If it is to be akin to a Making Light Open Thread, I'm torn. On the one hand, I found it irresistable to be open, honest, sometimes funny, poetic, and mathematicoscientific. On the other hand, I used up a lifetime of blogging there, and seem to have annoyed some people enough to have incited assault & battery, and other nasty behavior from people whom I initially admired. All in all, it might be bad to tempt me to overpost, and I might again be misinterpreted to the point of hostility. Better that I try to stay on-topic. Still, you're in charge, and emergent behaavior of your active audience may surprise us. Thanks for asking.

For some reason I've started getting an error when I follow the link to the movable type threads. I still seem to pick up the RSS feed though.

Like a Making Light Open Thread?

Not immediately.

Carrying over this one?

I think I've said all I want to. I don't know about anyone else.

Hello-o-o in there?

Do you guys want an open topic on my shiny new Movable Type thingy? (Hint: blog comments without adverts).

Jonathan, your post is some sort of sarcastic joke, right?

Of course we're at war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, et al. are venues for World War V. World War III was Korea + Vietnam + Cold War, starting as WW II ended, and ending in 1997 with the final dissolution of the CIS as rump-state of USSR. World War III falls between World War I and World War II in the number of uniformed U.S. troops. World War IV was Desert Storm. Even if its overt shooting was officially just 100 hours, the size of the coalition, number of troops, amount of materiel qualifies as World War. The USA made a profit, with allies doing so much heavy lifting. Not enough profit, however, beyond Bechtel and Fluor Daniels' rebuilding Kuwait City. Hence World War V was launched, intentionally to last roughly as long as World War III, eviscerate the Constitution of the USA (inclduing cutting Congress out of the war-declaration business), give the US permanent Mid-Eastern bases, thumb noses at the Geneva Convention, and consolidate the American Empire. Or so I've been saying for several years.

Noel Maurer: "Andrew, say more! After all, there are three conflicts, which are linked but not identical. One is a counterterrorism campaign against Al Qaeda and other radicalized "Islamists." (I lack a better word for the ideology.) The other two are counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I see the parallel with the Barbary Wars for the first, but it's not entirely obvious."

Well, it goes beyond the US historical involvement in the Barbary states. The threat of piracy and terror wasn't ended until they were occupied by France and Italy. US, English, and Dutch puntative attacks kept the piracy down, but it took an occupation and restructuring of governance to stop it completely.

The US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are like that. If we had just struck against Al Qaeda and other terorists, they would likely creep back after a couple years, like Barbary piracy did.

The US isn't a colonial power like France was, so our solution is to create stable local governments in the countries that will prevent terrorism and be our allies.

Of course, the analogy breaks down because the world to day is far different than it was in 200 years ago. The threat isn't geographically isolated in a few states, but rather spread out requiring far more effort and intervention than the Barbary Wars did.

Dave, in the interest of fairness (since I strongly agree with your broad argument) I should point out the Taliban were not recognized by the United States as the legal government of Afghanistan. How does that affect the applicability of the Conventions? Similarly, considering that the Taliban have not surrendered and continue to mount offensives in Afghanistan, would it not be possible for the United States to continue to legally hold many of the detainees as prisoners of war?

Andrew, say more! After all, there are three conflicts, which are linked but not identical. One is a counterterrorism campaign against Al Qaeda and other radicalized "Islamists." (I lack a better word for the ideology.) The other two are counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I see the parallel with the Barbary Wars for the first, but it's not entirely obvious.

Noel Maurer: "Anyhoo, I'm very surprised that only Andrew (I think it was Andrew) has disputed Steverino's premise, which is that we are at war. Of course, you'd first have to define "war," and then if you do decide that you're at war, you'd have to decide what parts of the legal system you're willing to throw out. Me, not so much, but then again, I'm planning on going to Afghanistan in September, so my tolerance for risk might be higher than most.

I think it's a war, of sorts, just not like any others we've had in the past century.

The closest is probably the Barbary Wars, where you have a fuzzy line between piracy and state warfare.

Noel, the war/not-war question can be argued both ways. Different sets of rules apply, and the legal condition of being at war is distinct from the rhetorical War Against Terror.

The trouble is that the situation seems to be being manipulated by the US Government. When they want to do things, like tear up the constitution and use it as an ass-wipe, the US is at war, and the president has dictatorial powers. And if the state of War gets in the way of doing something, it's not-war, and the enemy are "illegal combatants", and they're not safeguarded by any requirement for a trial. US Constitution? Nope, there's a war on.

Mr. Stirling, it is not merely the "broadest plausible interpretation": the circumstances in which Geneva Convention protections MUST be extended to a state not one of the High Contracting Parties are explicitly stated in the Conventions. And that rule is what you claim to be only "plausible".

Article 1, in all four conventions, is as I quoted. I believe that it is plausible to regard it as a SHOULD statement, placed there as a guard against using lawyerly hair-splitting to escape the duties which the High Contracting Powers have accepted.

And I think you forget what the Taliban were. Until we kicked them out, but supporting a different faction in another dirty little Afghan civil war, they were the legitimate, internationally recognised, government of Afghanistan. Hence it is stupid to claim all Taliban are unlawful combatants. It's so stupid that short planks would refuse to associate with you.

Al Qaeda, whatever we're using the label for, wasn't ever a government. It makes a difference.

Gosh, this thread is very amusing! I am very much looking forward to meeting you in person sometime, Mr. Stirling. Please remember, however, that I am just as forthright and hostile in person as I am on the net.

Anyhoo, I'm very surprised that only Andrew (I think it was Andrew) has disputed Steverino's premise, which is that we are at war. Of course, you'd first have to define "war," and then if you do decide that you're at war, you'd have to decide what parts of the legal system you're willing to throw out. Me, not so much, but then again, I'm planning on going to Afghanistan in September, so my tolerance for risk might be higher than most.

Someone might also want to dispute Steve's premise that the poll data in the Muslim world translates into millions of people willing to engage in organized violence on American soil. Just sayin'.

You also might profitably question his premise that American actions do not affect the number or propensity of Muslims willing to do harm to the United States. There is quite a bit of counter-evidence there, for someone who really wants to engage him. Me, I like to believe that a person actually reasons logically from consistent premises that are congruent with both empirical reality and my own moral beliefs before debating them. YMMV.

Steve's also a bit confused on the legality of Camp X-Ray, but that's merely a factual issue. FWIW, Phil Carter's blog has a lot of solid and informative debate about the issue. Personally, I'd prefer to check up on these things the old-fashioned way, by asking the lawyers who work across the river.

There is an interesting article in the WSJ about CPT Carter's attempts to get the Iraqis to build a legal system in which institutions like Camp X-Ray would be impossible, despite the fact that Iraq is indeed fairly indisputably engaged in a civil war.

I hope that everyone will stop with the stupid WW2 analogies: too many of the basic premises just don't hold.

Oh, while I'm here: Steve, who did you kill, and where? Why? Or am I misreading the following: "When I speak of violent death, I'm speaking of something I've seen first-hand, done, smelled, and cleaned up after"?

Since neither of those conditions is applicable to the Taliban or al Qaeda and their ilk, the Conventions are simply irrelevant. We're under no restrain but our own unilateral will here.

And your proof, Stirling, that everyone currently being held without trial is a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda is...?

With the precedents set so far, there's nothing to stop your door being bashed in and you dragged off to confinement and interrogation without trail or habeus corpus for three years, just because George Bush said so.

Admittedly, this particular example wouldn't be that bad. But it could happen to half-way decent Americans as well, and that would be bad.

Dave Bell I think that definitely puts some limits on how much you can ignore the Convention if Al Qaeda or Afghanistan are not "High Contracting Parties".

-- nope. The rules apply only to the contracting parties vs. a vs. each other; they're mutual concessions and confer no "human rights" on individuals.

At the broadest plausible interpretation, they could apply to a side which _explicitly accepts_ the Conventions and which _in practice makes a good-faith effort to abide by them_.

Since neither of those conditions is applicable to the Taliban or al Qaeda and their ilk, the Conventions are simply irrelevant. We're under no restrain but our own unilateral will here.

Randy Beck: Read the report and you'll see that many of them are in custody simply because they're members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an affiliate.

-- yeah. Any member of a terrorist group is a legitimate target for killing or capture. Any member captured is an enemy combatant and may be kept indefinitely.

Again, it's not a criminal investigation and nobody's being arrested for trial. They're on the other side and you kill or capture them as opportunity offers.

Andrew: So the idea that Taliban or other Islamic fighters are somehow less legitimate than a member of a state military or mercenaries rings hollow to me.

-- it's a matter of methods. The traditional Western law of war, as codified in the Geneva Conventions(*), say that there are limits on who can wage war, and on how they can do it. Essentially, you have to be a government controlling a state or an entity aspiring to the status of a state, like a rebel or secessionist movement. This leaves out bandits, pirates, terrorists, and so forth. Those are the "enemies general of human kind" and can be treated like vermin.

To be legitimate, the forces fighting have to be organized under a chain of command answering to the leaders of the state/movement/whatever; they have to carry weapons openly, and they have to wear uniforms or some identifying mark.

In other words, they have to clearly distinguish themselves from civilians. They can hide physically, but they can't pretend to be harmless bystanders.

Civilians, unless they take up arms under these provisions, have to passively obey whoever's occupying the place they live.

If the other side abides by these rules, you're constrained as to what you can do to them -- eg., you're supposed to let enemy combatants surrender, treat them in a certain way once they're under your control, not deliberately target civilians (though attacking defended places which _contain_ civilians is fine) and so forth.


(*) not the 1977 codicil, which was an attempt at political sabotage by the USSR and its minions, and which we did not sign.

