Poignant end to the article: "America, what has happened to you?"
However, the response has been staggeringly perverse; we have had hundreds of thousands of people die (you don't even hear about the daily bombings in food markets in Iraq or Afghanistan now and that's without counting Syria, Lybia, Egypt etc.), we have Orwellian surveillance which only a few years ago would have been dismissed as crazy tin-foil hat nonsense but for the fact Edward Snowden revealed all the theories were true and things were much worse than even the tin foil hat people yelling at secret-spy-trees said. And that does not start to cover the censorship (see elsewhere on HN today for that).
The response has grown a whole industry of fear-mongering and schemes to stop crazy make-believe terrorist plots which simply defy the laws of physics (and common sense) yet no-one will tell The Emperor that he has no clothes on. Well, not anyone he is prepared to listen to. The clothes makers have become insanely rich in the process of making their wares too. What's a few dead people in far off places if you're getting rich, right ?
Meantime, US judges complain about the crazy Catch-22 goalpost moving unfairness and still people languish innocently in Guantanimo and die in what can best be described as "unclear circumstances".
A nation founded on rebellion against unfair and unjust oppression, seeking life and liberty. Indeed, the question is "America, what has happened to you ?"
But also, what has happened to all the other countries who joined in this madness and keep it going ? They have responsibility too.
we have had hundreds of thousands of people die
It doesn't have to be so. You can take your productive energies elsewhere.
The entire premise is staggeringly stupid, and the disease that afflicts America is the same that has eaten every empire built on the premise of never-ending expansion and unending military dominance.
At that high of a level once a "war on X" is created and billions are poured into it, whole branches of industry are opened up, whole new government agencies are created, thousands are send to kill and thousands will be killed. Things just keep going because they already are going. It becomes a self-sustaining reaction.
But ask anyone that got "democracy" by the United States, not only in middle east, but for example in South America during the cold war, several african countries, and so on, and they will tell you that this behaviour from the US government is not unexpected, and that the US population approval (even if implicit and indirect) of it, is not unexpected either.
South Korea and Taiwan weren't true democracies until the 80s.
Transition from a dictatorship takes time.
IMHO, just because everyone calls a country with a foreign military base in the heart of it's capital a "democracy" doesn't make it so. I believe this kind of thinking is called normative ethics : "it's OK because it's the norm". I'll call Japan a democracy when there are no foreign military bases on it's soil, at least definitely not in the centre of the capital.
What have the Romans done for us?
And after all the characters rattle off a long list of things the Romans have done, and no one seems to want to hate the Romans anymore, Reg says:
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
I can't help but be reminded of that scene. Is the US perfect? Far from it, but the implication that the US is some pox on the world is just as absurd.
Edit: for anyone too young to know what the Life of Brian is, it's a comedy by Monthy Python.
Was it though? I've heard that repeated so often. If it was how come it was such a surprise to all the Sovietologists at the time?
The thing is, those that worked for the CIA thought they won because their spies did this and that. Those working for the Dept of State thought they won because this and that diplomatic trick. Those in Congress throughout the years thought they won because they enacted these economic sanctions and so they killed the "Bear".
The truth is probably that it would have collapsed with or without the help of anyone from outside.
So not sure if US should be thanked for liberating Latvia, Georgia and Poland , ironically, Soviet Union's polices and base system setup should be thanked because it was so rotten at the core.
But another thing is interesting, and it shows in your post. This thing is very dangerous and it is the very thing that many hate US for -- exceptionalism. It shows implicitly in your comment and it is often assumed in political debate. It is this idea that US is special in some objective sense. That it doesn't have to abide by rules. It shouldn't be judged by same criteria as everyone else.
Equating it to the Roman Empire. Attributing it wondeful qualities of slaying a the great Satan of Communism and so on.
> Is the US perfect? Far from it, but the implication that the US is some pox on the world is just as absurd.
It is good to find out if people judge US based on comparing it to other countries or to the propaganda image it presents of itself. I find the disconnect and hypocrisy that shows in in the latter is one reason people might dislike US.
