OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

I agree with everything you said.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Ylvali

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

And these are just problems off the top of my head.


For those that don't read my posts, but rather just jump in and pile on with criticism, I'll say it again: I'm in favor of fixing the problem. Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

[Humakty]

I think it is illusory to believe USA will rebuilt it's image of a pure country respecting morality. I even wonder who ever believed it in the first place : people come to live in the States for economical reasons, it dominated the world thanks to its economy. Not thanks to its supposed morality : minorities of white fanatics say oppenly on TV they burn black people when they can, and you call this morality ? Freedom to the point of absurdity is more like it. Normally, your freedom is supposed to stop were other people freedom starts... Not were you want it to stop, or not to stop.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

[Agema]

Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.

And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.

[Humakty]

It seems to me the main value in USA is money, if you have none then the society will seem less egalist( you cannot afford a lawyer = less rights). There is also a surprising percentage of black people in prison, but I'm sure you have the right explanation ? Do you think they are more inclined to criminal acts ? Or are they refused a correct education/equal rights ? But maybe USA judges tend to condemn them more ?

The democracy can also be contested, as people doesn't directly vote for their president, but for people who promise they'll do the right choice, so if it is a democracy, it is highly indirect.

What history has learned to me is that you can be sure anyone reaching a position of domination will pretend being better in various domains, like morality and human rights in the present case.

Must I also say this country, where white people are a minority, has a surprising number of white people at interesting positions, but no doubt this is due to natural superiority of white people ? Or...?

I won't even discuss the organized exploitation of southern america people (the so called 'latinos'), it disgusts me too much.

All in all, I don't say USA is worse than the states that came before it to world domination (IE :french, england), but it tends to repeat the same stupid schemes, telling to who would listen them they are superior 'moraly', negating the fact they became what they are by following an opportunistic military strategy. And, in the particular case of USA, having clever leaders in terms of economical development.

I do agree with you that the constant propaganda we can see on TV, and in hollywood films tend to convince the most gullible that USA is a perfect place, where morality and freedom are always respected, were rivers of milk and honey flows, blablabla....

END SEQUENCE : everyone watches, a tear in the eye, an american flag floating in the air...

[llamabeast]

But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy.

Regrettably, I think the USA has become markedly worse than many European countries with regard to all of these things. I would be happy to be corrected - I have no agenda on these things, but that's certainly the perception. With regard to individual rights, I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries (I know less about the east, but believe the same is true for most Eastern European countries too). With regard to an egalitarian society, America is obviously notoriously bad, with its tendency to right-wing politics making its provision for the less fortunate far worse than in Europe. I believe in that respect the UK is intermediate between the US and much of the rest of Europe.

I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe (here in the UK it is common to be deeply cynical about our country), while actually being not especially good at it.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

...Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

This is so similar to the whole "we need to negotiate with Iran" problem. Politicians in general, but Republicans especially, seem to have taken a liking to protraying an -extreme- level of cautiousness. We are so critical of our Presidents, that now they either try to hide what they do, or in cases that they can't hide it, they are openly as slow and deliberate as possible, so that at least when they fail, they can say they "took proper measures" or at least "really thought about it a lot", and at least try to show that they didn't fail in some way due to impulsiveness.

However, this is now being turned into an illusory critical flaw in someone who is willing to stand up and announce that he will take action. So far, when confronted, Obama has stated that while he has made his goals clear, that it in no way implies that he is planning to behave irresponsibly. Until something outrageous happens (doubt it, but it could) along these lines, then I would suggest that every time Obama says that he will do something about something, that you read it as "I will figure out, with my advisers, how to deal with this issue, and then act". It is somehow vaguely ridiculous to think that someone as obviously intelligent as he is, could rise to such a high office, and then run around like an idiot, doing things with no thought of the repercussions. Besides, no one will be able to pull that off as well as GW did, and I think Obama knows that.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

See, this is silly. Someone saying they want to "talk about what to do", is not only acting like total wimp, but they are directly implying that if it's somehow deemed appropriate, that they'll let things continue rather than stopping them. All he has basically said is that one way or another, those things WILL stop. Obviously it is yet to be determined the most appropriate and effective means to do so, but stating that a certain result is the goal, in no way implies a lack of process.

Originally Posted by Agema

Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.

And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.

We were supposed to be the good guys. Maybe not saintly, as a nation, but "good". So if humanity were graded on a curve, we took pride in, and the rest of the world seemed to praise us for, being on the "right" side of that curve somewhere.

Perhaps we are where we are because of our economy, but it cannot be discounted that our diplomatic position has long been seen as very strong, and that our economy has only been bolstered by our ability to negotiate favorable agreements around the world. Thus it is incredibly ironic, and a bit telling, that during 8 years of diplomatic strength our economy did better than most Republicans want to give anyone credit for, and then during 8 years of diplomatic disappointment, our economy slides into a terrible slump (a trillion dollars for a ridiculous war might have something to do with it, too.....). Of course, we can always blame Clinton, he got a couple blowjobs in office and didn't want to tell anyone, so he must have seriously sabotaged our economy beyond what any man as brilliant as GW Bush could have possibly fixed.....

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Part of the hallmark of a guerilla or terrorist group is the need to slip into the civilian population. Hence, why I said it was unlikely that Al-Qaeda or similar would be, or could be expected to, follow the convention.

This is just one of multiple complex reasons.

Hence it is incorrect to say that the United States violated the Geneva convention.

Go read Title III of the Geneva conventions to see what I mean.
I for one would argue that there should be standards. However, there are none as I know them now, and hard to imagine the process by which they would be developped. Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, Myanmar in general, Israel in Palestine, Spain with the Basques - each of these countries would have different national goals and perspectives - and developing an accord would be difficult.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.

The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful. for that.