Do I need to point out the homo-erotic nature of the whole Abu Ghraib torture scene? Is there a parallel here with ye olde Nazis?

The Neo-cons' fascination with this stuff reflects the same furtive, sweaty love affair with the forbidden monsters of the Id that their goose-stepping forebears succumbed to in the last century - the marriage of cruelty with their suppressed desires. This goes right up the food chain to ol' Wrassler Rummy himself. God, I'd hate to get an indian deathlock from that creepy old sod.

There is a another eerie parallel to be found at Guantanamo. Have you noticed how the guards march around, erect and spotless, at the double? Those guys even defacate by numbers. They are stiffer'n viagra.

Like the SS, they are desperate to avoid going to the front. The worse punishment an SS officer could get was a posting to the eastern front to confront the Russians. They re-doubled their cruelty to please their masters. Anything - anything to avoid meeting the enemy on more equal terms.

So you see the Guantanamo guards hopping to it, smart as paint - anything to avoid the dangers of that nasty Iraq place.

IN FACT, Guantanamo needs Hicksie more than he needs them. Hicks and the others are Guantanamo's raison d' etre. Hicks is their ticket to a safe war, a regular meal, no worries cobber! That goes triple for the officers.

Isn't it just so obvious?

Yes suicide has been committed in "Suicide: an act of asymetric warfare"
Off with the head!
Harry, "asymetric" is spelled with a double 'm' ie. "asymmetric"
What excellent deception where everything is not all well.
From a former journalist too.

the unified field theory of human social interaction is:

"power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

america can do what it likes until they meet resistance. when this resistance appears it is labelled criminal if violent, ignorant or selfish if verbal. before you take the view that america is fundamentally good, consider how many native american societies they crushed or extirpated, the invasion and conquest of northern mexico, the brutal repression necessary to liberate the phillipines from selfrule, and on, and on. america is a champion of liberty only when american liberty is involved.

america is only good in hollywood movies, where john wayne punished the 'red devils' who preyed on innocent american farmers. when you finally realize whose land these americans were farming, the red devils become a great deal more understandable.

a similar thing is going on in palestine, where zionist thugs invaded moslem land backed by money and guns from america, established a jewish state, and complain loudly about terrorism when the children of the original owners fight to get their land back.

Guantanamo is vile and should be closed, but what then?

Many of the prisoners _are_ actually dangerous people. Even if they are released, some of them should be watched.

Its far too easy to sneer at America instead of actually saying what you would do if you had to deal with an international movement of islamofascists.

I'm a little over everyone claiming that Orwell supports their point of view. Orwell wrote in 1944 that it would have been 'perfectly proper to shoot' Sir Oswald Moseley if the Germans had 'set foot' in England, because of the danger that Moseley would lead a quisling government.

However, Orwell thought that Moseley should have been released when he was, in 1944, long after the danger had passed.

The article also ignores the extent to which "1984" was a satire of English intellectual life from roughly 1942-48, instead of being a simple "prediction", and also ignores the fact that the world is obviously _not_ moving towards the world Orwell described.

Instead, democratic revolutions are shaking the priest-rulers and fascists all over the place. Optimistic times

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Well thank Christ America is on our side. I'd hate it to be an enemy...

Pete

America ain't on anyone's side Plantagenet but their own.

Not wishing to be a pedant here, but Chris Shaw said 'Like the SS, they are desperate to avoid going to the front. The worse punishment an SS officer could get was a posting to the eastern front'. This is not true (although regular Heer divisions may have felt that way towards the end).

The Waffen SS fought on the eastern front for the entire war, with notable amounts of volunteers. Some Waffen SS divisions consisted of a great many volunteers from neutral and puppet countries determined to fight bolshevism, such as the SS Wiking Division consisting of many Finnish and Norwegian volunteers, who hated the Soviet Union. This particular division fought on the eastern front for the entire war,

The Guards at GB are members of the US Army Miltary Police force. Soldiers serving in this area would be posted there for Tours of Duty which would last around 15 months at most I think. They could be just as easily be assigned to Iraq, and would probably behave in the same formal manner anywhere - their job is to police, not be best mates with their psychotic prisoners.

I just think Chris' comments are your typical left-wing bleatings that ignore the facts. Also interested as to why he would describe the 'homo-erotic nature of the whole Abu Ghraib torture scene'. Quite why some people like to bring homosexuality into every discussion around prisons is beyond me.