In other words, it is because it tells others how "perfect" it is, that imperfections and transgressions that are excusable for other countries become very noticeably with US. Like say torture. Ok, Somalian government chops children's arms off say if they don't want to convert or something like that. It would not shock too many people to learn that for example. The fact that US engaged and probably still does engage in torture (even thought they've redefined it as whatever enhanced interrogations something) is very shocking and disturbing vis-a-vis the "we are the great human rights champions of the world" type proclamations.
> And after all the characters rattle off a long list of things the Romans have done, and no one seems to want to hate the Romans anymore, Reg says
I do. They raided and conquered the territory of my country, killed and destroyed many villages. Destroyed local culture and language and imposed theirs. It is easy to look back and say well ok, Romans turned out pretty ok. We had roads and wheels. How do we know that not having Romans invade would have turned out? Maybe it would have been even better? We can't quite run that experiment to check.
Anyway this comparison with the Roman Empire doesn't quite work well for me on multiple levels, as you can see, sorry ;-)
And the cause for the Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s? The Cold War. Starting with the war in Afghanistan in 1979, funded of course by the US, this aggravated the stagnation and then led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985. (The USSRs economy was somewhere between 30% and 50% that of the US at the time). Couple with added global military pressure from the west caused the Soviets to put military buildup at the expense of domestic development. This kept the USSR's GDP at the same level during the first half of the 1980s. As spending out stripped both growth and capacity, again due to military spending, the rest as they say is history.
I don't see how that would have happened without the military pressure from the west. Look at China, it didn't have those costs, and it's still around, as is Cuba, Venezuela, etc. they didn't call it the Cold War for nothing, and it was expensive!
You can't stop counting after reaching lucky numbers!
But thanks for reminding me, another example: the US liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban.
Yes, only after it aided the Taliban in the takeover of Afghanistan
As a side note: is very funny to watch Rambo III and see the taliban portrayed as well meaning freedom fighters
Stagnation was caused by mismanagement, people not working, cutting corners, corruption. The war in Afghanistan was big but that country had worse wars to deal with. Chernobyl disaster was another blow, don't think that was US industrial sabotage, it didn't need to be. Incompetence, cutting corners and inefficiency were the reason. But a drop in oil prices in the 80s is what probably did it in.
> Couple with added global military pressure from the west caused the Soviets to put military buildup at the expense of domestic development.
By that time USSR had more nukes ready to be launched than US. US threat wasn't perceived any worse than it was during the Cuban crisis.
> Look at China
Doesn't China have military pressure from the West? In fact China had to enact some serious economic reforms without which one can argue it might have met the same fate.
Also China, Cuba and Venezuela don't have as much internal fragmentation. Even after 70 years of occupation there was enough national sentiment and tension to easily break off all those Soviet republics. So it is very different.
In the end, yeah, we like to believe what we want to believe. You want to think US did this great work at eliminating the great Evil Empire. That US "won" due to its hard work. I don't agree with that. The proverbial "Bear" got sick and rotted away from within.
The US is currently at war with both Al Qaida and the Taliban. Members of these organizations which are captured are allowed to be held as POWs until hostilities are formally ended.
What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side.
Release them? What about the prisoners who are 'high risk'?
Try them? You're not really supposed to charge prisoners of war with a crime. I mean I guess that you can, but why? The US is still at war with them. They'll have to be exchanged for US prisoners eventually (the Taliban have one still, if memory serves).
This shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The Taliban and Al Qaida were always criminals. Its not like they are simply members of the Afghan and Iraqi armies that were present before the United States entered, they are a small minority of religious extremists that that are attempting to impose their idiotic beliefs on other nations.
With that in mind, those who are in Guantanamo that are suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaida should not be held indefinitely without charges or trial. If we have evidence, we should prosecute them. If not, we should release them after a reasonable amount of time.
I'm a former Soldier and I know how much it would suck to know in your heart that a person you detained, was in fact a terrorist, yet they walk due to a lack of evidence. However, if we don't observe the rule of law, there won't be an America to defend anymore.
I'm inclined to believe that quite a few of the people in Guantanamo are guilty. But we also know for a fact that certain groups, such as bounty hunters, were shipping lots of innocent folks off to prison simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to start looking for these innocents and set them free in a timely manner. We already have enough blood on our hands.
