Leave it to the writers at National Review online to put the issue of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base into very clear focus:

[size=4]Right Country, Wrong Camp[/size=4]
[b]Observers are in Cuba and they’re whining about us?[/b]
 
In less than five months since September 11, prominent Western organizations already have gone soft in the war on terror. What commenced as a robust, united front to smash al Qaeda and crush the Taliban now is cracking over the treatment of combat detainees and scrutiny of airline passengers. If America and its allies truly intend to rid Earth of terrorists, each of us must suck in his gut and intensify this fight.

The hand-wringing over 158 suspects at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, Cuba would be understandable had it sprung from Berkeley's sociology department. Alas, such distinguished groups as Amnesty International and the European Union as well as several British Labour MPs regard these inmates as veritable survivors of the Bataan Death March. America is giving them everything but cable TV. They eat Islamically correct meals and study free copies of the Koran. Muslim prayers flow from camp loud speakers. They receive bug spray to prevent mosquito bites. Too bad one Army guard had no terrorist repellent to keep a prisoner from biting him January 19. The Pentagon says one detainee consistently threatens to kill American soldiers while another has spat on two camp personnel.

The U.S. supposedly abuses these suspects by housing them in open-air shelters. With January 24 temperatures spanning 68 to 82 degrees, this is no hardship. The Red Cross complains that photographing shackled inmates humiliates them. But if the Pentagon shielded them from cameras, it would be slammed for concealing prisoners from the eyes of the world.

In another reputed atrocity, detainees flew to Guantanamo wearing handcuffs, leg irons, and hoods over their heads. Perhaps they missed the in-flight movie, too. International nail biters forget that these fanatics gladly would hijack American C-141 transports and plow them into major cities.

If global liberals want to battle real injustice, they should condemn Fidel Castro's political prisons. The Red Cross, which already inspected Camp X-Ray, has been barred from Castro's gulag since 1989. As the Pentagon opens a new, air-conditioned hospital tent for its guests, Frank Calzon reports that his Center for a Free Cuba has "received information that medicine taken to [Castro's] prisoners by relatives of inmates is sometimes confiscated by authorities." Of course, denouncing Castro's dungeons buys one nothing among the blame-America-first crowd.

Here at home, the Justice Department went soft on accused American Taliban John Walker by sparing him a capital charge of treason. Yes, treason is hard to prove without the testimony of two eyewitnesses to treasonous acts. Still, Johnny Jihad applauds the World Trade Center's demolition, reportedly knew before 9-11 that suicide bombers were in America and proudly schmoozed with his hero, Osama bin Laden. This remorseless thug might confess to treason in open court. If so, he could be convicted and given the hot-lead therapy he deserves.

- continued -

Alas, the DOJ seems too squeamish to execute this Marin County militant. Had he been kidnapped and brainwashed, he might warrant a scintilla of sympathy. But as a volunteer for Mass Murder, Inc., he only merits last rites over his pulseless body.

Wimpy federal regulators also prevent airlines from scrutinizing passengers that match the — yes — profile of the typical terrorist. As the Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes notes, post-9-11 Transportation Department guidelines prohibit airline employees from considering "the propensity of members of any racial, ethnic, religious, or national origin group to engage in unlawful activity." Recall that 100 percent of the September 11 hijackers were male, Muslim, Middle Easterners between ages 20 and 33. Accused shoe bomber Richard Reid, 28, is a male Muslim with a Middle Eastern nom de guerre (Abdul Rauff). President Bush did not craft this profile. Terrorists did.

Until 52-year-old Unitarian women try to detonate jets with boots that go boom, it is necessary, if unfortunate, to question twenty- and thirtysomething male, Muslim Middle Easterners before they board commercial aircraft. If they calmly explain themselves, they should be offered blankets, pillows and drinks. If they answer suspiciously, they should be interrogated further and, if appropriate, arrested.

None of this is easy, pretty, or convenient. However, America and our allies — cursed with short attention spans and self-hating elites — must remain tougher than tungsten if we are to eradicate terrorists like the pirates of yore. Anyone who gets spooked by pictures of manacled terrorists and images of young, Saudi men being quizzed before boarding aircraft should remember this: Scarier things exist — among them, smoking skyscrapers, plunging civilians, and great balls of fire.

See article at:[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock012502.shtml[/url]

Eric The(GoodMorning!)Hun[>]:)]

Good morning "HUN."

Well looks as if you're supporting a 'TERRORISTS'.

Fox reporting this morning about "YOUR" boy SHARON'S involvement in Lebanon car bombing.

Seems the now deceased was preparing to testify against Sharon in twenty year old terrorists act that killed over 800.

