Forbidden Donut

Pesky human rights, always getting in the way of that world domination.

Everything in there that he stated is correct.

I studied this for a semester in International Law, and this kind of thing was pretty much my entire major. As it goes, the Geneva convention doesn't really cover a war similar to what we are fighting now. When it was written, it was under the assumption that it would be two states going to war with each other. In addition, it was under the assumption of clear cut victory and defeat. One state, defeating another state, and each military standing down, similar to Germany in WWII, or the US defeating Iraq and Afghanistan. The current wars aren't fought like that.

If the opposing forces were following the Geneva Convention, it might be different. Even then though, its impossible to classify what the insurgents are. They can't be considered prisoners of war based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention. At the same time, you can't treat them as normal criminals because normal laws don't allow you to detain them in way that is productive in a conflict like this. Not being able to classify them is what leads the administration to call them enemy combatants.


In reality, the convention needs to be amended for a conflict similar to this one.

The geneva convention is legislated international morality. So by trying to bypass the spirit of the document we are effectively violating it. It's like saying that if I shoot a man, and he falls in a river and drowns, that I'm not responsible for his death. We're clearly exploiting technicalities in the convention and pretending that are hands are clean. This is my problem with what's going on. No we aren't technically breaking any of the rules stated in the document, but we certainly aren't following it's ideals.

First of all I think that the only real stipulation to following it should be that if you are a sovereign nation, you must abide by these rules all the fucking time. Why not organizations? Because we can't tell them what to do and expect them to follow the rules. They have nothing to lose. Meanwhile we've set an interesting expectation, that no country needs to follow these rules if they don't want to.

The bush administration is the supreme master of violating the law without doing anything illegal.

What exactly do you want them to do differently? Like you said, they are following the law as much as they are able to, but the fact is there is nothing in the law that handles this situation.

Let's assume you treat all these people shooting at US soldiers like enemy soldiers in a war. What changes? They still get put in detention centers for God only knows how long, because there is no telling when the conflict ends. Its the same situation you'd have in a conventional war. If you release them, they just go right back to doing what they were doing before. So you hold on to them. Under the Geneva Convention and international law, however, they aren't considered soldiers or even militia.

If you treat them like citizens, then what? They go to jail for a day. They get out on bail and show right back up doing exactly what they got arrested for in the first place, either killing more people or getting caught again and put in a detention center for who knows how many years. The US is hesitant to do this because it can't control the outcome, and doesn't want to have people put back on the street doing exactly what they were doing before because of a clerical error, or logistical problem proving them guilty.

Either way, you end up with people being locked up for years. And either way, they are still being treated according to the law of the Geneva Convention, which doesn't apply in this instance anyway. Seems like they are doing a pretty good job at following the spirit of the law when there is no law pertaining to this in the first place.

Like I said earlier, the only real way to handle this to write a new part of the convention detailing this type of circumstance. In reality, the first Geneva Protocal (1977) actually addresses the issue of what insurgents would be considered. The United States has signed the Protocol, but it hasn't been ratified, which means it has no legal binding for the US.

http://patdollard.com/2008/04/gitmo-comman...re-allegations/


http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/arch...06589print.html

In regard to the first quote: Who cares if he's annoyed with people bitching? Public outcry is the byproduct of true transparency and the very essence of democracy. Shame on anyone that forgets it.

In regard to the second quote: Amazing. How dare our armed forces be "culturally sensitive." Those bastards!

hah, yes gov both of your points are correct, but the point of my post is that we go above and beyond what is necessary in our treatment of prisoners at gitmo

By holding them indefinitely without trial? I think that is about as harsh of a treatment as you can give...

Are we talking about "enemy combatants" caught in Iraq and Afghanistan, or are we talking about people detained in the United States?

Probably both.

As far as I can tell the current Geneva Convention can't apply. It was meant to pertain to an official military sanctioned by a state, and I believe the current forces in Afghanistan and Iraq classify solely as independent insurgents. Despite all that, as prior mentioned this convention was meant to outline international morality in times of war, and every side has made considerable effort to act deplorably in any event. Bugger it. Enforced morality never worked in the long run.

I think something else we should be thinking about is the fact that just because something is internationally lawful doesn't make it right. I would hope we would practice good moral judgment regardless of whether or not we'll be frowned upon by the international community.

I think we can all agree that the latter is reprehensible.