The Taliban detainees have always been provided full legal POW rights. This means that they must he released after hostilities have ended.
I may well he misinformed. If so please correct me.
The Taliban prisoners have not always been afforded full legal POW rights. What do you think the category of unlawful combatant is all about? You quote a bit of that in another comment, but appear not to comprehend what you're quoting.
Taliban prisoners were begrudgingly [allegedly, according to official statement] afforded POW privileges, not legal rights of POW status. There is a vast difference between the two. The privileges include meals, communication, and some other humane things. But the entire purpose of the unlawful combatant designation was to deny the legal status of POW altogether. This was done with disingenuous arguments denying the Taliban recognition as the government of Afghanistan, as well as denying satisfaction of other requirements under the Geneva Conventions that would require POW status. The Bush administration was adamant about denying Taliban captives POW status.
There is no requirement that unlawful combatants be released after hostilities are ended, nor has there ever been an offered picture of what it would mean for hostilities to end. Were these prisoners declared as POWs, they could never have their detainment and crimes reviewed, presided over, or decided by tribunals. That violates international law.
In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes.
I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue.
I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.
Well, the US did vote for the guy who said he would close Guantanamo. So it would seem most are better than this, but not the ones who matter.
According to him, this guy went to Afganistan for a cheap medical procedure and bounty hunters handed him in as a foreign combatant. None of us knows whether this is true or not, but the issue is that suspending judicial procedure is going to lead to horrific injustice - even if you're at war.
And the Taliban would never swap a high value American hostage for anyone, particularly if it was someone they'd never heard of.
Whether or not this guy was actually fighting with Taliban or Al Qaida is an important issue, but not really at the heart of the broader issue regarding Guantanamo detainees.
Then don't invoke it.
If anyone is being held without cause, or if the tribunals were insufficiently thorough, then yes it would be a horrible injustice!
Members of these organizations are are not held as POWs. They are held and classified as unlawful combatants. There has not been (and will not be) any formal end to hostilities like history has known. Instead, we've seen agreements that say occupations are ending and troops are being withdrawn, but nothing that states hostilities are formally ended and peace is obtained like most people expect to be in place. This has a lot to do with not bothering to be in declared states of war any longer, because that opens states up to massive legal consequences and responsibilities that states, particularly the US over the last 50 years, are particularly interested in avoiding.
> What else is the US supposed to do? These men didn't necessarily commit crimes - prisoners of war are simply fighting for their country or side.
Charge them with crimes and provide evidence of their guilt or release them. Many detainees have not been "simply fighting for their country or side", which is why they are not POWs. They have been classified as unlawful combatants, removing their legal protections and dooming them to permanent incarceration.
> Try them? You're not really supposed to charge prisoners of war with a crime. I mean I guess that you can, but why?
You absolutely are supposed to charge POWs with a crime or immediately repatriate them upon conclusion of hostilities. But, again, these are not POWs. The US has gone to great pains to deny that protection, opting instead for a policy that affords them what we are supposed to accept as POW privileges in place of, you know, the rule of and fidelity to law. And because there are no official peace agreements that will ever be made for a war that was never declared, there is little chance we will ever see these prisoners released at the conclusion of hostilities--because there are no conclusions. There are only ceremonial conclusions accompanied by agreements to withdraw troops--which does not translate into a legal requirement to repatriate Gitmo's captives.
I mean.. I'm not quite sure if I trust Wikipedia here. How can you explain this combination:
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
United States declared a state of emergency on September 11, 2001, this state of emergency has been maintained without pause into the present.[62]
---
It's like .. an ongoing double emergency?
No, its not. That it, it is in a declared state of emergency (often more than one -- sometimes very many at a time) since then, but neither the one declared March 9, 1933, nor all the rest combined create "essential martial law". Each such declaration invokes specific statutory emergency powers, and while (e.g., under the Insurrection Act) those powers could include martial law or something like it, none currently in force do.
These men are not prisoners of war. The United States cannot declare them as prisoners of war without gross legal ramifications.
Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthas...
Policy does not equal protection under and adherence to laws of war.
(Not to mention that war was never declared, so hostilities have already formally ended - or rather, never formally started)