Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Grypd · 2005-06-10 03:58:14

Well done for those who wanted to see why topics collapse in this case we managed it.

Back to buisness
What is your oppinion of this bit of news. (probably it was discussed last night but well that is gone.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ … 6.stm]Bush aide "edited" climate papers

Palomar · 2005-06-10 04:08:03

*OMG.

Well, Gennaro's reply seems utterly lost to the void.

However, the last post by Bill (and a handful of posts previous to that one besides) which I saw yesterday -is- still there and it can be read by clicking into the thread and pressing "Add+ Reply" button, then scrolling down.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-06-10 04:21:53

Yeah you can read from about page 11 backwards. Still it is very unlike Bill to get the last word. Hmmm conspiracy theory here (did he crash it himself)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-10 05:52:42

The oddest thing, but reviewing the previous topic I noticed my rather "in your face" reply to Bill is gone. Replies after it still show, but it's gone. The demons have absconded with my rant. ??? Pity, it was a good one.

So picking meat off the rotting carcass of the last thread. . .

In practice, the legalities of the Constitution do not apply outside the United States, however the principles must, always and for everyone. No exceptions.

Doesn't this then imply a duty to ensure those principles are applied, even outside our territorial jurisdiction? Could not the invasion and occupation of Iraq or any nation not following them be justified on those grounds alone?

Don't mind me, just filling my role as Imperial Advocate.

And Gitmo sets a terrible precedent for the future treatment of our POWs with the world saying in that case "what goes around, comes around"

True, which brings up an important fact that is being overlooked. We've got three options on how to deal with terrorists. Charge them under US law, which for a multitude of reasons is asinine. Create a new "terrorist" classification which is wrought with pitfalls. How do you classify a terrorist, what evidence is required, how much oversight? I don't know. And as Bill pointed out earlier, eventually it will be used against our people so we have to make a reasonable.

Or the Geneva Convention. But under the current convention rules they're unlawful combatants, we can shoot or hang them right off. Tribunal to bullet, done.

Why? This isn't spelled out explicitly in the text and no one much brings it up, but here's the uncomfortable controversy-inducing truth about it. <prepares for unwarranted flak> The Geneva Convention is at its core an agreement between white Western powers built on the basis of "treat our people well, we do the same to yours. Break the rules, so do we." It was never meant to be applied universally even when a foe blatantly disregards it.

So, while it may be morally right for us to treat terrorists like proper POWs under the Geneva Conventions even though they decapitate our civilians and string up burnt bodies we'd be doing purely for our own comfort, no practical concerns. Nothing we do will lead to our POWs being treated worse by these enemies, they already have no reservations about committing what we would call war crimes. If we grant terrorists POW status we gain nothing for our troops in the field. Besides, when do we release them? To whom? If we accept that they are POWs but we aren't actually at war with a recognized power and that non-nation won't surrender we'll be holding them, in accoradnce with the Geneva Convention, until every last one expires in custody. Somehow I doubt this will satisfy the critics.

Or, equally in line with the conventions, we could try and execute every terrorist we capture in the field. Saboteur, to the firing squad. Basically tell them "get matching shirts and a command structure or we'll kill you." Again, probably not the most practical approach but it at least has the benefit of possibly helping our troops on the off-chance someone decides to comply.

I'd ask for a food taster and so would he but of course he wouldn't really need one because I am so pure of heart.
Me? I'd get a food taster.

I'm stung. I'd want you round as co-dictator, that way I have someone to blame whenever anything goes wrong.

Ah, what a world that would be. :laugh: Correction, worlds. :;):

What angers me most is that our Abu Ghraib and Gitmo techiques are so dang ineffectual.

With that I cannot argue. Clearly not the slickest bunch of conquerors here.

That should get the new thread started off right.

EDIT::
Just to make sure I hadn't stepped in something so early in the morning I checked my assertions at genevaconventions.org. Brief rundown on the history, worth a look as a refresher. But this little nugget sums up what I was trying to say quite well:

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118405574

clark · 2005-06-10 06:20:39

Radical idea: How about we put all this lawyer mumbo-jumbo on the back burner and simply agree not to torture our prisoners anymore.

