www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Bush uses Gulags?!?!!?!?!?!?!!

It has been well known that under the current administration, individuals considered to be a potential threat (a vague term) to the United States have "disappeared" without any warning, and their families do not know what has happened to them and fear the worst.

There of course is no way for us to know if they were a threat or not; we have to just take the word of our government (which is not one known for being truthful). It will not even confirm those whom it has taken. We can not know how they are being treated. We are told nothing about them, they just disappear.

Now it is being said that we are taking "prisoners" to the Gulags in Eastern Europe: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/terror.suspects/index.html (While the term Gulag was not used in the article, anyone familiar with the Soviets know this is exactly what is being used). Of course we are being told they are treated properly -- but how would we know?

Seems like the things we used to condemn about the USSR, now that the USSR is gone, we are going about and doing ourselves. What a shame.

Henry,

Did you actually expect that the government would not add something like this to the long list of crimes against humanity?

Dear Henry Karlson, I couldn't agree with you more on your post! I've been thinking the very same thing for at least two years now. Having been in the Marine Corps from 1982-1991, it does sound like our own country is taking history lessons from the Gestapo and the Soviet Union. Don't get me wrong-I love this country and would give my life if I have to, but I don't like what is going on at this time.

America used to stand for something in the world; liberty, self determination, independence, the rule of law, presumed innocence, and human rights.

That has been undone.

I hope the sacrifice of our moral reputation has been worth what has been gained, in eliminating these terrorists.

Nick

Even American citizens have been held indefinitely without legal charges being filed.
And they say it is because our freedom is being threatened?
It is really breathtaking, this hubris.
-Daniel

I think it is not Pres. Bush or, for that matter, any of the past Presidents of the US, who "does" or "did" these things, although the complicity of a sitting President, being the CIC, can be argued under the principle of "respondeat superior."

This has been going on for so many years and has been, and continues to be, justified by the euphemistic "national security" consideration.

You know which Agency is responsible but it carries the necessary MO.

Amado

Well, when we all become Moslems we will have gulags, beheadings, stoning of women, etc. no one will criticize us either. It won't be long.

Well known? Only by those who hate the president with such a passion that they are willing to believe anything. There is no evidence to support the notion that people who are considered to be a threat to the United States are �disappearing�. If there were such evidence you can bet that it would be the lead story in the anti-Bush mainstream media 24/7.

Regarding the possibility of interrogation camps in Eastern Europe and other places, I do hope we have them. We are at war and proper interrogation of enemy combatants is vital to winning the war that the Islamic extremists have declared upon us. The people being interrogated (wherever they are being interrogated) are those who would intentionally attack women and children because it leads people to be afraid of them. I don�t condone torture but I also don�t consider methods like sleep deprivation or loud music to be torture.

This is a rather nonsensical statement. America has freed almost 100 million people with the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries now have democratic constitutions and are engaged in the very messy business of becoming real democracies. The people there are now independent. They now live under the rule of law (instead of the rule of tyrants). They are presumed innocent of crimes instead of being hauled away and executed for the crime of speaking against the tyrannical regime. They have basic human rights guaranteed by their respective constitutions. And as Iraqis exercised self-determination in voting for a constitution last month, in December they will elect people to represent them in their new government. Sure it�s messy. But they are moving forward despite the media�s attempt to convince us that they are not.

The only American citizens that are being held long term are those who have been demonstrated to plot or act against us on behalf of the enemy in a time of war. There is nothing new in this and is proper to hold non-uniformed enemy combatants until the conclusion of the war. FDR�s administration acted in a similar way during WWII.

I applaud the Bush administration for acting not only to protect America against her enemies but to make war against those who would kill us. Too bad that Bush cannot run for a third term. I hope that Cheney changes his mind and runs in 2008.

First they came for the Muslims, and many applauded: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Sorry, John V...

I agree with your post on many counts, but sleep deprivation and loud music most certainly do count as torture. After a few days without sleep, people begin to hallucinate. After a few minutes with loud country music, my ears bleed. Torture.

