In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Kidnapped by America

Man, the LA Times is on fire today. Check out their whole Opinion section for some good stuff. Perhaps most notable, though, is this editorial by a Arab man detained by U.S. forces.

I was born in Kuwait and raised in Lebanon. In 1985, when Lebanon was being torn apart by civil war, I fled to Germany in search of a better life. There I became a citizen and started my own family. I have five children.

On Dec. 31, 2003, I took a bus from Germany to Macedonia. When we arrived, my nightmare began. Macedonian agents confiscated my passport and detained me for 23 days. I was not allowed to contact anyone, including my wife.

At the end of that time, I was forced to record a video saying I had been treated well. Then I was handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a building where I was severely beaten. My clothes were sliced from my body with a knife or scissors, and my underwear was forcibly removed. I was thrown to the floor, my hands pulled behind me, a boot placed on my back. I was humiliated.

Eventually my blindfold was removed, and I saw men dressed in black, wearing black ski masks. I did not know their nationality. I was put in a diaper, a belt with chains to my wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold and a hood. I was thrown into a plane, and my legs and arms were spread-eagled and secured to the floor. I felt two injections and became nearly unconscious. I felt the plane take off, land and take off. I learned later that I had been taken to Afghanistan.

There, I was beaten again and left in a small, dirty, cold concrete cell. I was extremely thirsty, but there was only a bottle of putrid water in the cell. I was refused fresh water.

That first night I was taken to an interrogation room where I saw men dressed in the same black clothing and ski masks as before. They stripped and photographed me, and took blood and urine samples. I was returned to the cell, where I would remain in solitary confinement for more than four months.

The following night my interrogations began. They asked me if I knew why I had been detained. I said I did not. They told me that I was now in a country with no laws, and did I understand what that meant?

They asked me many times whether I knew the men who were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, if I had traveled to Afghanistan to train in camps and if I associated with certain people in my town of Ulm, Germany. I told the truth: that I had no connection to any terrorists, had never been in Afghanistan and had never been involved in any extremism. I asked repeatedly to meet with a representative of the German government, or a lawyer, or to be brought before a court. Always, my requests were ignored.

A lot to be proud of here, huh?

In desperation, I began a hunger strike. After 27 days without food, I was taken to meet with two Americans — the prison director and another man, referred to as “the Boss.” I pleaded with them to release me or bring me before a court, but the prison director replied that he could not release me without permission from Washington. He also said that he believed I should not be detained in the prison.

After 37 days without food, I was dragged to the interrogation room, where a feeding tube was forced through my nose into my stomach. I became extremely ill, suffering the worst pain of my life.

After three months, I was taken to meet an American who said he had traveled from Washington, D.C., and who promised I would soon be released. I was also visited by a German-speaking man who explained that I would be allowed to return home but warned that I was never to mention what had happened because the Americans were determined to keep the affair a secret.

On May 28, 2004, almost five months after I was first kidnapped, I was blindfolded, handcuffed and chained to an airplane seat. I was told we would land in a country other than Germany, because the Americans did not want to leave traces of their involvement, but that I would eventually get to Germany.

After we landed I was driven into the mountains, still blindfolded. My captors removed my handcuffs and blindfold and told me to walk down a dark, deserted path and not to look back. I was afraid I would be shot in the back.

I turned a bend and encountered three men who asked why I was illegally in Albania. They took me to the airport, where I bought a ticket home (my wallet had been returned to me). Only after the plane took off did I believe I was actually going home. I had long hair, a beard and had lost 60 pounds. My wife and children had gone to Lebanon, believing I had abandoned them. Thankfully, now we are together again in Germany.

And what does the U.S. government have to offer for this big “oops”?

I still do not know why this happened to me. I have been told that the American secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, confirmed in a meeting with the German chancellor that my case was a “mistake” — and that American officials later denied that she said this. I was not present at this meeting. No one from the American government has ever contacted me or offered me any explanation or apology for the pain they caused me.

Secretary Rice has stated publicly, during a discussion of my case, that “any policy will sometimes result in errors.” But that is exactly why extraordinary rendition is so dangerous. As my interrogators made clear when they told me I was being held in a country with no laws, the very purpose of extraordinary rendition is to deny a person the protection of the law.

I begged my captors many times to bring me before a court, where I could explain to a judge that a mistake had been made. Every time, they refused. In this way, a “mistake” that could have been quickly corrected led to several months of cruel treatment and meaningless suffering, for me and my entire family.