The enemy combatant thing is a mixed bag, I know. You are right that we're not fighting traditional soldiers, but we're introducing a massive double standard. We say they are not traditional soldiers so the Geneva Conventions do not apply, but then we also say that we can detain them like prisoners of war (until the end of the war, without trial). Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

Furthermore, the fact they are not "traditional soldiers" lends credence to the idea that they should not be held indefinitely without trial. We've declared war on an idea -- not a person, nor a place. Consequently, there is no other timeframe for the end of the war other than "never." This is in sharp contrast to traditional wars and the justification for "indefinite" imprisonment and lack of trial. And perhaps the biggest problem is the fact that many of these people are not uniformed soldiers that we captured on the battlefield. Some of these are people that were kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night or taken from the streets in front of their friends and family. If they are truly enemy combatants, then they deserve what they get. However, since they weren't simply plucked off the battlefield, we must take care to prove their guilt in a court of law. Anything else is an abhorrent to the very principles this country is founded on. Anything else is a flagrant violation of human rights, and I simply cannot understand how we can maintain any moral high ground while continuing this practice.

Largely, I agree. But I think at this point all that we could really attempt to do is define how effective our ignorance of morality is at preserving our own nation. That strikes me as the crux of the problem.

So you admit that if we found them on the battlefield then we can hold them in Gitmo! And I admit that if they were taken from their homes then they should at the very least be able to have a trial in a military tribunal =)

Exactly what I was about to say. I've been largely passive through all of these arguments (whether on the forums or elsewhere) because given that the original intent was to reduce the threat to us Americans at home, its been relatively effective so far (at an enormous cost of course).

The day there is another attack on us though will be a very devastating day.

Stumbled across this and thought it was fitting.

I don't feel any safer. People show over and over that our airport security and port security is still down the shitter by sneaking crap in. It seems that all we're doing is keeping brown people from traveling anywhere without getting the 3rd degree. If anything I feel like we've increased the threat to America by making more and more trouble in a volatile part of the world that's full of groups that didn't like us to begin with.

Speaking of airport security, I believe 6 airlines filed for bankruptcy in the last 2 or 3 weeks, largely as a result of these security measures that persuaded many customers to not bother flying. And a lot of jobs were lost from that. Not only does it seem to be of questionable help in national security, but it's wrecking the economy in more ways than one.

Airport security is a necessity. If we stopped spending our money overseas, we could better subsidize the much needed security overhaul that our air industry desperately needs.

and why dont they like us?
because we are involved in their affairs or because we are in the house of war that is destined to be brought under the house of islam?

after WWII many colonies gained their independence. the people in these places expected prosperity because the imperialists would no longer be working to keep them down. however, most 3rd world countries remained poor and there werent many success stories until the 1970s and 80s. people in the arab world wanted to explain their lack of success.

in the west we have seperation of church and state. we can attain our own personal spiritual salvation without caring about what our government does. islam hasnt gone through such a reformation. muslims see themselves as god's chosen people and expect not only personal salvation but also political domination. if their state is not succeeding and the non-believers of the west are running the international system, then it essentially means allah is punishing them. how should they remedy the situation? moderate muslims have decided to work within the current system and attempt to reassert power by rising within the international order. radical muslims have decided to regain allah's favor by attacking the west and attempting to tear down the current world system.

either way muslims want to regain their preeminent status that they enjoyed in the world prior to the imperialist era. moderates are trying to go through an internal struggle (greater jihad) to improve themselves and regain that position while extremists are trying to go through an external struggle (smaller jihad) to end western domination. ask some muslims you know if the united states should adopt sharia law once the population reaches 51% muslim and it can be voted in legitimately. because politics and religion are tied together, muslims want the state they live in to represent their beliefs if it is at all possible. islam needs its own reformation to fix this possibility. shall we block ourselves off from their world and wait for it to happen or go into their world and promote freedom of religion to change their notions about the purpose of a muslim state??

and yes there are muslim countries with seperation of church and state - turkey, indonesia, etc etc - but extremists believe these states are abandoning their role of promoting islam in the world and so they must take action themselves

yes. Islam was definitely in a privileged position prior to WWII... compared to today perhaps, but seriously?

Are there any muslims on our forums? If so, do you think we should adopt sharia law, or do you think that we should protect your rights to practice whatever religion you like?

You make it sound like there is a huge Islamic conspiracy geared towards destroying all you hold sacred just to get "Allah's favor". This is neither constructive nor accurate. If you're going to make claims as passionate as these I suggest you provide some kind of cited support for your opinion. Otherwise you come of as an asshole.

no its not a huge islamic conspiracy, its just a small one run by extremists

I can't find any serious evidence for or against Evestay's statements, but I can quote some of the 9/11 Commission Report about the subject. If you'd like a PDF copy, google search it or contact me.

