As some of you may know, Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters are being flown to a base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in order to conduct Military Tribunals there. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that these prisoners are considered "illegal combatants" and are thus exempt from the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention.
"Liberal" groups such as Human Rights Associations claim that the inmates are unfairly interrogated, and are kept in inhumane conditions. More of them demand that the inmates be designated as PoW's under Geneva.
But what's this? A known "Liberal" is actually thinking otherwise. And it is also in a known "Liberal" newspaper?
Will wonders ever cease? Or is this the apocalypse as we know it?
Wonder how much flack he'll get over that... watch the 'letters to the editor' page and tell us how many people demand his firing. Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
*SMACKS First of Two*
Does Rosie sound like a guy's name, dammit?
She goes through a lot of flack from both sides of the fence as she provides both liberal and conservative opinions. For example, in an issue regarding teacher testing and recertification (an idea hatched by the Conservative Government), Rosie defended the idea and wrote about the teachers who supported the idea. You wouldn't believe the number of letters that came through demanding her resignation. (As a side note, I am considered a liberal, and I also agree with the idea.)
Anyway, as I said before, I don't consider the Toronto Star entirely left wing, they seem to be more centre then left. But both Rosie and the Toronto Star are considered to be Liberal outlets.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
This case is a very hard one to come to terms with, Rosie just puts forth the argument that the ends justify the means. Is this the way laws work.,. I don’t think so. The US has stated that the detainees are illegal combatants, meaning that they are exempt from POW status. This in turn makes them civilians. Now the hard part comes, Terrorism is defined as” Systematic violence carried out against private citizens , public property and political enemies with the aim of enforcing demands.”. The US has stated that they have not declared war on Afghanistan, and there goal all along has been to demand that the Taliban turn over Osama bin laden and his cronies. Does not this make the whole attack in Afghanistan a terrorist act then. If on the other hand the detainees are solders then the US Coalition has attacked a government and its army and therefore the detainees are POW’s and should be afforded the rights.
The geneva convention states “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal”. It is not a matter of whether the government thinks they are not POW’s or not, it is a matter that a tribunal decide, therefore Rumsfeld’s statements that they will mostly be afforded the rights under the GC is braking the treaty. They should be unequivocally be given those rights until the tribunals have ruled one way or another. That means no interrogations until after the tribunals.
It is not that I don’t think something should be done but at the beginning of all this after Sept 11, Bush was stating that this was an attack against democracy, and his way of life. Now the administration has decided that part of the fundamentals of that way of life, should be set aside and any means possible should be employed to fight this theat. The ends justify the means.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Um.. Er.. Rosie Greer? I dunno. Musta read the wrong byline.
Anyway, if she holds some C and some L views, she's probably a Moderate, if they balance.
As for 'teacher testing,' does that mean testing teachers every so often to see if they're still competent in their fields? I agree with that... provided the schools/state provide convenient continuing ed programs for them.
If they mean testing the classes and making the teacher's evaluation contingent upon that... that's not necessarily a good thing. Even the best teacher in the world can't teach a potato to count to ten. You can't teach those who don't care to learn.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
They are members of a criminal (terrorist) organization, which happens to be primarily (but not entirely) located in Afghanistan. Thus they are not soldiers. Some of them may have the occupation 'soldier,' but having that occupation does not mean you can't have any others. They are arrested for the 'others.'
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
The teacher testing involves testing their skills every so often. I am not sure of the method, perhaps tests. The interesting thing is, talking to my daughter, there are teachers who are for this. Most of these are the teachers she feels are the most competent. It seems that it is mostly the incompetent and the union, which tends to go to the lowest common denominator, which are against it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:If they mean testing the classes and making the teacher's evaluation contingent upon that...
Actually, the problem with that approach is that the teacher will teach the test, and not the curiculum. That's a bad thing.
And, I don't know how right he is, but Alan Keyes said last night that the issue of treating Taliban or Al Queda members as POWs has people on both sides of the aisle in conflict ... or, as he put it, ... "[e]ver since President Bush announced that he is going to be dealing with terrorists by sending them before military tribunals. Interestingly enough, that idea has gotten some criticism from all sides of the spectrum, conservative as well as liberal. And it has gotten strong support from both sides of the spectrum, conservative as well as liberal."
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Anyway, if she holds some C and some L views, she's probably a Moderate, if they balance.
Well, so do I. But I am still called a Liberal. One hint of Liberal thought and it is stamped all over my face. Not to say I resent that assumption (I actually don't mind), but I believe that the definition of Liberal and Conservative isn't as black and white as one might think.
As for 'teacher testing,' does that mean testing teachers every so often to see if they're still competent in their fields? I agree with that... provided the schools/state provide convenient continuing ed programs for them.
Agreed. No mention though was made about this in any of the articles I read. I've heard that the majority of the public is behind the idea. The ones raising a lot of flak are the militant Union ones.
Snay: Interesting point. So far, the guys I spoke to all mention the Liberals as the ones who are trying to deliberately subvert justice. One even said that "if you're not with them, then you are against them".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Actually, the problem with that approach is that the teacher will teach the test, and not the curiculum.
A) MAY teach the test. Not all teachers are that lazy. Most aren't.
B) Simple enough to solve: don't let them see the EXACT test(s) ahead of time. Just similar tests. That way, the teacher will have to teach general concepts, like long division, instead of specific facts, like 96/4=24.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:One even said that "if you're not with them, then you are against them"
Dangerous line o' thought, and essentially the same one voiced by our Attorney General. Joy.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:They are members of a criminal (terrorist) organization, which happens to be primarily (but not entirely) located in Afghanistan. Thus they are not soldiers.
