More On Murat Kurnaz

I previously linked this 60 Minutes bit scheduled for March 30th. Then I checked into the story of Kurnaz. It doesn't even qualify as news. The disputed story has been well reported as far back as 2005. Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book in 2007. Why 60 Minutes thinks this is now news is inexplicable.

(CBS) A German resident held by the U.S. for almost five years tells 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley that Americans tortured him in many ways - including hanging him from the ceiling for five days early in his captivity when he was in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The U.S. Pentagon responding by e-mail says, "We treat all detainees humanely… and all credible claims are investigated thoroughly…. The abuses Mr. Kurnaz alleges are not only unsubstantiated and implausible, they are simply outlandish."

Along with making unsubstantiated claims against the German military for abuse, Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book published back in April of 2007. Also see here.

Over the past few weeks, the German Defence Ministry has been at pains to present Kurnaz as a confused person making fantastic claims, while denying any contact between him and German soldiers. Then two weeks ago the ministry suddenly conceded that KSK units were involved in guarding the camp in Kandahar, following a request from the US, and that they had met with Kurnaz.

Evidently, a "man without a country" he just headed off to Pakistan with a digital camera and appears to have sold his cell phone to someone with a dubious reputation. There's only so much to be learned as much of the material and process is classified.

In the initial interrogations he was confronted with details which indicated knowledge of his background: where he purchased his digital camera before setting off for Pakistan, to whom he sold his cell phone, etc. �I had no doubt they were cooperating with German authorities,� Kurnaz declared.

Point being, his story has been well documented as far back as 2005. Sixty-Minutes is simply recycling old news from a guy with a two year old book deal.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

"Though what you say is true, can you not see the 911 attacks were the key ingredient."

The key ingredient to what? Oh, I see, you think it is axiomatic that the Constitution has been destroyed. But only an imbecile would think that. Where did you get such a nutty idea? The Constitution has been nibbled at a bit in the past 200 years or but is is still basically alive and well. I can prove it.

The fact you are publishing things on this blog right now that are very critical of the government and the administration shows you have no fear that the government will come to shut you up or jail you. Aren't you afraid, since the Constitution has been "destroyed"? Why not, hhhhmmmm?

My brain might work in an unusual manner, as befits a bozo, but yours doesn't seem to work at all.

[Django]

"Nope. Crappy white panel van. I'm sure he's proud and a big supporter of the troops. Too bad he can't even fill up his tank.
My new 335xi gets 27 mpg highway, btw. The missus' X5 is a much different story though...
Posted by: BobInStamford | Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 07:06 PM"

Well la-di-da. I'm sure your fellow metrosexuals are all highly impressed with your "new 335xi". Eeek! I'm surprised you let one of the unwashed anywhere near your fag sled. He could have gotten cooties on it.

Typical "liberal". Pretensions of social justice but obsessed with money and snob status.

[LOL]

I don't understand what exactly I'm "giving" to the terrorists. You support the continued occupation of a country where our tax dollars are giving weapons to terrorists. I don't.

[seekeronos]

"--- "Nope. Crappy white panel van. I'm sure he's proud and a big supporter of the troops. Too bad he can't even fill up his tank.
My new 335xi gets 27 mpg highway, btw. The missus' X5 is a much different story though... ---"

Bob's no "limousine liberal". He's a proud member of the "BMW Bolshevik Battalion". I suspect that Bob is probably French, and a supporter of socialists like Ségolène Royal... at least in his heart: having no great amount of anything of importance to say, he is left with being mostly "l'enfant terrible" of these here boards.

"--- Eeek! I'm surprised you let one of the unwashed anywhere near your fag sled. He could have gotten cooties on it. ---"

Oui, monsieur... of "la infection d'cootié", Bob is very much afraid.

[seekeronos]

"--- Though what you say is true, can you not see the 911 attacks were the key ingredient. ---"

I'd say that there has been a general tendency towards trading off of civil liberties since the American Civil War back some 140+ years ago... y'know, that little tiff we had over state's rights and federalism gone askew?

The Constitution is dying, but not by any one particular thing. It is dying a death of a 1,000 cuts: activist judges here, presidential proclamations of emergencies and executive orders there, and even no small amount of congressional corporate incompetence over there.

And the bigger share of the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of us citizens who are too sheepishly, stupidly inoculated against the concept of "throwing da bums out" for fear of loosing entitlements or lobbies or pork, and keep re-electing the same bozos year in and year out.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe writes: "All I can say is that once Obama takes up the reigns of office, there's going to be a mad dash for the door by every neo-con and administrative shill north of the Rio Grande. Jan 20th, 2009 is going to see a few legal cases with publicity that'll make the OJ trial look like a small claims case."

I always thought Moe was a Left-wing radical dope, and I resented Moe for it. But this quote above and a few other recent comments by Moe make me realize Moe doesn't deserve dislike. Moe needs compassion and treatment.

[jharp]

seeker,

"(constitution)It is dying a death of a 1,000 cuts"

You say 1,00 cuts, I say it's lost a couple of limbs.

Habeas Corpus. What could be more important than every American's right to due process? Thanks to president Bush Americans now can be imprisoned with no charges and no trial simply because the President says so.

4th Amendment. Warrantless wiretaps. This is being fought tooth and nail and the republicans and Bush are against the constitution.

Activist judges, I don't think so.

Right wing republicans, yes.

[jharp]

President Bush in Buffalo April 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone here regarding Bush's comments on wiretapping before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

My friend Willie has ignored it. Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- As a citizen of [The German Empire], I hold dear the conviction that [The German Empire is] a sovereign nation, and not subject to the dictates of a what a body of foreigners determines to be "meet and just". --"

Fixed.

