Forums » Off-Topic
the supreme court has overturned Bush on his 'military tribunals' for POWs at guantanamo, pointing out that it violates not only the Geneva Convention, but also violates the US Militarys own Uniform Code of Justice
see, world, we arent all bad! our system works sometimes.
see, world, we arent all bad! our system works sometimes.
hmm... uh... some of us... mainly me... dont have a clue what you're talking about. So some details might be nice...
Are you American Spectre?
If you are not, have you a TV set?
TV is not necessary, possibly even contraproductive to gathering information with a high portion of objectivity on the goings-on in this world. I propose reading newspapers. I read about this in a newspaper which, like me, was not American.
Oh well, most of those guys have been out of the loop for 4 years now, it's probably better to just let 'em go. Or transfer them to our secret camps in Eastern Europe. Or onto the brigs in our carrier battle groups in International waters. >:P
Essentially the court just said "We don't like it." But did not order the administration to do anything differently. So I'm sure Bush will go to Congress and get something passed that says he can interrogate prisoners of war.
Now, remember these aren't U.S. citizens we're detaining, they don't get the benefit of our constitutional rights and such. I'm a little fuzzy on this though, perhaps Lecter will chime in on this one re: if they're being held on US soil in a time of war, what rights to enemy combatant foreigners have?
Essentially the court just said "We don't like it." But did not order the administration to do anything differently. So I'm sure Bush will go to Congress and get something passed that says he can interrogate prisoners of war.
Now, remember these aren't U.S. citizens we're detaining, they don't get the benefit of our constitutional rights and such. I'm a little fuzzy on this though, perhaps Lecter will chime in on this one re: if they're being held on US soil in a time of war, what rights to enemy combatant foreigners have?
Oh man, I finaly resigned myself to being a fascist. I thought we could all wear cool uniforms or something. Stupid constitution's been holding us back for too long! What's that dumb thing ever done for me? Just last nite I was cooking hotdogs in the microwave when BLAMO, terrorist attack! Hotdog pieces everywhere (damn you Bin Laden!); And, sure enough, the constitution was no where to be found. I had to clean up with some paper towels and a dog. Also Clarence Thomas can kiss my ass. Thank you, drive through.
I'm not sure on that one Leber, but here's what I think is happening, and the Bush administration's excuse for why it's happening.
Justifications:
1) Gauntanamo is not technically on American soil, therefore people don't get the privilege of our constitution.
2) The detainees of Gauntanamo are not American, therefore they do not get the privileges of our constitution
3) They are (supposedly) terrorists, and therefore deserve no rights whatsoever.
None of these are legally correct or morally and logically justifiable reasons for detaining a person indefinitely, but most of America has had the hood slipped over their eyes by talk of terrorism, patriotism and impending danger.
A while back, there was a great article in the NY Times. I think I still have it... somewhere... here:
or here: http://www.freewebs.com/calderzone/ChickenFarmer.pdf
Despite this recent scolding by the Supreme Court, the Bush administration will continue to do exactly what they have done so well for the past 6 years; and continue to get away with it.
I won't yet say whether the end result will be the same, but I will say that the US in the last 6 years is an uncanny resemblance of Germany in the 1930s.
-Calder
Justifications:
1) Gauntanamo is not technically on American soil, therefore people don't get the privilege of our constitution.
2) The detainees of Gauntanamo are not American, therefore they do not get the privileges of our constitution
3) They are (supposedly) terrorists, and therefore deserve no rights whatsoever.
None of these are legally correct or morally and logically justifiable reasons for detaining a person indefinitely, but most of America has had the hood slipped over their eyes by talk of terrorism, patriotism and impending danger.
A while back, there was a great article in the NY Times. I think I still have it... somewhere... here:
or here: http://www.freewebs.com/calderzone/ChickenFarmer.pdf
Despite this recent scolding by the Supreme Court, the Bush administration will continue to do exactly what they have done so well for the past 6 years; and continue to get away with it.
I won't yet say whether the end result will be the same, but I will say that the US in the last 6 years is an uncanny resemblance of Germany in the 1930s.
-Calder
Toshiro.... where are you from? Up here (Canada) newspapers are worse than TV for objective reporting, with every single major newspaper in every single major city being owned by the same media conglomerate... Canwest Global. The internet is the way to go these days. I suggest...
bbc.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
cbc.ca
english.aljazeera.net
nytimes.com
...for a start.
bbc.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
cbc.ca
english.aljazeera.net
nytimes.com
...for a start.