I was wondering what you based this on FOT, my point was that the geneva convention states that a tribunal is to decide these things in order to protect people from baseless accusations such as this.
quote:Then again, your side is well-established as the best players in the 'guilt by accusation' game, when you use the accusation to 'prove' the guilt.
Like stating this without hearing from the other side of the argument or any kind of investigation that was done above board.
quote:Verify, then return. I never take the word of ONE man. (Or in this case, one team).
Like the president or the sec. of defence, and seeing this is the only source of info we have.
quote:Perhaps it's true, perhaps not. People can say other people said lots of things, without being truthful,
This is why the tribunals should be done to determine the status of these people not just listen to the government spin on it, because the US government is very biased in there assesment of these people.
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
So you're saying you have to apply the Geneva Convention, to see if you should apply the Geneva Convention?
Logic gap!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oh, I wouldn't call that a gap. In fact, it's so gapless that it actually circles in on itself. :-)
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Yes, I am saying that the geneva convention has to be applied until the status of a prisoner has been determined. This is how the convention is written and worded. It protects ( or is supposed to) people accused without proof. And you never answered my question as to how you determined they were terrorist and not soldiers. I can only assume you have no proof, that would pass your criteria anyway, but have chosen to condemn these people with none, blindly following GB. I think this has been said here before but I will say it again, The only thing worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's VERY simple. If you belong to an organization, then you belong to that organization.
As we said before, we're considering anybody who supports and/or who fights on the side of the terrorists to be part of their organization. We said that wayyy back in September.
It's already obvious that any Al-Qaeda members caught are members of Al-Quaeda, because they were already identified as such.
Any Afghani 'soldiers' caught fighting in support of Al-Quaeda are, by our definition, members of that organization. So's John Walker.
Therefore they're terrorists.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, since the U.S. runs the "School of the Americas", shouldn't we bomb ourselves ... ?
Since we gave bin Laden training and weapons, and told him to fight our enemy, shouldn't we bomb ourselves?
And since we invaded a nation and overthrew its government by aiding the rebellion (who, it should be noted, can't be proven they wouldn't be supporting bin Laden if it wasn't in their best interests to do so), shouldn't we treat the soldiers of that government as SOLDIERS? Bush's "definitions" doesn't really impress me that much, since this nation had as much a role to play in bin Laden being what he was, as the Taliban did in protecting him.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Didn't you ever learn the difference between apples and oranges?
quote:Since we gave bin Laden training and weapons, and told him to fight our enemy.
I'm so gods-damned sick of this lie. 'We' for the last goddamn time, didn't do it. If you want to indulge in liberal breast-beating guilt-trips, fine, but leave the rest of us out of it.
If someone teaches you karate in self defense, they are NOT personally responsible if you forsake your honor and go around attacking the weak and helpless. (However, it is their responsibility, once you do so, to stop you, which is exactly what we're finally doing).
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, please don't tell me you can't see any difference between supporting someone BEFORE they become a terrorist and supporting them AFTER they become one.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But, Rob, close your eyes as much as you want, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "NOOOOOOO I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN NOOOO!" as much as you want ...
The FACT of the matter is that the United States did provide to bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" (what we called them at the time) the means to train themselves, and the weapons to use against the Soviets. Now, we may have funneled these through Pakistan, but we're still ultimately responsible, and while you might convince yourself we're NOT, you're only convincing yourself.
When you provide a group with the training that we did to bin Laden the mujarhdeen, you have an obligation to keep your eyes on them. Think of it as a parent child relationship. Daddy gives junior a big 4x4, shows him how to operate the thing and how to run over Daddy's enemy, then cries ignorance when junior plows over sixty people at a shopping market "for fun."
I hoped for more from you, Robert.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Oh, please don't tell me you can't see any difference between supporting someone BEFORE they become a terrorist and supporting them AFTER they become one.
I'm sure the Soviets considered him a terrorist when we were supporting him, Omega. We made him a terrorist, we just didn't call him that until he decided the Soviet Union wasn't his enemy. That's why Bush's definition is tricky. Terrorist ... freedom fighter, what's the difference except in the ideological outlook one views them through?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter MAY fall down to who attacks first.
If you're invaded, you're a freedom fighter. If you're fighting a war with the intent of creating greater freedom, you're a freedom fighter.
The Afghanis are currently none of these things. They WERE freedom fighters back during the USSR invasion, (except those that were fighting with a secret agenda) just as the Colonials were during the Am. Revolution.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So, if these "terrorists", thought the American attack on Iraq was an "invasion" of Islam (and the forces in Saudi Arabia an extension of that "invasion"), then the attack on the Cole, the embassys, and the World Trade Center now makes them "freedom fighters."
See the problem in your logic, Rob? It's impossible to define someone as a "terrorist", or as a "freedom fighter." Two sides of the same coin.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Then again, your side is well-established as the best players in the 'guilt by accusation' game, when you use the accusation to 'prove' the guilt.
I give you your quote one more time in case you don't read what you write.
quote:It's already obvious that any Al-Qaeda members caught are members of Al-Quaeda, because they were already identified as such.
Is this not guilt by accusation? And you have trouble with my logic. Also who identified them, Sec. of defence, US army, seems to me this is one person or team, and you do not, by your own admission, believe one person or team.
