On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:58 PM, David Cake wrote:

>       For the most part those in Gitmo were those picked up
> actually in Aghanistan, but exactly what they were doing there is
> another question. There are certainly organisations which proclaim
> humanitarian goals that Cheney at least would consider terrorist.

I agree that the absolute numbers don't matter all that much. What  
does matter is the quality of the evidence that the administration  
used to justify incarcerating these people in the first place.  
'Evidence' obtained through 'confessions' extracted under torture and  
from paid informants is no evidence at all. Cheney is arguing that the  
fact that he has 'good evidence' that 12% of those incarcerated were  
back in the "business of being terrorists" somehow proves that they  
were all terrorists before they were incarcerated. Apparently you and  
Chuck find this argument convincing. I'm merely asserting that it says  
nothing at all about the 88% that didn't engage in terrorist acts  
subsequent to their release and is not even conclusive concerning the  
12%. They could well have been  radicalized during their incarceration.

I think it has been documented that the majority of those incarcerated  
weren't doing anything at all that a rational person would consider  
terrorism and that the US personnel in Afghanistan knew it. Very few  
were actually apprehended by US or allied forces. The vast majority  
were turned in by rival clans for the reward of $1,000 which was  
riches by local standards. There are even documented cases of local  
sheiks driving into villages populated by rival clans, scooping up a   
few men and then driving to the local NATO base, stopping to fire a  
few mortar rounds toward the base, and turning their captives in as  
the ones who fired the rounds.

Of course the narcotics business is endemic in Afghanistan and many  
'terrorists' were turned  in by rival drug groups.

I'm reading Tim Harris' excellent history of  Charles II and James  
II.  A question he sets out to answer is 'How did the Stuarts blow it  
given their popularity at the  restoration.' Part of his conclusion is  
that they relied too much on paid informants and their fears of  
conspiracy became self-fulfilling prophesies.
---
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely  
or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.

-Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate  
(1872-1970)


_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/

Reply via email to