Gaudior, who fails see the reason (if true) for prisioners to be denied correspondence with family members, just like we did with POWs.

To answer your more serious question first, Gaudior, one reason might be that, if the prisoner really is involved with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, the family members are probably involved at some level as well, and they might try sending messages/instructions disguised as "family letters".

As for your problems with loud country music, remind me to send you a copy of The Best of Johnny Cash for Christmas this year!

President Karzai of Afghanistan has effective control over Kabul, only because of the American military presence. Without it, his regime wouldn't last a day! And even the capital would fall to the poppy growing warlords that command the other 98% of the territory. Rule of law, freedom, I don't think so.

The Iraqi regime has no credibility and no natural constituacy among any major or minor group within the country. We are witnessing the slow disintegration and fragmentation of what was Iraq. It too is being carved up and served to power brokers and interest groups, none of them friends of ours. I won't even mention the estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq since the American invasion. Ill considered, poorly planned, and largely counter productive to American interests in the region.

The idea that we have brought 'freedom' to these people is laughable, and naive. Blue thumbs don't make them free, having voted for a 'constitution' that will last as long as the first "coup" after the American Army comes home.

It will happen, some day.

Nick

Well, Saddam is still alive. We could just put him back in charge. That would make everyone happy, right? :rolleyes:

His rule was brutal, and he abused his people. But no worse than a score of other strongarm rulers around the world, shall I name them? Some of them "friends" of America.

Al Quida, and radical islamic terrorism had no foothold in Iraq during his regime.

U.S. foreign policy should be about American interests in the world. American interests have been dis-served, by this mis-adventure.

No denying that previous U.S. governments have allowed or even put in place some dubious leaders in other countries. So does that mean, once we put them in, we have to leave them there forever?

Quote

Al Quida, and radical islamic terrorism had no foothold in Iraq during his regime.

Wasn't Saddam Hussein a terrorist? Or was he just a brutal genocidal dictator? I forget.

Quote

U.S. foreign policy should be about American interests in the world. American interests have been dis-served, by this mis-adventure.

So you're saying we should never try to help anyone else in the world who's suffering, unless their suffering directly affects our own personal interests?

John believes what he believes with the religious conviction of a fanatic; I have discovered that it is pointless to argue with those for whom America's Good Intentions are an article of Faith, and will bow out of this discussion.
May I recommend the Terry Gilliam movie Brazil as a particularly apt [and prescient] commentary on our situation?
-Daniel

I don't believe we were responsible for putting Saddam in place, nor do I believe that it is up to the USA to decide who rules other countries. That is what "independence" and "self-determination" is all about. It is up to the people of that country to decide who rules them. And it is up to the people of that country to elect a new government, or 'rise up' against a dictator, a king, a shah, a caliph, a communist party, or whoever, if 'they' want to change 'their' government. People more oppressed than the Iraqi have done so successfully. These success stories, of people effectively changing their governments, have been triumphs of democracy, principally because it was begun in the populace, accomplished by the populace, and done at the will of the populace.

When it is imposed by outside "help" (even if it was self-less, which our invasion of Iraq certainly was not), it is doomed. These efforts will work, only when they are driven by, and supported by the population.

I don't think "regime change" is a good way to run US foreign policy. It's illegal, in international law. But this country seems to have thrown the conventions of international law out the window, under the theory that "might makes right".

Well, one day, we may be sorry that we disregarded and sidelined the international law and the agreed conventions of warfare, because we cannot then invoke its principles when we need them.

Why haven't we overthrown, the governments of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Liberia, Ivory Coast, China and dozens of other despotic and murderous regimes, who are starving their people, commiting genocide in their regions, persecuting religious believers, and who are disregarding the rights of their citizens?

Because it is neither a legitimate nor justifiable way to conduct the affairs of nations.

Nor is it effective, as our experience in Iraq will prove.

