Author Topic: Obama 180s on gitmo  (Read 20363 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HE HAS CONTROL OF THE SENATE AND THE COURTS
HE'S TOO DANGEROUS TO BE LEFT ALIVE

 :wtf:

...ingenious.

Is Mace Windu talking about terrorists or George Bush?

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.

I was actually talking to NGTM-1R about a completely different issue to the one you're responding about.

Quote
If anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.

So? Your argument basically suggests that anyone suspected of a crime by the police should be put in jail without a trial. You're basically arguing that no criminal should ever be granted bail. Cause I can guarantee you that the number of people killed by people released from prison is much higher than the number killed by terrorists who went back to the fight.

Furthermore, what is your proof that those who "returned" to terrorism weren't in fact radicalised by being tortured for years in Gitmo?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Is Mace Windu talking about terrorists or George Bush?


I'll leave that for you to decide. You were the one who brought up Jedi Knights and that America wasn't them.



Quote
If you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go.


I'm seriously having trouble convincing myself that you are actually serious and not, in fact, playing an elaborate troll, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and just chalk it up to Poe's law.

What Karajorma said. What's the difference between everyone else suspected of crimes? Why should they have right to a trial?

The point of trials is exactly to determine whether the guilt of the accused can be proven. If it can't be proven, they should be considered innocent. That's the only way an ethically legitimate judiciary system can function.

There's also the separation between executive, legistlative and judiciary branches of power. Your model of thought hands the power of judiciary branch to executive branch (terrorism suspects are treated as terrorists without the need for a trial to actually prove them to be terrorists) and that's never, ever amounted to a good thing in the history of world.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.

I was actually talking to NGTM-1R about a completely different issue to the one you're responding about.

Quote
If anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.

So? Your argument basically suggests that anyone suspected of a crime by the police should be put in jail without a trial. You're basically arguing that no criminal should ever be granted bail. Cause I can guarantee you that the number of people killed by people released from prison is much higher than the number killed by terrorists who went back to the fight.

Furthermore, what is your proof that those who "returned" to terrorism weren't in fact radicalised by being tortured for years in Gitmo?

Okay. You win. I'm gonna go masturbate now.

 
Alright, I'm ready for some more trolling if you're up for it. Regarding your points, sirs.

Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.

I was actually talking to NGTM-1R about a completely different issue to the one you're responding about.

Quote
If anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.

So? Your argument basically suggests that anyone suspected of a crime by the police should be put in jail without a trial. You're basically arguing that no criminal should ever be granted bail. Cause I can guarantee you that the number of people killed by people released from prison is much higher than the number killed by terrorists who went back to the fight.

Furthermore, what is your proof that those who "returned" to terrorism weren't in fact radicalised by being tortured for years in Gitmo?

You have a point that some were probably radicalized by torture. If they were released they probably provided no useful intelligence, implying they weren't guilty in the first place. However, many of them were captured in battle were clearly already radical. Let me just pick the first guy on the list I gave and I'll let you decide whether or not there's the possibility that someone who had been fighting on the side of the Taliban for years wasn't already committed to the fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Mahsud

The standard conservative copout in this situation, which I'm going to play, is that terrorism is different because it's a political act. Criminals usually act for impulsive or self interested reasons. Terrorism is much more dangerous because it seeks to disrupt society or overthrow a government. Whether or not someone who was caught with a half-finished car bomb or a plan to ambush an American convoy should ever be granted parole or not is a separate debate. There are some criminals who simply aren't granted affordable bail. Why should the most dangerous class of criminals be treated differently?

Quote
The point of trials is exactly to determine whether the guilt of the accused can be proven. If it can't be proven, they should be considered innocent. That's the only way an ethically legitimate judiciary system can function.

There's also the separation between executive, legislative and judiciary branches of power. Your model of thought hands the power of judiciary branch to executive branch (terrorism suspects are treated as terrorists without the need for a trial to actually prove them to be terrorists) and that's never, ever amounted to a good thing in the history of world.

