The Al-Qaida Hostages

It is my belief the conditions that the terrorist hostages are being kept in are inhumane and totally and utterly.


These men are either prisoners of war (and if they are they should be kept in conditions set out in the geneva treaty) or they are criminal suspects and as such should be given the right to seek legal representation.


To make a new catergory is a slur on the US justice system.


How can anyone be 100% that every man in captivity is certainly a terrorist at this stage?


This whole thing sickens me.

I guess it wouldn't be a problem now if the US had just killed them in Afghanistan.


I think the only rights a terrorist should have are to meet a bullet with his name on it ASAP.


When dealing with people who are avowed to kill you, and are incorrigibly committed to this ideal and are avidly trying to implement it, the only prudent course is to kill them first.


These guys are lucky to be alive.


The problem with the "prisoners-of-war" designation in these cases, is that historically, POW's give up their attempts to kill you after their country is defeated. These guys will never give up and it's not like their "country" will surrender...their avowed goal is to destroy the USA, and in the words of Osama bin-Laden, to kill and plunder all taxpaying American males wherever they can be found. So let's realize what we are dealing with here.


The problem with treating them as "criminals" deserving full protection under the law is that they are simply too damn dangerous and there are too many of them. I say gather what information we can from those we have in custody and set about methodically eliminating the rest. This is no time to tiptoe through the tulips...next time it might not just be a few jetliners...it might be a few nuclear bombs.


I think the US interrogators will be quite thorough and I don;t think we are likely to be wrongfully imprisoning someone in Cuba right now. After all these guys are supposed to be most hard-core of the hard-core--the worst of the worst. I agree that the spectre of someone wrongfully held in Cuba would be appalling...but I think the chances of that are extremely low, and even if it were to happen it would almost surely be discovered. After al these guys are being interrogated...an innocent would sday he was innocent. From what I've read that is the last thing on these terrorists' minds...rather, they are threatening to kill their captors.

They are in the Caribbean, getting 3 squares a day (politically/religiously correct meals), fresh air and sunshine. How many of our homeless would like to trade places with them? This is inhumane?

....and do so less than humanely. These scumbags seek to kill our children, our spouses, friends for no other reason than that we're Americans. F*ck all al-quaida and f*ck all who dare suggest that theses animals have ANY rights at all.


And to you hawk67: exactly what legal representation were the people in the WTC or in any of the 4 jets given? You sound like an ACLU douchebag

I don't know why I am bothering to reply, since your comments are those of a fascist.


You treat people like that, (and they are humans no matter how much you despise them) and you make the whole "war" illegitimate.


That's if you can call bombing defenceless innocents a war of course.

they eat grasshoppers and live in caves and now are in the carribean getting special ethnic food. not so bad for a prisoner of war. remember what americans got from the germans, japenese, koreans, vietcong.

and remember what they did when they got a prisoner, they just would torture them brutally and kill them.

We live in a just society.


They do not.


Do you want to maintain our standard of living... or fall to theirs?

We didn't bomb defenseless innocents in Afghanistan. There may have been some collateral damage and loss of life but a bit of that is unavoidable.


The Afghani people WANTED us there to help rid them of the horrible and oppressive Taliban, and the foreign occupiers (al Qaeda).


It's not an issue of despising them or not IMO. It's that these guys are trying to kill YOU and ME, and ALL of your family and your best friends too. GOT IT YET? HELLO???

>We didn't bomb defenseless innocents in >Afghanistan. There may have been some collateral >damage and loss of life but a bit of that is >unavoidable.


How much "collateral damage" was done? How much loss of life was there? I don't have any reliable 3rd party numbers reporting it to me. Do you? If so, could I see it?


>It's not an issue of despising them or not IMO. >It's that these guys are trying to kill YOU and >ME, and ALL of your family and your best friends >too. GOT IT YET? HELLO???


Why do you assume thehawk is an american? (From his previous posts and spelling of words like 'defence' I garner he isn't). How do you know he is not a muslim living outside the US? If so, I don't think he has much to worry about.