Nick

Getting terrorists to hallucinate is a great idea! That is when you get the details about where and when their organization plans to strike next. With that information you can save the lives of those they are planning to murder in the name of Allah.

Torture is what Saddam Hussein did: feeding children into meat grinders in front of their parents in order to obtain information from their parents about possible traitors to Hussein and his �peaceful� regime. Torture is cutting off fingers one by one and then hands and arms. Sleep deprivation and loud music is not torture and I am sorry that anyone should consider it such, or should compare it as an equal to real torture.


And when America defeated the British George Washington had effective control of nothing. And it took more than a dozen years for a permanent constitution to be created and ratified and a new government put in place. Look at Germany and Japan, which were considered utter failures in government by many yet within 20 years after the end of WWII had established themselves as democracy. It�s amazing how people will not give other nations time to establish themselves. I guess it�s the price of the 30 minute sitcom where everything resolves itself quickly.

79% of Iraqi votes voted to adopt the new constitution. Yes, all those purple fingers were relegated a small paragraph on page A13 of The Washington Post and, perhaps your local newspaper so you might have missed it.

Those of us who believe that defeating the Islamists and extending liberty to the Middle East is important see this 78% victory of the constitution as good news. We also see the other accomplishments these past few years as good: the abandonment of nuclear weapons by Libya; the beginnings of democracy in Egypt; and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Yes, please name them. And please detail the relationships and note that in most cases where we supported dictators we did so because they were assisting us to fight even an even greater evil. And please be consistent. If you condemn us for supporting a dictator who helped us in the Cold War you must also condemn us for working with Stalin to assist us in fighting Hitler. As distasteful as it was for the Allies to accept the support of Stalin to defeat Hitler it was certainly necessary.

Actually, the evidence is showing that while Hussein and the terrorists did not work together directly together the trail shows that Hussein funneled a lot of money to support Al Queida. It does not appear to be as much money as they received from the Saudis, but it is quite a lot.

Nope, not a religious fanatic. I examine the evidence and what everyone says and then make up my own mind. I do seem to remember that you praised Hussein for keeping the streets of Baghdad beautiful. I was left wondering if you would ever do something to help those in need if it came at a personal cost.

So you would have done nothing to help all those countries who invited Hitler to take control of them? Or those countries that invited Stalin to come in to take arms?

I see it differently. When people are suffering we ought to help. We cannot help everyone everywhere but we can help some as we are able. We must do what is right even when others are too afraid to do so. One man (or country) with courage can set much aright. I am sorry that Nick would rather see some left unliberated because all cannot be helped.

Admin

John- I never said any such thing. All I said was that Baghdad was once a beautiful city and since the American invasion it is ruined. I did not praise Hussein at all...Sheesh.
-D, backsliding on his promise to stay out of discussions with fanatics.

Torture is torture, and two wrongs do not make a right. I would have no objection to giving the terrorists in question a nice muscle relaxant and some truth serum....but not torture. The information we need can be obtained without harming someone.

Gaudior, disgusted that "levels" of torture are being considered, here.

Theist Gal....I've one thing to say...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :p

Edited by Admin to break up the very long "No" which was making the page annoyingly wide.

When they came for the protestors, they were called terrorists, and people applauded:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable

Or as another example (and yes it is ACLU -- sometimes they do defend people needing it too): http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=19125&c=206

George, and the continental congress, had the support of the people in the colonies, and that is why they prevailed against the Brits. The American revolution was broadly (though not universally) supported, and as a 'grass roots' movement, it was destined to success.

The invasion of Iraq was not broadly supported, can certainly not be described as a 'grass roots' movement among the Iraqi people, and did not, and does not have their support. That is why it is failing. As an occupying Army, there was a small window of opportunity, where we might have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi nation, but we bungled that. (We should not be too hard on ourselves there, ruling a country like Iraq is no easy task, our only fault there was grossly underestimated the task of occupation.)

Now we have tried the old colonial trick, of justifying our presence, by trying to cast ourselves as the mediator between factions within the country. That has never worked either. Africa and Asia is full of former colonies where that was tried, and it only back-fired.