Mark Pontin: You do understand that almost any historian will tell you that the primary reason for the development of the 'state' in the first place was -- explicitly and precisely -- so that there would be a civil entity that would have a monopoly on violence, both against criminals and non-territorial aggressors?

-- well, that's one way of putting it. The other is that the State was more _effective_ at waging war.

State-level warfare _is_ less destructive, over time, than the alternatives. That is, warfare is more intensive when it happens, but happens less often.

TerryF: finds Hicks fighting there for the Taliban and because he's not Afghani, they take him halfway across the planet with a sedative suppository up his arse and put him in gaol for four years without trial.

-- uh... Terry... do you think we put German or Japanese prisoners of war on trial in 1944? Or Confederates in 1864?

Again (how many times do I have to point this out?) when you capture an enemy combatant in wartime, you keep them imprisoned until the war is over, or you decide (unilaterally, and at your own discretion) that you can safely release them.

Andrew: Now, I do have some issues with the concept of an unlawful combatant. Giving states a monopoly on warfare is a bad idea.

-- actually, it's a very _good_ idea, since it avoids the brutish continual war of all against all which is characteristic of pre-State levels of social organization.

Even a Russian or German of this century was far less likely to die in war than the _typical_ neolithic villager, where 25% of males were killed in fighting, generation after generation.

cf. Keeley, "War Before Civilization" and LeBlanc & Register, "Constant Battles"

Michael :Dunno. Why do you then assume the Bush administration is doing anything right?

-- because any administration would be doing _some_ of the same things? Hillary, you may note, is if anything more hawkish on the war issue than Bush. Avoid the fetishism of small differences. Democrats are not commies; Republicans are not Nazis. They agree on more things than they disagree on; the differences are ones of nuance. American society has a broad degree of consensus on the basics.

"regarding your nonchalance with respect to competence."

-- actually, yeah, I did. In essence, I said that I have modest expectations regarding the actions of large bureaucracies. There are reasons SNAFU and FUBAR are venerable military acronyms.

"it seems that was more a rhetorical ploy than anything [your WWII reference]"

-- if you're going to use a fact to support an argument (including by analogy) then you'd better check the fact.

"Oh, by the way -- you're right, I didn't read the Draka series. I liked the Nantucket Republic series. Apparently you disavow that one."

-- no, I was merely pointing out that you knew less about my books, and about me, than you apparently thought you did.

Dave Bell: "I've been checking a few sources on the whole business of US soldiers killing prisoners in WW2, and I find that there are two distinct classes of event involved."

-- the way my father-in-law's outfit (he was a dogface in the 2nd Infantry) managed things was fairly typical. They had two sets of orders for prisoners -- again, this means small numbers or individuals, not formed units surrendering formally, who were usually pretty safe giving up to our side.

One set of orders was "take them back to the trucks", which meant what it said, for use when there was time and resources to spare.

The other was "take them down to the end of the road" which was used when there wasn't anything to spare without endangering members of the unit or the mission.

That one had an unspoken addition: "and shoot them". Since my father-in-law was the BAR gunner in his squad and had an automatic weapon, he got stuck with it.

The point being that war is -- again -- not like police work. It's a brutal, virtually unrestrained battle with life and death as the stakes, a cruel struggle for dominance in its rawest, crudest form. There are a few rules, but they easily fall by the wayside when the bullet hits the bone.

TerryF: By the way, I'm hardly keeping company with Hicks.

-- there's a concept called "metaphor" which often crops up in these circumstances... for example, "keeping company" may meen either physical proximity with a person, or identifying/sympathizing with him.

TerryF: "why won't your government try him in a court of law"

-- why should we? To begin with, since he was taken in arms fighting us, we have every right to keep him locked in an iron cage until the war is over. Which it ain't.

Again, Terry, this is not a police investigation and we're not arresting people for trial.

Is this concept too complex to grasp?

I seriously doubt it. To interpret it that way would mean that it includes, not only civil wars, but various rebels right down to people like Timothy McVeigh. Every lawyer who ever represented someone on death row would looked into the Geneva Conventions, and one of them would have brought it to the Supreme Court years ago.

You'd have to explain why articles 2 and 3 would even be necessary. Opponents of the current policy wouldn't then need to cite article 3 as they're doing now.

I'd also have to ask what makes you think the U.S. would ever have signed onto it. IMHO, this is the biggest stumbling block to all these arguments. I don't think that many responsible countries would have gone along with it. They like that phrase "High Contracting Parties" quite a bit.

If you could get around that, then yes, the rest of it makes sense. But as others have brought up, the nations of the world did want a monopoly on warfare. And if that's the case, then the GC's phrase "competent tribunal" becomes irrelevant in Afghanistan.

The whole of Article 1 is "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.".

I think that definitely puts some limits on how much you can ignore the Convention if Al Qaeda or Afghanistan are not "High Contracting Parties".

It's the same as in the Third Geneva Convention, which covers prisoners of war. And that one requires a competent tribunal to detwermine status if there is "doubt". Not "reasonable doubt". Since the list of persons entitled to POW status includes civilians who spontaneously take up arms, I would argue that "unlawful combatant" status cannot be applied until there has been a "competent tribunal".

Now, does that mean a Captain's Mast or a Court Martial? Or something else?

Edited by author 06-14-2006 07:13 AM
Dave,

There was a process of sorts. Keep in mind that thousands were captured in Afghanistan. Only some of them were taken to GTMO. The rest were locked up and then transferred into the new Afghan government's custody. Most (if not all) were eventually released.

I think the key quote from GC4 is this: "...shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties..." If you remember the recent Dubai ports controversy, one of the complaints made by Bush's detractors was that Dubai (as part of the UAE) was one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban. So it wasn't a "High Contracting Party" by most standards and this wasn't a conflict between two of them.

I've read that some claim article 3 (which is common to all four) should apply. But it says, "occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties". Again, that doesn't include Afghanistan.

As I said, they put all that fine print in there for a reason. Bush didn't invent it. Still, the Supreme Court could read it differently. It wouldn't be the first time.

Randy, I think the key area is the status of civilians in occupied territories, a category which seems to cover many people who ended up in Gitmo.

It's how you get from the default status of being entitled to protection, either as a civilian or as a soldier, that matters.

There's no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 hijackers were pirates--that's established international law on hijacking aircraft, which allows all nations the jurisdiction to try them. Extending that to terrorists in general isn't a huge leap. Likewise, the idea of a terrorist being classed as an "unlawful combatant" isn't really new. As a label, it has some meaning.

But BushCo seems to have come up with a new category and a new lack or procedure that completely bypasses the fundamental idea of the Geneva Conventions and the rest.

Why wasn't the idea of a trial, or trial-like process, on the table from the very first day?

Dave,

One thing that struck me when going through the Geneva Conventions is how it's phrased specifically for the nations to respect each other while not respecting pirates at all. In that light it's difficult to see how they would have wanted Geneva to apply. But that doesn't mean it automatically defaults back to civilian law.

Oddly enough, I knew Rear Admiral Harris when I was in the Navy. I didn't know him that well, but I do remember him as a serious officer who went by the book. GTMO is lucky to have him, and anyone who truly cares about human rights should rest easier knowing he's there. He's not doing anything illegal, and he'd get that trial you speak of only if somehow the fascists win.


Barry,

A president's war-time powers are considerable. Lincoln had no legal authority whatsoever to free the slaves in peacetime. At war, he did.

Keeping an eye on politicians is something we can both agree on.

One problem I find with the idea of a War on Terror is that "Terror" isn't an entity. As a rhetorical device, as our cultural analogue of jihad, in the same general sense of a struggle against something, sanctioned ethical framework, it makes sense. But it's not the sort of war which governments are fighting on our behalf.

The US Government is applying the legal forms of a war between state-like entities with one breath, taking away the legal structures of criminality, and then declasres that its enemies, because they are not the soldiers of a state-like entity, denies them the legal structures surrounding war.

And the Geneva Conventions, while they don't define legal precedures, do lay out the basic process of how a person shopuld be judged. And a large part is a reaction to the events of WW2, and the behaviour of the defeated Axis powers in occupied territories. It's a reaction to Hitler's "commando order", which led to the murder of uniformed soldiers. It's a reaction to the dirty war against partisans.

It's not about protecting unlawful combatants, it's about protecting everyone else from being mis-classified.

The Generva Conventions don't tell you how to run your criminal justice system, or how to run your prisons, but you can't treat the enemy worse than you do your own people.

It took American tanks in Munich, Britsh tanks in Hamburg, Russian tanks iN berlin, before the German war criminals could be tried.

I don't know if Bush, or Rear Admiral Harris, is guilty of war crimes, but whose tanks will need to be on the White House lawn before any trial?

Randy: "Bush didn't invent that procedure. There's no reason he should move slower than his predecessors. If there's a problem with this then it should have been addressed in prior administrations."

Perhaps when a president declares the right to indefinitely imprison anybody without trial, people check out what else he's doing, and care more about it.

I just noticed the Addendum about the Denbeaux reports.

I consider them to be misleading. Yes, it's true that "Fifty-five percent of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies." Read the report and you'll see that many of them are in custody simply because they're members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an affiliate.

It's also true that "Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. Well, a bunch of them were members of other nasty groups.

The Denbeauxs released a second report where they were shocked -- shocked -- that some of those other groups were not even on the Homeland Security watch lists. That doesn't mean those other groups are nice guys.

There are a few detainees that we could legitimately argue should have been released. I don't think Denbeauxs' papers lend any support to that argument.

IANAL. Sometimes that's a caveat. Sometimes it's a badge of honor.

About power:
It depends on the wants of people. Competition of evolution. Morality is ruled on simply by, what works properly. I would think Amoral behavior would be counterproductive to evolution, physics or life so ultimatey it is the losing side. Laws sometimes are referred to as religion as well.