So anyone who takes up arms against the US is now a member of a terrorist group. How do you know that these captured people are not just men who the Northern alliance had a grudge against and threw them into the hands of the US to get rid of them. Remember this is an area of ethnic squables as well as the War on Terrorism. Or they could be men who took up arms to stop US forces from raping their daughters as they went through the areas. The only facts we have, that don't just come from one source: Men are being airlifted to Cuba Three of them were British citizens 2 men spirited away by US forces from Bosnia( i think)
The rest of the info we have all comes from the same source. The US government. And it is hard to believe you, who thinks they must have arms to protect himself from that same government, would take what the have to say at face value without having anymore facts.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:So, if these "terrorists", thought the American attack on Iraq was an "invasion" of Islam
1, it wasn't an American attack. 2, Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, thus WE were the freedom fighters.
quote: (and the forces in Saudi Arabia an extension of that "invasion"),
We were invited.
quote: then the attack on the Cole, the embassys, and the World Trade Center now makes them "freedom fighters."
Still doesn't. They aren't attacking targets within their own borders or territorial extent, and they're attacking people who have nothing to do with the policies and practices on EITHER side (Or have you conveniently forgotten that LOTS of non-US people were in the WTC and the embassies?)
And dont try to tell me that the Continentals attack on Canada was the same, because there wasn't any Canada there, there was ONLY 'British Territory.'
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Is this not guilt by accusation? And you have trouble with my logic. Also who identified them, Sec. of defence, US army, seems to me this is one person or team, and you do not, by your own admission, believe one person or team.
Wrong on all counts (again.)
Its guilt by preponderance at the evidence, and its accusation by SEVERAL nations' intelligence agencies, including ours, the UK's, and Israel's.
If a guy frequently shows up at the meetings of a club, there's pretty good evidence to deduce that he's a member. Or a close friend.
Deductive reasoning is your friend. Do not fear it so.
You also seem to have an odd belief that our givernment runs our several hundred media outlets. I doubt that what youre saying has any accuracy, though I admit to retaining my opinion that the media in general has a left-leaning bias.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Well I don't have the odd belief that your gov. runs media outlets, but you seem to have the odd belief that in times of war the government doesn't control what comes out of a military zone. I'm not sure how old you were during the Gulf War but this was very evident then as it is now. Anything about these prisoners is coming from the US military, they are the ones controlling the camps in Afghanistan and they are the ones controlling the camp in Cuba. And unless the US, UK and Iraeli intellegence agencies are sending you emails about known terrorist, I can only assume you are getting your info about these prisoners from the same source as everyone else, which is press releases from the US military. Sorry to burst you bubble about freedom of the press but there is no such thing in war/military actions. And lastly I thought that you rightwing types were for law and order. All I am asking for, is to have these people processed by the geneva convention, a treaty which your government signed. If these people are the terrorist you claim they are then, by all means do with them as your laws dictate. But if they are not then they should be treated as prisoners of war and treated as the geneva convention dictates. Why does your government fear this simple request?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I think you're getting bogged down in the same arguments again. The central issue here is, what legal status do the detainees hold? This in turn dictates how they are to be held and treated, and the legal rights - first, that the US have in detaining them, and secondly who tries them.
(I hope that sentence made sense, don't feel very articulate tonight!)
I hope we all agree that there needs to be some due process of law, right? That way we'll be able to determine any among them who might NOT be Al-Qaeda. Just saying "oh, they've all been interned as such, therefore they must all be" doesn't cut it.
I'll be as happy as anyone to see these guys hung out to dry, but if they're POWs then they should be treated as such, and if not then their status needs to be determined before it becomes the central issue and clouds the real reason why they've been locked up.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It just seems to me that we're using some very outdate notions of what a soldier is. And it seems to me that the United States is hanging on that vagueness to say that we can treat them however we want to treat them. The should of the question in question never seems to have entered the minds of the administration.
The concepts of cohesive units and ranks don't have the same meaning for rebel or terror groups that they have for an organized standing army. And yet that does not make rebels or terrorists any less soldiers in a cause.
The modern concept of warfare on insurgency or terror and use of arms to combat such has very little to do with pitched battles like Iwo Jima. Mr. Bush declared a war on terrah...or terror as the case may be...and these are the soldiers on the opposing sides.
The only thing that we have to do is treat them the way we would want our soldiers to be treated.
[ January 24, 2002, 19:52: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TLE (Member # 280) on :
Except our soldiers and soldiers in most other countries didn't/don't go around intentionally bombing civilian targets and mass murdering their own peoples... slight difference in being a soldier and terrorist. Yes the definition of a soldier and all that it entails needs to be updated but I don't think the Al Qaeda and Taliban would fall under any old or new definition of soldier, especially given they don't have a real structure of any sort. Bin Laden is their leader, they have some lieutenants but that hardly constitutes an army or military. I can grab a bunch of my friends, delcare myself their General and they're my troops, declare war on Kentucky because I don't like their chickens and it would be no more legitmate than what they're claiming.
[ January 24, 2002, 20:39: Message edited by: TLE ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The US has never bombed a civilian target?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Just because someone else prosecutes a war in a different manner than you does not make those who fight it any less soldiers in a cause.
Posted by TLE (Member # 280) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The US has never bombed a civilian target?
I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
That's just not at all correct.
The American way of hurting civilian populations, heck, goes back to the Civil War when Philip Sheridan laid waste to the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman burned Georgia and South Carolina.
Sheridan continued his ways by killing the buffalo so the Indians couldn't use it as a soruce of food and all the other things it was used for.
