Thomas Friedman on Gitmo

[RuntheDamnBall]

From Friday's Times...

Link to whole column

Guantánamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty. If we have a case to be made against any of the 500 or so inmates still in Guantánamo, then it is high time we put them on trial, convict as many possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and then simply let the rest go home or to a third country. Sure, a few may come back to haunt us. But at least they won't be able to take advantage of Guantánamo as an engine of recruitment to enlist thousands more. I would rather have a few more bad guys roaming the world than a whole new generation.

 

"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."

 

For me this column speaks to the complexity of our predicament. On one hand, we may have some detainees who have valuable information and/or should be convicted. On the other, the longer this goes on, the more likely it has a hand in creating the terrorist generation, Mach II. The idea of having "a few come back to haunt us" is unacceptable to most of us, I think.

 

Please, no "f--- world opinion" or "bomb the whole Middle East" responses here -- the rest of the whole PPP forum is a kind home for those. Because the point is that world opinion is obviously informing terrorist or potential terrorist opinion. I wonder if there is a better way to do what we're doing -- which is to round up terrorists and destroy their network -- without also replenishing it with fresh, angry recruits. Friedman hints at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resolutions of which would certainly go a long way (and obviously easier said than done). I am really interested to hear what others who are more involved than I am would propose.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

From Friday's Times...

Link to whole column

For me this column speaks to the complexity of our predicament.  On one hand, we may have some detainees who have valuable information and/or should be convicted.  On the other, the longer this goes on, the more likely it has a hand in creating the terrorist generation, Mach II.  The idea of having "a few come back to haunt us" is unacceptable to most of us, I think.

 

Please, no "f--- world opinion" or "bomb the whole Middle East" responses here -- the rest of the whole PPP forum is a kind home for those.  Because the point is that world opinion is obviously informing terrorist or potential terrorist opinion.  I wonder if there is a better way to do what we're doing -- which is to round up terrorists and destroy their network -- without also replenishing it with fresh, angry recruits.  Friedman hints at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resolutions of which would certainly go a long way (and obviously easier said than done).  I am really interested to hear what others who are more involved than I am would propose.

346256[/snapback]

 

A: Since no one can really know who's there, why not just make them disappear?

 

Make them all disappear and close down the base. Pull an Area 51 on it.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is the fundamental problem a lot of anti-this-war people had with the invasion in the first place. That it was going to create a bigger problem than it solved. Create more terrorists than it kills. Yes, we must do something, and something big, and something big over there. But that something must be smart, and well planned/thought out. It is impossible to say at this point whether it is doing more good than harm or more harm than good. For right now, IMO, it wasn't worth it then and isn't worth it now as we are certainly no safer. We are safer from the things going on behind the scenes and all of the stuff the military and government is doing to combat terrorism. But it seems to me there are more terrorists and more terrorist acts and more people willing and able to kill Americans than ever.

[Campy]

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people at Gitmo who either have, or were planning to, kill Americans.

 

I also have no doubt that a lot of people there are only guilty of being born in Iraq, or having legitimate business in Iraq, and then being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those are the people I'm concerned with.

 

Without due process, innocent people are getting screwed. They have not been granted access to counsel, they have been able to let their families know that they're alive, they have not been able to their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Frankly, that's un-American. We're not Red China. We're not the Soviet Union. I always believed we were better than that, and I bet you did too.

[VABills]

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people at Gitmo who either have, or were planning to, kill Americans.

 

I also have no doubt that a lot of people there are only guilty of being born in Iraq or having legitimate business in Iraq and then being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those are the people I'm concerned with. 

 

Without due process, innocent people are getting screwed.  They have not been granted access to counsel, they have been able to let their families know that they're alive, they have not been able to their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  Frankly, that's un-American.  We're not Red China.  We're not the Soviet Union. I always believed we were better than that, and I bet you did too.

346296[/snapback]

 

They have. Everyone was granted the right to appeal their detention last June by the Supreme Court.

[OGTEleven]

The Middle East has not had a problem generating terrorists to this point. At MOST, Gitmo will be one item in a long list of recruiting tools. If they don't have Gitmo to cry foul over, they'll find something else. If we do close Gitmo and/or let these people out, do you think they'll see it as a sign of weakness?

