Thank you for pointing out in a more considered tone, the point I was trying to make but failed to articulate as well as you have.

You all would have thought that the following is a local problem in South Asia, that was resolved by the creation of India and Pakistan.

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”

But you can replace Hindus in the above by “Englishmen” and then read Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3747

The “two nation” theory is really a “two incompatible worlds” theory.

Now, India is an experiment in the idea that the two-nation theory as described by Muhammad Ali Jinnah is wrong. It has one-third of the Muslims in South Asia (one-third in Pakistan, and one-third in Bangladesh, former East Pakistan). The United States is similarly predicated that a common citizenship is possible regardless of religion. Acts of terrorism are an assertion of the two-nation theory. Our treatment of people like animals explicitly concedes the case that the two nation theory is right, and that we must endeavor to separate and be in perpetual war about our boundaries.

It would be preferable to defeat terrorism without any concession to the two nation theory.

Since many of you seem so fond of releasing these animals from Gitmo, why don’t any of you volunteer your home for them?

This misses the point entirely, as I’m sure you realize.

When you follow with

So, those of you who dislike America and what we stand for, you are free to leave.

you also miss the point. There are many in this country who like “what America stands for” and feel that those values are being systematically dismantled by the current administration. To point this out is in no way anti-American, and to dismiss these concerns with a comment that has the flavor of “now the President has made this decision, you can like it or leave, but either way just shut up” is to invite a not-too-serious discourse.

“If a cult of Aztecs seized power in Mexico, resumed the practice of mass human sacrifice, and the United States invaded to stop it, Elliot would be the first guy to condemn America for its evil imperialism.”

and if our invasion accidently killed thousands of the very people we allegedly were protecting, by collateral damage he’d say be the first to say “Oh well….”

If a cult of Aztecs seized power in Mexico, resumed the practice of mass human sacrifice, and the United States invaded to stop it, Elliot would be the first guy to condemn America for its evil imperialism.

Just use the search function on this site to see what I mean. He suffers from a severe case of anti-Americanism undoubtedly aggravated by BDS.

Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Bolton….

Jeff you make my point better than I could do. The ultimate fallback of the neocon right is to call people critical of American policy “self-haters” and invite them (us) to leave. I would say that being critical of American policy is 1) called free speech 2) a sign of respect for American traditions and ideals instead of what the world is seeing from the current regime.

When you refer to people as “animals”, be prepared to deal with the response from those of us who think they are actually human beings and deserved to be treated as such.

These are the people who led us into Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

If this isn’t blatant imperialism … well…

These is the intellectual underpinning of the entire enterprise with inordinate influence in the current U. S. regime.

Amara, I do not think the majority of Americans believe that we should have just killed people in Afghanistan randomly without any evidence that they were hostile. Jeff obviously listens to too many right wing radio nutjobs for this own good.

Jeff’s comments are inconsequential. It is American actions like invading countries for delusional imperialistic goals as well as a “do as I say not as I do” level of behavioral hypocrisy that generates the negative image. If all we had to worry about were trolls we’d be have a much better image.

Of course the current corrupt regime here doesn’t help matters.

The CIA- and the NSA, for that matter – are not part of the military. So a Pentagon (DoD) policy would not apply to them.

That being the case, you could wonder why it was necessary to state that so explicitly. Well, the bottom line is that insofar as the DoD would be concerned, it wouldn’t be. But newspaper articles sometimes belabor the obvious.

But this is the point. Yes, it is clear it doesn’t apply to the CIA. But I don’t think the BBC was belaboring the obvious. I think they were hinting that one might make the suggestion that I did in the post – namely that if the Bush administration wanted to continue its human rights abuses, then it could just switch to letting the CIA carry out all of them and evade the ruling that way.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/guantanamo.html

(this is of course over and above the simple “its the right thing to do”)

The CIA- and the NSA, for that matter – are not part of the military. So a Pentagon (DoD) policy would not apply to them.

That being the case, you could wonder why it was necessary to state that so explicitly. Well, the bottom line is that insofar as the DoD would be concerned, it wouldn’t be. But newspaper articles sometimes belabor the obvious.

Actually, more important than any of these legalistic concerns is the White House (not DoD) dogged insistence that this represents no real change in policy. Of course, the DoD knows better which is why they had to issue the policy memo. The White House stetements are just spin.

This is the relevant part of the 4th convention as the US has signed it:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.