OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

What happened to "with liberty and justice for all"?
Not relevant, I guess. It's all about making money.


Guess I should move to France, then.

I was speaking about Egalite - or egalitarianism from llamas post. But I agree it wasn't clear. I almost put 'we are the 'land of opportunity' not the land of 'egalitarianism''

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Your own country just extended the amount of time a terror suspect may be held without requiring the surpervision of the courts, or charges. Doubled it didn't it?

No, and no. Check your facts.

[Humakty]

It is a well known fact : when you don't wear a bright red and blue shirt so that USA fighter-bombers can shoot at you freely, you're a terrorist, and deserve to be tortured till death. (and beyond...)

[Tichy]

We can argue all day about what we are bound to do according to notoriously flimsy precedents of international laws of war. What's more important is the question of what we *ought* to do.

We may be able to legally wrangle our way out of adhering to the international standards that other civilized nations adhere to, on the basis that our enemy is not acting as a civilized nation. And it's also clear that people who like to argue this way usually have the UN-bashing conservative's contempt for the very idea of international law.

But no legal argument, or ideological rejection of international law, changes the fact that acting the way we've been acting is *morally* shameful, and leads to justifiable suspicion about our motives and methods.

Even if the moral argument doesn't sway you, the tactical advantages of having the perceived moral high ground should. We did a lot better on the ground when enemy soldiers perceived surrendering to U.S. troops as a ticket to a safe place to sleep, a meal and not-getting-shot-at, instead of a bag over the head and a one-way trip to the inquisition.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Tichy

We can argue all day about what we are bound to do according to notoriously flimsy precedents of international laws of war. What's more important is the question of what we *ought* to do.

We may be able to legally wrangle our way out of adhering to the international standards that other civilized nations adhere to, on the basis that our enemy is not acting as a civilized nation. And it's also clear that people who like to argue this way usually have the UN-bashing conservative's contempt for the very idea of international law.

But no legal argument, or ideological rejection of international law, changes the fact that acting the way we've been acting is *morally* shameful, and leads to justifiable suspicion about our motives and methods.

Even if the moral argument doesn't sway you, the tactical advantages of having the perceived moral high ground should. We did a lot better on the ground when enemy soldiers perceived surrendering to U.S. troops as a ticket to a safe place to sleep, a meal and not-getting-shot-at, instead of a bag over the head and a one-way trip to the inquisition.

Ignoring that you apparently think I'm in favor of a moral low ground,


What you say is *exactly* the problem Tichy.

What do you think we *ought* to do?

Give me a problem free solution.

Let me shoot at *your* solution for awhile, and accuse you of unspeakable acts with animals.

[Boronx]

Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists.

Efforts against international terrorist need to based on a legal frame work. If current laws are inadequate, the hard work needed to improve it must be part of the anti-terrorism process. Such an effort would last far beyond the administration that pursued it and would have the US courts aligned with it instead of against it. A law based reaction would have de-legitimize terrorism as a pollitical tool where Bush's reaction to terrorism (torture, illegal invasions) has legitimized it.

Within the current system of laws: If a prisoner is a fighter, he should be held as a POW with full red cross access, without torture. The kid held at Gitmo because he threw a grenade at American troops should instead just be a regular POW.

POWs should be held until the Taliban surrenders and Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are all wiped out.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, a case should be made and they should be tried in federal court. If acquitted, they should be returned to their own country or to a POW camp as appropriate. If, like Uighurs from China, they are acquitted and they are not POWS, but their home country would kill them or torture them, they should be released in the US through normal political asylum procedures.

[chrispedersen]

I agree with a lot you say here.

Originally Posted by Boronx

Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists.

Don't agree much about this paragraph, interested in what mean by 'illegal operations'

Efforts against international terrorist need to based on a legal frame work. If current laws are inadequate, the hard work needed to improve it must be part of the anti-terrorism process. Such an effort would last far beyond the administration that pursued it and would have the US courts aligned with it instead of against it. A law based reaction would have de-legitimize terrorism as a pollitical tool where Bush's reaction to terrorism (torture, illegal invasions) has legitimized it.

