Jump to content

Talk:War on terror/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Whoever edited this page in the first place forgot to mention that India also has provided assistance to USA. The have provided landing facilities and have held joint IndoUS military exercizes all in order to fight the war against terrorism. I was disappointed that the person did not know this. A word about Pakistan - While no doubt that pakistan has provided assisstance, it also remains the chief sponosor of terrorism in world. user: rahul

Someone edited this page (like al-Qaida) to add the assertion that Carter funded al-Qaida, and the link to Zmag. The Zmag article does not make that assertion, though it does discuss Carter funding of unjust regimes and drops the name of Osama bin Laden. If the assertion cannot be verified from a reliable source (Zmag is political advocacy and not news or scholarship) then it must be removed, since if false it constitutes libel. --FOo

Actually, what the unknown author's text states--that Carter funded Islamic fundamentalists, not that he funded al-qaida specifically--is precisely what the Z magazine article asserts (without supporting fact). A better link would be: http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html But more importantly, I think that fact belongs in the article on the Soviet-Afghanistan war and maybe in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan article, but not in the main War on Terrorism article. There's plenty of interesting facts about the invasion without digging back, analyzing facts for irony, or juxtaposing peace awards. Text included below for reference. DanKeshet
Following the attack on the Taliban, the Bush Administration began deploying troops to various countries with an Islamic militant presence, to train and equip local forces. Ironically, 2002 Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had earlier (1979) started an investment campaign of $US40 billion to develop, train and equip local Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (ref below), so the present Administration is responding to the unfortunate pro-fundamentalist choice of the Carter Administration.

My two dictionaries define extradite as

"To deliver up by one government to another, as a fugitive from justice."

and

"hand over to the authorities of another country [syn: deliver, deport, surrender]"

An extradition request is exactly what it was. The fact that it had an ultimatum attached and the fact that it didn't follow normal procedures do not change that. Finally, Ed, your abuse of VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is absolutely shameful. Vandalism is not "something I disagree with." DanKeshet

You exaggerate. I wrote changes to US anti-Taliban articles: perhaps not really "vandalism" per se, but not really correct either., so my abuse of the VIP page was not quite "absolutely" shameful. I qualified my remarks with a perhaps not really and invited the very attention you just gave it. Lighten, up, dude. :-) --Ed Poor 17:41 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
I do exaggerate. But c'mon now. If you want to have Wikipedia:Recent edits Ed Poor disagrees with, then go ahead. But that isn't what VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is for. DanKeshet

Asa, I really like your edits, but I disagree on the first paragraph (or two paragraphs). I think that the "framework" stuff should be part of the introduction, and therefore in the same first paragraph, not cordoned off into a seperate section. Also, what do you think of my idea for the formatting, where we have summaries of the various campaigns, with links to the longer articles? DanKeshet

Cheers - i like your work on this article too  :)
I seperated your "framework" paragraph (nice work, by the way, makes a lot of good sense) into another because I thought the first one looked too long. Seems ok now thou. I like your new formatting - look much better than all those sub pages (I'm of the opinion that sub pages are no good for articles, they make no sense in a encyclopedic context, only a computing one). We should try to break all those sub pages off into their own articles linked from this page. I think we need to do more work on the heading sizes too - seems a bit random ATM. AW
Thanks! Re: the framework stuff, if you want to seperate it out into a seperate paragraph, that'd be cool with me. I just don't want it underneath any headings. DanKeshet

Since the Bush and bin Laden families are or were both involved in the Carlyle Group, this campaign is seen by some as in internal family feud within the Carlyle Group, with occasional, unfortunate collateral effects (such as death) on non-shareholders. However, while George Bush Sr allegedly remains an employee of the Carlyle Group, it seems that the bin Laden family has allegedly ceased to be an investor since October 2002, so there has been an internal family split in the group. (see NYT ref below)

Removed this, similarly to the bit about Jimmy Carter. I have a few problems with this: 1) most of it isn't information, it's opinion or analysis. (In what way were the bush and bin laden families involved in the Carlyle group?) 2) it doesn't seem like it's appropriately placed. I think it would be better placed in the "opponents" section as the perception described is almost entirely a perception felt by opponents of the invasion, or perhaps in the "US invasion of Afghanistan" article. DanKeshet

