Diffing Guantanamo Bay SOP Manuals 563
James Hardine writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Wikileaks has released another manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay together with the US military's rendition operations manual. This release follows from the Wikileaks release of the 2003 SOP Manual as discussed on Slashdot last month. Wikileaks compares the two manuals (2003, 2004) and reveals damning changes in official US detainee policy in exquisite detail. Who knew that diff could be such a powerful political weapon?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading in another ten years that would shock us now but will seem like regular occurrences in 2017? Thoughtcrime executions, archived recording of all telephone calls (the European Union is already working on this!), incarcerating people because they have the "genes" of a potential psychopath (again, the EU is looking into this)? It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:2, Insightful)
Me too. I'm very proud of people who actively try to make the world a better place by exposing the atrocities committed by these pigs. I say, Right on! And feel free to log in the next time you post, Mr. President. You have nothing to fear from us.
Re:Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
One approach would be to claim that it's not really a wolf, it's a bloodthirsty monster, and we don't really have it by the ears, and it's being well treated anyway. Plus no one else will grab it by the ears for us.
Or you can just take your licks for doing something that's so obviously stupid.
My claim is that you need to introduce them to the US judicial system and let it sort things out. Some bad guys might be able to slip through the cracks, but in my opinion we deserve any blowback that we get.
Diff knows many things. (Score:4, Insightful)
0
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
The keyword here is "stories". I am really wondering how much of these Wikileaks documents are just stories (fiction) and how many are really leaked documents. These could be so easily fabricated. I question all sorces (/. included) on the internet as anything can be faked here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/blackout.asp [snopes.com]
Re:Diff is powerful (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view? As others have mentioned, glancing at the diff doesn't seem to produce any truly "damning" evidence. The real tragedy is not the way the SOP dictates that the prisoners (I won't stoop to calling them the PC detainees) be treated, but that they have spent so much time incarcerated without a trial. I'll admit I didn't got through the entire diff file in detail, but maybe you can save the rest of us the trouble by being more specific about what little hints you see that indicate that the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly rising. Or are you just meaning that Guantanamo (in general) in combination with the other stuff you mentioned (which is unrelated to the SOP) is the sign that the dial on the stove is slowly being turned?
Changed MPs to Guards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US [thesmokinggun.com], not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:1, Insightful)
Read the SOP. They are issued Korans, pray related items, clothes, toothpaste etc., and get this 'Wet wipes'. WET WIPES!!! Let me know when prisoners are beaten, maimed, gases, burned, frozen, shot, or made to watch their children murdered.
Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world. They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah. Lying to/about infidels is encouraged. SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc.
These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply. But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is no evidence then release them.
But holding them indefinitely on hearsay and suspicion in a legal limbo is madness. The problem will not get easier to deal with the longer you leave it, at some point they will have to be dealt with - so better to get it out of the way now. Confront the problem whatever the cost, return or charge them, and get that embarrassment and shut down.
Re:Diff is powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, they are allegedly civilian criminals and should be prosecuted in the civilian judicial system.
Problem with Gitmo is the US has decided these people are neither soldiers nor civilians but fall in some black hole category in between, where they have no access to civilian justice and no POW rights either.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar. Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
1. About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them.
Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.
2. A concentration camp is something else than an extermination camp. Concentration camps were set up and are set up to round up people deemed somehow dangerous without ever telling anyone why exept for some general accusations. Germans were using the term "concentration camp" because it didn't have the horrible sound until it was discovered that the German concentration camps in fact were extermination camps.
3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Insightful)
What should worry ppl is what is NOT being seen. In those dark rooms, is where we should be casting a light.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:1, Insightful)
2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least.
3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does?
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is in the business of kidnapping people and imprisoning them without any form of trial or appeal. How is that fair? How is that just? How is that according to your rules of the land?
To me that's bullying behaviour: "We don't like him, let's put him behind bars in a place where he can't hurt us."
How many innocent people are in Guantanamo Bay?
And why did the US built that prison in a foreign country?
