Getting The Real Gist Of The De-Classified NIE Report
NIE released, and it isnt too kind to those who wish to "redeploy."
With the release of the NIE today we find that the New York Times was cherry picking a single fact out of the NIE briefing which in reality proves that we must continue to fight terrorist over there. If we do and we defeat them, then our mission will not only be successful from a tactical perspective, but we also will begin to see the change in hearts and minds we are seeking.
The NIE also tells a tale about how Al Qeada is descimated and broken into much smaller individual self-radicalized groups. Additionally, it tells about the apparent appeal of extremist and how greater pluralism and political responsiveness (democracy) can allieviate at least some grievences which jihadist exploit.
Granted, it is only a prediction, but it is a far different picture than what many Democrats and media would like to portray. It is also in direct opposition to what the New York Times was trying to sell the American public. Infact the NIE draws the complete opposite conclusion.
Dont just take my word for it, read the document your self. Keep in mind that this is from APRIL of 2006. A lot has happened since then. Here are the key findings
Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate .Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States. dated April 2006
Key Judgments
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti- American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:
(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq .jihad;.
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari.a-based governance spanning the Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa.ida.
Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa.ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al- Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al- Qa.ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.
We judge that most jihadist groups.both well-known and newly formed.will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.
For me this is the single most important line:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
So how do they percieve success? Can you say redeployment? Good, I knew you could! Conversely there was this line:
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Here is the caveat:
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Which leads me to ask, what is the time frame of the estimate? I am guessing up until that date.
Again, what strikes me is how the NIE findings are the complete opposite of what the New York Times sought to persuade the public to believe. No wonder Pelosi wanted to hold a closed door session of the house to read this before it hit the fan.
The next question is whether or not the media will correctly report what is in the NIE and what it honestly says. Like I said before, I am not going to hold my breath. I would lean toward no.
NIE Report....PDF Format....Adobe Acrobat Required
NIE De-Classified Text
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOW! Boy did the New York Times leave alot of stuff out. Now after reading the whole thing I can see what President Bush was saying. And the whole thing was written BEFORE Zarqawi was killed!! I think the Times has once again opened mouth and iserted foot. Basically what this thing is saying is if we DONT FINISH THE JOB IN IRAQ, all hell will probably brake lose. Zarqawi was pleading for help in a letter shortly before he got killed, saying they were failing. Everything in Iraq has been reduced to the Suni-Triangle, and when that job is complete, GAME OVER! Great job Times, I suppose we can expect some more nonsense from you just before the elections! Just next time you leak classified information, make sure it's current and up to date! Unreal!!!!
With the release of the NIE today we find that the New York Times was cherry picking a single fact out of the NIE briefing which in reality proves that we must continue to fight terrorist over there. If we do and we defeat them, then our mission will not only be successful from a tactical perspective, but we also will begin to see the change in hearts and minds we are seeking.
The NIE also tells a tale about how Al Qeada is descimated and broken into much smaller individual self-radicalized groups. Additionally, it tells about the apparent appeal of extremist and how greater pluralism and political responsiveness (democracy) can allieviate at least some grievences which jihadist exploit.
Granted, it is only a prediction, but it is a far different picture than what many Democrats and media would like to portray. It is also in direct opposition to what the New York Times was trying to sell the American public. Infact the NIE draws the complete opposite conclusion.
Dont just take my word for it, read the document your self. Keep in mind that this is from APRIL of 2006. A lot has happened since then. Here are the key findings
Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate .Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States. dated April 2006
Key Judgments
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti- American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:
(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq .jihad;.
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari.a-based governance spanning the Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa.ida.
Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa.ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al- Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.
We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al- Qa.ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.
We judge that most jihadist groups.both well-known and newly formed.will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.
We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.
For me this is the single most important line:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
So how do they percieve success? Can you say redeployment? Good, I knew you could! Conversely there was this line:
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Here is the caveat:
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Which leads me to ask, what is the time frame of the estimate? I am guessing up until that date.
Again, what strikes me is how the NIE findings are the complete opposite of what the New York Times sought to persuade the public to believe. No wonder Pelosi wanted to hold a closed door session of the house to read this before it hit the fan.
The next question is whether or not the media will correctly report what is in the NIE and what it honestly says. Like I said before, I am not going to hold my breath. I would lean toward no.