[IBTG81]

A: Since no one can really know who's there, why not just make them disappear?

 

Make them all disappear and close down the base. Pull an Area 51 on it.

346278[/snapback]

 

I think Joe should be in charge...

[RuntheDamnBall]

The Middle East has not had a problem generating terrorists to this point.  At MOST, Gitmo will be one item in a long list of recruiting tools.  If they don't have Gitmo to cry foul over, they'll find something else.  If we do close Gitmo and/or let these people out, do you think they'll see it as a sign of weakness?

346304[/snapback]

Terrorists might indeed sense it as a sign of weakness, but if we're doing our job, it will be a false weakness. What I am worried about, and what I think Friedman is considering here, is the potential terrorists, people who otherwise may not have joined this cause.

 

I agree though, it is merely one item, and to what point can we negotiate (in terms of considering or stopping what we do to "create" more terrorists), versus the obvious job #1 of protecting our own? Our support of Israel remains to be the strongest recruiting point, and yet as Darin points out the Palestinians are getting an unbalanced picture as well.

 

It's not a game of easy answers, not even of making people "disappear."

[Campy]

They have.  Everyone was granted the right to appeal their detention last June by the Supreme Court.

346297[/snapback]

I'm aware of that Sup Ct ruling, but they really haven't been granted full access to counsel. "Access to counsel" implies certain rights and privileges offered to the defendant and counsel as provided by law.

 

Of course, a person would have to actually be charged with a crime before he becomes a defendant, but lest I digress.

 

According to existing law, confidentiality is a right critical to proper legal representation, but just as the Sup Ct was forced to rein in the executive by allowing counsel to visit with detainees, the only way that the rights of the innocent will truly be protected is more reining-in of the current executive.

 

This isn't a cheap-shot at AD or anyone else, but I am surprised that more people of the Libertarian mindset aren't up in arms about this. According to US tradition and law, these are basic rights that apply all people . We are a nation of laws, and these basic rights cannot arbitrarily be eliminated or suspended by the executive. Yet, that is exactly what has happened at Gitmo.

 

Think about it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm aware of that Sup Ct ruling, but they really haven't been granted full access to counsel. "Access to counsel" implies certain rights and privileges offered to the  defendant and counsel as provided by law. 

 

Of course, a person would have to actually be charged with a crime before he becomes a defendant, but lest I digress. 

 

According to existing law, confidentiality is a right critical to proper legal representation, but just as the Sup Ct was forced to rein in the executive by allowing counsel to visit with detainees, the only way that the rights of the innocent will truly be protected is more reining-in of the current executive.

 

This isn't a cheap-shot at AD or anyone else, but I am surprised that more people of the Libertarian mindset aren't up in arms about this.  According to US tradition and law, these are basic rights that apply all people .  We are a nation of laws, and these basic rights cannot arbitrarily be eliminated or suspended by the executive. Yet, that is exactly what has happened at Gitmo. 

 

Think about it.

346351[/snapback]

 

 

If these were US citizens, or really, any lawful citizen of any country, I'd have a greater problem with it. But they aren't lawful citizens of any country. They're members of an international criminal and terrorist organizations. They forefeited any basic human rights the second they signed on with Al Quaeda.

[Campy]

If these were US citizens, or really, any lawful citizen of any country, I'd have a greater problem with it. But they aren't lawful citizens of any country.

Citizenry had already been rendered irrelavent. The rights they seek have been ruled by US tradition and US law to apply to all people.

 

They're members of an international criminal and terrorist organizations. They forefeited any basic human rights the second they signed on with Al Quaeda.

346355[/snapback]

Entirely not true. Are you unaware that innocent people are being detained? Or that innocent people have already been beaten to death? What if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and YOU were sent to Gitmo?

 

Does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" entirely escape you?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Citizenry had already been rendered irrelavent.  The rights they seek have been ruled by US tradition and US law to apply to all people.

 

Entirely not true.  Are you unaware that innocent people are being detained?  Or that innocent people have already been beaten to death?  What if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and YOU were sent to Gitmo? 

 

Does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" entirely escape you?

346373[/snapback]

 

Oh really? Tell that to people living in China or Iran.