Of course, I grant, we may not be ready for such forward thinking action at this point and time. But maybe we could, you know, just start talking about this as a, I dunno, a basic standard of our own behavior.

Nah, it would never work.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-10 06:29:54

Radical idea: How about we put all this lawyer mumbo-jumbo on the back burner and simply agree not to torture our prisoners anymore.

What constitutes torture. Sticking bamboo shoots under fingernails? Yeah, let's not do that.

We give a prisoner a book, but we mishandle it? If that's torture I'm prosecuting the US Postal Service under the Geneva Convention.

All this lawyer mumbo-jumbo, as distasteful as it is, is necessary to determine what words mean. Terrorist, torture, different things to different people.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 06:33:16

What angers me most is that our Abu Ghraib and Gitmo techiques are so dang ineffectual.
With that I cannot argue. Clearly not the slickest bunch of conquerors here.
That should get the new thread started off right.
EDIT::
Just to make sure I hadn't stepped in something so early in the morning I checked my assertions at genevaconventions.org. Brief rundown on the history, worth a look as a refresher. But this little nugget sums up what I was trying to say quite well:
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

*The Abu Ghraib situation shouldn't have even happened.

That's an interesting quote Cobra found. So then the Guantanamo detainees are not protected by the GC? Frankly, I don't think terrorists of that sort should be protected by the GC. They already have enough advantages as it is.

Bill and Cobra as co-dictators. Interesting thought...

Hey if you guys become co-dictators of the U.S.A., I want Palomar as my own private observatory.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-10 06:34:47

I told you it would never work.

I dunno, just me being radical, but I suppose torture can be considered the willful directed attempt to cause emotional, physical, or mental harm to an individual in captivity beyond what is neccessary to confine them.

But hey, that's just me. Mr. Radical.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-10 06:42:41

That's an interesting quote Cobra found. So then the Guantanamo detainees are not protected by the GC?

Nope. Actually we'd covered it before but that quote said as clear as can be. Unlawful combatants aren't protected. Legally you can kill them right there. The Geneva Convention is not a "Bill of Rights" but rather a set of agreed upon rules put in place specifically to prevent human conflict from reaching the levels of brutality and ferocity it goes to if left unchecked.

I dunno, just me being radical, but I suppose torture can be considered the willful directed attempt to cause emotional, physical, or mental harm to an individual in captivity beyond what is neccessary to confine them.

As defined by whom?

If a guard yells at a prisoner, does that cause "emotional harm"?

clark · 2005-06-10 06:47:53

If a guard yells at a prisoner, does that cause "emotional harm"?

Only if the prisoner cries.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 06:59:13

That's an interesting quote Cobra found. So then the Guantanamo detainees are not protected by the GC?
Nope. Actually we'd covered it before but that quote said as clear as can be. Unlawful combatants aren't protected. Legally you can kill them right there. The Geneva Convention is not a "Bill of Rights" but rather a set of agreed upon rules put in place specifically to prevent human conflict from reaching the levels of brutality and ferocity it goes to if left unchecked.
[

*Yes, I recall former conversations ... and yes, that quote clears it up.

Certainly prisoners should be treated humanely: Adequate food, clothing, warmth, medical attention.

The Gitmo prisoners are probably getting better treatment all the way around than native-born U.S. citizens in our federal penitentiaries.

And I do have a problem with this tip-toeing around on eggshells attitude. We're supposed to worry about any sort of untoward incident possibly offending their holy book and religious sentiments, while most of those folks at Gitmo probably wouldn't blink twice at the thought of butchering a small child?

Why do these bullies get so much sympathy? And why is the onus on the victim to be "nice" to the very bully who'd just as soon destroy the victim?

At the very least, they're no better than us. And they don't deserve *special* treatment.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:15:42

If our goal is to extend the western view of civiliation to include the heathen (in other words "win" this clash of civilizations) then treating enemy combatants "as if" the Geneva Convention applies - - even if the lawyers can prove it doesn't - - would go a long ways towards convincing the rest of the world that becoming western isn't such a bad choice.