Quite a horse you've picked to ride.  Eric

[puke]

BLT

Trust me, I voted for Bush, not Sharon. But is this perhaps the story that you're talking about?

[size=4]Israel accused of killing warlord[/size=4]
Updated on 1/26/2002 10:03:02 AM

BEIRUT (Agencies): Lebanon said on Friday it suspected Israel was behind the car bomb assassination of a Lebanese Christian warlord playing an important role in a war crimes suit against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

[b]It acknowledged there was [u]no hard evidence linking Israel to Thursday’s killing[/u] of Elie Hobeika, whose pro-Israeli militia massacred hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982[/b].

[b]A Lebanese group opposed to Syria’s influence in the country claimed responsibility in a statement calling Hobeika a traitor for his close ties to Damascus[/b].

The claim could not be verified.

Famed for shifting loyalties, Hobeika had no shortage of Palestinian and Lebanese enemies, but most in Lebanon jumped to blame Israel, whose invading troops surrounded the camps at the time of the massacre.

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said after Hobeika’s death that he was sure Israel was involved.

On Friday he said there was no firm proof yet, but that the Jewish state had a stake in the disappearance of a man at the heart of the case filed against Sharon in Belgium.

Hobeika died after saying he would testify in the Belgian case, in which Palestinians accuse Sharon of crimes of humanity over the massacres.

Sharon, defence minister at the time, denies sanctioning the killing in the camps.

Hobeika was killed as Beirut prepared to host an Arab summit in March.

Its style recalled Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war.

“He was a militia leader,” said Joseph Hariq, who owns a snack shop in East Beirut, where Israel’s Lebanese ally Bashir Gemayel was killed in a 1982 bombing.

“That’s how they go.” Israel swiftly denied any tie to Hobeika’s death.

Hobeika, 45, was the first warlord to be killed since the end of the civil war.

Three other people, including bodyguards, were killed in the blast.

Six more were injured.

After the civil war, Hobeika served as a government minister in various portfolios until 1998.

At a news conference last year, he announced his willingness to testify against Sharon in the Belgian war crimes lawsuit to prove his own innocence.

In a statement issued in Brussels, Belgian senators who met Hobeika on Tuesday called him a “key protagonist who had offered to assist the inquiry” and described his death as “an evident attempt to undermine the case”.

The Palestinians’ case was launched under laws giving Belgian courts powers to try crimes against humanity, wherever they have been committed.

A Brussels appeals court is deciding whether Sharon can be put on trial.

- continued -

A 1983 Israeli inquiry into the camp massacres said Sharon bore indirect responsibility and that Hobeika did not enter the camps, but helped direct Christian fighters who did the killing.

It said he spoke by walkie-talkie to a militia comrade who radioed to ask what to do with a group of 50 men and women.

The inquiry quoted Hobeika as saying: “This is the last time you’re going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do.” Celebratory gunfire erupted in Palestinian camps in Beirut after news of his death, which some said came 20 years late.

A group calling itself the “Lebanese For a Free and Independent Lebanon” said in a statement faxed to Reuters that it carried out the attack to warn Syria to get out of Lebanon.

Major anti-Syrian groups in Lebanon made no such claims, and could not identify the group named in the statement.

There was no immediate reaction from Syria, and a day later the state-run Al Ba’ath paper devoted headlines to the Palestinian uprising against Israel, confining news of Hobeika’s assassination to the bottom of the page.

Damascus has thousands of troops and effective political control in Lebanon.

Hobeika’s one-time Christian Lebanese allies regarded him as a traitor for switching his allegiance to Syria.

From The [i]Frontier Post of Pakistan at:[url] http://frontierpost.com.pk/main.asp?id=37&date1=1/26/2002[/url]

But does the story change [u]your[/u] mind to any degree?

I mean, even Geraldo Rivera is hedging his bets on this story!

Eric The(Did[u]You[/u]VoteForBarak?)Hun[>]:)]

Post from 5subslr5 -

Nonsense, my beamish boy, I support Israel. Did you not support the United States when the Boy Wonder Clinton was president?[:D]

No, that is most decidedly [u]not[/u] true, [b]5subslr5[/b], even the Pakistani news service I quoted does not go so far as your statement!
'My' boy Sharon was nowhere near Beirut, Lebanon on the morning of January 24, last!

'Seems'? Are you certain that this was going to be the substance of his testimony? Should the suit in Brussels proceed with you as the star witness? I can put you in touch with the attorneys for the survivors of Sabra and Shatilla, if you'd like!

Thanks for your opinion, 5subslr5, but I simply don't need anyone's advice on which horse I will ride, when and if I choose to ride a horse!