Nah, you're probably right. Obama won't toss Bush Co. to the Europeans if he thinks he can have more fun with them at home. But you don't honestly think the Bushes picked out that nice place in Paraguay because they just wanted fun in the sun?
http://wonkette.com/politics/george-w.-bush/we-hate-to-bring-up-the-nazis-but-they-fled-to-south-america-too-208549.php

Of course, if GOP officials try to make this international by fleeing the country this might become an International Courts issue whether American Sovereignty buffs like you want it or not.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I always thought Moe was a Left-wing radical dope, and I resented Moe for it. --"

I mean, that just says it all right there, doesn't it? Plug one's ears, close one's eyes, and scream "evil liberal" till you're blue in the face.

But we've already seen a handful of GOP flunkies - Cunningham and Ney for instance - tossed in prison. Scooter Libby needed a Presidential Pardon to bail his ass out. And that was under ironclad Republican rule. How bad do you think things are going to get once we've got Dems controlling the DoJ?

[seekeronos]

"--- Habeas Corpus. What could be more important than every American's right to due process? Thanks to president Bush Americans now can be imprisoned with no charges and no trial simply because the President says so. ---"

1941: FDR. Japanese-American Internments. Not much due process going on with that.

1917: Some German-American Internment, forced dissolution of German-American community groups, banning of German language in public (local and some state jurisdictions) and even a summary hanging of a man who "looked German". Not much due process there, either.

1861-1865: Lincoln: Suspension of Habeas Corpus and summary imprisonments of dissenters and seditionists.

A few dozen unwarranted wiretaps - while no doubt grievous to lovers of liberty - ain't a patch on what has been done to preserve the Republic in the past.

And I am not altogether convinced that those wiretaps were without warrant from FISA. If they were, they they were illegal under the Constitution as well as the framework Congress approved of when it helped set up the FISA court system for issuing these sorts of search warrants.

[seekeronos]

Oh, now you're just being silly, Moe:

"--- As a citizen of [The German Empire]... ---"

The German Empire ceased being a sovereign nation upon the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles and practically before that, when the kaiser fled the nation under pain of a revolution from the Junkers, if not the Reds who would later prove to be quite pesky during the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic which succeeded the Empire.

And what a sad day it was: no more snazzy Pickelhauben (pointy helmets) or the hope of kicking France in the slats and keeping its 40-year claim on Elsaß-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), much less getting to manage its own affairs after it had thrown in the sponge after getting nearly half of the Hochseeflotte scuttled, the Saarland and much of the industry-rich Ruhrgebiet occupied by those same vengeful Frenchies.

As for us, I hardly think that Iran and Russia and China have their respective invasion fleets parked off our coasts, much less steamrolling through Montana and Texas. Well, the Mexican Army, perhaps... but I really do not think DC is in any danger of capture, nor has been since the Southron War to Repel the Damnyankees.

You sound like quite the Leftist campesino.

[jharp]

seeker,

"1941: FDR. Japanese-American Internments. Not much due process going on with that."

Clearly was wrong. Everyone admits it was wrong.

And two wrongs don't make a right.

"1861-1865: Lincoln: Suspension of Habeas Corpus and summary imprisonments of dissenters and seditionists."

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law

Lincoln was within the law.

And I am not altogether convinced that those wiretaps were without warrant from FISA.

Then why did King George promise to veto if it didn't provide immunity.

President Bush in Buffalo April 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone here regarding Bush's comments on wiretapping before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

Please would one of you Bush apologists address this?

[BobInStamford]

"Well la-di-da. I'm sure your fellow metrosexuals are all highly impressed with your "new 335xi". Eeek! I'm surprised you let one of the unwashed anywhere near your fag sled. He could have gotten cooties on it."

Settle down, redneck. Save your unwashed energy. The trooops need your support. Seems that they are winning so much that the brown people are shooting back again!

What exactly is a fag sled? Is that some term that your kind uses about people whose houses aren't on wheels and car isnt on ce-ment blocks? Now get back to work, you have gas to pay for!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone here regarding Bush's comments on wiretapping before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

Please would one of you Bush apologists address this? --"

That'll be a silent but deafening "NO!" you hear coming from the collective wingnut'o'sphere. Cognitive Dissonance won't allow such statements to be processed by the GOoPer lobe of the brain. Poor kids would overheat and explode. It's very messy.

[jharp]

IslamoLlama,

Certainly is becoming obvious that you are right.

I don't get it. It must be very difficult going through life never being wrong. I'm wrong all too often. I simply admit it and try to correct any problems it has caused.

[seekeronos]

"--- Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law

Lincoln was within the law. ---"

No arguments on that... (although some folks might argue that the lawful secession of the to-be Confederacy mihgt not constitute rebellion. Of course, the shooting up of Ft. Sumter eminently qualifies it...)

My main point is that Habeas Corpus tends to get put into a memory hole of some sort - especially when the villains (real or manufactured) are of such a despicable shade of villainry (copperheads in the ACW, Germans in WW1, Japanese in WW2, and numerous groups in this current conflict).

Be that suspension of Habeas Corpus fall under Art. 1 Sect. 9 legitimacy or otherwise... I am not saying that it is right, but that it is a natural casualty of war.

Unfortunately for Bush he can neither claim insurrection (the muzzies have mostly behaved themselves inside our borders) nor invasion (unless you can make the spurious notion of _our_ invading Iraq or A'stan sell under Constitutional muster)... so whatever clamping down on liberty he has done has to have been furtively and gradually, i.e. death of a 1,000 cuts style.

