Doh!!!
 

Iraqi security forces had al-Zarqawi in custody last year but let him go because they didn't realize who he was. They may need to stand up a little higher before we can stand down.

Re: Doh!!!
 

al-Zarqawi is not as important as our government makes him out to be. Bush & co has built him up so that they can declare victory if we capture him. Orwell wrote about this concept in 1984 (the nightly scream time when you scream at the figure head of the group you are at war with).

His capture will do nothing on the ground in Iraq, but it may effect public opinion in the US.

Re: Doh!!!
 

Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush & co has built him up so that they can declare victory if we capture him.

[/ QUOTE ]
The left seems to have the same idea about bin Laden, as if once he's captured/killed our troubles are over...

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am opposed to detaining people without evidence. But I am supportive of figuring out whether people picked up in dragnets are in fact local public enemy #1. Apparently Zarqawi had a decent disguise going. But the fact that the Iraqi forces themselves, much less some ordinary American soldier, have very little ability to match suspects with known terrorists or to tell a Jordanian from an Iraqi, augurs poorly for the security situation.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush & co has built him up so that they can declare victory if we capture him.

[/ QUOTE ]
The left seems to have the same idea about bin Laden, as if once he's captured/killed our troubles are over...

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the liberals also like the idea of bringing a man who killed 3000 Americans to justice.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am opposed to detaining people without evidence. But I am supportive of figuring out whether people picked up in dragnets are in fact local public enemy #1. Apparently Zarqawi had a decent disguise going. But the fact that the Iraqi forces themselves, much less some ordinary American soldier, have very little ability to match suspects with known terrorists or to tell a Jordanian from an Iraqi, augurs poorly for the security situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll answer for him, even though you already have -

Yes, it's a good idea to detain people for 2 or 3 years to make sure they're not a threat. Then when we let them go, they'll have spent so much time in US custody and around our friendly interrogation officers that we can be sure they'll love the United States and everything it stands for.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two questions here, one about the initial detainment and one about keeping them. In this instance, I think some form of initial detainment was very reasonable, since we were conducting major military operations in Fallujah and these people were picked up running around in the streets. There was a curfew and a state of emergency and everything and so there were some very extenuating circumstances. Ordinarily, I don't think we should be hauling people in en masse like this.

As far as keeping them around, I think if there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime, then we should not hold them longer than a short time period.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as keeping them around, I think if there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime, then we should not hold them longer than a short time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the question is for how long? Their prints aren't going to be in our databases most likely nor their faces. So the only way to be sure is to interrogate them and also others about them, and that takes time. So a vague answer won't do here. Give a time frame you would be comfortable with and state that is the max even if it should prove not long enough to identify them. And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified.

Re: Doh!!!
 

"And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified"

There is a hell of a difference between an average joe not being recognized as part of a military group and only being identified later, and THE MOST WANTED MAN IN IRAQ WITH A 25 MILLION DOLLAR BOUNTY ON HIS HEAD. I hope that's clear to you.

Re: Doh!!!
 

No, the liberals just think Bin Laden might have some insight about how to force all red-blooded american men to turn in their guns and become homos.

I know. Bin Laden was on the international jewish conspirarcy conference call last night where we discussed, among other things, the war on christmas.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is for how long? Their prints aren't going to be in our databases most likely nor their faces. So the only way to be sure is to interrogate them and also others about them, and that takes time. So a vague answer won't do here. Give a time frame you would be comfortable with and state that is the max even if it should prove not long enough to identify them. And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know. Maybe a week or two before charging them or releasing them? The issue shouldn't be about identifying them anyway. It should be about finding evidence that they committed a crime. If you have evidence, then their identity shouldn't really matter. If there is no evidence, then worrying about correct identification should be beside the point. The much bigger question anyway is what constitutes evidence, and that just depends so don't bother going down that road.

Also, please see Tolbiny's response.

Re: Doh!!!
 

So in other words, we have a bounty on a guy whose name we know, but whose prints and picture we might not have, or at least not enough of a good such record to make a quick idenitity, and then we release them in a week or two. But you libs STILL get to bash the administration for not identifying him in that artifical time frame. And of course if the administration holds the guy too long, then you bash them for that too! So you get to bash Bush no matter what the outcome. Man ain't that great.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush & co has built him up so that they can declare victory if we capture him.

[/ QUOTE ]
The left seems to have the same idea about bin Laden, as if once he's captured/killed our troubles are over...

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the liberals also like the idea of bringing a man who killed 3000 Americans to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conservatives would like the same thing. It's just most of us realize that it isn't over when bin Laden is captured, just as it isn't over in Iraq when Zarqawi is captured. Forest for the trees, dude.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Iraqi police forces, who were in Falluja then, did not have sophisticated equipment to take pictures of him or take his fingerprints," he told the Associated Press.



[/ QUOTE ] this from a bbc article, quoting an iraqi minister. the sophisticated equipment presumably being... a camera, and ink...?

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Iraqi police forces, who were in Falluja then, did not have sophisticated equipment to take pictures of him or take his fingerprints," he told the Associated Press.



[/ QUOTE ] this from a bbc article, quoting an iraqi minister. the sophisticated equipment presumably being... a camera, and ink...?

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD. I laughed. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush & co has built him up so that they can declare victory if we capture him.

[/ QUOTE ]
The left seems to have the same idea about bin Laden, as if once he's captured/killed our troubles are over...

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the liberals also like the idea of bringing a man who killed 3000 Americans to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conservatives would like the same thing. It's just most of us realize that it isn't over when bin Laden is captured, just as it isn't over in Iraq when Zarqawi is captured. Forest for the trees, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that your original premise is absurd. Liberals want to capture bin Laden to a) bring him to justice for the crimes he's committed, and b) prevent him from committing any further crimes. To say that we want to capture him because we think that would be the be-all, end-all to the war on terror is ludicrous and makes you sound like an idealogue.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that your original premise is absurd. Liberals want to capture bin Laden to a) bring him to justice for the crimes he's committed, and b) prevent him from committing any further crimes. To say that we want to capture him because we think that would be the be-all, end-all to the war on terror is ludicrous and makes you sound like an idealogue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you missed the point of my post. You're right, it is absurd to believe that. That's why my post was a parody of the guy I was replying to. It seems like we agree, otherwise.

Re: Doh!!!
 

I don't see anything at all in your post that leads me to believe that that was your point.

Re: Doh!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
So in other words, we have a bounty on a guy whose name we know, but whose prints and picture we might not have, or at least not enough of a good such record to make a quick idenitity, and then we release them in a week or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his picture is up all over Iraq. It was Iraqi security forces who detained him, not Americann troops.

[ QUOTE ]
But you libs STILL get to bash the administration for not identifying him in that artifical time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed out that if the Iraqis couldn't identify the most wanted terrorist in the country, we were in trouble. It says something about how difficult the job is over there, and also probably about the training/abilities of the Iraqi security forces. Do you doubt this?

[ QUOTE ]
And of course if the administration holds the guy too long, then you bash them for that too! So you get to bash Bush no matter what the outcome. Man ain't that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me repeat what I said before. If you have evidence that somebody committed a crime, then holding them shouldn't be a problem. If you don't, then that person shouldn't be in custody for an extended period. As I said before, the question is really what constitutes evidence.

Try to listen to what other people say on this board, not what you want them to have said for "point scoring" purposes.