Post #18,767
11/19/01 11:30:04 AM
|
Re: Incoherent to you.
Having been in the military, you should know that the Laws of Armed Conflict(Geneva Convention and another such that I'd have to look up to remember the name) deal with "combatants" and "non-combatants" as opposed to "military" and "civilian". The terrorists are "combatants" as such, they are the same as an opposing military. A war tribunal is just as applicable for them. Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that a tribunal is not just a sentencing of a known criminal, but a trial in it's own right. With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases. More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern for terrorist reprisal. A few things you need to consider about a civilian style criminal case are: - How do we set up a jury of bin Laden's peers?
- What's the potential that the jury picked might be pre-biased against him given the information broadcast continuously on the news?
- What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?
- What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism
And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their "non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes under the laws of armed conflict. ~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
Post #18,785
11/19/01 12:05:58 PM
|
You're partially correct.
But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is.
Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the terrorists or anything like that.
We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start.
"Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that a tribunal is not just a sentencing of a known criminal, but a trial in it's own right."
That is true.
As we did in Nuremburg.
But we didn't do it in secret.
"With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."
Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it?
Again, in Nuremburg, we had multiple countries, in the open.
"More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern for terrorist reprisal."
Ummm, exactly HOW is that?
And don't tell me "because it is".
Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets. Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now?
"1.How do we set up a jury of bin Laden's peers?"
Ummm, the way we do now?
"2.What's the potential that the jury picked might be pre-biased against him given the information broadcast continuously on the news?"
Probably pretty highly.
Oh, or did I say that it would be easy to do?
I suppose you'd have to allow a larger than usual pool with more latitude regarding dismissals.
"3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors.
"4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad.
"And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their "non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes under the laws of armed conflict."
Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their "crimes"?
Are you sure you read that correctly?
|
Post #18,788
11/19/01 12:25:14 PM
|
Sounds reasonable to me
Let's say someone stands in the middle of, say, a group of football fans, wearing the same team team logo and assorted paraphenalia they use to identify themselves as fans. He then initiates violence against members of the opposing club's fans, with the specific intent of triggering a larger violent confrontation. In this case, I would agree that any deaths on either side in the resulting riot would properly be blamed on the interloper.
Converting terms to expand this example to a global application is LAAEFTR.[1]
[1] Left as an exercize ...
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,809
11/19/01 1:33:02 PM
|
Which brings us full circle.
We're killing your civilians because you made us kill them because we can't tell who the bad guys are.
I'll remember that comment, Drew, next time Israel uses a gunship on Arab civilians.
Remember, we aren't talking about assigning blame AFTER the event.
We're talking about our actions DURING the event.
We're still bombing. The event is still happening. We do NOT HAVE TO kill civilians right now.
Restraint.
Which was my point at the beginning.
All we're doing is breeding another generation of suicide bombers.
It isn't Osama who's dropping those bombs. It's the US.
It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US.
That same "logic" is what keeps every generation of suicide bombers going.
And now we have a chance to break the cycle.
But why? That's too much work. Better to blame them.
And drop more bombs.
|
Post #18,818
11/19/01 2:11:43 PM
|
On the effect of propoganda
It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US.
I don't doubt that. But my point stands: When someone hides among non-combattants, and goes out of his way to make himself indistinguishable from non-combatants, he should shoulder the blame when non-combattants inevitably get hurt.
However (here's where propaganda comes in) when the non-combatants have been told by their state-sponsored media that the people in their midst are freedom fighters -- or whatever the local term is -- they have blamed the foe even before the retaliation.
To see it from the other side, there have been monuments built and legends told of the heroic people who hid resistance fighters during WWII. When the Nazis came in and killed not only the resistance fighters but also those who housed them, would we expect the "non-combattants" to blame the resistance?
Of course not. The point is, anyone who knowingly and willingly harbors a combattant has already made up their mind about who is right or wrong. They have chosen a side and taken part. (Damn, I'm agreeing with Bush.)
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,820
11/19/01 2:21:30 PM
|
You're shifting focus.
We started off with people who UNKNOWINGLY shielded the attacker.
Your example of someone dressing as a fan of one team and attacking fans of the other team.
Now you're to the point of discussing people who actively support the attacker.
Instead of that, why don't we continue to focus on the reactions of the people who don't fully support the attacker yet.
The one's that form the crowd he is hiding in.
You go to a ball game.
You're cheering your team.
Arabs start shooting at the crowd you're in. Hitting and killing many of you.
But they were just trying to get the one person hiding in your crowd.
Feel free to blame the person they claim to be shooting at.
Rather then them for actually killing the people who weren't involved.
Again, full circle. Let's breed another generation so we can continue the bombing.
|
Post #18,823
11/19/01 2:40:27 PM
|
You left out a few parts from the analogy
Like the parts where the crowd I'm in is told that there is a "criminal" in our midst.
Shown pictures of what he looks like.
Told what he did and shown footage of the thousands of dead he caused.
Told what section of the stands he is in.
Told that that section will be targeted in 15 minutes and anyone still in it will be considered a willing collaborator.
Okay, the analogy is getting stretched. But I know that's your preferred method of debate: focus on the flaws in an analogy rather than the insight it may provide. Any analogy that so closely matches the original situation as to have no arguable differences is no longer an analogy, but the thing itself.
So rather than trying to refine my analogy any further, I'll go back to the original formulation: If a combatant hides among non-combatants in an explicit effort to cause them to be targeted, he is at fault for their deaths.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #18,827
11/19/01 2:57:47 PM
|
Think about that.
We've bombed sites that we KNOW he is not in.
We've hit civilians because of that.
Care to reconsider your example?
I agree, >IF< we could do what you say, then it would be easy to justify.
But when they know what he looks like
AND
They know he isn't near them
AND
We bomb them
THEN
We are at fault
|
Post #18,847
11/19/01 4:35:33 PM
|
Re: You're partially correct.
But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is. Yes it does, and anyone who takes an active part in an attack (i.e. fires the gun, pilots the plane, even planning and coordination) is a combatant. Even a doctor that takes up arms for more than an immediate last line defense of his charges can be considered a combatant. Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the
terrorists or anything like that.
We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start. Unless they meet the criteria specified above (and I doubt any have), we won't "With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a
criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."
Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it? I haven't examined the proposal, but I would imagine such oversight will be a requirement. Any attempt to do otherwise would probably bring down the condemnation of our allies. "More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern
for terrorist reprisal."
Ummm, exactly HOW is that?
And don't tell me "because it is". If "because it is" was the only answer I had I wouldn't bother saying it. The fact is it's easier to intimidate people than governments. By this I mean that those jurors would be individual people with their own fears as opposed to a tribunal of government officials whose concerns are much broader Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets.
Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now? It wouldn't. The effect on the people making the decisions would be different. "3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors. How much do you keep secret? The threat can be against the courthouse itself, or the hotels around the courthouse (one of wich would probably contain the sequestered jury. It wouldn't necessarily be directed at the jurors. And if you have to keep too much secret, then we're back where we started. "4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and
defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad. Yes, to some degree you are correct here, my confidence isn't high, and that may be just my prejudice in the system, so I'll strike that question "And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their
"non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes
under the laws of armed conflict."
Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their
"crimes"?
Are you sure you read that correctly? With the obvious exception of attacks that hit civilian centers instead of terrorist controlled targets. If they are housing civilians near obvious targets and dressing the same as the civilians, they are responsible for their deaths. And yes, I just went through my annual LOAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) training for the Air Force last week. ~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