I'd say that the roving wiretaps qualify (in no less a manner than Bill Clinton and the Carnivore email-sniffing program run by the FBI under his tenure was deemed to not to run afoul of wiretap laws and perhaps "undefined" by the Constitution ) :

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/09/38618 (old news to be sure, but so is WJC's administration)

And FWIW, I'm no Bush apologist. If he truly authorized wiretaps without due process and without limitations (thru the FISA) then that'll be one more reason too see him as someone who opposes liberty.

That said, I am much rather gladder for having supported him in 2004 against that conniving snake in the grass Kerry (now there's a "limousine liberal" that Bob can get behind in his Beemer) who would have eviscerated our war effort, and left Iraq in an even worse shambles, had we been stupid enough to see him elected.

[jharp]

Seeker,

How about this?

President Bush in Buffalo April 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone here regarding Bush's comments on wiretapping before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

Please would one of you Bush apologists address this?

[jharp]

seeker,

"My main point is that Habeas Corpus tends to get put into a memory hole of some sort"

Do you mean ignored? As in that's the law but we don't need to follow the law? That's nice. We're going to jail you without charges and not give you a trial. The right guaranteed to you by the Constitution is down the memory hole for now. And our President says you belong in jail.

"I'd say that the roving wiretaps qualify"

Qualify for what?

"If he truly authorized wiretaps without due process and without limitations (thru the FISA)

The problem is he ignored FISA which is against the law

"then that'll be one more reason too see him as someone who opposes liberty."

That's some pretty harsh punishment you're putting on him.

Let me make it clear.

As we are debating this Bush is pushing hard for a law that grants immunity to the telecoms who knowingly broke the law. And many Republicans are supporting the immunity clause. And Bush and the republicans are using the same tactics to smear anyone who opposes retroactive immunity.

The time to act is now. I thought conservatives were for personal responsibility.

[jharp]

"That said, I am much rather gladder for having supported him in 2004 against that conniving snake in the grass Kerry"

So friggin what. It is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

I'm happy for you that you are much rather gladder.

The issue is under debate NOW and something can be done NOW. Unless of course you don't care about King George using the fourth amendment as toilet tissue.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- That said, I am much rather gladder for having supported him in 2004 against that conniving snake in the grass Kerry (now there's a "limousine liberal" that Bob can get behind in his Beemer) who would have eviscerated our war effort, and left Iraq in an even worse shambles, had we been stupid enough to see him elected. --"

Slightly Shorter Seek: Thousands of American casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted or embezzled tax dollars, and a repeatedly erupting civil war would have still happened under Kerry - except WAY WORSE - because the man rides in a limousine and has a (D) after his name.

I do so love the "Democrats are worse" meme, because conservatives never really have much grounds for their objections. They've got no concrete examples of a pull out resulting in increased bloodshed, increased death of US citizens, or increased tax payer expense. They have yet to find a single Iraqi insurgent with plans to attack within the US - which puts the lie to "fighting them over there..." nonsense. The conservative pro-war viewpoint is devoid of positive data. We're merely left to imagine a worst-case hypothetical that is more bad than the current situation.

Ironic how this is almost word-for-word the same doom-sayer logic that locked us in Vietnam for over a decade.

[seekeronos]

"--- The issue is under debate NOW and something can be done NOW. Unless of course you don't care about King George using the fourth amendment as toilet tissue. ---"

"King George"? The last such king (King George III. Hanover) to rule over this land perished some 200 years ago.

As I said, if he (Bush) is guilty of having violated the Constitution and not using his ability to suspend Habeas Corpus (constitutionally) with all these roving wiretaps... then he is as bad off as Clinton was with the Carnivore™ email-sniffing program used to parse ALL of EVERYONE's email without their knowledge. I do not recall the Dems getting into as much of an uproar over it as the roving wiretap issue.

Nevertheless, any POTUS who clearly and egregiously oversteps the bounds of his authority as limited by the Constitution should be chastised, censured, and furthermore, his previous edicts restrained and repealed.

Now there are two tacks to take with this:

(a) The innocent have nothing to fear by having the all-powerful government looking through their email, through their phone calls, and through their underwear drawers and behind our ears to make sure we've all washed up nicely.

(b) The innocent have a constitutional right to their privacy and to be generally left alone UNLESS there is a probable cause, or in some cases, a reasonable suspicion that a person is about to commit a crime, as has been defined by the courts.

Bear in mind that fourth and fifth amendments apply to citizens of the United States, and that non-citizen residents, illegal aliens or "undocumented workers", (regardless of nationality) and enemy nationals or enemy aliens operating within US territory are not necessarily entitled to these protections.

To the degree that the terrorists and other enemies of this Republic have caused us to create Acts and pass legislation contrary to the Constitution and in violation of our God-given rights, we have lost the battle in no small measure.

Warrantless - if indeed they are so - roving wiretaps, omnipresent email-sniffing software (actually all internet traffic), the "security theatre" present at airports and colored terror-level status charts and all the other hallmarks of the Big Brother Security State looking to see who hasn't washed their undies may help to "win the war on terror", but also presents a serious threat to our own liberty.

At the same time, where do we draw the line at the seeming necessary evil of swapping civil liberty for security?

Liberties, once given up... are dreadfully hard to win back. No big government worth its salt would easily surrender its "emergency" power gained. We can see that plainly in the post-American Civil War activity of the US government which was quite harsh against its forcibly-reclaimed countrymen in the South, and through the drastically increased power assumed (and not constitutionally enumerated to) by the Federal Government.

