Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Children as young as 13 held at guatanamo.

smooth · 05-28-2003, 10:30 PM

A couple of definitions seem to be in order. A nation and a state are two different things.

A state is a bureaucratic institution that claims a monopoly of *violence or force over a particular region.

A nation is a collection of people bound by common culture, history, language, etc.

The "terrorists" were fighting for a nation. We made the claim that only states can have legitimate, recognized military (notice the link to the "violence" portion of the definition I provided)--thus denying them legal combatants.

[edit]We claimed that these people were fighting for a nation. Since only states can claim the right to use violence over a population, armed combatants for a nation can not claim legal protection due to acting on behalf of a legal, organized bureaucracy.[/edit]

Keep in mind that almost the rest of the world abhors the death penalty--for any crime. Even if we were to grant what we considered to be a fair trial the punishment appears barbaric to many nations and states. Add to those issues the problem that many of our actions have already been criticized as unfair by various human rights groups and a large portion of the world's population--how skeptical do you think they already are of our intentions and practices?

Would it be to our benefit to find another method of punishment or even to relinquish control of the process to either an uninterested party (if there even is one) or one of our allies (if we even have one)?

Will our actions appear to others as uncaring or indifferent to world opinion; and if so, will that damage our long term interests?

*Violence is the ability to punish those who contradict the will of the state.
Max Weber referred to power as the ability to carry out one's will against resistance.

05-28-2003, 10:30 PM	#154 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	A couple of definitions seem to be in order. A nation and a state are two different things. A state is a bureaucratic institution that claims a monopoly of violence or force over a particular region. A nation is a collection of people bound by common culture, history, language, etc. The "terrorists" were fighting for a nation. We made the claim that only states can have legitimate, recognized military (notice the link to the "violence" portion of the definition I provided)--thus denying them legal* combatants. [edit]We claimed that these people were fighting for a nation. Since only states can claim the right to use violence over a population, armed combatants for a nation can not claim legal protection due to acting on behalf of a legal, organized bureaucracy.[/edit] Keep in mind that almost the rest of the world abhors the death penalty--for any crime. Even if we were to grant what we considered to be a fair trial the punishment appears barbaric to many nations and states. Add to those issues the problem that many of our actions have already been criticized as unfair by various human rights groups and a large portion of the world's population--how skeptical do you think they already are of our intentions and practices? Would it be to our benefit to find another method of punishment or even to relinquish control of the process to either an uninterested party (if there even is one) or one of our allies (if we even have one)? Will our actions appear to others as uncaring or indifferent to world opinion; and if so, will that damage our long term interests? Violence is the ability to punish those who contradict the will of the state. Max Weber referred to power* as the ability to carry out one's will against resistance. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 05-28-2003 at 10:36 PM..