|
|
|
|
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 12:08:36 PM | According to http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/cover, signatories to the landmine treaty agree to "never use antipersonnel mines, nor to “develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer” them". So, even if the landmines were intended to kill Americans, they still would not be permitted by the treaty.
I bolded the operative element here
signatories to the landmine treaty
The US is NOT a signatory and refuses to sign.
Afghanistan was not a signatory at the time.
As non-signatories, they are not bound by the terms of the treaty.
The US refuses to be a party to the treaty, considering landmines to be a viable and necessary military tool. This refusal denies them justification in denouncing the use by others against them.
How can a person be considered a terrorist for using a tactic against you that you consider so necessary that you refuse to forswear its use?
I can not address this statement without some examples. What
terrorist organizations in your eyes is the US currently aiding?
I've already named them. Go back and read. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 12:39:54 PM |
I would have to view the video as compared to taking someone's word for it,
I provided the link and its on planet Earth - on POF to be precise . ...
however, I will state that if this did indeed occur, I do not support it and I feel it's a reportable offense to the soldiers chain of command . Military personnel are suppose to hold into account that they are suppose to set the example to non US citizens and if this did indeed occur, I am against it at all cost, but as I stated, I would have to view the video.
It did occur ...................but the setting of an example is...........................................
my stance of cutting terrorists with dull rusty knives until they scream for their mommies is not a far fetched stance I take. lol
......is that so ....? So serving and laughing US soldiers can subject children to verbal abuse ?
...........and think nothing of cutting up with rusty knives till they scream for their mothers ? Charming .
When they know so much hatred from the west..............why the surprise if they fight back.................? | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 1:09:58 PM | I've already named them. Go back and read.
I did go back and read and I did not view any terrorist organizations
which you have listed stating the US is currently aiding them.
I even searched your history and found nothing. If I'm overlooking
your information, please feel free to inform me where it's at and
I will gladly look at it.
I provided the link and its on planet Earth - on POF to be
precise . ...
I will have to check it out.
So serving and laughing US soldiers can subject children to
verbal abuse ?
...........and think nothing of cutting up with rusty knives till
they scream for their mothers ? Charming .
When they know so much hatred from the west..............why the
surprise if they fight back.................?
You are comparing children to terrorists. What the soldiers allegedly
(I haven't checked out the video yet) performed was wrong. Children
are innocent no matter what country they live within. Terrorists
on the other hand are NOT innocent and perform far worse atrocties
upon populations than being cut with a dull knife.
| |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 1:25:04 PM |
I did go back and read and I did not view any terrorist organizations
which you have listed stating the US is currently aiding them.
I even searched your history and found nothing. If I'm overlooking
your information, please feel free to inform me where it's at and
I will gladly look at it.
Try post 91 of this very thread, after the very first time someone asked that question.
You are comparing children to terrorists. What the soldiers allegedly
(I haven't checked out the video yet) performed was wrong. Children
are innocent no matter what country they live within.
And you aren't?
Young Khadr was only 15... not even old enough for a driver's licence in MUCH of the US or to give consent for sex with a girlfriend in MOST of the US. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 1:48:55 PM | Thanks for the info and I will look it up.
Referencing Khadr...he's a terrorist. The children in Afghanistan who were being taunted by the soldiers were not terrorists.
Young Khadr was only 15... not even old enough for a driver's licence in MUCH of the US or to give consent for sex with a girlfriend in MOST of the US.
He's a terrorist. The US did not fail this child/young adult, his own parents as well as his own community failed him. The finger needs to be pointed at them, not the US.
I also want to state that I do feel sympathy for Young Khadr however, I do not condone his alleged actions, I feel more sympathy for the soldier who was killed along with the others who were targeted by this young man. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:06:14 PM |
But yet...he's a terrorist.
So...
He is not competent (by US standards) to drive a car.
He is not competent (by US standards) to consent to sex.
He is not competent (by US standards) to join the military.
He is not competent (by US standards) to vote.
But he IS competent to be held and tried as a global jihadist who represents a serious threat to the interests of a country of the size and power of the United States.