NIE Report....PDF Format....Adobe Acrobat Required
NIE De-Classified Text
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOW! Boy did the New York Times leave alot of stuff out. Now after reading the whole thing I can see what President Bush was saying. And the whole thing was written BEFORE Zarqawi was killed!! I think the Times has once again opened mouth and iserted foot. Basically what this thing is saying is if we DONT FINISH THE JOB IN IRAQ, all hell will probably brake lose. Zarqawi was pleading for help in a letter shortly before he got killed, saying they were failing. Everything in Iraq has been reduced to the Suni-Triangle, and when that job is complete, GAME OVER! Great job Times, I suppose we can expect some more nonsense from you just before the elections! Just next time you leak classified information, make sure it's current and up to date! Unreal!!!!
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 11:01 PM
21 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Again, the leakers were obviously democrat congressional staff, they are the only ones stupid enough to think letting a one sentence leak was going to help their
baseless and faltering congressional majority hopes.
Congress members have had this report since April. The dems and their staff believed correctly that Al-qaida Keller would publish this classified information as long as it hurt George Bush and the Americans. They were wrong again. I think they have been taking advice from the "three blind mice" again.
Once the declassified portions of the report were released it is the obvious conclusion that we've been saying all along. Stay the course, the plan George Bush has is for winning.
We either stay and defeat the jihadist and establish a functioning democracy in Iraq or we have jihadists come to the US and we fight them in our streets, airports, train and bus stations. Which door will you choose? Door#1- stay the course with some adjustments here and there to defeat jihadists where they live or Door #2- Cut and run then have to fight them were we live. What will it be?
"Again, the leakers were obviously democrat congressional staff,..."--jg
Please give me the evidence for this statement. Names, please. And link to where this is reported.
Or will you continue to make assertions with no evidence for their veracity--in other words, lie.
Right now, in the Senate of the United States, there is a debate going on as to whether or not to keep the rights of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution.
If Bush's puppet Congress suspends this greatest liberty, which principle goes all the way back to the Magna Carter, then we are Saddam Hussein and every despot who has ever destroyed and crushed the dreams of liberty, and no longer Americans.
IF you don't know what I'm talking about, a cornerstone of our liberties, I suggest you look it up instead of screaming and posturing here, trying to make a point of who's a better American.
I am disgusted by it all.
JG,
Again, the leakers were obviously democrat congressional staff, they are the only ones stupid enough to think letting a one sentence leak was going to help their
baseless and faltering congressional majority hopes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think it's hold out's from the Clinton administration that Bush never cleared out of there. Look at what happened with George Tenet, and others. Maybe George didnt leak, but he sure got alot of stuff wrong.
But that's where I have my problem with the President, he's to damn nice to some of these slimeballs left over from Clinton, and he needs to clean house. He's had 5 years to clean house and yet he let's them set there and they leak and leak and Bush needs to put a stop to it.
Congress members have had this report since April. The dems and their staff believed correctly that Al-qaida Keller would publish this classified information as long as it hurt George Bush and the Americans. They were wrong again. I think they have been taking advice from the "three blind mice" again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's obviouis Kennedy and that ilk had knowledge of this leak to the Times and were probably tipped off by them that they were releasing that crap that day, Teddy was to quick to get to the Mic, and he was half/ass sober. He had to have prior knowledge.
Mrs Green,
"Again, the leakers were obviously democrat congressional staff,..."--jg
Please give me the evidence for this statement. Names, please. And link to where this is reported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give names? How? When the New York Times isnt going to devulge thier sources.
It's should be pretty damn obvious that it wasnt a Republican leaking classified info to tthe Times, what the heck would that have accomplished? More Drama?
Right now, in the Senate of the United States, there is a debate going on as to whether or not to keep the rights of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution.
If Bush's puppet Congress suspends this greatest liberty, which principle goes all the way back to the Magna Carter, then we are Saddam Hussein and every despot who has ever destroyed and crushed the dreams of liberty, and no longer Americans.
IF you don't know what I'm talking about, a cornerstone of our liberties, I suggest you look it up instead of screaming and posturing here, trying to make a point of who's a better American.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you go again. It's the Democrats that are trying once again to try to take away the tools we need to fight terrorism and get information from those who want to KILL us! BEFORE WE GET ATTACKED AGAIN!
I know perfectly well what you are trying to do, make US look like torturers!!!! Sorry that isnt going to wash Mrs Green.
If you think throwing someone in a cold room and blasting the Red Hot Chili Peppers at them is torture you are sadly and mistaken. We have managed to thwart attacks against this Country and saved COUNTLESS American lives by doing so.