I can't believe you can still sleep at night.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless you're not a citizen in which case we can hold you without Liberty or Happiness for no reason. Ok, maybe we have a reason but we don't have to tell you why or even give you a chance to defend yourself. (I realize that is the Declaration of Independence but it was the first thing that came to my mind). The Bill of Rights you just pointed to was based on Enlightenment ideas about human rights.
This isn't about tit-for-tat, its about what we *should* be doing. You can't talk about Liberty and Democracy without equal justice for all. While we could go on and on about equal justice in this country - if you don't even get charged and have a trial there's really no chance of having a fair trial.
It is a concentration camp (note: concentration camps aren't just the death camps built by the Axis during WWII). The concentration camps built by the US for Japanese-Americans in WWII were also concentration camps.
Holding people without trial is just asking for abuse. That's why that whole Habeus Corpus thing was put into the Constitution.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservative? LIberal?` (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."
Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm... I think that's pretty damning, in and of itself.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you have no problem holding innocent people in prison, without trial, without access to lawyers, without family contact, for 6 YEARS of their lives.
Man, what an opportunist scumbag. Someone makes a comparison to concentration camps, and you jump up on your podium and start proudly trumpeting how humane your prison camps are!
"Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world."
Sure, let's wipe our misdeeds under the table by pointing at worse criminals next door! The fact remains, you and the operators of these prison camps are criminals and abettors of criminals, and the fact that worse criminals exist in the world does nothing to temper that fact.
"They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah."
Who does? The people you're falsely imprisoning? Nope. If they had, you might give them trials. Why don't you give them trials? There is one obvious reason. You think they'll be set free. Now why might that be...?
"SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc."
Yeah, those whining ingrates! They should be licking our boots for imprisoning them in such a fine jail!
"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply."
The fact is that the Bill of Rights is clearly not limited to US citizens, and our country is based on liberty and justice for all. That you would rant to the contrary only shows you both a bald-faced liar and a traitor of those values.
You don't believe in liberty nor justice. You just take them for yourself. This is hypocrisy and worse.
"These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply."
I see. They're not soldiers, but they're not not soldiers. Hmm, what are they... I know! They must be alien invaders from Mars! Oh, sorry, wrong line, they're "illegal combatants." What's an "illegal combatant"? Well, nobody is quite sure, but we know they don't deserve trials, yessirree!
"But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them."
Oh, good for you. "Look, Frankie next door catches frogs and burns them alive! Why are you mad at me when I only poke out the eyes of the ones I catch?!"
Scumbag.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the bill of rights only applies to citizens, and not everybody under US law.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Even skepticism can be elevated to the level of paranoia and insane conspiracy theorism.
In some cases here we are talking documents that have been out a couple of years, for which there is not the slightest hint of denial or discreditation. Documents which, if they were not authentic, it would be unreasonable to presume they would not have been denied and discredited by now.
A source that has repeatedly proven itself to be supplying bogus information (answersingenesis I'm looking at you), has earned a a general presumption of unreliability for other content from that source, and anyone (certain Slashdotters I'm looking at you) are behaving as unreasonable irrational trolls if they recognize and admit the information from that site has repeatedly been proven bogus, yet they persist in returning to that site for more arguments and persist in a presumption of validity for the site in general. On the other had a source that has a proven track record of reliability has earned at least a cautious presumption of validity for their new additions. Yes, it is possible that any given new document on wikileaks could be a fake, yes it is reasonable to be cautious and explicitly consider that it could be denied and thoroughly discredited tomorrow. However it is unreasonable and bordering dysfunctional paranoia to outright dismiss anything and everything just because there is a chance something might eventually prove false.
If someone "leaks" a document and the supposed source (in this case the government) calls it a fake, then extreme skepticism is appropriate. If someone "leaks" a document that could easily be denied and discredited, yet there is absolutely no controversy and absolutely no denial and discreditation, then active skepticism is unreasonable. ("Passive" skepticism... the expectation that one can and will reverse their current beliefs if and when there is evidence to do so... that is always appropriate.)