Completely agree.

Within the current system of laws: If a prisoner is a fighter, he should be held as a POW with full red cross access, without torture. The kid held at Gitmo because he threw a grenade at American troops should instead just be a regular POW.

Why instead? By which I mean to say, why do you think he is something other than a regular POW at Gitmo?

POWs should be held until the Taliban surrenders and Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are all wiped out.

I agree; I might even be more liberal than you. I would be inclined to release them into the custody of a functioning state - if that state could demonstrate it had control of its territory; respected basic human rights; perhaps had an amnesty program for its fighters.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, a case should be made and they should be tried in federal court. If acquitted, they should be returned to their own country or to a POW camp as appropriate. If, like Uighurs from China, they are acquitted and they are not POWS, but their home country would kill them or torture them, they should be released in the US through normal political asylum procedures.

Federal courts as constituted don't have jurisdiction - this is one of the many reasons why the Nuremberg trials were convened for WWII.

Letting terrorists jump the queue for asylum in the US is a bad idea. And again, the US has more than 250 such individuals approved for release - but no country wishes to *take* them.

[Boronx]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I agree with a lot you say here.

Don't agree much about this paragraph, interested in what mean by 'illegal operations'

Torture is illegal under US law and international law.

Unprovoked war is a crime against the peace for which we jailed or hanged many Nazis. It's also, IMHO, the second worst crime that can be committed after genocide. As to US law, Congress did pass approval for the invasion but there were conditions attached that the president had to convey to Congress his determinations about the threat of Iraqi WMD and links to terrorists. Given what we now know to be the state of evidence at the time (there wasn't any), Bush should now be burdened with explaining how he made those determinations. If he can't, he violated US law in addition to committing a crime against the peace.

Third, the Bush administration has detained US citizens on US soil with no charge for years, often in solitary confinement, which for that length of time is tantamount to torture.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

...why do you think he is something other than a regular POW at Gitmo?

Prisoners at Gitmo have been subjected to torture and general abuse. They've not enjoyed full access to the Red Cross. They are subject (like the grenade kid) to extra-legal rigged courts that don't allow the defendants to review evidence and admit testimony given under torture.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Federal courts as constituted don't have jurisdiction - this is one of the many reasons why the Nuremberg trials were convened for WWII.

Federal Courts do have jurisdiction to try charges of conspiracy to attack the US. One irony of Bush's illegal war on terror is that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on his own initiative sought and got indictments against Osama bin Laden, so that if he was ever captured, he might actually receive a fair trial, conviction and execution while his minions, real and mistaken, languish in prison forever with out charge.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Letting terrorists jump the queue for asylum in the US is a bad idea. And again, the US has more than 250 such individuals approved for release - but no country wishes to *take* them.

If they were acquitted, they're not terrorists as far as we know.

[Tichy]

Well, now that I know I'm exactly the problem, that clears everything up. What exactly is exactly the problem that I am? Is it the suggestion that we conduct war and foreign policy with an ethical thought or two and not just legal hair-splitting to wiggle our way around conduct befitting a civilized society? If that's exactly the problem, then color me exact.

Animals? I've got no idea what you're saying.

I think it's pretty clear what I think we ought to be doing...adhereing to the Geneva conventions even if our enemies don't. Not trying to wiggle our way into justifying interminable extra-judicial detention and torture through hair-splitting arguments. Who's claiming to offer a "problem free solution"? Maybe a "not-ethically-damning suggestion."

Animals?

[Tichy]

As best I remember, the "egalité" slogan indicates equal rights before the law, not economic equality.

I guess it depends on how deeply the Rousseauan economic critique in the Discourse on Inequality influenced them. I've always thought that On the Social Contract was the influential text there, which, unlike Locke, doesn't enshrine an individual right to private property as inviolate, but doesn't end up with the redistributionism you might expect from the Discourse.