We afford the terrorists more rights than they would ever afford US. Gouging out peoples eyes, cutting off thier hands, and limbs, is SADDAM, you give me ONE example where WE have done that, ONE!!!
What would YOU suggest we do to get information out of the Terrorists Mrs Green? Give them a hug, a cup of coffee and a doughnut?
You should be disgusted Mrs Green! Disgusted that YOUR party will not do ANYTHING to try to prevent further attacks against the American people!!!
There you go again. It's the Democrats that are trying once again to try to take away the tools we need to fight terrorism and get information from those who want to KILL us! BEFORE WE GET ATTACKED AGAIN!
I know perfectly well what you are trying to do, make US look like torturers!!!! Sorry that isnt going to wash Mrs Green.
Marie, my friend, you don't know what the Writ of Habeas Corpus is. It is not about torture. And neither was my post.
Google it so you'll know what a Writ of Habeas Corpus is.
But I'll talk about torture now:
No one can make us LOOK like torturers. We make ourselves torturers when we condone and practice it.
The crimes of insurgents are no excuse. Abuses by one side in a conflict, no matter how vile, do not justify violations by the other side. This is a fundamental principle of the laws of war
I can't believe you actually defend torture. And yes, we torture.
Bush's legacy: Pro torture.
Disgusting!
Why do you think that the Iraqis surrendered so quickly in the first Gulf War? Eh? Remember those pictures of them with their arms behind their heads?
I'll tell you why. The United States had a history of adhering to the Geneva Conventions. Those Iraqi soldiers knew we would take them prisoner but not toruture them. Unlike the barbaric regimes in other parts of the Middle East.
And here you are screaming that we don't gouge eyes out or cut off hands as though that justifies the sort of torture that we do commit in the name of the United States.
What used to set us aside is that no matter how vile and beastly the enemies of our country were, we would never, NEVER stoop to their barbarity. We used to have values, we were the exceptional people--honor even toward our enemies made us exceptional.
And here you and your friends are, willing to emulate the vilest of murderous pigs, because they do it too?
Oh. My. God. What have we become?
Mrs Green,
Next time would you please explain what Senate Bill they are debating on the Senate floor at the time you post? Like with a number?
They are sort of pressed for time before they take off AGAIN!!! So what bill you may be talking about and what bill I may be looking at might not be one in the same!
When I looked, the Seante was debating "Detainee Abuse and Rights" Thus "Habeas Corpus"
I posted it so there can be no more confusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Habeas Corpus
Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now what part are you reffering to? The right of detainees to have a trial in American courts? Which I am totally against clogging up our Court system with this crap instead of having Military Tribunals and keep it where it belongs. You were the one who said President Bush had "The Supremes" in his pocket! I guess not this time huh?
Or are you talking about the Abuse part? Which bill? Or are they lumped together?
Please be more clear next time you try to drag me into a debate about something you obviously want to twist to suit your own purposes!!
Mrs Green,
Oh. My. God. What have we become?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What the hell did that mean?
What have WE become my ass!!
You act like we are doing something absolutley criminal to do what we have to do to try and protect this Country! Hell at least we ARE trying! That's more than YOUR party will do!
How lucky we are that we didnt have you in charge of WW2. We would all be speaking Japanese right now.
How about spewing some of the "Blame America First" crap to the people that really deserve it, THOSE WHO ATTACKED THIS COUNTRY!!
What the hell did that mean?
What have WE become my ass!!
You act like we are doing something absolutley criminal to do what we have to do to try and protect this Country!
Marie, my friend, it IS criminal. Article VI of the Constitution says this:
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
We signed onto the treaty that is the Geneva Convention and that prohibits torture.
Too bad the Constitution isn't taught in school.
Hell at least we ARE trying! That's more than YOUR party will do!
Hey! Didn't Bill Clinton just use that excuse in Chrissy Wallace's interview? At least he tried to get Osama? And here you are parroting Clinton??? Wow!
PS. Breaking treaties and the law is not trying, it's criminal. Remember how you guys went ballistic over Clinton's lie? Rule of law! Rule of law! Remember that?
How lucky we are that we didnt have you in charge of WW2. We would all be speaking Japanese right now.
Marie, we managed to win that war without becoming like our enemies and using torture. You do understand that, don't you?
It was our very first president, George Washington, who set the tone for the exceptional nation we would become.
"We were at war and victory was hardly assured, in fact the situation was closer to the opposite. New York City and Long Island had been captured. General George Washington and the continental army retreated across New Jersey to Pennsylvania, suffering tremendous casualties and a body blow to the cause of American Independence.