To the mass bombing of Germany to General Curtis LeMay fire-bombing the crud out of Tokyo, the United States has recoginzed that war means breaking the spirit of the enemy and that often means targeting the civilian population who, in the end sustain any enemy war effort, and terrorizing them into eventual capitulation.
[ January 24, 2002, 23:56: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I notice even Jay has left off the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
Uh, that little Vietnam tiff thing? Among piles of other examples? (edit: which I see Jay has kindly supplied above)
Keep in mind the only way we're likely to ever know that the US has intentionally bombed a civilian target, especially in this era of leashed media, is if the US military tells us so.
Ultimately, deciding who's a "soldier" and who's a "common murderer" is supposed to be an objective process. It's not one when you presuppose that all your guys are good little soldiers and everyone else you arrest are murderous thugs.
[ January 24, 2002, 21:43: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And before you ask, Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Japanese First Army.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It was also a city. With a civilian population in the hundreds of thousands.
Why not attack a naval yard? Face it, Omega. Civilians have been deliberately targeted by the United States in many instances. I guess, by Bush's definition, we're terrorists. Let's bomb ourselves now.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Using the Hiroshima example, how many military personnel would there have had to be in the Twin Towers on September 11th before it could be considered on the whole a military target? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Let's bomb ourselves now.
I live near the border so if you could please bomb to the south of your country it would be much appreciated.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It was also a city. With a civilian population in the hundreds of thousands.
A civilian popluation that was being mobilized to fight off an invasion. There were few, if any, civilians left.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I agree. Let's bomb ourselves. We'll start with Baltimore, it's not good for much anyway. I'll get on the job right away.
If I wasn't taking an extended leave of absence from the Internet starting tomorrow, I'd quote from an essay by a couple of noted historians on what the effects of NOT using the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:18: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And what if they'd bombed naval yards, Rob? Regardless, the point is that the U.S. has deliberately attacked civilians -- from the Civil War, to Vietnam.
You want to ignore all that? Fine. Live in your own little world where everything is black and white. The rest of us know better.
Oh, and you know what? Stop pointing out 'debating tactics' and scoffing at them when you ignore just about EVERY point that has been brought up in the thread. You've ignored everything about Vietnam and the Civil War, and you've got no right to talk about 'tactics', since the one you've chosen seems to be "Tell them they're not debating right, ignore most of their points, and declare victory!" Makes you look like more of the hipocrite I think everyone sees you as.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:29: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I'll butt in here by saying that Nuclear Bombs were designed with Wide Area Destruction in mind. We're talking about whole cities, not just Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
Omega: By your definition, if the U.S. was in a war with Country X and they decided to use a Nuclear Bomb against Seattle, where a Naval base is stationed, they too can state that they were bombing that Naval Base as well as "A civilian popluation that was being mobilized to fight off an invasion. There were few, if any, civilians left." So there.
Jeff is right. Not everything is in black and white. That distinction is what I am fighting in regards to Liberal vs Conservative, etc.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:29: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Considering that the topic of discussion was originally military tribunals, and YOU brought up the total irrelevancies of Vietnam and the Civil War, I'd say that it is YOU who are ignoring the topics and attempting to hijack the thread to promote your agenda.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:38: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by TLE (Member # 280) on :
*sigh* yet more clarification the only times we have done that is during war, last time I knew, there was no formal delcartion of war. It's pointless though, no one will change their minds.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jesus Christ. We haven't declared war since World War II, are you saying Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, aren't WAR?
Rob, the Civil War and Vietnam were brought up because you defined terrorists as those who attacked civilians, and thus not entitled to protection by the Geneva Convention. We were pointing out flaws in your illogic (of course, now you've decided that doing that is a bad tactic, so who knows what next ...)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, I never defined a terrorist as only that. That's PART of the definition, but not all of it.
quote:The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter MAY fall down to who attacks first. (They did)
If you're invaded, you're a freedom fighter. If you're fighting a war with the intent of creating greater freedom, you're a freedom fighter. (They weren't on either count)
They aren't attacking targets within their own borders or territorial extent, and they're attacking people who have nothing to do with the policies and practices on EITHER side (Or have you conveniently forgotten that LOTS of non-US people were in the WTC and the embassies?)
Its guilt by preponderance at the evidence, and its accusation by SEVERAL nations' intelligence agencies, including ours, the UK's, and Israel's. (In other words, we're not the only people who consider them terrorists... in fact, just about everybody besides the Muslim Fundies and the Liberal Fundies like you thinks they are)
And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
[ January 25, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
I can only think of the classic line from Duckman "I'm a diversion, I'm a diversion"
You never quite argue point but send it off in other directions when you can't answer a question.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:24: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
And, because it's fun to disprove diversions, one word: Kissinger. OK, a few more: Southeast Asia. Latin America. Africa.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:26: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
remember George Carlin?
"If a crime fighter fights crime, and a fire fighter fights fire, what does a freedom fighter fight? Huh?"
...
sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I DID answer the question. Didn't you read anything before the last paragraph? I just added a little parting shot.
As it so happens, nobody'd mentioned Africa (Every president since Roosevelt) Southeast Asia (Johnson) and Latin America (Every president since "The Halls of Montezuma") before. The validity of the original statement still stands.
