🚀 go-pugleaf

GM> Obviously, if the ratio of the volume of useful intel to the
GM> number of detainees is unfavorable, the CIA and the armed
GM> forces aren't going to look good.  Those who provide money
GM> tend to want results in return for it.

This heavily depends on the definition of "useful intel"; useful for what?
if we agree that the whole war with Iraq makes no sense and does not benefit
anyone but military contractors, then "useful" means "able to keep the war
going as long as possible".  I don't think it's in the interests of the
people whose taxes pay for CIA.

??>> It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime,
??>> people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and
??>> gulags were full with "enemies of the nation".

GM> In Stalin's time it was due to the ruthlessness of Stalin and
GM> his regime and the oppressive nature of the Communist system
GM> generally, not because of a need to demonstrate results by
GM> meeting Gulag quotas.  Anybody who so much as thought about
GM> criticizing the System got a ticket to Siberia, as a way of
GM> maintaining a climate of fear among the populace.

No, that was much later, in Brezhnev times, and in very modest amounts. In
Stalin times, nobody was criticizing the regime, Stalin was very popular and
beloved by absolute majority of people. But the general political climate
was that the country was "fighting", that there were enemies around, that
the times were difficult, etc., etc., and that required enemies. So the
enemies were produced, and camps were full with people who in fact were
absolutely loyal, but who were accused in various political plots,
completely made up. The political climate was not fear, it was rather "be on
alert", so whoever was feeling uncomfortable with their neighbor, always
could inform the authorities, and the neighbor would be rounded up the same
night as potential political assassin, or plot participant, or anything
else. This was happening every day with millions (not even thousands) of
people. All others, at the same time, were sure that this was indeed fight
with enemies, and that those rounded up were indeed hidden enemies. When
they themselves were arrested little later, they were thinking that their
case was a sole tragic mistake, while everyone else in their camp is a real
enemy. That's human nature, it happened before, it's happening now, it will
be happening again. As soon as there's political opportunity and demand for
incarceration, it always will be satisfied, with the only difference being
the label - enemy of nation, terrorist, whatever. The process of political
persecution is always totally and completely disconnected form the reality,
in all times and all caountries.

??>> If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real
??>> terrorists, then, again, where are they?

GM> In Guantanamo and in those secret prisons that the Left is so
GM> exercised about, of course.  (Why would there be any need for
GM> those secret prisons and offshore interrogations if most of
GM> the detainees were mere taxi drivers and the equivalent?)

The purpose of offshore interrogation is to be able to do things that would
be impossible in a country bound by international agreements. We participate
in agreements, so we must torture in countries that don't. As for the reason
why we must torture - see above. Because we have to satisfy the demand. It
does not mean that we indeed extract more useful information. For example,
shall I remind, all that interrogation so far has not produced one credible
name of someone who did 9/11, or anything else that was not quietly
dismissed little later as another hoax, panic or histeria.

GM> You're taking it as a given that such people would or should be
GM> tried.  What many fail to grasp is that these guys are neither
GM> fish nor fowl: they're not criminals, and not being uniformed
GM> members of the armed forces of a recognized nation-state that's
GM> a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they're not POWs.  Hence
GM> the use of vague terms like "detainees" and "enemy combatants"
GM> to describe them.

So far, we were talking about war on terror and terrorists, right? terror is
defined as an act against civil population in order to advance political
agenda. If so, since you yourself admit that they are not "uniformed members
of the armed force", and since we define our war as war on terror, then all
"those guys" have committed some terrorist acts against population, right?
do you really think they have? one example please? and if they were, why not
to try them, indeed, for those acts?

GM> Realistically, though, prisoners of war have always been
GM> incarcerated until the end of hostilities.  Why should this
GM> case be any different, particularly in light of the fact
GM> that so many criticize the Bush administration for _not_
GM> treating the Gitmo detainess as POWs?

Prisoners of war, i.e. enemy fighters who fight against enemy's armed
forces - agreed;  but we were talking about terrorists, not prisoners of
war. Terrorists strike civil population. This is war on terror. Where are
the terrorists, i.e. those who committed terrorist acts against civil
population in order to advance their political agenda?

GM>  If these guys want to wage perpetual jihad, then it logically follows
GM> that those of them we capture will have to endure perpetual
GM> incarceration.  They made their own collective bed.  Let
GM> them lie in it.

They don't want to wage perpetual jihad. They want us to get out of their
country that we have invaded.

GM> After all, if we were to let them go, they'd just rejoin the
GM> fight.  And it isn't *our* fault that they elected to fight as
GM> irregulars, and by so doing, to forego any right to treatment
GM> as legitimate, conventional POWs.

What do you mean by "irregulars"? even speaking of those who were fighting 
with us in Iraw and whom we actually captured - we have invaded their 
country and killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Naturally, 
everyone who can fight, fights. How is that they are not "regular"? what 
makes "regular"?

GM> Of course, the international Left thinks this is terrible.  Poor
GM> terrorists; poor, poor terrorists.

Would you explain what they actually did so they deserve to be punished.
Specifically.

??>> don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists"
??>> locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence,
??>> etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence
??>> indeed? or maybe you have another?

GM> Indeed I do: national security.  One of the fundamental tenets of
GM> intelligence collection is not to let the other side know what you
GM> know or how you came to know it.  If these guys went to trial, not
GM> just intel, but sources and methods would be compromised.

It seems you are again seeing the black cat in dark room, even though 
there's no evidence whatsoever that it exists there. Obviously, you have the 
right to believe anything, including the existence of terrorist 
organizations, al-Qaeda, etc., etc.. It's not unusual - those Russians under 
Stalin also believed in thousands of enemies around every corner who were 
plotting against the state and Stalin personally day and night. Though, even 
under Stalin, those "enemies" were promptly tried, in order to maintain at 
least an illusion of due process.

This war, as many other things, ir being driven by the state of our economy, 
that increasingly relies on artificial stimulators in order to function. 
From that perspective, Y2K business and war on terror are coming from the 
same source. Like a drug addict, once we rely on made-up dangers, we can't 
go back, and each next stimulator must be more powerful than the previous. 
After security theme eventually wears out, there will be promptly made up 
the next one - global warning maybe, or something else. Open your eyes and 
learn to see what's real and what's made up.