I believe an ethically legitimate system keeps people from getting killed. It is a good thing when the system accomplishes this.

Anyway, it is usually field commanders who make the decision whether or not to imprison a suspect rather than the executive branch of the government. You can say that the President is the commander and chief and is responsible for everything the armed forces do. It's a semantic debate either way. The important thing is that by planning a terrorist act or by assaulting American forces you already mark yourself guilty of premeditated mass murder, which is probably the most serious class of crime. Due process is fine for relatively trivial domestic cases. In wartime, protecting soldiers and American puppet governments is more important.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Quote
The point of trials is exactly to determine whether the guilt of the accused can be proven. If it can't be proven, they should be considered innocent. That's the only way an ethically legitimate judiciary system can function.

There's also the separation between executive, legislative and judiciary branches of power. Your model of thought hands the power of judiciary branch to executive branch (terrorism suspects are treated as terrorists without the need for a trial to actually prove them to be terrorists) and that's never, ever amounted to a good thing in the history of world.

I believe an ethically legitimate system keeps people from getting killed. It is a good thing when the system accomplishes this.

But the problem there is that then you can justify anything by saying that it keeps people from getting killed. It opens a dangerous back door to getting anything done in the name of Greater Good (and no one's allowed to question whether something actually keeps people from getting killed, or if you're just saying so.

You can even genuinely believe that it DOES keep people from getting killed, but you're missing the point that it's just your belief instead of something you can know for sure.


Quote
Anyway, it is usually field commanders who make the decision whether or not to imprison a suspect rather than the executive branch of the government. You can say that the President is the commander and chief and is responsible for everything the armed forces do. It's a semantic debate either way. The important thing is that by planning a terrorist act or by assaulting American forces you already mark yourself guilty of premeditated mass murder, which is probably the most serious class of crime. Due process is fine for relatively trivial domestic cases. In wartime, protecting soldiers and American puppet governments is more important.


Executive branch of power is widely regarded to be composed of not only the executive part of government (president, prime minister, secretaries/ministers and their offices/ministries, nomenclature depending on where you are), but also the elements directly under their control: The police, the prosecutors, the military, the national guard, border guards, customs agents, civil servants, school teachers, what have you.

They are part of the executive branch of power because they are the ones who execute the orders given to them from the top of the chain of command.

Judiciary is the branch that is responsible for dealing out justice, as in determining the guilt of those accused by the executive branch. And their job is to determine that using the guidelines set for them by the legislative branch, which is responsible for - obviously - legislation.


Now, what you are suggesting is leaving the executive branch free to administer judgement on the accused, instead of involving the judiciary at all.


This is where I see a problem.


I'll ask again - if you can't prove the guilt of an accused, do you consider them guilty or innocent by default?

Also, granting or denying bail for suspects is something the judiciary also decides, depending on severity of the crime and the likelyhood of the suspect pulling a disappearing act or continuing his suspected wrongdoings before the trial can commence; you could say the sum paid for bail acts as a collateral against these risks.

No sane judge would allow bail for a terrorist discovered with explosive materials, but neither would they deny them their trial indefinitely.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline blackhole

  • Still not over the rainbow
  • 29
  • Destiny can suck it
    • Black Sphere Studios
I think we should lock up Mustang19 for being a troll and see how long it takes him to prove he's innocent.

 
Now now that would violate my internet human rights.  :ha:


But the problem there is that then you can justify anything by saying that it keeps people from getting killed. It opens a dangerous back door to getting anything done in the name of Greater Good (and no one's allowed to question whether something actually keeps people from getting killed, or if you're just saying so.

You can even genuinely believe that it DOES keep people from getting killed, but you're missing the point that it's just your belief instead of something you can know for sure.

And? You cannot know anything in politics for sure. Prove your point, disprove mine, or don't argue with a troll.