And since those were all US/USSR proxy wars, where both sides used roughly identical tactics you should be suggesting bombing Russia as well.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Okay.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not to go off topic, but let's grant that Hiroshima was a massive army headquarters. And let's grant that a massive show of strength was needed to stop the Japanese. And lets also grant that in this case, the civilian casualities were acceptable to make the point that the US makes fucking big bombs. Granting all that, what was the point of Nagasaki?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There are numerous conflicting theories about why Nagasaki, including:
The U.S. had to prove (to the USSR, mostly) that they could make more than one of these things.
The Japanese announcement that they would "consider" the American surrender demands was mistranslated by the Japanese translator as "reject" the demands.
I even heard one anecdote, long ago, that the bombing of Nagasaki was caused (in a long, 'for want of a nail' chain of events) by one of the Japanese higher-ups having hemmorhoids.
I have occasionally wondered whether 40-odd years of Cold War might have been averted if we'd managed to build a couple more at the same time and dropped them on Moscow and Leningrad. Wiped out the Soviet leadership, and rebuilt all of Europe Russia under the Marshall Plan as well.
Probably not.
[ January 26, 2002, 06:24: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
That last one is just genius. Maybe we should've bombed the British, as well.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If you're gonna criticize the concept, at least give a salient reason.
A subjugated, then democraticized and reindustrialized Russia could have led to a stronger UN, no large-scale nuclear arms race, no Cold War, likely no Korea or 'Nam, No Communist Cuba, no brush wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and who knows what else.
The left-wing hate-the-US-for-the-sheer-self-loathing-joy-of-it mentality hadn't had time to fester yet, and without the fuel from the USSR-backed socialist propaganda machine of the 60's it likely wouldn't have. Conversely, No McCarthyism.
Of course, there's that old Russian xenophobia to contend with. That could have been an obstacle.
But it's not likely the Allies would have fallen apart if the US had attacked the USSR... most of them trusted them as little as we did.
Attack the Brits?? At least the Brits were fairly trustworthy allies, (the Montgomery / Patton ego conflict notwithstanding) while the Soviets siezed half of Europe after the war.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If one was dropped on Nagasaki to prove that the US could make two, why wasn't another one dropped to prove you could make 3?
And I think Jeff is baulking at the way you seem to seriously be considering wanton large-scale destruction. And what would have been the reasons for dropping one on the USSR? "Oh, Japan attacked one of our harbours, and you didn't send us any Vodka, so we bombed you"?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Always fun, playing the revisionist historian. "What if" this, "what if" that...
They should've tested the atomic bomb somewhere in Tenessee. Maybe, just maybe, we then wouldn't have to deal with the fruitcakes of today who claim that the total destruction of Hiroshima was "a necessity", and that the deaths of some 180,000 civilians were "acceptable".
OTOH... sometimes I think a radioactive cloud of dust did in fact reach that state.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Given that the loss of life that would have resulted from a non-atomic attack on Japan's home islands could have have reached 10 TIMES that many on their side ALONE, what would YOU have done, O' great Master of Warfare?
Liam: the reasons would have been the same reasons for which the Cold War was fought for 40 years: to destroy Leninist/Stalinist Communism. Just faster and more effectively, by cutting off its head rather than worrying at bits of its body and trying to stomp its eggs. And without the threat of the same destruction in response.
Oh, and I should have made this clearer... my concept was that after Communist Russia had been destroyed, the nuclear weapon/energy program could then have been put under the control of the UN, where it would take the agreement of the Security Council (or maybe even the General Assembly) to ever use them again. So that the U.S. wouldn't be the sole possessor, and, with the Veto power on the Security Council, wouldn't have to worry about the nukes being used against them, either.
(In fact, I think there were some scientists and others who proposed just this sort of thing back in the 1940's and later, but because of the continuing spectre of Communism, they were ignored. Without that spectre...)
[ January 26, 2002, 10:35: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
...could have reached...
Let us make one very important distinction here, shall we?
Fact 1: Japan was about to surrender - only a few high-ups wanted to stay in the war 'till the bitter end. Fact 2: Hiroshima was NOT a military target. Fact 3: a lot of lives were lost by using a nuke. Fact 4: a lot more lives were lost by dropping a second nuke - but what the heck, one more atrocity didn't matter too much now did it?
Opinion: the casualty rate could have been much higher if no nuke had been used.
No, you are the only person pretending to be a Master Of Warfare, FoT.
[ January 26, 2002, 11:51: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Lovely. Rob is now saying a sneak attack on an ally (without which Europe would have certainly, and I mean certainly, fallen under fascist hegemony), that would kill, conservatively, 10 million people == good thing.
They let you in a library?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Tom, half of Europe DID fall under a fascist Hegemony after World War II. They called it Communism and the Iron Curtain.
Stalin matched, and by some estimates, greatly exceeded Hitler's mass-murder record in his own and other countries.
You call that GOOD? And they let you out-of-doors?
Would a half-kiloton bomb dropped on central Moscow really have killed 10 million people?
NO. There were only around 1 million people in Moscow in 1945. Level the whole city, which a small nuke wouldn't have done, and you still probably wouldn't have killed them all.
Only around 5 million live there now.
[ January 26, 2002, 13:00: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
I'm beginning to hate this game of "Blame The Liberals or Democrats". So How does Nixon fit in?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Here's a "nuclear alternative" for you:
quote:In June 1945 the Army's Chemical Warfare Service submitted its Top Secret Report on the poisoning of Japan listing 25 cities for destruction. Casualties "might easily kill 5,000,000 people and injure that many more...." Army planners believed that the Japanese would not evacuate their cities because of the lack of public transport and their willingness to "die in place". Therefore, it was not the Army's fault if the Japanese wanted to keep their factories running.
