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

191–200 of 356 posts

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

#191

Post by baybal2 »

baybal2 wrote: post #88
zozbot234 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any legitimate, benevolent government there in living memory? Perhaps they're simply better off with a king, much like the frogs in Aesop's tale.

No, there weren't. The one king which ran off to Italy was somewhat moderately legitimate, and moderately popular, but not enough to survive having his key people assassinated, nor to gain meaningful foreign assistance (USA denied his plea to save his ass from communists.) It were Britishers who started this mess 140 years ago, and they must be the ones to fix this.

* error above, it's been 180 years ago

And since then, the country effectively had 180 years of slowly going civil war without much interruption sans for the few decades under king

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

#192

Post by pessimizer »

md_ wrote: post #64
sschueller wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the UN Assange has undergone continuous phycological torture [1]. I know the US considers phycological torture as enhanced interrogation tactics but the UN sees it as torture. [1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

To paraphrase @popehat, this is just how federal prisons are. (OK, I don't know how such prisons are in the UK, but presumably they're bad.) That's a Bad Thing, for sure. But I suspect most of Assange's fans aren't upset about the treatment of Assange because they oppose the carceral state; it's because they're fans of Assange. In other words, if you say "I'm opposed to the conditions of Assange's detention", I suspe…

I'm completely opposed to the normal conditions of legal detention in the US, especially when applied to journalists and political prisoners.

Just saying this because you think it's necessary.

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

#193

Post by matttproud »

blunte wrote: post #2

Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again. Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this. But… this will never happen because almost no leader want…

There was zero — functionally zero — accountability for anyone:

1. Bush Administration (and subsequent cowards)

2. Project for the New American Century and related organizations

3. cheerleaders and thoughtleaders in the media

4. executors of the orders and plans

5. and finally the American people for being so hungry for bloodlust (remember those "Liberate Iraq - Support our Troops" yard signs and bumper stickers?)

… and folks wonder why there is a crisis in trust and epistemology. Awfully enough, a lot of these people are being rehabilitated (politically) because the subsequent ones are so bad that the old are cast in a more positive light. But let's not forget the flagrant impunity and lies, and the stench of recrimination and smear campaign against those who called out against the jingoism rationally (e.g., Valerie Plame Affair with Iraq)!

I'll never forgive nor forget these folks' bad decisions. Bankrupted our country and my generation's future (and that of the subsequent ones). The opportunity cost of these bad decisions is incalculable.

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

#194

Post by cmrdporcupine »

I'm amazed at how many people still see the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as correct moves. Just last week I was having a friendly mostly non-political conversation with two of my coworkers and then the topic verged to the military and then to the Iraq wars. (For context, I'm Canadian and they're both US ex-pats in Canada.) Both had the opinion, still, that the Iraq war was the correct move at the time. But couldn't really coherently describe why. I changed the topic rather than get into a controversial argument.

I guess I find this shocking, because it feels to me like the "just cause" reasons for scenario the US got itself into Iraq have been repudiated entirely at this point and the fallout has been pretty much entirely negative and led to some long term rather terrifying dysfunctions. I feel like the arguments made by those of us who protested the onset of the war made have been proven historically correct. I struggle to understand the opposing opinion?

Afghanistan we can make somewhat separate arguments about, for sure. But Iraq... Someone on the conservative side of the spectrum, please enlighten me what the reasonable argument for justifying the past military action there is at this point...

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

#195

Post by dragontamer »

youngtaff wrote: post #122
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…

Unfortunately Western Governments would rather cosy up to Saudi Arabia and such like who actually seem to have been one of the primary sponsors of 9/11

Saudi Arabia cooperated with the USA after 9/11. Taliban harbored Al Qaeda and helped OBL reach Pakistan safely.

There's a big difference. Saudi Arabia has to answer for creating and sponsoring the ultra-conservative Wahhabi-cult of Islam, but that's getting further removed from the fundamental issue of protecting the 9/11 planners _after_ 9/11 (aka: what the Taliban did)

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

#196

Post by Clubber »

trasz wrote: post #154
md_ wrote: post #32

Among the key figures in the design of American torture programs during the War on Terror were American psychologists James Elmer Mitchell ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Elmer_Mitchell ) and Bruce Jessen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Jessen ), who were paid $81m for their work. Irony upon ironies: "Mitchell, who is retired and lives in Land o' Lakes, Florida, spends his free time kayaking, rafting and…

This is another example how the US society frankly doesn’t care. There are plenty of ways the local citizens could organize to make life hell for people like those. Yet it doesn’t happen.

Like what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc_BlwbmUNY

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

#198

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #186
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?

In late September and early October of 2001 when plans were being drawn up it was.

Why exactly? I don't understand. I never understood what was the real reason for the war. Multiple theories have been put forward that I am aware of but they all seem (to me) to be "just so" stories trying to find a post-hoc explanation for what seemed to be an invasion completely without reason. Oil interests, heroin trade, geopolitical advantage, democracy and human rights (actually that was one of the explanations at the time I think), revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense, neither not invading unthinkable.

Why was not invading unthinkable, at any point? More so, why was it necessary? What did anyone gain from sendnig an already piss-poor and backwards country even further back in time towards the Stone Age?

And, to clarify, are you saying that to not invade was unthinkable for US citizens, or for the US government? Or someone else?

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

#199

Post by em500 »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #178
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this sort of thinking is exactly how we wound up stuck there for 20yr. Voter block A wants to bomb them back to the stone age and leave. Voter block B won't tolerate wrecking the place without some pretext of "helping the people" or whatever that means. So the compromise is to wreck the nation then spend 20yr pushing food around our plate as though we're actually going to rebuild it until voter block B is satisfi…

Is it entirely unthinkable to not invade instead?

The initial invasion in 2001 had 100% support Congress and IIRC 80%+ popular support. So yes, not invading was unthinkable.

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

#200

Post by AlexandrB »

rayiner wrote: post #179
blunte wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the full report of the investigation is released to the public, it's pointless to speculate on the decisions made after 9/11. There certainly appears to be indication that the real people behind it were not targeted for retribution. These days, unless the money trail is followed to its source, you never really know the full story. Yes I'm intionally not naming names/groups/countries, but we probably know who I'…

After 20 years of the US getting jack shit from Afghanistan, you’d think the “we did it for the oil” people would have moved on. But no.

The US government may have gotten jack shit, but US military contractors like Haliburton have received a nice influx of cash over the last 20 years.
Post reply on HN