Post #25,010
1/21/02 1:44:36 PM
|
OpEd: Human rights and those guys at Gitmo
[link|http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20020121/1190691.html|If we treat them as terrorists, the terrorists will have won?]
Excerpts:
The prisoners are terrorists, not soldiers, for their allegiance is to no government but to an illegal unrecognized regime in Afghanistan (the Taliban) or to an international outlaw conspiracy (al-Qaeda. Or both, since in fact it's hard to distinguish between the two movements, each so intertwined with the other.)
While they are legitimately our prisoners, they were not legitimate soldiers, and we're neither bound to treat them as such nor can we afford to do so. Ms. Robinson's got her tenses wrong: Far from having sought to preserve our way of life -- past tense -- we're still seeking to preserve it...
But the Americans' main concern with these detainees cannot be to punish them. For so long as al-Qaeda remains a menace, trial and punishment are beside the point, except inasmuch as the threat of them facilitates intelligence gathering. Convictions won't help the Americans, but plea bargains can. Think of the process at Guantanamo as one vast episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. Punishment, however satisfying to the audience, would just be a bonus.
Nothing the Americans have done so far presents a clear violation of international law. But we have to put first things first. A government's first duty is to defend its people. You be the U.S. President who informs his people that he would really have liked to do everything in his power to protect them from further acts of mass murder, but it would have offended Amnesty International.
I say:
Okay. Most of these yahoos think human rights are a joke anyway. But what about these Brits we keep hearing about? They come from a county with democracy and human rights. So if we don't give them these rights, in can indeed be said that we're taking them away from him.
This is something we need to sort out with our allies. Especially one worth keeping, such as Great Britain. If Blair can give us some assurances that these guys won't be let loose, then maybe we should extradite them.
On the other hand, [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14241-2002Jan21.html|maybe it will just sort itself out].
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,013
1/21/02 3:19:14 PM
|
looks like a life sentence minimum
[link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/81/sections/section_1653.html|case law on aliens] sounds like a description of alqaida members in gitmo but hows about Johnny bin Walker? [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/81/sections/section_1652.html| citizen Pirates ] he took his orders from the Taliban so the only argument is that he wasnt directly involved in attacking americans, so what defines a pirate? One definition is that monetary gain must be involved, not a political act. However the bin laden view is that America must be destroyed does result in a material gain for someone and is the end they seek. Pirates. It appears from case law thought they cannot be executed except in Hot Actions, bringing them out of the AOO is not hot so if the law kicks in we gotta keep em breathing for the rest of their natural lives, that would cause more problems than it solves.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,020
1/21/02 4:56:36 PM
|
Parallels with witch hunts.
Who is this person?
" With the country in recession and the budget once again in deficit -- in no small part due to the terrorists themselves -- the costs of shipping them to another galaxy are prohibitive."
What the fuck? What kind of answer is that?
"I get it. If we treat these captives as the terrorists they are rather than as the soldiers they're not, then The Terrorists Will Have Won. I can't agree with Ms. Robinson here."
"The prisoners are terrorists, not soldiers, for their allegiance is to no government but to an illegal unrecognized regime in Afghanistan (the Taliban) or to an international outlaw conspiracy (al-Qaeda. Or both, since in fact it's hard to distinguish between the two movements, each so intertwined with the other.)"
Just as our people were part of an "unrecognized regime" back in 1776.
"While they are legitimately our prisoners, they were not legitimate soldiers, and we're neither bound to treat them as such nor can we afford to do so."
Then we should treat them as we treat our other prisoners.
"Merely to pose that question is to underline how irrelevant that convention is to a conflict like the present one. Al-Qaeda fighters lack rank and serial number, but of names they have only too many. The danger is that the CIA's mainframes will crash trying to keep track of them all. The Geneva Conventions seem downright quaint when applied to this conflict."
What the FUCK?!? Okay, I can accept that they don't have rank or serial numbers, whether that is completely true or not, maybe their organization is just a bit more flat than our's. But we can't even release their NAMES?!? Because it would crash the mainframes?
Why am I thinking "witch hunt" here? What unholy powers do these people posses? Hell, we released John Walker's name and nothing terrible happened.
"Al-Qaeda operatives aren't soldiers and we can't afford to treat them as if they were. Not respecting any laws of war themselves, they have put themselves quite outside their protection."
I will recommend this individual take a look at the various conflicts we've fought in since (and including) World War II. Japanese treatment of prisoners? Germany? Vietnam? What-the-fuck-ever.
"Nothing the Americans have done so far presents a clear violation of international law."
Yet.
"But we have to put first things first."
But even this individual seems to think that we're going to be doing so. Otherwise, why start the disclaimers now?
"Should the West ever be so delusional as to respond to a lawless enemy by lapsing into feckless legalism, on that day -- although I hate a clich\ufffd as much as the next man, still, there's no denying it: The Terrorists Will Have Won."
Hmmmmmm, someone should inform this person that this is EXACTLY what the US legal system does EVERY DAY.
|
Post #25,021
1/21/02 5:45:29 PM
|
Yeah, let's at least release their names!
Good luck finding out what their names are. Or maybe in the Brandioch universe you can just ask them and they'll tell you.
"Wow, I never realized Hei Phuc Yu was such a common name among people of Saudi origin!"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,022
1/21/02 6:08:22 PM
|
What is it with you people and names?
We already have the secret military tribunals without names being released.
We have people arrested in this country without their names being released.
Do you think that because someone might mock you when giving their name that this somehow justifies the practice of nameless prisoners being held for an undetermined time?
Or is it that you don't have any justification and that you're hoping to retreat (like the author of that article) into mocker to so support your position by attempting to deride mine?
Why don't you start naming other countries that have this practice?
Then tell me that you want the US to follow their lead.
|
Post #25,023
1/21/02 6:26:05 PM
|
If you sincerely have a problem with this...
then you figure out how to find out their names. You're the one saying it should be done. You figure out how. No uniforms, no dog tags, no driver's licenses, no willingness to cooperate. But you're a clever fellow. I'm sure you've thought it through. Now grace the rest of us with the fruits of your brilliance.
(You do realize, I dare hope, that it's impossible to release their names if we don't know them.)
The ball's in your court. Quit whining and start problem-solving. Or failing that, just quit whining.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,028
1/21/02 7:32:46 PM
|
Oh, I don't know. Maybe ask them?
Since you couldn't do it, I'll do it.
I'll name the other countries that have had people imprisoned without revealing their names.
China
Soviet Russia
And so on.
And you think it is okay to follow these shining examples 'cause the prisoners MIGHT NOT GIVE US THEIR CORRECT NAMES.
"The ball's in your court. Quit whining and start problem-solving. Or failing that, just quit whining."
Actually, you've NEVER shown that we wouldn't get their correct names just by asking them.
Like I said, another witch hunt. Label them "terrorist" and whatever you do is okay 'cause they're terrorists and can't be trusted.
Newsflash, we have people in our legal system RIGHT NOW that haven't given their correct names and our country STILL manages to survive from day to day.
Like I said, the best you can come up with is an attempt to mock my position. Never any support for your position. Never any evidence that what you say is true.
|
Post #25,116
1/22/02 12:38:51 PM
|
Wow. You are beyond parody.
I thought I was exaggerating when I suggested you'd be stupid enough to advocate just asking them and then believing them. But now you go and actually advocate it!
There's just no underestimating you. The reality of you is equal to my sarcasm.
Did you actually go to a special school to learn to be this dumb? Did you have classes in gullibility and knee-jerk outrage? On second thought, I suppose you probably did.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,134
1/22/02 2:03:34 PM
|
For the intellectually challenged.
"I thought I was exaggerating when I suggested you'd be stupid enough to advocate just asking them and then believing them."
Like I explained before, we have people in our legal system TWO-FUCKING-DAY that don't give their correct names.
Yet we seem able to handle such an unthinkable event without social collapse.
Gee, how is that possible from your world view?
I mean, why do we bother to ask criminals for their names if we know they might lie?
Well, I guess you've never heard of FINGERPRINTS! Or PHOTOGRAPHS!
Think "mug shots".
We finger print them, we photograph them, and we ask them their name and so on. This information is entered in our computers. We release the names.
Where is it that you have a fucking problem with that process?!?
Because some of them might use the name (and I am quoting you on this) "Hei Phuc Yu"? That's what you're worried about?
What the FUCK FOR?!?
Do you have any UNDERSTANDING of WHY it is important for us to release the names of our prisoners (even in our legal system)?
No. You don't understand, do you?
It is so that people will not just "disappear" in our country.
"Did you actually go to a special school to learn to be this dumb?"
No, I went to school to learn to be this intelligent.