<ding> Order up, Hoax!
I dunno what the hell everyone's so worried about. These guys were captured in wartime, most of them SHOOTING at US troops. We're the only country in the world that dithers and frets and wrings its hands over the treatment of these captured non-declared enemy combatants.
If they aren't playing by the rules of the Geneva convention (i.e. no uniforms, hiding amongst civilian population, etc etc etc) then why are we bound to abide by those same rules? Essentially those that cry foul re: the Geneva convention are saying that the United States should adopt the same strategy of the British in the American Revolution: Keep sending in straight lines of soldiers in highly visible bright red uniforms, so be shot to death by camoflauged guerilla fighters.
You can't win a war if the playing field ain't level. And if we're not willing to be as brutal, sneaky, and violent as the terrorists whom we oppose, well, then we've lost already.
They're living better than they did in the caves of Afghanistan, they're getting a nice tan and get three squares a day. If some of them want to hang themselves, I won't shed a tear.
I dunno what the hell everyone's so worried about. These guys were captured in wartime, most of them SHOOTING at US troops. We're the only country in the world that dithers and frets and wrings its hands over the treatment of these captured non-declared enemy combatants.
If they aren't playing by the rules of the Geneva convention (i.e. no uniforms, hiding amongst civilian population, etc etc etc) then why are we bound to abide by those same rules? Essentially those that cry foul re: the Geneva convention are saying that the United States should adopt the same strategy of the British in the American Revolution: Keep sending in straight lines of soldiers in highly visible bright red uniforms, so be shot to death by camoflauged guerilla fighters.
You can't win a war if the playing field ain't level. And if we're not willing to be as brutal, sneaky, and violent as the terrorists whom we oppose, well, then we've lost already.
They're living better than they did in the caves of Afghanistan, they're getting a nice tan and get three squares a day. If some of them want to hang themselves, I won't shed a tear.
@ Gavan: I'm Swiss. I read it in a Swiss newspaper, said (and perceived by me) to be fairly objective.
@ LeberMac, to put it bluntly: You cannot 'wage war' on terrorism.
If they are prisoners of war, the Geneva convention does indeed extend to them, no matter if they shot at US troops or not.
Furthermore, human rights are irrevokable. It matters little what they did, nothing justifies torture, or capital punishment. That, of course, is my own private opinion.
@ LeberMac, to put it bluntly: You cannot 'wage war' on terrorism.
If they are prisoners of war, the Geneva convention does indeed extend to them, no matter if they shot at US troops or not.
Furthermore, human rights are irrevokable. It matters little what they did, nothing justifies torture, or capital punishment. That, of course, is my own private opinion.
tosh, SURE ya can!
1. Find terrorists.
2. Kill terrorists.
REPEAT.
The main problem is that, once again, the pace of change (technological, social and economic) is too fast for old laws, especially the Geneva convention. When a state's enemy is not another state but a collection of highly mobile international criminals, new rules apply.
1. Find terrorists.
2. Kill terrorists.
REPEAT.
The main problem is that, once again, the pace of change (technological, social and economic) is too fast for old laws, especially the Geneva convention. When a state's enemy is not another state but a collection of highly mobile international criminals, new rules apply.
LeberMac, you're missing the point. By scouring the world for terrorists, the US have incurred the wrath of more people than before, effectively bolstering the terrorists' ranks instead of diminishing them. Instead of trying to see whether maybe they might be at fault, it is automatically assumed that it's the others who are lacking in something.
Even if the others' being at fault may be true, democracy can't be introduced by military means. As has been proven numerous times. By the northern american government, no less, but the first time was the French revolution.
Even if the others' being at fault may be true, democracy can't be introduced by military means. As has been proven numerous times. By the northern american government, no less, but the first time was the French revolution.
Wow, Leber. I can't believe you're taking that position after watching the videos on the DVD I gave you. "When a state's enemy is not another state but a collection of highly mobile international criminals, new rules apply." Who defines "international criminal"? What rules should be changed, why, and who makes sure the "new rules" are followed?