Could someone please explain to me how this behavior is at all acceptable, or at all in kind with American traditions and notions of justice? It is thorougly frightening and anti-American to detain people (including U.S. citizens) indefinitely, without notifying their families or allowing them access to any sort of legal outlet. This should not have happened, and it isn’t good enough to shrug and say, “Well, with any policy there will be mistakes.” That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the fact that this is really bad policy. We’re better than this.

Posted in War

30 thoughts on Kidnapped by America

  1. I just spent a weekend with some righties who seriously believe that to fight the war on terror that we need to be able to torture people. They tried to argue that our agents need to be able to act like Jack Bauer on the TV show 24. I used to think we had smart people in this country. Not anymore. The Bush regime has undermined my faith in this country and its citizens.

    Even after we elect a Democrat in 2008, how long will it take for the next adminstration to erase the damage these a-holes have done to our country? How long until we can be proud of our country again?

  2. I fear that unless US citizens unite and effectually revolt, that you can expect the issue of pride to drown beneath a sea of shame. At this point, a lot more will have to happen than simply the change of regime… The Democrats can’t undo what has been done. What has begun was intended to ‘change things forever and once and for all’, and so it has been.

    This is a snowball rolling downhill, building up weight and velocity along the way… With apparently half the population in opposition to the current administrations policies and actions, quite an astoundingly righteous march on the capital could indeed be achieved. The impact would no doubt serve as a trip wire, that could make all the difference in the long run…. So far as having something to be proud of.

  3. My problem with this story, as it appears in the Times, is that we appear to be getting only one side of the story here, which might explain why it is on the editorial page and is not being reported as a news story. I’m wondering if there is no second source for this; in which case, we have to take the story with a grain of salt.

    Now maybe it occurred exactly as he described, in which case it is a pretty horrible story; the sort of thing that shouldn’t happen to anyone. But I read this and I’m left with a lot of questions.

    Why was he going to Macedonia? What was his business there? Maybe he has a business that imports things from there; maybe he was just traveling on vacation. But in reading this story he seems to be leaving this detail out. Sure, a person can make the case that it’s none of our business. But Macedonia’s government grabbed him for some reason. Maybe a case of mistaken identity. Maybe they just didn’t like him. But the initial error of the seizure appears to be theirs. We may be guilty of accepting the judgment of a third party government whose judgment is suspect. I’m sure in the future that when the Macedonians tell us they have a terrorist we’re looking for, that will receive a lot less credence.

    If the U.S. government believed, in good faith, that he was a terrorist, then the issue is his mistreatment while in U.S. custody. He can certainly complain about that if the circumstances are as he alleges. But we will never know the whole, objective truth here — the government will not reveal sources, methods, locations that could rebut his charges. Some people will read into this that the U.S. is wholly complicit and that Khaled El-Masri’s version of events is 100% accurate. But I don’t read it this way. While I’m not saying that El-Masri is making this up, I think the point needs to be made that if he were making it up, it would be very hard to disprove because the U.S. government won’t discuss it. I find that problematic in accepting this story. There’s no one to gainsay his account.

    Condoleezza Rice’s point — the question of whether she actually said what she said being still in question — that governments make mistakes is also true.

    When I was in the Army, I was stationed in a small German town had the misfortune of being a few miles downriver from the industrial city of Schweinfurt. From the air, the towns look somewhat alike. Occassionally, U.S. planes bombed the wrong city; damaging a 13th century cathedral, and killing women and children in the process. That was unfortunate for those involved. Was the war against Germany just? Some will say that unless every last bullet finds its exact mark, and no innocents die, that all war is unjust. Nation states tend to trample on individuals in war. We are certainly unfortunate to live in a time when they are the principal forms of government on this Earth.

    War is a crude instrument, innocents will get mistreated and killed any time it is invoked. That is unfortunate. But it does not make the war any less necessary. We may have mistaken Khaled El-Masri for a terrorist. We may have mistreated him. Certainly the process that causes mistakes like this needs to be fixed.

    Of course, if Al Qaeda honored the Geneva conventions, it would never have happened, becasue their combatants would wear a uniform, would not hide among civilians, and would not kill so many innocents that nation-states have to make war upon them. We make mistakes. They kill innocents as a matter of policy. While we may all feel shame over Khaled El-Masri’s treatment –if we are so intellectually generous as to grant all of his charges as written, with no confirmation or opportunity for rebuttal — that shame should not prevent us from pointing the finger of blame towards the men that make such policies and methods necessary — the terorrists of Al Qaeda.