Those without any background in political science are the ones that don't see any problem with not releasing the names. (and those who advocate fascist like governments).
"Did you have classes in gullibility and knee-jerk outrage?"
What's gullible about asking your prisoner what his name is so it can be released to the appropriate authorities (and so his family will know that he's been captured and is alive)?
"I thought I was exaggerating when I suggested you'd be stupid enough to advocate just asking them and then believing them."
Newflash for you. How do you think the enemy knows the names of OUR people when they are captured?
|
Post #25,136
1/22/02 2:13:59 PM
|
Meanwhile, on this planet...
there are no fingerprint records or mug shots for these people.
How's the weather on planet Branidioch?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,147
1/22/02 2:49:14 PM
|
Okay.
It seems that one of us has no clue what this discussion is about.
No, there aren't fingerprint records.
That is why we make them.
No there aren't photographs.
That is why we take them.
Were you aware that in Soviet Russia, the police could kick down your door and take you into custody and never release any information about you? Even to your family? Or your lawyer?
There were people in the prisons who did not have any name listed in any official documentation.
And you think this is a good thing for this country to emulate?
And you still have not explained to me how our criminal justice system can handle US criminals that don't give their names.
All you can do is attempt to mock my position.
Sorry to introduce facts into your fantasy, but our system is setup to be able to handle situations just like this. Without infringing upon the rights of the individuals.
You'd know that if you had any background in criminal justice or political theory.
But, rather than explain your position, I'll predict that you'll resort to mocking mine.
That is the traditional practice of those who can't defend their position.
|
Post #25,149
1/22/02 3:14:50 PM
|
Good gawd you're stupid.
What the hell are we going to do with fingerprints if we don't already know who they are to begin with?
"Look, we've got his fingerprints!"
"Whose fingerprints?"
"That guy over there!"
"Who's he?"
"Uh... well, we can compare his prints to his other fingerprint records and then we'll know!"
"What other fingerprint records?"
"Uh..."
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,153
1/22/02 3:37:45 PM
|
yer both ijits
Brandi, get his name
Falcon, cant get his name they lie
Their names are known as representatives of their countries have been notified, The Brits have the Names the Aussies the Saudis and the various other relevent people. I am sure the Int Red Cross who has accessed these people have their names, just we here on ziwethey dont have their names BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION TO SINGLE OUT THESE PEOPLE AND THE AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN HOLLERED AT BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT A PHOTOGRAPH AND PUBLISHED IT.
Good Day,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,159
1/22/02 3:57:41 PM
|
Who's got the names, now?
Representatives of their countries? Afhanistan isn't really a country in any sense in which this would be meaningful. It's little more than an abitrary georgraphical distinction.
The IRC? Wouldn't they face the same problem as we?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,192
1/22/02 6:39:29 PM
|
What was that?
Did I say something about you mocking my position if you couldn't support your's?
Gee, what did you just do?
Listen up. Get your stupid ass down to your local PRISON and see how fingerprints are related to prisoners.
If they give a name, their family can be notified.
If they don't, they their family won't be notified.
But that doesn't matter as we'll have photographs matched to fingerprints matched to prisoner numbers.
Wow. Just like we ALREADY DO IN THIS COUNTRY.
Ask them their names, that goes on the paperwork. No name, they are "John Doe". The fingerprints and photographs are recorded.
Now, suppose the fingerprints of one of the prisoners matches the prints found at some terrorist's house.
Do you see where this is going?
|
Post #25,155
1/22/02 3:41:46 PM
|
Methinks you've got another "rights" problem.
You don't have the right to know who has been accused of a crime. You have a right to know who has been convicted.
We will have to obligation to report prisoners to the relevent authority according to Geneva. The New York Times is NOT the relevent authority.
YOU...have NO RIGHT to know
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,162
1/22/02 4:08:10 PM
|
Depends on the law, doesn't it?
Hi BP, You don't have the right to know who has been accused of a crime. You have a right to know who has been convicted.I think most of the US tabloid TV "news" programs would be out of business if they weren't able to find out who was indicted, accused, etc. Enron? What's legal WRT the detainees depends on what the applicable laws are, IMO. [link|http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020128-195299,00.html|Time] magazine story. At the heart of the matter is a question of legality. The Pentagon has resisted calling the detainees prisoners of war, preferring the terms unlawful combatants or battlefield detainees. It's easy to see why. Under the Geneva Convention, those holding true POWs are bound to release them at the end of hostilities; but that is the last thing the U.S. wants to do with men who may be al-Qaeda operatives. Moreover, by convention (though the law seems to be murky here) POWs don't need to tell their captors anything other than their name, rank, serial number and birthday. But for Washington, the whole point of the detention is to conduct interrogations and thus head off new acts of terrorism.
The Geneva Convention does contemplate that some irregular forces captured in battle need not be considered POWs. That may well apply to members of al-Qaeda, a free-floating band of terrorists. But not all of those at Gitmo are al-Qaeda men. Some--the Pentagon won't say how many--were members of the Taliban and presumably thought they were part of the Afghan army. Are they POWs? Washington says no, because the Taliban had no clear chain of command and was not a legitimate government. That may be so; unfortunately, as Amnesty International has pointed out, under the Geneva Convention the Pentagon has no business making such a determination. Those who fall into the enemy's hands are entitled to POW status until a "competent tribunal" has determined their status. In the case of those in Cuba, that hasn't happened.
More curious still is the matter of the prisoners' ultimate fate. Rumsfeld has laid out four options: a military trial, a trial in U.S. criminal courts, return to their home countries for prosecution, or continued detention "while additional intelligence is gathered." The last seems a distinct possibility; the Pentagon plans to build 2,000 cells at Camp X-Ray. "This will be a big deal down there for at least two years, guaranteed," says Army Lieut. General B.B. Bell, who commands Fort Hood, Texas, the base from which military police have been deployed to Cuba. But it's hard to find a justification for such detention in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else. Leaving the prisoners "indefinitely beyond the reach of any legal regime," said the Economist last week, "would put America--pre-eminently a nation of laws--itself outside the law." Legitimate questions about these detainees and the applicable law are being raised. I hope (and expect) Rumsfeld and others to reasonably quickly come to some decision which is consistent with our laws and treaty obligations. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #25,168
1/22/02 4:49:33 PM
|
Its ok for...
...tabloids to find things out and report them...they just need to make sure they're accurate...because if they aren't they are liable to be sued...and have been many times. They do NOT...however...have the right to walk up and be handed a list of those accused...which is what is being demanded at this point.
There are legitimate questions about this entire conflict and how to apply the Geneva Convention. That seems to be the focus of the Time piece. Some of these detainees could be prisoners of war, some legitimate continuing threats and currnet criminals...and some very innocent folks caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorting that out will be a difficult task.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,193
1/22/02 6:46:27 PM
|
Which is the issue.
"There are legitimate questions about this entire conflict and how to apply the Geneva Convention."
Not really. Are they POW's or not?
If not, what are they?
Define what they are and you have the answer to how they will be treated.
"Sorting that out will be a difficult task."
And all the US has to do is to show that it has a plan on how to sort them and is progressing with that plan.
It's the indefinate incarceration that seems to be the problem. Not to mention the treatment of the prisoners.
|
Post #25,202
1/22/02 8:15:59 PM
|
Also___ we used to have another saying Pre-Ashcroft
Justice delayed is justice denied.
I would suppose that to mean, in context here: you may not hold indefinitely! someone under the rubric, ummm we haven't quiiite made up our minds what we are going to call this creature -- maybe next year we will. Maybe not.
But then, it's just a Principle so - it's malleable, especially where it's inconvenient. For the undecisive.
A.
|
Post #25,203
1/22/02 8:26:45 PM
|
Sly LRPD: IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Eponymic Yammerers.
If we call someone an Unclassifiable Individual, can we escape all those inconvenient Principles..
One More Time ?
Huh? Huh? Can We Please, Mr. Scalia.?. OK.... Mr. Thomas?
Ari [Watch! what you Say!] Fleischer? Well then -
Dubya [All our Texa-cuted prisoners were guilty!] - whatcha say, Boss? He just gave a guard the finger..
|
Post #25,210
1/22/02 10:14:41 PM
|
Issues
The Geneva Convention was written to deal with armed conflict between sovereign states. So...members of the Taliban >may< be classified as prisoners of war >if< the Taliban government is recognized as such.
Members of the Al Qaeda network are NOT prisoners associated with a conflict between sovereign states...Geneva does not apply.
Now..you present "indefinite incarceration" as if its already happened. Gitmo's been in operation for a whole week...infinity to some I guess.