As for Hitler [a good example], this illustrates the point perfectly. The allies did not go to war to liberate the German people, or because Hitler was a bad leader, or even defend the Jews.

We went to war, because he invaded Poland, and illegally absorbed Czechoslovakia into the German state. He broke international law, and began the war.

Contrary to the lies told by the US Government, Sadam was no threat to the US. (or certainly less a threat than many other nations we have not chosen to invade yet).

The US invaded a sovereign state. We cannot claim high moral ground in this action.

Nick

In the context of a discussion about the wrongdoings of Hussein a positive comment of how he kept Baghdad clean (or at least kept the killings out of sight) is very much like going out of your way to praise Hitler for making Berlin beautiful or for making the trains run on time.

I�m still waiting for your action plan on what measures you would have used to end the Hussein�s atrocities without the use of force, given that the United Nations was not about to act since it was raking in billions of dollars on the �Oil for Food� scandal.

You must be reading the revisionist American history books!

If you read some of the British accounts of America at that time you�ll see that the American Independence was not broadly supported and could never have been described as a �grass roots� movement among the loyal British people living in America.

Don�t believe the American media. Spend some time reading the online blogs of the Iraqi people, together with those of the American military stationed in Iraq.

Did I miss something? When did we formally annex Afghanistan and Iraq? Did we not assist those countries in writing and voting on new constitution? There is no credible parallel to what the European countries did in Africa and Asia in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Or perhaps you are suggesting that America has purged from the history books the account the British effort to create a new constitution and provide self-rule for the American colonies in the middle of the 18th century? Sorry, but your comparison is not credible.

All of the evidence at the time indicated that Hussein was indeed a threat to the West, and especially the United States. If one accuses the U.S. Government of lying about the evidence they made their decision on, then one must be consistent and also accuse the British, French, Germans, Russians, Saudis, Israelis, Pakistanis, and the many other countries that had identical information.

Freeing millions of people who are enslaved by a tyrannical dictator is a moral good.

Admin

and when Saddam Hussein invaded a soverign nation nobody cared. No one protested that invation.

Dear Daniel,

I thought all Americans were fanatics!

Frankly, I wish we Canucks had more of the patriotic spirit you guys have.

P.S. do you fly "Old Glory" outside your home?

Alex

Alex! It's been a while; welcome back.
No, I don't fly the American flag as it has been hijacked by the neocons to represent support of their attempted empire.
And while I am staying out of this probably futile attempt to state the obvious to John, in whose world Iraq is going swimmingly and we don't torture people- but hey if we do what's the big deal?- I do want to remind you that my comments about Baghdad are being twisted badly; I only stated that before the American invasion it was a beautiful city; I didn't credit Hussein.
John should consider going to work for the Bush administration; I hear there is a job opening in the Cheney office.
Daniel

So when are you going to move out of a country you consider to be so evil? I understand you can get some good deals on housing in the Paris suburbs these days, particular in those communities dominated by Muslims.

Please read my posts. You�ll see that I have been consistent in describing the process of assisting the Iraqis and Afghanis to build democracy in their respective nations is a very �messy� undertaking, and one that will take a generation (as indicted at the start of the war). I have never used a term like �swimmingly�. There is, however, a lot of good going on in both Afghanistan and Iraq. You just won�t find it reported in most Western media where being anti-freedom is in vogue.

The context in which you spoke made it clear that you saw the physical damage done to the city as more reprehensible then the evil done by the Hussein.

A wonderful compliment based on a great idea! Thanks!

Dear Administrator,

Are there any openings in Washington for someone like me?

Would I need to repudiate allegiance to the Crown?

As for flying flags, wearing lapel pins etc. - there's no problem there for me!

And I'm not one to "beat around the Bush . . ."

Anyway, have a great weekend.

I don't want to get in between you and Daniel here . . .

Alex

Dear Daniel,

In the province of Newfoundland and Labrador up here, there is a special separatist flag they put up whenever they are cheesed off at the central government - it is a form of the Irish flag of yore.