Riiight (I can see the logic and consistency literally oozing from this position, uh huh)... | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:16:38 PM | What I see oozing from YOUR position is sympathy for terrorists. You forget the fact of a dead soldier. You forget the fact this young man has been trained to kill by a terrorist organization. You forget the fact that he would have even killed you if instructed to do so.
He was found competent to stand trial upon killing a US soldier.
He was found competent upon training with a terrorist organization.
You can sympathize all you want, but while you are on your "I HATE AMERICA" campaign, you forget that your own government is participating in the interrogations with this terrorist. You seem to have forgotten this in your tirade of sympathy.
Shall I loan your government some dull knives?
By the way....I looked up your allegations of terrorists which our nation is aiding.
First one.
Jundallah also known as the Iranian People's Resistance. Yes there was a 2005 report by a well known journalist accusing the US of funding this terrorist group. The US could not have been funding this terrorist organization due to the fact that Congress would have had to approve such measure, it didn't happen. Pakistan even denies this allegation. One of the sources of this jounalist by the name of Alexis Debat actually was found to have faked several interviews while working for ABC. He was forced to resign from ABC. So with sources like this that the journalist Brian Ross utilized, we are to believe this report? I do not think so.
Second one.
PJAK
The US as well as this organization denies claims of the US aiding this organization.
Third one.
Mujahideen-e Khalq
They were indeed in relations with France in the mid 80s but once again,,no proof that they were and are being funded by the US military...especially considering their compounds were bombed not only by the US but allied forces back in 2003.
All allegations and no proof.
| |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:26:26 PM | | I agree with holdfast on this one. This family has turned it's back on Canada. Did anyone read the article that was in MacLean's about 2 years ago? Perhaps you should before racing to defend him. They're father was killed while fighting for terrorists and his brother is now missing a leg from that fight. The contempt they hold for Canada and it'd values is ironic since they are living off our welfare system. I say ship the whole family back to where they came from. I hope our government continues to have nothing to do with him. They are terrorists full of hate. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:43:28 PM |
How can a person be considered a terrorist for using a tactic against you that you consider so necessary that you refuse to forswear its use?
Because he wasnt part of any recognised state army/militia/security force/etc etc
He was/is a civilian, non-native to the country in which the military action is occuring, fighting on behalf of a religious organization called AQ.
Its not so much the tactic in and of itself but his status as a civilian.
And a non-Afgan civilian at that. His sole purpose for being in the fight was to kill US servicemen in the name of Allah and the Koran. He isnt a Taliban, enrolled into the armed service by the Country of Afganistan.
Therefore Terrorist! | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:47:35 PM |
You forget the fact of a dead soldier.
That's what happens when soldiers go to war.
He died during an operation against enemy resistance, it's an element of the job description.
It's a consequence of war, not an act of terrorism.
What I see oozing from YOUR position is sympathy for terrorists.
How very 'Joseph McCarthy' of you. And here I thought that tactic disappeared along with terms like 'pinko' and 'commie sympathyzer'.
Ah, well...
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:56:52 PM |
What I see oozing from YOUR position is sympathy for terrorists.
Given the apparent alternative, one begins to see this accusation as something of a compliment......
Let's see:
Terrorist sympathiser?
Or
Person suffering from the lack of humanity that would make them enjoy cutting their enemy with a rusty knife until they cried for mommy (AKA potential terrorist).
Hmmmm......
I'll take terrorist sympathiser, thanks very much. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 2:58:34 PM | ^^^^
The soldier didnt die in an "operation", the military force in question was ambushed by a civilian group.
If you read the history, Wiki history, on the accounts of this fire fight, the US forces asked the people to remain in the "huts" so that they might be able to come in and search for weapons etc. At that point the 2 interperters where fired upon and killed.
Thats an ambush! And it wasnt an ambush from another military force but from members of a terrorist, religious group called AQ.
I'll take terrorist sympathiser, thanks very much.
So your all for isolationism as a foreign policy I guess.....at least you are finally taking a stance that clearly defines your social values. I wonder, if when the world trade centers were hit by those 2 different planes and also the Pentagon by another plane, you sat back and said to yourself "we deserved that!" Because heck why wouldnt you, seems as if all the worlds ills are the fault of the US in your opinion from many of your posts. It just seems to be a logical reasoning that if there are 100 people and 99 of them will do whatever it takes to get the job done and 1 says "no. no. we have to be morally above those means....." that eventually the 99 will overcome the 1.
How long does it take the 1 to figure out that it cant be the moral superior and compete?? and survive??
Thats a bottom line question.....
So live on your moral high ground as long as that so called "terrorist" isnt on your front porch looking for your sons and daughters, becuase I would guess at that point if all you had was a rusty knife you just might use it! | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:10:27 PM |
Because he wasnt part of any recognised state army/militia/security force/etc etc
He was/is a civilian, non-native to the country in which the military action is occuring
So? Membership in "recognized" state anything and native/non-native status are not necessary conditions.
And, civilians are permitted to take up arms, apart from joining the military, to resist an invader, even if they are not native to the country.
His motivation for doing so is irrelevant to the issue, the conventions do not make a distinction between nationalist, religious or personal motivations.
According to the terms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions he has status plus, because of his age, qualifies as a child soldier. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:22:00 PM | Ok so which is it is???
According to the terms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions he has status plus, because of his age, qualifies as a child soldier.
He IS a qualified soldier or as you state in MSG 133
He is not competent (by US standards) to join the military
Now come on and tell us all which one of these "soldier" choices you want to make, becuase flip-flopping is reserved for US political candidates.
And just because I havent taken the time...mind posting the relevant link where we can all see the information on the Hague/Genevia convention which states what you said?
Membership in "recognized" state anything and native/non-native status are not necessary conditions.
And, civilians are permitted to take up arms, apart from joining the military, to resist an invader, even if they are not native to the country.
And why you consider his motivation irrelevant is beyond me.......but I guess any Tom Dick or Mohamad that wants to go get blood on his hands for personal or religious reasons should just go to a war zone and start blasting away, because according to you, it really doesnt matter what your motivations are! | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:27:43 PM |
So your all for isolationism as a foreign policy I guess.....at least you are finally taking a stance that clearly defines your social values. I wonder, if when the world trade centers were hit by those 2 different planes and also the Pentagon by another plane, you sat back and said to yourself "we deserved that!" Because heck why wouldnt you, seems as if all the worlds ills are the fault of the US in your opinion from many of your posts. It just seems to be a logical reasoning that if there are 100 people and 99 of them will do whatever it takes to get the job done and 1 says "no. no. we have to be morally above those means....." that eventually the 99 will overcome the 1.
How long does it take the 1 to figure out that it cant be the moral superior and compete?? and survive??
It really amazes me the things people can interpret from words that clearly mean something else entirely. No, you could not be more wrong about my reaction to the attacks of 9/11. At the time I was living in England, and when I heard about it on the day, I was devastated. One of the most moving experiences I've ever had was when they played the Star Spangled Banner at the Changing of the Guards at Buckingham Palace that week--I saw that on TV and I was actually surprised at how much I fell apart at the time...and a year later as well, when the deaths were memorialized at St Paul's Cathedral with the dropping of white rose petals. What also moved me was the fact that for weeks after the attacks all I had to do was open my mouth and talk, showing that I was an American, and strangers would hug me on the street and tell me how sorry they were at what had happened. Some strange guy sent me a whole bottle of wine in a pub one night, just because he heard me ordering a drink and wanted me to know how much he supported us, and sympathised with me PERSONALLY because of the attacks. It moved me, and the whole thing kept me in tears for weeks, as it did so many. But you know what....all that good will and feeling of support changed, and there is a REASON for that.
I am not an isolationist, as anyone who is familiar with my posting would know. And you have wholly mistaken my values if you think I would ever say that anyone "deserved" to be attacked as we were on that horrible day. But there is no point in pretending that things aren't what they are, and that American policies have NOTHING to do with other people's attitudes toward this country. Do we, in my mind, have to be morally above basic inhumanity in order to hold onto the moral high ground that we CLAIM to occupy? Of course...otherwise what in the hell is the POINT??? What some people can't seem to understand (not that you would think it that f*cking complicated) is that there is a LOT OF DISTANCE between wanting to act with some kind of moral sense and advocating NOT acting at all. There is a lot of distance between NOT ACTING at all, and acting IMMORALLY....criminally. There is a LOT Of distance between wanting to defeat terrorism and enjoying the prospect of committing torture on another human being. Yes....TERRORISTS torture, and some undoubtedly enjoy it. Why would ANYONE want to claim fellow feeling with that???? Well you CAN claim it, but if you do, what makes you a fundmantally BETTER person?
So yes, if the choice (in this stark, overly simplistic world of polarities that some feel so compelled to revolve their life and values and attitudes around) is between being someone who could BE a terrorist, and someone who simply is said to sympathise with them....I'll take the latter. But you see, my point was to flag up how ridiculous the accusation is in the first place, the way its been flung around here....by some. If you didn't get that, sorry....but honestly.....
But all this comes down, obviouly, to a MAJOR difference in outlook between us, which you clearly articulate in your post. Because whereas you claim that we can't survive and be morally superior at the same time....I think we can't survive (at least as US) unless we ARE.
Edit: Second post down from mine, can you please break up your post into readable blocks of text?
| |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:36:05 PM | Well..........They cannot find the one who is making the whole country look like more of a fool each day so why not pick the wings off a butterfly....or just torture one Afgan boy soldier??????
I dont know why anyone would expect Canada to take a stance? Look at his skin color
I have nothing against them not taking a stance either....but Canada has always been so very obvious in its partiality.....They will shoot anyone in the back here except a white person........Huraay! | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:37:54 PM | Over the last few days I have been reading this thread with great interest and I have to admit that some of the views that have been expressed have been laughable and some just down right anger me as there is quite a bit of “arm chair quarterbacking” of our troops, a sickeningly high degree of bleeding heart liberalism and some serious confusion of civil rights and civil law with there processes vs. the laws that govern military conflict and enemy combatants. Do some of you really believe everything that you read in the papers and what you see on TV? Do you really think that you the average American knows about everything that goes on over there with regard to threat, threat analyses and national security? You don’t due to the fact that you don’t need to know due to operational security and you would be amazed, shocked and fearful if you were to discover ½ of what you don’t know.
Just to qualify myself I am a veteran of the US military with multiple deployments to nations in the CENTCOM area of operations so I am one of those mindless “war mongers” as well as I currently work for a security contracting company that provides security services, training and equipment to fight the global war on terror which to some of you by your ignorant statements makes me a “terrorist”. On contracting “Is more like a Mercenary force and conducts it's self outside of the realm of the military and are not bound to the same regulations as the Military. Well at least as long as they don't get caught violating the rules and regulations bound within their contract. It's a convenient way for Governments to pass certain operations along that would be outright against government policy and retain the innocence of it's self and that of it's Military force. If things go wrong or if the mercenaries get caught they become the scapegoat and sacrificial lamb”. Sorry but you sir have no idea of what you are talking about as contractors are not mercenaries and we do fall under UCMJ…So I believe that I am very well qualified to chime in and speak on this topic as I draw from my personal knowledge and experiences and not from the liberal media or stories that uncle “Bob” told about “one time at Iraq camp”.
First off this “kid” is a terrorist plain and simple.. He is not a “soldier”… This “innocent minor” belongs to no army and wears no uniform… But the fact that he did take up arms (and yes land mines are arms) against collation troops makes him an enemy and an enemy combatant thus he has absolutely no civil rights or constitutional rights as those are rights reserved for Americans and he is entitled to be treated as an EPW. Taking him to Guantanamo Bay is not an act of “kidnapping” it is simply removing an enemy combatant from theater were he can be processed, screened and vetted for any useful information. This is a practice that predates WWII and is nothing new. “Release & repatriate immediately”? You are kidding right? What a joke... He is Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization.. Are some of you that fickle that you forget what Al-Qaeda did to this nation? Have you forgotten the images of people.. AMERICAN people jumping to there deaths from the twin towers on 9/11 because it was better then burning alive? Have you forgotten that they started this war and brought this fight to us and now we are bringing the fight to them and kicking there asses…
Some of you have made the case of that this terrorist “is just a kid” or that he was brain washed. Have any of you ever been shot at by a teenager? I have and they can kill you just as fast as a 30 year old man so his age means nothing…His father and mother made the decision to get him involved with Al-Qaeda and he made the decision to pick up the ball and ran with it so now its reckoning day for him and I must admit his little pleas of “help me” brought a smile to my face booo hooo for him as I am sure he would be smiling if it were them cutting my head off on video as they have done to others in the past.. He and his family are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and OBL, he was living with Al-Qaeda, planting land mines for Al-Qaeda and killing coalition troops with and for Al-Qaeda.. He is Al Qaeda, he is a terrorist, he is guilty and he is getting his.. The fact that he is alive in Guantanamo Bay crying like a baby is a testament to the professionalism and restraint of our troops as they let him live even after one of there brothers and teammates were killed..
Some of you speak about this “kids rights” What rights does he have? He certainly doesn’t have the rights reserved for Americans and Canadians as when he picked up arms against us he forfeited those rights as well as he is an enemy prisoner of war and not a common criminal…Why don’t you ask the wife and children of the SF solder that was killed on that hit if this” kid” is innocent or if he has any rights.. Its funny that some of you place this terrorists life and rights far above his victims as I don’t think that you at all think about the fact that this poor “innocent child” help to take away the right of some other child to ever hug there father again and the right for a wife to ever kiss, hug or hold her beloved husband ever again.. Some of you talk about and mention torture being used… Give me a break… You probably also define going without your “Starbucks” and not having a god cell phone signal torture as well … Have you ever seen an unedited video of a man getting his head sawed off with a dull sword while he is still alive? If not I will share it with you as I have a few then tell me how you feel..Or have you seen the video of the BW contactors who were ambushed shot, burned, beaten, dragged and hung from a bridge in Falijua? Remember 9/11 and that footage? That is just a small sample of what they do to people.. Sorry but keeping someone up for a week, denying them food water etc, using a water board, denying them clothing etc. etc etc. isn’t even in the same ball park as what they do to people and isn’t torture it is altering someone’s personal comfort level to break them down and there is a big difference.
The media in this country and Al Jazeerare are all crooked, skewed and politically slanted in how they report this war to the public…They don’t report the real facts or real news they report what they want and what they want you to see.. There are hundreds of good things that we do for the Iraqi and Afghani people every day but they are never reported because it doesn’t make for good ground breaking news and it doesn’t fit the media agenda of how they want you to think about the war, our military and the current administration.. But the media is more then willing to throw the current administration and military under the bus and report about bad things and about ” innocent civilians” being killed and then suddenly the American public is like oh my God America is evil and its troops are nothing but undisciplined rapists and killers.. As a person and a Christian man I am truly feel bad about any innocent man woman or child that is killed but I would rather see a few “innocent civilians” over there get killed then have another repeat of 9/11 over here. If the choice is my child or there’s I am going to choose mine to live every time and I have stepped up to the plate to insure that will happen..
Here is a novel idea to fix this ever so unpopular war… Why don’t the Iraqis’ and Afghanis get off there asses govern themselves and make things happen with regard to there own security and there political and economic stability, kick out the insurgents, protect there boarders and end this war? If they did these simple things and took care of them selves and there own problems then these “innocent civilians” wouldn’t be getting killed now would they…Bottom line is they never have and they probably never will.. But they would sooner sit on there asses, fight themselves, get paid, steal money from there own people and let us help and do for them and have us do there dirty work with them ****ing and complaining about us and our methods the entire way. Sorry folks war is ugly business and people get hurt and killed and that is how it has always been and that is how it is always going to be and that is just the facts of life like or not..
Here is a question for some of you arm chair quarterbacks.. Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you been to war? Have you had RPG or AK fire go past your head? Have you ever been IED? Have you had to Casvac your friends or search to find there missing parts? Have you ever been away from your family and loved ones for a year at a time defending someone else’s freedom? What sacrifice have you personally made to have earned the right to spew your liberal BS? You have that very right because of the very men and women that you are criticizing while you sit there from the comfort of your recliner. Honestly I don’t care if your neighbor has been there, I don’t care if your dads a vet, if your brother has been to Iraq, or if you slept in a holiday Inn express last night I want to know what you have done to earn your rights as they are not free and I want to know if you have been there and been in our shoes? If not how can you say that our troops are “terrorists” or doing bad things just because the media reports that some “innocent people were killed”? That’s a pretty bold and ignorant statement and judgment to make about men who are in harms way fighting a war when you are sitting in your living room with your feet propped up judging them, there decisions and there actions with no other fact than what you see on TV. Again you haven’t been there and you haven’t been in there shoes so you don’t know the circumstances and all the facts and more important you aren’t qualified and you haven’t earned the right to judge me or my brothers ever.
So in closing you can hate our country, hate or current administration and hate the war.. You can like my opinions and stance or you can disagree with me and hate them.. You can call me a terrorist, mercenary war monger or what ever you feel like calling me I don’t care as I will continue to do a necessary job that you DON’T want to do and my self and my brothers and sisters in arms will continue to do bad things to bad people when and were ever possible because that is what needs to be done to protect you and give you that right to ****, complain and pass judgment’s on us…It’s a shame that most people take there rights and freedoms for granted and don’t think about or remember how they got them, why they have them and who defends them… Enjoy them all I ask is that you don’t sit there from the comfort of your living room 7000 miles away and judge us, condemn us, critique are actions and decisions and arm chair quarter back us because you are there and you haven’t been in our shoes and have had to make the decisions that we have to make.. If you think you can do a better job then we are I welcome you and invite you to become one of our peers there are recruiting offices all over the place that you can put your money were your mouth is, sign the papers and step up to the plate.. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:41:02 PM | ^^^^
Ive seen your point all along.........you dont seem to acknowledge the point we are making though. Which is that in the reality of today's global everything, being moral and above all the insanity leads to ruin. If we as a nation cannot be willing to fight the fight at the same level as our opponents, we will lose. So my ponit is very simple, what good is it to be the moral superior if you get killed?
With this type of thinking one can logically determine that to rule or govern a nation or to have influence on a global scale, morallity cannot be the scale by which other people will accept your rule or government or influence. It must be through want(love) or fear. Apperently Zealots motivated by religously twisted politics can only be motivated through fear........So can you make an opposition fear you by being morally superior and offering cake and ice cream to the captured, asking politely for information, giving them attorneys for free and access to our courts? I say NO.
I sy that the only way to fight and win is suspend your moral high ground and get the job done! Because the tactics used against us have not been morally superior. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:27:40 PM | I found this while looking into abuse allegations at GB. I think its a possibility.No one sees what actually goes on at GB, unless they have been there. I know some witnesses claim there is abuse, but what is abuse to one may be military tactics to another. Of course I am sure abuse goes on, but abuse goes on everywhere.I have seen pictures of detainees being abused, but pictures can be deceiving. Actually, the media has deceived and lied so much, to make republicans/democrats look bad, to make the USA look bad that I dont know what to believe unless I see it myself. Of course we may see a video or something, but is that an isolated case or is that what goes on all the time.Who knows. Only the people who have actually been there.Some will lie claiming abuse or claiming no abuse, some will not lie.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16270
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention.
This instruction comes straight from the pages of an official al Qaeda training manual, and officials at the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they see clear evidence that detainees are well-versed in its contents.
Police in Manchester, England, discovered the manual, which has come to be known as the "Manchester document," in 2000 while searching computer files found in the home of a known al Qaeda member. The contents were introduced as evidence into the 2001 trial of terrorists who bombed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
The FBI translated the document into English, and it is posted on the Justice Department's Web site.
The 18-chapter manual provides a detailed window into al Qaeda's network and its procedures for waging jihad - from conducting surveillance operations to carrying out assassinations to working with forged documents.
The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison."
Chapter 17 instructs them to "be careful not to give the enemy any vital information" during interrogations.
Another section of the manual directs commanders to teach their operatives what to say if they're captured, and to explain it "more than once to ensure that they have assimilated it." To reinforce the message, it tells commanders to have operatives "explain it back to the commander."
And at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, detainees take this instruction to heart. Many of the more than 500 detainees are "uncooperative" in providing intelligence, Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, told military analysts who traveled to the facility June 24 and reiterated today during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.
Some detainees have never uttered a single word during more than three years of interrogation. Others give false names or refuse to offer their real names.
This can prove challenging for interrogators at the facility, because many detainees "follow the al Qaeda SOP (standard operating procedures) to the T," according to Army Col. John Hadjis, chief of staff for Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
Officials say they see evidence of the al Qaeda-directed misinformation campaign in allegations of detainee abuse and mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed frustration over this effort during a June 21 interview on the "Tony Snow Show."
"These detainees are trained to lie, they're trained to say they were tortured, and the minute we release them or the minute they get a lawyer, very frequently they'll go out and they will announce that they've been tortured," Rumsfeld said.
The media jumps on these claims, reporting them as "another example of torture," the secretary said, "when in fact, (terrorists have) been trained to do that, and their training manual says so."
During a February 2004 Pentagon news conference, a DoD official said new information provided by detainees during questioning is analyzed to determine its reliability.
"Unfortunately, many detainees are deceptive and prefer to conceal their identifies and their actions," said Paul Butler, principal deputy assistant secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict.
Butler said the Manchester document includes "a large section which teaches al Qaeda operatives counterinterrogation techniques: how to lie, how to minimize your role."
The document, he said, has surfaced in various locations, including Afghanistan.
The manual's preface offers a chilling reminder of the mentality that drives al Qaeda disciples and the lengths they will go to for their cause.
"The confrontation that we are calling for ... does not know Socratic debates, ... Platonic ideals ... nor Aristotelian diplomacy," its opening pages read. "But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun." | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:28:10 PM | justforums
Ive seen your point all along.........you dont seem to acknowledge the point we are making though. Which is that in the reality of today's global everything, being moral and above all the insanity leads to ruin. If we as a nation cannot be willing to fight the fight at the same level as our opponents, we will lose. So my ponit is very simple, what good is it to be the moral superior if you get killed?
^^^I know this isn't just about me, just forums, but I did say before that I CAN see the POV of those....well hell, I'll just quote myself:
I can see the POV of those who would argue that security matters more than the constitution and the principles it enshrines, and if that’s what people want to argue then they can argue it. What I dislike is this hypocritical pretense that none of this violates the principles that it OBVIOUSLY violates...and that there are no implications of that for us to concern ourselves with. It’s no good being Machiavellian while still pretending to be Jeffersonian.
We can discard our values and our constitution in the name of winning the war on Terror. What we can't do (or at least what I don't think we can do) is so explicitly and wholeheartedly discard those things and pretend, at the other end of the process, that we're the same country that we started this process supposedly (at least in its ideals) protecting. There are implications and consequences to that...and not just for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.... I find the problems (as I see them) at Gitmo as actually part and parcel of a larger attack on the constitution and the rights of actual citizens living in THIS country....again, in the name of "security" and the War on Terror.
And I'm self-aware enough to admit that if I didn't FEAR the way the constitution and MY rights as an American citizen had been so compromised in the last few years....I might FEAR what is happening at Gitmo less. I'd still hate it, but perhaps the implications wouldn't seem to loom quite so large as they do....as it is. I don't know about that....but I think about it.
Anyway, those who point these things out and problematize them and try to think about them beyond some celebration of kicking ass are NOT, thereby, "terrorist sympathisers." And MAYBE being actually in love with the IDEA of America is ALSO patriotic!
| |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 6:35:23 PM |
Ok so which is it is??? According to the terms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions he has status plus, because of his age, qualifies as a child soldier. He IS a qualified soldier or as you state in MSG 133 He is not competent (by US standards) to join the military Now come on and tell us all which one of these "soldier" choices you want to make, becuase flip-flopping is reserved for US political candidates.
Don't quote me out of context and try to pretend you caught me contradicting myself, it's dishonest and disingenuous.
The actual quote:
So...
He is not competent (by US standards) to drive a car.
He is not competent (by US standards) to consent to sex.
He is not competent (by US standards) to join the military.
He is not competent (by US standards) to vote.
