Tuesday, 2 September 2014
Steven Sotloff may have been killed at the same time as James Foley, according to some U.S. defense and intelligence officials. It seems the Islamic State had no interest in negotiating his release in return for stopping airstrikes. The feeling appears to be mutual -- two thirds of the U.S. public support airstrikes against IS according to polls taken after Foley's murder. The latest atrocity seems unlikely to lessen that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Well of course ISIL had no intention of negotiating for his release. The sum they were asking was far too high and it is well known that we don't negotiate with terrorists.
It also appears that they are falling into the same trap as Bin Laden did. That is, misjudging the American people. Continue on as they are doing and they will be convincing us that boots on the ground, even if limited, are a very good idea. Honestly did they really think we would back down by using terror tactics? Obama may not be Bush but the American people are still the same and that "don't tread on us" still runs deeply in our psyche.
The White House is sending 350 more troops to Iraq.
Good article by Thomas Friedman.
Hat tip: Lee C.
Yep, hard to disagree with that.
I'll disagree with this:
"Third, our allies are not fully allies: While the Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti governments are pro-American, wealthy Sunni individuals, mosques and charities in these countries are huge sources of funds, and fighters, for ISIS."
It wasn't just "individuals and charities" that propped up ISIS. It was the very governments mentioned along with Turkey. As long as the ISIS beast limited its beastliness against Assads regime it was A-OK with those governments and others also...
Maliki's government didn't seem to think foreign journalists were worth more than $60 (three twenties), [which was what Sahhaf 2 Qassim Atta offered foreign correspondents before taking them around on a tour] so can you blame the US gov? plus, what was this freelancer doing in Syria and Iraq for months? People pay the price of their own stupidity, and sometimes the stupidity of others (ISIS, ISF, US and Iraqi govs and whoever was paying this guy a check)
But hey good excuse to spend a few billion dollars for airstrikes, ay? :-)
More cost-effective that way.
"and it is well known that we don't negotiate with terrorists." - Lynney the Witch
[of course not. because YOU are the Terrists :--)]
So You can say that with a straight face, Lynney? Really? Taliban ecxchange just few weeks ago? (*need I bring up other "historical" examples?)
I certainly think you need to provide "other ‘historical’ examples". Your invocation of the Bowe Bergdahl case was pretty weak.
Zeyad, you've gotta give 'em a break here. If an Empire can't come up with a plausible reason for dropping a few billion Dollars worth of bombs how can it build new ones? Sometimes you just need to make room you know. Deplete the stockpile and build new, larger and more expensive bombs. Puts a lot of money in a few but important pockets, that.
"Sometimes you just need to make room you know."
This is not one of those times; we got plenty of room.
"and it is well known that we don't negotiate with terrorists." - Lynney the Witch
Taliban ecxchange just few weeks ago? Zeyad
Good point. Many people here were upset with that trade.
At what point do we re-classify an organization that has, in the past, been labeled a terrorist organization, combatants in a war, subject to all the laws pertaining to warfare? This question was raised with the detainees at Gitmo too.
This was a decision made at the top. I for one would not have liked to have had to make that decision.
[of course not. because YOU are the Terrists :--)] Zeyad
Not to those people who have been asking for our help. :)
But hey good excuse to spend a few billion dollars for airstrikes, ay? :-)
Actually I don't think it has risen that high, yet. And before it does I am thinking Obama will be gathering a coalition of like-minded people to help repel ISIL. They really are not well liked, you know.
As long as the ISIS beast limited its beastliness against Assads regime it was A-OK with those governments and others also... Marcus
It seems that a lot of people fell into that same trap, Marcus. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
"This question was raised with the detainees at Gitmo too."
The guys swapped out for Bergdahl were detainees at Gitmo. Probably unprosecutable as POWs.
[Lynnette]: "At what point do we re-classify an organization that has, in the past, been labeled a terrorist organization, combatants in a war, subject to all the laws pertaining to warfare? This question was raised with the detainees at Gitmo too."
The detainees at Gitmo were never treated as "subject to all the laws pertaining to warfare". They were detained illegally, treated illegally, and tortured illegally. It's another one of those things that has come back to haunt the US.
I suspect the UK government are sorry just about now they don't have the cojones to set up their own Gitmo. They are about to face similar issues as the US did -- except this time they are dealing with their own citizens returning from jihadi exploits abroad. Last time they played fast and loose with the law, and with torture, they locked up multiple groups of innocent Irish people accused of IRA terrorism.
There's always excuses for bypassing the law in the face of a perceived immediate threat. It rarely works out well.