I would say this document is presumptively legitimate, with the proviso that I will freely and actively dismiss it if and when there is a reasonable indication that it it is not legitimate.
-
Re:Damning changes? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can see plenty of treatment rules included in the diff context, e.g. they're not allowed to give physical exercise as punishment.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what you are saying is that because Gitmo is not subject to the rule of the US constitution, those civilians who were captured have no rights under it and that because they are civilians, they have no right under the GC. So, in fact, they have no rights whatsoever. And that everything is OK because they are allowed to practice their religion and brush their teeth.
And you somehow think it's right.
Keep in mind a lot of them were captured during the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US and whose largest offenses were being ruled a obnoxious dictator that pissed off the POTUS and who have every right not to thank the US because they were bombed back to stone age and then invaded by so called liberators. If at some point in the future some foreign power decides to invade the US and a civilian resistance movement starts, would you be OK with your fellow countrymen being held in a legal limbo? Would it be fine to torture them as long as they can practice their religion and brush their teeth?
If Gitmo is not part of the US, then what is it? Part of Cuba that has been invaded for so long that Cubans don't care anymore? Shouldn't it be under _some_ law?
And, BTW, the US Constitution applies to everyone within any part of the US territory (including embassies, planes and boats in international waters) and not only to US citizens. It's sad (not to say it betrays the legacy of your Founding Fathers) to think one can bend _this_ law to serve any purpose.
I hope this shameful episode will end someday.
Re:prohibited! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?
Re:Not to just be partisan, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the problem with the Geneva Conventions - they were written for a different kind of war.
If I had to put an end date to it, I'd say that the "conflict" is ended when the nation from which they were taken is in a position to restrain them from further combat if returned. In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more - Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole country. This is in the spirit of the original conventions - soldiers are returned when the war is over and they won't fight anymore.
For insight, look up the concept of "parole" as it pertains to war - POW's can be released if they promise to not engage in combat against the capturing country. If they do, they are not subject to the GC's anymore - at the time the GC's were written, that was understood to mean "shot out of hand for being a saboteur/spy". The idea is that, once a soldier is captured, he should cease to be a threat.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:1, Insightful)
That came after the third (and largest) attack, and was largely ineffective, which is proven by the fact that it didn't slow down al-qaeda at all. Please don't forget that missile volley also involved an innocent pharmaceuticals plant in the Sudan.
The "wag the dog" stuff was silly, but not entirely unjustified. Remember that prior to this Clinton's response was ALWAYS "throw more lawyers at the problem." Conveniently after his impeachment was over he went right back to relying on lawyers.
Re:Not to be partisan, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically, we want a pro-US government in Afghanistan that will take these prisoners, and then throw them in prison indefinitely (or execute them)? At that point, we'll be willing to call the conflict resolved?
Sorry, but that sounds like empire building to me. Of course, an alternative would be that enemy combatants are released to Afghanistan, who subsequently "forgets" about them. Said combatant then disappears to Durkadurkastan for a while, and we call that a victory as well, since they are no longer fighting against us for Afghanistan?
This of course also seems to ignore the fact that these guys were often
So I don't think it really makes sense even to depend on new Afghanistan leadership to take care of these prisoners who may or may not be from there to begin with.
There's also a problem here with defining eradication of the Taliban. Is that just when they are no longer in Afghanistan? Because of course there are pro-Taliban forces outside of Afghanistan. And the Taliban itself is almost as much of an idea as it is an organization. How does one eradicate an idea? And beyond that, don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that Taliban representatives were welcomed into the US.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, but your statement seems to be reading a bit more into the document than it actually says.
Anyway, if you believe Gitmo is evil, the document will support your belief. If you do not believe Gitmo is evil, nothing in the document will change your mind. Frankly, I think the entire article is a troll.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Damning changes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge. Our soldiers are not going to send some poor farmer to Gitmo just because his neighbor said he was a bad guy. Our soldiers are not morons. Besides, that would be an incredibly waste of resources to ship every one of these people to Gitmo and interrogate them for hours only to have them confess to something that never happened. Gitmo would be overflowing and the largest MOS of the US military would be interrogator! Think about this stuff before you bother posting it.