In fact I'll prove your point for you. An American interrogator said, ""I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse." So yes, it is stupid to keep terrorists in Gitmo and our allies have plenty of spare prison capacity we should be making use of.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/05/guantanamo-and-question-terrorist-recruitment

Quote
Executive branch of power is widely regarded to be composed of not only the executive part of government (president, prime minister, secretaries/ministers and their offices/ministries, nomenclature depending on where you are), but also the elements directly under their control: The police, the prosecutors, the military, the national guard, border guards, customs agents, civil servants, school teachers, what have you.

They are part of the executive branch of power because they are the ones who execute the orders given to them from the top of the chain of command.

Judiciary is the branch that is responsible for dealing out justice, as in determining the guilt of those accused by the executive branch. And their job is to determine that using the guidelines set for them by the legislative branch, which is responsible for - obviously - legislation.


Now, what you are suggesting is leaving the executive branch free to administer judgement on the accused, instead of involving the judiciary at all.


This is where I see a problem.

There are too many moving parts in that equation, too many for the degree of risk involved. If a normal murderer is wrongly acquitted, no big deal. He kills a few people and gets locked up again. If a terrorist is wrongly acquitted they have the backing of their organization and can recruit, organize, fund, and execute attacks anywhere in the world. It is essential that the risk of this happening be minimized and adding additional procedure that may let terrorists go carries great risk.

Quote
I'll ask again - if you can't prove the guilt of an accused, do you consider them guilty or innocent by default?

It depends on the risk involved in letting them go if wrongly found innocent. If they could destabilize a government I would better be safe than sorry. In cases of terror suspects, I assume guilt.

  

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
So let me get this straight:

You're willing to trust in someone else's opinion that a person is a terrorist and accept that as sufficient reason to keep them indefinitely incarcerated with no trial, verdict or sentence?

As opposed to objective proof of their guilt being shown in court, given a guilty verdict and appropriate sentence?


You need to ask yourself this:

If there's no question about someone's guilt, what's the problem with giving them a trial and proving their guilt there?

If there is doubt of their guilt, how can you possibly condone of keeping them imprisoned without a trial?



I still don't know if you're serious about this, but this is a misguided, perverted view of justice if I ever saw one.

In the immortal words of Counter-Strike,

"Terrorists win."
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
And what makes a suspect? How certain of guilt do we have to be to lock someone up? I've heard right wing rhetoric from the USA saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Is being Muslim grounds for being arrested? Or do they need more proof to lock someone up. That's the idea of having a trial. To look at all the evidence and decide whether or not there is enough proof to convict someone of actually being guilty.

Having a trial also helps to minimize instances where prejudice or even personal grudges result in a prison sentence. Imagine, Mustang19 that you have sex with some guy or girl you picked up at a bar. Things go bad and you end up on really bad terms. Turns out he or she was the kid of some powerful person. This powerful parent now has a grudge against you, and suddenly you're being arrested on suspicion of terrorism. It may not be fair, but without a trial who's to know you're innocent? You're being called a terrorist, no one will listen to you.

Or maybe you're just brown, or look like a terrorist, or know some guys who end up being terrorists. If there is no trial, how do you know that there's even good reason to suspect someone, let alone lock them up or shoot them?

 
Quote
Having a trial also helps to minimize instances where prejudice or even personal grudges result in a prison sentence. Imagine, Mustang19 that you have sex with some guy or girl you picked up at a bar. Things go bad and you end up on really bad terms. Turns out he or she was the kid of some powerful person. This powerful parent now has a grudge against you, and suddenly you're being arrested on suspicion of terrorism. It may not be fair, but without a trial who's to know you're innocent? You're being called a terrorist, no one will listen to you.

My date with the president's daughter oh yeah, my date with her... so special! So unique! Sorry, I have that song stuck in my head.

Well of course if that happened I would want out. But I'm talking about the particular current situation, not hypotheticals. Everyone here is discussing rights, I am discussing pragmatism.