  4. The Colossus Says:

    Of course, if Al Qaeda honored the Geneva conventions, it would never have happened, becasue their combatants would wear a uniform, would not hide among civilians,

    Shocking how our enemies refuse to fight us on our terms. If only they’d line up, it’d be so much easier.

    that shame should not prevent us from pointing the finger of blame towards the men that make such policies and methods necessary — the terorrists of Al Qaeda.

    What nonsense. This isn’t necessary at all. The Israelis are surrounded by hostile countries, and they don’t mistreat their prisoners.

  5. There are already laws and a justice system designed for murderers whom are dressed as civilians, there are indeed laws and a system of justice for murderers whom dress in uniform as well. The state cannot deem itself righteous if it does not recognise these laws, nor can they justify the brutalities of their own acts simply by recognising the injust acts of their enemies. If this is acceptable, than all opponents of state policy or acts, are enemies. If this is true, then it is not a democracy that the state honours but autocracy, and ideological civilians could as easily claim the righteousness of unlawful acts in acknowledging those of the state!

    This is the purpose of the standards set by humane law. To bind opponents to an honour system. By stating that one side is justified in dishonouring these laws in light of the other’s acts, you are merely supporting the destruction of the principals of justice and promoting an autocratic rule of law.

    What is that saying… Two wrongs do not make a ‘right’…?

    Furthermore, the ‘opponent’ is not one group, nor do any among the ‘enemy’ control a state where tax dollars fund a military who is equiped with uniform nor armour, etc. In fact it is the state’s abuse of power that generates the growing numbers as well as the willfullness of their opponents militia. Because, ultimately, the aim is not calm a conflict, but to escalate one. The state in question is otherwise unchallenged in their position as the worlds only super power, and without an enemy, they are wont for justification to expand further the reaches of their control.

    Some research makes all this very evident and dispells the myth that this war has any noble cause whatsoever in as much as the myth that the US gov’t was “misinformed” or unawares of the consequences of their actions. These are strategies imployed for gain and with objectives… Don’t get sucked into the PR.

  6. Colossus: “Condoleezza Rice’s point — the question of whether she actually said what she said being still in question — that governments make mistakes is also true.”

    The problem Colossus is that the true mistake is not the kidnapping and torture of an innocent man but the facist and arrogant policy that allowed it in the first place.

    No matter where you place the blame or brush it aside as a mistake the responsibility lies with Ms. Rice and Bush Administration.

    The fearmongering, money grubbing and power grabbing is coming back on the Republican party like a Karmic shark. I hope it takes a big bite out of their ass.

  7. the phantom linker Says:

    “The Israelis are surrounded by hostile countries, and they don’t mistreat their prisoners.”

    The whole point of that article is that those actions broke the Israelis internal rules. This is an account from one of our own CIA guys who’s worked with the Israelis.

    Robert Baer, a former CIA covert officer who worked in Iraq and elsewhere, said he recently spent time in an Israeli prison, talking with detainees from the radical Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas for a British documentary about suicide bombers.

    The Israelis, Baer said, have learned that they can gain valuable information by establishing personal relationships with the inmates and gaining their trust.

    “They found that torture, abusive tactics, made things overall worse for them politically,” Baer said. “The Israelis are friendly with their prisoners. They play cards with them and allow them to contact their families. They are getting in their minds to determine what makes up a suicide bomber.”

    The point still stands. The Israelis are surrounded by Islamic countries that if anything hate the Israelis more than the U.S. And yet the Israelis find that prisoner abuse is counterproductive. For the U.S. to then argue that these techniques are necessary for our survival is laughable.

  8. If the U.S. government believed, in good faith, that he was a terrorist, then the issue is his mistreatment while in U.S. custody. He can certainly complain about that if the circumstances are as he alleges. But we will never know the whole, objective truth here — the government will not reveal sources, methods, locations that could rebut his charges. Some people will read into this that the U.S. is wholly complicit and that Khaled El-Masri’s version of events is 100% accurate. But I don’t read it this way. While I’m not saying that El-Masri is making this up, I think the point needs to be made that if he were making it up, it would be very hard to disprove because the U.S. government won’t discuss it. I find that problematic in accepting this story. There’s no one to gainsay his account.