It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, "These are the times that try men's souls." Soon afterward, Washington led his soldiers across the Delaware River and onto victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice.
How would General Washington treat these men? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Washington's Crossing," thousands of American prisoners of war were "treated with extreme cruelty by British captors." There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered being murdered instead of quartered. Countless Americans dying in prison hulks in New York harbor. Starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City.
The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it's easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren."
Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values."
Mrs Green,
I dont think I ever in my lifetime have heard anyone intertwine the US Constitution and the Geneva conventions together before!
Good job for trying though.
But it's just better at this point for you guys just to sit back and let us handle the war on terror.
You guys have no clue how to combat it!
If left to the Lunatic left we would be having airplanes flying into building every week!
I dont think I ever in my lifetime have heard anyone intertwine the US Constitution and the Geneva conventions together before!
Good job for trying though.--Marie's T.C.
Marie, in the most gentle terms I can muster, what you just stated reveals a fundamental and shocking lack of knowledge about the Constitution and how it affects our treaty obligations.
You may not like it, but the fact is that the Geneva Conventions have been the law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution going back to the 1800s.
Treaties that are ratified by the Senate become the law of the land. I'm shocked that you don't know this and that you actually mock me because I do.
It is astounding that you take your ignorance of the Constitution and turn it on its head by making fun of me.
It is easy to manipulate people when they don't know their own country's laws.
Amazing. Just amazing.
Mrs Green,
Marie, in the most gentle terms I can muster, what you just stated reveals a fundamental and shocking lack of knowledge about the Constitution and how it affects our treaty obligations.
You may not like it, but the fact is that the Geneva Conventions have been the law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution going back to the 1800s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs Green, I wish you would learn a thing or two about history, before you try to tackle me with this stuff! The Geneva Conventions have been around since 1894 but we were NEVER a party to them.
There have been 4 Geneva conventions and the one everyone refers to is the one ratified in 1950.
The Constitution has been around since 1776!
Article VI US Constitution
(Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.)
There again the detainees will be provided these things even though they dont fall under Geneva. However I still stand firm on the fact that they should have Military Tribunals, instead of clogging up our Court System with this crap like Zacarias Moussaoui did.
I posted this here for you so there would be no more confusion on this issue I only went as far as article 4 the article that seems to drive you Liberals nuts and what we are abiding to!
I will post a link to the ENTIRE Geneva Conventions at the bottom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now in the kindest gentlest words I can think of to explain this to you is READ IT!!
These are "Enemy Combatants"
that dont fall under Geneva! Yet we afford them the rights Geneva provides.
They DONT wear Uniforms, they dont have a Government or even the Pretence of a Government, THEY ARE A TERRORIST GROUP! (Which I suppose you could consider them an armed Malitia) but they still dont fall under Geneva guidelines!
You need to remember Mrs Green when all these documents were written they werent written with TERRORIST groups in mind!
The Terrorists are actually lucky, we abide by Geneva even if it doesnt apply to terrorists, and we afford them more rights than they ever have given us.
And this bizzare notion that we won WW1, WW2, Viet Nam, or some of these other War's and Conflicts we have been in without some form of torture or I should say "Uncomfortable Treatment" on our part just simply isnt true. Dont believe me talk to a Vet!
Again I say they are getting alot better treatment than what is being afforded and has EVER been afforded OUR Troops in EVERY Conflict!
We dont gouge out eyes, cut off limbs, cut people up till they bleed, we do NONE of this, and if you look at our detainees in GITMO, they even get a copy of the Koran! We have NEVER been so kind to "Enemy Combatants".
Yet the enemy can cut off our Soldiers heads, drag them down the street and torture them then light them on fire. NOW THAT'S TORTURE!
If I had MY way about it these Terrorist nutjobs would be feeling ALOT more than just "Discomfort"
Sorry Mrs Green, before you draw me into a battle of wits you better make sure you are ARMED!!!
Geneva Conventions
Constitution Of The United States Of America
Declaration Of Independence
Bill Of Rights
Ata girl Marie, I couldn't have stated it any better. Ooorah! Them's is the "just facts Ma'am".
We afford the treatment to the prisoners we take that our adversaries do not even consider.
The US has learned from years of experience that even though our adversaries like the Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese and North Vietnamese would treat our prisoners inhumanely in the true sense of the word. We have always afforded the prisoners we take with fair and humane treatment with few exceptions. These have been hard learned lessons and apparently Mrs. Green and her complaining liberal contemporaries would care to visit the terrorist's prison camp to see how the prisoners they take are treated by al- qaida & co.