In my opinion these decisions would best be left up to field commanders and intelligence agencies. They determine suspects and guilt. Of course if they tried to arrest every Muslim in the country I wouldn't support that, but that simply isn't what is happening. I do trust the government's opinion because even 1 in 7 of those found innocent and released from Gitmo ended up returning to battle.

Quote
If there's no question about someone's guilt, what's the problem with giving them a trial and proving their guilt there?

If there is doubt of their guilt, how can you possibly condone of keeping them imprisoned without a trial?

Oh, there is always unreasonable doubt about someone's guilt. So I'll discuss option number two there.

I can condone keeping them imprisoned on the significant possibility that they will organize or execute terrorist operations if let go.

Quote
I still don't know if you're serious about this, but this is a misguided, perverted view of justice if I ever saw one.

In the immortal words of Counter-Strike,

"Terrorists win."

I really don't care. Gitmo is one of those human interest stories that was blown way out of proportion. It makes no difference what conclusions we come to because there are only two realistic alternatives: one, Gitmo stays open and people get tortured, or two, Gitmo closes, the military still doesn't want to risk putting captives on trial, and they either get shot or get handed over to Egypt or (since that might no longer be feasible) Karzai's government or Saudi Arabia instead. People still get tortured, the US takes no blame.

And I don't think "terrorists win" is a meaningful statement since Al Qaeda has no specific demands and no goals besides killing as many Americans as possible. What's the expected end state there? They need us to blame their problems on.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
In my opinion these decisions would best be left up to field commanders and intelligence agencies. They determine suspects and guilt.

(...)

I can condone keeping them [terrorist suspects] imprisoned on the significant possibility that they will organize or execute terrorist operations if let go.

I have to say you are placing and awful lot of trust on people whose track record includes cock-ups of such monumental magnitude as allowing 9/11 events to take place in the first place, and later on falsely implicating an entire country of possessing WMD's that was used as de facto casus belli for the Iraq war, and whose existence was never proved.

In addition to having less than stellar track record, I would keep this type of decision away from the investigators' hands because of a result of human condition called confirmation bias. I'll let good General Battuta fill in for the details if he wishes to, but in a nutshell:

People see what they expect to see.

It is the job if intelligence agencies to be paranoid and see threats everywhere, then investigate those threats to provide evidence admissible in courts. Allowing the intelligence agencies themselves to pass judgement on the accuracy of their own research is incredibly short-sighted and would inevitably lead to imprisonment of innocents on suspicion of terrorism, and if these individuals were denied such basic rights as a trial... well, let's just say that there is a reason being detained indefinitely is not allowed in most civilized countries.

"How can I help you, officer? I'm sure this is a misunderstanding of some sort.
"Well, Mr. Anderson. You are under suspicion of terrorism and will be detained indefinitely. You will have no right for a trial."
"What, this is prepreposterous! I am not a terrorist!"
"All suspects lie. You are a suspect, therefore you lie. Your statement of not being a terrorist is therefore a lie, and the negation of your statement is true. Therefore you have admitted being a terrorist."
"Your logic is all wrong! It doesn't work that way!"
"Oh my logic is working all right, it's my premises that might be questionable but wiser people than me have determined the premises to be true, so who are you and I to complain about them?"
"Right, well, even if I were a terrorist, I'm still a human and I have human rights! You can't just imprison be because you think I might be a terrorist!"
"So you admit to being a terrorist?"
"NO! I ADMIT TO BEING A HUMAN BEING AND HAVING HUMAN RIGHTS! YOU CAN'T DO THIS!"
"Oh well, I see, misusing your civil rights, scum? Well, I think we need to call in the military and hand you to them. They can define you as military captive suspected of espionage, and then you have no rights at all and can only expect a quick death. Is that what you wish?"
 :banghead:


Even with perfectly good intentions, this model of operating anti-terrorist operations would inevitably involve innocents among legitimate suspects.

And I've earlier made it clear that in my opinion, a hundred guilty criminals walking free is better than one innocent being wrongly convicted.