Yes al Qaeda is made up of a lot of fanatics. However, I don't think that means we need to be just as fanatic in our approach in stamping them out. I read an article on yahoo about how the US is now turning a blind eye to human rights abuses worldwide if they are in the name of stamping out terrorism. I hope we do not have a repeat performance of the beatings, tortures and murders that occurred in the name of fighting communism.

I didn't bother to catalog the news reports of collateral damage which I've read in the news; my statement is based on the totality of the news reports I've read and seen, nothing more, nothing less.


I agree human rights should not be overlooked when dealing with worldwide terrorism. However I also can't help but wonder just what human rights terrorists are deserving of--considering that they arbitrarily and routinely take away the right to life itself, from the most defenseless and innocent members of the world community. I think we need to be sure we are dealing with terrorists and that there are not mistaken cases of identity...but once we are sure we've got them, I don't give their human rights the highest priority. Rather I would say that preventing them from killing more innocent civilians, and gathering information to prevent their followers and contacts from targeting more civilians, takes higher priority. After all what is the most basic human right of all?...the right to life itself. Terrorists would deprive you or I or any uninvolved party of this. So they must lose some of their own human rights, if necessary, in order to that we can thwart their evil designs.

....even if I have to do it myself.


What a lofty, holier-than-thou approach you have. It's just soooooooo great you feel as you do.

However, I'd like to hear you say that after one of these towel-headed bastards kills one of your chidren or brothers. You pathetic dope.

Try reading this....


these people are worth 100 of you.


http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=114711

>I didn't bother to catalog the news reports of >collateral damage which I've read in the news; >my statement is based on the totality of the >news reports I've read and seen, nothing more, >nothing less.


I'm not sure what your news sources are, but I haven't seen any numbers put out by a 3rd party like the UN.


As for human rights abuses, its not simply a matter of getting the terrorists. It's making sure that goverments aren't using fighting terrorism as an excuse to destroy political enemies. It also means that our government gives people the right to due process while trying to decide whether or not they are a terrorist. There was the case of pakistani man in NJ who was taken into custody. He wasn't charged with anything. He was just picked up one day. His family had no idea where he was. Though the man was cleared of any wrong doing, he had a heart attack while in custody and died. Things like this should not happen in a civilized country.

hawk, you are confusing the afgan people that just want to live their lives, with the poeple deicated to killing westerners that have no compassion for anyone other themselves. and have shown themselves to be torturous killers.

--Since you won't check the link provided by thehawk, Ray, I've copied the Independent article for you.---


AS THE BOMBS CONTINUE TO FALL, ANOTHER U.S. AIRCRAFT LANDS IN AFGHANISTAN


This time the mission is reconciliation, as victims of 11 September meet civilian victims of the war on terror


She listened to how a bomb buried Najiba Shakar Pardes in the rubble of her own home, then 70-year-old Rita Lasar leant forward and gently touched her arm. "I am sorry, I am so very sorry," she said, wiping her eyes.


It was the first time the American, whose brother died in the World Trade Centre, had met an Afghan family bombed by the US and for a while there was awkward small talk and polite smiles over green tea and fruit.


The visit by the Americans is highly contentious in the US. It was organised by the radical human rights group Global Exchange and the visitors had come with sympathy and an avowed aim of trying to rectify what they see as a terrible wrong by their country. In the next few days they will meet visiting members of the US Congress; the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, due here tomorrow; and the interim Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai. The State Department and US diplomats in Kabul are watching with trepidation but are unable to prevent the huge media interest in the visit.


At her tiny flat in Makrayan, Mrs Shakar waited patiently, slumped in a near-bare room, for the visitors. Her once pretty face is now criss-crossed with scars, and she has difficulty standing up or talking.


She was in pain, she said, and wanted to rest. She had suffered extensive injuries to her head, arms and legs in the US bombing raid on 17 October, and spent weeks in hospital. She had also been four months pregnant and there are fears for the unborn baby.


Mrs Shakar, 38, was collateral damage. She had been at home in central Kabul, with her three children, when the bomb punched a hole in it. The children who had, amazingly, escaped harm, watched and cried as her body was scooped out by a bulldozer. Now they help their father Mohammed look after their invalid mother.