Eric The(See,NowDon'tYouFeelBetter!)Hun[>]:)]

5subslr5? Are you there, buddy?

Eric The(Jes'Checking)Hun[>]:)]

For the first time I understand paoloAR15's by line which roughly states "I support Israel not Sharon."

(I've emailed him directly and stated the above as he and I have sometime been on different sides of this issue.)

In none of the many and varied "E.the(xxxx)Hun"
bylines do I remember any such disclaimer [?]

I do take exception to those who have labeled you an "Israel Firster."

In my sole opinion I believe my description would be an "Israel Onlyer."

I'm no longer young and there are fewer 'firsts' for me now.  However for the 'first' time in my life I was called "anti-semetic" by some person on this board.

Once again I must say "Israel" is a country.
Jews are a people living in most parts of the world.

Wayne, your inability to differentiate I find troubling.

Post from 5subslr5 -

Sorta' like I love the United States, but hate Bill Clinton, right?

Am I compelled by some rule of which I'm unaware, to put everything I believe in my parenthetical signatures? I supported Israel when Sharon's arch-enemy Ehud Barak was Prime Minister. I didn't mention [u]that[/u] either!

Thanks, I think. My first loyalty is always to the United States (right after Texas, and the Old South[:D]).

Why?  Because I defend the United States' [b]only[/b] true friend in the Middle East?

Do you have any idea how often the United States and Israel stand on the same side of any issue? Do you know how many times the United States and Israel voted by themselves in the United Nations?

Hell, more times than the United States and Great Britain voted together!!!!!!!

So get your allies straight!

You read, I assume, the previous posts regarding the assistance that Israel gave to the United States during the Gulf War - did you have any disagreements with that listing?

If you did, you should have corrected me, because I hope you know that I would have appreciated knowing the truth.

But no one, not you, not DaMan, not anyone ever disputed those statements of unqualified Israeli support of the United States.

Wonder why?

Did you catch what then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said about the Israeli assistance?

Of course you did, but rather than comment on how maybe Dick Cheney was an 'Israel Onlyer' you chose to comment on my typo of 'Vi[u]d[/u]e-President Cheney.'

[b]Not by me, buddy, not by me![/b]

But welcome to the club - I've been called less than patriotic on this Board more times than I care to remember (but don't worry, I [b]do[/b] remember!) simply because I support the only true ally that our country has in the Middle East - Israel!

Between Jews and Israel?  Then you have nothing to be troubled about, 5subslr5, nothing at all.

What I want to know is can you differentiate between someone supporting an ally and someone supporting an ally to the exclusion of their own country?

[b]Is my patriotism and feeling for my country any less than yours? If you believe that it is, come let us reason together and you can explain to me how and why you believe that it is so![/b]

But if the sole reason for your believing that it is so, is simply due to my undiluted support of the United States' only true ally in the Middle East, then there is no real reason for any further discussion on this topic! You have made up your mind, plain and simple.

So tell me which it is - our views on the United States are bascially the same, or that I have compromised my first allegience in some manner?

Eric The(LetMeKnowYourThoughts)Hun[>]:)]

Of your primary loyalty to the United States ?
I have no doubts and no questions.  
(I've responded here first as this is by far the most important point.)

(Again I'm guilty of numbering certain points.  These numbers were inserted by 5subslr5 and were not the action/s of one single Hun.)

1)  Here we begin to differ.  I believe we have exactly one ally in the world - Great Britain.  Never mind the noise going today.

I believe Israel is a country that uses the United States to further its' own agenda.
I believe Israel to be "an ally of convenience."
Their (Israel's convenience.)

2)  Dick Cheney's position is of grave concern to me - and accurately portrayed by you.  I fear we're going to force the Arabs into a coalition and I prefer them (the Arabs) bickering, fighting and distrusting each other.  Nothing unites quite so fast as a common enemy.

3)  Again, I do not believe Israel to be a true ally.

4)  Excellent !

I have not been nor am I now antisemetic.  (No I know you didn't accuse me.)

Over the last ten years I've moved from "There is no defensible view other than that of Israel." to "I am Israel neutral."

Although more than ten years ago I can't forget the USS Liberty.  That ship was as sovereign as Rhode Island.  I am unable to forget or forgive the Israeli military's criticism of US forces during the Gulf War.

All people (excepting Gypsies) need and desire a home.  The Palestinians need a home too.

I am now willing to look at the different views.

Whatever that makes me I am.

As a quick rejoinder, the Palestinians have a home already - if they're in the Gaza, it's Egypt. If they're on the West Bank, it's Jordan. If it's on the Golan Heights, it's Syria!