I think we could have easily dealt with large militant groups (I am not going to bring up the 'terrorist' word since it's too watered down) outside of the Iraq since they didn't seem to be wholey there in the first place. I don't think the U.S.A., Great Britain, or even Germany and the U.N. could have done it but our cooperation together now like with Iran that is getting the job done with the help of smaller more nimble groups like the International Atomic Agency which has done a great job outside of the U.N. Maybe the problem was that people from all sides didn't give these groups as much a chance as they deserved or we were too mass kingdom-centric at the time.

About War. I am tending toward S.M. Stirling's side in that War is pretty straight forward with not allot of breathing room, but am not sure about his barbarism definition. If we start acting like the loosing side meaning cheap tactics and sadism, that never wins in the end overall it's the side that stabilizes and brings relative peace that doesn't do these things; ugliness and all. The most barbaric sides are the sides that usually lose or can't hold a stable government. You can be barbaric in your tactics but overall you have to be quite sane to hold a stable kingdom.
Hilter is a decent example of this as far as sane vs insane kingdom.
So usually we take the good vs evil out of this. The side that was destined to win and wants overall peace etc.
Usually in the end they look at least slightly better then the losing side. That's how gaming works. If a team looses usually most people find a reason that they did and it makes allot of logical sense. I don't by too much into the 'Any Given Sunday' theory but some of it's true but not overall.

I do believe in the rule of law but unfortunately it's hard to compete when everyone is fixated on just the U.S.A. and just the U.N.. They have the bigger guns sure but that's what's troublesome because they are so few. When the U.S.A. and a few other countries Law is the only law, that's dangerous. That's why I am ringing the non-profit bell lately so loud. They have websites and are gaining allot of power and there are thousands of them, it just seems a better system to me in a high tech world.
The states are to large and homogeneous. They need to be consolidated. Too many agencies too large.

--“But it's not a matter of breaking laws, it's a matter of being captured taking up arms against the US, as an unlawful combatant. “

Also depends on if allot of people agree with the U.S.'s idea of war. A terrorist hasn't been defined properly and it can't anyway, since it's such a broad stroke.

Andrew G:

I agree, maybe breakup the Politics topic subjects to, History and Philosophy.

Michael:

--“Well, I'm not a lawyer, thus by Steve's rules unqualified to express an opinion on American civics, but I had always understood that the courts decide the constitutionality of law, and that America is a government of law, not a personality cult. I don't think the President is supposed to be above the law. If he believes a law is unconstitutional, he should challenge it in court like anyone else. “

I agree that the other branches should have check, but alas it's not a perfect system and the President has many built in overriding powers. Maybe we can replace Bush and get a calmer person in there to remove more power from the government but the Terrorism issue for them still is important. How will they deal with it? Do you think a large bureaucracy can handle something like that. I would rather depend on open source software and a free Internet to do the job of protecting me online. We can still have police and local government I guess.

--"What's so special about States that they get a free pass to fight whoever they want?"

----“Because they can. To what higher authority are you appealing?”

The original concept of the King was power on loan from God.
I do think the concept of open standards is important though in limiting overall power

So it's about winning without screwing up longer term objectives (such as not being seen as pariahs by the rest of the world)? That seems sane to me.

zornhau,

I might agree with you if we were talking about an existential threat, and to some extent it is, but we'll need to live with ourselves after it's over. That requires living up to the agreements we've made with the rest of the world, and hoping the rest of the world could somehow live up to theirs.


Andrew G,

You're correct, but the phrase "unlawful combatant" is only with respect to the civilized world. As I understand it, the Viet Cong were accorded privileges as POWs under certain conditions, and not under others. That didn't just happen by magic. Al Qaeda is fully capable of finding some common ground with us that could get them such special status as well. That ball was always in their court but there was never any real pressure to get them to respect at least a few of the laws of war.

I don't think it's a matter of moral, just conflicting desires for how the world should be. I rather like the West and the US's view of how the world should be, as opposes to the Taliban et al.

From how I see it, both sides are equally legitimate or illegitimate in their use of conflict. It's not a matter of lawful or unlawful. Nations made the rules about what's permissible to protect their monopoly on power.

So the idea that Taliban or other Islamic fighters are somehow less legitimate than a member of a state military or mercenaries rings hollow to me.

Note, this is completely separate from the tactics used by either side. Perhaps the terrorist acts make them less deserving of rights, but to me that would ring true for any combatant regardless of who they work for.

I think that's the problem. Rights are easy to bandy around, but they're only meaningful in a "you can nail them down sort of way" when somebody with the power to do so agrees to grant them. Once you get to state level, it gets rather nebulous.

It seems more productive to debate the morality of specific means and specific objectives, and whether the one is justified by the other.

If the War on Terror is morally wrong (e.g. because all war is wrong, or because it's based on false premises), then all means used to pursue it are wrong - there's no point in debating them.

If the War on Terror is morally right, then the means are up for debate.

Is there really an answer to that question you'd be happy with?

It depends on how you look at it. The American revolutionaries said it came from God. The Taliban don't claim to think of it as rights so much as their duty to God, but it amounts to the same thing. Or, you could look at it as human nature, in which case these rights are simply asserted by those who believe they have a claim to them as much as anyone else, if not more so.

My guess is that most revolutionaries will use either God and/or "the people" as an excuse, whatever their true rationale.

Sorry, I'm lost here. Where do these rights come from?

I can't resist comparing Andrew G.'s point to the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, in an oddball way, the Taliban could imagine they had the right to break out of the established order. Likewise, the civilized nations of the world (most of them, anyway) had the right not to recognize them. And once that happened, the U.S. had reason to treat them as unlawful combatants.

"What's so special about States that they get a free pass to fight whoever they want?"

Because they can. To what higher authority are you appealing?
 
"What's the difference between the Taliban and North Korea or Iran? Or the various groups in Congo, or the cartels in Columbia?"

Just because you can fight anybody, doesn't mean you have to. This is like saying: "Well if you think non-reproductive sex is OK, then why aren't you sleeping with that sheep over there?"

Mark Pontin "You do understand that almost any historian will tell you that the primary reason for the development of the 'state' in the first place was -- explicitly and precisely -- so that there would be a civil entity that would have a monopoly on violence, both against criminals and non-territorial aggressors?"

I don't know if I'd call it *the* primary reason, but it's natural for any large group to want to limit potential sources of conflict. And while organized states may have done some good things, I don't think giving themselves the sole right to conduct warfare is one of them.

What's so special about States that they get a free pass to fight whoever they want? What's the difference between the Taliban and North Korea or Iran? Or the various groups in Congo, or the cartels in Columbia?

Michael,

Bush didn't invent that procedure. There's no reason he should move slower than his predecessors. If there's a problem with this then it should have been addressed in prior administrations.

"It really doesn't matter what the law says, as long as they can abscond with enough before we all catch on."

Actually, I think that was Bush's point. It does matter what the law says, just as it matters what the Constitution says, and what the Geneva Convention treaty actually says. Like it or not, they put all that fine print in there for a reason.

Andrew G: 'Now, I do have some issues with the concept of an unlawful combatant. Giving states a monopoly on warfare is a bad idea.'

You do understand that almost any historian will tell you that the primary reason for the development of the 'state' in the first place was -- explicitly and precisely -- so that there would be a civil entity that would have a monopoly on violence, both against criminals and non-territorial aggressors?

Randy:

... President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power ... That's his job as expressed in his oath of office. If any law does conflict with the Constitution then following it would be unconstitutional.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, thus by Steve's rules unqualified to express an opinion on American civics, but I had always understood that the courts decide the constitutionality of law, and that America is a government of law, not a personality cult. I don't think the President is supposed to be above the law. If he believes a law is unconstitutional, he should challenge it in court like anyone else.

--- P.S. I just realized that article runs parallel to Bush's hyper-technical reading of the Geneva Conventions. It's even more interesting when you look at it that way.

Yeah. Not surprising, though, not to me anyway. The Administration will simply always say whatever makes them look best. It really doesn't matter what the law says, as long as they can abscond with enough before we all catch on. Kleptocracy writ global. Aided by useful idiots, of course.

Charlie, I agree with Andrew G. If you start a political thread, you're going to have us all frothing at the mouth for a couple of days. No harm in that. "You started it."

Andrew G, I agree with you on another point -- Steve and Charlie are both good authors, and I enjoy their work. I don't care what their politics are when I read them and with specific reference to Steve's work, I enjoy a kick-ass fantasy as well as the next Hoosier -- but I care deeply about people's politics when expressed in public. I seem to recall a quote downthread, something about good men standing idly or something? (The irony, it burns!)

For those interested, the URL for lidless eye is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LidlessEye/
Politics there are probably pretty extreme from a European or Australian perspective.

For discussing Steve's work, we use this list, where politics is discouraged: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stirling/


For the record, I think Steve and Charlie are both great authors and I immensely enjoy their work. I don't care what their politics are. I also love the way that both regularly communicate with their fans, and hope they both continue to do so.

Stross: "I think I am going to have to discontinue these discussion threads if this goes on.
Comments?"

I really like the discussion threads...

I think if you're going to allow discussion of politics and similar you have to be willing to accept a certain ammount of hostility between people at times.

One option is to only all discussion of things relating to your works, or to somehow separate the two discussions.

Stirling's fan list doesn't allow discussion of modern politics, so many of the members have their own discussion group called "lidless eye". Stirling himself doesn't participate there, though there are plenty with similar veiws. This way we get to discuss Steve's work and other things in a friendly, peaceful environment and take discussions of more contentious topics elsewhere.

Thanks for the reply Andrew. So it comes down to this: in Hicks' case, America invades Afghanistan (and I do think that overthrowing the Taliban was a good idea), finds Hicks fighting there for the Taliban and because he's not Afghani, they take him halfway across the planet with a sedative suppository up his arse and put him in gaol for four years without trial.