    That’s exactly the problem. Should we read into this that his story is 100% accurate? I don’t know. It’s possible for there to be more than one perspective, all of them true. I just cannot swallow the line that goes, “We can’t tell you the details due to security reasons. Just trust us.” Just trust them like we were expected to trust the Cheney Energy Task Force, just trust them like we were expected to trust the CIA, just trust them like we were expected to trust those overseeing Abu-Ghraib, etc. etc. When we give the government this much power and don’t demand accountability and oversight, this is what we get.

  9. Shocking how our enemies refuse to fight us on our terms. If only they’d line up, it’d be so much easier.

    “Our terms”? You mean, the Geneva Conventions? Are you seriously arguing that Al Qaeda is justified in waging war while hiding within a civilian populace? I really don’t want to construe this as you making a pro-Al Qaeda argument, because I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way, but I’d love to hear your explanation.

  10. Jon C. Says:

    Are you seriously arguing that Al Qaeda is justified in waging war while hiding within a civilian populace? I really don’t want to construe this as you making a pro-Al Qaeda argument, because I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way, but I’d love to hear your explanation.

    Of course it’s justified. Now the targeting of civilians is another matter, but of course they’re going to hide within a civilian populace. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti Al Qaeda. It has everything to do with the fact that relative to every other nation we have an overwhelming hardware advantage in terms of classical warfare. No one with brains is going to confront us in this manner. Every conflict we encounter in the forseeable future is almost certainly going to involve guerrilla tactics. Calls of “if only they’d put on a uniform” are pure fantasy.

  11. It kind of sounds like gswift is saying that hiding among civilians is a smart thing from Al-Qaeda’s perspective in that it makes it harder for the US to target them, while Jon C. is saying it isn’t excusable. If you two are not saying this, you should be! 😉 Obviously, anyone who fights an Empire with the resources of a Rebel Alliance isn’t going to face them straight on, but setting it up so that your own civilians die is never ok. In that case, there’s absolutely no way to say that those people are implicitly combatants.

  12. Interestingly, George Bush recently compared the new Iraqi government with the American revolutionaries.

    The irony, I believe, was lost on King George.

    The redcoats, incidentally, were rather incensed that the colonists wouldn’t come out and line up to be shot at.

  13. Where to start?

    1. First, to Gswift and Zuzu’s points that we should not expect them to fight us on the battlefield, I would only offer that I do not expect them to fight us on the battlefield, either. And in return, they should not expect us to grant them the privileges of a nation state. There seems to be some shock that we do not offer them cigarettes, pay, Red Cross visits, mail privileges, and so forth. There shouldn’t be. They are not soldiers. They do not fight on behalf of a legitimate state. I also think that the comparison to the American colonists is somewhat unfair to the colonists. The American colonies had attempted a political solution to their difficulties with the British crown, including sending petitions to the Parliament and king, and when the Continental Congress met, it did so as a group of representatives of the elected governments of each of the colonies. The Continental congress had legitimacy because of this; and the Declaration spelled out, in no uncertain terms, who they were, why they were doing what they were doing, and their legal justification for it. In fighting the war, the colonists did observe the laws of warfare as they were understood at the time — they did not target civilians, they did not use indiscriminate weapons, and they did not routinely behead British prisoners. Al Qaeda possesses no political legitimacy and observes no laws of warfare. Plain and simple: terrorists.

    2. Lou, the story is indeed reported, but the sourcing there again relies wholly on Khaled El-Masri’s testimony. The only corroborating fact we are offered is that there are trace elements of Afghan minerals in his hair. So let’s grant that he was in Afghanista, brought there by us. It is still possible we are hearing a version of events that takes liberties with the truth.

  14. The Colossus Says:

    There seems to be some shock that we do not offer them cigarettes, pay, Red Cross visits, mail privileges, and so forth…

    Al Qaeda possesses no political legitimacy and observes no laws of warfare.

    The shock is that we’ve been torturing people, not denying them cigarrettes and mail. “No political legitimacy” doesn’t justify waterboarding, shipping citizens of other countries off to secret prisons to be beaten, etc.

  15. Of course it’s justified.

    Wow. You just gave away the house. So Geneva Conventions violations are okay when Al Qaeda perpetrates them. Thanks for this conversation, gswift, it’s been quite enlightening.

    The redcoats, incidentally, were rather incensed that the colonists wouldn’t come out and line up to be shot at.

    Another Michael Moore “Minutemen” argument. The American Revolutionaries met the British on the field of battle- they didn’t emerge from a civilian populace, fire indiscriminately, and then melt away.