From "Armageddon Watch"
quote:since there is ample evidence that members of the Cabinet were worried by the prospect of further atomic bombings, especially on the remains of Tokyo. The bombs did not convince the military that defense of the home islands was impossible, if their behavior in Government councils is adequate testimony. It did permit the Government to say, however, that no army without the weapon could possibly resist an enemy who had it, thus saving "face" for the Army leaders and not reflecting on the competence of Japanese industrialists or the valor of the Japanese soldier. In the Supreme War Guidance Council voting remained divided, with the war minister and the two chiefs of staff unwilling to accept surrender. There seems little doubt, however, that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weakened their inclination to oppose the peace group.
The peace effort culminated in an Imperial conference held on the night of 9 August and continued into the early hours of 10 August, for which the stage was set by the atomic bomb and the Russian war declaration. At this meeting the Emperor, again breaking his customary silence, stated specifically that he wanted acceptance of the Potsdam terms.
A quip was current in high Japanese Government circles at this time that the atomic bomb was the real Kamikaze, since it saved Japan from further useless slaughter and destruction. It is apparent that in the atomic bomb the Japanese found the opportunity which they had been seeking, to break the existing deadlock within the Government over acceptance of the Potsdam terms.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Tahna: Nixon wasn't president during My Lai. Oh, he was in for the tail of the war... but it wasn't his war.
True, Nixon shows that Republicans can be just as bad, if they really work at it... but his kill rate isn't nearly so high as others.
[ January 26, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:True, Nixon shows that Republicans can be just as bad, if they really work at it... but his kill rate isn't nearly so high as others.
Ask a Chilean.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If one was dropped on Nagasaki to prove that the US could make two, why wasn't another one dropped to prove you could make 3?"
Because it was a bluff, really. There were only three to begin with, and the first one had already been exploded at Los Alamos. They figured they could drop one and Japan would say "Yeah, that's a neat trick, but can you do it twice?" and hoped that, after the second one, no-one would say "Okay, you can do it twice, but what about a third time?".
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
We're going well off-topic, but seeing as I am a history student, I can't bear to let some of this stuff go unrebutted. Not that the world will be a better place if I do.
First of all, First, you prescribed a nuclear knock-out punch that would reduce the Soviet Union to the point where it would collapse with little or no conventional fighting. And that's not one half-kiloton bomb in Moscow and one half-kiloton bomb in Leningrad. Hell, a nuke in New York and a nuke in Washington would bring down neither the US government nor the US people's willingness to fight off an invader. Two bombs would only unify an already-incredibly patriotic people ever closer and the Soviet Union would only fall after an incredibly bloody conventional invasion that still might have been unwinnable. If you wanted to "lop off the head" of the USSR in 1945, I'd imagine you'd want to rapidly launch a surprise attack and obliterate at least the dozen largest cities, followed by a quick ground campaign and occupation. And that would be monumentally amoral, regardless of how one interprets history would flow from then on.
First's comparison of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and a Nazi victory in WW2 is also rather flawed. While the Eastern bloc had no shortage of horrors, I think it's safe to say that I'll take an Allied + Soviet victory over Nazi victory any day. A Europe from Madrid to Moscow to the Middle-East under Nazi rule with perhaps a destroyed and very timid Britain still independent would be far, far worse than what ended up transpiring in Eastern Europe. We'd certainly be looking at extermination numbers as high or higher than Stalin's purges of the thirties. And that's assuming the Second World War would have been stopped somehow. If Hitler had conquered Europe, who's to say there wouldn't have been a nuclear war between Germany and the US, or at the very least a Cold War between the two similar to that between the Allies and the Eastern Bloc with the exception that Nazi Europe would probably have the advantage? In other words, we should be thankful for the Soviets, much as they themselves were a nasty bunch, too.
But hey, so long as we're playing the "what if" game... A subjugated, then democraticized and reindustrialized Russia could have led to a stronger UN Well, one must assume that you're defining a stronger UN as one with fewer disagreements on the Security Council level. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, especially for those of you who subscribe to the "efficient government = dictatorship" theory. Doesn't Jeffersonian thinking dictate that there should be someone on the security council scrutinizing the Western powers, as well? Besides, the UN today with a non-communist Russia could hardly be said to be significantly more effective, now, could it? no large-scale nuclear arms race, no Cold War, Granted. Probably no Apollo program either, while we're at it likely no Korea or 'Nam Well, if you assume that the USSR's occupation of Korea north of the 54th would never happened and that Communist China wouldn't have moved in anyway, then I guess no North Korea and therefore no Korean War. I'd venture the thought that Nam could have happened without the USSR. Actually, I think it would. No Communist Cuba Actually, Castro most likely would still have come to power. It's just he wouldn't have found a major ally post-Bay-of-Pigs in the form of Russia and therefore probably never would have gotten labeled "communist." , no brush wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and who knows what else. Socialist Revolution would continue to gather grassroots support in impoverished nations ruled by wealthy dictators that were puppets to American business and political interests. You'd have to knock off Marx a hundred years earlier to make a dent in that, and even still there'd be no guarantee that a similar doctrine wouldn't arise. When you look at the amount of aid that the Soviet Union actually gave to the various guerillas/freedom-fighters/terrorists/insurgents/rebels (choose your term), I don't think it could be fingered as a major factor in ensuring their survival.