Quote
And I don't think "terrorists win" is a meaningful statement since Al Qaeda has no specific demands and no goals besides killing as many Americans as possible. What's the expected end state there? They need us to blame their problems on.

The goal of terrorism is to terrorize. That's the whole point.

Realistically, the risk of being caught in a terrorist strike is minimal. However, when your own country betrays their principles - remember all that stuff about sacrificing essential liberties for temporary safety? - that's vastly more terrifying than any random act of violence could be, because then every citizen of the country loses a vital bit of protection, and anyone could technically be simply arrested under suspicion of terrorism, and thrown into gulag Gitmo or some other super secret maximum security facility where they would never see the light of day again.

Your faith in the infallibility of the system is adorable, as is your belief that it wouldn't be misused, but seriously, this is precisely the modus operandi of security forces working for various dictators around the globe.


And to make sure I'm not mistaken, I should probably lable the inmates of Gitmo for what they are, regardless of their guilt or innocense of alleged crimes:

Political Prisoners.

Seems ugly when it's written like that, doesn't it?
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
I'm not saying it won't be abused. It just makes little difference which way fascism comes. It's a matter of time before either mind control is invented or we get overrun by China. We might as well be safe in the mean time.

The system is by no means infallible. If it was I would be all for trials. The fact that mistakes can be made (or the government lets terrorists go to make a point, /conspiracy) is the reason why we can't be sure if we're letting go terrorists or not when a trial finds them innocent.

edit: And trials won't necessarily help. There will still be plenty of wrongly convicted people regardless.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 05:38:09 am by Mustang19 »

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
It depends on the risk involved in letting them go if wrongly found innocent. If they could destabilize a government I would better be safe than sorry. In cases of terror suspects, I assume guilt.

You do realise that prior to 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism on US soil was by an American citizen. Are you proposing that domestic terrorists also get locked up on suspicion that they might commit terrorist acts?

And I don't think "terrorists win" is a meaningful statement since Al Qaeda has no specific demands and no goals besides killing as many Americans as possible. What's the expected end state there? They need us to blame their problems on.

Just because you are ignorant of what they want doesn't mean that they have no demands. :rolleyes:

In fact Al Qaeda almost certainly wish that they didn't have to kill Americans. It's not their goal in the slightest. America is simply standing in the way of their true goals (which are largely disparate due to the nature of the organisation) and thus presents all the smaller groups that make up the network with a common enemy.




Oh and while we're at it, if you admit to trolling one more time you get perma-banned from Gen Disc cause that's what happens to trolls round these parts. :p
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 06:34:50 am by karajorma »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Hey, "troll" was a title bestowed upon me. I haven't said anything hostile. I'm merely participating in the debate.

Domestic terrorists can already be apprehended on suspicion alone thanks to the Patriot Act. Has America become North Korea? Not yet. Do you really think this grants any power to the government they don't already have? You don't even have to commit an act, conspiracy to commit a crime is a punishable offense and stacked juries are not hard to come by if you really want someone locked up. Albert Woodfox, the Red Scare, the 1968 DNC... this is nothing new at all.

What exactly are Al Qaeda's demands then? What are their "true goals" as you put it?

Do you think that if the US withdrew all military forces and aid from the Middle East and stopped buying oil Al Qaeda would call it a day?

Al Qaeda may have many cells but it does have a central leadership that produces the propaganda and media statements. If they wanted to state demands they could easily do so. Thing is many Islamists are convinced that there is a western-Zionist conspiracy holding back the Arabs and the mere existence of the United States and Israel poses a threat to the Arab world. How do you negotiate with people who want to kill you, unconditionally?


 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Domestic terrorists can already be apprehended on suspicion alone thanks to the Patriot Act. Has America become North Korea? Not yet. Do you really think this grants any power to the government they don't already have? You don't even have to commit an act, conspiracy to commit a crime is a punishable offense and stacked juries are not hard to come by if you really want someone locked up. Albert Woodfox, the Red Scare, the 1968 DNC... this is nothing new at all.