We've only grown by leaps and bounds in growing the powers of the Federal Gov't. at the expense of state and local sovereignty.

For this reason, I do wish that we had a viable third party or two... or at least electoral fusion ... so that we weren't stuck between two bad choices as ever.

With the (R)s we get more "war on terror" and plenty of big gov't., more deficit spending, lowered taxes, and sweeping reductions in civil liberties (in the name of security)

With the (D)s we get "war on poverty" and "war for more social programs spending", higher taxes, a crippled economy thereby, and sweeping reductions in civil liberties (unless you are gay or anti-Christian).

I'd like a minority party (or a group of independent people who aren't controlled by partisan money and interests) or even a coalition of (R)s and (D)s who aren't willing to see our Republic be made shipwrecked on the rocky shoals of bad policy by malfeasance, greed, and willing failure to follow the map (Constitution) ... people who will end unnecessary "wars" (be they physical or virtual "wars on conditions"), decrease federal spending and return that money to the states and to the people to build up our battered economy, and a restoration of basic constitutional rights to citizens.

And while I'm not in for "cutting and running", Iraq must come to a point where it will be "sink or swim" time. We can ill-afford to keep Iraq as a garrison state for the next century, much less maintaining garrisons in Europe or in Asia... or Africa... or Latin America.

We need to determine if Maliki's government will stand on its own (it may with a Marshall-plan type assistance) and perhaps get some serious private-sector efforts on the ground to convert them to Christendom as a bulwark against jihadism, or if partitioning the region is better in light of the jumble of tribal conflicts that have emerged since the lifting of the Ba'athist regime, or the displacement of the British Mandates or the Ottoman Empire that in turns, suppressed those tribal affiliations by force.

In my deep opinion, we really have no business carving up the land and playing "god" with their nation. But the nation and the leaders thereof don't always care to hear my sage wisdom of the ages (such as it is).

The best compromise would have been to cut off the head (Saddam) as we did, and perhaps a few other vital bits (Saddam's kids, Chemical Ali, others of like criminality) and replaced them with our own puppets, leaving much of the Ba'ath machinery in place to hold down the order. And eventually loosening some slack in what what be initially a very short leash as those puppets proved their worth in holding an Iraq down - but with sufficient strength to repel Iran.

As someone else here said recently, the Badrists and the Sadrists never got especially uppity whilst Saddam was running things. I think they would have had less cause to be uppity had they faced (formerly but essentially still) Ba'ath tanks alongside US armour and air support.

[jharp]

"The best compromise... ...and replaced them with our own puppets"

Very well could be the worst solution.

[jharp]

"Nevertheless, any POTUS who clearly and egregiously oversteps the bounds of his authority as limited by the Constitution should be chastised, censured, and furthermore, his previous edicts restrained and repealed."

100% agree. And how then can your support a candidate who openly supports continuation of Bush's policies.

And supports retroactive immuntiy for the lawbreakers?

[jharp]

Seeker,

How about this?

President Bush in Buffalo April 2004.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone here regarding Bush's comments on wiretapping before it was revealed they were breaking the law.

Please would one of you Bush apologists address this?

[seekeronos]

"---

"The best compromise... ...and replaced them with our own puppets"

Very well could be the worst solution.

---"

The other alternative having been to have left Saddam alone, and to have continued the nonsense of the no-fly zones and the food-for-oil programme, as well as lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles every few years, all the while Saddam harboured terrorist cells and to further grow his WMD technology.

Mind you, WMDs need not be MIRVed warheads mounted on gleaming ICBMs or a wide-ranging nuclear submarine fleet. Missiles and the related technologies to deploy them don't come cheaply, even to an oil-logged nation like Iraq.

Rather, Saddam would more likely suffer whatever seeming loss of prestige to be gained by bandying about a bunch of gleaming nuclear missiles to be paraded around as a phalic display of military might on May day as the former Soviet regime once did, and go in for a much cheaper solution to humble the "Great and Lesser Satans" of the USA and Israel.

It may be as simple as manufacturing enough low-grade cobalt or uranium dirty bombs or even infiltrating trace amounts of these substances into the US food and water supplies. Or biological and chemical weapons technologies: again, these need not be deployed from strategic bomber fleets or missiles, but as simple as the funding of a Al-Qaeda (or other jihadist group) laboratory to produce super bugs and then release them discreetly on an overseas flight to the US.

Of course, we no less announced our arrival giving enough of a heads up for Saddam to disperse whatever WMD technologies he had cooking up. Of course, having been at least that successful, we'll never know what he had, much less justify our invasion along those lines.

This is the sort of thing that is tripping us up; Do we adhere to constitutional principles of non-interventionism, and risk waiting for a "smoking gun" from an attack that could do anything from be a relative nuisance (say, a localized but containable outbreak of an Ebola type biological attack) to a national-existence-threatening matter like a coordinated attack of several cobalt dirty bombs going off in our major metropolitan centres?

Or do we (oops, we did!) invade and effect a "regime change" for that nation?

The flip side is that nation building may be nearly as expensive as fielding a full-blown nuclear programme.

Of course, a response to the former scenario (allowing Saddam to have function as a state sponsor of terrorism) might have allowed us the "luxury" of replying to such an attack with an overwhelming, strategic nuclear response, but that gets a bit messy for the region, too... especially for South Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, all of whom are members of "Le Club Atomique", not too mention Iran with its over a quarter century antagonism toward us.

My paleoconservative bones would tell me to do what the turtle does and completely disengage front he Middle East, but our Israel lobby and the oil lobby along with a heady mix of the realities of modern international dimplomacy dictate that this is all but impossible.