I agree, the concept of unlawful combatant is pretty shaky. Do they also define lawful combatants? Makes you wonder how they would have seen Spain in the 1930s...

TerryF:If David Hicks is all the things you say, why won't your government try him in a court of law, rather than the military tribunal travesty they have at Guantanamo? And why didn't they do it four years ago? Do you believe in the rule of law, or just whatever ugly and expedient brutality makes you and your ilk feel comfy at home?

I'm not sure civilian courts have any jursidiction in these cases. AFAIK, none of them have ever been in the US, committed any crimes there, or broken any US laws.

But it's not a matter of breaking laws, it's a matter of being captured taking up arms against the US, as an unlawful combatant.

Now, I do have some issues with the concept of an unlawful combatant. Giving states a monopoly on warfare is a bad idea.

Edited by author 06-12-2006 07:30 PM
Michael,

Read the first line of that article: President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

That's his job as expressed in his oath of office. If any law does conflict with the Constitution then following it would be unconstitutional. That article also says that other presidents have done the same thing to a lesser degree, which implies that the process isn't unusual, and has been accepted.

The rate of progress accelerating as it does kind of implies that each president will have more regulations, so that complaint of his doing more of it may or may not mean anything. (The Singularity applies to bureaucracy too.) Still, he may need a court challenge to do it right. I dunno about that.


P.S. I just realized that article runs parallel to Bush's hyper-technical reading of the Geneva Conventions. It's even more interesting when you look at it that way.

A response to someone *other* than Steve...

Randy: -- I don't think anyone is saying that the law can be ignored. Bush's position is that the law doesn't say what you say it says.

Possibly. But I'm pretty sure that Bush's position is that he's above the law no matter *what* it says: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...eds_of_laws/?page=1

Edited by author 06-12-2006 06:14 PM
Dave: --- the start of a descent to darkness and barbarism.

Hmm. Yeah, that seems to characterize Steve's work pretty well. Works great when safely in a book, but when it hits the real world? Eh, not so much. Y'know, really, that portion of Steve's opus that appeals to me is the portion addressing the attempt to *avoid* the descent to darkness and barbarism. You know, Enlightenment values and all. I guess that was just the parts he threw in to appease the critics or something.

-- actually, yeah. If you don't know the facts and the context, how can you make any accurate judgment about _anything_?

Dunno. Why do you then assume the Bush administration is doing anything right? Must be that American exceptionalism I read so much about.

I note you haven't actually responded to my central question, regarding your nonchalance with respect to competence. Perhaps I was too long-winded to have read it in detail. But since you don't really do anything but ad-hominem attacks, and have safely categorized me as a non-historian, thus incompetent to engage you in debate, I suppose you don't need to deal with anything that might cause discomfort. So by all means continue to enjoy your rose-colored world, I'm sure you're feeling quite the superior debater now.

-- You've been consistently wrong every time you referenced facts -- about WWII, for example.

I have two answers to that. First, how many times did I reference facts about WWII? Hmm. Once. And it seems that was more a rhetorical ploy than anything -- and you should recognize those, eh? Second, *you've* been wrong every time you referenced anything requiring moral character. As much as I dislike ad hominem argument, there are times when no other approach is possible. This is one such time, so I'll indulge myself before getting back to putting food on my family.

Thanks for playing, Steve. I'll go on reading your work (from the library from now on). But I'll continue to take your opinions with the grain of salt they deserve. You're not much of a man, Steve, otherwise you could have debated here on the merits, and not simply done your best to score points.

Oh, by the way -- you're right, I didn't read the Draka series. I liked the Nantucket Republic series. Apparently you disavow that one. Maybe I don't know your writing as well as I'd thought. Maybe, you know, I'm not missing much, judging by your performance here.

I've been checking a few sources on the whole business of US soldiers killing prisoners in WW2, and I find that there are two distinct classes of event involved.

First, and common to all armies, is the problem of actually surrendering. It doesn't matter which country you come from; if some guy is shooting your friends, and suddenly throws down his rifle and shouts "I surrender!", it's quite easy to shoot him. And Armies, generally, turn a blind eye. They don't encourage it, it's one of those things which helps make sure that your own soldiers fight.

On the other hand, some soldier might realise that he's going to face the same problem one day, and want to discourage forms of this sort of murder. Family history has my grandfather threatening to shoot another soldier over such an incident.

The other form is away from the intense emotions of combat, and that's the form most people bring to mind when they hear claims of prisoners being murdered. There's a reference to rumours of an incident in Band of Brothers, where nobody really knew, or perhaps wanted to find out. And there are places such as Malmedy and La Paradis--deliberate cold-blooded murder.

But, at the end of the day, none of these details matter much. It doesn't matter which army did it, and arguing about the details of the history looks like an attempt to dodge the vital question.

The core of the question is simple: is it right to do these things? Maybe you don't feel comfortable using terms such as good and evil, Maybe yoiur philosophy has no reem for a deity or an afterlife. None of that makes the question go away. Whether you cast it in terms of religion, or just in how your actions are liable to bounce back on you, not thinking about that question, hiding it and hiding from it, is the start of a descent to darkness and barbarism.

Mr. Stirling, your thinking is centred on a world of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, barbarity for barbarity. Your philosophy, sir, I reject. Your reason, sir, I doubt. And your claims to truth, sir, I can only laugh at.

By the way, I'm hardly keeping company with Hicks. Geographically, you're a lot closer to him and even when he was here, he was 800 kilometres away. What most Australians are pissed off about is that the guy isn't getting a fair trial. Giving people a 'fair go' is a strong meme in Australian culture, just like the "guns as viagra" meme is in yours. Show the evidence openly, put the trial on television and nobody here would have an issue.

Okay, Mr Stirling, riddle me this. If David Hicks is all the things you say, why won't your government try him in a court of law, rather than the military tribunal travesty they have at Guantanamo? And why didn't they do it four years ago? Do you believe in the rule of law, or just whatever ugly and expedient brutality makes you and your ilk feel comfy at home?

As has been previously stated here, if the rule of law was good enough to try Nazis, why not terrorists?

The three blameless little baaa-lambs who killed themselves at Gitmo:

Yassar Talal al-Zahrani (Saudi) Taliban fighter, participated in an Afghan prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, that resulted in the November 2001 death of CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann.

Ali Abdullah Ahmed, (Yemeni), mid- to high-level al Qaeda operative with links to principal al Qaeda facilitators and senior membership.

Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, (Saudi), was a member of Jama'at Tabligh, a militant recruitment group for al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups. Utaybi had been recommended for transfer to another country for continued detention in that country.

Coltrane: "Treat others as you would like to be treated."

-- well, if I declare war on someone, I expect them to try to kill me. That seems reasonable, and it's the same standard I apply to those who declare war on _me_. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

As it says in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin): "If a man come up against you, to kill you, arise and kill him first."

Note that this is not _permission_ to kill him, it's a binding _obligation_ to do so.

Charlie Stross: Comments?

-- Charlie, as far as I can see my only offense is pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

TerryF: "To get back to the original subject of the thread, I found this link in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding Australia's only remaining prisoner at Guantanamo. David Hicks"

-- ah, yes, David Hicks, aka "Mohammed Dawood", member, Lashkar-i-Toiba, 1999, protege of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, senior al Qaeda trainer in Afghanistan (2001), graduate, al-Farouq training camp (Kandahar) with expertise in explosives and sniper techniques, graduate, Tarnak Farm (an institution specializing in kidnapping and assassination), translator of al Qaeda training manuals... and captured fighting with a mixed Taliban and al Qaeda group in Afghanistan.

He's had some interesting letters published, about how the world is controlled by the Jews.

Nice company you keep, Terry.

SMS: "-- here's this weird judicial fixation again. Again -- and it apparently has to be repeated again and again -- you don't arrest and prosecute enemies in war. You just kill or capture them."

I think the problem is that one side of the debate sees it as a war, and the other doesn't -- at least not in the same way that WWII or Vietnam was.

The "War on Terror" sounds a lot like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty", the word war itself has become debased so that it's easy for people not to see the War on Terror as a war, but rather as law enforcement matter like the War on Drugs.

zornhau: "As for SM Stirling: Reading back over the thread, nobody has refuted him on a point of fact, he's also rather refrained from nuclear grade flames in response to ad hominem attacks."

-- yeah, that sort of struck me, too... 8-). Why is it that some people can't handle disagreement without getting all sweaty?

Michael: "Guilty as charged. I hadn't known a detailed knowledge of history was necessary to make a moral judgment."

-- actually, yeah. If you don't know the facts and the context, how can you make any accurate judgment about _anything_?

You've been consistently wrong every time you referenced facts -- about WWII, for example.

Andrew: "The controversy surrounded the suicides is proof that they are working as planned."

-- yup, dead right. The names have been released; one of the suicides was a high-ranking al Qaeda type, another was a Taliban fighter, and a third was about to be returned to his country of origin.

Of course, this tactic requires "useful idiots".

Coltrane: "Let me ask you, if one of your dearest family members were accused of a crime they did not commit"
 
-- here's the weird judicialization of conflict again. We're not talking about crimes and police and courts, we're talking about WAR.

It's an entirely different universe of discourse. War is about power, about beating the other side into submission by inflicting more pain and death than they can endure... while, of course, they attempt to do the same to you. And that's all wars, good and bad, offensive and defensive.

"In a world as small as it is today, where everything is interconnected, everyone lives in the same ‘barrio’"

-- ah... no. The more contact between groups, the more conflict. How many wars has Lichenstein fought with Tibet?

It's precisely because the world is "smaller" that the Islamo-fascists are lashing out.