And now for an interesting counterpoint to all this talk about nuclear weapons. It's been speculated by numerous noted historians (AJP Taylor and Richard Overy, for starters) that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima was exactly what caused the Cold War in the first place. Stalin met Truman (yet another evil Democrat, yes. Because they spill blood for fun) at Pottsdam and wasn't told that the very next day the Americans were going to drop an A-bomb on Hiroshima, or even that the Americans were working on an A-bomb. Stalin was an incredibly paranoid character, and rightly or wrongly took this as mounting evidence that the West planned to rebuilt Germany and then invade Russia for the third time in a half-century. (Had Rob been in power, Mr. Stalin would have been right.) And this directly led, or so say the evil liberal America-hating historians, to Soviet hegemony over its occupied territories and the descent of the Iron Curtain. But what would they know, not being librarians?
A final alt-history puzzle: Wasn't it a lucky thing that the Japanese didn't have intelligence telling them that the Americans only had the two bombs? For all Truman knew, they could have called his bluff after Nagasaki. And then the war would continue (at least until the Americans managed to build more A-bombs or alternately firebomb the Japanese until they were scared (or terrorized, *ahem* *ahem*) into surrendering. And many more people would die and the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died in vain.
[ January 26, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
They would have died under any circumstances: nuke, firebombing, invasion, or starvation. They were being mobilized AS SOLDIERS, and would have fought as such.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, beware babies armed with rifles!
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
not to quibble here, but babies with rifles can be some bad motherfuckers when the need arises.
Re: Vietnam Re: Bosnia Re: Columbine. (huh? no, it's true.)
I've always been of the opinion that while it's fun to speculate about alternative histories to such a great extent, it has no real value.
Better instead to learn in depth about what actually did happen. But you bunch know that, obviously.
The point is that nobody, no matter how educated, or sophiticated, can say with any authority how things WOULD have happened IF X happened instead of Y...it's not algebra. The broad sweep of history contains too many *ahem* X factors.
Say, for example, that the US hadn't dropped the atomic bombs on Japan...
The War Department was projecting massive causualties for an invasion of Japan on both sides, but since it never happened, how can we say with any certainitude that it would have?
I remember reading about projected causualties for D-day...seem to recall 60%-80% losses expected on some fronts for allied forces. Things in reality were bad, but not THAT bad. Although individual squads may have been fucked pretty well, Divisions came through pretty much intact.
War is hell for soldiers. For statistics, it's just Fucked Up.
Tangent: You all should read "Dirty Secrets of WW2" If you haven't. Excellent stuff, and full of stats, for those that like that sort of thing. Like me.
[ January 27, 2002, 01:09: Message edited by: thoughtcriminal84 ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Re: Vietnam Re: Bosnia Re: Columbine. (huh? no, it's true.)
Uh, well, no, those were children, certainly, but babies can't even TALK, much less fire rifles.
As for the projected casualties of an invasion of the Japanese home islands, original estimates placed the number in the low tens of thousands. One million wasn't brought up until much later. And since we've got to analyze the decision to use atomic weapons with the estimates the policymakers would've had, its irrelevent.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
well, since you were talking about JUST babies (re: infants, with small limbs and all) with rifles, your sarcastic thing is duly noted.
My point was that killers come in all shapes and sizes, and that is an observable phenomenon from times past. And present.
This whole thread leads me down some dark thought-paths, to be honest.
Was the united states justified? Who knows? After what happened with the airplanes last year, and with information We Don't Have factored into the equation, the CIA may have honestly thought it wouldn't be a bad Idea to spy on them.
We don't know all the facts, and to me, friends and neighbors, that's the scary part.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
*steals a few minutes of\n his parents' computer*
As Churchill said, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." In other words, war is about defending fundamental principles, and the protection of first truths often requires sacrificing secondary and tertiary ones.
Children can't use weapons? Tell that to the Vietnamese. Or those two munchkins who were running "God's Army" in Cambodia a little while back. Give a little kid an armed hand grenade and tell him to run towards the big guys in green, and he'll do it. Those folks proved it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but, er, I said "babies." Not children. Babies. Why is that so hard for you people to realize? Jesus.
[ January 28, 2002, 18:06: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So you're saying that baby Jesus could kill children with a gun, right?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I think He'd be a bit more... creative.
But exactly what is the point of this thread, again?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Maybe you'd know if you'd actually read it.
[ January 29, 2002, 06:47: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
*pops in*
Me again.. got a few moments. Somebody sent me this:
quote: It's the Return Address, Stupid!
The Geneva Convention is about reserving the rights and privileges of conducting war to nations, and only to nations. Non-nations, religions, cults, and bridge clubs need not apply.
It does make it easier to fight a war if you know whom you're fighting. Did that bomb come from a B-52? It has a return address; you know who sent it. Did that missle get launched from China? It has a return address; you know who sent it. Is a spec-ops force attacking a cave fortress? Those bullets and cruise missles have return addresses. You know where they came from, without opening the envelope.
Here's a hint for aspiring terrorists: "The will of Allah" is not a return address. Bombings are intended to change national and international policy. Nations reserve the right to make policy, and resent outside interference. That is why it is necessary to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants; between soldiers and criminals. Soldiers act on behalf of nations; criminals act on behalf of themselves.
But what about freedom fighters? OK, here's a simple test. Did the proposed freedom fighters form an actual government? Does that government act on behalf of the people it represents, in ways other than killing, such as building roads, hospitals, sewers, etc? Do the people whom the government claims to represent, actually support that government and its freedom fighters? Does that government actually control and direct the actions of those freedom fighters? Did they win? Freedom fighters win; terrorists lose. Do the freedom fighters have a return address? Are they willing to take responsibility for their actions?
