boatin

At the risk of redundancy, let me try again. I understand what you are saying. You are correct, the laws don't apply equally. No one is forcing/mandating equality. By the law as is, no one is doing anything 'wrong'. I get that.


But I'm not sure you get the other side.


My issue is not the strict letter of the law. My question is: why not do so anyway? Just because we CAN do it the way we do it now, why are we locked into that? What do we have to lose by holding ourselves to a higher standard?


My belief is that the highest standards in the world are the ones we hold ourselves accountable to. That is one reason the 'American Way' is appreciated around the world. That is one reason we are the greatest country on earth.

But when we say: "these rules are for us, YOU get different treatment", we are not walking the talk.

Again: what do we have to lose?

Right now, we are losing the war on terror. And I base that purely on the rising death count. When less Americans die to terrorists in a 6 month period than the prior 6 month period, I'll believe we are not losing the war on terror anymore.

Sure, it's an arbritrary standard, but it's all I know how to use right now. Anyone is welcome to use their own yardstick, this one works for me.

aKula

It is not really a secret anymore that the USA has sent prisoners to other countries (mostly Egypt) to be interegated with tougher means, which means they're tortured.

neutone

Well, the policy makers of America once again don't give a hoot about international laws, set up to protect all POWs. I bet the CIA and Bush would say something about foreign powers using unlawful techniques against their own captured forces (unless you are getting beheaded, then it's okay). It's exactly this arrogance that fuels international dislike for the US gvt, politics and hypocracy.

Mojo_PeiPei

Neutone, I don't care if this is arrogance that makes it easier for the international bodies to dislike us, I find the ignorance held by such people a greater threat to American security.

Read up on international law, these people are not POW's. They are Illegal combatant's who are trying to kill our boy's, and in the context of people from Afganistan they are terrorists (Gitmo detainees). God do they love bleeding compassionate hearts like your's, they'll gladly shove it down your throat after they cut it out of your body.

This is a war with real consequences, people are going to be mistreated and are going to die. I would rather have it be some fuck with a monchismo complex who thinks by murdering innocent civilians he is doing Allah's biding. George Bush and the CIA have the responsibility to do WHATEVER IT TAKES, WHENEVER, to protect all American civilians.

Also alot of you out there need to stop being so naive and ideal. Ideally none of this would be necessary, I don't think anyone wants to live in a world were stuff such as this is the reality. But buck up, this is the reality, I would rather have the government doing some shady shit, so the lives of my family and friends, even self hating American's like you are protected.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

xepherys

*B*

What country does follow them anymore? In fact, why do we have governing laws such as the GC anymore anyhow? The U.N. is useless, the GC is useless, and America will continue to do what it sees fit. Not that I think that's a terrible thing, but with the people we currently have in power I think it's scary. Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney all need to pack their bags and get the F*&^ out!

roachboy

i find it repellent that the rationale for violating the geneva convention that surfaced via a justice department memo arguing that if you do not classify prisoners as pows--like by not charging them--that they were not pows so the geneva convention did not apply--a memo that surfaced in the early phases of the abu ghiraib (spelling?) scandal, which was subject to extensive and loud distancing by the administration--who were worried that thier policies and positions relative to policy had in fact (as it has) created an atmosphere within which the use of torture and other such violations---has now surfaced as part of the johnwayne right's conventional wisdom concerning why it is just fine to violate basic human rights.

the american state is bound by law, and bound by international law.
it is not a guy in a white hat showing up in front of kitty's saloon at high noon for a showdown with a guy in a black hat.

it is not ok for the american state to both systematically violate basic human rights and to float a rationale for doing so under the pretext of the "war on terror"--a "war" that iraq is completely tangential to--which creates yet another layer of problems for folk who indulge the macho we-are-at-war-goddamn-it line as does mojo.
the bush administration can and should to held to account for this kind of action.
hopefully next week.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irateplatypus

hmm... well, i think that it is the US's role to err on the side of human rights whenever a gray area surfaces. as snobbish as it might sound, if we don't... who will? we need to take leadership in this area as we have in others.

that being said... the circumstances the authors of the Geneva convention had in mind are not relevant to a lot of our present conflict. our enemy does not have serial numbers or a visible chain of command. they do not wear uniforms and make violence against civilians policy. our enemy is unfit for protections afforded to soldiers who fight according to the LOAC.

the US should take the lead and establish internationally agreed upon protocols for terrorist prisoners. we should get this out of the way as soon as we can so our policies have international legitimacy and so we can fully direct our attention to fighting the war. the Geneva convention in its current state is not adequate for addressing the human rights concerns that face us today.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

I disagree that a new perspective on dealing with captured enemies is necessary.

But regardless - if as you say, new treaties and laws surrounding captured enemies are necessary, they should be put in place BEFORE we had started dealing with captured enemies in ways contrary to the existing treaties and laws.

As is, we have clear cut cases of International Law violations as well as subsequent National Law violations - and those responsible should be prosecuted.

irateplatypus

well... the case really isn't a clear departure from the geneva conventions. it is a very ambitious interpretation of existing law that a bit self-serving. it could be a violation, but it hasn't been proven as such yet.

this is the gray area i'm talking about. with something as vital as human rights on the line, there must be no confusion or room for interpretation subject to political whims. the government is taking a small area of international law and doing something with it that it probably wasn't intended to even though there is no law spelled out against it. a fleshing-out of these kinds of vagaries would be helpful i think.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

roachboy

i do not see how the horizontal or modular type organizations that the americans are dealing with in the context of the "war on terror" should mean that basic human rights can be simply blown off by the americans. it seems like a variant on mojo's position. i dont buy it.

you had the same argument from robert macnamara in "the fog of war" when he addressed the question of whether dropping agent orange was a war crime--his claim was that it was not specifically banned in the protocols so maybe it was maybe it wasnt (macnamara was pretty forthcoming in claiming the firebombing of tokyo was a war crime--but there was someone else more directly responsible for it than himself, so it was easy)...i dont buy that either.

i dont see how the americans can make the slightest claim to anything like a high ground in this "war on terror" if they are so willing to use that "war" as a pretext to use extra-legal means to their ends--this is not even to start talking about the problems that still circle around the legitimacy of the arguments for war themselves, which failed to meet any rational criteria for self-defense and so is itself being waged in violation of the un charter.

but then again, the american right thinks the un any number of bizarre things, so i am sure that does not matter either.

but you would think that the american state acting in ways that blur the line as to what is a "terrorist" organization would be a problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

OpieCunningham

Which is why I said prosecute, and not jail.

Many legal rulings are based on the intent of the law as opposed to the verbatim definition. It is clear that the intent of the Geneva Convention is the safeguarding of human rights. And it is clear that the intent of the manipulation of loopholes (or straight-up breaking of the laws in the case of not informing the IRC) is to sacrifice human rights for the sake of potential national safety.