Martyn Taylor: Camp Delta/X Ray/Whatever is illegal by any system of law I know about and, yes, I am a lawyer.

-- so am I. More to the point the US courts disagree with you. Law is whatever the legislature passes, and it means what the judges say it means.

"The use of torture is prohibitted (I believe) by said Constitution"

-- actually, no. It prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" as legal sanctions on citizens. It says nothing about non-citizens on foreign soil.

"Camp Delta is the best recruiting sergeant the (probably late) Osama can have."

-- I dealt with this in detail before. Short form: Salafist ideology is widely popular in the Muslim world. Terrorist recruits are not, and never were, in short supply.

"that has seen the succesful prosecution of . . . how many enemies of our freedoms?"

-- here's this weird judicial fixation again. Again -- and it apparently has to be repeated again and again -- you don't arrest and prosecute enemies in war. You just kill or capture them.

"with whose names our children will rank Camp Delta - that's Auschwitz and Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and the rest."

-- and right there, you've removed yourself from the ranks of those whose words need be taken seriously. And more prophecy, yet.

"Nurenberg trials"

-- the ones with Stalin's representatives on the bench?

SMS:I think libertarianism is today's classic "dumb ideology for smart people", rather like Marxism in the 30's, and have said so on numerous occasions.(*)

I'm also in favor of universal health care on the Canadian model, amnesty for illegal aliens, and gay marriage.

(*) Question: how many libertarians does it take to stop a Nazi panzer division? Answer: none. The market will take care of it.

Hey, I resemble that remark. :) But you're right about the ideological purists of the Libertarian Party. I'm an independent, with centerist libertarian leanings.

Actually, I agree with just about everything SMS has said here. The controversy surrounded the suicides is proof that they are working as planned. It's an example of psychological warfare aimed at undermining the ability of the US to wage the war effectively. Given than most of the governments the US wants to work with are democracies, if they can use acts like this to sway voters they can take more and more allies out of the fight. Eventually it will just be the US and whatever nasty dictatorships we bribe, at least until Western Europe is overrun.

S.M. -- Michael, I'm a historian. And I get the strong feeling you just don't know much of the detail.

Guilty as charged. I hadn't known a detailed knowledge of history was necessary to make a moral judgment. On the contrary, given present company, it seems to be a significant hindrance.

Charlie, I *really* would be saddened to lose your forum. I respect Steve's expertise, even though I don't think much of his argumentation strategy or his morality. And he does have the right to his opinion. Even if it is, in fact, wrong. </snark>

Martyn,

I don't think anyone is saying that the law can be ignored. Bush's position is that the law doesn't say what you say it says.

If you're right then the Supreme Court will knock Bush down when it rules on Hamdan. That may even be easier since Justice Roberts recused himself.

SM-When someone says he loves strangers and foreigners as much as his own people, he's showing moral inferiority. Regard from others comes from the bottom up. Telescopic philanthropy is usually an excuse for neglecting and/or disliking the people closer to you.

Of course I care more for my family than others, that’s human nature, but that doesn’t mean I think the rights of others shouldn’t be respected as well as theirs. That’s not ‘telescopic philanthropy’, that’s just common sense decency. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Let me ask you, if one of your dearest family members were accused of a crime they did not commit, would you want the system prosecuting them to say, "Oh well, that's the breaks," and lock them up without any kind of trial? In a world as small as it is today, where everything is interconnected, everyone lives in the same ‘barrio’ . What affects the lives of the Afghanis and Iraqis affects our lives too.

Its simple. Camp Delta/X Ray/Whatever is illegal by any system of law I know about and, yes, I am a lawyer. It is unConstitional, which is why it is in Cuba not the United States. Have these people never heard of Habeas Corpus, or many of the other basic rights their ancestors decided to fight a war of independence about? The use of torture is prohibitted (I believe) by said Constitution - of which I am an admirer and wish we had something similiar - as well as many international treaties of which the United States is a signatory and was, in happier times, an enthusuastic propagandist.
The place is illegal. What is being done in there is illegal. Even Dubya acknowledges this, he just pleads that the enemy is so monstrous and evil that the law just has to be ignored this time.
Wrong. The Rule of Law is all of our best defence against oppression, not just those of us who can use our family oil money to buy a judge. Maybe Dubya should read that Warfare 101 primer, The Art of War by Sun Tsu, the first lesson of which is never give your enemy what he wants. Camp Delta is the best recruiting sergeant the (probably late) Osama can have.
I wasn't enthusiastic about invading Iraq, but was prepared to concede it might be necessary. I didn't shed a tear for Saddam - like his unlamented Sunni brother Abu al Zarkawi, he practiced genocide on the Shia and that's wrong (although how that got al Zarkawi so high up in an organisation such is Al Quade which is founded and financed by the Wahabi Shia of the Saudi royal family is an interesting question) I shed even fewer tears for the barbarous drug cartel calling itself Taleban. However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an illegal torture camp that has seen the succesful prosecution of . . . how many enemies of our freedoms? That's right. None.
It should be closed immediately and those who invented it and ran it subjected to the same due process of law that the inventors and administrators of those other camps, with whose names our children will rank Camp Delta - that's Auschwitz and Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and the rest.
Its no good saying 'We're the good guys' when your actions speak otherwise. Ends do not justify means. If you don't believe me, go read the transcripts of the Nuremberg trials. The Library of Congress would be a good place to start.

Also Charlie I know you have the ISP snooping in EUland today and weirdly (not too surprised) I think it's coming to America soon.
Microsoft Snoop Premium Edition Select Corner Office Diamond Sweet.
Mac Snoop X. Sorry, but Mac has allot of issues as well. DRM etc.

I'm afraid if I root for the USA I will end up at camp X Ray, anyway.

"Currently thinking (again) about moving to an entirely new blogging engine."

A forum might be better, like PHP board, but you would want to limit topics to - posted by moderator only.

Please don't close this thread! It's not often I see such opposing viewpoints engaging point by point, rather than exchanging scattershot vollies of rhetoric.

As for SM Stirling: Reading back over the thread, nobody has refuted him on a point of fact, he's also rather refrained from nuclear grade flames in response to ad hominem attacks.

If pointing out awkward truths makes one a troll, then we might as well wrap up democracy and usher in the thought police.

To get back to the original subject of the thread, I found this link in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding Australia's only remaining prisoner at Guantanamo. David Hicks
Hicks has also applied for British citizenship to get out of Guantanamo, but Blair is dragging his heels with the paperwork processing.

It's not just Steve; there are trolls in other threads. QuickTopic doesn't provide very good admin tools for free, and I'm buggered if I'm paying $100 a year for the Pro version.

Currently thinking (again) about moving to an entirely new blogging engine.

I don't post much, but I'm a regular reader who's had a couple of perfectly civil exchanges with Mr. Stirling and I'm afraid I agree with Dave Bell. I don't think it's intentional, but he's making it impossible to have a conversation.

Seems a shame to let one person spoil it. And anyway, he's not that bad, albeit a little smug. You should see what Eric Raymond has to put up with.

Personally, I was enjoying the exchanges to a certain point. I don't often get anywhere near the front lines of the culture wars, but if you do decide to close it, Charlie, I do understand the reason why you're contemplating doing so.

Charlie, I see only one reason to shut down this discussion thread.

And I'm afraid that reason is Mr. Stirling's habit of argument by volume.

Have you considered disemvoweling as an option?

I think I am going to have to discontinue these discussion threads if this goes on.

Comments?

adrian "Cuneiform tablets? Dates? IED fragments?"

-- yes to all three, in fact, though I think he was joking about the dates (from-the-tree kind).

One of the problems with the Internet is that it encourages people to associate with and talk with those who share their basic assumptions -- the "echo chamber" effect. This has serious negative consequences.

mostly I get offered beer,

The least they could do, under the circumstances.

plus some cool Iraqi stuff.

Cuneiform tablets? Dates? IED fragments?

Did your post have a point, though?

Reconnaissance by fire. Though I'm used to trolling libertarians, so some parameters might need adjustment.

Michael: "But you are supporting the Big Lie by focusing on the little misstatements (heck, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and call'em "little lies")."

-- more in the nature of "systematic errors showing consistent bias". Frex, virtually everything that TerryF put down was nonsense, tho' I'm sure he believed it, and to anyone who had any contact with or knowledge of the American military, it was pretty _obvious_ nonsense.

And if someone is wrong on all the details you can check, it's a high probability that they're wrong on the rest of it.

When it comes to "doing something about terrorism" you have a touching faith in the omnipotence of the American government and its agencies. (Let's not talk about the CIA... Jesus, do I wish it was really the cunning, all-seeing hidden hand of leftie myth.)

Terrorists _tried_ to blow up the Twin Towers during Clinton's watch. Even the Keystone Kops will get lucky if they try long enough.
That's why one loses confidence in newspapers after seeing a few articles about things on which you've got personal knowledge.

adrian: "My books are rather popular with people in the military"
It takes real strength of character to refuse a blowjob.

-- mostly I get offered beer, plus some cool Iraqi stuff. Did your post have a point, though? 8-).

Dave Bell: As for Mr. Stirling, I suggest that his behaviour is harmful to this blog, spoiling any effort at discussion.

-- Charlie invited discussion on a political subject; all my posts were relevant to the issue raised. Nobody said that only one side of the issue was welcome to post.

What you're apparently objecting to is that I don't agree with you. Or am I misinterpreting your post?

And as far as I can see, if you don't want to read what I post, the scroll-up button is easily available.

"were there not so much evidence that the Democratic Party can be just as right-wing fucking insane as the Republican Party."

-- what you really seem to be objecting to here is the political culture of the United States and its people. Well, that's your right, but it's sort of futile, innit?

