While the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, the internal government memos collected in this publication demonstrate that the path to the purgatory that is Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, has been paved with decidedly bad intentions. The policies that resulted in rampant abuse of detainees first in Afghanistan, then at Guantanamo Bay, and later in Iraq, were product of three pernicious purposes designed to facilitate the unilateral and unfettered detention, interrogation, abuse, judgment, and punishment of prisoners: (1) the desire to place the detainees beyond the reach of any court or law; (2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and (3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law.

Regarding the Torture Papers, which detail Torture's Paper Trail, and, then there's Hungry for Air: Learning The Language Of Torture, and, of course, there's ( more inside)
posted by y2karl on Mar 14, 2005 - 97 comments

Everyone's favorite unidentified 22-year CIA veteran who used to hunt Osama bin Laden, Anonymous, is back with a new book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," and suggests that al-Qaida may try to reward Bush before the election. Last year, Anonymous created a stir with another book and was interviewed on Nightline. If only he had a scramble suit, he could do a book tour.
posted by homunculus on Jun 23, 2004 - 19 comments

Does America Torture? "The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive...died from 'blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease' while another ...from [a] blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a 'blunt force injury'." What steps are we taking in our "war on terror"? What if other countries decide to treat our civilians as "enemy combatants"? Is the Pax Americana so important that we must resort to torture, or, as is most often the case, giving up prisoners to countries that are known torturers?
posted by taumeson on Mar 7, 2003 - 113 comments

The eXile's Gary Brecher, as offensive and amusing as usual, pondering the future of war: "The only enjoyable wars will be the mismatches, when the machine armies are unleashed on the savages. We've seen some of them lately: the NATO air forces working out on Serbia, the US and British planes playing with the Iraqis like a couple of kittens with a half-dead mouse. They're the wars people will enjoy, because the targets are so easy, so undefended, that there are lots of good gun-camera shots. But these wars have a little weakness: they never solve the problem."
posted by GriffX on Oct 3, 2002 - 16 comments

"They were acting like bin Laden was hiding behind every door. That just wasn’t the way to be acting with civilians." According to this Newsweek article, some members of U.S. Special Forces seem to think the military's recent operations to track down Al Qaeda went a bit awry.
posted by moonbiter on Sep 30, 2002 - 13 comments

Is Preemption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan? The greatest and most difficult task facing a statesman in international affairs is reconciling the natural tension between the constructive nature of a nation's grand strategy with the destructive character of its military strategy. The emerging doctrine of preemption should be examined in the context of this challenge. With this in mind, the author continues with a "Dr. Strangelove" type warning. Are our leaders "doing themselves in" (and us with them) in the current 'war' on terrorism?
posted by tgrundke on Aug 21, 2002 - 12 comments

Cops Abuse New Anti-Terror Law. The raid was perhaps the state's first known instance of law enforcement officers using new anti-terrorism police powers in a case unrelated to terrorism... Ahh, yes. The War On Drugs meets The War Against Terror.
posted by fnord_prefect on Aug 5, 2002 - 13 comments

Systemic problems lead to catastrophic failures. More money for the "war on terror" or more government power from the Patriot Act cannot make up for incompetence, poor policy directives and bungling. How many more of these must we see before everyone agrees that a thorough investigation leading to proper reforms is the only remedy?
posted by nofundy on Jun 19, 2002 - 4 comments

What We're Fighting For : a group of 60 diverse academics lay out the basic principles shared by Americans and the West in the war against terrorism:

We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction:
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2. The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.
3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends.
4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.
5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith.
We fight to defend ourselves and to defend these universal principles.

