Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Mike Miller's RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS BY RUSSIAN SENATOR MIKHAIL MARGELOV on FIGHTING TERRORISM

This is a credible and not uncommon opinion voiced by Russian Senator Mikhail Margelov regarding the recent Bush acknowledgement that the United States does indeed possess secret prisons on the soil of countries that will tolerate such gulags. Mr. Margolov mentions that suspected terrorists were compelled to confess by pouring cold water on them while they were in giant refrigerators. I would like to remind Mr. Margelov that an entire catalog of tortures were used against suspected terrorists, to include waterboarding, drugging, and a variety of non-lethal and non-scarring corporal punishment regimens, to also include extreme sleep depravation, and psychological torture using threats of attack by dogs and threats of death. (Probably these tortures were used with one another, and not just one at a time) In fact, the extremely cruel, unusual and barbaric nature of the methods presently being used against POWs/kidnap victims/detainees are so severe that the U.S. government needs to perpetrate these crimes off of American soil. I would not be so critical of these practices except that it is likely many innocent and falsely denounced persons were given these barbaric tortures. I have no sympathy or empathy for a "true terrorist".

However we should all remember, that occupying armies through the ages have also faced the problem of opposing/partisan forces, and historically some of the partisans/citizens that were denounced, were denounced because of personal problems with their neighbors or enemies in the community, not merely because of their actual and legitimate partisan/resistance actions.

One of the problems in this "war on terror" that is being waged today is that when the United States began the criminal action of attacking Iraq, we put our own soldiers in a position where they are viewed as "targets" to be resisted by a "partisan movement" . There is no fine line between partisan actions and terrorism. Partisan actions are attacks against any invading army by the indigenous people to dislodge the same invading army.

Terrorism can be defined by a violent attack against a non military civilian presence, to scare or coerce them into acting differently, or voting differently, or otherwise changing their collective methods or policies.

Clearly, the deaths of unarmed Iraqi citizens "en masse" in Iraq are terrorist attacks, but also clearly, there is a mixture of terrorist and partisan attacks happening in Iraq today. This is a sad but predictable feature of sending a professional army to perpetrate a giant war crime. The professional, and essentially good hearted common enlisted American soldier, bears the brunt of partisan style attacks, attacks that have always been understood globally, and historically, as a reasonable and prudent thing for an indigenous population to do, which is, REPEL INVADERS. For example, George Bush doesn't dispute the right of the French underground to resist the Germans, or the right of Philippines partisans to repel the Japanese. When U.S. soldiers are attacked in Iraq, they are not victims of terrorism; they were attacked by a partisan force. It is currently arguable, that because there is a puppet regime/US approved government in place in Iraq today, that the U.S. military is not in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore, attacks against them, are not partisan attacks, but terrorist attacks.

There is clearly a giant section of Iraqi people who view U.S. forces as invaders to be repelled. I passionately agree with attacking the Taliban government of Afghanistan, because they were actively assisting Osama bin Laden after his 9/11 attack in New York, but I disagree with the torture of Afghan citizens suspected of terrorism for the reasons I have already stated. It is also only a matter of time before the U.S. policy of kidnapping and torturing suspected "terrorists" becomes the "de rigeur" practice for suppressing any political and social decent from U.S. citizens who are clearly non-violent altogether. The mistreatment of POWs and suspected "terrorists" will not only motivate victims of these measures and their families to sympathize with forces unfriendly to America, these same brutal practices will very likely provide future enemy countries some erroneous validation for similar mistreatment of U.S. servicepersons that become POWs themselves.

What kind of credibility does the US state department enjoy when complaining about mistreatment of US citizens?

5 Comments:

Blogger BEING HAD said...

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. To me the point is that the usage of fascist tactics as a way to make political points is exactly the sort of thing that the US has claimed to be against. America, via propaganda, is supposed to stand for freedom and democracy. Certainly there is the need for preparedness, so our president says' in preparation for potential terrorist attacks. Fair enough. But is there also the need to create problems so that there is both a need to employ the military and top throw away the ideals of human rights in the process?

At the end of the Margolis article I wrote that I was being both hassled by the Polish Judicial system and being shut out by the US embassy at this time. It is clearly obvious to me that using Poland for black ops and prison sites colored the thinking of the embassy people in their dealings with me, if not outright being the reason for making me a target. It is as easy to think that all they did was to turn their heads as it is that they had been setting me up from the first. Why keep a nobody/playwright/bicyclist from going to Belarus? Because they were trying to manipulate a situation in which they didn't belong.