Coltrane: "Do you honestly believe that? Do you have that much callous disregrard for your fellow man?"

-- no, I have that much regard for the people to whom I'm emotionally linked and to whom I have compelling obligations.

When someone says he loves strangers and foreigners as much as his own people, he's showing moral inferiority. Regard from others comes from the bottom up. Telescopic philanthropy is usually an excuse for neglecting and/or disliking the people closer to you.

Dickens pegged this syndrome dead to rights in "Bleak House", where Mrs. Jellyby is deeply concerned with the natives of Borrioboola-Gha. Orwell had some interesting things to say on the subject too.

Michael:

"idea that the America that kicked Nazi ass (while *supporting* the fricking Geneva Conventions)"

-- actually, in practice we didn't, a lot of the time. Eg., we routinely shot prisoners(*) (relatives of mine participated), and we deliberately targeted and killed a _lot_ of civilians in WWII. I can give you chapter and verse on this, if you want.

And while we defeated Japan, we sorta _helped_ defeat the Nazis. WWII in Europe was fought and won and lost on the Eastern Front, where over 80% of German casualties occurred.

Stalin defeated Hitler.

Our help may have been crucial (or may not) but it was Monster vs. Monster for the heavy lifting.

Michael, I'm a historian. And I get the strong feeling you just don't know much of the detail.

(*) not when they surrendered in large formed units; the upper echelons were trying to do the Right Thing. But indivdiuals or small groups of Germans trying to surrender to our forces had about a 50-50 chance of being shot out of hand, then or shortly after putting their hands up. This was widely known, but not commented on much. And that's in a theatre where there was little personal animosity

Japanese rarely surrendered anyway, but few got the opportunity when they did feel like it.

Michael:

"Like I say: I read your books. You believe the bad guys win in the short term, but strong men (or, OK, not always men, but you get the point) in white hats will prevail"

-- apparently you haven't read the ones I've written. Starting with the Draka series, where very, very bad people win in the end, rather completely.

I generally don't think in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. Sometimes, but not often. I usually think in terms of Us vs. Them. Up with my side, down with Theirs, hurrah.

Michael: No, I think the US government is spending a lot of money and enduring bad PR because it wants to *be seen* as locking up terrorists.

-- not hard, as there are plenty of the genuine article around in that part of the world.

As I mentioned, several who _were_ released from Gitmo then publically proclaimed that they -were- terrorists and had fooled the interrogators.

"and I also figured Kerry was a good try and still don't know why the hell he folded on Ohio with millions in the bank."

-- ah... because he knew he'd lost nationally by about 3.5 million votes, and it was all rather pointless? Because giving up when you lose is good democratic form?

The Democratic party hasn't won 51% of the national vote since 1964, while the GOP has done so, IIRC, 6 or 7 times. There are reasons for this and they don't have much to do with the Republicans, who are the undeserving beneficiaries of our mistakes and self-destructive impulses.

As for Mr. Stirling, I suggest that his behaviour is harmful to this blog, spoiling any effort at discussion. Unlike a newsgroup, Charlie, we cannot use local tools to ignore his offensive diatribes. We have no personal killfile. All we can do is ask you to shut the bastard up, and just making such requests opens another can of censorship-worms.

Just skip over his contributions if they bother you. It's not hard to have a discussion over someone's head if you absolutely must ignore them. Banning people just tends to convince them you can't handle THE TRVTH.

OT - Charlie, was wondering if you'd seen this, from about two minutes in. Well Cthulhoid.

My books are rather popular with people in the military

It takes real strength of character to refuse a blowjob.

Edited by author 06-12-2006 01:52 AM
If doing something to embarrass the USA is an act of asymmetric warfare against the USA, then the first in the queue of candidates for the newly available cells at Gitmo should be President Bush.

As for Mr. Stirling, I suggest that his behaviour is harmful to this blog, spoiling any effort at discussion. Unlike a newsgroup, Charlie, we cannot use local tools to ignore his offensive diatribes. We have no personal killfile. All we can do is ask you to shut the bastard up, and just making such requests opens another can of censorship-worms.

Or I could ape his tactics and post multiple long-winded diatribes that drive his views, and everybody else's, out of immediate sight.

It doesn't matter what his political opinions actually are, though his avowed support for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton suggests that government of the fruitbats by the fruitbats shall not soon perish from this Earth. It's a claim which might almost be black propaganda by a Republican shill, were there not so much evidence that the Democratic Party can be just as right-wing fucking insane as the Republican Party.

And, yes, our Labour Party can be just as bad, but I don't vote for them or the Conservative Party. And I know my vote was properly tallied.

Or are you, as I suspect, just admiring your own writing?

S.M., I was responding toward attitudes like, "the lives and welfare of my kin and my fellow-citizens count for a lot more than alien strangers, and that's precisely how it ought to be." Do you honestly believe that? Do you have that much callous disregrard for your fellow man?

No, wait, I'm not quite closing on that flummoxed note. (Charlie, the fact that your board runs backwards is no end of bother to me.)

The only possible rhetorical support for positing an existential threat to America is 9/11. To which I just want to say that in actual point of fact, the loss of the WTC and 3000 Americans, while tragic, harmed America no more than the loss of the Reichstag harmed Germany. I feel absolutely certain that I need not belabor that point further, and with that, I truly am finished tonight.

Edited by author 06-12-2006 12:48 AM
No, I think the US government is spending a lot of money and enduring bad PR because it wants to *be seen* as locking up terrorists. Thanks for helping out. Do you think they give a shit whether the Gitmo inmates *are* terrorists? No, patently not, or they would have had a sounder strategy for finding actual terrorists, and a mechanism in place for finding out actual facts once they were locked up. They're nitwits, man. And they don't care whether you or I live or die, so your gung-ho language, while entertaining, doesn't do much to convince.

I share your opinion of Hillary, by the way. I liked Clarke, too, and I also figured Kerry was a good try and still don't know why the hell he folded on Ohio with millions in the bank. If anybody will *try* to win, Hillary's the man to do it, and I'll support whoever the Democrats end up nominating -- and hope to God that person will actually want to win the damned election. So in terms of actual American electoral politics, we seem to be pretty similar.

But for all that, your registered (centrist) status does little to dissuade me of my original opinion of your actual belief structure. Like I say: I read your books. You believe the bad guys win in the short term, but strong men (or, OK, not always men, but you get the point) in white hats will prevail, precariously, through Herculean effort, while wooly-headed liberals like, say, myself, will end up hammering out swords in Mycenaean Greece. Yeah, sure, I grew up in the world with white-hatted good guys, too, and it still speaks to me. And yeah, I agree there are a lot of really nasty people in the world, and wooly-headedness is not always the best strategy (I kinda like the PC crowd getting eaten in Aztlan, for instance).

I'm just saying, the white-hat fantasy, while a pretty good way to get people to (usually) do the right thing, doesn't always match the actual world -- and the guys in charge pay good money to write storylines attractive to you and me, in order to sell a bunch of stinking manure. Gitmo being a legitimate prison with actual bad guys in it works from a script point of view, but dude, they paid a fricking bounty to get the extras to fill the cast. OK? It's all just show! They aren't (mostly) actual terrorists, man -- get past it! Sure, lots of them are probably pretty bad guys -- you gotta be pretty bad to survive in Afghanistan. Were they any actual threat to your tribe, tu _barrio_? You feel an existential threat from *Afghanistan*? Give me a fucking break! Are you an American or a wuss, man?

It's all just bread and circuses, and you know it. Otherwise, they would have *done something about terrorism*. Instead, well, crap, you surely know how to read, why do I belabor the point?

To date, I'm sure you feel you've demolished all kinds of obvious untruths. Great. I'm happy. (Why you don't see how well that fits the spirit, if not the definition, of trolling is a topic for another day.) But you are supporting the Big Lie by focusing on the little misstatements (heck, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and call'em "little lies"). And that support is something you just can't be proud of. The real bad guys, in the real world we actually live in, win in the short term by lying. *You* are now the guy hammering swords in Mycenaean Greece. (Sorry, I'm not good with names -- I see your scenes perfectly in my mind's eye, but damn if I can remember anything about any actual names beyond, you know, *Nantucket*. I always tell my kids the only reason I remember *their* names is that I got to pick them.)

I could go on. I could build a nice conceit comparing sword-hammering with wordsmithing, noting that as a good writer, your support of the Big Lie is *worse* than making weapons. I could do a detailed rebuttal, probably conceding points to you along the way (like my admittedly sloppy use of the term "libertarian", which I use in an idiosyncratic way (meaning "wrong way") which means something Heinleinesque to me but always gets me in trouble when using it with people who actually know what they're talking about). What's the point? You know what I think, I got a pretty good idea what you think, and I have work to get back to. Probably you do, too. But I do know one thing. Gitmo is wrong, and it's incompetent. Well, I guess that's really two things. The first means a lot to me, and I can't fathom why the second means nothing to you. The same goes for the Iraq effort as a whole, the entire GWOT, and more or less everything else this Administration has done. It's all wrong, and it's all incompetently managed. To support it is weird, and figuring out why an intelligent person would come down in support of the truly strange idea that the America that kicked Nazi ass (while *supporting* the fricking Geneva Conventions) is in existential danger from a few guys with camels, danger it can't possibly avert without jettisoning all that quaint and wooly-headed stuff like international accords and the Constitution... well, a wise man once said, "it requires a whole lot of projective empathy to understand". Yeah. Projective empathy I simply have no interest in mustering tonight, when there are deadlines to meet.

I'll just close on that flummoxed note, shall I? OK, Michael, please do. Carry on, one and all!

And to date, what I've mostly done on this thread is point out obvious untruths which would otherwise have gone unchallenged -- like the "minority kids sent to die" meme, which I comprehensively demolished with both statistics and data from my personal experience.