Therefore, we are compelled - unconstitutionally so - to intervene. This is why I mentioned further upthread that reviving the concept of "letters of marque" to relieve the USA of particular liability to conduct assassinations of heads of state or direct actions against foreign assets as a means to avoid all the drudgery of invading and occupying a foreign nation might have been a much better option.

Short of that, then the invasion with much better post-combat management of the ex-Ba'ath partisans to keep the lights and the water running and the other religio-tribal enmities from resurging in the absence of Saddam's dictatorship.

I'll go a step further and say that as things are, we should never have given Iraq a popular election, and with it, that accursed al-Maliki coalition government saddeld down with Sadr and Badr partisans... they Iraqis are a people and a group of cultures singularly unready for republican government, having been under the yoke for far too long to truly appreciate freedom as we know it.

Sadly enough, liberty will not come overnight to a people contented with living under tyranny.

[jharp]

seeker,

You seem like a nice enough person but I must say you are either dishonest or dense.

There were no WMD's.

And how can you continue to ignore Bush lies in from April 2004 in Buffalo?

Try this. Admit Bush lied. Admit he broke the law. Phone your Senator and Congressman and let you know you demand accountability if they want your vote.

[seekeronos]

"--- 100% agree. And how then can your support a candidate who openly supports continuation of Bush's policies. ---"

FWIW, I will likely support the Constitution Party's nomination for President -- be it Alan Keyes or Roy Moore... (I can safely do so since an (R) vote in the "Democratic-Party-locked-down" New York State is just as much of a "wasted" vote as anything else)

...although if I lived in a Red State, I'd grudgingly choose McCain, since I would be forced to trade currency on the wiretapping issue against all other sorts of unknowns with the Obamas (not really "unknown" except for exactly how far to the fringe left they'd want to put us) or the known-but-unpalatable Clintons.

I believe though, that the (D)s will maintain, if not substantially increase their majority in both Houses, whereby I suspect that they will (with my conditional support) work to restrain any sharp lurches against unconstitutional wiretapping.

And I am not altogether confident that McCain will win, either. Whoever comes up out of the current Democratic bloodbath... (erm) Whoever emerges as the DNC nominee will still have considerable political capital against a McCain who can be easily typed as a would-be Bush'44.

The pain in my left ankle tells me that Obama will emerge - ruffled - but marginally victorious, thanks to the bought-and-paid-for MSM...

...to eke out a decent win against McCain. I'm predicting a 20-25 electoral vote margin.

Of course, my stubbed toe indicates a faint chance that Hill & Bill will pull off enough of the superdelegates on the crest of a mini-momentum coming out of the Rendell machine delivering up PA on a silver platter to them, but the mold growing on the orange I bought three weeks ago and forgot about leaves that outcome a more than a little bit fuzzy.

That could either engender a much narrower win or even an electoral loss (but popular victory) against McCain.

[jharp]

I truly don't get you guys.

"all other sorts of unknowns with the Obamas"

Of course there are always unknowns with all candidates.

All we can hope for is for them to do what they say they will.

Knowns with McCain. Continued occupation of Iraq. No health care solution. Likelihood of war with Iran. Imperial Presidency.

Knowns with Obama/Clinton. Withdrawal from Iraq. Major health care reform. Return to obeying the constitution.

To me it's a no brainer.

But based on the 2004 election results there are still plenty of no brained Americans.

[jharp]

It's get confusing here so I'll ask.

Do you still support the $12 billion a month goodwill mission in Iraq?

[seekeronos]

"--- You seem like a nice enough person ---"

Why thank you. Although the credit for whatever good is to be found in me, must go to saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of myself, I'm afraid I'm really not such a good guy, being a sinner. :)

"--- but I must say you are either dishonest or dense. ---"

I admit to a long-term previous guilt (for the better part of some 30+ years, and hopefully much less so thereafter as I grow up into Christ) on the first count, although that has been washed away by the Blood of the Lamb... and occasional guilt to the second. I can be quite dense when it comes to answering my wife's queries about her fashion sense, or about which window treatments to buy (she, having learned thus, now buys this sort of thing without inquiring of my utterly unqualified opinions).

Concerning the WMDs...

"--- There were no WMD's. ---"

There were neither any WMDs _found_ by us, nor _documented_ by most of the UN inspection teams.

An absence of evidence need not always preclude an absence of intent. Think about this a wee bit this afternoon as you speed home only to slow down a teensy bit about 500 feet shy of that spot you saw a speed trap the other day.

There is probable cause that Saddam and his regime were developing WMDs (which include nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons).

The infamous "Chemical Ali" and the use of chemical weapons against his countrymen and also against the Iranians during the 1980-1988 war is evidence of at least having the knowledge and the interest to build such weapons.

Now if I were a petty dictator who desperately wanted to retain what control I had of the 4th largest collection of proven oil reserves, and I had a common foe in the USA along with various well-funded jihadist operators, I'd likely give serious thought to sheltering said operatives, and providing them with toys and perhaps funds to make small, tactical "backpack" or suitcase weapons (dirty bombs) or even smaller biological weapons or the like with which to perpetrate (seemingly) stateless acts of terror against Israel and the USA.

I'm not necessarily defending this approach, but it seems not to be entirely irrational given the threat potential.

The CIA and DIA, for better or worse, got some less-than-perfect intel on these operations, and regardless of the scale of those operations, we (not just Bush, but the majority of Congress) thought it'd be a hot idea to tackle it before it grew into a pile of cobalt bombs or killer Ebola or E. Coli bombs.

