MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics? - Page 6

ACPlayer · #51 10-29-2005, 06:43 AM

I do recall reading a poll quite a while backthat the Iraqi wanted to keep the coalition forces around for "security reasons".

However, in this particular poll that I linked please note that:

less than one percent of the the population believes that coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security also 72 percent do not have confidence in the multi-national force.

Seems like they may have changed their minds. Though the particular question was not asked in this poll -- so there is some (a little!) doubt.

Arnfinn Madsen · #52 10-29-2005, 07:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
38 out of 578 is not a lot.These conficting statements made you look like a hypocrite and an anti-American nutjob. This is why I said I couldn't take you seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't catch the basic facts. The 38 were found innocent. In addition, there is a lot of people there who has not been fighting against US troops (arrested by US allies). It looked to me like you thought and think Guantanamo is a place where they send only people caught in the battlefield. It is not, it is also for people being arrested outside the battlefield.

MMMMMM · #53 10-29-2005, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I do recall reading a poll quite a while backthat the Iraqi wanted to keep the coalition forces around for "security reasons".

However, in this particular poll that I linked please note that:

less than one percent of the the population believes that coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security also 72 percent do not have confidence in the multi-national force.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHA!

See, here is what is happening:

They do want to keep US forces around a while for security needs, even though they don't like them there. And they do think the security situation is worse now than before the war and US troops arrived. BUT...that does not imply that they think US troops are not helping a lot with security at present--because, even though security is worse than before the war, it would be even worse yet still if US forces were to leave prematurely.

ACPlayer · #54 10-29-2005, 07:51 AM

I knew it was a mistake to give you any leeway in the argument [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

However, thelatest poll clearly says that less than 1 percent (1 lousy percent) believes thatthe coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

The chances are then that if re=asked the question they would opine -- get the hell out of my country. As would you, me thinks.

See also this

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq's top Shiite cleric is considering demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and foreign troops after a democratically elected government takes office next year, according to associates of the Iranian-born cleric

[/ QUOTE ]

The elections are only weeks away.

MMMMMM · #55 10-29-2005, 08:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, thelatest poll clearly says that less than 1 percent (1 lousy percent) believes thatthe coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course coalition forces are not responsible for any improvement in security, since security has not improved but rather has gotten worse than since before the war. Coalition forces are only responsible for the security situation not being as bad it would quickly become, if they were now to leave prematurely.

#56 10-29-2005, 11:29 AM

I understand that 38 people were found to be non-enemy combatants. My 38 out of 578 number is wrong it should be 38 out of 558. From the link you provided...

[ QUOTE ]
Now to the numbers; the summary, the results of all this work for the past 10 or so months.

We have completed a total of 558 of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, CSRTs. The last hearing was held on January 22nd.

Now you recall that once the hearing is completed, the record of the tribunal is compiled and forwarded to the convening authority, Admiral McGarrah, for sufficient review and for final action. Of the 558 CSRT hearings conducted, the enemy combatant status of 520 detainees was confirmed. The tribunals also concluded that 38 detainees were found to no longer meet the criteria to be designated as enemy combatants. So 520 enemy combatants, 38 non-enemy- combatants.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from info you supplied. If you have different info to back up your statement...

[ QUOTE ]
It is not, it is also for people being arrested outside the battlefield.

[/ QUOTE ]

...then let's see it.

Arnfinn Madsen · #57 10-29-2005, 11:42 AM

Yes, I have info that they did not fight against American soldiers. Do not have the time to look it up and post it systematically just now, but I will get back to you with it in a few days.

I can't claim that they are not enemy combattants in the way the administration uses the term, as it is applied were wide.

#58 10-29-2005, 11:54 AM

I'll check back when you get a chance to post the info.

Arnfinn Madsen · #59 11-02-2005, 08:38 AM

Amnesty and other independent websites have several reports on prisoners arrested elsewhere (just click on Americas/US on their website) but since you maybe not trust them I have selected mainstream links:

1. This shows that US receives detainees from Pakistan. Does not directly confirm that they end up in Guantanamo, but many Guantanamo-prisoners claim to have been arrested in Pakistan and not Afghanistan, and this makes their claim more valid:
[ QUOTE ]
An update on the detainees. We had 22 turned over to us from Pakistan in the last 48 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source

2. US official confirms to Reuters that suspects arrested in Bosnia will be moved to Guantanamo. There is several prisoners at Guantanamo claiming to have been arrested in Bosnia, so it makes their claim more valid:
BBC news

3. Excerpt from document on US gov. website (seems to be some university paper?:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, detainees at Guantanamo Bay who are presently seeking habeas relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia include men who were taken into custody as far away from Afghanistan as Gambia, Zambia, Bosnia, and Thailand

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Although many of these individuals may never have been close to an actual battlefield and may never have raised conventional arms against the United States or its allies, the military nonetheless has deemed them detainable as "enemy combatants" based on conclusions that they have ties to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source

#60 11-02-2005, 11:22 AM

Your first two links are from 2002 and show that foreign governments turned over suspected terrorists to the US. Your third link is from Jan. 31, 2005. We've alredy established in this thread that your original post claiming the US was holding innocent people at Guantanamo Bay and not releasing them is completely false. Everyone at Guantanamo Bay undergoes a review process to determine his status as an enemy combatant. Those found to be non-enemy combatants are released. Is there another point you are trying to make?