Rita Lasar, Derrill Bodley, Eva Rupp and Kelly Campbell sat on the red and black Herat carpet, one of the few valuable things the family have left and brought out in their honour. They handed Mrs Shakar baby clothes and she thanked them profusely.


Under the glare of television lights, Mr Shakar, 40, spoke about his wife, who was a teacher before the Taliban banned her from the job. How she secretly worked for the UN World Food Programme and how she had looked forward to resuming her teaching job when the Taliban went.


"Her life, all her dreams and ambition, had been destroyed. My children and I are just glad that she is alive," he said. "We do not blame you for what had happened, you too have suffered greatly. But no one has ever explained to me why my home, in the middle of a residential area, nowhere near the military, was bombed."


Mr Shakar's son, Mohammed Biyuqra, 15, said: "The Americans are angry because they had one day of war. We have had 23 years of it."


Derrill Bodley, 56, a professor of music from California, spoke of his daughter Deora, who was killed on 11 September. A big, bearded man, he said softly: "My daughter was on an airplane. She was coming to visit me. The plane crashed. She was just 20 years old, I hope your children live a long and happy life. I hope and pray nothing like this happens to them."


Ms Lasar's brother, Abe Zelmanowitz, could have fled the World Trade Centre but he chose to remain with his quadraplegic friend who could not get away. His heroism was praised by President Bush.


"There is no heroism is bombing innocent civilians. So many people, especially politicians, seemed so keen to get angry on our behalf," said Ms Lasar. "It seemed the only people not in a rage were the families of the victims. We had too much grief to cope with for that. And I see the same thing in this family, there is grief but no destructive rage."


Craig Amundson was a soldier killed in the Pentagon attack. His sister-in-law, Kelly Campbell, came here on behalf of Craig's widow, Amber, who is looking after their children.


Mrs Amundson has been outspoken in favour of reconciliation, which some regard as akin to treachery. "My anguish is compounded exponentially by fear that Craig's death will be used to justify new violence against other innocent victims," said Ms Campbell.


The Shakars have been living at a friend's flat. But soon they will have to find their own place. Mr Shakar does not know how they will manage – like other civil servants, he has not been paid for six months.


Mrs Shakar finds speech painful now. "The worst thing is instead of me looking after the children, they now have to look after me," she whispers. To her visitors, she said: "I know how far you have come, and the mental pain you have suffered. We are very sorry."

i did check the link and read your post. so what does that have to do with the people that want to kill us that we have imprisoned. we all know there are good people in afganistan and some did get hurt during the battles, but thats war and it sucks.

I agree that civil rights/liberties in the USA are a precious commodity and we should be immensely careful when it comes to anything that can be used to abuse these rights.


Unfortunately we can't be sure, or make sure, that overseas governments don't use the war on terrorism as an excuse to do bad things to their political enemies. However, let's realize that many governments overseas do bad things to their political enemies anyway, and have done so forever, even without this particular current excuse.


TRhings like your example of the Pakistani man happen in this country from time to time over the years. I recall a case perhaps a decade ago where the Las Vegas Police Department entered a suspect's home and subdued him with a choke hold--which killed him. There were questions raised about the legailty of their entance and of whether it was necessary to apply a choke hold. I don't think these types of occasional problems are due to any one particualr law or set of circumstances; they are just things we should be eternally vigilant with regards to.

I understand and applaud forgiveness, and empathize with the people in the linked article you provided.


The problem is that forgiving the terrorists is not going to stop them from planning and committing the next attack.

"we all know there are good people in afganistan and some did get hurt during the battles, but thats war and it sucks"


You should know then that the number of "innocent people" killed (or "collateral damage" as they call them) so far in Afghanistan have surpassed the number of all the victims in the 9/11 attack.


Is that satisfying enough?


No? Would 2-1 odds be more like it?