Like it or not...Geneva was not written to cover this scenario. I will expect you to have a problem with this...because this situation is NOT binary.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,265
1/23/02 12:27:08 PM
|
By way of comparision.
How long can the cops hold you without charging you?
"So...members of the Taliban >may< be classified as prisoners of war >if< the Taliban government is recognized as such."
But it will be the US who is deciding whether to "recognize" the Taliban as a "legitimate" government of Afghanistan.
So, why haven't we decided that yet? Is there some more information that needs to be processed?
Or is the legitimacy of the Taliban "government" up before an international vote? Hmmmmmmmmm?
"Members of the Al Qaeda network are NOT prisoners associated with a conflict between sovereign states...Geneva does not apply."
Fine, but not all the prisoners are Al Qaeda, are they?
Or are you saying they are?
If you're saying they are, then why did you say the first thing you said?
"Like it or not...Geneva was not written to cover this scenario."
Actually, it can cover this situation. The only questions arising are because the US isn't "recognizing" this as a legitimate war.
"I will expect you to have a problem with this...because this situation is NOT binary."
Once again, retreat to the personal attacks when you see your "logic" failing.
Let me make it easy on you.
Why don't you post what the POSSIBLE classifications of these prisoners COULD BE.
Then tell me which of the Geneva Conventions apply to each category and why.
I'm going to bet that you won't do this. The reason for this is because you don't know what you're talking about.
|
Post #25,267
1/23/02 12:40:53 PM
|
Try a little research
But it will be the US who is deciding whether to "recognize" the Taliban as a "legitimate" government of Afghanistan.
So, why haven't we decided that yet? Is there some more information that needs to be processed?
Or is the legitimacy of the Taliban "government" up before an international vote? Hmmmmmmmmm? I'm getting tired of the snide hypothetical questions. This issue has been decided by an international "vote." The Taliban are not recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They never have been. So while the argument has been made that some of the Taliban fighters may have believed they were fighting for the standing army of a legitimate nation, there is no question that international consensus already exists on this. The only "more information that needs to be processed" is by you. Why don't you post what the POSSIBLE classifications of these prisoners COULD BE. 1. Soldiers in the standing army of a legitimate government. (None) 2. Incorrectly believed they were in the first category. (Probably some) 3. Members of a guerilla, revolutionary force which has, for the past several years, maintained control of a nation. (U.N. consensus) 4. Members of a trans-national organization providing support to members of the third category; in lay terms "international terrorists". (Al-Queda) 5. Mercenaries and assorted thugs; criminals for hire. (Probably some) 6. Innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Possibly some) 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 #25,287
1/23/02 1:25:56 PM
|
Thank you, Drew.
Although those questions were directed at Bill because he is the one that lacks the facts.
But, since you've decided to step in for him, perhaps you can also complete the task I assigned to him.
You've listed the possible categories of the individuals, yet you've not referenced the applicable sections of the Geneva Conventions. Please do so at this time.
|
Post #25,289
1/23/02 1:29:50 PM
|
US Law suffices
[link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/81/sections/section_1653.html|who are they?]
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,301
1/23/02 2:27:33 PM
|
Allow me to post the text of that.
"Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life."
"found and taken on the sea"
Afghanistan is a sea?
|
Post #25,305
1/23/02 2:44:08 PM
|
what part of OR do you have trouble with :)
OR of the citizens of the same(US)
Note the provisions of US law that declare an aircraft to be a vessel, hence the term air piracy, etc [link|http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/termugniyah.htm|wanted poster] note how many times the word piracy appears. Lack of water is not a limitation.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,314
1/23/02 3:20:51 PM
|
No problem.
"Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life."
Yep, one long sentence.
The part you quoted seems to refer to acts of piracy against US citizens.
"upon the United States"
"or cruising against the vessles and property thereoff"
"or of the citizens of the same" (I'm taking "the same" to mean US)
So, anyone found and captured on the sea while raiding US citizens can be imprisoned for life as a pirate.
In other words, the hijackers could be considered "pirates" (allow air instead of sea), but the other people in Afghanistan wouldn't be.
|
Post #25,320
1/23/02 3:37:40 PM
|
Aaaaargh, me hearties!
I think it's reasonable to say that the Taliban were accessories both before and after the fact to certain instances of air piracy last September. They aided and abetted big time.
But if anyone wants to be pedantic, you can say air piracy isn't really piracy because they don't have peg legs or parrots on their shoulders.
And then there's software piracy...
Here's a question. Those guards at the Nazi death camps. Did they qualify as soldiers under the Geneva convention?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,321
1/23/02 3:44:35 PM
|
Yes they did and were treated as POW's
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,298
1/23/02 2:14:03 PM
|
[Sigh]
As has been pointed out here already, the Geneva Convention was written to apply to nations' armies.* This being the case, it is generally accepted that the Convention is out of date with modern realities. Even so, it is the most widely recognized set of principles. And the difficulty for the U.S. administration is that they must, as a practical matter, not just abide by applicable international law but also be seen to be doing so.
Unfortunately, there is no obvious, compelling resolution to the question of which articles of the Convention apply, if any, and to whom. This is a question for lawyers to answer after reasoned debate, which obviously conflicts with the exigencies of ongoing conflict.
The question of "what is the legal thing" is not the same as "what is the right thing" or even "what is the most nearly-right thing", in this case as in most others. The balancing act is to try to find the "most nearly-right thing" without in the process commiting any violations of what will, in retrospect, be found to be the "legal thing."
* There is a clause proposed in the 40's and not generally ratified until decades later that eliminates the distinction between military and civilian combatants. Interestingly, neither the U.S. nor Afghanistan (U.N. recognized regime nor Taliban) have ratified this clause.
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 #25,303
1/23/02 2:37:30 PM
|
Not completely true.
There are a number of articles in the Geneva Conventions.
"This being the case, it is generally accepted that the Convention is out of date with modern realities."
That is very strange. I was taught it when I was in the Army and no one told me it was out of date.
"And the difficulty for the U.S. administration is that they must, as a practical matter, not just abide by applicable international law but also be seen to be doing so."
Yes, this is the problem the current administration has.
"Unfortunately, there is no obvious, compelling resolution to the question of which articles of the Convention apply, if any, and to whom."
Actually, there is. The troops captured are POW's and should be treated as such.
It's only unclear when our government wants it to be unclear.
(Yes, there are terrorists and associates in the group collected. These need to be identified as such and treated as such.)
"This is a question for lawyers to answer after reasoned debate, which obviously conflicts with the exigencies of ongoing conflict."
I don't see how that conflicts with the ongoing conflict. If anything it would seem to me to be mandated. We have to go through the prisoners and find the terrorists and SEGREGATE them. That is one of the FIRST things you're taught in the military.
"The question of "what is the legal thing" is not the same as "what is the right thing" or even "what is the most nearly-right thing", in this case as in most others."
I don't think that anyone would have a problem with us doing "the right thing". Oh, unless by "the right thing" you mean an illegal action.
"The balancing act is to try to find the "most nearly-right thing" without in the process commiting any violations of what will, in retrospect, be found to be the "legal thing."
Actually, as long as you act accourding to the agreed upon treatment of POW's, who could fault it? It is the lowest level of "legal" in this discussion, isn't it?
In other words, they are ALL POW's and should be treated as such. Whether we recognize the Taliban as "legitimate" or not.
Some of them are also terrorists. These need to be identified and processed.
And that is the simplest and easiest way to treat these prisoners.
|
Post #25,307
1/23/02 2:54:21 PM
|
Ahh, they're POWs
That stands for Prisoners of War, right? And when did the Taliban declare war? Did they have the legal right to do that, considering world opinion seems to be that they don't speak for the country?
Or did the U.S. declare war? If so, I missed that.
And if they are POWs, they have different rights -- some would say, and have -- less rights. You remember the whole Military Tribunal flap, don't you?
So if they are prisoners of war, you have no problem with secret military tribunals and the denial of legal counsel? Whoops, isn't that what this whole mess is about, anyway?
Either they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or to the protections afforded by the U.S. legal system to civilian criminals (complicated by the fact that they are non-citizens, and aren't within the borders of the U.S.).
So which set of protections so they get? Or more pointedly, which set of protections do you wish for them to forfeit?
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 #25,312
1/23/02 3:14:35 PM
|
*sigh*
"War on Terrorism"
Does that phrase ring a bell?
Was it used by our president?
"And if they are POWs, they have different rights -- some would say, and have -- less rights."
Less than what?
"So if they are prisoners of war, you have no problem with secret military tribunals and the denial of legal counsel? Whoops, isn't that what this whole mess is about, anyway?"
If you will recall, my problem with the secret tribunals was that anyone suspected of being a terrorist could be subjected to one.
