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