The supreme court ruled it illegal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm
Because, they don't even make the simplest attempts to ensure a fair trial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1809981,00.html?gusrc=rss
How would we know if there are americans there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4771774.stm
Where do you draw the line between terrorists and everyone else? It may seem obvious to us, but it apparently isn't to those with the guns:
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2808
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_investigated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
Well documented, admitted facts should make us all examine our government's motives, means and opportunity closely:
http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/americas-dirtiest-open-secrets/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3710767957407328313&q=terrorstorm
The supreme court ruled it illegal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm
Because, they don't even make the simplest attempts to ensure a fair trial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1809981,00.html?gusrc=rss
How would we know if there are americans there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4771774.stm
Where do you draw the line between terrorists and everyone else? It may seem obvious to us, but it apparently isn't to those with the guns:
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2808
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_investigated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
Well documented, admitted facts should make us all examine our government's motives, means and opportunity closely:
http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/americas-dirtiest-open-secrets/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3710767957407328313&q=terrorstorm
Gah. Momerath yer supposed to comment on THIS thread:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/8/14215
1. Mom: I guess the people in power define who "international criminal" is. I would put forth that people who purposefully destroy civilian targets with explosives are pretty much criminals. YES that includes who I think you're gonna say, if any of that evidence ever stacks up and can be brought to light.
2. Mom2: Who makes sure the "new rules" are followed? I suppose the same people who made 'em up, which doesn't make me feel any better. Lucky for me, I'm on the US's side on this one. At least I think they're on MY side...
3. Tosh: Well, what would you have us do? Sit on our hands and say "Gosh, we feel your pain, it's OK to kill our citizens, though, just don't do it too often or too spectacularly." We're not going to say "Man, The US is such a bad country, we deserved 911 for all the ill will we've created in the world, gosh we're sorry." I respect your well-thought-out opinions usually, but that's really a crap argument. Utter crap.
4. Cunjo. I really have to watch more Colbert.
Back on topic, looks like the House is going to introduce a measure doing all the authorizing and stuff for the guantanamo detainees/POW's. So looks like Congress'll make new rules to fit our situation. Until the Supreme court says they can't. But that'll take a couple of years. See what I mean about government and laws not moving fast enough? In the meantime, looks like the current administration will have a free hand to do whatever until 2008.
Hell, back in 2000 the Supreme Court could drop what they were doing to figure out what to do with the US election. Why can't we work those "wise ones" a little harder?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/8/14215
1. Mom: I guess the people in power define who "international criminal" is. I would put forth that people who purposefully destroy civilian targets with explosives are pretty much criminals. YES that includes who I think you're gonna say, if any of that evidence ever stacks up and can be brought to light.
2. Mom2: Who makes sure the "new rules" are followed? I suppose the same people who made 'em up, which doesn't make me feel any better. Lucky for me, I'm on the US's side on this one. At least I think they're on MY side...
3. Tosh: Well, what would you have us do? Sit on our hands and say "Gosh, we feel your pain, it's OK to kill our citizens, though, just don't do it too often or too spectacularly." We're not going to say "Man, The US is such a bad country, we deserved 911 for all the ill will we've created in the world, gosh we're sorry." I respect your well-thought-out opinions usually, but that's really a crap argument. Utter crap.
4. Cunjo. I really have to watch more Colbert.
Back on topic, looks like the House is going to introduce a measure doing all the authorizing and stuff for the guantanamo detainees/POW's. So looks like Congress'll make new rules to fit our situation. Until the Supreme court says they can't. But that'll take a couple of years. See what I mean about government and laws not moving fast enough? In the meantime, looks like the current administration will have a free hand to do whatever until 2008.
Hell, back in 2000 the Supreme Court could drop what they were doing to figure out what to do with the US election. Why can't we work those "wise ones" a little harder?
LeberMac, you're free to think what you want of my arguments. My point still stands. Since terrorism is (by definition) not a crime committed by entire nations, you cannot 'wage war' on terrorism. You can wage war on countries. However, waging war on countries will provoke terrorist acts. Prime example: Iraq.
And of course I didn't mean to say that you should sit around on your hands and wait for the next terrorist attack to strike. Instead, think about who you are retaliating against, who the actual victims will be, and what the consequences of that will be. And maybe you should try and get to know the point of view of those who target the US, why they do it and such. And then find out how you could prevent that from happening, instead of thinking that military action would solve the problem.