Haven't noticed much retraction by the people who got it wrong, though... 8-).

Michael: can suddenly start believing every word the government says.

-- do you think the US government is spending a lot of money and enduring bad PR just because it wants to lock up and afflict a bunch of innocent Afghan peasants and a couple of Muslim Brits who just _happened_, by some bizzare chance, to be holidaying in Taliban-era Afghanistan?

The mind boggles. I know there are people who actually believe this, but it's like knowing that people believe in the Virgin Birth or that the Earth is flat -- it requires a whole lot of projective empathy to understand.

Michael: but you can't possibly think you'll convince a bunch of woolly-headed liberals like us

-- I'm a registered (centrist) Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, actually. I campaigned for Clarke in '04, voted for Kerry (reluctantly, because I knew the hapless wimp would lose) and expect to hit the streets with a sign for Hillary in '08. She's a mean, ruthless bitch and would make an excellent President.

And I'm not "trolling". I speak the truth as I see it wherever I am. It's a civic obligation, though often an unpleasant one; when someone spouts codswallop, I point it out. "For evil to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing."

"how a die-hard John-Wayne libertarian like you"

-- who _do_ you think you're talking to? It certainly isn't me.

I think libertarianism is today's classic "dumb ideology for smart people", rather like Marxism in the 30's, and have said so on numerous occasions.(*)

I'm also in favor of universal health care on the Canadian model, amnesty for illegal aliens, and gay marriage.

(*) Question: how many libertarians does it take to stop a Nazi panzer division? Answer: none. The market will take care of it.

TerryF: It's those same poor kids who come back from your wars utterly shattered, physically and mentally.

-- As it happens, my brother-in-law was in Vietnam, '67-68, and my niece's fiance was in Iraq 03-04. Both enlisted men in the Army's combat branches, btw.

Andrew (the fiance, two whom I dedicated "Dies the Fire") tells me he actually had a rather good time in Iraq; he says he misses the food and liked the people, except for the ones who were trying to kill him, of which he saw more than his share since his MOS required him to go along on a lot of safe-house raids.

I personally know several other people who've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan (one National Guardsman who works as a trainer at the gym I attend, for instance), and I have corresponded with many more(*).
 
Oddly enough, Terry, none of these actual physically extant people match your description of "poor kids" who are "utterly shattered". Reality has an irritating way of deflating stereotypes derived from propaganda, doesn't it? 8-).

And as for experience, my father and grandfather were professional soldiers, I grew up on military bases in several countries, and while I've never actually been in a pukka war myself, I have had people try to kill me (and vice versa) and been places where I stepped over dead bodies in the street, and saw freshly spilled blood. When I speak of violent death, I'm speaking of something I've seen first-hand, done, smelled, and cleaned up after.

People get killed and have other unpleasant things happen to them in wars; that sort of goes with the territory. Unless you're an unconditional pacifist, this says nothing about any particular war -- it just means it's a war. As the man said, war means fighting, and fighting means killing.

(*) My books are rather popular with people in the military -- right now I'm looking at a picture of SPC More of the 1-184th Infantry standing in front of his Stryker near Baghdad, holding up "Dies the Fire" and "The Protector's War", which he sent me along with a note of thanks. I end up exchanging letters with a fair number.

Edited by author 06-11-2006 11:00 PM
Mr. Stirling, I like your writing. That, in conjunction with my addiction to feeding trolls, is why I can't avoid responding in this thread -- where you are, no doubt about it, a troll. I *know* you hold the opinions you express here (like I say, I like your books), but you can't possibly think you'll convince a bunch of woolly-headed liberals like us to face the truth, right? So why try? Answer: you like trolling. Perfectly obvious.

I just want to address one statement you made below:

--- They're there because they were taken in arms against the United States, to the best of our knowledge.

Do you, in point of fact, have any basis whatsoever to support that statement, or are you just so immersed in American exceptionalism that you can't possibly conceive that the American government could do wrong? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one. And I can't understand -- really can't understand -- how a die-hard John-Wayne libertarian can suddenly start believing every word the government says. They've really sold you a bill of goods, haven't they? The rough-and-ready Gitmo storyline has you hook, line, and sinker, because they wrote it just for you.

I'll repeat: I like your writing. I just wish you knew the difference between your fantasies and reality. It counts, out here in the real world. The guys in charge know that, and you don't. I think you're a prize sucker.

I tend to discount hand-wringing over suffering when people doing it are notably selective about which suffering they notice.

Frex, somewhere between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 people have been killed in the Congolese civil wars over the past decade or so, and I hear bupkis from the usual suspects of the Galloway-Choamsky set.

More people have died in the recently more-or-less concluded Algerian civil war than in all the Arab-Israeli conflicts put together, most of them civilians butchered by the Islamist rebels, with the government a close second.

Ditto the Islamist governmet of the Sudan's various campaigns of extermination, of which Darfur is merely the latest.

And I could go on and on.

Odd, isn't it, that some people aren't concerned with those being killed unless Americans or Israelis are killing 'em?

Hence I regard such effusions with dismissive contempt, as obviously dishonest and based not on real humanitarian sentiment but on hate and bile.

TerryF: There's an interesting coincidence, the theatre commander being an Arab-American. Helps enormously with propaganda, don't it?

-- the fact that he's a fluent Arabic-speaker and knows the area doesn't hurt.

I note that you abruptly dropped the "minority kids sent to die" trope when I showed how ridiculously false-to-fact it was.

How about an "I spoke from unthinking prejudice, and was wrong"?

Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

TerryF: "Guantanamo is going to be a name reviled by future generations, like Guernica, Dachau..."

-- now, here's an excellent example of verbal inflation and irresponsible rhetorical recklessness, tending to trivialize genuine atrocities.

Leaving aside Guernica(*), Dachau was an actual extermination camp where tens of thousands of people were killed for being Jews, homosexuals, Rom, or whatever, along with lethal medical experiments and the usual Nazi paraphenalia.

Gitmo is a detention camp for about 450 enemy combatants, where nobody has been killed, starved, put to forced labor, or in fact subjected to anything but boredom and harassment.

Oh, and Terry, as far as future generations are concerned... neither you nor I can tell what they're going to do or say. The difference between us is that I know it.

(*) a minor bombing compared to, say, the 20,000 French citizens killed in the Allied campaign against the French railway system just before D-Day. We'll leave Dresden completely out of it, shall we? Or LeMay's B-29 firestorm raid on Tokyo, which killed 100,000 civilians in a single night.

There's an interesting coincidence, the theatre commander being an Arab-American. Helps enormously with propaganda, don't it?

How many British armies are commanded by the children of Pakistani immigrants, or of Jamaican chars? Buggered if I know, I'm 15,000 kilometres from there.

TerryF Let me amend that to "incarcerate and torture them all and figure it out later".

-- 450 people is "them all"? And nobody has been tortured, by any reasonable definition of the word, at Gitmo.

In fact, nobody has been sent to Gitmo for the past several years. It was an improvisation before things settled down in Afghanistan.

TerryF: "but you people in the land of the free and the home of the morbidly obese tend to get poor kids from minority groups to go overseas to do your killing for you."

-- in point of fact, American military casualties in the current struggle precisely reflect the demographics of the military-age population: about 70% non-Hispanic white, 13% Hispanic, and 13% African-American, with the remaining 4% Asian-American, Native American, etc. If anything, the minority communities are slightly underrepresented in the combat arms.

As for their being "kids", the median age of American infantrymen is 27; the typical American soldier is a professional on his or her second hitch(*). Furthermore, the Army doesn't recruit from the socially marginal any more; too expensive and time-consuming to be worthwhile. The educational level of

You might also note that the theatre commander in the Gulf is an Arab-American, and the ground-forces commander is (or was until recently) the illegtimate son of a Mexican-American cleaning lady from Brownsville. How many British armies are commanded by the children of Pakistani immigrants, or of Jamaican chars?

As is so often the case, it ain't what you don't know that'll get you, but what you think you know that ain't so. A little research before posting would save much embarassment... 8-).

(*) and reelistments are currently running at about 115% of target, with recruitment at 105%.

I stand corrected. Let me amend that to "incarcerate and torture them all and figure it out later".

TerryF: It's easy to say "kill them all and figure it out later", Mr Stirling

-- You know, if you want to talk to someone it's a good idea to _listen_ to them first, so you don't end up criticizing something they didn't say. And as far as I can see, I didn't echo the papal legate's classic here.

As for the "recruiting new terrorists by being Un-Nice" thing... sorry, that makes no sense. There's a world of wishful thinking (aka "denial") behind it, probably because the implications of the truth are so unpleasant.

There are something like 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, of whom a minimum of 10% and more probably about a third support OBL's objectives. Possibly more, if you count in those who would like what he wants but don't think it's a realistically attainable thing at present, and the non-Sunni versions of the same thing, like the current President of Iran (he of the officially-sponsored Holocaust denial conference).

Ideologically Osama is a common-or-garden Salafist/Wahabbi and the Taliban were just the Saudi royal family with the courage of their convictions. Revivalist-purist movements like the Taliban are actually a staple of Islamic history -- the 19th-century West African jihads started by Uthman dan Fodio, for example.

Osama is quite right that the Saudi royals and their ilk would be doing what he's doing if they hadn't been corrupted by immense wealth and luxury and deterred by fear of the consequences. The stuff taught in Saudi schools is more or less what he's trying to implement and what the Taliban did implement; note the recent Saudi royal visitor who tried to ensure that no female air traffic controllers were assigned to his jet on a visit.

There's also very strong support in Islamic theology and history for Osama's position and that of the jihadist/purists in general.

It's extremely hard for a believing Muslim to accept the legitimacy of any non-Muslim government. It's not impossible -- there are some sects like the Ismailis which are politically quietist -- but it's hard.