 

ALLEGEDLY innocent people are being detained. ALLEGEDLY people have been beaten to death. Simple, I wouldn't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wouldn't be remotely near anyone who was going to hijack a plane or set up a roadside bomb. You can't tell me that some ordinary schmuck is sitting in Gitmo. They're there for a reason. They either know of, or are associated with known terrorists and killers.

 

 

No, it doesn't. Does the concept of self-preservation elude you? Because that's what this is about, Campy. It's us or them, and I'd rather they suffer than we do.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh really? Tell that to people living in China or Iran.

 

ALLEGEDLY innocent people are being detained. ALLEGEDLY people have been beaten to death. Simple, I wouldn't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wouldn't be remotely near anyone who was going to hijack a plane or set up a roadside bomb. You can't tell me that some ordinary schmuck is sitting in Gitmo. They're there for a reason. They either know of, or are associated with known terrorists and killers.

No, it doesn't. Does the concept of self-preservation elude you? Because that's what this is about, Campy. It's us or them, and I'd rather they suffer than we do.

346375[/snapback]

You do realize, don't you, honestly, that your solutions would lead to world war?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You do realize, don't you, honestly, that your solutions would lead to world war? 

346381[/snapback]

 

Sometimes War is the last viable option to resolve otherwise unresovlable conflicts.

 

We are at a basic CULTURAL loggerheads with the Arab world. No matter what we do to pacify or mollify the people of that part of the world, their stunted culture will continue to breed terrorists and killers hell-bent on destroying us and the rest of the West.

 

Same thing happened with the Germans and Japanese. We fought it out and the problem exists no more. Their ethos of militarism and cultural dominance was totally divergent from and an intense threat to our way of life. It had to be annihilated.

 

Islamo-fascism is no different. It must be eradicated as a line of thought.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

From Friday's Times...

Link to whole column

For me this column speaks to the complexity of our predicament.  On one hand, we may have some detainees who have valuable information and/or should be convicted.  On the other, the longer this goes on, the more likely it has a hand in creating the terrorist generation, Mach II.  The idea of having "a few come back to haunt us" is unacceptable to most of us, I think.

 

Please, no "f--- world opinion" or "bomb the whole Middle East" responses here -- the rest of the whole PPP forum is a kind home for those.  Because the point is that world opinion is obviously informing terrorist or potential terrorist opinion.  I wonder if there is a better way to do what we're doing -- which is to round up terrorists and destroy their network -- without also replenishing it with fresh, angry recruits.  Friedman hints at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resolutions of which would certainly go a long way (and obviously easier said than done).  I am really interested to hear what others who are more involved than I am would propose.

346256[/snapback]

 

The one thing no one has pointed out yet is that there's two ways of looking at this: from a criminal perspective, and from the perspective of fighting a war. If it were purely a criminal issue of incarceration of dangerous criminals...you'd be right, as would Friedman. However, it's not. There's a definite aspect of military requirements involved, in that these are enemy combattants and not criminal detainees, thus arguably not subject to the US laws and rules that dictate the criminal justice system.

 

But at the same time, terrorism by design crosses over from the military sphere into areas of traditional law enforcement...so technically they're not POWs either, and not subject to any of the international agreements or rules that dictate the treatment of POWs (as the Geneva Convention itself points out).

 

So are they criminal detainees or POWs? Well...both. And neither. It's a neat little conundrum terrorists organizations put Western governments in, which can either treat them as POWs (in which case the terrorists claim that the abandonment of the criminal justice code demonstrates the government's oppression), or treat them as criminals (in which case the terrorists claim invalid application of the criminal code as they're criminals but soldiers fighting against the government's oppression). It's one of the strengths of asymmetric warfare that they can play both sides of the coin in this way and effectively put governments over a barrel.

 

So what do you do? Personally, I'd say anyone arrested in the US on terrorism-related charges is handled through the criminal system, and anyone outside is an "enemy detainee" (not necessarily a POW) subject to as much of the Geneva Convention can be sensibly applied (for example, I have NO problem limiting their communication with the outside world, as that defeats the purpose of disrupting their organizations). In other words...I pretty much agree with what the administration is doing (save any Americans detained at Gitmo, of which I know no cases). But Friedman's opinion, despite his being dead-on as usual in qualifying the effects of the policy, is over-simplified in that these are NOT simple criminal cases we're talking about, and can't simply be put on trial as you would the Mafia.

