OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[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.

[Ylvali]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

You misunderstand me a bit here. I meant that the right to a fair trial is granted by the declaration of human rights. I agree that this might differ from the rights of a US citizen, but it does include similar aspects. Like having a lawyer defending you etc...

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.

Perhaps not. But I am talking about terrorist suspects here. The habit of calling those "enemy combattants" is very questionable. They are suspected criminals, and just like other crimes you need a trial to confirm or discard that suspicion. The problem is not whether to try them in the US or somewhere else, but to ensure that the right to fair trial is granted. It weren´t for those detained at gitmo. And it still isn´t to those detained in less famous prison camps around the world.

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.

You could start by granting them basic human rights. That is a resonable minimum standard don´t you think? Including for example the right not to be tortured or detained without trial:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

IMO these standards would suffice, if they were actually used. No need to argue about "enemy combattant" or not, as these rights apply to everyone.

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.

Um, ok. I don´t see what you want to prove, argue for or imply with this.

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.

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

...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.

I agree with this. It looks like it is mostly for show. My bet is that torture and summary detainment will remain one of the standard tactics for repressive systems around the world. Gitmo or not.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Ylvali

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

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.

We are mostly in accord. What I disagreed with in your paragraph was your statement 'The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants'

The US didn't deny them these kinds of coverages,
they never applied for multiple reasons alluded to before.

[licker]

Originally Posted by lch

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

Chuckle...

You spend much time in south carolina lch?

[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.

[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?

[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]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

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.

So many things I disagree with.

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?

Eastern Europe has well documented, state sanctioned secret prisons. Countries such as poland, rumania, italy. Where individuals of state interest were (are) held without court ccess or supervision.

Many here have talked about the holding of terror suspects at Gitmo. The term terror suspect presupposes what is at contention is a criminal trial, which is not correct.

Suppose for a moment that unmarked combattants set a bomb in a house and engaged in a firefight with US troops. In other wars they would have been deemed Prisoners of War - and held for the duration of the war. What exactly would you have the US do - release them to fight again?

Give me an example of Britain releasing all the German POWs. Or Russia.

As for the moral superiority of Western Europe - you're talking about nations such as Germany and France that made sub rosa agreements with the Red Brigades (and other terrorist organizations) that so long as terrorist incidents did not occur on French or German soil, brigadists were allowed free transit.

You're talking about a french system where guilt is presumed until proven innocent - and a French regime that allowed abuses of the Oil for Food program so long as the received below market rates on iraqi oil.

Gitmo is a horror inconceivable to Western Europeans is it? Last I checked western europe included germany which slaughtred millions of Jews, catholics, intellectuals and others in its Nazi death camps.

So spare me the moral superiourity.

As for being notoriously bad for an egalitarian society.. that could prompt an essay by itself. I'll content myself with two comments.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite are the french ideals, not American ones. America has never pretended otherwise. What America has always held is that if you work hard, keep your nose clean and invent a better widget - then you too can become filthy rich.

Lastly, if America were so notoriously bad - exactly why is it that we have 10 million people a year more or less sneaking there ways across our borders, or overstaying their visas. On top of millions more applyig for visas and green cards.

Ok. I lied. This is the last: 'I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe, while actually being not especially good at it.'

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Let me know when you do the same in Britain, or France.