That's not at all the impression of the figures I got from reading various articles--I think the actual numbers are WIDELY disputed. But for the sake of argument, let's temporaily put the wide disputes over such numbers aside and say it is 2-1. Do you think the 2-1 figure would mean that we should not have taken action in Afghanistan? My answer to that question is no. We still had to take action because future terrorist attacks, and especially al Qaeda, MUST be stopped. Terrorist groups have shown that they always attack again--for many years Europe did little in response to terrorist attacks on their soil and the terrorists just kept attacking (this is also evidence that the concept of extending "forgiveness" to terrorists does not prevent future attacks). Rest assured, if we do not dismantle al Qaeda, we will be attacked again...and next time it could be much worse.


So I ask you, do you think even those controversial numbers which you supplied mean that we should not have gone into Afghanistan?

you are way off base here cyrus. we had no choice but to do what we did. if we had a better way of stoping the threat we may have very well done that. those people that got hurt or killed lived in a country ruled by a regime that intended to inflict all the harm on us that it could. we had no choice but to stop it. the people that got hurt stayed and either did noting or supported their country's actions.

...and it's also not just about weighing our losses and dangers against theirs. Let's also add into the equation the fact that the Taliban itself terrorized and oppressed the people of Afghanistan. In fact, I would bet that the Afghani people, if having been given the choice to continue living under that tyranny or to sacrifice x number of random civilians in order to be freed from the Taliban and al Qaeda, would have chosen to make that sacrifice for freedom. OPf course that might be small comfort to the those who got unlucky and to their loved ones, but that's war. I'll even bet that the Afghani people would have made that choice if the numbers were even considerably a lot larger than what you claim. As you know, there were Alliances of tribal lords against the Taliban but they could not make headway on their own since al Qaeda and the Taliban were too well armed and too well financially supported by bin Laden's millions and revenues from the drug smuggling trade.


Afghanistan was a country crying for liberation from tyranny and you can't just ignore that fact when comparing numbers.

"you are way off base here cyrus. we had no choice but to do what we did. if we had a better way of stoping the threat we may have very well done that. those people that got hurt or killed lived in a country ruled by a regime that intended to inflict all the harm on us that it could. we had no choice but to stop it. the people that got hurt stayed and either did noting or supported their country's actions."


It is obvious that you go by a different set of beliefs or prejudices than me. Let's see:


-- The Taliban were a terrible bunch of guys alright but they have not been involved in terrorist activities. They have not been accused of anything like terrorism. "Liberating the country" is all well and good but I remember that we were after terrorism.


-- When the Taliban were asked to "hand over" bin Laden and his gang, they were being asked the impossible: it is simply unthinkable in their 2000-year-old customs to "hand over" someone who is in th sanctuary of their "house". Nonentheless, the Afghani leadership took the extraordinary step of asking bin Laden to "leave the country voluntarily". Of course Washington would not build on that through the diplomatic channels, no. Washington would not be denied its bombing. (Just like Bill Clinton's Kossovo: Albright and co wanted the bombs to start falling quickly and no generous concession from Belgrade would stand in their way.)


-- bin Laden had found a base of operations in Afghanistan but was not getting "support" for his terrorist affairs from the Taliban. The latter, if anything, were getting support from him, in funds and materiel.


--Getting to the al Qaeda the way the U.S. did was murderous, counter-productive ("hearts & minds" lost all over again) and ineffective. The Afghani people got rid of one bunch of fanatics at the cost of thousands of innocent dead - and now are ruled by a coalition of more unruly elements! Remember, the so-called North Alliance was responsible for so many atrocities against civilians that it made the Taliban popular with the people and enabvled them to win the civil war.


-- The al Qaedas of this world will be effectively neutralzied when the U.S. bites the bullet and decides to go after their real supporter - not the poor Afghanis. And that's Saud Arabia. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.


I have little time for the mindless and transparently absurd propaganda emanating from Washington and the Pentagon. You wanna believe, Ray, that this was "the only way" and that "the bad guys got it", be my guest.


Cyrus

You have asked me if I believe that it was correct for the U.S to go into Afghansitan the way it did.