I have been in the position earlier in my life Mrs. Green that if I were to be taken prisoner for the things the US Navy sent me out to do I would have been better off killing myself rather than be taken prisoner. Those Islamic assholes wouldn't be putting dog collars on me and playing pyriamid stack-on they would have been raping and really, as in "real torturing" and then murdering me. So don't give me that silly crap about how George Bush is torturing prisoners, it's just not true and you know it is a lie so quit saying it.
There's nothing worse than someone repeating a lie that they know for certain is lie.
"Mrs Green, I wish you would learn a thing or two about history, before you try to tackle me with this stuff! The Geneva Conventions have been around since 1894 but we were NEVER a party to them. --Marie's T.C.
You're wishing I would learn a thing or two about history?
Oy. Vey! I'm beginning to better understand the conservative mind. Conservatives actually do create their own reality--screw the facts! If they don't fit the conservative reality--ignore them.
It's a dangerous and ignorant way to live, Marie.
Thanks for being so smug and self-assured about your error. Battle of wits, eh?
U.S. Ratification of the Geneva Convention (1882)
The U.S. Congress ratified the Geneva Convention in (1882), which gave the American Red Cross an official basis for inclusion in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Following years of extensive lobbying by Clara Barton and like-minded individuals, President James Garfield agreed that the 1864 Geneva Convention Treaty (Treaty of Geneva) should be signed. However, he was assassinated before he could sign the document.
On March 1, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the treaty. The Senate ratified it on March 16, 1882. The United States was the 32nd nation to sign the document, agreeing to protect the wounded during wartime.
Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882. By the Fourth Geneva Convention some 47 nations had ratified the agreements.
The United States has signed onto all the subsequent Geneva Conventions and their protocols.
PS. George Bush is pro-torture.
Ata girl Marie, I couldn't have stated it any better. Ooorah! Them's is the "just facts Ma'am".
Oh, and way to go, jg. You do Marie no favor by cheering her on in her ignorance--or maybe you do because you don't know what you're talking about either. "Them's is the "just facts Ma'am?"
You made an assumption that Marie knew what she was talking about when she stated "The Geneva Conventions have been around since 1894 but we were NEVER a party to them." Instead of a simple fact check, you swalled that whole and even congratulated her!
And why do you suppose you did this?
Because I wrote a post about the Geneva Conventions and you and Marie as so sure that someone like me could never, never state anything approaching the truth. So you trash what I say and wallow in your factless triumph.
It's quite telling about who the people are that so blindly follow the Bush regime.
If you and Marie are so wrong about when we signed onto the Geneva Conventions, could you possibly be in error on other facts?
Or are you both so prideful that you could never admit to a mistake?
Sorta like your president?
Pitiful. All of it.
Ata girl Marie, I couldn't have stated it any better. Ooorah! Them's is the "just facts Ma'am".
Oh, and way to go, jg. You do Marie no favor by cheering her on in her ignorance--or maybe you do because you don't know what you're talking about either. "Them's is the "just facts Ma'am?"
You made an assumption that Marie knew what she was talking about when she stated "The Geneva Conventions have been around since 1894 but we were NEVER a party to them." Instead of a simple fact check, you swalled that whole and even congratulated her!
And why do you suppose you did this?
Because I wrote a post about the Geneva Conventions and you and Marie as so sure that someone like me could never, never state anything approaching the truth. So you trash what I say and wallow in your factless triumph.
It's quite telling about who the people are that so blindly follow the Bush regime.
If you and Marie are so wrong about when we signed onto the Geneva Conventions, could you possibly be in error on other facts?
Or are you both so prideful that you could never admit to a mistake?
Sorta like your president?
Pitiful. All of it.
Mrs Green,
U.S. Ratification of the Geneva Convention (1882)
The U.S. Congress ratified the Geneva Convention in (1882), which gave the American Red Cross an official basis for inclusion in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Following years of extensive lobbying by Clara Barton and like-minded individuals, President James Garfield agreed that the 1864 Geneva Convention Treaty (Treaty of Geneva) should be signed. However, he was assassinated before he could sign the document.
On March 1, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the treaty. The Senate ratified it on March 16, 1882. The United States was the 32nd nation to sign the document, agreeing to protect the wounded during wartime.
Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882. By the Fourth Geneva Convention some 47 nations had ratified the agreements.