[seekeronos]

"---
Knowns with McCain. Continued occupation of Iraq. No health care solution. Likelihood of war with Iran. Imperial Presidency.

Knowns with Obama/Clinton. Withdrawal from Iraq. Major health care reform. Return to obeying the constitution.

To me it's a no brainer.
---"

What is also known (for Obamas/Clintons) is that the "major health care reform" may vary from full-on socialized medicine and a chaotic gutting of the current system, as well as creating a new layer of entitlement spending that we have no means of paying for.

Now talk about capping prices or setting shorter limits on the proprietary formulation of new drugs (i.e. reducing the wait time before generic copies of a new drug can be made), and/or making a universal formulary for all FDA-approved drugs that all insurance companies use... and maybe even tax cuts based upon observance of preventive health care HSA's and gym memberships (where the tax revenue not collected pays dividends against future health problems) --- I'll meet y'all Dems halfway on that.

Iran war? Imperial Presidency? I think those items will get the kibbosh put on them - as I suspect it'll be a long time coming before we see Republican control of legislature and executive branches again.

"--- It's get confusing here so I'll ask.

Do you still support the $12 billion a month goodwill mission in Iraq? ---"

Shortest answer: No, I do not.

Shorter answer: I support setting certain goals, offering some financial assistance contingent upon the meeting of certain goals, and the orderly and safe withdrawal of our armed forces with exceptions, if any, made for light forces as agreed upon by the governments of Iraq and the USA.

I would support the involvement of Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi co-operation for limited peace-keeping operations as needed, and also as a prelude to a Free Arabic (i.e. non jihadist) Trade Area as an opposing block to the Shanghai Co-op of which Iran and Russia are members of.

I also support the summary "removal" of Mookie al-Sadr and certain other jihadist enfants-provocateurs from both the nation proper, as well as the workings of Iraqi politics as a pre-condition to our leaving.

[jharp]

"The CIA and DIA, for better or worse, got some less-than-perfect intel on these operations"

Not true. Many predicted accuratley there was no evidence. Bush and company lied to the American people and lied to Congress. I feel Congress does share some culpability for buying into Bush's lies nonetheless.

"Shortest answer: No, I do not."

Then how can you support McCain?

"I also support the summary "removal" of Mookie al-Sadr"

Are you sure about this? Sadr represents the majority of Iraqis' it is said. Shouldn't we allow them to elect whomever they choose?

"I would support the involvement of Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi co-operation for limited peace-keeping operations as needed"

Good luck with that one. The Sunni Saudis occupying the Shi"ite Iraq?

You are being naive. You think Iran is going to like that or allow it?

I wish Dan would post something on healthcare. It is too difficult to get into details and still be brief.

My only comment is except us, the entire industrial world uses a single payer system. And covers everyone at 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost that Americans incur.

[jharp]

"It is widely thought that the Sadrists might sweep to power in the provinces in free and fair elections, since the electorate is deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the major incumbent party in the southern provinces, the Islamic Supreme Council of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim."

And just so you the Sadrists originally supported Maliki. Only to withdraw support when he refused to back a timetable for American withdrawal.

Quite a complicated mess we have on our hands, isn't it?

$1 trillion and counting. $12 billion a month.

And McCain promises to continue.

[seekeronos]

Then how can you support McCain?

"--- Are you sure about this? Sadr represents the majority of Iraqis' it is said. Shouldn't we allow them to elect whomever they choose? ---"

In a perfect world, yes... we should not intervene and allow the Iraqis to attend to their own matters and elect their own leaders (or not, as if we hadn't intervened in the first place, Saddam would be still in power randomly butchering up his own countrymen, among other not-so-nice-things).

At the same time, the Iraqis really aren't prepared to, nor do they share the same cultural basis and desire for participatory republican government such as ours. The cultural experience for them for at least the past three generations has been authoritarianism (tail end of the Ottoman Empire) followed by a short lived monarchy, and then dictatorship from the 1950s until present.

The "democratic process" which allowed al-Maliki's government to come to power occurred more through the presence of armed thugs (SCIRI and Sadrist operatives) than it did through the more nobler appeals to policy and vigorous debates and media manipulations; there was a much more heady atmosphere of "vote for my guy, or you and your family will get it in the neck..." or the less-subtle smashing up of storefronts and wholesale butchery between rival Shi'ite factions (much less Sunni-Shi'ite friction).

In some respects, Iraq was better off under Saddam (although to the Iraqi Kurds and some other non-Arab minorities, this would be disputable).

Funny thing is, that out of the whole tangle of tribes and petty sheikhdoms, the Kurds seemed to be hungriest for something resembling American notions of liberty and free elections.

"--- (concerning Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi peace-keeping operations)... :

Good luck with that one. The Sunni Saudis occupying the Shi'ite Iraq?

You are being naive. You think Iran is going to like that or allow it? ---"

I'd imagine Iran wouldn't like it. But they really can't do much about it, short of launching an actual full-scale invasion into Iraq, or severely stepping up their efforts to destabilize frontier communities. Any serious invasion would go over REAL well with the Persian youth who'd be the cannon fodder for such a war. Unlike their fathers, they aren't as poor (relatively) or as religio-politically radicalized. And, we'd land on them with both feet, not to mention having an excuse to invade and subdue Iran.

The flip side of it is that Iraqi Shi'ites (read: Arab Shi'ites) have a long history of hating on Persian Shi'ites (predating the Ummayyad Caliphate, if I am not mistaken).