And of course I didn't mean to say that you should sit around on your hands and wait for the next terrorist attack to strike. Instead, think about who you are retaliating against, who the actual victims will be, and what the consequences of that will be. And maybe you should try and get to know the point of view of those who target the US, why they do it and such. And then find out how you could prevent that from happening, instead of thinking that military action would solve the problem.
So, if we try to understand why they hate us and try to change to accomodate them, everything will be OK?
The radical islamist's goal is to destroy all secular power and place all power in the hands of an islamist religious elite, which will control the world by force, by religious dogma, and by intimidation.
These are not people that you can reason with and come to a peaceful understanding with. They eat, sleep, and breathe hatred of the US and Israel from the time they enter school (or from the time they can hold a Kalishnikov). Their brand of control and democracy are not compatible, therefore they fight against it wherever they can. If the U.S. and Israel were not around, these same Islamists would be focusing their attacks on the middle eastern governments in an attempt to seize power.
I'll stand by my assertion that the U.S. is uniquely situated to combat terrorism in a way no other nation in the world could. We have intelligence and military resources to do so, so we do it. It's not a "normal" war in the terms that most humans think of it. The sooner we get over the preconceived notions of what a "war" is, the better off we'll ALL be. Right now, The US looks for terrorists, and when it finds them, it kills or captures them. It may not be the war we expected in the Fulda Gap or in the Korean DMZ, but it's war nonetheless.
Oh, and the terrorist acts in Iraq are essentially their version of a resistance, blowing up the odd convoy and such. Except that they just as frequently blow up their own citizens. Idiots. Of course they wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded. You can say the same about any invaded country. Did we invade Iraq under false pretenses? It's looking like it. Can we just leave now after we've gone and toppled a government? No. Like Colin Powell said, "You break it you buy it."
Essentially, preemption is the new U.S. global security strategy. Hit them before they hit you. No more "containment". Of course, that comes off as belligerent. I say that's too damn bad.
"...get to know the point of view of those who target the US, why they do it and such. And then find out how you could prevent that from happening..."
Preventing terrorism is essentially the same as caving to their demands. No matter what, that kind of behavior CANNOT be rewarded. Ever. Ever. Ever. I'm against giving one INCH of leeway to these butchers.
The point of your argument that irks me the most is that you assume a moral equivalent between the United States and these terrorists. Is it not obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature that the way the terrorists make their points and fight their war is WRONG?
OK I gotta pause here for station identification...
The radical islamist's goal is to destroy all secular power and place all power in the hands of an islamist religious elite, which will control the world by force, by religious dogma, and by intimidation.
These are not people that you can reason with and come to a peaceful understanding with. They eat, sleep, and breathe hatred of the US and Israel from the time they enter school (or from the time they can hold a Kalishnikov). Their brand of control and democracy are not compatible, therefore they fight against it wherever they can. If the U.S. and Israel were not around, these same Islamists would be focusing their attacks on the middle eastern governments in an attempt to seize power.
I'll stand by my assertion that the U.S. is uniquely situated to combat terrorism in a way no other nation in the world could. We have intelligence and military resources to do so, so we do it. It's not a "normal" war in the terms that most humans think of it. The sooner we get over the preconceived notions of what a "war" is, the better off we'll ALL be. Right now, The US looks for terrorists, and when it finds them, it kills or captures them. It may not be the war we expected in the Fulda Gap or in the Korean DMZ, but it's war nonetheless.
Oh, and the terrorist acts in Iraq are essentially their version of a resistance, blowing up the odd convoy and such. Except that they just as frequently blow up their own citizens. Idiots. Of course they wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded. You can say the same about any invaded country. Did we invade Iraq under false pretenses? It's looking like it. Can we just leave now after we've gone and toppled a government? No. Like Colin Powell said, "You break it you buy it."
Essentially, preemption is the new U.S. global security strategy. Hit them before they hit you. No more "containment". Of course, that comes off as belligerent. I say that's too damn bad.
"...get to know the point of view of those who target the US, why they do it and such. And then find out how you could prevent that from happening..."
Preventing terrorism is essentially the same as caving to their demands. No matter what, that kind of behavior CANNOT be rewarded. Ever. Ever. Ever. I'm against giving one INCH of leeway to these butchers.