Gitmo is (a) corrosive to our ideals whether legal or not; (b) a lousy way to actually acquire useful intel; and (c ) undermines our efforts to build a positive image of the West

Even if its legal (per Atty General Gonzales) WHY are we doing it?

= = =

Answer?

"Pride and Ego Down" inflicted on prisoners allows Rummy and company to feel "Pride and Ego Up" - - it has nothing to do with national security.

= = =

PS - Cobra, I do play snarky on the boards, but if you held a BBQ, I'd eat the food. No problem. Just no fresh venison - - that deer variant of "mad cow" is nasty.

Edited By BWhite on 1118409605

clark · 2005-06-10 07:19:50

Even if its legal (per Atty General Gonzales) WHY are we doing it?
= = =
Answer?

According to Rummy and Co., we’re not. Just a few loose cannons, nothing systematic.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:22:36

Even if its legal (per Atty General Gonzales) WHY are we doing it?
= = =
Answer?
According to Rummy and Co., we’re not. Just a few loose cannons, nothing systematic.

Ah, but do not look behind the curtain?

Apply the Geneva Convention. Who at Gitmo is going to send coded messages after three years?

Let the world press tour the camp, if there is nothing to hide.

clark · 2005-06-10 07:26:53

Unless you are FOX media, you cannot be trusted to give a fair and balanced view.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 07:28:01

If our goal is to extend the western view of civiliation to include the heathen

*They consider -us- heathens, to the point of believing any "infidel" is automatically worthy of death. Sorry, I have a problem with people who'd kill *me* just because I'm an American citizen (and for no other reason than that).

Gitmo is (a) corrosive to our ideals whether legal or not; (b) a lousy way to actually acquire useful intel; and (c ) undermines our efforts to build a positive image of the West
Even if its legal (per Atty General Gonzales) WHY are we doing it?

For the same reason we lock up murderers and rapists? To prevent them from committing their crimes over and over? Would the world feel safer if we unleashed all these crackpots back to their miserable, disorganized 3rd-world nations?

Example: Cuidad Juarez, Mexico. Over 300 women raped and murdered by a serial killing gang. Has been going on for over 12 years now. A couple of years ago the Juarez police department participated in the El Paso, TX, Thanksgiving Day parade by showing off motorcycle stunts. That's great, huh? Over 300 of their citizens brutally victimized and murdered like animals, and they plead inability to cope with the problem ... but their cops have time to learn fancy show-off motorcycle stunts.

A lot of 3rd-world gov'ts are stupid and inept. We're supposed to hand their terrorists back over to them? Read Mexico example again. :-\

Answer?
"Pride and Ego Down" inflicted on prisoners allows Rummy and company to feel "Pride and Ego Up" - - it has nothing to do with national security.

Pride and ego are the reasons the Islamic terrorists act.

And, again, the prisoners at Gitmo are likely being treated more courteously and humanely than our own native population gets in our federal prisons.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:34:04

Cindy, the Geneva Convention allows us to lock them up.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:37:10

Jose Padilla is the other case. And he is a citizen.

If this Administration can say "Mr. X" is a terrorist, therefore no rules apply the next Administartion can do the same to people they don't like.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:38:00

And, again, the prisoners at Gitmo are likely being treated more courteously and humanely than our own native population gets in our federal prisons.

Then show us and the issue evaporates.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 07:38:38

Cindy, the Geneva Convention allows us to lock them up.

???

Okay, I admit it: I'm lost. Apparently I missed something somewhere.

(...time to go post that fan fic and maybe write another...)

I have no head for politics.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:42:12

And, again, the prisoners at Gitmo are likely being treated more courteously and humanely than our own native population gets in our federal prisons.
--Cindy

Cindy, if this is true, take al Jazeera on a tour of Gitmo and use Gitmo as an affirmative propaganda weapon to prove how humane we really are.

Instead we get this: "We are humane and no we won't show you and if you ask for proof you hate America."