It goes against the grain of the faith's foundation documents and their predominant historical schools of interpretation.

Islam was designed from its inception as and spent most of its history being a "governing institution" of conquest as well as a religion in the sense we use the term. This has consequences. Christendom borrowed the concept of "jihad" (aka "crusade"), frex, but Islam had it from the start...

... and no, jihad does _not_ mean an inner struggle. That's a metaphorical use of the term (like a "crusade against sin"), but the overwhelmingly predominant meaning has always been military struggle with unbelievers to reduce them to obedience to Islamic government.

So if there's one thing that Islamofascist groups have in abundance, it's recruits and potential recruits. Read Osama's original manifesto if you want your eyes opened; it says very little about supposed current injuries but goes on a great deal about the abolition of the Caliphate in 1921 and suchlike.

Their basic grievance is that they're not #1 and we are, which they regard as monstrous and unnatural, explicable only by wicked conspiracies.

The only way to assuage their sense of being hard done by would be suicide, conversion or submission on our part. Being accomodating would just add contempt to their hate, and encourage more attacks.

And the only way to have 'peace' with this crowd is to frighten them into quietude, which is roughly what happened between the period of Ottoman weakness that began after the last siege of Vienna and lasted through to WWII. Their ideology says they should be strong and we should be weak; demonstrate strongly enough that the contrary is true, and you shake their faith.

I second Coltrane's assertion.
It's easy to say "kill them all and figure it out later", Mr Stirling, but you people in the land of the free and the home of the morbidly obese tend to get poor kids from minority groups to go overseas to do your killing for you. It's easy to make your macho and, to be honest, somewhat psychotic pronouncements, sitting on your arse behind a desk. It's those same poor kids who come back from your wars utterly shattered, physically and mentally. You seem to take an unhealthy glee in your thoughts on these matters. Guantanamo is going to be a name reviled by future generations, like Guernica, Dachau and a certain ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Coltrane: You're a scary bastard.

-- yeah, I tell the truth. Got any specific objections, or just a _grito_?

Charlie,

You can't compare suicide rates with those in ordinary prisons and assume that Guantanamo must simply be worse. Regular prison inmates may attempt suicide for a variety of reasons but propaganda wouldn't be one of them. It's no accident that one of Gitmo's prisoners makes his suicide attempts when in proximity to his lawyer. They see that their lawyers are sympathetic, and they know that this news of suicide attempts will get to the outside world. A garden-variety rapist doesn't have a cause he thinks will be advanced by killing himself. Some, most or all of these guys clearly do.

I couldn't help but look back to the post that started this topic. Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abbasi were both apparently released last year. "Innocent until proved guilty" requires that they be freed once under the legal system, but these men are not without a past. Begg was an admitted gunrunner with acknowledged Taliban sympathies (and that info wasn't extracted under duress either). Abbasi is a known extremist. Those aren't necessarily crimes, of course, but if you're going strictly by the law, then neither is Guantanamo.

Thanks S.M. I needed a reminder to never buy one of your books. You're a scary bastard.

Charlie, as for "without judicial redress", they're not in Guantanamo because they've been arrested on suspicion of individually having done anything wrong. They're there because they were taken in arms against the United States, to the best of our knowledge. They're there because they were on the other side.

This is a war, not a police investigation. In war, you don't investigate and arrest your enemies, you just kill (or capture) them.

You don't release enemy combatants until the war is over -- which in this case means 'not in the forseeable future'. This probably makes them depressed. Words cannot _express_ how much I don't care. They're there until they die, or until we're convinced they're harmless.

Speaking of which, several people _released_ from Guantanamo have been subsequently captured or killed fighting against us; several have boasted openly about how they fooled the interrogators into thinking they were civilians.

Are there innocent people in Guantanamo? Sure. Are most innocent? Of course not. And better safe than sorry.

Am I showing a lack of empathy for innocent Afghanis or whatever? Damned right I am; the lives and welfare of my kin and my fellow-citizens count for a lot more than alien strangers, and that's precisely how it ought to be. My tribe first -- my blood, _mi barrio_.

And I'm showing a _total_ lack of empathy for the ones who deserve to be there. If they committ suicide, many goodbyes; my cold disinterest knows no bounds.

Hard cheese on the innocent ones, but that's the terrorists' fault for not playing by the rules -- which, precisely to avoid this sort of situation, mandate that weapons must be carried openly, and that fighters must wear either a uniform or some identifying mark. You can hide physically, but you can't pretend to be a civilian.

And the Geneva Conventions (at least, the ones the US signed) confer no "human rights" on individuals. They're mutual concessions between the contracting parties.

If the other side doesn't abide by them, then we aren't bound either; we can legitimately do anything at all to them, because it's now war to the knife, and the knife to the throat. War without rules and without limit.

Edited by author 06-11-2006 05:32 PM
I already picked up on this one from our local Australian news and my first reaction was to be profoundly saddened. You're right Charlie, Guantanamo is a concentration camp, and one that holds press conferences and has a PR machine. In some ways, that's the scariest part of it. They want to convince us that it's okay to do those things, even that it's heroic to do so.

The people in this discussion who run the "French as surrender monkeys" bullshit should also look into the history of the French Resistance during WWII.

The fact not entered into evidence so far is one of history books being written by the Victors. Or other survivors.
Dead enemies seldom get much honest press.

Good for you Charlie.. Say it like it is. The sheer asinine lack of compassion displayed by the US after today's suicides is breathtaking. The latest quote is that the suicides were 'a good PR move'
Staggering.

Incidentally, what's with the weird datestamps on the left?

The proofreader in me wants to write: "Asymmetric warfare" -- unless you're also calling the general an ass.

The Wikipedia link is:
Asymmetric warfare. That has some good summaries and references.

But nowhere does it list suicide as a tactic. You're right again, Mr. Stross.

I don't get my history from Moore; I get it from serious military historians like Gen. Sir John Keegan. Whose history of the first world war I heartily commend to you.

Incidentally, your use of the term "liberal" as a word of abuse tells me more than I wanted to know about you. Goodbye, Bill.

Hey Charlie, what the hell do you mean by "your lack of historical knowledge is lacking"/ Didn't you mean to say that Scott has a lack of historical knowledge? What you said actually means that he lacks a lack of historical knowledge thereby meaning that he indeed has historical knowledge. As for your claims about the first and second world wars, maybe you should learn some history from a book and not some liberal fruitcake like Mike Moore. Had Germany not signed their unification into effect in Versailles at the Hall of Mirrors, after destroying the weak French armed forces, France would never have sought the severe reparations they placed on Germany at the end of WWI. These harsh penalties by the vindictive and un-intelligent French was a reason for WWII. As for the French being cowards, any historical account will prove Scott's point correct. Oh well at least you tried Chuck. Just remember the old saying, "if at first you don't succeed, try try again."

Scott: your lack of historical knowledge is lacking. Clue: go read up on the events that preceded the second world war (namely, the first world war) before you start suggesting the French were cowards.

   Am getting the impression you folks are the ones running
around the world handing out peace signs and flowers. Remember the French, dropped their pants and bent over for the Germans in WWII. They were for that piece love shit also.
  Not for me.

I can't believe this is how we treat our friends. I can't for the life of me understand why Blair, who I do respect because he can talk and everything, would deal with the likes of Bush. It's also fundamentally stupid to treat British citizens at Gitmo like so much scum. And people at the White House are shaking their heads why more countries won't play with them. Maybe they're watching Blair go down the drain, without, really, a promise that he'll get a cut of the oil, or even a promise that you won't execute his own citizens...Bizarre. Bush is so clearly evil to me. He doesn't even effectively pursue his own evil agenda. It's amazing to me...

I think that the link-quote 'considers statements extracted under torture to be useful as evidence' is not an accurate representation of the linked article. Perhaps '... has the potential to be useful in finding evidence'.

For an information-gathering body, this is probably reasonable. For a decision-making body such as a jury to accept torture-related evidence is a different matter.

"it says something about how far the standards of evidence have slipped
within the security services."

Ach, Charlie, do you really think that they ever behaved any better?
There's no slippage here: just business as usual.

Charlie, you're excluding the middle...

Having a lot of evidence that wouldn't be admissible in court (for all sorts of good reasons) isn't the same as having no evidence.

Having inadmissible evidence isn't the same as having false evidence.

But holding secret trials, running a concentration camp, and torturing prisoners captured in a war, are definitely war crimes. And the responsibility for that goes all the way up to the top of the chain of command.

I expect Blair to arrive home, step of the plane, and when asked about these British victims, to say "I have spoken with Mr. Bush, and I have here a piece of paper with his signature on it."

America is still some way from Nazi Germany, and Bush doesn't have the apparent charisma of Hitler, but both involved hard-line right-wing governments, lacking a majority in the popular vote, backed by industrialists afraid of the rising of the proletariat, with a violent and expansionist foreign policy.

We'll see if the remaining differences are important, but some of the claims about 9/11 and how it could have been prevented -- Reichstag fire?

David: that's the whole point! The UK is collectively in the middle of a major panic over middle eastern terrorism. It's not quite as bad as the American panic, but it's close. The climate is not that far off the climate in 1972 when those bombs were going off on the mainland and there was extreme pressure to find someone, anyone, guilty.

If the CPS don't believe they could prosecute these guys effectively in the current climate, they're as good as saying "they're innocent, guv'nor."

"There is not enough evidence to convict these men of anything in a British court."
And lets face it, the standard of proof for British courts is pretty low (cf: Birmingham Six, Maguire Seven, Guildford 4 etc)

To my shame, I find myself distracted from your post's polemical magnificence and fundamental truth by the image of Al Qaeda having "grunts coming out of their ears." Curious, these foreigners.