  16. I also think that the comparison to the American colonists is somewhat unfair to the colonists. The American colonies had attempted a political solution to their difficulties with the British crown, including sending petitions to the Parliament and king, and when the Continental Congress met, it did so as a group of representatives of the elected governments of each of the colonies. The Continental congress had legitimacy because of this; and the Declaration spelled out, in no uncertain terms, who they were, why they were doing what they were doing, and their legal justification for it. In fighting the war, the colonists did observe the laws of warfare as they were understood at the time — they did not target civilians, they did not use indiscriminate weapons, and they did not routinely behead British prisoners. Al Qaeda possesses no political legitimacy and observes no laws of warfare. Plain and simple: terrorists.

    The British didn’t do shock and awe, either. The Revolution was slower-building than the current situation. They were also seeking independence for already-existing political entities rather than simply trying to repel invaders.

    Make no mistake, though, the American revolutionaries were considered by the British at the time to be terrorists.

    Another Michael Moore “Minutemen” argument. The American Revolutionaries met the British on the field of battle- they didn’t emerge from a civilian populace, fire indiscriminately, and then melt away.

    Meet Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox. You may recall his story from the Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot. Mel certainly thought that guerrilla warfare in the service of the revolution was noble and patriotic.

    And please, people, do any of you think for a minute that if the US were invaded by a much larger, more powerful country, that you’d be sitting here arguing that resisting that force was terrorism, and terrorism is bad, so you shouldn’t do it? I sure as hell wouldn’t; I’d be trying to get the fuckers out of my country. Why is it so hard to understand why the Iraqi resistance is attacking our forces?

  17. What about the innocent Americans who have had their lives destroyed by wrongful imprisonment?

    Funny how the Constitution applies to Americans imprisoned in America and provides a remedy for wrongful imprisonment, wrongful arrest, excessive force, illegal search, cruel and unusual punishment, conditions of confinement, etc.

    The whole reason for picking up someone in Macedonia and then extraordinarily rendering him to another country to be tortured or sending him off to our own Gulag Archipelago is to get around these little strictures on government power.

  18. Mel certainly thought that guerrilla warfare in the service of the revolution was noble and patriotic.

    “The Patriot” is not synonymous with “American history”. And I don’t have time to read through the whole site that you linked to, but nor is “Marion Fox”, whoever he was, synonymous with “the Continental Army.”

    And please, people, do any of you think for a minute that if the US were invaded by a much larger, more powerful country, that you’d be sitting here arguing that resisting that force was terrorism, and terrorism is bad, so you shouldn’t do it?

    Well, in your world zuzu, no civilians would be doing much resisting anyway, since there would be no legal private gun ownership or right to bear arms. But, if the US were invaded by a more powerful country- which starts off as a poor analogy, because it’s not as if we “invaded” Al Qaeda- it would not be wrong to openly resist the uniformed, armed forces of that country. It would be wrong to indiscriminately bomb innocents and to behead prisoners. I’m having a hard time figuring out why we can’t stake out common ground on this point.

  19. nor is “Marion Fox”, whoever he was, synonymous with “the Continental Army.”

    Of course he wasn’t. But he was part of it. An excerpt, since you can’t be arsed to read the link but you’ll happily argue against the content:

    In 1775 he was elected to the first provincial congress of South Carolina. That same year, with America on the brink of revolution, the congress commissioned him a captain of the newly-formed 2nd South Carolina Regiment. In September 1775 Marion commanded the capture of British forts in Charleston, South Carolina.

    Promoted to major in February, 1776, he participated in the defense of Charleston on June 28. Later in 1776 was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and assumed command of the regiment. In October, 1779, he led his command in an unsuccessful assault against Savannah.

    In 1780, Gen. Benjamin Lincoln surrendered Charleston to the British, but Marion, with a broken ankle, eluded capture. He slipped away to the swamps, gathered together his band of guerrillas, and then began leading his bold raids. Marion and his irregulars often defeated larger bodies of British troops by the surprise and rapidity of their movement over swampy terrain.

    In late 1780 he was appointed Brigadier General of the S.C. Militia. In cooperation with troops under the command of Henry Lee, he raided Georgetown and took Fort Watson and Fort Motte. He went on to support attacks on Augusta and Ninety-Six, S.C.