[More inside.]
posted by dhartung on Mar 8, 2002 - 29 comments

Not to complain about the ever-expanding war on terror, but... Afganistan just might become a little stickier than our leaders had hoped. A recent raid on regrouping troops went not too well, with a combined force of Afgan and U.S. troops beating a quick retreat. Is the U.S. miring itself in not one but several Vietnam's?
posted by Gilbert on Mar 3, 2002 - 12 comments

They just wont let it lie. What posses these people to keep fighting against overwhelming odds.I can see what they are against but for the life of me I cannot see what they are for.Couple of points near the bottom of the piece are interesting.IHave I been asleep or has the killing of innocents on 23 January been underreported.Does the fact that small raids have led to arrest interrogation and subsequent release answer my own question? I am perplexed,are there any good guys?
posted by Fat Buddha on Mar 2, 2002 - 10 comments

US planes rain dollars on Afghanistan Brings a whole new dimension to the term "throwing away taxpayers' money". What kind of logic does the US govt put behind a stunt like this?
posted by ssheth on Feb 16, 2002 - 29 comments

"We must not declare victory too soon," or the inevitable fingerpointing will begin.
posted by magullo on Jan 16, 2002 - 6 comments

This propaganda leaflet is apparently being dropped in afghanistan by the American Military (taken from this msnbc story about the first american soldier to die from hostile fire). Regardless of your opinion about propaganda, this seems rather sloppy. If the purpose of propaganda is to convince people of something, wouldn't you want to say it in a language they understand? Is the American military getting lazy / sloppy / over-confident? It looks like the propaganda leaflets from Desert storm (1991), Desert Fox (1998), and the bombing of Kosovo were at least in the local languages. (Who knew there was a quarterly magazine dedicated to aerial leaflet propaganda?)
posted by jnthnjng on Jan 4, 2002 - 25 comments

"It's not propaganda, it's the truth" Rumsfeld declared. OK, but leaflets with radio broadcasts, and Information Programs, is this the best we can do? How about some Daffy Goes to War, even some inspirational Soviet and Cuban communist posters, as we do battle on the psyops war front?
posted by Voyageman on Nov 29, 2001 - 5 comments

like trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow-torch ...and other choice insights into the "war on terrorism" by military historian Sir Michael Howard. While this is already a week old, and has been mentioned on MeFi (albeit without link) , I don't think that many people have read the full speech yet. And I think as many people as possible ought to.
posted by snarfois on Nov 8, 2001 - 18 comments

Designdefenseministry All out war! A call to arms for those pixelpushers out there. Sick sense of humor (like the kabul coverage) combined with really great gfx. caution: bandwidth!
posted by heimkonsole on Oct 30, 2001 - 7 comments

Will pictures like this [not graphic, but disturbing] turn popular support against the bombing in Afghanistan? Or will stories like this bolster support for military action against the Taliban? What story sways you more?
posted by gazingus on Oct 24, 2001 - 57 comments

He said the roof of the building was marked with the Red Cross symbol. Good idea. Maybe they should hire Jakob, he would tell them that the cross is ineligible and might be thought of as a target.
posted by tiaka on Oct 16, 2001 - 31 comments

Bush Refused a Deal that would have turned over Bin Laden? Does he want a ribbon wrapped around him? Does he want a cherry on top of him? So the Taliban wants to drop him off at a country other than the U.S., is that a bad thing? I know he doesn't want to negotiate, but they're saying they'll hand him over .. aren't they?
posted by tsarfan on Oct 15, 2001 - 46 comments

Should the United States embark on a nation building exercise in Afghanistan a’la post-WWII Germany & Japan? (more questions inside)
posted by CRS on Oct 10, 2001 - 22 comments

Four UN aid workers killed in attacks on Afghanistan
I am surprised this hasn't posted yet. Has ennui settled in already?
posted by mapalm on Oct 9, 2001 - 86 comments

Anthrax case becomes criminal investigation as Law Enforcement intensifies its searche for a Summer Intern who worked in the office.