GABaker, your rebuttal contains interesting information, but could you provide some more context for it? I mean, did someone in particular make this rebuttal? Otherwise I don't know that it's particularly relevant, however true it might be.... Actually I think a more appropriate way to incorporate such information into the article would be to write it above, in the main section describing the War on Terrorism, outlining the logic of the campaign and what it hopes to achieve. Otherwise this is going to degenerate into point-counterpoint nonsense (if it hasn't already). Graft 23:54 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

I've boiled down arguments made by a number military observers and journalists in the "you can lower the level" point. The analogy is guerrilla warfare; most campaigns can be suppressed without outside support, as in Malaya in the 1950s.
Collateral damage-same thing. It's come mostly from absorbing a LOT of airpower press, such as the USAF Air Chronicles.

Yes, we could move the rebuttal up, or we could eliminate the section on protests, which was verging on NPOV. Of course, my NPOV is someone else's bias --GABaker

The points of view expressed in the section on opposition are espressed nowhere else. The point of view expressed in your rebuttal is allready represented in the main body of the article. Some minor points from it could be incorperated (particularly the point about reducing terrorism to a lower lever - however then you will have to reconcile that more moderate idea with the absolutist rhetoric that comes from your government's administration -and others- about "wiping terror from the face of the earth", "hunting down the evil doers" etc etc. ), but on the whole it is irelavant. However I have left it alone for now to avoid an edit war... Also, I removed the assertations about Iraq having terrorist connections. They have none. The resistence forces that some western powers are now supporting, however, may. AW
see below - re:Iraq Funding Terrorists.
I think we need to rewrite the "common criticisms" part to be a record and classification of criticisms that people have made, with references. I'll slowly start working on this, but I hope others chip in. DanKeshet
Good idea. I like your new additions to the opposition section: gives it more context. I think we should remove GABaker's "rebuttal" - this is an encyclopedia page, not a forum! I will work on intergrating some of the points in it to the main text. AW
Perhaps I should not have used the word "rebuttal", but I am very certain I've absorbed the points of view of the WOT officials. I won't have a crack at integrating the points into the article the next two days, but I'll have time to do it at leisure Monday.
I am concerned that the WOT article is leaning too closely to a War on Iraq article, and losing its focus. Though the events are related, they aren't simultaneous.--GABaker

re: Iraq funding terrorists.

This has also been mentioned on 60 minutes (where they even showed a document with Saddam's signature), and widely reported in a large number of magazines and newspapers. THis is just the first link that showed up on a serach at MSN..

Proof That Saddam Bankrolls Terrorism

This article is something of a joke. It reads like an Israeli press release (and consequenseally, so do your latest additions). It has a clear anti-Palestinian bias, and the author obviously has an adgenda of his own, being an ex-Congressional aide and ex-Senatorial candidate. Exhorbitant claims are made of "some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic", yet not a single one is made availible. The article itself even admits that this and the 60 minutes programme you mention are about the only media to cover this "story", clearly because it is so far-fetched. The fact that the Israeli government under Sharon has been known to forge documents in an attempt find excuses for more illegal occupations of Palestinian territory is probably also a factor. You are going to have to provide a more scholarly, less obviouly biased source before you can include such assertations as if they were fact. AW
You're hardly being NPOV. The documuments *HAVE* been made available to the media. Various news organizations have examined them. 60 Minutes, if they're biased, are definitely not biased in favor of war or the Bush administrations efforts to disarm Iraq. These documents should be mentioned, even if a note is included saying that some are sceptical. Not including them and jumping to the conclusion that they are fake is picking sides, which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. I've also seen these documents mentioned in articles from the major news organizations. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that Israel captured a terrorist cell that was trained in Iraq.. this has been widely reported on all of the major news networks. Here's a few links on the rewards for suicide bombers, etc..
" ALF also is doling out generous bounties for the dead and injured in the 20-month intifada. Payments are on a strict scale: $500 for a wound, $950 for disablement, $9,500 for death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber."
Washington Times
"In the spring, the Iraqi leader increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory -- not greed." ::
Fox News
"Saddam's regime, as Jordan intelligence officials report, shelters such aging Palestinian terrorists as Abu Nidal, a former deadly foe of Yasser Arafat, who is ill; and Mahmoud Abbas, hijacker of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro, in 1985, and a leader of the Iraqi-backed Arab Liberation Front (ALF)."
ABC News
TheAge