The United States has signed onto all the subsequent Geneva Conventions and their protocols.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs Green maybe I should have carified what I said but I had no idea you woudlnt even read what you yourself posted!
I should have said The United States wasnt a part of the Geneva Conventions in 1864, we enetered into them later! I didnt mean to say we were NEVER a part of them EVER!
Have Mercy!
In 1864 President Arthur said the treaty "Should be signed" but yes he was assasinated before it could be that's why we were not a party to it THEN! However we laid the groundwork for the entire Accords and Conventions.
I wish you would be a little more clear as to what part of the Geneva convestions you are referring to, some of them we were not a party to and some we were.
Which one exactly are you talking about?
First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949) ?
Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X) ?
Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949) ?
Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV) ?
Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 2 August 2006 it had been ratified by 166 countries. ?
Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of 2 August 2006 it had been ratified by 162 countries. ?
Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of 2 August 2006 it had been ratified by two countries and signed but not yet ratified by an additional 74 countries. ?
The adoption of the First Convention followed the foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. The text is given in the Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference.?
The adoption of the First Convention followed the foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. The text is given in the Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference.
Other conventions of the United Nations taking place in Geneva and agreements signed there have become part of international and national laws, but are not to be confused with the above-mentioned treaties though they may be referred to as "Geneva Conventions." These include the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1967), and others.
Then we have all the Geneva Accords!!!
Which part of which Treaty, Protocol, or Accord are you reffering to when you say "George Bush is in favor of torture?
I will say it again Mrs Green, what would YOU do to get information out of detainees that would prevent another attack on our Country?
Would you offer them a hug, a doughnut and a cup of coffee? Gee that will work.
I opt for the Chili Peppers and a Freezer.
Again Mrs. Green you have to spanked for being a bad girl. The US did sign the The conventions of 1882 that you have mentioned but it wasn't until years later (1929) under the Third Geneva Convention that the treatment of prisoners come into the picture.
The Fourth convention makes clear the ambiguities generated by the third convention and to update after WWII. None of the prisoners in Guantanamo fall under any of the specifications outlined in any of the conventions and they certainly aren't covered by the US Constitution because they have no rights under the US Constitution unless they are citizens and they can be excuted (after we extract all the info we can out of them).
That is what we are talking about, the treatment of Prisoners isn't it?
The first two conventions only deal with battlefield casualties and the establishment of the red cross and red crecent, the second makes an addition to include combatants at sea.
How come I always have to point out to you that distracting to another subject and obscuring the issue will not work.
It is a typical employ of your kind to cloud the issues being discussed because you do not want to face the facts.
Prisoners being held by the US are being treated fairly and as a matter fact more fairly then at any other time in the history of US warfare. More fairly than they would have treated me but that doesn't count to people like you does it Mrs. Green. Your emotions for GWB is peeking out from behind that facade now.
I still don't understand your statement Mrs. Green that we won WWII and didn't use torture. Where did you hear that? We did what we had to do to defeat the Nips and Gerrys in WWII and that includes dropping two Nuclear weapons on them. In war, you completely defeat your enemy until he is destroyed or he surrenders! That's why the current generation of dems cannot win wars, they are weak and have no stomach to win.
JG,
That is what we are talking about, the treatment of Prisoners isn't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank's for clearing all that up, I was getting confused because she is all over the place with this.
Here I was tring to find out about the treatment of detainees in 1882! LMAO
I was thinking WTF? lol
I still don't understand your statement Mrs. Green that we won WWII and didn't use torture. Where did you hear that? We did what we had to do to defeat the Nips and Gerrys in WWII and that includes dropping two Nuclear weapons on them. In war, you completely defeat your enemy until he is destroyed or he surrenders! That's why the current generation of dems cannot win wars, they are weak and have no stomach to win.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She lost me on that one too!
I guess she forgot we intered the Japanese during WW2!
But it's typical for the Democrats to change the subject, I mean this post wasnt even about that it was suppose to be about understanding a leaked classified document!
Why is it the times only gets something right part of the time and the rest of the time they hold back old stories that have no merit when it comes close to election time? Everybody knows what their up to/
Dawn,
Why is it the times only gets something right part of the time and the rest of the time they hold back old stories that have no merit when it comes close to election time? Everybody knows what their up to/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because they have to throw a real story in with all the garbage now and then to make themselves look as if they are still a reputable Newspaper which really doesnt work well because everyone knows the truth!
Post a Comment
<< Home