[Campy]

ALLEGEDLY innocent people are being detained.

So the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does escape you.

 

You can't tell me that some ordinary schmuck is sitting in Gitmo.

OK, I won't, but why don't you google for the report released (I think by the CIA or DoD) that details the beating of a cab driver who was beaten to death at Gitmo. The report says his interrogators believed he was innocent.

 

It's us or them, and I'd rather they suffer than we do.

346375[/snapback]

I'd rather have the GUILTY suffer than an innocent. If you don't mind the innocent suffering merely because they are "one of them," you share the mindset of the guilty.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does escape you.

 

OK, I won't, but why don't you google for the report released (I think by the CIA or DoD) that details the beating of a cab driver who was beaten to death at Gitmo.  The report says his interrogators believed he was innocent.

 

I'd rather have the GUILTY suffer than an innocent.  If you don't mind the innocent suffering merely because they are "one of them," you share the mindset of the guilty.

346390[/snapback]

 

No, you're misunderstanding ME. These people incarcerated at Gitmo CLAIM innocence. But they are not American citizens, nor legitimate citizes of any other country, so they are NOT subject to the protections of the Constitution. On this matter, you're simply wrong.

 

If his interrogators thought he was innocent, why'd they "beat him to death"? Doesn't compute, does it?

 

I don't want to see the innocent suffer, either. But I HARDLY think that the people at Gitmo are innocent by any stretch of the imagination. They are there for a reason, like I said. They either associate with, have knowledge of or have participated in terrorist acts or organizations.

 

See DCTom's reply. They're not civilians and they are not ordinary criminals. Nor are they soldiers of recognized nations. They are a threat that needs to be dealt with in an entirely different matter, no matter what bleeding-hearts think.

[Ghost of BiB]

You do realize, don't you, honestly, that your solutions would lead to world war? 

346381[/snapback]

 

Hate to break it to you, but we ARE in a world war.

[Ghost of BiB]

So the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does escape you.

 

OK, I won't, but why don't you google for the report released (I think by the CIA or DoD) that details the beating of a cab driver who was beaten to death at Gitmo.  The report says his interrogators believed he was innocent.

 

I'd rather have the GUILTY suffer than an innocent.  If you don't mind the innocent suffering merely because they are "one of them," you share the mindset of the guilty.

346390[/snapback]

 

Just a logistical concern here. How is "Counsel" supposed to present a case one way or another, for some Saudi guy picked up with 1100 other "Freedom fighters" in the middle of the mountains in Afghanistan? Who are you calling as a witness? Or, do we just take their word that all 400 were just innocent bystanders?

[Johnny Coli]

Hate to break it to you, but we ARE in a world war.

346410[/snapback]

Then call it a damn war, treat these prisoners under the Genva convention rules, and give them due process. Don't play around with freaking semantics to get around treating these "detainees" for what they are...prisoners of war.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Then call it a damn war, treat these prisoners under the Genva convention rules, and give them due process.  Don't play around with freaking semantics to get around treating these "detainees" for what they are...prisoners of war.

346418[/snapback]

 

Regardless of whether it's a war or not, the GC doesn't apply. They're not represented by a signatory to it. Hell, even national terrorist organizations aren't covered by the GC, never mind extra-national or trans-national ones.

[Johnny Coli]

Regardless of whether it's a war or not, the GC doesn't apply.  They're not represented by a signatory to it.  Hell, even national terrorist organizations aren't covered by the GC, never mind extra-national or trans-national ones.

346428[/snapback]

Okey Dokey. !@#$'em then.

[Ghost of BiB]

Then call it a damn war, treat these prisoners under the Genva convention rules, and give them due process.  Don't play around with freaking semantics to get around treating these "detainees" for what they are...prisoners of war.

346418[/snapback]

 

To do so would legitimize their cause. Ergo, tacit recognition by the west that their operation is considered within the rules of warfare. Think about what you are saying, all the way through.

[Johnny Coli]

To do so would legitimize their cause. Ergo, tacit recognition by the west that their operation is considered within the rules of warfare. Think about what you are saying, all the way through.