216, could you please refrain from flagging large edits as "minor edits"? It's misleading, and some people who choose to hide minor edits will miss these changes. In general a minor edit should only be something that does not affect the meaning of a passage (i.e., spelling mistakes, wiki links, missing or duplicated articles, etc.) If you are adding information to an article, or changing the flow of information in an article, it is not a minor edit. Graft

I thought a minor edit included anything up to a short sentence or two.. sorry.

I wonder about the danger of North Korea vs. Iraq. From what I read it seems North Korea is pretty close to being able to build nukes in at least small quantities and has missle power sufficient to deliver them on Japan. This sounds pretty bad to me.

And far as craziness/general instability goes, they're probably a few octaves higher than Saddam could hope to be. I mean, the mere fact that they're pursuing a nuclear weapons program while their country is gripped by famine implies insanity (although one might make the same argument for Saddam, even if the scale is somewhat different). Kind of makes you suspect that something else might be at work here vis-a-vis Iraq.
But, all of that aside, the article text is about the administration's position, and that is true, as far as I can tell, even if it seems irrational as stated. Graft
I think the bit about North Korea (as well as the bit about Iran) are tremendously inaccurate and poorly focused. The GW Bush administration has had a markedly different policy toward the Korean peninsula than the previous administration did, with very real and important consequences. Why is the only paragraph on Korea then not actually on Korea, but rather on Iraq? DanKeshet
I read today in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ("Preemptive Posturing", BAS Sept/Oct 2002) that under Clinton the US conducted exercises to simulate nuclear bombing runs on Korea (North). This suggests that the Bush Nuclear Posture Review is not a complete departure from previous doctrine. Graft
Let's take this to George W. Bush administration policy toward North Korea. DanKeshet

Hi Kwertii, Who has an arrest warrant out for Kissinger? As far as I know he's only wanted for questioning so far. Graft

Good edit brining the Kissinger and Poindexter appointments into focus. I don't think either man is the bogeyman--especially Kissinger--but their appointments are very controversial. GABaker
Henry Kissinger, appointed lead investigator on a commission to investigate the September 11 attack, has international arrest warrants issued for him and is wanted by France, Spain, Chile, and Argentina for questioning in connection with possible war crimes he allegedly had knowledge of and facilitated while serving as Secretary of State during the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Yeah, besides our articles should avoid the passive voice. Don't say that someone "has warrants...issued for him". Say that X issued a warrant. The text above is almost as bad as saying "has been criticized for blah, blah, blah". Always attribute. --Ed Poor

Question: Specifically which war crimes? Or would they be crimes against humanity alleged against Kissinger? There is a difference. --GABaker
I think that an elaboration of the details of the charges against Kissinger belong in the article on Kissinger, which is linked to from this article. I don't see any need to duplicate all the details of Kissinger's actions in two articles, when it is only peripheral to the focus of this article. soulpatch

Regarding "George Bush's personal war"; this is a widespread perception among both mainstream and alternative sources. In 1 minute of google searching, for example, I come up with this Time Magazine article which calls it 'George W. Bush's war on terror', this Phillipine Daily News article which calls it 'US President George W. Bush's global campaign against terrorism', and an Independent (UK) article calling it "President George Bush's campaign against rogue states". Every night as I go to bed, I hear the BBC using the phrase "George Bush's War on Terror".

Also, I do not believe this is a "slam". While some people who oppose the war and oppose Bush try to link the two for negative effect, I think many people who do not opppose the war simply identify it strongly with President Bush. DanKeshet

However, there has been speculation about the administrations plans, and Iran is seen by some as 'next on the list' -- both because of its "axis of evil" status and its geopolitical relationship with Iraq.