The Patriot Act does not allow detention for years without trial. And don't talk to me about conspiracy to commit a crime. You're advocating locking people up for suspicion of conspiracy. Which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Quote
What exactly are Al Qaeda's demands then? What are their "true goals" as you put it?

Do you think that if the US withdrew all military forces and aid from the Middle East and stopped buying oil Al Qaeda would call it a day?

Actually a fairly large section of the group would. The terrorist groups that make up Al Qaeda are generally made up of people who want to bring about Islamic revolutions in their own countries. They're pissed off at the West because they see Western intervention as a force preventing that. I'm not saying that they'd give up terrorism but I am saying that they wouldn't direct any at the US. They'd be far too busy in their own countries.

This stuff about hating our freedom is pretty much crap. The vast majority didn't give a toss about America until America started giving a toss about them.

Quote
Al Qaeda may have many cells but it does have a central leadership that produces the propaganda and media statements. If they wanted to state demands they could easily do so. Thing is many Islamists are convinced that there is a western-Zionist conspiracy holding back the Arabs and the mere existence of the United States and Israel poses a threat to the Arab world. How do you negotiate with people who want to kill you, unconditionally?

Who said anything about negotiating with them? I'm just pointing out the basic nonsense of your claim that they have no goals beyond killing Americans. The saddest thing about the War on Terror is that it probably has had the effect of creating a whole new generation of terrorists who actually do hate America in and of itself rather than simply viewing them as something that is in the way of their goal. But even most of those would quickly die off if they were robbed of an actual reason to act beyond revenge.

As for the centralised leadership not making demands, what the **** do you think Bin Laden is doing on those tapes he periodically releases? Dictating his shopping list? Reading out the text of Harry Potter in Arabic? Ordering pizza? :rolleyes:
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
As for the centralised leadership not making demands, what the **** do you think Bin Laden is doing on those tapes he periodically releases? Dictating his shopping list? Reading out the text of Harry Potter in Arabic? Ordering pizza? :rolleyes:

If you look closely at the writing of Family Guy, you'll find the jokes never derive from the plot.  And I think that's totally gay.

Alright, seriously now.

Mustang, I think you're a little confused on exactly what al-Qaeda is.  So let's backtrack to the 1980s.  The Soviet Union has invaded Afghanistan, and the only real resistance is a group of Islamic militants known as the mujahideen.  When news of this resistance reaches the United States and the Arab world, the CIA begins to work together with thousands of Arab/Persian/Afghan/Pakistani Muslims who join the mujahideen, providing training, weapons, and even immunity from drug trafficking charges, so long as they continue to fight ther Soviet Union. 

One of these Islamic militants is a son of a rich Saudi construction magnate, who co-establishes a militant organization that helps funnel militants, arms, and funds into Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Afghan Marxists and the USSR.  He ends up splitting with this organization and establishing his own group...this is how Osama bin Laden founded al-Qaeda. 

Now, it's 1990.  Iraq invades Kuwait, and puts one of the world's largest armed forces dangerously close to the Saudi border.  Osama meets with the Saudi Royal Family and offers to bring the mujahideen from Afghanistan to defend Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.  However, his offer is turned down in favor of the US-led coalition.  As Western armies start arriving in Saudi Arabia, Osama becomes more and more critical of the Saudi Royal Family for allowing non-Muslims in the land of the two mosques, and is eventually banished from the country, his citizenship revoked, and his passport taken away.

He flees to Sudan, and then manages to get a chartered flight to Afghanistan where he begins to really organize his attacks.  At about this time, we have hotel bombings in Riyadh, attacks against American military housing complexes in Saudi Arabia, a failed assassination attempt on Hosni Mubarak, the first WTC attack, and eventually the embassy bombings.  Osama is continually making demands and verbally assaulting the Saudi Royal Family for what he sees as a desecration of Mecca and Medina.  al-Qaeda becomes a militant organization dedicated to the overthrow of Western-leaning regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, with its central leadership organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Many other organizations with similar ideologies pop up across the Middle East and become affiliated with the group--al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in Egypt, etc.