But it could happen, if only for Saudi Arabia to police the oil-producing areas. I have my doubts on this part, but even Iran could come play ball legitimately there too, if they agree to our pre-conditions of ceasing their nuclear weapons development program (you don't need 30,000 centrifuges to cook up fuel for regular fission reactors... that is only something you'd do if you were planning on making nuclear warheads).

Given the foreign policy realities of the situation, Iran is not very likely to take us up on any such offer, and we may want to build up Iraq as a buffer state against the Shanghai Co-Op.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"--- I wish Dan would post something on healthcare. It is too difficult to get into details and still be brief.

My only comment is except us, the entire industrial world uses a single payer system. And covers everyone at 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost that Americans incur. ---"

Let's tabulate those costs: how would a national single-payer health care plan compare to setting up individual and/or family HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) funded on a market basket of performing stock market and bond indexes?

Or, alternatively, if we simply must be fashionable and leap off the bridge with all the other industrialized nations 'cuz they thought socialized medicine is such a hot number, then why not let *the states* manage their own respective single payer systems (as health care costs and costs of living can vary widely between regions for differing sets of health care needs).

Also, I still say preventive health care - stuff like regular checkups, screenings for persons with family histories of certain illnesses, gym memberships and/or a cultivation of a culture of healthy living, and tax cuts or rebates for those people who wish to participate in and pass certain criteria for choosing a healthy lifestyle.

And a healthy tax on junk foods and junk food producers perhaps... to discourage all the crappy food we get to fill ourselves with.

Motivation through monetization usually works.

And when done by the *states*, for the *states*... it leaves the Federal government free to pursue its business of paving roads, building bridges, regulating interstate trade, and keeping the Tartars off our collective doorstep.

[jharp]

Appreciate your response. My imput.

Let's tabulate those costs: how would a national single-payer health care plan compare to setting up individual and/or family HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) funded on a market basket of performing stock market and bond indexes?

A national single costs about 1/2.

Or, alternatively, if we simply must be fashionable and leap off the bridge with all the other industrialized nations 'cuz they thought socialized medicine is such a hot number

Not socialized medicine. Single payer. I hope you understand the differnce as it is substantial.

then why not let *the states* manage their own respective single payer systems (as health care costs and costs of living can vary widely between regions for differing sets of health care needs).

Economies of scale make it much more cost effective nationally. And the sick would flock to the states with the best plan thus putting a huge burden on those states.

Also, I still say preventive health care - stuff like regular checkups, screenings for persons with family histories of certain illnesses, gym memberships and/or a cultivation of a culture of healthy living, and tax cuts or rebates for those people who wish to participate in and pass certain criteria for choosing a healthy lifestyle.

I'm all for that too. Still, folks get sick and need coverage.

And a healthy tax on junk foods and junk food producers perhaps... to discourage all the crappy food we get to fill ourselves with.

I like your idea here. And start with doubling the tax on alcohol.

[Fred Beloit]

What 60 minutes didn't tell us about the subject of this thread, especially for Harpo, the professional propagandist:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-60-minutes-didnt-tell-you-about-murat-kurnaz/

[IslamoLlama]

Fred, we've got hearsay, hearsay, and a casual connection.
None of these incidents, individually, make Kurnaz guilty of a crime. Together, they might - at best - mark him as a sympathizer to Al-Qaeda. And if Kurnaz was brought before an actual judge for criminal trial, you might be able to make a compelling case about motive or intent were he to have actually done something wrong.

Still, Kurnaz got released because he wasn't guilty. Beyond knowing the milieu of a Hamburg cell and allegedly voicing anti-American sentiment, this additional information amounts to nothing at all. Neither the Americans nor the Germans had anything to hold him on. And they certainly didn't have any cause to torture him. Kurnaz wasn't implicated with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.

If the "extra evidence" was so damning against him, why is Kurnaz suddenly free to walk the streets, Fred? Why would a US Judge cut him loose? Scraping up pieces on the cutting room floor doesn't prove 60 minutes was on some sort of propaganda campaign. And it certainly doesn't justify Kurnaz's treatment while in US custody.

[jharp]

IslamoLlama,

I don't think you comprehend Fred's version of justice.

According to Fred if you have brown skin or are a Muslim it's up to you to prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, prison without a trial.

Really sucks that pajamas media publishes such propaganda. Never minded it much when the National Enquirer put out garbage as folks knew if was faked. Sad thing about Pajamas Media is 30% believe it.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Really sucks that pajamas media publishes such propaganda. --"

Well, that's the thing. The released information itself wasn't propaganda either. Nothing in the German report was biased to favor the US Government, as far as I could see. PM just decided to lay it out as some sort of epic bombshell. As though saying, "America deserved 9/11" and knowing a guy in your neighborhood who turns out to have terrorist connections means you deserve 5 years in Gitmo while getting electrocuted, drowned, and attacked by dogs.

Even attending the Al-Qaeda pep rally in Afghanistan doesn't make Kurnaz guilty of anything. There is no law - US or International - that lets us brutally beat a man for simply congregating with assholes. If he wasn't involved in terrorist plots, he wasn't culpable for damage caused, and he wasn't actively funding known extremists, he's just a muslim with a chip on his shoulder.

But US activities are actively pissing people off. Kidnapping a man's brother or neighbor or friend provokes a great deal of hostility. American foreign policy is the equivalent of kicking a hornets nest and then "protecting" us from the hornets. Diplomatic policies that don't actively antagonize people are labeled as pandering or terrorist-loving. Routine legal procedures designed to protect human rights are vilified as partisan political tools. Fear-mongering at the federal level drums up a bunch of false positives that muddle the system, get more innocent people busted for crimes they didn't commit, and generate more hostility.

