Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 356 posts

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#141

Post by zozbot234 »

jannes wrote: post #137
zozbot234 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation that exists with even a modicum of national security. That's because most nations do have an established practice of putting their own war criminals on trial. It's good for building trust, which is quite beneficial in the longer run. The U.S. have slipped somewhat, but then they make up for that by literally paying for much of the civilized world's secur…

> quite good on net That’s a terrible way to justify immoral or illegal actions.

Of course. I'm not saying they couldn't do better.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#142

Post by nsizx »

detritus wrote: post #34
thejackgoode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wants me to submit my passport (“age check”) to watch this video (despite being registered there since 2008). Any other links to it?

Yea, I've been seeing this more and more on what seem from the outside like fairly innocuous vides and was yesterday accomanied by a prompt on my mobile that I 'need' to add my age. Nope. Go away, Google.

This was mandated legally by the European Union for videos that are not suitable for minors. (I assume this one contains gore or something like that? I haven't watched it)

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#143

Post by AmericanChopper »

bildung wrote: post #120
AmericanChopper wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just demonstrably untrue. Most Asian countries are either non-signatories, or have withdrawn. China, Russia, Israel, KSA, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Qatar, Turkey… are all post-industrial nations. Also, of the fully ratified signatories, it’s only supported when politically convenient. No member of NATO is going to allow for their citizens to be prosecuted by some extraterritorial court that…

None of those countries you listed[1] is regarded as a industrialized/developed/first world country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial%20nation [1] Except Israel, which essentially never differs from the US in UN voting behaviour.

First World and Industrialization are very different concepts. First world just means allied with the US during the Cold War. Israel meets every definition of a highly developed country, which makes your first claim false. The wikipedia article you listed also includes Singapore (another non-signatory), which makes this claim false.

According to the IMF, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao are all “advanced economies”. All of them are certainly industrialized, and certainly not signatories. All “Newly Industrialized Countries” would also meet the criteria of being “industrialized” as well, and they include (among others) China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines and Turkey. All industrialized, and all non-signatories.

Really the only countries in the world that could be considered non-industrialized are the ones classified as Least Developed.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#144

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

blunte wrote: post #119
the-dude wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are bringing up NATO, I will just spell out the Hague Invasion Act ELI5 : US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). Disclaimer : I am Dutch.

Perhaps the first line of defense against such an invasion would be to agitate the farmers, causing them to drive all their tractors back into town. It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation.

> It's pretty difficult to get anything done with them ruining all transportation.

If the US turn destroyed all the dikes, then it could use amphibious assault ships for troop transport.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#145

Post by prh21 »

hef19898 wrote: post #132
sofixa wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'd hold him responsible. He isn't the one that ordered the torture, and we don't know what he was told ( did he know the guy was getting tortured? did he know he wasn't any threat?)

He was foreign minister at that point and refused to take a German citizen back, instead he left him there. Until pressure was to high, and "public opinion" wasn't that much focused on islamist terrorism anymore. In a nutshell, a low point in Steinmeier's career, and in post-WW2 German foreign policy. Not that Germany was the only country doing this kind of shit, so.

Formally M. Kurnaz was not a German but a Turkish citizen.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#146

Post by Manuel_D »

bildung wrote: post #83
AmericanChopper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. Among those who go along with it, they tend to stop once it creates an issue for them. The ICC primarily prosecutes the war crimes of war losers. They’ve convicted some Nazis, some Serbs, and a few African war lords here and there. But it’s silly to presume they have authority over any nation…

> The concept of an international criminal court itself is an affront to national sovereignty, and isn’t very widely supported. It is supported (i.e. signed and ratified) by all industrialized countries except the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...

It looks like it's not ratified by plenty of industrialized countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#147

Post by croes »

hef19898 wrote: post #132
sofixa wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'd hold him responsible. He isn't the one that ordered the torture, and we don't know what he was told ( did he know the guy was getting tortured? did he know he wasn't any threat?)

He was foreign minister at that point and refused to take a German citizen back, instead he left him there. Until pressure was to high, and "public opinion" wasn't that much focused on islamist terrorism anymore. In a nutshell, a low point in Steinmeier's career, and in post-WW2 German foreign policy. Not that Germany was the only country doing this kind of shit, so.

Kurnaz is a turkish citizen.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#148

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

jussij wrote: post #117
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Drone strikes of innocents They knew the target was innocent civilians?

The 'Law of War' clearly defines how attacks on civilians can constitute a ware crime: Article 51(5)(b) forbids any attack ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’. Such attacks will be classified as a war crime. https://leg…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices

According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#149

Post by bitwize »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #126
koheripbal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this thread is driven by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, I think it's important to remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation after NATO invoked Article 5 (Collective Defence) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that Al-Quaeda launched, organized by their leadership based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. There are a few additional facts folks forget since this i…

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. They should never do anything that makes the lives of ordinary Afghans worse who suffered more from the Taliban than the US. You can’t just bomb a country, create a power vacuum, and nope out of there. Moral cowardice in the extreme. As a counter example see Japan and Iraq.

Japan was "shock and awe" done (strategically, not morally) right. The US fire-bombed Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leaving no question in the Japanese mind of who was the overwhelmingly superior force. There was no honor in death fighting such a force; there was only oblivion with nothing left to remember you by. The Japanese happily accepted rule by a "gaijin shogun" rather than face that kind of defeat. And MacArthur turned out to be a rather magnanimous shogun, even arranging for the Emperor to avoid liability for his role in the war and especially Pearl Harbor so that the Japanese had something of their traditional order to cling to during the American occupation and beyond.

The political will to commit to that level of destruction and rebuilding hasn't existed since then.

Iraq begat ISIS. Iraq was a clusterfuck since 1990.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#150

Post by croes »

Tepix wrote: post #103

Murat Kurnaz was also held and tortured for four more years at Guantanamo, even after it was clear that he was innocent. The person responsible(²), Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is now Germany's president. There is a repeating pattern here: Governments, officials and people in power are not held accountable. -- (²) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier#Murat_...

It's a little bit more complicated. Because Kurnaz is a turkish citizen Turkey had been responsible for his return. They refused and Germany did not want to admit him because his residence permit had expired and he had not renewed it during his imprisonment in Guantanamo as required. This reason was given by Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of the department responsible at the time in the Federal Ministry of the Interior and later head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution before he became the CDU's far-right candidate
Post reply on HN