The point of your argument that irks me the most is that you assume a moral equivalent between the United States and these terrorists. Is it not obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature that the way the terrorists make their points and fight their war is WRONG?
OK I gotta pause here for station identification...
LeberMac, you apparently don't want to understand.
First off, the terrorists in Iraq (most of them, anyway) are mostly not native Iraqi, instead they come from everywhere around Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is now a number-one live-ammo training center for the entire radical islamist apparatus.
Secondly, why do you think a lot of the islamist people continue to give support to the radical groups?
Thirdly, why are you so hell-bent on bringing democracy to 'those ignorant islamists' ignie ferrumque? Don't you think it'd be easier, and maybe less bloody, to open diplomatic channels and discuss it with them? Oh, right. It's too late for that. Wrong! Especially in Iran, there's a dichotomy between the ultra-conservative elders and the actual opinion of the populace. The problem is that the former hold policing power. But if the US government goes and charges in there to 'bring about democracy', like they tried in Iraq, I don't know if I should still be trying to understand both sides' points of view.
And lastly, everyone seems to have forgotten about Afghanistan. Yet they still have (big, huge, nearly insolvable) problems down there, and the warlords are stronger than ever. All because the terrorist group funded and fostered by the US (the Taliban were provided by the United States with intelligence, money and weapons, to hamper the Soviet Union) went rogue and committed acts of terrorism. However, the world's focus turned away from there, since 'democracy has been brought about'. Democracy, my ass. 30km from Kabul, it's a FFA gankfest, to put it in terms of gaming. And it's usually humanitarian help convoys that get ganked. Whoopee.
Now it may be just me, but I perceive the 'War On Terrorism' to be a pretty poor ploy by the conservative lobby in the US to keep the current president (read: marionette) in office, and behold, it worked.
And another thing...
Israel is currently working on ousting the (legally elected) government in Palestine, which could turn out to be a very bad move. And everyone who could take influence (save Egypt, and they failed... maybe due to the lack in backing) is standing by and watching, including the EU, Russia and China. Shouldn't the US go in, and pacify both parties by sending some troops? How about it?
EDIT:
And, of course, terrorism is 'wrong'. That does not allow anyone to assume that one may punish entire countries for the fact that terrorist groups operate from their soil.
:EDIT
First off, the terrorists in Iraq (most of them, anyway) are mostly not native Iraqi, instead they come from everywhere around Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is now a number-one live-ammo training center for the entire radical islamist apparatus.
Secondly, why do you think a lot of the islamist people continue to give support to the radical groups?
Thirdly, why are you so hell-bent on bringing democracy to 'those ignorant islamists' ignie ferrumque? Don't you think it'd be easier, and maybe less bloody, to open diplomatic channels and discuss it with them? Oh, right. It's too late for that. Wrong! Especially in Iran, there's a dichotomy between the ultra-conservative elders and the actual opinion of the populace. The problem is that the former hold policing power. But if the US government goes and charges in there to 'bring about democracy', like they tried in Iraq, I don't know if I should still be trying to understand both sides' points of view.
And lastly, everyone seems to have forgotten about Afghanistan. Yet they still have (big, huge, nearly insolvable) problems down there, and the warlords are stronger than ever. All because the terrorist group funded and fostered by the US (the Taliban were provided by the United States with intelligence, money and weapons, to hamper the Soviet Union) went rogue and committed acts of terrorism. However, the world's focus turned away from there, since 'democracy has been brought about'. Democracy, my ass. 30km from Kabul, it's a FFA gankfest, to put it in terms of gaming. And it's usually humanitarian help convoys that get ganked. Whoopee.
Now it may be just me, but I perceive the 'War On Terrorism' to be a pretty poor ploy by the conservative lobby in the US to keep the current president (read: marionette) in office, and behold, it worked.
And another thing...
Israel is currently working on ousting the (legally elected) government in Palestine, which could turn out to be a very bad move. And everyone who could take influence (save Egypt, and they failed... maybe due to the lack in backing) is standing by and watching, including the EU, Russia and China. Shouldn't the US go in, and pacify both parties by sending some troops? How about it?
EDIT:
And, of course, terrorism is 'wrong'. That does not allow anyone to assume that one may punish entire countries for the fact that terrorist groups operate from their soil.
:EDIT