So then 9/11 happens.  YMMV on how it was allowed to happen, but it ends up being the largest-scale al-Qaeda attack ever.  Members of the Administration begin to rally millions of grief-stricken, terrified, and vengeance-driven Americans for an invasion of Afghanistan.  In this build-up to war, Americans allow the Congress to pass several pieces of legislation--the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists, and the USA PATRIOT Act.  Because of their fear and perceived vulnerability, they resign to the Administration's assertions that the Patriot Act will keep them safe at home, and that the AUMF will completely destroy al-Qaeda overseas and bring Osama to justice.  Anti-terrorism operations begin around the world, with Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, both known al-Qaeda strongholds, and FBI/NSA investigations in the US.

 In Afghanistan, NATO closes in on the Tora Bora mountain complex where Osama and his top lieutenants are believed to be hiding.  The attack is so badly botched that it becomes widely-believed that Osama escaped into neighboring Pakistan, and what should have been a quick military operation to destroy al-Qaeda and capture its central leadership turns into a ten year counterinsurgency effort against an increasingly-better organized and supplied Islamic militant movement remnant of the US and Pakistan-supported mujahideen from the 1980s.  In an effort to locate Islamic militants throughout the country, NATO begins offering rewards to Afghans to turn over suspected militants.  Many militants, Afghans, and Pakistanis are arrested and detained at NATO military bases in-country.

Back in the United States, a loophole created by the Patriot Act allows the NSA to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts and perform warrantless wiretaps on domestic communications.  Americans of Muslim and Arab heritage become inappropriately singled-out by the FBI and the NSA as "terrorist sleeper agents" and arrests are made. 

The Administration becomes increasingly aware of a perceived risk in holding suspected militants in either Afghan prisons/NATO facilities or US prisons, and so the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay is opened to house these militants.  Because militants are not a part of any national army, wear no uniforms, and are a legal grey area in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, they are transported to Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely in the prison camps, many as young as thirteen or fourteen.  In an effort to gather intelligence from these suspected militants or sympathizers, the CIA and military bring in more brutal techniques to extract information.  SERE specialists, who train US servicemembers to resist torture and interrogation, are brought in to use their training offensively against detainees.  CIA and military interrogators become frustrated at the lack of information being extracted, and resort to brutal tactics, including waterboarding, to get any information out of the detainees.

Because of the lack of credible intelligence coming from Guantanamo, the CIA and the FBI become increasingly convinced that many of the detainees are, in fact, innocent or hold no ties to organized terror groups.  This becomes a problem in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, where already-flimsy intelligence is being used to convince the United Nations and the Congress to gain backing for military action against Saddam Hussein.  Members of the Administration are aware of the reports, but order the innocent detainees held longer so as not to give a perception of incredulity to the US war effort and counterterrorism intelligence program. 

After several years in Iraq, a key leader of al-Qaeda is captured--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The interrogators at Guantanamo think they have struck gold--a major player in the terrorist network in their hands.  Interrogations agaisnt KSM are some of the most brutal in the history of the Detention Center--KSM is waterboarded over a hundred and eighty times.  Because of the high-profile nature of his capture and detention, details of the interrogations at Guantanamo Bay become better-known and better-publicized in the US press.  The KSM interrogations allow Americans to take a better look at what's happening down in the Detention Center...and sources inside the administration begin to leak information that some detainees are in fact innocent, and that members of the Administration were aware.  The Patriot Act, which was once viewed as a protection against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations, now becomes more terrifying to many Americans than Osama bin Laden, and Operation Enduring Freedom begins to lose support.

