Thomas Friedman on Gitmo

[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.