But our media never depict it - I guess they figure one Quebec separatist movement is enough!

Cheers!

Alex

Alex,

There are plenty of openings in Washington for all sorts of people: blue collar, white collar, liberal and conservative. I think the current unemployment rate is about 1%. I know that the Sunday paper is thick with employment listings.

What would you like to do? Perhaps you could be a writer for the politicos on Cap Hill? Are you able to go on at great length and yet say absolutely nothing?

Don�t worry about Daniel. He and I are fast friends. The only real grudge he has against me is that I don�t like dark, syrupy beer. And the only real grudge I have against him is that he has not accepted any of my invitations to down a few brews on my deck.

Admin

Invite: The forecast for both Saturday and Sunday is sun and 78 degrees. I�ll be doing either steak or burgers on the grill. All are welcome to drop by. If anyone can manage to bring Daniel I will make sure to have some dark, syrupy beer on hand.

Alex,

Don�t forget Nova Scotia! I remember when Meech Lake failed the premier of Nova Scotia said: �Oh, well, no problem. Just sew another star on the flag.�

I don�t remember his name but I still remember him!

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Your job description about writing a lot and saying absolutely nothing - that's me!!

Could I use you as a possible reference?

After all, there's over 17,000 examples of that kind of writing from me just right here on this Forum!

(Good to know that you and Daniel are, well, good! Hope to meet you both one day - I'll bring the flag! ).

Alex

The Newfie separatist flag, I hope...

Meanwhile, the story of secret prisons for suspected terrorists is unfolding in the newspapers.
And the Bush Administration continues its meltdown...thanks be to God!
Daniel

Dear Administrator you said:

"I applaud the Bush administration for acting not only to protect America against her enemies but to make war against those who would kill us. Too bad that Bush cannot run for a third term. I hope that Cheney changes his mind and runs in 2008."

I say:

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems that so many are living in some kind of fantasy world. They take the position of France that lobbied against us in going to war with Iraq, (look at them now), while equating us with 'regimes' such a Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Maybe life has been a little too easy on them. It seems they can't distinguish the difference between 'reality' and 'la-la' land. Has it been that many years since we were attacked?

Zenovia

I'd say France is in desperate need of Charles Martel.

9/11 was a pretext for the neocons to pursue their imperialistic schemes [see their 1997 manifesto: here [newamericancentury.org] ,signed by a veritable neoconservative who's who, including prominent members of the Administration: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Rumsfeld etc.]
As more and more pre-9/11 intelligence comes out one begins to wonder if they knew about the plot and decided to let it unfold [I am not suggesting they knew how deadly it would prove to be] as it served their purposes.
By the time this unravels it may make Nixon, let alone Clinton, look like small timers.
So far as I know, these presidents did not endorse denying American citizens their constitutional rights, the use of torture, etc.
-Daniel

Dear Daniel,

I can't believe it, but you're beginning to sound more and more like Al-Jazeera...and here I thought the Middle Easterners had vivid imaginations.

But the article did remind me of Clinton's policy in Kosovo....a complete failure you know! Not only did he tell the Kosovans that he was going to rebuild the land he bombed, but he assured the Serbs that it would remain part of Serbia and that all the minorities will be able to live in peace. So much for that!

The Christian Serbs and Gypsies have either left or are leaving for fear of the KLA, (a Muslim Albanian terrorist organization, which Clinton's bombing supported), and all the ancient churches and monasteries have been destroyed.

Zenovia

Dear Daniel,

I don't credit the conspiracy theory.

I just take it to be incompetence and poor judgement. The Bush administration made a classic mistake in warfare, radically underestimating the enemy.

They have chosen their battles very poorly, making terrible calls, losing the high ground morally.

I think they relied too much on intelligence from Israel and Mossad, who clearly had their own agenda and motives, manipulating some of the small minds that George has chosen to keep around him.