Now, where's the problem with that in dealing with POW's? Or are you saying that a POW can be subjected to a secret military tribunal without having his name released and then be jailed for life or executed?
Do you know how POW's are treated?
"Either they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, or to the protections afforded by the U.S. legal system to civilian criminals (complicated by the fact that they are non-citizens, and aren't within the borders of the U.S.)."
Right, and BOTH of those cases REQUIRE that the names be released. Well they did before September of last year.
Didn't this thread get started by someone saying something about names being released?
"So which set of protections so they get? Or more pointedly, which set of protections do you wish for them to forfeit?"
Didn't you read my previous post?
They're POW's.
They have all the considerations due to POW's under the Geneva Conventions.
We do not conceal the names of POW's.
We do not INDEFINATELY incarcerate POW's. (they are returned after the conflict)
And so on.
Now, they are NOT being charged with any crimes so they are NOT subject to our legal system.
Unless they ARE being charged with a crime(s) in which case they DO have the rights spelled out in our legal system. Impartial jury? Speedy trial? Lawyers?
What part did I lose you one?
|
Post #25,315
1/23/02 3:29:26 PM
|
Read your own post
"War on Terrorism"
So slogans now count as legal proof? Unless congress has declared it, it's not legally a war.
Right, and BOTH of those cases REQUIRE that the names be released.
Released to whom?
Now, they are NOT being charged with any crimes so they are NOT subject to our legal system.
Unless they ARE being charged with a crime(s) in which case they DO have the rights spelled out in our legal system.
And that's the question BeeP posed. Which way are they going to be handled. And by what precedent do you decide. And are all of them POWs?
They don't seem to fall under U.S. civilian law, because they aren't U.S. citizens nor were they in the U.S. They don't seem to fall under Geneva Convention for POWs because they aren't, according to current world opinion, acting as the army of a legitimate nation.
Wait, didn't you say:
If you will recall, my problem with the secret tribunals was that anyone suspected of being a terrorist could be subjected to one. (My emphasis)
So it hinges on whether we "suspect" they are a terrorist. But you've demanded a determination of that very fact as a prerequisite to determining how they will be treated.
So we aren't allowed to decide how to handle them until we decide if they are terrorists.
And we can't call them terrorists until we convict them of something.
Which we can't do until we decide how we're going to handle them.
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 #25,323
1/23/02 4:02:10 PM
|
Weasel words don't suit you Drew.
You can generally cut through the BS with ease. What happened here?
-quote
"War on Terrorism"
So slogans now count as legal proof? Unless congress has declared it, it's not legally a war.
-endquote
I think this would come as a surprise to those citizens who were held as prisoners of war over in southeast asia not so long ago.
This is a war. Declared or not, it is most assuredly a war. Just as the conflict in Vietnam was a war even though congress never declared it as such. We held opponenets in that conflict in prisonor of war camps, they did the same to our guys. We gave and expected treatment in accordance with the Geneva conventions.
All that aside, If they are not going to be afforded the label "pow", and they aren't going to charged as criminals, then they must be come under the heading of something else. What that is, I have no idea. I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #25,324
1/23/02 4:13:28 PM
|
But that's the exact problem
I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs.
But when the administration suggested that military tribunals would be used, people went ballistic that these were not appropriate because the people in question weren't military. What does that leave?
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 #25,336
1/23/02 5:02:02 PM
|
NO!
People went "ballistic" when SECRET military tribunals were declared for people SUSPECTED of being terrorists.
In other words, foreign nations, residing in the US could be taken away in the middle of the night and executed.
Their names would not be released.
Their lawyers would not be notified.
No public record of the "trial" would be released.
THAT is the problem people had.
|
Post #25,338
1/23/02 5:11:33 PM
|
Fair enough
Their names would not be released.
You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations.
And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released? I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right.
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 #25,341
1/23/02 5:34:11 PM
|
I said it, but I didn't mean it.
"And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released?"
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say that that could happen.
What I meant to say is that foreign nationals living in the US could be taken in the middle of the night and executed without their names being released or the details of their "trial" being available.
Are we clear now?
Foreign nationals
Living in the US
Arrested
"Tried"
Executed
All in "secret" and without their names being released.
"I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right."
Possibly. Although if you remove the "secret" part and release the names of those arrested (you know, like we already do for our own citizens) then that would pretty much invalidate my position, wouldn't it?
"You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations."
First off, let me ask you how such COULD jeopardize "ongoing operations".
Second, to whom do you release the names?
Oh I don't know, maybe the UN? After all, they are citizens of another country.
While you're at it, why not hand the names off to InterPol? Along with their fingerprints and photos, maybe?
After all, they are "terrorists".
|
Post #25,343
1/23/02 5:50:00 PM
|
Seems that the folks at Oxford
[link|http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/01/21012002090135.asp| understand the issues involved.] Roberts does not believe that the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo are in fact, prisoners of war, a category he says only applies to Taliban soldiers: "Basically [prisoners of war] have to be part of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, and Al-Qaeda is nothing like a state so there's a problem there. Second problem: There has to be a responsible command system, and it's not at all clear what the command system of Al-Qaeda is and whether there's a clear line of responsibility. Thirdly, they have to wear a uniform or insignia -- in fact a uniform and insignia [which can] be seen at a distance. And fourthly, they have to conduct operations in accord with the laws and customs of war. I would question Al-Qaeda on these accounts." You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,352
1/23/02 6:39:02 PM
|
If I may.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. skipped
2. skipped
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. and beyond, skipped.
|
Post #25,353
1/23/02 6:44:28 PM
|
And to clarify 'cause I know you're going to try to be dumb.
That is for PRISONERS OF WAR!
If they are captured TERRORISTS or belong to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, then you can refer back to my earlier post:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25303|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25303]
Am I the only person here who's memory can trace back more than two posts?
|
Post #25,395
1/23/02 10:38:00 PM
|
Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy...
...so as to make it fit better with your binary style. [link|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm|The Convention] Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. ========================================== Adding to the confusion created by those areas highlighted above... After reading through the 140+ articles (again)...I'd be hard pressed to find any violations of the convention...even if we don't think that these folks are covered under it. And while it >does< say we have to do our best to ascertain their identity and provide them with documentation of said id...it doesn't say ANYWHERE that we have to tell Brandioch who they are...only that we must allow them to write their family and must communicate their identity to a Central Information Agency after it has been created. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,423
1/24/02 3:04:08 AM
|
Re: Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy...
I believe the criteria was ANY.
So if it FITS one criteria, it's POW status, no?
Can't understand why you are disagreeing with Brandioch.
|
Post #25,427
1/24/02 4:45:16 AM
|
What was that about binary?
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
Allow me to trim that a bit so you can understand it.
"are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories"
Did you get that yet?
Maybe I need to trim it a bit more.
"ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES"
Now, I showed where the matched ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES.
Now, the reason I left off the others is because some people of limited mental ability *cough* Bill Patient *cough* can't understand such complex concepts.
You know of having multiple categories but only requiring one match?
So I made it easy on such individuals.
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
Then I numbered, BUT DID NOT LIST THE CRITERIA for those categories that did not apply.
But I did list the criteria FOR THE CATEGORY THAT DID APPLY.
So, what does Bill do?
He goes out and grabs the criteria for a category THAT DOES NOT APPLY and then shows that it does not apply.
Congratulations, Bill, you have certainly shown which of us is limited by binary logic and which of us is not.
|
Post #25,504
1/24/02 1:40:39 PM
|
Care to give me a definition of...
"regular armed forces?"
That's the 1 category that you feel matches. The rest obviously do not. A recognized authority also wonders if these folks fit so neatly into any of these categories.
The reality is that they don't fit neatly into any of the catogories. Forcing them into the "regular armed forces" definition is a stretch...but convenient for those who are currently wringing hands at the fact that we have moved these people from harms way (per the Geneva Convention), have the Red Cross observing their conditions (per the Geneva Convention) and are most likely going to report the names of these people to the convening auhtority once it has been created (per the Geneva Convention).
NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names.
In addition...while we're spending so much time saying they must be protected by the Geneva Convention...would you mind terribly showing me where its been violated to date with respect to these detainees EVEN IF THE CLASSIFICATION OF POW APPLIES?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,522
1/24/02 2:12:17 PM
|
You have managed to go beyond stupid.
"NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names. "
Congratulations, you've just stated something that I've never claimed.
You've stated it emphatically.
The names should be released to the UN (and InterPol would make sense to sort out terrorists).
Why would I want the names released to me?
What purpose would releasing them to the New York Times serve for their country or their families?
Or do you suppose that The New York Times is a common paper in Afghanistan?