You need to stop making up stories in your head and assuming that they are true simply because they match your political views.
You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.
I find it very telling that someone who is defending the "rights" of those found actively fighting American forces in Afghanistan would threaten an American because they used their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. You're the type of logical prodigy that would beat up a counter protector at a peace march!
God help anyone who has an opinion different than your own because you're likely to simply bludgeon them. Do you ever wonder why people like me call people like you Brownshirts? And you guys call Bush a Nazi? Look in the mirror, brownshirt.
Re:Downgrade from MPs to GUARDS? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, when someone does not act within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, such as not wearing a distinct uniform or mixing within the populace, then all rights are withheld. For example, Klaus Barbie was a German Officer who did two things in Lyon, France. First, he rounded up Jews and sent them to concentration camps. Second, he executed members of the French Resistance. When tried in the 80's in France, he was convicted of crimes against humanity for the deporation of the jews, convicted of life of imprisonment. However, even though he was personnally involved in the brutal torture of Jean Moulin and the deaths of many of the french resistance, he not convicted of any crime against the french resistance. This was due to the fact that the french resistance acted as illegal combatants due to violating several distinguishing components of the Geneva Convention. Many SS and SD officers have been convicted against crimes against civilians, but not for crimes against guerilla fighters.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?
You should try reading [kuro5hin.org]. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!
Re:Damning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.
One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO.
This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.
Semper Fi
Besides the point (Score:2, Insightful)
The government can claim that they suspect you are a terrorist, and then imprison you for the rest of your life, without trial, without a lawyer, without any contact with the outside world, and without even telling your relatives why.
Effectively, they can take your life away without any justification, without having to have your case tested in court, without obeying the constitution, without caring about the geneva convention, without even giving any form of justification why they did this other than "suspected terrorist".
The fact that they have actually done this to a number of people ( some of which committed suecide while imrisoned ) makes this piece of paper absolutely irrelevant. If they can ignore the spirit ( and quite arguably letter ) of the constitution and international law, what makes you think they give a tiny rats ass about a non-binding paper they have written themselves?
It is really very simple. The government claims that once mistaken for a terrorist an innocent person has no rights. Now, unless you can keep a straight face and claim that the government doesn't make mistakes, you will have to conclude that the pressent administration considers it acceptable to maintain a policy which sees innocent people imprisioned without even the right to know why, for how long, or if they will ever be released again. They consider it acceptable to deprive innocent people of any form of contact with their loved ones, or any opportunity whatsoever to proove that they are innocent.
Thus my question is, how the fuck can you defend such a policy and still sleep at night?
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming this, but it seems to be a fair assumption) to compare him to. Anyway, congrats on the first BBBBBBUT CLINTON! post of the thread (that I've bothered to read, anyway). There's a reason this has been meme-ified. It's because it's a really bad argument...
I'm not necesarily a big fan of Clinton's policies, but given the congress he was dealing with, hell-bent on destroying his presidency, I think he did a fair job running the country. However, were I to defend him, I would certainly not talk about Bush unless someone else was unfairly comparing him to Bush. Any critisism or praise I've had for Bush (yes, IMHO, he has had a few moments
Re:Let's review (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:2, Insightful)
How many guys with stories like this would it take to make Gitmo "a bad idea?":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501227_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
Five years of his life gone. So you can feel protected here from "terrorists" 5000 miles away, with 3000 miles of water between us. Were the "wolverines" from Red Dawn terrorists? Last I heard, only nineteen mostly *Saudis* were convincted in absentia of 9/11.
Peachy.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that lots of people have been released from Guantanamo, don't you? And that many of those people have been formally exonerated by their home nations of committing any crime?
One of the people held at Guantanamo has been there since he was 14. Was he one of the "worst of the worst"? The government won't say what he did but, perversely, has described him as a "good kid" that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards. Staff at Guantanamo have reported that, for the most part, they don't know why most people are being held there.
And you're not. Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were sold to the US Army by Afghani warlords/drug lords. And they're about as reputable as they sound.