By those standards, al Qaeda doesn't even begin to qualify as a nation or as freedom fighters; they are thugs and need to be dealt with as thugs. Palestine marginally qualifies, but they are out of control and want to pursue war without paying the cost, and nobody gets that privilege, not even the U.S.
Palestine has a return address, although Hamas and Islamic Jihad would prefer not to use it. Al Qaeda does not have a return address and does not want a return address, unless you consider "all of Islam" to be a return address. Not all of Islam agrees, so all other tests of "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" fail.
So think of the Geneva Convention as a post office that processes and validates return addresses. Martyrs, anthrax mailers, and unabombers need not apply.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But, Rob, that fails to address members of the Taliban who are being held. Certainly, the average foot soldier was just that: an average foot soldier.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Miss this part?
quote:Does that government act on behalf of the people it represents, in ways other than killing, such as building roads, hospitals, sewers, etc? Do the people whom the government claims to represent, actually support that government and its freedom fighters? Does that government actually control and direct the actions of those freedom fighters?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, I didn't miss that part, Rob.
I don't think it quite qualifies as far as the Taliban goes -- or, I should clarify, while it makes an arguement for going after the leadership of the Taliban as terrorists (or supporters of terrorism), how does it make the Taliban foot soldiers any more than foot soldiers? Since when do those soldiers really have a whole lot of choice in what they're doing? Mind you, a *lot* of Taliban forces switched sides at the behest of their commanders during the fighting. Hold the commanders responsible for what side the soldiers fought on, not the soldiers themselves.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
We haven't yet charged the soldiers with anything, have we? We're just holding them prisoner.
Y'see, in times of hostility, capturing and holding the enemy's forces en masse and unarmed, and otherwise rendering them unable to fight, is generally reckoned to be a good thing.
From what I understand, the detainees brought back to Cuba aren't generally believed to be the run-of-the-mill foot soldiers... unless they're suspected of belonging more to Al-Quaeda than to the Taliban.
That's where the line blurs a bit. 'Abdullah' could be a Taliban guy who BELONGS to AQ, in which case he's a terrorist and should be punished, or he could just be a Taliban guy who was ordered to resist the enemies of he government.. still the enemy, but a lesser enemy.
However, until 'Abdullah's' status can be determined, it's safer for everybody to hold him.
In this case, it's better to inconvenience an enemy soldier for a time than it is to let a terrorist go free.
[ January 29, 2002, 15:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Y'see, in times of hostility, capturing and holding the enemy's forces en masse and unarmed, and otherwise rendering them unable to fight, is generally reckoned to be a good thing.
And the point you keep banging your head against (like a certain Stormtrooper in Star Wars) is that we're *not* holding them as POWs, Robert. Duh.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:However, until 'Abdullah's' status can be determined, it's safer for everybody to hold him.
In this case, it's better to inconvenience an enemy soldier for a time than it is to let a terrorist go free.
Thank you for finally seeing my point, that the status of these people has to be determined and you can't just call them all terrorists. Boy took a while but you have finally seen the light.
quote:(In other words, we're not the only people who consider them terrorists... in fact, just about everybody besides the Muslim Fundies and the Liberal Fundies like you thinks they are)
Guess this means that you are officially a Liberal Fundie. The thing is though, GWB doesn't want to follow this step he is just going to hold tribunals to pronounce these people guilty and not determine their status.
[ January 29, 2002, 16:32: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I still consider them terrorists, but I'mm willing to see that there might be another potentially valid way of looking at it.
See, if you consider the government that supported/hid Al-Quaida as part of their organization, (which the US has said it does) then you must perforce consider all those acting under the orders of that government as acting under the orders of the terrorists.
So I do. However, it may be reasonable to consider trying to distinguish who followed orders because they had to from who followed orders because they wanted to.
[ January 29, 2002, 17:39: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't SAY hold them as POW's. I said hold them. I don't much care how, as long as the comfort level's something they can survive.
Guantanamo is probably a lot more comfortable this time of year than caves in the mountains of Afghanistan, and they were willing to live in those. And the latrine facilities are better.
Keep 'em sitting all day in Dilbert-sized cubicles, stack their sleeping quarters like those Japanese hotels, and make 'em watch Barney reruns as their only entertainment, for all I care.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:make 'em watch Barney reruns as their only entertainment, for all I care
That is just sadistic.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
It seems that the US administration does not even know who they have detained in Cuba.
quote:U.S. officials say privately that they expect only a small number of them will face charges before the tribunals; a larger number, they say, are likely to be detained indefinitely without being charged. That is because U.S. officials are having trouble obtaining information about the detainees, and most are turning out to be low-ranking fighters.
And they are planning on keeping these people captive until the war on terrorism is completed. I would think that that will never happen and these people will ber stuck there forever. In order to keep them though they have to be at war with them, which means they are pow's but the bush admin won't admit they are pow's. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.
quote: "It might not be possible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a particular crime," Rumsfeld said. "He may be guilty of other crimes."
Like kidnapping?
I sure am glad we don't have your system of law in our country, what is this we just hold them until we can find some law that they broke. Guilty until we find a law, or make one, that you broke.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Grocka,
The whole reason they're in Cuba, and not the U.S., is that our laws only apply to those on our land. And, for whatever reason, Guantamano apparently doesn't qualify.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)