Bill, I'm revising my opinion of you from "limited mental capabilities" to "functionally illiterate and happy that way".
|
Post #25,524
1/24/02 2:13:45 PM
|
Wrong...go to the lower post to see just how wrong.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,528
1/24/02 2:23:00 PM
|
There's one thing to be said about the functionally illitera
illiterate. They're consistent.
Bill, for years you have amazed me with your inability to provide references. Instead you always tell me to go look somewhere.
Many millions of people have, by now, realized the ability of this medium to provide "links" to supporting materials.
Yet you remain elite. You refuse to stoop so low as to provide easy reference for your claims.
How many web pages are there out there? Written by how many millions of people?
Yet that simple function continues to elude Bill Patient.
I know of children of no more than 8 years of age who can manage such tasks.
Yet Bill Patient cannot match their capabilities.
|
Post #25,533
1/24/02 2:38:34 PM
|
Sorry for underestimating your intelligence.
Lower post...meaning the one at the bottom...must have been to much for you.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25515|Here's a link you can click on...]
That should be easy enough for you.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,539
1/24/02 2:52:42 PM
|
You've achieve the level of an 8 year old.
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
Now we can resume this discussion at the point you've referenced.
|
Post #25,544
1/24/02 3:05:15 PM
|
Wow...
...I gave him a link....now he can follow the thread...good Brandi...come get your treat.
{pat pat}
Thats a good boy.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,547
1/24/02 3:10:23 PM
|
Awwww, isn't that cute?
It's trying to think.
|
Post #25,327
1/23/02 4:33:01 PM
|
It seems that how all this started...
...because this is NOT a "cut and dried" or a "binary" issue.
Vietnam was a sovereign nation. Even without the official declaration...it was safe and easy to treat the captives as POWs and apply Geneva.
This is NOT the case here. No official declaration. No soveriegn nation. Indeed many captives are not even Afgan...as the Al Q membership included many Saudi and other nations citizens.
So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No. Is it safe to treat the Taliban membership as such. Probably.
How about the members of Al Q. Clearly not...because there is no sovereign backing at all.
And what exactly have we done that would even qualify as a violation of Geneva to date? The conflict is not over...so these prisoners can be detained until it is...and if you believe that the "War on Terrorism" slogan qualifies as the declaration...then sit back and relax....cause we're not gonna have to let these guys go for a loooong time. After all...Al Q was just the beginning, right?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,435
1/24/02 8:09:31 AM
|
You are flat wrong
So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No.
In the Geneva sense they are to be treated as POWs until determination of status is made. Period. So we are ignoring our duties as signatories to the Geneva convention, acting illegally with respect to the "detainees", and telling the world we are the champions of the rule of law while we ignore the law.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #25,548
1/24/02 3:11:14 PM
|
Even this much may be overly generous.
I won't dispute that the Vietminh were a sovereign nation, albeit a very nasty one. But the Vietcong had no state.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,424
1/24/02 3:12:58 AM
|
Re: Read your own post
Question. If this is not a war, is it then an US aggression against Afghanistan when US bombed (and still is) Afghanistan territory?
Is it a war or is it not? Make up your mind.
|
Post #25,316
1/23/02 3:29:26 PM
|
Find the terrorists and segregate them?
From whom, exactly?
"Okay, everybody here who's not a terrorist, raise your hand."
"Me!!! Am not terrorist!!! Am soldier!!!"
"Weren't you threatening to kill any American you can get your hands on and his or her little dog too, a while back?"
"What your point???"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,333
1/23/02 4:58:10 PM
|
Tonight on NYPD Marlowe.
"Okay guys, I want you to go out and find those bank robbers!"
"Chief, how do we find them?"
"Yeah, do we just stop people and ask them if they're bank robbers?"
"Ha ha ha. Chief is so dumb."
"Hey, maybe we can take out an ad in the paper asking the bank robbers to identify themselves."
"Ha haha! There's no way we can find them, Chief. We don't even know their names."
|
Post #25,355
1/23/02 6:59:05 PM
|
Hey BeeP - please FIX your width box.. it proliferates --
|
Post #25,176
1/22/02 5:22:37 PM
|
Hmm...not that I disagree....
You don't have the right to know who has been accused of a crime. You have a right to know who has been convicted.
but I must point out that my local paper carries a "crime report" of all of the activities of the police over the last few days. They list names, dates and charges ... all prior to a conviction. (Sidenote: I am aware that there are MUCH larger issues with international/war crimes than with local crimes.)
|
Post #25,212
1/22/02 10:16:51 PM
|
I know of this practice...
and if pressed...(pun intended) the newspaper can be "convinced" to not release names.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,031
1/21/02 8:35:07 PM
|
Even *with names*: American experience with HUAC, SISS and
the Commyunist hysteria through the '60s (and still not over.. in the mentations of millions? who still love the communist pinko fellow-traveller style epithet in 2002) -
There is ample evidence that we are as prone as any group (mob) to resort to instinctive, visceral response to any 'emergency'. And it is precisely amidst such emergency that: our vaunted Principles are intended to operate as a check upon madness. (Well, we still try to convince young children that we actually follow those Principles.. But then - most of the kids have seen enough Tee Vee / Web to already suspect - that's just more adult BS, so...)
Already, Fucking with Language rulez these events. Dividing 1/0 is the First Step in the dehumanizing process. In WW-II it was, the Buck-toothed Japs, though the German caricatures were mainly of the Leaders since.. heh - after all, the German Peepul were [ulp] er Aryans! just like lots o'Murican Peepul. Now them Japs.. were non-Aryan beasts.
So today we gots: Semites! (and our long tradition of antiSemite ridicule and behavior). Remember how recently it was, 'No Jews Need Apply' - to most any WASP social club you can name? 'Arab' just be another sect - to this mindset. Screw the theological dances on pin-heads: It's a Semite.
Not-Aryan ergo less than: human. Thus, all those fancy Principles about human behavior, need not apply. This is the process achieving momentum *NOW*. Watch for the double-plus unGood NewSpeak to operate accordingly.
The above links are merely the amateur-spin version of: screw that namby-pamby Law BS and that wimpy Human Rights BS - we gotta have Security... {sigh} What goes around comes around. I just didn't think I'd live long enough to see such a vividly Complete Replay of Events already experienced first-hand, here.
We don't learn Shit. Just parrot fine words as convenient; lie to our kids - ignore all Principles when scared. All while congratulating selves on our advenced culture - as should be adopted by Everyone. Or Else. Pax Americana
Patent Hypocrisy, but enjoy the flag waving - sales are way up on flags. And BS-eating, with gusto and a beer.
Ashton
|
Post #25,090
1/22/02 9:22:22 AM
|
Let us first define and agree on what these folks are
Are they anything seen before on this planet? A couple of examples
Assasins
The Assassin Cult in the mid ages sent people out to kill important people and commit suicide while doing so for political gain. That sounds close. How did the world solve that? Hunt them down and kill them.
Pirates
Pirates of the Carribean, utterly lawless except to themselves attacked anyone they thought they could get, didnt do it for money as they spent it all drinking and whoring (like Atta and his buddies in the strip bar before they ran into the WTC). During that period we hung them immediately if underway or inprisoned them for a life sentence if brought ashore. American case law has been sited elsewhere.
So let us determine what they are and use precedent to deal with them, I think the Smithsonian still has a gibbet in their collection.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,085
1/22/02 5:40:04 AM
|
Al-Qaeda and Taliban are the same?
"(al-Qaeda. Or both, since in fact it's hard to distinguish between the two movements, each so intertwined with the other.)"
Are we sure this person is really a professor? He is aware that one is a well-funded terrorist organisation, mostly populated by Arabs, with the aim of ejecting the US from Saudia Arabia and the other is a rebel, theocratic faction, populated by Afghans, with the aim of building a fundamentalist Afghanistan (sadly, along 7th century guidelines)? No doubt, the Taliban cheered over the WTC but they don't do anything anti-Western beyond selling heroin.
The Taliban refused to eject the Al-Qaeda but that's hardly surprising. Booting out an organisation that helped them get into power would be ingracious. That's if Al-Qaeda didn't put up a fight. The fact that the US demanded this split suggests they're not that intertwined at all.
Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
|
Post #25,089
1/22/02 9:15:51 AM
|
Agreed
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #25,120
1/22/02 12:58:14 PM
|
Well, if we're going to pick nits...
supposedly there are a lot of Pashtuns in the Taliban, but al Qaeda is more purely Saudi. Also, we've beaten the Taliban, but al Qaeda is still very much a problem.
But in the final analysis, it boils down to this: the Taliban chose a side. The wrong side. No excuses. They decided to be, um, ingracious, to us, rather than to those who really deserved it. The Taliban were among the enemy, and we are right in treating them as such.