The GOP is actively encouraging perpetual war, then crying like babies when people have the audacity to call them on it. Since the show 60 Minutes hasn't been working towards the GOP goals, Fred gets to label them as "propagandists" for distributing information that directly contradicts the party line.

In this day and age, when GOP talking points are so divorced from reality that simple statements of truth directly contradict their policies, perhaps reporting facts has actually evolved into a form of "propaganda". When one party embraces fantasy while the other staunchly defends verifiable data, does reporting verifiable data make you a partisan? :p

[Fred Beloit]

"...put out garbage as folks knew if was faked." Are you babbling about Hillary, Harpo? Everybody knew Hillary is a liar, so we forgive her for any further lies. Is that your philosophical evaluation?

Or are you trying to dispute the truth of an article by attacking the publisher of it. Very ineffective way to debate, especially for a pro propagandist like you. By the way which blog were you commenting under before you came to muddle up things here a couple of weeks ago?

[PseudoHarpo]

This is rich (like Frank Rich): "...there is no law - US or International - that lets us brutally beat a man for simply congregating with assholes."

Who is "us" in the quote above, Moe. Is "us" someone you have tried, convicted and found guilty? If not then you are convicting "us" on the accusation of this guy Kurnaz, aren't you? How is it that self-described, self-videoed, self-admitted terrorists from places like Pakistan are always innocent until proven guilty, but the Haditha marines are "cold-blooded killers" when someone from the Middle-East with an agenda makes an accusation?

You and Harpo make me sick. And, your election is going to be lost by attitudes just like yours. Indi Americans don't like libs like you.

[jharp]

PseudoHarpo,

I'm flattered.

To me, having someone borrow part of your moniker is quite a compliment.

Thank you.

[PsuedoHarpoSoAshamed]

"You and Harpo make me sick. And, your election is going to be lost by attitudes just like yours. Indi Americans don't like libs like you."

Of course you are flattered when someone pays you complements like the above. Who wouldn't be? Well, maybe SOME PEOPLE. We know who they are.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Who is "us" in the quote above, Moe. Is "us" someone you have tried, convicted and found guilty? If not then you are convicting "us" on the accusation of this guy Kurnaz, aren't you? How is it that self-described, self-videoed, self-admitted terrorists from places like Pakistan are always innocent until proven guilty, but the Haditha marines are "cold-blooded killers" when someone from the Middle-East with an agenda makes an accusation? --"

That's a neat trick. Do you have anything indicating that Kurnaz is a self-described, self-videoed, self-admitted terrorist? Perhaps descriptions, videos, or signed admissions?

If so, where in US or International Law does that permit American officials to tie Kurnaz to a board and drown him repeatedly? We didn't have to water board Timothy McViegh to deal with him. We handled Ted Kazinski without violating US or International Law. These men were certainly self-described, self-videoed, self-admitted terrorists. How did Kurnaz become a special case? Other than his skin color and his religion, what makes a muslim terror suspect somehow radically different from a white guy? Why do US soldiers get to abuse Kurnaz, who was never convicted of anything, while domestic terrorists we can prove killed multiple US citizens are treated with such kid gloves?

Yet another example of right wing racism. Christian religious fanatics and psycho bombers are given all the legal protections on the books. Brown people the Abu Gharab treatment based purely on suspicion of guilt.

[seekeronos]

Q. Is Kurnaz a citizen (not just a resident alien) of any of the United States of America?

[seekeronos]

A. No, he is not.

"--- Murat Kurnaz is the son of Turkish Gastarbeiters and does not have German citizenship. Therefore the German government does not make diplomatic representations on his behalf. The Turkish government originally viewed Murat Kurnaz as "German-Turkish" and has shown little interest in pressuring the US government over Murat Kurnaz’ case, writes Amnesty International. ---"

Source: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/168-The-Guantanamo-detainee-from-Germany.html

[seekeronos]

Therefore, if Mr. Kurnaz's home of record and citizenship are Turkish, and said government has not expressed significant interest in his repatriation, and since Mr. Kurnaz appears to have been detained on suspicion of involvement with Al-Q... then, yes, he is very much in an uncomfortable grey area, and is not subject to the constitutional protections afforded to US citizens.

This is the double edged-sword of Gitmo.

[jharp]

seeker,

I'm nor sure the point were trying to make but consider this.

While traveling in China you hung out with some pro Tibetans. Chinese government arrests you, imprisons you, and tortures you.

No charges, no lawyer, no trial. And keeps you imprisoned for 5 years. Then decides you really were innocent and releases you.

Is this the way you want our world to be?

Non citizens have rights too. Except under King George.

[templar knight]

jharp, the scenario you describe is quite possible in almost any country in the World, especially if you consider the fact that kangaroo courts with fake and arbitrary due process exist in just about every third world hellhole, and most of the rest of the world as well. My point is this: just because you have a lawyer, a trial, and charges filed against you doesn't mean you will receive real justice of any kind, and more often than not is nothing more than modern fakery, or just another scheme to cheat Americans out of their money.

And nothing you said describes the situation Mr. Kurnaz was in. I doubt whether King George is taking away the rights of non-citizens here in the US to have a lawyer, a trial or charges filed against them. As for the situation in Afghanistan, I'll let the courts decide, and I'll abide by their decision. But you know that other agreements have precedence there, or in the alternative, it is a gray area that will be decided sooner or later. And I have strong....strong....doubts about Mr. Kurnaz. He was certainly not a tourist, or a poor mistreated student just trying to learn the language and culture of the area.