346441[/snapback]

Is it only a "war" if both sides deem it to be a "war"?

 

In their mind (twisted as they might be) they ARE fighting a war. If we never actually declare "war", does that make it acceptable to treat anyone captured in a conflict on non-US soil however we want, simply because we don't consider it a "war"?

[Ghost of BiB]

Is it only a "war" if both sides deem it to be a "war"? 

 

In their mind (twisted as they might be) they ARE fighting a war.  If we never actually declare "war", does that make it acceptable to treat anyone captured in a conflict on non-US soil however we want, simply because we don't consider it a "war"?

346446[/snapback]

 

Johnny, there is a lot more to the Rules of Land Warfare than prisoner treatment. Considering the nature of our enemy, why are you and so many others so damn fixated on one small piece of it involving one small group? As CTM points out, they have no signatory-which in practicality is moot anyway. Their entire method of doing business is against the Laws of Land Warfare. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any weapons. So is some of ours, born of necessity due to the nature of those we fight. Most of the conventions being cited and cried over were written with a different form of conflict in mind. This is essentially a "High Tech" Guerilla war. Calls for different methods-and both sides know there is no quarter. I've posted some of my thoughts on re-writing the rules to fit the situation. I'm not writing them a third time.

 

Once again, what is ultimately more important? Some Saudi's "American Style" Civil Rights? Or keeping a fully loaded exploding gasoline truck out of a shopping mall? apparantly, to many-it's the former. And, if we all place nice for the cameras, maybe with a little luck it won't be any of us, or our families at the next ground zero.

[Wacka]

Hate to break it to you, but we ARE in a world war.

346410[/snapback]

 

Exactly!

 

This basic concept is what some on this board can't grasp.

 

9/11

Train bombings in Madrid

Attack on nightclub in Indonesia

Attack on hotel in Africa

Ricin attack headed off in England

Cechnyan(sp?) school attack in Russia

 

If this isn't global, I don't know what is.

[Johnny Coli]

Johnny, there is a lot more to the Rules of Land Warfare than prisoner treatment. Considering the nature of our enemy, why are you and so many others so damn fixated on one small piece of it involving one small group? As CTM points out, they have no signatory-which in practicality is moot anyway. Their entire method of doing business is against the Laws of Land Warfare. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any weapons. So is some of ours, born of necessity due to the nature of those we fight. Most of the conventions being cited and cried over were written with a different form of conflict in mind. This is essentially a "High Tech" Guerilla war. Calls for different methods-and both sides know there is no quarter. I've posted some of my thoughts on re-writing the rules to fit the situation. I'm not writing them a third time.

 

Once again, what is ultimately more important? Some Saudi's "American Style" Civil Rights? Or keeping a fully loaded exploding gasoline truck out of a shopping mall? apparantly, to many-it's the former. And, if we all place nice for the cameras, maybe with a little luck it won't be any of us, or our families at the next ground zero.

346457[/snapback]

Paul, I completely understand we are not dealing with anything close to what passed as historical warfare. I completely understand that we are attempting to deal with a fanatical enemy that is willing to die for their cause, and doesn't give a rat's ass about innocent civilian lives. I understand what you and the rest of the faceless heros that have to plan around this stuff are going through to keep my pastey white ass safe.

 

However, it is of my opinion, and I am clearly in the minority on this board, that it does not give us (the US) carte blanche to abandon basic human rights just because we are fighting an unconventional war.

[Ghost of BiB]

Paul, I completely understand we are not dealing with anything close to what passed as historical warfare.  I completely understand that we are attempting to deal with a fanatical enemy that is willing to die for their cause, and doesn't give a rat's ass about innocent civilian lives.  I understand what you and the rest of the faceless heros that have to plan around this stuff are going through to keep my pastey white ass safe.

 

However, it is of my opinion, and I am clearly in the minority on this board, that it does not give us (the US) carte blanche to abandon basic human rights just because we are fighting an unconventional war.