So we showed them ingracious. But that's done with. Now we're de-lousing the survivors and giving them bagels and cream cheese, and the yahoos on the left are all in a lather because we haven't read their minds and determined the true identity of each of them.
(Leftists, give it up. We would be immune to your attempts at moral blackmail, even if they did make a modicum of sense. As it is, you're only making yourselves look even more silly.)
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,356
1/23/02 7:28:25 PM
|
More like pointing out blinkeredness
That the Taliban's protection of a dangerous terrorist organisation makes them an enemy faction is not under dispute. That a professor of political science claims the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are a union is a cause for concern. I find it incredible that an academic doesn't conduct basic research. Either he's blinkered by patriotism or his title's a fraud. Either way, I'm not touching his analysis with a bargepole.
Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
|
Post #25,380
1/23/02 9:04:18 PM
|
So freakin' simple
The individuals are being held, deliberately, outside of any legal framework. In other words, illegaly. And that's just for convenience. We could hold them legally with a stroke of the pen.
If they are POWs, there is a legal basis on which to hold them, and they have certain rights. If they are suspected of a crime, there is a legal basis on which to hold them, and they have certain rights.
See the patern? When you go into a legal (including law-of-war) process, you have to follow the rules of that process. The regime is pretending they can't figure out which process applies, therefore there are no rules, and they can do whatever they like. Kind of fits with the election "gee, we can't get a clean count, so let's just name our boy". Well, for a gang that uses ignorance and inability to locate a precedent (has there never before been a close election? has there never before been a gang of thugs and an illegitimate govornment's armies that fought side by side?) for any situation as a strategy, they picked the right point man.
As it stands, the detainees are held entirely as a matter of force. And that is a bad situation for a nation that is leading a fight between civilization and lawless killing. We are right, and we can hold (and probably should) these guys as long as we have to without breaking any laws, but it would mean having to follow rules, and that would be inconvenient. So we are abandoning the rule of law and resorting to lawless force. Needlessly.
We are right. We are on the side of law. We should do one of the right things, either of which will result in our victory. We should not simply rely on force. It is both wrong and bad policy.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #25,382
1/23/02 9:08:44 PM
|
Amen.
|
Post #25,399
1/23/02 10:51:05 PM
|
As I pointed out to our other distinguished panelist..
...as I linked to the GC...mind pointing out where we've violated it...even if we have yet to make a determination as to the prisoners actual status?
If they've violated our laws...we need to know their status before we can try them...because their staus determines the venue by which they are tried.
But in our "immediacy" culture...we have to have all these things done yesterday...you know...get that relevent authority in the office NOW NOW NOW.
But since it hasn't already been done...it must be a conspiricy.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,410
1/23/02 11:58:09 PM
|
The delay is to avoid any legal process
Has there been any progress toward determining which are to be handled as POWs and which as suspects?
Is there a process in place to make that determination?
Announcing either of these would have no negative impact on security, and would demonstrate a certain respect for the rule of law, and would reasure our allies.
It seems pretty clear that the delay - and it hasn't been real long yet, I would not expect a lot of progress, but a little process or at least a tentative schedule or outline of process - is specificaly to avoid the inconvenience of having to follow any legal process.
Don't get me wrong - I have no sympathy for the detainees, nor do I think they are being maltreated. These are dangerous individuals who we have reason to beleive are eager to kill. It is entirely appropriate that they be held, and preventing them from killing is far more important than their comfort. In fact, it sounds from independant reports - even from vaguely hostile sources - like they are being treated with a surprising degree of courtesy and respect. But it is important that the side that carries the banner of civilization and law respect civilization and law, especialy when dealing with those who do not. How much sweeter the inevitable victory if we win by our own rules?
As for complaining about the demand for instant results, well, that's kind of ironic coming from someone who isn't horrified by the cancellation of the election.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #25,429
1/24/02 5:21:33 AM
|
I can take that challenge.
"...as I linked to the GC...mind pointing out where we've violated it...even if we have yet to make a determination as to the prisoners actual status?"
"Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
The applicable category is #3.
"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."
Therefore, they are POW's and our government is REFUSING to acknowledge that fact.
Therefore, violation.
But, we can cut our government some slack. Some of these people might be terrorists. The terrorists would be treated different from regular POW's. So, let's see what covers persons of unknown/undetermined classification.
"Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation."
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
So, I've shown how, accourding to the Geneva Conventions, they are POW's.
I've also shown that, while there may be some question as to specific individuals, until that question is resolved by a "competent tribunal" they will be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
So, where does that leave our government?
Delaying the classification when no delay is understandable.
They are POW's.
They will remain POW's until a "competent tribunal" finds them to be otherwise.
And, as POW's, they have certain rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions.
|
Post #25,437
1/24/02 9:02:58 AM
|
Thanks for the cite
Okay, until their status can be determined they still fall under the convention. Point Brandioch. I honestly didn't know about that one.
But ... this was all a digression from the main point. By not releasing their names to, umm, whoever it is that's upset about names not being released, have any of the enumerated protections been violated? Because releasing the names is still what started this.
Okay, we were also talking about secret tribunals. But they haven't happened yet, so no problems yet. And as to your question of how non-secret tribunals could hinder ongoing actions: How do you suppose an informant or double-agent would be able to testify in open court without putting his life at risk, or at least destroying his continuing effectiveness?
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 #25,466
1/24/02 11:57:21 AM
|
The names go to the UN and InterPol.
Seeing as how we seem to be determined to wipe out the current "government" (and may have done that at this point), the names need to be released to the UN (suspected terrorists need to have their photos and prints released to InterPol).
Fuck formatting. I'm just going to cut and paste at this point.
First case: POW's.
"Within the shortest possible period, each of the Parties to the conflict shall give its Bureau the
information referred to in the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of this Article regarding any enemy
person belonging to one of the categories referred to in Article 4, who has fallen into its power.
Neutral or non-belligerent Powers shall take the same action with regard to persons belonging to
such categories whom they have received within their territory."
"This information shall make it possible quickly to advise the next of kin concerned. Subject to the
provisions of Article 17, the information shall include, in so far as available to the Information
Bureau, in respect of each prisoner of war, his surname, first names, rank, army, regimental,
personal or serial number, place and full date of birth, indication of the Power on which he depends,
first name of the father and maiden name of the mother, name and address of the person to be
informed and the address to which correspondence for the prisoner may be sent. "
Second case: Trials of POW's.
"In any case in which the Detaining Power has decided to institute judicial proceedings against a
prisoner of war, it shall notify the Protecting Power as soon as possible and at least three weeks
before the opening of the trial. This period of three weeks shall run as from the day on which such
notification reaches the Protecting Power at the address previously indicated by the latter to the
Detaining Power.
The said notification shall contain the following information:
1. Surname and first names of the prisoner of war, his rank, his army, regimental, personal or serial
number, his date of birth, and his profession or trade, if any;
2. Place of internment or confinement;
3. Specification of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, giving the
legal provisions applicable;
4 . Designation of the court which will try the case, likewise the date and place fixed for the opening
of the trial.
The same communication shall be made by the Detaining Power to the prisoners' representative."
|
Post #25,473
1/24/02 12:29:25 PM
|
Okay, but again *when* do they have to be released
And the point that public trials could expose informants, double-agents and other intelligence operatives still stands.
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 #25,493
1/24/02 1:14:35 PM
|
Qouting from what I've just quoted.
"Within the shortest possible period, each of the Parties to the conflict shall give its Bureau the information referred to...."
To clarify further:
"Within the shortest possible period"
"And the point that public trials could expose informants, double-agents and other intelligence operatives still stands."
Yes, they could.
Again, we seem to be able to handle such situations with regards to organized crime in this country.
Or are you saying that a Mafia informant is in less danger than a spy?
There will always be arguments for secret trials. Like I pointed out above, China is an effective government.
There is only one reason for open trials. To ensure that our government follows the law.
We've managed so far with organized crime as an example. Why don't we see if we can continue without jepardizing our systems?
|
Post #25,515
1/24/02 1:56:04 PM
|
"its bureau"
PART V
INFORMATION BUREAUX AND RELIEF SOCIETIES FOR PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 122
Upon the outbreak of a conflict and in all cases of occupation, each of the Parties to the conflict shall institute an official Information Bureau for prisoners of war who are in its power. Neutral or non-belligerent Powers who may have received within their territory persons belonging to one of the categories referred to in Article 4, shall take the same action with respect to such persons. The Power concerned shall ensure that the Prisoners of War Information Bureau is provided with the necessary accommodation, equipment and staff to ensure its efficient working. It shall be at liberty to employ prisoners of war in such a Bureau under the conditions laid down in the Section of the present Convention dealing with work by prisoners of war.
