feel there is a solution, at least not currently. 

 

The best solution I can offer you for a short-term resolution of the US' terrorism problems is to continue to increase homeland security without giving up too many freedoms and liberties.

 

I say this because I don't think that spreading democracy into the middle east will stamp out terrorism.  The deep hated rooted in their souls, combined with the terrorists' intelligence, organization, mobility, and elusiveness provides them a very good set of terrorist warfare tactics.

 

This means that simply turning these countries into democracies will not do the job - it will take decades, maybe even centuries before the middle east countries recover from all the wars, and then develop enough to have the funds to build strong technological intelligence forces as well as the staffing and security to commence such a plan, IF all these countries stay pro-west over the test of time.

 

I don't believe that we have the resources, especially after having to go through several wars in that region, to step in and provide temporary intelligence for the whole region, as well as the security forces needed to stamp out terrorism.

 

This is why its going to have to be a long-term solution, with increased security measures taken at home first.  Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, had a great article in Foreign Affairs magazine this issue. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faes...-at-the-un.html

 

Here's the summary from FA:

"Dealing with today's threats requires broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation. Thus the states of the world must create a collective security system to prevent terrorism, strengthen nonproliferation, and bring peace to war-torn areas, while also promoting human rights, democracy, and development. And the UN must go through its most radical overhaul yet."

 

I agree with a lot of that.  The only way to completely eliminate terrorism is to strengthen the UN.  I don't think that this can be UN-led though, it has to be US-led.  The corruption, the apathy, the powerlessness of the UN needs to be driven out of it.  This is why I think Bolton is a good nominee - he seems to be a man who is going to take these measures.

 

After the strengthening of the defenses at home, and the UN as a whole, then its time to play offense.  I don't subscribe to the theory that a good offense is a good defense, in the war on terrorism or football. 

 

The only solution to terrorism is a complete overhaul of the way the world fundamentally works - a strengthening of the world working together for a common goal:  promoting human rights, democracy, and development as the solution for terrorism, through whatever means possible.

347106[/snapback]

 

 

You had me until you brought in the UN thingy. Until a MAJOR overhaul is accomplished in the UN, the UN needs to stay as far away from this as possible. Hell, after 13 (yes THIRTEEN) resolutions, they finaly got around to defining what terrorism is. Any rational person would have concentrated on defining terrorism first so that it can be properly addressed, but the UN needed 12 additional resolutions before they even addressed this very basic concept.

 

They obviously have no clue how to address issues of this magnitude (just look at the latest NPT review conference for additional evidence) and should stick to humanitarian aid projects. They can't handle that either, but it is a start. They can then work their way up to smaller conflicts.

[KRC]

True.  That would kill any chance Bush had of being re-elected in '08, wouldn't it?

 

347335[/snapback]

 

<sigh>

 

Big picture, Chris. Big picture.

 

[Chilly]

You had me until you brought in the UN thingy. Until a MAJOR overhaul is accomplished in the UN, the UN needs to stay as far away from this as possible. Hell, after 13 (yes THIRTEEN) resolutions, they finaly got around to defining what terrorism is. Any rational person would have concentrated on defining terrorism first so that it can be properly addressed, but the UN needed 12 additional resolutions before they even addressed this very basic concept.

 

They obviously have no clue how to address issues of this magnitude (just look at the latest NPT review conference for additional evidence) and should stick to humanitarian aid projects. They can't handle that either, but it is a start. They can then work their way up to smaller conflicts.

347992[/snapback]

 

I agree and I tried to say that the UN needs total reform, or it needs to be a similar type organization to do this.

[Wacka]

The UN needs to be razed and have Trump put condos on the prime riverfront property!