Well, I will point out to you one little fact : The terrorists who attacked on September 11th were not Afghanis. They were not trained in the Afghan mountains. They lived abroad most of their lives, in the West, and were trained, guided, radicalised, and financed in the West, by other westerners. Their only relation or dependence on Afghanistan was that they were also Muslims. The terrorists were the perfect moles until their day of action.


So forget whether it was morally right to invade and look at it from a practical point of view: Why should you sleep better now? Because Afghanistan (!) has been bombed and "liberated"?


* * *


You wrote "As you know, there were Alliance of tribal lords against the Taliban but they could not make headway on their own, since al Qaeda and the Taliban were too well armed and too well financially supported by bin Laden's millions and revenues from the drug smuggling trade."


That's not true.


The Taliban, as I said, were a horrible, backward bunch. but they did not win the civil war because of "bin Laden's money" or outside help. And al Qaeda never fought for one side or the other - the reports made that clear about bin Laden. The Taliban therefore didn't get any help in the war. But by being religious students, they were 'righteous' and did not loot, ravage, forcibly recruit or kill civilians indiscriminately. Which was standard practice for the Northern Alliance. The Taliban won the people over to their side because the treated them better and because they installed a harsh but orderly regime the areas they occupied. The Afghan people, including the moderates, accepted them and finally welcomed them as saviors, because they effectively put an end to the decade old civil war.


Check it out.


--Cyrus

Cyrus,


I agree that the Saudi Arabian involvement in this issue is indeed very important, but I don't feel like getting into it in this thread right now (it would be too long).


I just want to say that the Taliban did support al Qaeda...and al Qaeda supported the Taliban. True, the support from al Qaeda was much larger in a material sense, but the Taliban's support was of a different nature--providing a haven for these terrorists and for their camps when no other country would have them. Thus the Taliban were effectively married to terrorists and thereby to terrorist activities. I take issue with your statement that the Taliban were not involved with terrorist activities, because I believe that the depth of the symbiotic and aware relationship speaks otherwise. The Taliban didn't do the dirty work overseas but they made a great deal of it possible for al Qaeda.


Also I think Afghanistan will be WAY better off even if they have some problems assembling a government now. You almost make it sound like things were just as good for the Afghanis under the Taliban. Your main comparative word here is "unruly." Well don't you consider "unruly" at least a bit better than "tyrannical"?


The Taliban started out popular with the people perhaps but you didn't mention that for some years now most Afghanis have longed to be rid of them.


I get the feeling you don't view tyranny and terorism in quite the same light as I do. I get the feeling you do think it's bad, but that since other things are bad too, it's not completely horrible by comparison. Well if that's the way you feel you are certainly entitled to feel that way. I for one, however, feel that tyranny and terrorism are completely horrible, period, and that they spould be stopped even if there is a heavy price to pay.

Yes that's the way the Taliban started ruling in Afghanistan but that's not how it later was. I recently read reports of Taliban kidnappings and sexual slavery horror stories involving young girls. Also, if The Taliban had not sheltered al Qaeda, and thus provided a "base" for terrorist training, etc., it's quite possible that 9/11 would never have happened because all or most of these guys were trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan although they lived many years in the West. It's not true that their only relation to Afghanistan was that they were Muslims although they weren't Afghanis.


Again, yes, the Taliban were a hell of a lot better than the Soviets, at least at first. They were much more feared than loved towards the end, however, and it should be obvious from the fact that Alliances all over the country wanted to get rid of them that their fanatical and stupid rule of terror and soccer-stadium hangings had gone too far. Besides what about all the common folk who were jubilant as they were ousted.


Calling the US actions "murderous" seems to be almost a bit of sophistry. The US HAD to go after al Qaeda and the ONLY way to do that was to go into Afghanistan because that's where al Qaeda was based. This isn't that complicated. Do you really think we could allow al Qaeda to continue. Do you really think it's just a matter of numbers. Don't you see that al Qaeda MUST be destroyed? How can you argue for anything other than the complete disruption of al Qaeda?

(I wil try to answer both your posts with this one.)


1. The destruction of al Qaeda, on the ground, in Afghanistan means nothing in the struggle against fanaticism and terrorism. I'm 100% against both, by the way, if you didn't already know.