This is just a quick addition to -- hopefully -- help develop the section on Iran. -- Sam

"accepted international rules for combatants"? how exactly do they not meet these lofty standards? Regardless, I think a sentence like that reads far to much like Whitehouse PA spin. AW

Either way, it kind of makes sense following the words "The US government justifies this by...." Do we want to know how the White house justifies it or do we not want to know how the White house justifies it?
Considering I've READ the Geneva conventions a couple of times, I'll explain it like this (and it should be a section by itself in the WOT article):
  • Al-Queda is not a nation-state, and Al-Queda soldiers are not members of a regular armed force nor of a militia. They wear no identifying marks on their clothing nor uniforms.
  • Al-Queda may be engaged in a guerrilla campaign, but their campaign is carried out in third countries (by definition). This fails to meet the "internal conflict" standards of the Geneva convention of 1949 and its amendments.

Because they are neither soldiers nor guerrillas, Al-Queda members who are not captured do not fall under the protections of the conventions. They are "illegal combatants." Another category of fighters who have no protection under the Geneva conventions are mercenary soldiers (this was done in the 1970s on the behest of African states). A third category that does not fall under the conventions are spies and intelligence operatives.

Because of these rules, the U.S. may detain al-Queda operatives. Please note that this does not mean "should."

On the other hand, the Gitmo detainees have access to religious services (one of the few U.S.Navy Muslim chaplains is detailed to the Naval Station for Camp X-ray), sanitation, and the Navy is building relatively permanent, if not luxurious structures. They get rations comparable to U.S. Naval rations, with restrictions to meet a Muslim diet. The U.S. is following the details of the Conventions in terms of treating people. The Conventions do not mandate comfort, just toleratble standards.

The question is--is their status correct? Should the Gitmo detainees be called guerrillas, they may be detained until the conflict reaches a formal end. If they are civilians facing criminal charges, they may require access to counsel. (note the may: they aren't in the U.S., and the Geneva conventions have rules for military tribunals against civilians who break the laws of war.)

I hope this clarifies this. However, please, please, please do not merely cut out my words with the comment "blah blah blah." That was unnecessarily rude. -- GABaker

This is interesting stuff that you added, GABaker. I agree that it should be split off; I suggest Camp X-ray. I think there are a few other questions that were not addressed in what you wrote, but I'm real busy now and I'd rather have that discussion at talk:Camp X-ray. DanKeshet
The change you made to that section is fine. Plus the new material looks extensive! I've added a little bit to the old part of the new page. I haven't read the new material yet, so perhaps it answers this question but: surely your argument about the technical definition of a regular army applies only to the al-Q'aeda fighters and not the former Taliban forces held at the camp?
p.s. the "blah combatants blah" comment was not meant to be rude towards yourself or your work, I was just lazy to explain the whole issue because it had gone back and forth so much. Sorry I can across that way. AW

Re: torture

The following needs to be set out:

  • the evidence/reports that indicate torture has taken place;
  • the criterea used to establish this;
  • any denials, official or otherwise;
  • other criterea that may be used to confirm or deny the allegation.

(Whether or not this should all appear in this article. -- Sam

Quote from the Washington Post article:

Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light, the prisoners are denied access to lawyers or organizations, such as the Red Cross, that could independently assess their treatment. Even their names are secret.

The para that was placed in this article by Soulpatch clearly states that the US is directly involved in torture. This point needs to be made very clear in the paragraph or it will be removed. And per NPOV you can't make an affirmative statement of a piece of information if that information is in reasonable dispute. --mav

i believe ive npovd itVera Cruz

It seems NPOV to me as it is now phrased. There is no "reasonable dispute" that I see to what was posted, which quotes from an investigative report and which cites sources from the US government concerning its activities. Just because we don't like to hear an unpleasant revelation, that in and of itself coesn't constitute "reasonable dispute". soulpatch

I believe the government denies that it's torturing people. It seems to have it's own doublespeak language and thus it's own definitions... Vera Cruz

Nowhere in the Post article does it say that the US is directly involved in "torture". It does say that "stress and duress" techniques are used and that the US sends people to countries where torture is performed. Nowhere does it say that the US id directly involved in torture. --mav

Those so-called "stress and duress" techniques do constitute a form of torture. What the article says is that the US sends these prisoners to other countries for the use of more severe torture techniques. Either way, the US is clearly culpable in acts of torture, according to what the article describes. soulpatch