"They were detained illegally…"
I think that part's not necessarily true (not as to all of them anyway); some of those guys were clearly legally detainable as prisoners of war. That designation gets a little dicey with some others, but some were clearly within the parameters of POW a designation. (and some of them were, or, at least would have been, chargable as criminals not entitled to POW status, but that's a whole ‘nother can of worms). However one looks at it, the Bush administration's attempt to concoct a whole new classification known as "illegal combatants" outside the purview of the Geneva Conventions has been generally repudiated in our courts. It's proven to have been a fairly unmitigated disaster. Only a few die-hard neo-cons, blind partisans, or the legally illiterate fail to recognize that by now.
I was saving myself a few words there. Their initial detention wasn't necessarily illegal, but their ongoing detention was in many or most cases.
Yeah, Lynney blah blah blah Good ol' US of A let's wave the Star-Spangled Flag. I won't bother to read that dribble
By the way, al-Baghdadi al-Duri the Bogeyman of ISIS just tweeted this a few days ago:
'When I was in Bucca Camp, an American soldier said pick one of the two: either you get raped or you get killed. And Praise be to Allah, I am still alive today.'
Petey you forgot to mention the subcontracted camps in Arab countries run by Mukhabarat and Eastern European cuntries like our friends Ukraine and Poland and Romania among others. You bet those guys once released after torture by Mukhabarat on behalf of old bumbling Uncle Sammy won't be all warm and fuzzy when they see ANY American be it a 'journalist' or 'contractor' or whatever
What goes around comes around bitches
As to the problem of Americans gone to fight with ISIS… I believe we already have all the necessary laws in place, have had for a long time, to prosecute those fellas when they return, if they return, and if we can identify them as having gone to fight with ISIS.
"What goes around comes around bitches"
You keep that in mind when your boys have enjoyed their new jihadi allies long ‘nuff to be squealing for help gettin’ rid of ‘em.
I won't bother to read that dribble.
Hmmm...well, if you won't bother to read it, how do you know it's dribble?
'When I was in Bucca Camp, an American soldier said pick one of the two: either you get raped or you get killed. And Praise be to Allah, I am still alive today.'
Sounds more like his fellow prisoners were the danger. And apparently al-Baghdadi al-Duri doesn't see anything wrong with the practice, since he is very good at selling people as commodities.
The guys swapped out for Bergdahl were detainees at Gitmo.
Obama's way of cleaning house?
The detainees at Gitmo were never treated as "subject to all the laws pertaining to warfare".
Never said they were. Because they were detained as fighting for an organization rather than a state some people felt that they were not covered. So arose the question of what forum to try them in, military or civilian criminal court. But Lee already alluded to this point.
The Taliban, while labeled a terrorist organization, at least were fighting for a country. AQ was never fighting for anything other than itself.
And while ISIL may have declared their caliphate a state, unless it is recognized by others in the world as such, it will merely be a terrorist safe haven.
They are about to face similar issues as the US did -- except this time they are dealing with their own citizens returning from jihadi exploits abroad.
The problem they will run into is the same as the one we were looking at. That is, how much information can be disclosed in court without jeopardizing any ongoing intelligence gathering. So, will it be civilian criminal court or military?
"Obama's way of cleaning house?"
It would seem likely. There's a fairly good chance they could have won unconditional release through the Article III courts on a writ of Habeas Corpus as soon as we officially end combat operations in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court has left itself some wiggle room to avoid that outcome, but not a lot, when they suggested that the Geneva Conventions would apply. (Hamdan v Rumsfeld)
Post Script:
"The Taliban, while labeled a terrorist organization, at least were fighting for a country."
The Taliban were never actually named as a terrorist organization by the State Department. (Part of the reason the Taliban detainees would have had such a good chance at writ of Habeas Corpus when the combat operation in Afghanistan is terminated.)
The Taliban were never actually named as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
Yes, I did notice that. A bit of a conflict of thinking perhaps. I was looking at this:
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.
[Zeyad]: "Petey you forgot to mention the subcontracted camps in Arab countries run by Mukhabarat ... You bet those guys once released after torture ... won't be all warm and fuzzy... What goes around comes around bitches"
I agree. I've always consistently maintained that rendition practices by the US were not only illegal but immoral, stupid and counterproductive. Gives people (you included) a stick to deservedly beat them with.
Mind you, I doubt if that Jihadi John chappie doing the gleeful head chopping in Iraq needs much of an excuse. He's most likely a pampered citizen of the UK who's decided to get his knickers in a twist about the "oppression of Muslim bruvvas in Muslim lands". I doubt there will be too many sorry to see a JDAM land on his sorry jihadi-chic outfitted self. (And no, it won't be because he's brown, or a Muslin bruvva, but because he's an ugly stain on humanity and his actions are beneath contempt).