He is said to be from the Middle East. Hopefully unrelated, but evidence is mounting... i.e. - employees received a strange letter before the WTC attack containing a white powdery substance and a "Cheap" Star of David charm...
posted by da5id on Oct 8, 2001 - 24 comments

Airstrikes have begun in Afghanistan. Just heard on NBC, but no web links yet... President to address the US at 12.50p EST.
posted by warhol on Oct 7, 2001 - 261 comments

On September 30th, there was a peace protest in Washington D.C. I'm surprised no one else linked to this -- about 50 students from my college attended and joined the crowd of a few thousand. I would have gone, but I'm dubious about the efficacy of public protest despite the fact that I'm an affirmed pacifist. What do you folks think? Will a totally non-military action be an appropriate response? (And is there any possiblity of the US acting in such a way?) Is the loss of a single additional human life in this new war justifiable?
posted by tweebiscuit on Oct 3, 2001 - 109 comments

Dack is back, but not in the blogging sense. Many here at MeFi thought he'd bring his blog back after it ceased in May. His front page is now a collection of links urging peaceful resolution of the Current Situation. Refresh a few times to see a variety of quotes.
posted by msacheson on Oct 1, 2001 - 9 comments

Love Bomb! Finally, a creative idea for the "New War." Granted, it wouldn't solve the whole mess, but it might be a step in the right direction. It sure wouldn't make us any new enemies. "A panel of four Williams College professors urged restraint in the so-called war on terrorism Monday, with one of them calling upon America to bomb Afghanistan not with explosives but with food and medical supplies. Anthropology professor David Edwards, speaking during a public forum at Chapin Hall, said airlifts similar to those provided to West Berlin by the United States and Britain in 1948 and 1949 could prove a public relations coup and an unexpected blow to terrorist Osama bin Ladin, in a country wracked by starvation, civil war and oppression. "Bin Laden expects us to strike with military force. It's what he's prepared for. In dealing with terrorism, you have to do the unexpected," said Edwards, an expert on Afghanistan who was joined on the panel by political science professors Marc Lynch, Gary Jacobsohn and James McAllister."
posted by martk on Sep 26, 2001 - 31 comments

The Greens and Social Democrats in Germany just lost big in local elections in Hamburg this weekend. Is this the first political fallout from the "War on Terror"? (Here's an English link too, from the Sydney Morning Herald. Couldn't find anything in the U.S. press--thank heaven for Australians.)
posted by gimonca on Sep 24, 2001 - 15 comments

'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..' declares this (otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney..' Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished', a further 800 are missing following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino on Sep 20, 2001 - 8 comments

An invasion now could be more costly than Vietnam Another article by the Independents Robert Fisk, this one showing how any infantry in Afghanistan would be a baaad idea - 10 million mines?? Thats more than 1 mine per Afghan, isn't it? The Russians got busy..
posted by Mossy on Sep 18, 2001 - 28 comments

Realism Urgently Needed - Or Not? David Ignatius's column today in The Washington Post addresses the question of effectiveness in the war against terrorism. He tells the sobering story of the CIA's collaboration with the terrorist Ali Hassan Salameh. The downside: "The most obvious (lesson) is that collecting intelligence about terrorists is a truly dirty business. This world cannot be penetrated without help from members or friends of the terrorist network". The upside: "Paradoxically, these tragic days have probably been an ideal time for the CIA to be recruiting new sources of intelligence about terrorism. The barbaric attacks Tuesday aroused disgust around the world --- not least among civilized Muslims. Some of these disgusted Muslims will surely want to help the United States and its allies put the terrorists out of business." The crucial moral question: It's really a classic means/ends debate. Is it right - or just acceptably expedient - to collaborate with known terrorists in order to strike out at those we don't yet(or otherwise will never) know about?
posted by MiguelCardoso on Sep 16, 2001 - 12 comments

Islamabad yet to decide on use of its soil: Cooperation areas to be defined first: official
posted by adnanbwp on Sep 13, 2001 - 3 comments

Can you go to "War" against an individual? Laws may limit exactly what the US can do, and whether or not an assasination attempt will be possible.
posted by mathowie on Sep 13, 2001 - 23 comments

America bombs Iraq. What are Dubya's intentions?
posted by quirked on Feb 16, 2001 - 35 comments