But you still can't say that the article says that the US is directly involved in torture because the article doesn't say that. We do have quotes from the post article so the reader can decide. This whole section IMO needs to be moved to the detainee article since it is about treatment to them. --mav
But the article says that the US is involved in activities which any person would reasonably characterize as torture. Whether the article uses that term isn't really the point, as I see it. (your having moved the text around as you just did, by the way, seems fine to me, for what it's worth). soulpatch
"any person would reasonably characterize as torture" Hm. This very point is under a great deal of question both inside and outside the US. Therefore you can't make such an assertion. We have a description of what the US is doing under a heading the has the word "torture" in it. Let the reader decide for themselves. --mav
Under question by whom? Human rights experts, or the apologists for those who commit those acts of torture? Obviously, for the US to admit it is torturing people would make it look bad, but so what? The Soviet Union routinely refused to admit it was doing bad things for the same reason. Just because those who do bad deeds refuse to own up to it, that doesn't mean we should be complicit in this encyclopedia by covering it up. I think that Wikipedia should not fall into the trap of refusing to characterize anything with an appropriate label under the guise of "letting the reader decide". Just because something is controversial, that doesn't mean it isn't true. We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing atrocities lest we offend someone.
That being said, I don't have a problem with the way the article is currently configured. soulpatch
But, we have to be fair to all parties involved. For example, if John Doe was accused of being a murderer by the washington post - even though the post calims that there is no direct evidence to prove it, do we say that John Doe is a murderer because the only person denying it is John Doe himself? John Doe refusing to "own up to it" has nothing to do with it. It isn't proven, or at the very least, it is debatable. If the Post article that you're quoting says the following: "Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light", then we can't confirm that prisoners have been mistreated. We don't have to cover up the accusations, but we certainly don't have to pretend that they've been confirmed either. -Jazz77
But we aren't talking about John Doe; we are talking about a government, a very powerful one that has an official policy of secrecy in such matters. Investigative reporting is the best tool we have, given a secretive government, for determining what happened. And to say that we "can't confirm" isn't exactly true--we have participants intimately involved in the process who say that it has happened, and these people are in a official capacity and who have stated to the press that they happen. The fact is that various government officials have admitted to the press that these various actions have occured (beatings, depriving them of painkillers, putting them in cramped quarters, etc.). soulpatch
But this isn't the word of the accusers vs. the word of the US government. It's the word of the accusers vs. the evidence itself. According to the article you are linking, there is no evidence that anyone has been mistreated. That's very important. We should be fair - even when we're dealing with governments. -Jazz77
But being fair to the United States government isn't popular in the world these days. -- Zoe
Actually, the US Government is accusing itself. This isn't a case of the victims or their families going around making accusations of torture by the US government. This is a case of members of the US government (its officials, that is to say, those who are actually involved in the activities) admitting these acts to the press, and then saying that it is okay because Americans will support such acts. Why do you think judges constantly want to supoena reporters to testify about their sources and to give up their notes, and why are their shield laws designed to prevent that sort of thing from happening? The fact is that reporters conversations with people in the know, people who were there, who know what is going on, and who report what is going on even when it isn't necessarily in their interests to do so, is pretty vital. We have eyewitnesses who have said that Americans "may kick them around a bit", that they saw cases where "U.S. Army Special Forces troops who beat them up and confine them in tiny rooms." In lieu of anything to the contrary, this is powerful stuff. We don't have to be "fair" to governments that commit human rights violations and then shroud their activities in secrecy. We need to report the information we have. soulpatch
Which is that some people have made accusations, the post has investigated, made some additional accusations and said "Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light". That's exactly what should be reported. We shouldn't come to the conclusion that anyone is correct - without evidence to back it up. -Jazz77


Re: "some people have made accusations, the post has investigated, made some additional accusations". This is not exactly true. The Post investigated and found that the very elements who were being accused admitted to commiting such acts. This is quite different from the sort of dismissive characterization that you gave it. The investigation found that officials in the US government admitted that the accusations made were true, but their response was to say "So what?"--that is, to justify them as a necessary part of the war on terror. soulpatch
There IS evidence, namely eyewitness testimony. soulpatch
There may be eyewitness testimony - but theres nothing to back it up. -Jazz77
Nothing to contradict it, either, and the eyewitness testimony has credibility. soulpatch
The absense of physical evidence contradicts it, or at the very least, creates some doubt. The eyewitness testimony would be extremely important *if* there was physical evidence of prisoners being mistreated while in U.S. custody, but there isn't. That's the problem. It's a "he said, she said" situation, and, as the article you linked states, there is no direct evidence that the US has mistreated anybody. If you took your neighbor to court claiming that they damaged your car, your eye witness testimony would be meaningless if you couldn't even prove that your car was damaged. -Jazz77