Eric The(SoSimple,ICoulda'HandledCampDavid)Hun[>]:)]

Unfortunately you amplify my point.

Post from 5subslr5 -

They've been in a coalition mode since at least the 'Arab Legion' of the 1948 War of Independence. After that it was the 'United Arab League.'

How 6 million Israelis can fend off some 70 million Egyptians, 5 million Jordanians, 24 million Iraqis, 17 million Syrians, and hold the rest of the Arab nations at bay, as well, borders on the miraculous!

Remeber back when Israel, in 1957, withdrew from the Sinai, having been promised that UN troops would insure it was demilitarized and its neighboring straits would be kept open to Israeli shipping. A decade later, in May 1967, the UN Secretary General immediately complied with Egyptian president Gamal Nasser's demand that it leave. Within days, Egypt attacked Israel.

I suppose that the Israelis cannot be faulted for believing that the rest of the world cares not a whit about its survival!

So, I also suppose that such a desperate people, having undergone the most unimaginable evil that ever befell a particular people in the Holocaust, can be forgiven for looking at things a little differently than you or I might.

I didn't believe that the United States could ever come to any peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, either. Neither did President Reagan, and he set in motion the process by which the Soviets became the [u]former[/u] Soviet Union.

Do you think that after all that has occurred between these two tribes, Israeli and Arab, that there will ever be a peaceful coexistence between them?

I don't think so either!

Eric The(AndIWantTheDemocratic,Pro-CivilRights,Pro-WestTribeToPrevail)Hun[>]:)]

Post from 5subslr5 -

You know, 5subslr5, if the Arabs had not had the temerity to attack little ol' Israel in 1967 and 1973, the Palestinians might have a leg (and an acre) to stand on!

But the right of conquest is as old as the hills of Judea and Samaria.

And far, far older than the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846-48, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, etc.

And if the Arabs had never attacked Israel, the Palestinians would still have just as much land, since the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Syrians never took any interest in their case or their situation until after 1967!

Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]

(I didn't think it necessary but probably I should have said an 'effective' coalition.)

I believe there can be peaceful coexistence between the two tribes and within about two generations.

What are the other alternatives ?  Extermination ??  No I don't believe so.

Eric, I'm going to stop now as I have no desire to further what will become a circular argument.

Would Israel have won the xxxx except for the United States support........

I'm going to continue to attempt to look at both sides and views.

To me neither Israel nor the Palestinians are worth the loss of one single American soldier or sailor.  (This is about as pro America as I can get.)

Responses are invited !

I swear, how we ever got onto Israel and the Palestinians on a Camp Gitmo thread, I'll never know!

Yes, the USS Liberty does seem to cause a lot of bad feelings all around, for certain. I am of the opinion that it was a very regrettable accident carried out in the fog of war.

And that opinion has caused me more grief on this Board than if I had denied the Trinity!  

We will never come to a final conclusion on that particular event, try as we might. I do, however, recommend a very good read, [b]after[/u] you have read everything on the incident, including the Survivor's website (which is one of my favorites) at:[url]http://www.ussliberty.org/[/url], then read this:[url]http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=369[/url]

The latter article was written by a retired USN Admiral, and, hopefully, [u]his[/u] patriotism will not be an issue!

Lord, I thought I knew everything about the Gulf War, but I simply can't remember one incident where Israel criticized US military forces in that war! Help me on this one!

When and about what did Israel criticize the US military?

Eric The(Inquiring)Hun[>]:)]

(I believed we had put patriotism to rest and will not respond further.
I did and do continue to question the attack on the USS Liberty.)

The Israeli Air Force was the primary criticizer of the US Air Force and our "inability to find, destroy and thus protect Israel from Scud missiles."

Maynard,
please call me "naive at best."  (Maybe 'nab' for short ?)

Thanks !

Eric is right, By the way , rememberrt that Jordan expelled the Palestinians in 1972, Kuiwait has expelled them. They are the unloved of the Middle East. Not even the Arabs reallty wnat them...they just like the trouble that they cause Israel

(I had left this topic but realized you deserved a better answer.  I'm ignoring your last post.)

Iran and Iraq fought a war not many years ago.  Today they appear (maybe unfortunately) well on the way to rapprochement.

We, the United States, have fought wars with England, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc., not to mention the long (and not always cold) cold war with the Soviet Union.

Today we are all at least not overt enemies.

That was my point and my only point.

I care not if you consider this view naive but I did believe you were deserving of a serious answer - or at least my attempt.

Maynard ???

(Forming cases was probably more fun)

I did not say simple but I do believe achievable.

Here I may be corrected but I believe Arabs and Jews lived in this area for centuries without many problems.