2. Al Qaeda is like a cult organisation. Take the American boy, Walker. Because he was an American, the western media focused for a moment on his case. Turns out he's a misguided, alienated youth who found refuge in a totalitarian religious organisation. In other words, a cult. All those boys killed in the mountains? They are just like Walker.


3. The terrorists are not extinct. They are living right now in Leicester, UK, and in Fresno, California, and in Ontario, Canada, and in other places, awaitinmg the call. They are effectively underground and don't show up on the radar.


4. Taking all that, and more, into account here're snippets of my way of doing things, which is NOT the American Way:


(a) Send a covert, black box unit after bin Laden, just like Mossad does. Get him and get his immediate subordinates, those who are the opretaional brains. Then get them to reveal names and addresses - whatever it takes, I don't know appeal to his goodwill...


(b) Follow the trail of those moles and their cells back to (as if you didn't know) Saudi Arabia - and then be tough as nails. Fuck oil and fuck the "special relationship": either you stop the funding and the hiding of terrorists or you are so much sand!


(c) No bombs. Instead, flood the country with aid and stuff. Maximize the opportunities offered by currently friendly regimes such as Pakistan's. Enable the Afghani people to become self-sufficient. This always clears the road towards self-determination. A slow path but arguably less bloody than a revolution - or an invasion.


...I could elaborate further but the point is this: THE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IS INCAPABLE OF SOPHISTICATION - AND MORAL LEADERSHIP. The Americans seem to believe that, no matter what the problem is, the solution is always the same, i.e. bomb the hell out of the other guys. A loser/maniac's strategy, if I ever saw one.


--Cyrus

I agree that the US should, if you will, "take lessons" from the Mossad, and apply such tactics to terrorist organizations when feasible. I also think that destruction of the training camps does not mean "nothing" in the war against terrorism. Yes, al Qaeda has cultish attributes, and yes, there is a large worldwide network. I can't help but think, however, that destruction of their base and camps in Afghanistan will decrease their effectiveness. Of course other steps must be taken as well.


I doubt a black box unit could have worked well in Afghanistan--everything was just too entrenched, and there were/are too many al Qaeda leaders.


The Saudi Arabia issue is very complex. I think the first step, which seems already to be in the works, is influencing the Saudis (or perhaps rather appealing to their pragmatic side), in that their teaching their youth in school to hate the West is not a desirable thing, and should at least be toned down somewhat. Much more needs to be done.

I think the saddest scene following September 11th was the kids on the streets of Palestine celebrating the attack.


One of my best friends is an Israeli who has lived under almost daily threat of terrorist attack for many years.


He doesn't hate the Arabs. He doesn't want Israel or the USA to bomb and kill.


The only solution he can see?


Education.

I read that 1/3 of the curriculum in public schools in Saudi Arabia is comprised of Wahhabism, a strong form of Islamic Fundamentalism with a strong ant-USA/Western slant. No wonder they produce so many fanatics. I agree that education is a big part of the answer. Replace the Wahhabism with a less radical form of Islamic teachings for a start. Offer a course on comparative religion. And for God's sake, make courses in Logic required material, both in Saudi Arabia AND the in USA.

"...and for God's sake, make courses in Logic required material, both in Saudi Arabia and the USA."


You realize this would kill all the good games.

Good point Cyrus, it might;-)--but aside from poker, there is little more aggravating than dealing with true numbskulls. I'm not talking about handicapped people here--it isn't their fault--but rather about people who could think reasonably logically, but don't.


I also think that well over half of mankind's past and current difficulties stem from illogical thinking. So while we might lose good poker games, we would make it up and then some in other ways. For instance I believe that few persons truly trained in logic would ever choose to become terrorists, even if they grew up in the Middle East. And yes, I'm saying I believe that the average terrorist probably thinks in a less logical manner than the average non-terrorist. He is probably also stupider in an inherent sense as well.


If we in the USA trained our youth in logic in the schools, just as we train them in arithmetic, I'll bet we would also have fewer derelicts and gang members too.

You talk more logically than Spock.