[Lynnette]: "Because they were detained as fighting for an organization rather than a state some people felt that they were not covered. So arose the question of what forum to try them in, military or civilian criminal court."
But you don't (or shouldn't) get to spend a decade hmming and hawing about which it ought to be. Justice delayed is justice denied, and all that...
"But you don't (or shouldn't) get to spend a decade hmming and
hawing about which it ought to be."
If they'd been designated as POWs in the beginning they'd have spent that decade in custody anyway. Had there been evidence to support revoking their POW designation, that would have been legal too, even if they'd spent time incarcerated under a POW designation. They would, however, have had to been treated as POWs--specifically, no torture, no abuse, Red-Cross inspections, etc. But you're not going to find anybody here who's ever done other than denounce those excesses. Thankfully, those days are behind us (not to say the remnant neo-cons and FoxNews personalities don't still pine for the "good ol' days").
Agree with that, except to say those days aren't quite behind you ... your enemies in the world will use it as a stick to beat you with for decades to come.
Well… Bush was inexperienced, and Cheney was afraid. Bad combination for the moment.
I see ISIL has managed to recruit another Minnesotan, a 19 year old Somali girl this time. She is apparently in Syria to play "nurse" to ISIL fighters. I haven't read it yet, but a girl from Scotland has also been recruited. Foolish children to fall for the big bad wolf in sheep's clothing.
Correction, it looks like the Scottish girl was recruited last fall.
Apparently the NSA is sending our government details on Americans that might be travelling to Iraq/Syria to join IS via Ireland. (Ironic that our own government wouldn't give us details on the number of American soldiers travelling to Iraq via Ireland during the occupation).
Meanwhile it's reckoned that about 30 of our own Muslim population have done so -- about 0.07%.
Some people deserve to be head chopped.
'Nuff said .
OUta here.
[Zeyad]: "Some people deserve to be head chopped."
1) Not extra-judicially without trial;
2) Not, in the case of a war, if they are civilian non-combatants;
3) Not in any case inhumanely or for propaganda or terror purposes;
4) not ever. We don't chop off peoples heads even if they are condemned to death.
In wartime just shoot them if your opponents need to get killed. In peace time capital punishment is barbaric and unjust and should not be practiced at all.
Only savage countries practice the death penalty. The USA is one of those savage countries, small surprise that.
♪♫ Another one bites the dust ♪♫
The US has apparently decided to fight fire with fire.
And this actually appears to be rather clever. I'm surprised.
I had sort of assumed that the people who were persuaded by IS propaganda would love that sort of stuff -- beheading the agents of the Great Satan, crucifying kuffirs, blowing up Shi'ite heretics, shooting Satan worshippers. What's not to love? I'd be a bit concerned your State Department is missing that this stuff is actually attractive to some people. Our Iraqi friend certainly seems to think so.
It is targeting an American audience. For those that are still reachable it may remind them that there are drawbacks to the life of an Islamic State denizen. It puts a different twist on something already out there.
Our Iraqi friend seems to think a lot of things. Not quite sure where he gets his ideas from.
"Sun Sep 07, 01:45:00 pm"
That was just friggin’ juvenile. Man you have fallen!
Bwahahahahaha! I have the power...
Zeyad, careful or I'll come down there and wash your mouth out with soap. I've wanted to for quite some time now...
Haha. Found the blog soap, Lynnette! Or should I say, the drain cleaner.
Petey gonna start deleting all your pontifications from ma Blog too ;----)
all da way back
That would be nice Zeyad. I don't want to be associated with the cess pit you've turned it into. Plus, you're forgetting that you're not the only one with a copy of the archives should I ever want to revisit them.
What I am curious about is what happened to you. I've known a lot of people suffering from depression who find it hard to empathise with others while they are going through their own pain. But I haven't encountered anyone who's turned into quite such an asshole as you, especially one who's still trying to shake people down for a bit of cash at the same time. It seems almost schizophrenic. Care to enlighten us?
(P.S. I permanently deleted your previous dozen posts. Why bother with that stuff -- you know it's not going to last beyond a few minutes?)
. It seems almost schizophrenic. Care to enlighten us?
I think you just did, Petes.
Takes less time to delete 'em than it takes you to post 'em.
"…I aint done with you YEt"
Zeyad Kasem @ Sun Sep 07, 07:11:00 pm
Well… Come ahead on.
Zeyad,
You know I posted that comment right before we had our discussion don't you?
There is an hour difference in the time stamp from our time here.
It is now 10:48PM
Not sure what you're posting about but I could hazard a guess ;)
I intentionally set up the blog time zone to be Eastern time ... Central +01:00, Ireland -05:00
I remember you mentioned that before. Zeyad and I are in the same time zone, which is behind an hour.
Post a Comment