But he IS competent to be held and tried as a global jihadist who represents a serious threat to the interests of a country of the size and power of the United States.
Riiight (I can see the logic and consistency literally oozing from this position, uh huh)...
I see you are starting to get it.
but I guess any Tom****or Mohamad that wants to go get blood on his hands for personal or religious reasons should just go to a war zone and start blasting away, because according to you, it really doesnt matter what your motivations are!
It isn't exactly that simple but it's not far off.
The same elements that provide Omar protection for the activities he is being held and tried for are the same provisions that would protect an American, or anyone else who happened to be in the country at the time, who took up his S&W and fought against an invading army. It would also protect a Canadian or Briton who came to the US to help fight the invading army.
These provisions were written with the memory of what was done to partisans/resistance by the Germans and Japanese in mind. They were written with the goal in mind that it would help to dissuade ANY gov't from doing anything close to those things again and to help ensure that partisans/resistence/occupied populaces retained a right of self-defense against ANY invader without regard for how righteous the invader felt they were.
They were written because of how horrified we were with what had been done to our people and our allies but with the intent that it would cover everyone.
They were not written in a manner that would allow even us to reject the very rules we wrote simply because we were on the other side of the equation and they were written that way ON PURPOSE.
And why you consider his motivation irrelevant is beyond me
Because the conventions exclude them. There is no distinction between someone who resists because he feels his homeland is under attack, who resists to protect the homeland of those he considers his 'brothers'/allies and someone who resists because he feels the attack threatens an ethnic group or religion to which he feels a need to defend.
If Khadr had tossed a grenade into a civilian market, he would not be protected.
If he had taken a job, say, doing laundry at a US encampment and, once he had won their trust, snuck in a hand grenade or few, he would not be protected.
This incident happened during what was essentially a 'house-clearing' operation in a war zone where, ACCORDING TO THE PARTICIPANTS OWN STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, they expected they may encounter resistance. Nothing happened on the enemy side that violates any of the rules of warfare but, on the US side, a wounded enemy was almost executed by US soldiers and likely would have been if other US soldiers hadn't demanded those rules be respected. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/19/2008 9:28:32 PM | They will shoot anyone in the back here except a white person
I live in Canada. The only people I see getting shot are blacks killing blacks. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/20/2008 12:38:36 AM | Ok I asked once now a second time....you keep refering to official document which state all these things about
These provisions were written with the memory of what was done to partisans/resistance by the Germans and Japanese in mind. They were written with the goal in mind that it would help to dissuade ANY gov't from doing anything close to those things again and to help ensure that partisans/resistence/occupied populaces retained a right of self-defense against ANY invader without regard for how righteous the invader felt they were.
So please list a link to the document or the book with the page numbers, etc etc.
Im sorry but I am not going to take your word for it.....back it up with the documents.
And if not then, well frankly your arguements are moot.
Also I did not quote you out of context.....those were each your sentances and it reads as if you contend that in one post he is old enough and another post he isnt. | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/20/2008 12:38:45 AM | This is indeed a sad story ~ one of many~ I fear
armed conflict bring these occurances forward for us to chew on some hard thinking.
Women and children can and do ~ kill soldiers
Being slow to decide how to engage a (known to be) women or child is often all the edge they need.
It was so in Nam ~ it is so today
What stinks about this story is the interrogation length and methods used
on a child that could only know little ~ and being a child it should be easy to extract imformation without all this suffering. ~Do you send him home ~ to this father or family with just a spanking? ~ what to do with him?
So there seems to be something missing here ~ more then sins of the father or active combatant by free will.
Dance | |
|
| Omar Khadr: The interrogation
Posted: 7/20/2008 12:48:44 AM | Or are you also saying that Americans who fight for a country that they are not citizens of are also terrorists? Is it really your contention that non-citizens are not allowed to fight for another country because, if it is, then you have just called every American who fought in such wars as the Spanish Civil War or WW2 prior to the official US entry, to provide just 2 examples, terrorists.
At this point in time it is illegal for a US citizen to join any other Countries military unless it is Israel and they hold dual citizenship in Israel.That is an exception only if they are Jewish.
Know what you are talking about before you type. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