Page 51 of report (68 of the PDF):

I think most muslims don't care about the status they used to have pre WWII or during any other time. I think most muslims just want to live a safe and happy life day to day. The same as most christians. And then there's some christians who think 9/11 was punishment for treating gays like humans.

You act like there isn't a huge population of christians in america that would vote to force christian laws on people if they had the chance.

Islam doesn't need any reformation any more than christianity does.

What needs reformation is AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

damn, good point. but the laws they would want to pass might be different.

Most Muslims, actually, just want Jerusalem. The Koran says, essentially, that there will be no peace in the Muslim world until 3 holy cities are under their control. They have Mecca and Medina, but Israelites are holding on to Jerusalem. And it's entirely possible that because of America's involvement in all of these places of conflict, that we're blamed for a lot of their problems. After all, we're usually the big dog in most of these situations.

Muslims controlled Jerusalem before the foundation of Israel. Jews were permitted the same rights as the Arabs and just about everybody was happily living together. British mandated the formation of a Jewish state which still excluded Jerusalem after WWII, which didn't really appease anybody. The Zionists wanted Jerusalem and the Arabs wanted all that land. A bunch of Arab nations banded together and attacked Israel to regain some if not all of the land. The Palestinians refused to participate in the attack and so were shunned by the other Arab nations. When Israel caught wind of the Palestinians' knowledge of the attack they too shunned them for failing to warn them. Since there was no Palestinian state they were homeless. Meanwhile Israel, with their self-produced weapons, proceeded through that 6 day conflict by conquering all the surrounding Arab nations as well in true Imperialist fashion.

Notice the distinct lack of the word America there.

Bin Laden is/was pissed at America because we bailed out Saudi Arabia after he and his soldiers fought (valiantly I might add) against the Russians in Afghanistan. He thought that Arabs, namely him and his fairly elite unit, were more than capable of defending Saudi Arabia at the time, but the Arabian prince decided to go with America, more or less laughing Bin Laden out of the meeting. He blames America for his personal humiliation. All the other crap is just him playing his political cards right and pandering to whatever plights the Arab people are facing. IMHO. (and based on some research for a paper a few years back)

OBL interview:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../interview.html



http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200201/gerecht

i doubt too many people have lost a job over a bankruptcy that occurred two or three weeks ago, and i doubt any airline of a decent degree of solvency went bankrupt due to security measures, and i doubt too many fliers stopped flying because they have to take their shoes off. in closing, meh to your post.


meat

Fact: Airports have to spend more money on increased security by law
Fact: Airlines are receiving less and less business as a general trend with a couple of BIG hits in the last year.
Fact: Increased costs + decreased costs = net loss

Fact: Bankruptcy means everyone who doesn't have the letters CEO after their name loses their job.
okay that last one isn't *fact* per se, but it is what's been happening as our failing economy results in large corporations declaring chapter 11s and laying off all their employees before giving all their CEOs raises.

Also fuel prices are high so add that to the increased costs. And people aren't flying because it takes hours to board a plane that will be delayed 2 hours on average and may be delayed upon landing as well, not because "they have to take their shoes off."

DUBAI (Reuters) - A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.

concrete evidence that the war is creating more terrorism rather than preventing it.

It could actually mean that he was always a terrorist. But he's definitely a terrorist now.

well if he was in fact a terrorist the whole time then it shows the inefficiencies of our interrogation techniques.

Maybe YOU'RE a terrorist CJ! Your skin IS brown. And you DO hate America... I'm willing to torture you based on this logic. Please come with me.

lol

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210290609...ew_and_outlooks

They still deserve habeas corpus. Do you feel like Gitmo is making life safer anywhere?

Let me add, I would feel as safe in our biggest fanciest building now as I would if we released everyone in Guantanamo. I think we're losing our way and there's no pay off.

Also from that article:


A: I think in our effort to fight terrorism, if we are calling a fight for due process for our enemies a bad thing, we have become little more than terrorists with a national anthem and a flag.

and B: Liberals? wtf? Kuwaitis asked for the hearing in question. And I herby demand that the media stop using the word "war" to describe every single societal conflict. IT SAYS LIBERALS ARE FIGHTING A WAR ON WAR! WTF! I guess that means Conservatives are waging a war on peace then?