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time discussing this, but that is a really, really bad analogy. I would point out that eyewitness testimony is, in fact, used all the time in courts of law, but that is neither here nor there in this situation. This is a point that you seem to be missing, but is that this NOT a he-said, she-said situation whatsoever. Your analogy simply bears no relationship to this situation. This is not the word of the torturers versus the tortured. On the contrary, the torturers are agreeing that the torture is taking place. The people who are saying that these atrocities are occuring are coming from the side that is commiting them. This is not a case of adversarial eyewitness testimony whatsoever; the people who are commiting these actions are reporting them, and doing so quite approvingly. As for the "absense of physical evidence" having any significance, that might make sense if someone outside of the US government has actually been able to have access to the prisoners. You claim that it "creates doubt", when in fact if anything the shroud of secrecy by the US government that is suspicious. To claim that there is an "absence" of physical evidence is misleading and disingenuous; the prisoners have been holed up and are inaccessible. What we do have is the admissions of the torturers and their allies themselves (and guess what--no one tortured them to produce those admissions!) (I really doubt that you are always so skeptical about everything that is ever reported by eyewitnesses, quite frankly). If you wish to maintain a level of "doubt" into this article out of adherence to the Holy Grail of NPOV, I think there is a sufficient level of that cautiousness already in the article, unnecessary in this case though it may be. I recognize that even the genocide articles in this encyclopedia often hedge in historical incidents of genocide that are quite obviously true, calling such things merely "charges of genocide". Sometimes this encylopedia refuses to call a spade a spade, and that is unfortunate, because it also can lead to whitewashing history. And, unfortunately, it really comes into play whenever anything involving the United States is involved, because apparentlyl the United States must always be portrayed as lily white and pure and incapable of doing wrong, even when the facts say otherwise. soulpatch

First, *of course* eyewitness accounts are used in court, but usually only with other evidence. They're essentially worthless without additional supporting evidence, or at least, evidence of a crime. The article you're quoting says there isn't any. Even if it's the person that claims to have committed the offence - if there's no evidence to support it, it doesn't mean a whole lot. People that confess to crimes that don't appear to exist are not normally convicted of a crime. In this case, it could be that that person is just all "talk". Coming from a military family, I can attest to the fact that many military people like to "talk tough". For example, "we may kick them around a bit".
Second, the government, as a whole, isn't admitting to anything. It's a few unnamed "sources." It shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be treated as proof of anything. The "sources" could easily be made up (reporters do that all the time), misquoted (also happens a lot), or as I said above, just "talking tough". Who knows? Without additional evidence, we can't know.
Third, there *have* been groups outside the U.S. government that have had access to the prisoners. For example, the Red Cross met with prisoners in private last January. The U.S. has been working with the Red Cross since the beginning to put an end to all of their concerns. England also sent people to look it over around the same time. Others have also visited.
The prisoners receive warm showers, toiletries, water, fresh fruit, clean clothes, blankets, regular mail, medical treatment, culturally appropriate meals, prayer mats, and the right to practice their religion.. and, according to the article, there's no evidence that they've been mistreated. They're probably living better than they did in the cave we found them in. I can guarantee that they're living better than we would be if they had captured us. - Jazz77
With regards to your claims about the treatment of prisoners, allow me to correct some misinformation. You seem to have confused the issues and you are addressing a similar, but quite different, case. The Washington Post investigation dealt with the treatment of prisoners at the CIA's secret and off-limits detention center at Bagram and other locations. To set the record straight, and contrary to what you asserted, the Red Cross has not been allowed to that facility and has never been allowed to examine the prisoners there. It is true that the Red Cross has been allowed access to prisoners at Guantanamo, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, because we aren't talking about Guantanamo. We are talking about the treatment of prisoners who are taken to a detention and interrogation facility that is off limits to everyone, including the Red Cross, so getting any direct evidence is not possible (just as it would generally not be possible to get direct evidence from, say, a Latin American political prisoner's secret detention and interrogation facility). But it IS possible to collect eyewitness accounts. The Washington Post investigation, I will point out, involved interviews with "several former intelligence officials and 10 current U.S. national security officials -- including several people who said they had witnessed the handling of prisoners." If you want to present some grand conspiracy theory that the Post made up all those sources (hey, maybe those two obscure reporters 30 years ago made up Deep Throat!), then be my guest. Otherwise, though, let's at least get the facts straight. [1] soulpatch
You're right, somehow I had mistakenly thought that the charges were in connection to camp X-ray. Either way, most of what I said still stands. Eyewitness testimony is still not worth a whole lot without some kind of supporting evidence, which the post says doesn't exist. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the Post had made up the sources - but it *has* happened before. It is quite common for news writers to put their opinion into an article by quoting unnamed sources that don't exist. Some news writers have even admitted to doing this on occasion. I seem to recall Dan Rather saying that he had even done it before. All that aside, even if these sources are correct, it's still impossible to say that prisoners have been tortured by the U.S. government without direct evidence to support the claim, which the Post doesn't have. -Jazz77
Well, aside from your sweeping generalization about the state of journalistic ethics, we obviously disagree on several points, but what we can do in the context of this encyclopedia article is what the article is currently doing, namely report what the investigative report has produced. soulpatch