Re:Um, NO. (Score:2, Insightful)
So you were in the military too, huh? GOOD, so you know exactly what it means to sacrifice your own freedoms and liberties to defend others. Tell all the other readers what it means when you swear that oath. Tell them about the freedom you have while serving your country. Why don't you explain to them the scope of the UCMJ?
Here is our oath, with emphasis added.
"I, ______________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Here is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, in case you forgot why we have one. I've added emphasis around parts you may have forgotten.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I took it fucking seriously. You must be confusing it with some international treaty, and I hope you didn't join the US military with some notion that the scope of our constitution includes the whole fucking world, including our enemies. Do you really understand WHO you're defending it for?
Re:Damning changes? (Score:4, Insightful)
People like the Australian David Hicks, who was found guilty of supporting terrorism through the nefarious act of guarding a tank. What a bastard!
If these are the worst of the worst, then Al Qaeda isn't so bad after all.
And what about those Brits who were let off with a smack on the hand? Or Mamdouh Habib (another Aussie) who was 'rendered' in Egypt for the US and then released without charge?
Gitmo is absolutely not about keeping the worst of the worst. It's about keeping suspects outside US legal jurisdiction. The question "Why?" is critical here. What reasons could there be for denying legal access to suspects?
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here.
If the erosion of your freedoms really concerns you then you should be concerned about the fact that the Commission charged with investigating what happened wasn't given the full freedom to investigate it. You should care that more money was spent investigating why the Challenger blew up, or investigating Clinton's blow job than was spent investigating 9/11/01. Our government has been into messy, black ops stuff for a LONG time... from over throwing popularly elected governments and causing coups (Iran), to supporting oppressive military dictators (Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam), to all sorts of nastiness with drugs (Iran Contra, CIA ops). I'm not saying that the government planned and executed 9/11... that's crazy talk. The government has been covering up any sort of investigation into what really took place though. There has been so much crazy shit that our government has been involved with over the last fifty years that is finally coming home to roost that they can't let it get out. bin Laden was a CIA asset. Saddam was an allie of the United States. The fact of the matter is that our government has made some REALLY BAD foreign policy decisions that have alienated and pissed off a huge portion of the population of the world. At this point in the game the government needs to keep up the facade that they can "protect" us from evil terrorists while concealing the fact that the "evil terrorists" want to attack us because of what the government has been doing since before I was even born.
It baffles me that you can say that you care about the erosion of our freedom and liberty here at home, yet at the same time call me into question for questioning what has taken place since 9/11. Everything that is going on with the erosion of our freedoms is BASED ON 9/11. 9/11 is used as the justification for all of the nonsense that is taking place with the PATRIOT Act, suspension of habeus corpus, wiretaps and everything else.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which version of the Geneva Convention have you read? I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean "war crime" but meant "crime at time of war" because clearly a "war crime" is a well-defined term that doesn't really fit the context of your argument.
Whether you're wearing a uniform or not.
Now, the GC never really define who are lawful combatants and who are unlawful combatants; they do however define who deserves treatment as a POW and who do not (in the 3rd Convention [wikipedia.org]). The leap from protection classes to classes of combatant, while not explicit is pretty broadly accepted as detailed in the wikipedia entry for Unlawful Combatant [wikipedia.org]:
Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:
Moreover, it explicitly excludes POW status from people who resist once the territory is occupied.
Article 4.1.6 extends POW status to:
Oh, and if the GC doesn't satisfy you - how about the Laws of War [wikipedia.org] according to which "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly."
You go on to claim: "Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Please cite your source on this. I have never heard anyone make this claim. By the way, the US held German prisoners during WW2 at POW camps in CONUS - was this a "war crime?"
And then again: "So is interrogating them."
Interrogating them (prisoners lawful or not) is not a crime. Police "interrogate" suspects every day in the country and it is perfectly legal. The military interrogates suspected militants overseas every day - again, perfectly legal. Unless by "interrogate" you meant "torture" and by "torture" you meant something harsher than the hazing I suff