346469[/snapback]

 

And, once again I have to ask what basic human rights are being violated? As far as I've been able to find out, they have clothes, are well fed and have a roof over their head. Another thing I'm pretty aware of is that AQ has for the most part been rendered a lot less operational than it was a couple of years ago. Might just be because some of their leadership is on ice. So, why don't we have a nice little American Style trial, where they can all be released on the numerous technicalities involved legally in their original incarcerations? As cold as it sounds-it would have been a lot easier to leave them dead on the battlefield, but then it would have also been hard to get any useful information.

 

And PS: Thanks for the kind props, but I'm no hero. I just go to work every day. Save that for those who are.

[Johnny Coli]

And, once again I have to ask what basic human rights are being violated? As far as I've been able to find out, they have clothes, are well fed and have a roof over their head. Another thing I'm pretty aware of is that AQ has for the most part been rendered a lot less operational than it was a couple of years ago. Might just be because some of their leadership is on ice. So, why don't we have a nice little American Style trial, where they can all be released on the numerous technicalities involved legally in their original incarcerations? As cold as it sounds-it would have been a lot easier to leave them dead on the battlefield, but then it would have also been hard to get any useful information.

 

And PS: Thanks for the kind props, but I'm no hero. I just go to work every day. Save that for those who are.

346481[/snapback]

You win. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

PS. Don't sell yourself short, buddy. I know what you do.

[erynthered]

that it does not give us (the US) carte blanche to abandon basic human rights just because we are fighting an unconventional war.

346469[/snapback]

 

 

 

Thats a pretty wide stroke. Granted, mistakes are made, but its war. I'd like to think that our troops are doing their best to treat these terrorist with more dignity than they would give us return.

[Campy]

The one thing no one has pointed out yet is that there's two ways of looking at this: from a criminal perspective, and from the perspective of fighting a war.  If it were purely a criminal issue of incarceration of dangerous criminals...you'd be right, as would Friedman.  However, it's not.  There's a definite aspect of military requirements involved, in that these are enemy combattants and not criminal detainees, thus arguably not subject to the US laws and rules that dictate the criminal justice system.

346388[/snapback]

Rights can not and should not be suspended by the goverment on a governmental whim or because doing so suits the government's agenda, regardless how noble the intent may be. That was one of the important factors of the American Revolution.

 

The detainees rights should only be suspended after Congress issues a declaration of war, not because the detaining force isn't a civilian police force.

[Campy]

Regardless of whether it's a war or not, the GC doesn't apply.  They're not represented by a signatory to it.  Hell, even national terrorist organizations aren't covered by the GC, never mind extra-national or trans-national ones.

346428[/snapback]

It's not about the other side, it's about OUR responsibilities. According to the GC, "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Okey Dokey.  !@#$'em then.

346434[/snapback]

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be treated according to the GC. I'm saying "We're violating the GC!" isn't a valid complaint, as it doesn't apply. Technically, if we subjected them to drumhead courts martial in the field and summary execution, we still wouldn't be violating the GC. And technically, when they skin a Navy SEAL alive and torture him to death, they're not violating the GC either, since they never agreed to it anyway. Now, neither am I saying that we SHOULD subject them to summary execution...just that if we do, and you cloak your completely justifiable moral outrage at it in the Geneva Convention, you're being inaccurate at best.

 

There's also the sad fact that the Geneva Convention was never written with this kind of war in mind. It hails back to a period where war was fought between nation-states with identifiable soldiers in standing armies. While it has been modified with the times (the inclusion within reasonable bounds of milita forces in the definition of "standing army"), the international community never created it with the idea of insurgent warfare, partly for the reasons I stated in a previous post (i.e. the very blurry line between military and criminal conduct on the part of most insurgencies), and partly because the very concept of independent trans-national terrorist organizations is a very new one (nearest precedent I can think of is the Barbary Coast pirates, which was really FAR more a nation-state than al Qaeda is - or even the Taleban, for that matter). Like it or not, it IS a war we're fighting...but it is NOT a war that lends itself to the traditional black-and-white definitions of "war" and "peace" (again, for the reasons I discussed above), and thus doesn't lend itself well to the GC or any other international agreement governing warfare.

 

And rather than constantly complaining about it or supporting it in some blind, black-and-white, partisan manner, we'd all be much better off if we all simply admitted that it's an unprecedented situation we find ourselves in that the rules of warfare have never fully considered, and then though hard on the rules by which such conflict SHOULD be conducted, rather than trying to pigeonhole an unprecedented conflict into the rules governing inapplicable precedents.