Just don't fall into the fallacy that "if the Post said it is true then it is true." That is not NPOV. --mav
I agree, but it would also just as much a fallacy to assert that journalists have no ethics and anything they say is necessarily false. The Post is not infallible, but it IS credible. There is a difference between a credible source and an infallible source, just as there is a difference between a fallible source and one that has no credibility. Let us not confuse credibility with fallibility. Then again, there are no truly infallible sources. If we have a credible source of information, then it is worth citing here in this encyclopedia. soulpatch
Speaking of "deep throat"... Jim Belushi said that after he read Bob Woodward's "Wired" (about the life of John Belushi) he immediately became a fan of Richard Nixon and doubted that "Deep Throat" actually existed. According to Jim Belushi, "Wired" is a complete and total fabrication. Made up events, made up people, etc. Luckily in the case of Watergate, we have more evidence to back up the reporters claims. In this case that we're discussing, we don't. -Jazz77
Jim Belushi, the actor and comedian? Yeah, Jim Belushi is quite the source on political scandal, isn't he? Thanks for citing him; that was very useful and helpful to this discussion. If the writers of the Post investigation of CIA torture are making this up, it would be a major journalistic scandal, and not just par for the course in the day of the life of newspaper writers. The Post is not the Enquirer. But until we receive evidence that they are making it up, we have them available as a credible source of information, and it should be treated as such. (Wired, by the way, was a book written by a journalist, not a newspaper investigation). I repeat what I said before--we have a credible source. Not infallible, but credible. And that is how this article presents the information we have received from it. If and when you have evidence that they made this all up, we have something to go on. soulpatch
Uggh, good lord, you didn't get what I was saying? No.. I'm not quoting Jim Belushi as an expert on a political scandal. The point was this, Woodward, one of the same guys that broke the Watergate scandal, wrote a book that, according to Belushi, was a total fabrication. Belushi is an expert on his brother. The point is, reporters are not always perfect - many times they don't even *try* to be. Many times they throw opinion or questionable sources into "investigations" to make headlines or sell books. That's why outside evidence is important. It's up to the people making the accusations to come up with the evidence. And again, I'm not claiming anyone made anything up - I'm simply saying that there is no evidence to back up what they are saying. -Jazz77
Of course reporters are not always perfect. We are all in agreement on this. We all agree that newspaper reports are falible sources of information. The difference is whether you consider a serious investigation by a serious major newspaper to be a CREDIBLE source of information or not. I happen to consider it a credible source; you apparently do not. And on this subject we will not agree, and going around and around and reapeating the same points over again will not settle this question here. soulpatch

america is a democracy and the greatest country on the planet and the greatest supporter of peace and goodwill and human rights and the greatest ever and it would never ever throughout any of its history never ever torture anybody. Vera Cruz

Oh yeah, I forgot. Well then, never mind.  :) soulpatch

Overturning previous regulations which prevented the CIA from operating against US citizens, President Bush has granted the CIA broad authority to secretly assassinate U.S. citizens (in addition to anyone else) anywhere in the world if the CIA thinks that they are working for Al Qaida. The individuals in question need not be tried or convicted in any court of law, or even formally charged in order for them to be targeted for assassination.