Now, in a court of law, would this be considered circumstantial evidence? Perhaps. But how about some shark of an international lawyer out there agreeing to help find out how real my situation was for say…1/3 of $125,000,000?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006  
Anonymous Mike Miller said...

Adam, you mentioned that the American public should take appropriate action at the next presidential election and correct the problems we have with our current president/war criminal and his cadre of co-conspirators. You are absolutely correct when you propose this idea, but you are not promoting something that is equally important and necessary. That is for the countries of Western Europe and the rest of the world to indict George Bush and his accomplices for
1) War Crimes against the Country of Iraq, and
2)the kidnap/torture of victims from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006  
Blogger BEING HAD said...

I don't think that this is going to happen any time soon. In fact, I am not convinced that Americans can even see the difference.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006  
Anonymous Mike Miller said...

Of course before a president/dictator can be indicted for war crimes, his country must be first completely destroyed militarily. It is obvious that America, not only can't be vanquished in a military fashion, but the American people don't deserve such treatment. The people of Western Europe and the world need to Indict George Bush and his accomplices regardless of whether the U.S. government cooperates or not. If need be, George Bush and his fellow war criminals should be tried "en abstencia". The people of America are NOT guilty of War Crimes, our President and his cronies are the ones who have committed these actions. The people of Europe and the World need to INDICT him and bring him to the bar of justice in the Netherlands at Den Haag and examine his/their actions using the same measurement instruments that were used to decide the guilt of innocence of the Nazis after WW2.

It is outrageous and obscene that George Bush would think that he can retroactively propose legislation in America to limit his criminal culpability before the world court. What if the same logic were applied in Berlin during WW2? What if Hitler wrote legislation that absolved him and the Nazis of their crimes? The simple fact is, that War Crimes cannot be absolved by writing legislation, or by fancy deceptive words. It is the nature of War Crimes themselves, that they can not be rectified or validated by the specific guilty parties. Perhaps the war crimes tribunals will find George Bush "not guilty". Anything could happen, but there are now 2600 dead American GI's and 20,000 US amputees as a result of the "war on terror" or operation Iraqi freedom,, or whatever this current mess is labeled to confuse global opinion. How many citizens of Iraq of all ages and sexes are now dead or maimed so George Bush could orchestrate the mugging of the Iraqi oil from the same people? So, in conclusion, both you and Russian Senator Margelov are correct with your observations,, but neither of you are "complete" enough or "succinct" enough to satisfy me. My opinions are not simply about the Iraqi war, the directly relate to TERRORISM. If the worlds POTENTIAL TERRORIST POOL, can understand, that War Criminals are punished, they will someday begin to have confidence in justice that doesn't simply explode in a marketplace, or fly into a giant building. I do not imply that 9/11 was somehow justifiable because of American politics. (I am an American, and an honorably discharged veteran, and even as I sharply criticize U.S. policies on Terrorism, my heart breaks over the magnitude of our loss on September 11.) I do imply that there are people alive today, and people who are not yet born, who will always remember that attack. The question is HOW they will remember it. Will they remember it as a victory against the EVIL AMERICANS who only punish others, but never themselves? Or perhaps will it be remembered as a TERRORIST ATTACK against the most fair and humane country in the world? Will it be inspiration to Muslim extremists, or will Muslims the world over, come to remember it, as their most shameful and criminal moment?

We Americans must show the world that we are the most fair, and most credible people in the world, we must not continue to show them that we are willing to forgive every war crime, and every misdeed but our own.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006  
Blogger BEING HAD said...

Firstly, Hitler did write such legislations during the war, including a glorious piece of legalese declaring where it was legal to take as a hostage a member of one's family as a way of insuring one's complete cooperation.

Secondly, it seems to be also true that there is a rising Anti-American opposition in the world. Lukashenka in particular, is a most vocal one at the center of this 'bi-polar' thinking. However, he also seems to agree with you about the USA's culpability. He even spoke directly to the USA in his speech to the UN Assembly last year: "Do you (the US) really wish to employ economic sanctions against our little country?" This turns out to be a veiled threat which preceded his selling arms to Venezuela and Russia's selling "soon-to-be-nukes" to Iran.

I'm telling you, don't go speaking about how Belarus is insignificant. We are at the center of the world here folks.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home