I suppose my main concern with the whole war on terror is the lack of accountability - the bush administration says they have evidence, and we just take them at their word.

Even if they believe they are telling the truth, who's to say their information is accurate? Last time I checked they didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Whoops.

Never mind the fact that Ahmed Chalabi, the bloke who gave them that fantastic intelligence now occupies one of the most senior positions in the Iraqi government. Conflict of interest perhaps?

Worse still, western governments are making up new laws as they go, increasing secrecy and destroying accountability.

They call this a 'war' on terror so they can institute warlike measures. They then say that the captured combatants aren't prisoners of war.

You can't have it both ways. It's either a war or it isn't.

Terrorism doesn't have a government or borders that can be seized. Terrorism is a concept that we haven't even been able to define.

If this is a war, then how do we win? Does anyone really think that once they nab Osama, this will all be over?

What will finish this war? are we to wage a ceaseless battle and discard human rights as we go?

If that's the case, then we've already lost.

No, gw, be a pedant, damnit.

When someone uses history as sloppily as Chris Shaw has here, its open season on details that prove it.

As I understand it your broad take is correct. I understand these guards were mainly US Army Reserve Military Police - many were probably in law enforcement in their civilian lives.

There is no chance at all they would have been sent to the front anyway, so Shaw's argument is silly.

However given this, I think it's OK to discuss how to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen. It makes the US invasion and overthrow of a fascist regime look very bad, which is a pity, 'cause real left wingers (not the pseudo-left bleaters you describe) raise their glasses when fascists fall.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudoleft?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Okay, okay - criticism where it's pedantically due. Fair cop.

But you are so busy earnestly discussing something which is patently INSANE - and thereby breathing life into it.

Although they were products of their times, did the "mujahideen" of the Schutzstaffel forego their sanity? Was Stalin sane? Was Hitler a master strategist? Was Churchill sober?

*

David Hicks' cage is fashioned by the same master craftsmen who contracted for, and own the Adelaide - Darwin railway. Creepy!

Guantanamo is in "enemy" territory - Cuba. Wierd!

After all these years, no-one has been charged with anything. Strange!

*

I stick by my original statement. Hicks and the "bad guys" are the stock of the Guantanamo Warehouse Co. Milo Minderbender would be envious.

- or put it this way. Should I buy shares in Wackenhutt just in case Ruddock throws me into Baxter? Would that be the ultimate in self-funded retirement?

"Okay, okay - criticism where it's pedantically due. Fair cop."

Well thankyou, sir. Rarer than itshould be.

"But you are sobusy earnestly discussing something whichis patently INSANE - and thereby breathing life into it."

What in particular? The idea that there is acase in support ofthe armed overthrow of Sadaam?

"Although they were products oftheir times, didthe "mujahideen" ofthe Schutzstaffel forego their sanity?"

Well, I reckon so...

"Was Stalin sane?"

Yes.

"Was Hitler a master strategist?"

No, a brilliant opportunist.

"Was Churchill sober?"

Of course not. Is this evenin debate any more? :)

"David Hicks' cage is fashioned by the same master craftsmen who contracted for, and ownthe Adelaide - Darwin railway. Creepy!"

It's all profitable.

"Guantanamo is in "enemy" territory - Cuba. Wierd!"

Not _so_ weird...as I understand it, theUSA basically owned Cuba until Castro took over. They'd had a naval base there for a longlong time before then, and Castro has no power to forcefully evict them, so the anomaly stands...

"After all these years, no-one has been charged with anything. Strange!"

Not really. Unjust, but not strange.

"I stick by my original statement. Hicks and the "bad guys" arethe stock of the Guantanamo Warehouse Co. Milo Minderbender would be envious."

OK...I _think_ you are saying that the only reason that Guantanamo exists is to create a profit for war contractors?

I'd disagree. While their treatment is unjust, some of these people would willingly overthrow liberal capitalist democracy for something much much worse. They are certainly my enemy.

Hicks is being unjustly and viciously treated and should be released to a competent tribunal. If the Australian Government really wanted to try him, they'd find a way. But I still don't trust him. He fought willingly with the _Taliban_ and therefore stood with enemies of freedom.

But I think the treatment of these people is wrong and counterproductive and immoral. The USA is foolish not to declare them all entitled to the protection of the Geneva convention. That would have seized the high moral ground from the start.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191