During the Revolutionary War we won converts form the Hessian troops we captured by being nicer than they expected.

Palomar · 2005-06-10 07:48:37

And, again, the prisoners at Gitmo are likely being treated more courteously and humanely than our own native population gets in our federal prisons.
--Cindy
Cindy, if this is true, take al Jazeera on a tour of Gitmo and use Gitmo as an affirmative propaganda weapon to prove how humane we really are.
Instead we get this: "We are humane and no we won't show you and if you ask for proof you hate America."

*Could we trust al Jazeera to be unbiased? And not pander to any sort of propoganda of their own?

Didn't they broadcast images of civilians being decapitated by Muslim extremists in Iraq, when supposedly that's forbidden (by journalistic standards or Geneva Convention or whatever)...they weren't supposed to broadcast those murders, yet they did.

Maybe al Jazeera did that to our advantage though, i.e. to show how ruthless and brutal those terrorists really are.

It's all an issue of trust, isn't it? And what it all boils down to is akin to fighting neighbors who insist it was the other kid, not theirs...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:50:21

So, while it may be morally right for us to treat terrorists like proper POWs under the Geneva Conventions even though they decapitate our civilians and string up burnt bodies we'd be doing purely for our own comfort, no practical concerns. Nothing we do will lead to our POWs being treated worse by these enemies, they already have no reservations about committing what we would call war crimes. If we grant terrorists POW status we gain nothing for our troops in the field. Besides, when do we release them? To whom? If we accept that they are POWs but we aren't actually at war with a recognized power and that non-nation won't surrender we'll be holding them, in accoradnce with the Geneva Convention, until every last one expires in custody. Somehow I doubt this will satisfy the critics.

It also sets a precedent for how other states deal with their insurgents. After all many in this country support funding people to overthrow the Iranian regime.

But tell me this. What does Gitmo gain for us? What benefit?

For the record, if a terrorist knew where a timed nuke was hidden, we gotta do whatever it takes to get the intel. Whatever. But that is a special case.

By the way, how many detainees even speak English? How much of a threat are they? We will erode our legal protections and condone things analagous to a Bill of Attainder so we can imprison in secret some low life scum?

Actually I wonder if eroding the Bill of Rights is the real objective of the whole Gitmo thing. Bill O'Reilly had a segment on the other night about how much easier police work would be if pre-trial detention without charges wasn't so frowned upon by our legal system.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:53:33

And, again, the prisoners at Gitmo are likely being treated more courteously and humanely than our own native population gets in our federal prisons.
--Cindy
Cindy, if this is true, take al Jazeera on a tour of Gitmo and use Gitmo as an affirmative propaganda weapon to prove how humane we really are.
Instead we get this: "We are humane and no we won't show you and if you ask for proof you hate America."
*Could we trust al Jazeera to be unbiased? And not pander to any sort of propoganda of their own?

Of course they are baised! What does that matter if we have nothing to hide.

BWhite · 2005-06-10 07:55:46

Someone please, tell me why EELV is better than shuttle derived.

So I can fight about something else.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-10 03:58:14

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#2 2005-06-10 04:08:03

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#3 2005-06-10 04:21:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#4 2005-06-10 05:52:42

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#5 2005-06-10 06:20:39

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#6 2005-06-10 06:29:54

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#7 2005-06-10 06:33:16

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#8 2005-06-10 06:34:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#9 2005-06-10 06:42:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#10 2005-06-10 06:47:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#11 2005-06-10 06:59:13

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#12 2005-06-10 07:15:42

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#13 2005-06-10 07:19:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#14 2005-06-10 07:22:36

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#15 2005-06-10 07:26:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#16 2005-06-10 07:28:01

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#17 2005-06-10 07:34:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#18 2005-06-10 07:37:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#19 2005-06-10 07:38:00

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#20 2005-06-10 07:38:38

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#21 2005-06-10 07:42:12

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#22 2005-06-10 07:48:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#23 2005-06-10 07:50:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#24 2005-06-10 07:53:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#25 2005-06-10 07:55:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer