Colin Powell speaks against Guantanamo

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Found on bbc.co.uk

I especially liked this bit:

"...Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating thing like the military commission."

funny, this isn't a news item in the u.s. what a surprise - the lapdog media are doing their tricks again! we get paris hilton, not general powell ....

This is not news to me - though I'm not sure where I saw or heard it. NY Times? Chicago Trib?

Funny, though, how the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have put so much time, money, and effort into Gitmo and military tribunals, only to have the charges dismissed (unfortunately, without prejudice) when the first 2 'enamy combattants' came up before said tribunal.

Phi Barry

No mention of this in the US mainstream media as well.

Dear John G,

Not having ever visited the US, but having a good National Radio, and a vibrant and independent [if sometimes scurrelous] press in UK, I have no idea of the quality, or the independance [of Government or big business influences] of the US News Media.

Even accepting both these reports at face value, what immediately struck me is that we know Terrorists use terrible methods with prisoners, and these groups have done very much better [for themselves] under the Anglo/US suported administration post the Invasion of Iraq than they did under the previous dictatorship, however dreadful that regime was. If one of the War Aims was to reduce terroism this has conspicuously failed.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that something of the sort highlighted in the report you link to comes to light occasionally, whether widely reported or not.

What is strange to me is it takes someone of Mr Powell's integrity to point out how much damage the US is doing to itself by continuing to run the Guantanamo Prison as it is now. Really this is the kind of behaviour one expected from Banana Republics in the past, but not from the Government of a Nation that likes to think of itself as the morale guardian of the World. What Mr Roosevelt called "Being the Policeman of the World," when he and Mr Churchill discussed the New World Order that would pertain after the Second World War. Good for Mr Powell. From outside the US, I could wish more of your politicians were as honest and plain speaking as he is.

Perhaps he really does not represent what most US citizens want, but if the preference is for Mr GW Bush, then I think we all have something to worry about in the future, given the US's ability to influence events, and its military might allowing enforcement of [what it sees as] its own interests.

At that point I think the rest of the Free World has to question how closely it wants to be Allied to the US at all, including what is often referred to as your oldest Ally, the United Kingdom. There will be times when there is common interest and therefore a parallel policy, but not the kind of slavish adherence that we have seen in UK from Mr Blair, but notably not from from other mature European Countries' leaderships, in aiding half baked US Foreign Policies. The Special Relationship between the US and UK seems to be increasingly a one way street. According to some US Politicians it does not exist at all, and personally I think it exists only when it suits the US! How times change over twenty years...

Sincerly, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by fidelio:
funny, this isn't a news item in the u.s. what a surprise - the lapdog media are doing their tricks again! we get paris hilton, not general powell ....

Where do you get your news from? I'm finding it all over the United States mainstream media outlets.

FOX
ABC
CBS
MSNBC
New York Times
New York Post
US Today
LA Times

Need more? Who you crapping?

John G

Well done on finding those, i searched yeserday on CNN and couldn't find anything but I wasn't as motivated as you to search more broadly, so I think the win the case on US media coverage.

However, your comparison of Al Quaeda beatings with the existence of Guantanamo Bay camp falls flat in the face of Fredrik's argument. Powell, is right and the continued existence simply alienates the US even further.

A tremendous read on the background to the "war on terror" is The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind which provides tremendous insight into the decision making process with the US corridors of power which led to the decisions to open places like Gitmo along with the "rendition" that was and still is taking place.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Need more? Who you crapping?

john: obviously not you. best, fiddy

Why is his name pronounced Colon Poowell..

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
A tremendous read on the background to the "war on terror" is The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind which provides tremendous insight into the decision making process with the US corridors of power which led to the decisions to open places like Gitmo along with the "rendition" that was and still is taking place.

Cheers

Jim

No thanks, I read enough about the author and book here and here.

John

As long as you are happy to take someone else's view on the book then that is fine....personally I think it provides fascinating insight into the background of the security services "underworld" and I can then decide how much of it is the author's interpretation/bias vs. "fact".

Regards

Jim

Fredrik,

Our press is very much independent of our government. It IS big business, however, and despite the leanings of reporters, the editorial policy follows the big business line.

For an outline, see Halberstam's The Powers That Be.

John G.,

You clearly have not read enough about Suskind. The citations you've provided show nothing more than the authors' opinions and their own support of Bush's policies, published in places well-known to be basically mouthpieces for the Bush admninistration.

Even so, if you parse the attacks on Suskind that you've cited, you'll see that evidence against him - except for dodgy citations - is sadly lacking.

I have not read Suskind's book, so I am not arguing that he's correct.

But to say those 2 reviews are adequate support for ignoring Suskind is to misunderstand the evidence.

Regards.

Phil Barry

As to Powell's points, it is clear that my President believes it's perfectly OK for him to act lawlessly, but it's not OK for anyone he disagrees with to act lawlessly.

This sort of double-standard simply allows our enemies to escalate with the the excuse that they're doing just what we would do.

Second, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration ignores facts to a far greater degree than any previous administration.

Third, we are not at war. If we were at war, the enemy would be a state, not a movement. If we were at war, we wouldn't be reducing taxes on the riches of our citizens. If we were at war, we wouldn't depend on a volunteer military.

The middle-class 'way of life' is certainly under attack, and we need to take action, but mobilizing an army and attacking Iraq was clearly going to be counter-productive, and that should have been obvious to any thinking person!

But there are other threats to our way of life than fundamentalist Islam, and that's the source of the war - by bogging us down in Iraq, fundamentalist Americans who think they shouldn't have to pay for government services can continue to hold their power by playing on fears of the electorate.

Regards.

Phil

Phil

Your responses are much more articulate than mine so now I can see why you live in the "old money" part of Chicago as opposed to me in the "wannabee" suburb of Naperville!

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Barry:
Second, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration ignores facts to a far greater degree than any previous administration.

You must be speaking of Bush 41, right?

George H. W. Bush burned 2 memories into my memory bank.

1) On the day after the 1980 New Hampshire primary, in which 41 beat Ronald Reagan, 41 was interviewed by everybody. This was a perfect time to spread his message and tell voters why they should vote for him. Instead, he just kept saying something like, 'I'm gonnna win 'cause I have the momentum.'

2) Early in his Vice Presidency, 41 visited the Marcoses in the Philippines, which had been put under martial law. At the state dinner (IIRC) he said, 'We love your devotion to democracy.'

I don't know much about Attlee, but 41 really is a man who gets out of an empty taxi.

But actually, no, it's the current Bushies who have taken denial of facts to new heights. Consider their stances on sex education ('abstinence only' education is better than real sex eductaion, accusing Hussein's Iraq of having ties to al Qaeda, denying the connection between our energy usage and global warming, 'creationism' is science, etc., wtc., wtc.)

Jim,

I am living proof that Evanston is economically diverse; I may have to move to a lower cost location...like Mississippi. I live a block away from houses that sell for over $1M, but my apartment would sell for much, much less. I suspect my real estate taxes are at least 30-50% higher than yours, because I have to support 100+ churches and North Western U.

But I do have the Lake, the L, and Metra, and when I was employed in the Loop it was a 27 minute commute by train. And, if I had the cash, I could buy a wide selection of single malts within 1.5 miles from my front door.

Regards.

Phil

Phil

I was only winding you up on the Evanston thing and having been at the last few Buckeye games at the Northwestern stadium I can tell that the school doesn't put it's money into the football team.

BTW, given that I was brought up in the heart of whisky country in Speyside I can certainly give you some pointers to some classic, but less well marketed single malts!

Oh, and my commute is now Naperville to Glasgow so I win that one!

Cheers

Jim