Within the shortest possible period, each of the Parties to the conflict shall give its Bureau the information referred to in the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of this Article regarding any enemy person belonging to one of the categories referred to in Article 4, who has fallen into its power. Neutral or non-belligerent Powers shall take the same action with regard to persons belonging to such categories whom they have received within their territory.
The Bureau shall immediately forward such information by the most rapid means to the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers and likewise of the Central Agency provided for in Article 123.
This information shall make it possible quickly to advise the next of kin concerned. Subject to the provisions of Article 17, the information shall include, in so far as available to the Information Bureau, in respect of each prisoner of war, his surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number, place and full date of birth, indication of the Power on which he depends, first name of the father and maiden name of the mother, name and address of the person to be informed and the address to which correspondence for the prisoner may be sent.
The Information Bureau shall receive from the various departments concerned information regarding transfers, releases, repatriations, escapes, admissions to hospital, and deaths, and shall transmit such information in the manner described in the third paragraph above.
Likewise, information regarding the state of health of prisoners of war who are seriously ill or seriously wounded shall be supplied regularly, every week if possible.
The Information Bureau shall also be responsible for replying to all enquiries sent to it concerning prisoners of war, including those who have died in captivity; it will make any enquiries necessary to obtain the information which is asked for if this is not in its possession.
All written communications made by the Bureau shall be authenticated by a signature or a seal.
The Information Bureau shall furthermore be charged with collecting all personal valuables, including sums in currencies other than that of the Detaining Power and documents of importance to the next of kin, left by prisoners of war who have been repatriated or released, or who have escaped or died, and shall forward the said valuables to the Powers concerned. Such articles shall be sent by the Bureau in sealed packets which shall be accompanied by statements giving clear and full particulars of the identity of the person to whom the articles belonged, and by a complete list of the contents of the parcel. Other personal effects of such prisoners of war shall be transmitted under arrangements agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict concerned.
Article 123
A Central Prisoners of War Information Agency shall be created in a neutral country. The International Committee of the Red Cross shall, if it deems necessary, propose to the Powers concerned the organization of such an Agency.
The function of the Agency shall be to collect all the information it may obtain through official or private channels respecting prisoners of war, and to transmit it as rapidly as possible to the country of origin of the prisoners of war or to the Power on which they depend. It shall receive from the Parties to the conflict all facilities for effecting such transmissions.
The High Contracting Parties, and in particular those whose nationals benefit by the services of the Central Agency, are requested to give the said Agency the financial aid it may require.
The foregoing provisions shall in no way be interpreted as restricting the humanitarian activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or of the relief Societies provided for in Article 125.
Not Interpol. Not the UN. "Its Bureau" is an organization created by the US to process identities of those held. It is required to communicate that to the Central Authority once it has been created. To date, I don't believe the Red Cross has created this agency...even though the next article says they get free postage. So...we haven't classified some as POWs. They still must be afforded the same protections. So we must keep track of who they are internally and report them to the Central Authority once it has been created. We have NO violation unless you can show me where the "Central Agency"...per article 123...has been created. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,535
1/24/02 2:42:17 PM
|
Illiterate, functionally.
Allow me to quote back at you the very first line that you quoted to me.
"Upon the outbreak of a conflict and in all cases of occupation, each of the Parties to the conflict shall institute an official Information Bureau for prisoners of war who are in its power."
And the US has established its "official Information Bureau" for these prisoners?
"The Bureau shall immediately forward such information by the most rapid means to the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers and likewise of the Central Agency provided for in Article 123."
Again, your binary limitations are showing (or is that your illiteracy?).
This says that our bureau has to inform their bureau. In other words, we have to send them the information specified in this article.
"To date, I don't believe the Red Cross has created this agency...even though the next article says they get free postage."
Shall we look at Article 123?
"Article 123
A Central Prisoners of War Information Agency shall be created in a neutral country. The International Committee of the Red Cross shall, if it deems necessary, propose to the Powers concerned the organization of such an Agency."
Hmmmm, I don't see anything about the Red Cross being tasked to create this agency.
Again, flaws in your binary logic. Because someone has the ability to give input does not mean they are tasked with the creation.
Now, do you understand why I say the UN should be the one to receive the names?
I didn't think so.
Nor do I suspect you will understand why I say to give the names to InterPol as well.
Let me put it to you in very simple terms.
When we are done THERE WON'T BE A GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN!
So, we provide the information to a neutral party.
The easiest one in this case is the UN.
Read more about neutral countries and agencies.
|
Post #25,540
1/24/02 2:59:27 PM
|
Ah...so the Geneva Convention...
...says we need to track who we have and report it to the Central Authority...who then is tasked with sending this information on to Afghanistan...who does...IIRC have UN backing in creating an interim government. But that's not fast enough for Brandioch's reading of the Geneva Convention's "shortest possible period".
But since there is no "Central Authority" yet created...the almighty Brandioch has decided that the UN will do just fine...or Interpol...terms of the Geneva Convention notwithstanding...since "shortest possible period" means it has to be done NOW...not when all the relevent chartered agencies are set up to accomodate this flow of information.
That from the one who has been screaming that we must abide by the Geneva Convention. I guess that means only the parts of it that are convenient and expedient.
Interesting.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,555
1/24/02 3:32:13 PM
|
And if we send it by sailing ship, we can wait even longer.
"...says we need to track who we have and report it to the Central Authority...who then is tasked with sending this information on to Afghanistan...who does...IIRC have UN backing in creating an interim government. "
Let's see, the relevent quotation is:
"Within the shortest possible period, each of the Parties to the conflict shall give its Bureau the information referred to...."
Yet you want to read this as saying we can delay as long as we want, as long as it's there when the people we want to have it are ready to receive it.
Hmmmm, somehow I'm not seeing the connection between our having to supply the information "within the shortest possible time" to our bureau and the delay in setting up a new government.
#1. We have to supply the information to our bureau "withing the shortest possible time".
#2. Our bureau then supplies that information to the neutral agency or to their bureau.
You're skipping ahead a step or two and trying to validate your claim for delaying our sending the information to our bureau by claiming that there isn't anyone to receive the information on their end.
Hmmmm, I suppose that makes sense in your mind.
We aren't really in violation 'cause we don't have the information ready to send when we need to have the information ready to send to be in compliance.
"...or Interpol..."
That's right, functionally illiterate. We send the information to InterPol so they can match it against their records of terrorists. But Bill doesn't understand how this will facilitate sorting the POW's from the terrorists. Your mind just can't handle multiple options, can it Bill? You'd better stick to binary data.
"But since there is no "Central Authority" yet created...the almighty Brandioch has decided that the UN will do just fine..."
Well, it does fit the criteria for "neutral agency". All we have to do is fund it.
Oh, do you think such a "Central Authority" will magically appear?
"...terms of the Geneva Convention notwithstanding..."
That's right, they aren't withstanding. Because nothing in them state that it cannot be done this way and the infrastructure is already in place.
"...since "shortest possible period" means it has to be done NOW..."
Again, functionally illiterate. "Shortest possible period" does not mean instantly. But it does mean the "shortest possible period". In other words, if it is possible it have it done within 72 hours of their capture, then that is a good time. If it isn't possible to do in 72 hours, but instead can be done within 5 days of them arriving in the camp, that is the time. What is not acceptable is not starting the processing already.
"...not when all the relevent chartered agencies are set up to accomodate this flow of information."
Ah, again, you're skipping steps when such was not stated. We have to get the information to our bureau (not to their bureau, not to the neutral agency/country) "within the shortest possible period".
But feel free to completely misunderstand the simplest directions if it will allow you to "justify" your position.
I'll just settle on the simple text that was written. We get that data to our bureau "within the shortest possible period".
|
Post #25,559
1/24/02 3:58:31 PM
|
So we haven't even given it to ourselves?
I'll just settle on the simple text that was written. We get that data to our bureau "within the shortest possible period".
So now the problem is that we're not getting the information to ... ourselves? I would think the group we've put together down in Gitmo would satisfy the Geneva terms for "our bureau". And I suspect they are trying pretty hard to gather all that information. So who is it, now, that we're supposed to be getting it to? (Meaning "our bureau".)
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 #25,562
1/24/02 4:06:45 PM
|
Step #1. We collect the data and give it to our bureau.
Reference the original article.
The author claimed that we didn't HAVE to do this.
|
Post #25,560
1/24/02 4:00:41 PM
|
Nice try...