[Ghost of BiB]

Rights can not and should not be suspended by the goverment on a governmental whim or because doing so suits the government's agenda, regardless how noble the intent may be.  That was one of the important factors of the American Revolution.

 

The detainees rights should only be suspended after Congress issues a declaration of war, not because the detaining force isn't a civilian police force.

346499[/snapback]

 

OK...who are you declaring war against?

[Johnny Coli]

Thats a pretty wide stroke. Granted, mistakes are made, but its war. I'd like to think that our troops are doing their best to treat these terrorist with more dignity than they would give  us return.

346492[/snapback]

Okay, maybe I used a pretty broad brush with that statement. But aren't we outsourcing some of the torture to other countries/contractors who have less respect for human rights than we do? Also, I don't believe any of our troops are conducting the major interrogations. I was under the impression that the CIA, and in some cases the FBI, was. I could be wrong.

[Campy]

OK...who are you declaring war against?

346507[/snapback]

Nobody. But that's why the detainees should be given due process. It's nothing sinister I'm talking about. Charge them, provide evidence of their guilt, and if found guilty, punish them. If found innocent, let them go on with their lives.

 

Again, the concept of this land's governing body detaining people without due process has already led to one famous revolution.

[Ghost of BiB]

And, you ARE aware, aren't you-that some of the very people who's rights you are championing would not give a second thought to slicing your, or your wife's throat from ear to ear. They would consider it an honor and a duty. And, they thought that way BEFORE they got caught. But, I guess it's another case of agree to disagree.

 

That kind of stuff is relevant to me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Rights can not and should not be suspended by the goverment on a governmental whim or because doing so suits the government's agenda, regardless how noble the intent may be.  That was one of the important factors of the American Revolution.

 

The detainees rights should only be suspended after Congress issues a declaration of war, not because the detaining force isn't a civilian police force.

346499[/snapback]

 

A formal declaration of war requires a party (nation-state, really) to declare it against. So what you're essentially saying is that the rules of war do NOT apply, and all these detainees should be treated as pure criminal cases, because they don't represent a nation-state despite the fact that they're at war AGAINST a nation-state and wouldn't recognize the legitimacy of the criminal justice system anyway?

 

Or are you saying that we should treat them as POWs...even though we're not at war because Congress hasn't and can't declare war against a group of transnational terrorists not represented by a true nation-state?

 

 

Do you see the thorns of the issue? It's simply a basic fact that there's no international legal code that adequately addresses the issue of trans-national terrorism. I agree with your idealism more than you'll actually know...but fundamentally it IS idealism, and while shouting it from the rooftops contributes importantly to discussing the issues involved, in itself it isn't a solution, as the world rarely (and particularly in this case) lends itself to such black-and-white solutions.

[erynthered]

Okay, maybe I used a pretty broad brush with that statement.  But aren't we outsourcing some of the torture to other countries/contractors who have less respect for human rights than we do?

 

If the Iraqi police capture a terrorist, they can do what they want to him. We cant police human rights with every country and contractor thats involved. Do we know about what some of these other country's may be doing to their captive terrorist, probably. If the US captures some terrorists in Iraq and turns them over to the Iraqi police and they are tortured, is that are fault? Is that outsourcing?

 

Also, I don't believe any of our troops are conducting the major interrogations. I was under the impression that the CIA, and in some cases the FBI, was.  I could be wrong.

I'll defer that one to someone else

 

 

Thanks for fixing my post

Edited May 27, 2005 by erynthered

[Campy]

And, you ARE aware, aren't you-that some of the very people who's rights you are championing would not give a second thought to slicing your, or your wife's throat from ear to ear. They would consider it an honor and a duty.

346521[/snapback]

Some of them would, sure. Hell maybe even most of them would. But is the government now going to jail people indefinetly based upon what the government thinks an indivdual thinks?

 

It's actually pretty simple. Charge them. Try them. Punish them if found guilty, and release them if found innocent.

 

Based upon this thread and others, I honesty think where you and I disagree is that I believe in individual rights like due process, regardless of the atrocities the individual may (or may not) have committed, and you find such rights as an "inconvenience" at work.