Nick

Yes, I am sort of tempermentally adverse to conspiracy theories; still one must wonder. They certainly took advantage of the attacks to further their agenda [attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, for example.]
And as far as the Empire goes, it is a matter of public record that that is what the neoconservatives had in mind long before the Bush ascendency [see link above].
-Daniel
ps- Yes, Zenovia, continue to believe the Authorized Version; that is what they want. Or take the time and yes, the imagination, to look at the public record of deceptions and crimes by our government and open your mind to the possibilities...

It is clearly Israel's foreign policy to keep its neighbors weak and distracted.

We have fallen into their purposes, without thinking what the long term interests of the US are. We have to learn to think for ourselves, and not fall for such obvious set ups.

What I don't understand (except as simple evidence of poor judgement) is why George chose to listen to 'biased' intelligence from Israel, while at the same time, ignoring what his own CIA was telling him. His advisors must have really been pushing in this direction.

Nick

The "Bush meltdown" ----

How silly. The Left is nothing if not persistent. persistence is all it has.

The Left ignores the documented eveidence of the Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda connections, some of which have been broadcast on ABC News as far back as 1999.

The Left screams and throws temper tantrums about everything Bush. 2,000 dead American soldiers in two and a half years in Iraq is not the same as several thousand dead American soldiers in one day in places like Normandy and Iwo Jima.

The Left refuses to recognize the War on Radical Islam.

Oh, Radical Islam knows it, very well.

The PLO, Hezbollah, PLFP, Khomeni, Assad, the riots in France, the murder of van Gogh, the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the Bali bombing, the murder of the three schoolgirls in Indonesia, no, none of that matters to the American Left. The only bad guys are the Bush Administration and "neocons". The Pat Buchananite "paleocons" think Isolationism is the answer. Sure it is, Pat.

Poland found what it has claimed to be WMD in Iraq - and French made, at that. Of course, Chirac denied it and the American media dropped it.

I am no fan of how things have gone in Iraq. I fear for the future of the Assyrian Christians and the Chaldean Catholics. Sharia may become the law of the land in Iraq and that means the Christians will become dhimmi.

Yet, I never hear of solutions from the Left - just carping, moaning and groaning, whining and complaining - the same nonsense that has always come from the Left.
In addition, the apologists for Hussein have emerged, just as the Left has always apologized for Castro and now apologizes for Chavez.

The West has been at war with Radical Islam for centuries. Why is in now Istanbul and not Constantinople? Why did formerly Catholic Spain fight for nearly 800 years to drive out Islam? Why did Italy and Spain fight the invading Muslim Turks at Lepanto - and win? Why did King Jan Sobieski and his Polish troops put a stop to invading Muslim Turks in 1683?

Oh, the Modern Left would have made excuses for the invading Muslims in every case and complained about Queen Isabella and Jan Sobieski.

Just like they ignore the latest book written by a Rabbi that not only exonerates Pope Pius XII but details the history of Hitler's Mufti and the connection between the Nazis and Radical Islam.

The Left is all bluster and propaganda and has no guts to stand up for anything. Oh, they do a great job espousing pacifism on message boards but offer nothing of substance.

There, I said it.

Whatever about the Left, my fear, is that the Bush administration does not understand this either! This challenge of civilizations is one we just may lose, no thanks to people like George, who just doesn't seem to understand that much of what he is doing is playing into the hands of this enemy.

Nick

Juan- As I am not remotely a "Leftist" I assume your screed does not apply to me. Obviously a denunciation of particular evils is no defense of particular policies, though many of your contentions are hardly beyond debate.
-D

Dear Daniel,

If you are referring to that manifesto from the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, it is both disturbing and disgusting. The document is eerily similar to the rhetoric espoused by the radicals President Bush denounces.

Michael- That's the one. What I find weird is you are denounced as some sort of paranoid weirdo if you claim that the neoconservatives are bent on world domination, yet their plans have been well documented by their own writings!
-Daniel

And then they turned their eye upon the liberal Christians, and many applauded: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/antiwar.sermon.ap/index.html