I read today that a Swiss Senator, who I think is a little short of a full load, says that the CIA "kidnapped" POWs in Afghanistan and took them to places in Romania and Poland. This involved overflights of CIA planes of countries in the EU. Well, too bad, too bad. These prisoners were suspected terrorists. Poland and Romania deny knowing anything about this. Anyone surprised yet? Later they were supposedly transferred to Morocco, which is also clueless. Oh yes, the Moroccans would love the idiot camel jockeys to know that they are Alcatraz East. Can you imagine what would happen to them? We have the Washington Post to thank for spilling the beans in this treasonous way.
When I was a kid, I remember a POW camp in West Tennessee of all places. It was out at the local airport, and I remember seeing the "POW" on the backs of the Germans shirts (guess the US was too soft for the tattooed numbers like at Dachau). They worked in vegetable gardens, had a warm place to sleep, and decent food. Now, these German POWs didn't get to the USA by osmosis. They were brought by ship or plane. I didn't hear the Swiss who were boxed in the middle of the Axis complaining then, Senator Marty is too young to remember when the Germans were just across the Rhine. Do you? The "EU" countries were still trying to figure out if their rear ends had been blown off. There surely were no complaints then!
My point is what is the difference if you move an enemy combatant or POW from one place to another? Can a person under those headings be kidnapped? If one is in custody of an opposing power, that is redundant. Let someone prove that there was torture involved. I just wish they had shipped them all to New York City. I hear the NYPD does a fair job of interrogation.
6 comments:
As you say, these were "suspected terrorists." Perhaps you are a suspected terrorist trying to lead us astray. Are you saying that it makes sense for the U.S. government to kidnap you and take you anywhere it wants? Perhaps I'll report you as a "suspected" terrorist and see what happens :)
The operative word in this comment is "suspected". If I were suspected ( I think I would be pretty far down the list ), I guess a plane ride could be expected if the reporter was credible. Go for it!!
The cleric from Milan was likely taken on an involuntary plane trip, and that suits me just fine. The POWs by definition cannot be kidnapped.
A really BIG difference now and the historical facts cited is that I don't recall the US congress approving a declaration of war!! We have a president who keeps that term in his rhetoric, along with a host of other emotion grabbing terms. But, I don't understand how you can have POW's without an official declaration of war. In fact, the Bush crowd has specifically said they are not POWs because if they were, their rights would be protected by the Geneva convention. Bush and Co. have specifically said these prisoners are not covered by the Geneva convention! You can't have it both ways and still have international credibility.
I recall congress approving our actions in Iraq by a large majority. If not by name, certainly it was a war declaration by any other name. So far, I don't think that congress has rescinded that vote. Weather you call them POWs or enemy combatants, they are still detained and rendered as others have been. other than a few mavrick soldiers' actions in the Iraq prison, they have been treated humanely. They and their supporters are not dumb however, and they make the most of a media willing to say most anything to gain an audience. I have not seen any of these people decapitated. I expect that is frowned upon by the Geneva Convention also.
I watched the Prime Minister of Britain yesterday defend the same position as our president. Are these two people just evil men out to do anything to anyone, or are the misguided liberals in the USA who are prisoners of their own media?
Yes, congress approved Bush sending troops to Iraq for, what we now know, totally false circumstances; and for that purpose only. That is a MAJOR difference from a general declaration of war. For one, unless congress has declared that we are officially at war with another country, there are a host of international laws that come into play, not to mention that it is concievable that we could be considered an illegal invader of another country!!
Now that the original purpose for invading Iraq has been shown, and admitted by the Bush administration, not to be valid, the avowed purposes have been restated to be to protect us from another 9/11 and to spread democracy. I doubt very many congressmen would acknowledge publicly that spreading democracy was sufficient reason to invade another country.
The US penchant for "spreading democracy" and putting puppet governments in place around the world is precisely one of the things that has gotten us into a lot of embarrasing situations. Too often a dictator we have supported because they were "friendly" has ended up being an emparrasment to us! It wasn't that long ago that a US corporation, led by now VP Cheney, was hot to sell all the oil drilling equipment to Sadam H. that they could. At that time, he was a "good guy". How things changed!! Interestingly, much of the "bad guy" stuff we acuse Sadam of was going on at that time.
As far as any mistreatment of prisoners; who knows since the US won't allow neutral parties like the Red Cross to visit them.
I think the latest revalation about Bush illegally authorizing evesdropping on US citizens is another indication of his total disregard for citizen's rights. There is a legal provision, through a secret court, for that to happen. Obviously Bush feels that his judgement is above the existing legal protection system. Of course, his standard mantra to any of his critics is always the same: endagerment of our country, helping the enemy, necessary to protect our freedom, etc., etc.
Yes, the British prime minister has to hold forth with the same position as Bush. The two have been in cahoots from the beginning. To do otherwise, for either one, would be to admit that they were wrong. That is something that is not in the vocabulary of either and would probably be political suicide.
I am sick and tired of the "liberal media" label. That is used by the conservative element for any news that does not agree with the Bush agenda or presents any view other than theirs. It is in the same vein as the term "activist judges". I have noticed that that term is applied to any judicial ruling that does not agree with the Bush administration's agenda. Any ruling that does agree is, of course, a judge simply doing his job!
Congrats ibedodge. You are one of few to at least put a name on what you say and say it without rampant rage. I never expect all to agree.
Post a Comment