Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuraudo | Hacker News Reader

I remember reading as a kid that this is the kind of thing that an evil empire does. Now that I realize that evil empire is us, I don't understand how anyone can justify this horror show.

View on HN

1) it is a certain, very visible symbol of a certain type of approach to ‘terrorism’ that a large portion of the US population supports very strongly (do you remember all the comments for years about ‘glass parking lot’ re: the Middle East? I do.)

2) it opened a massive can of worms legally, and a huge mess related to what to do with detainees (some of which have now lost their original national citizenships and/or normal lives), as they are now basically wards of the US gov’t, with no existing legal framework to cover what to do. It wouldn’t surprise me if when it does get shutdown many of them end up being Refugees the US ends up supporting. Good luck explaining THAT to the voters.

So it’s a big legal and PR mess that there is little incentive to try to fix for any politician. Lots of downside, little upside.

Evil empire is the one that lost.

Alternatively, "empire" is synonymous with "evil" because a benign entity cannot be competitive enough to reach empire size.

I was pondering this when listening to stories of the fall of the Aztecs and the Inca empires (Fall of Civilizations podcast - some great hours-long stories there!). Officials from the Spanish empire came by and caused these meso- and south american empires to fall.

The empires that fell were indeed already warmongering, and dominating their part of the continent due to fighting successful wars and/or alliances. In that sense, it was "only" an empire taking down another. That viewpoint is however just the politics of the history. We can't forget how it affected the people.

You mean ie. Empire State Building can be referred to as Evil State Building?

So, did the US win in Afganistan?

Our entire reason for invading Afghanistan was essentially to kill Bin Laden, so yes?

I mean, considering he was found in Pakistan, close to their security forces ( ostensibly allies of the US) while the US military was pumping literal trillions into trying to control the neighboring tribal country. All the while desperately (and until yesterday) denying the fact that the Saudis had anything to do with a terrorist attack concocted by a Saudi and executed by Saudis.

I guess it’s a win, but in that case I think the entire concept of the pyrrhic victory needs to be renamed…

The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden for trial in any country other than the US weeks after the attacks [1][2]. If there reason to invade Afghanistan was solely to kill Bin Laden surely they'd just take the Taliban up on their offer.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/15/b...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.te...

For trial, it's unlikely they would have sent him somewhere likely to kill him. In my opinion, they were offering a sort of justice but the US was interested in revenge.

I’m not sure I’d expect that enemy combatants could expect the same legal protections as someone who committed a crime in the US?

I mean look at the Nuremberg trials. If there was ever an illusion of justice it was that trial.

German citizens were convicted of “wars of aggression” against Poland while the USSR, who collaborated with the Nazis and committed war crimes against the Polish people, weren’t even on trial but rather judges.

> enemy combatants

this is literally the core fascist tautology that the article is critiquing, gotta love the uncritical regurgitation of it

Read up on international laws of war and get back to me. The US didn’t make that term up.

you missed the point, which is that many of the people in Gitmo _were not_ "enemy combatants"

Sorry I wasn't able to determine that was your statement from your comment on "core fascist tautology" which sounds like internet warrior speak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com