This needs a very good citation or it will be removed. --mav

It was in the news about a month ago. Vera Cruz

A simple search in news.google.com found dozens of articles on the subject. Here is just one, picked at random: [2] (The vast majority of this Wikipedia article makes all sorts of claims that lack any "good citations". It is not clear why this particular block of text, among all the bits of text in this article, was targeted for requiring a "good citation", since no explanation was given as to why anyone might have considered it to be in doubt. Perhaps I should demand proof for every other claim that is made in this article and threaten to delete the text if it isn't presented.) soulpatch

Looking at the date I see that I was on vacation when it hit the news so I missed it. Any fact in any article that seems surprising to the viewer can be removed unilaterally unless it is backed-up by a citation and is relevant. Such is the WikiWay. Notice I didn't remove the text but simply asked for a citation. --mav

I think it was a mistake to move the torture section into the "opposition" section. In the same way that GABaker's "rebuttal" of the opposition was better placed in the main article, this is information about the War on Terrorism. (We could rename it "Interrogation techniques" if people so desired.) The "opposition" section should be about, well, the movement opposing the War on Terrorism. DanKeshet

But that is one of the reasons why people oppose the war. It is also a widely-held view by those who oppose the war. --mav
I agree that it should be mentioned as a reason why people oppose the War and that is why I have left a sentence there in the "opposition" portion. However, the interrogation techniques themselves are not a feature of the opposition; they are a (sometimes disputed) fact about the War itself. In the opposition section, we mention that there were people who specifically opposed the use of cluster bombs. Should we therefore not write about cluster bombs in the main article (or in the main body of the linked article, as the case may be)? DanKeshet

I have moved the Yemen and Pankisi Gorge pages to non-subpage style pages and updated the links accordingly. We no longer support subpages (support meaning having automatic links to higher level pages etc.), and the slash-syntax is not particularly elegant. I'm not sure having all these separate "War on Terrorism" articles is such a good idea - we don't lose coherence by placing the yemen operations in "History of Yemen" or "Politics of Yemen", for example, both of which aren't particularly long. --Eloquence

I like the colon as a replacement for the slash, but I disagree with moving this stuff to "History of Yemen" and "Politics of Yemen". Instead, I think we should summarize and link War on Terrorism: Yemen from History of Yemen, in the same manner that we (do or should) summarize and link to the American Revolution or Civil Rights movement are linked to and described on the History of the United States page, and described in greater depth in articles on their own. The information contained in War on Terrorism: Yemen is important in more contexts than solely the history of yemen; it is also important in studying the War itself, or in studying United States foreign policy. DanKeshet
Sometimes they refer to it as the Moron Terror in reference to the simplistic "good and evil, with us or against us, our victory not theirs" stance taken by such leaders as G. W. Bush and Anthony Blair. And, perhaps, in reference to concerns that these leaders simply lack the intelligence to comprehend the problems or resolve them without increasing the risk of attack.

Though I lack references, I have moved this information to "opposition" because this is a frequent criticism. DanKeshet

A growing peace movement in the US, UK and Canada oppose any pre-emptive attack on any nation even if it harbors so-called terrorists or poses a threat of spreading weapons of mass destruction. Recently (January, 2003) this view has spread to official circles in France and Germany, which pledged not to support any attack on Iraq until all possible approaches to peace have been fully exhausted.

I believe this more properly belongs on the War on Iraq page. France and Germany have not checked out from the War on Terrorism, so far as I know. DanKeshet

This title may be NPOV, as questions might be raised about the precise definition of "terrorism." The phrase "war on terror" is more questionable. But perhaps it is appropriate, because the title in and of itself expresses a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer

Yes the title is NPOV becasue that is what it is called by the great majority of English speakers. --mav
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_terror/Archive_1&oldid=928107333"