Yet you want to read this as saying we can delay as long as we want, as long as it's there when the people we want to have it are ready to receive it. Not even close. The creation of our "bureau" is a simple matter. As soon as someone was designated responsible for that cateloging of information regarding these detainees, our "bureau" was created. Did you expect that to make the Times? US ARMED FORCES ASSIGN 2 GRUNTS TO WORK ON ACCESS DATABASE! Real big news. Again...you have determined that the "shortest possible period" has already lapsed. And we haven't even finished transporting everyone to Gitmo. Who's being unrealistic? Why not just send Interpol one picture at a time...preferably a polaroid...its so much more efficient than sending all the information at one time, picture, fingerprints, name, identidying marks. After all...shortest possible period means as soon as he laid down and surrendered, right...maybe it means we knew who they were all along...and should have sent Interpol and the UN their names last spring. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,563
1/24/02 4:10:30 PM
|
Again, read the original article.
The author claimed that we didn't have to do this.
We do. This is part of the treatment of POW's.
Until we can tell terrorists from POW's, they will be treated as POW's.
And POW's have their names collected and given to our bureau as soon as possible.
Then our bureau........what the fuck, we haven't been over this and over this and over this?
Do you think you're going to support your position by asking me to repeat myself every other post?
|
Post #25,566
1/24/02 4:25:44 PM
|
Well then...
...it would seem that we should make every effor to ID and catelog all relevent information about these detainees...in the shortest possible period...and then make sure we classify them all as terrorists.
Simple.
Then we've absolved ourselves from having to treat these folks according to the Geneva Convention. Even though we, by and large, ARE treating them according to the convention...except for your determination that we are not meeting the "shortest possible time" criteria.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,580
1/24/02 4:56:45 PM
|
Simple.
That's what you are.
Great, classify everyone of them as a terrorist.
And what then, moron?
Go ahead. Tell me what the next step is.
Then tell me whether we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.
"Even though we, by and large, ARE treating them according to the convention...except for your determination that we are not meeting the "shortest possible time" criteria."
I'm noting your use of the weasel words "by and large".
I'm amused that you're so stupid as to think that such an obvious ploy would go undetected.
We need to comply 100% with the Geneva Convention. And we need to do so as soon as possible.
|
Post #25,617
1/24/02 7:01:14 PM
|
Fine...
...give me a link to ANY current violation of their treatment as POWs.
Not telling ourselves who they are...does NOT count.
No "by and large" there.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,660
1/25/02 1:27:02 AM
|
I'm confused: is that the Jesuit or the Economist ploy
for reducing any topic to absurdity.. after you've missed the original *point?
*point: that in pretty unvarnished phraseology: the Geneva Rules indeed have a treatment methodology for all detainees prior to any [subsequent] reclassification for cause. They are to be treated as
P.O.W.s
Pretending that Brandioch's rebuttal to the 'opinion piece' .. might reduce to ~ tell me about "now's" meaning.. Now! - is pretty lame camouflage for a missed point as huge as the one above. Clintonesque, one might even say - or even Scaliaesque?
D'you ever just come out and say.. I Missed It! ?? or is it a [velocity of money] where-mouth-is kinda thing?
My 10 E(-42) parsecs (for the other form of radar chaff)
Ashton
PS - while 'reclassifying all as terrorists' has gotta be an Econ-type joke: ummm some Jokes of Econ are definitely On Us, every insider-trading day, y'know?
|
Post #25,662
1/25/02 4:28:36 AM
|
Keep up, k?
Even if you grant POW status...how has that currently been violated?
Thats my point. It hasn't. Yet. And considering that the vast majority >don"t< qualify as such...the question really is a moot one.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,667
1/25/02 7:16:59 AM
|
I suppose that we will be finding out how many 'allies'
will interpret our current (?) 'decision to make no decisions' as something more sinister than incompetence at demonstrating our Principles - in action.
Like it or not, "international diplomacy" has its rituals, including that intentional obfuscation we often confuse with tact. I maintain that we have much more to gain by demonstrating our vaunted concerns for individual rights (they'd best not be in 'quotes' - in other words) - than in seeming to be setting the stage for: getting Information by whatever means, secretly. Virtual guarantee of - imaginations on all scales. And that usually expands exponentially.
We don't do 'covert' very well - that's apparently how we got in this place (we didn't even follow up on that - what's the current mongrelization? - Ahh proactive report about a suspicious guy "who wants to learn how to steer airplanes, but doesn't care to learn how to land").
Gossip may screw up this indeterminate War on Evil* as much as any mole. Guess I can't 'prove' that, though.
* He said that. He really said that.
Let's see where stonewalling actually gets us,
Ashton
|
Post #25,572
1/24/02 4:33:59 PM
|
Oh, I thought we were talking about actual policy
For quite a while now I though we were talking about the actual policy of the U.S., or at least what the policy legally ought to be. If this is all about the opinions expressed in the original article, you might want to notice that the author is a professor of political science, not a professor of law. Politics has always been more a matter of expediency and public opinion than of well-reasoned ideals.
He was responding to someone else's statements about what the Geneva Convention required. If anything, his comments should be taken as an opinion: That if strict application of the Geneva Convention (a law) would produce undesirable results, then the Convention must be changed. After all, law is just a formal codification of current public opinion about how things "ought" to be.
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 #25,583
1/24/02 5:04:54 PM
|
Ummm, where did I lose you?
The article states one point of view.
I took a different point of view.
Then I supported my point of view with direct quotations from the Geneva Convention.
Certain functionally illiterate persons disagreed with my position.
So we went round and round and round and round until we were arguing over (effectively) whether we had to comply with my original statement on Monday or Friday.
It's called "manipulation".
As you'll notice, there are very few people now who don't think that they should be treated as POW's. And we are bound to release the names of the POW's.
Like I've said before, manipulating the opinions of idiots is simple.
My original position stands.
And the author of that article is an idiot. Despite being a professor of political science.
"If anything, his comments should be taken as an opinion: ..."
Strange how he didn't phrase them as such. Instead going on about shipping them off planet and them having so many names that the mainframes crash.
But, whatever.
"...That if strict application of the Geneva Convention (a law) would produce undesirable results, then the Convention must be changed."
And he provided ZERO support for this position (if it was his). Well, unless you consider his points about the cost of shipping them off planet to be support.
Again, whatever.
|
Post #25,591
1/24/02 5:21:34 PM
|
So that's what happened
You forgot to look at where the article was posted. Let's try the link:
[link|http://www.nationalpost.com/|http://www.nationalpost.com/]commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20020121/1190691.html
What does that suggest? To me, it suggests that what I am reading is not presented as news, but as an opinion. That's generally what "commentary" means. And since the writer didn't present himself as a lawyer, or his article as a legal opinion, I didn't take it as one.
As I pointed out, he is a professor of political science. Politics is concerned, in part, with determining what the laws "should" be.
And he did provide support for his position. Best summed up:
A government's first duty is to defend its people. You be the U.S. President who informs his people that he would really have liked to do everything in his power to protect them from further acts of mass murder, but it would have offended Amnesty International.
He is here discussing the proper role of a government; the province of political science. He expresses an (informed) opinion that protection of its people is its first aim. And he (sarcastically) suggests that adhering to the wishes of certain groups would be detrimental to that goal.
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 #25,599
1/24/02 5:31:31 PM
|
Hmmmm, I read the article and I didn't get the same from it.
Did you miss the part about shipping them off planet?
"Support" for his position?
Care to try again?
"He is here discussing the proper role of a government; the province of political science. He expresses an (informed) opinion that protection of its people is its first aim. And he (sarcastically) suggests that adhering to the wishes of certain groups would be detrimental to that goal."
And this is "support" for his position?
Want to try again?
From what I see, he presents his opinion and then skips the support. Where he does "support" his position it is with ludicrous "examples" (shipping them off planet and the sarcasm you noted).
Sorry, Drew. Isn't that something akin to a strawman?
|
Post #25,552
1/24/02 3:22:38 PM
|
Let X = X.
This going around in circles about the "shortest possible period" reminds me of Ren 'N' Stimpy...
Ren: "Bye, folks. See you next time!"
Stimpy: "When will that be?"
Ren: "Soon!"
Stimpy: "Soon? When's that?"
Ren: "In a little while."
Stimpy: "AAAAAAAUGH! What'll we do till then????"
But seriously, now. Who decides what constitutes the shortest possible period? Shortest possible by what criteria? By no criteria? Just what is the quantum unit of spacetime anyway?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,630
1/24/02 7:39:59 PM
|
Length ~ 1.6x10^-35 meters. Time ~ 10^-43 seconds. HTH. :-)
|
Post #25,635
1/24/02 8:09:00 PM
|
rofl
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