    Near the end of the war, Marion and American General Nathanael Greene joined forces. In 1781 they successfully fought at the Battle of Eutaw Springs and forced the British retreat to North Carolina. For a daring rescue of Americans surrounded by the British at Parkers Ferry, S.C. (August 1781), Marion received the thanks of Congress. He was then appointed a brigadier general, and after the war he served in the senate of South Carolina (1782-90).

    While still leader of his brigade, Marion was elected to the senate of South Carolina in 1781. He was reelected in 1782 and again in 1784, after the war had ended. In appreciation for his military service, the state legislature appointed Marion commander of Fort Johnson, in Charleston.

    No less a figure than George Washington learned guerrilla warfare during the French and Indian Wars. Guerrilla tactics helped the Continental Army (the regular troops) and the irregulars such as the Minutemen hold off a better-trained, better-armed and greater-in-number force. The help from the French and the Polish didn’t hurt, either.

    Well, in your world zuzu, no civilians would be doing much resisting anyway, since there would be no legal private gun ownership or right to bear arms.

    Oh, please do provide proof where I ever said that. Smells like Eau de Strawman to me.

    But, if the US were invaded by a more powerful country- which starts off as a poor analogy, because it’s not as if we “invaded” Al Qaeda- it would not be wrong to openly resist the uniformed, armed forces of that country.

    Oh, is Al Qaeda a country now? We invaded Iraq without cause. Al Qaeda had no appreciable presence in Iraq prior to our invasion, but they’re there now. But you’re also discounting the Sunnis and the Sadr brigades and all the others.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, we should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going to Baghdad.

    It would be wrong to indiscriminately bomb innocents and to behead prisoners.

    Yes, it would. And it would also be wrong to indiscriminately bomb wedding parties and abuse, kill, and sexually humiliate prisoners and threaten them with dogs? Particularly when you’re the powerful country that prides itself on its nylons-and-chocolate-bars approach to occupation?

  20. And it would also be wrong to indiscriminately bomb wedding parties and abuse, kill, and sexually humiliate prisoners and threaten them with dogs?

    They ever-so-subtle distinction there is that it’s not US policy to do any of those things. Not only is it not US policy, but those are all punishable offenses if done intentionally. When several American soldiers on one night shift in one Iraqi prison abused inmates, it was an aberration for which they received punishment at the hands of the US military justice system and the just condemnation of their entire nation. Beheading innocents and setting indiscriminate roadside bombs is, on the other hand, the preferred modus operandi of Al Qaeda, for which they make no apology and which they openly revel in.

  21. After reading your excerpt, I’m not seeing anything to suggest that Marion or the troops he commanded engaged in Al Qaeda-like terrorist tactics. “Rapid movement over swampy terrain” is not quite the same thing as sawing through a non-combatant’s neck with a cutlass.

  22. They ever-so-subtle distinction there is that it’s not US policy to do any of those things.

    Of course it’s not US policy. It’s still being done. Bush said just the other day that 30,000 Iraqi civilians (or was it “terrorists”?) were killed during the conflict. Of course, they’re not bothering to keep track, since they don’t “do” body counts. Has anyone been punished for that? I didn’t think so.

    When several American soldiers on one night shift in one Iraqi prison abused inmates, it was an aberration for which they received punishment at the hands of the US military justice system and the just condemnation of their entire nation.

    The fish rots from the head. Those tactics were approved at the very top, and they were far more widespread than one night shift in one Iraqi prison. Or did Lynndie England mastermind Gitmo and the CIA’s secret prison archipelago in Eastern Europe and the extraordinary rendition program that sent Maher Arar, among others, to Syria to be tortured?

    I’m not seeing anything to suggest that Marion or the troops he commanded engaged in Al Qaeda-like terrorist tactics.

    I never claimed they did; that’s your hangup. I only said that the British, whose mode of combat at the time was to line up like gentlemen on an open battlefield, considered them terrorists. Certainly the Sons of Liberty, who often used violence to punish British sympathizers and greedy merchants, were considered so. I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that revolution isn’t hearts and flowers — it’s bloody and violent, and if you’re outmanned and outgunned, you’re going to use whatever tools you have at your disposal.

  23. Well, Colossus, the German government took what he said seriously and demanded explanations from the US government. The reason this has returned into the news is because the Germans investigated his story and found it plausible.

  24. Well, Colossus, the German government took what he said seriously and demanded explanations from the US government. The reason this has returned into the news is because the Germans investigated his story and found it plausible.

Comments are currently closed.