After the 2008 election, Barack Obama orders the closure of the Detention Center, to great relief.  However, as  the Patriot Act remains in effect and OEF is escalated, the Detention Center remains open, alive and well.  Americans begin to have misgivings over the intention of the new President to finally close the Detention Center, and with this final decision, their doubts and fears are realized.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is still operational, its central leadership unrelenting in its demands for Islamic Revolution across the Middle East and North Africa and the expulsion of the West from their world. 


-----------

EPIC TL;DR:  al-Qaeda was formed with US-backing in Afghanistan, and has been always about overthrowing Western-leaning governments in favor of Islamic states.  The botched intelligence-gathering efforts by the US have made the country less secure, and have done more to terrorize the American people than al-Qaeda could have ever done.
Credits go to BP for the briefing music I had playing in the background while I wrote it, that helped make it seem more doomsday than it probably should have.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 11:55:59 am by Nuclear1 »
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!

 

The Patriot Act does not allow detention for years without trial. And don't talk to me about conspiracy to commit a crime. You're advocating locking people up for suspicion of conspiracy. Which is a completely different kettle of fish.


The thing about conspiracy is that it's easier to prosecute without physical evidence. And I didn't say there couldn't be a trial. After all in the examples I mentioned (like DNC 1968) there was a trial but it was hardly fair. Again locking people up without real proof is nothing new in America, although appeals do sometimes through a wrench in things.

Quote
As for the centralised leadership not making demands, what the **** do you think Bin Laden is doing on those tapes he periodically releases? Dictating his shopping list? Reading out the text of Harry Potter in Arabic? Ordering pizza? :rolleyes:

Hm, I must watch too much YouTube. It's not like I understand Arabic anyway. But the cost to the West from loosing cheap oil is way the hell greater than any damage the terrorists have managed to inflict so far. Indeed almost all of the West's problems resulting from the War on Terror are self-inflicted. Now point out my typo and act like that means you win.

If jihadists really do want more Islamist states in the Middle East they're doing a poor job of it considering that all that has happened since 2001 is that two Muslim countries were invaded while secular revolutions took place in a few other ones. They really need to reconsider their tactics. In fact now that I think of it, neither side seems to know what the hell they are doing.


 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
The thing about conspiracy is that it's easier to prosecute without physical evidence. And I didn't say there couldn't be a trial. After all in the examples I mentioned (like DNC 1968) there was a trial but it was hardly fair. Again locking people up without real proof is nothing new in America, although appeals do sometimes through a wrench in things.

You've spent pretty much your entire time on this thread arguing against trials so what are you saying? You want trials for Americans but anyone else is ****ed?

Quote
Hm, I must watch too much YouTube. It's not like I understand Arabic anyway.

And you couldn't possibly find the translations with a minimal Google search?

Besides, if you don't understand Arabic and haven't bothered to do the research why the hell are you making claims about what Al Qaeda demand in the first place?

Quote
But the cost to the West from loosing cheap oil is way the hell greater than any damage the terrorists have managed to inflict so far.

So? What does that have to do with your claim that Al Qaeda have no goals beyond killing Americans? Just cause America don't want to give them what they want doesn't mean they don't want anything.

Quote
Indeed almost all of the West's problems resulting from the War on Terror are self-inflicted. Now point out my typo and act like that means you win.

Your typo doesn't mean I win. The fact that you've completely failed to prove that Al Qaeda only want to kill Americans is why I win.

Quote
If jihadists really do want more Islamist states in the Middle East they're doing a poor job of it considering that all that has happened since 2001 is that two Muslim countries were invaded while secular revolutions took place in a few other ones. They really need to reconsider their tactics. In fact now that I think of it, neither side seems to know what the hell they are doing.

I never said they did. Again you seem to be arguing against a point I never made. Iraq is pretty much the biggest proof of the incompetence of the terrorists. If the insurgents had simply waited 5-6 months the Americans would have gone home and they could have just rolled over the country.

But there is a difference between an idiot and someone with no ideals. And you claimed that their only ideal was to kill Americans. You're very, very wrong in that.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
People should read Nuclear's megapost that he edited in above.