As Gitmo Hunger Strike Continues, Lawyers Step Up Fight for Access

[Al_Masetti]

This discussion seems to be working on two different planes.

One is about the law. Combatants, conflict between soverign states, etc are subject to a whole code of law. Vern pointed out that even during the Vietnam War, the Communist combatants carried ID cards. And, uncomfortable as it may be to some, discussions need to include consideration of the law. Law imposes itself on civil conduct including violations of civil criminal law. There is a lot of “paperwork” and defined terms involved with any aspect of law.

The other plane deals with the emotions one feels as to who is right and who is wrong and what words does one side use or the other to describe the actions of the other side. The difficulty is that when emotions are described, we need to use the logical side of the brain to make sure that the emotions and feelings give “equal time” to the various points of view. In other words, we need to use our feelings to determine if our feelings are 1) being manipulated and if so, in what way that words are being interpreted. And 2) if our feelings about things are accurate and consistent.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

I changed my mind about international law? Can you back that up?

As I remember, Gilliam made the point that International Law is not like domestic law – that it is based upon mutually-agreed upon standards, and not imposed by authority.

Your failure to understand his point shows that you probably know little about the subject.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Why invoke it here then? How precisely is it any more valid in this context than in the context I used it in? Is the Geneva Convention somehow a superior class of international law than the Charter of the United Nations?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Al Masetti:

This discussion seems to be working on two different planes.

One is about the law. Combatants, conflict between soverign states, etc are subject to a whole code of law. Vern pointed out that even during the Vietnam War, the Communist combatants carried ID cards. And, uncomfortable as it may be to some, discussions need to include consideration of the law. Law imposes itself on civil conduct including violations of civil criminal law. There is a lot of “paperwork” and defined terms involved with any aspect of law.

The other plane deals with the emotions one feels as to who is right and who is wrong and what words does one side use or the other to describe the actions of the other side. The difficulty is that when emotions are described, we need to use the logical side of the brain to make sure that the emotions and feelings give “equal time” to the various points of view. In other words, we need to use our feelings to determine if our feelings are 1) being manipulated and if so, in what way that words are being interpreted. And 2) if our feelings about things are accurate and consistent.

There are two other issues (one of which is the crux of Gilliam’s argument that International Law is not “law” as we know it domestically) – Enforcement.

If a criminal breaks the law domestically, there are police to arrest him, courts to try him, and so on. But if he breaks the Law of Land Warfare, how is he to be arrested and tried? After all, there is a force that protects him, and evidence cannot be gathered until after the war.

This is a serious issue, but not an uncommon one in combat. The answer is the law must be self-enforcing. Those who break it lose its protection. That’s why the Geneva Convention and related international treaties stress combatants must be under a command responsible for their actions.

The second issue is Security. Wars are fought to maintain the integrity, soverignty and security of the nation. For that reason, prisoners are held to the end of the war – because to allow them to go free would be virtual suicide!!

We have already seen how some combatants whom we released suddenly re-appeared in the enemy’s order of battle. We were foolish to release them, and we have paid for it with American lives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Why invoke it here then? How precisely is it any more valid in this context than in the context I used it in? Is the Geneva Convention somehow a superior class of international law than the Charter of the United Nations?

Mike

I note that you didn’t show that I have “changed my mind about international law.”

Nor did I invoke it. The allegation is made that somehow captured terrorists are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. I simply pointed out that they are not.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

I note that you didn’t show that I have “changed my mind about international law.”

Nor did I invoke it. The allegation is made that somehow captured terrorists are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. I simply pointed out that they are not.

I’m glad we now agree that international law exists, which you didn’t seem especially clear about way back when. Good. Existence will do for a good start. What to do about the UN charter would more properly go in another thread.

Meanwhile, maybe we should offer the terrorists some designation that they can carry, so they can be subject to the Geneva convention if captured. Seems fair, if we are operating by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. Alternatively, maybe this shows why you don’t wage ‘war’ on things that aren’t countries and don’t wear uniforms.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

I’m glad we now agree that international law exists, which you didn’t seem especially clear about way back when. Good. Existence will do for a good start. What to do about the UN charter would more properly go in another thread.

Meanwhile, maybe we should offer the terrorists some designation that they can carry, so they can be subject to the Geneva convention if captured.

In the name of Holy Gilhoolie, why?!?

Why do we want to destroy the only thing that offers even a pretense of civilizing war?

MikeWM:

Seems fair, if we are operating by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. Alternatively, maybe this shows why you don’t wage ‘war’ on things that aren’t countries and don’t wear uniforms.

Mike

What do we do – surrender to them?

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

In the name of Holy Gilhoolie, why?!?

Why do we want to destroy the only thing that offers even a pretense of civilizing war?

How would that destroy it? You’ve clearly stated time and again that they don’t qualify for the Geneva Convention because they don’t identify themselves. Perhaps, if we are having a ‘war’ againist them, they should have the option to do so if they wish.

What do we do – surrender to them?

Ah, yes, waging war on something or surrendering to it are the only two options ever available. After nearly 5 years of President Bush in charge, I should have realised that by now, eh?

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Perhaps, if we are having a ‘war’ againist them, they should have the option to do so if they wish.

Why should we elevate those who fight for no nation or state to the level of those who do?

Ah, yes, waging war on something or surrendering to it are the only two options ever available. After nearly 5 years of President Bush in charge, I should have realised that by now, eh?

Mike

Nonsensical. We are not waging a war on something. We *are *waging a war upon islamofacists–terrorists who have no respect for life, freedom or even themselves. Peope who, by their own actions, desire to ensalve nations, deny freedom to women and non-muslims.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

There are two other issues (one of which is the crux of Gilliam’s argument that International Law is not “law” as we know it domestically) – Enforcement.

If a criminal breaks the law domestically, there are police to arrest him, courts to try him, and so on. But if he breaks the Law of Land Warfare, how is he to be arrested and tried? After all, there is a force that protects him, and evidence cannot be gathered until after the war.

This is a serious issue, but not an uncommon one in combat. The answer is the law must be self-enforcing. Those who break it lose its protection. That’s why the Geneva Convention and related international treaties stress combatants must be under a command responsible for their actions.

This seems to imply that you think we can never catch war criminals. Even in domestic law, you don’t have to wait until someone is in custody to issue a warrant or secure an indictment. Perhaps I’m just more optimistic than you that we will prevail in fighting terrorism, and hence be able to capture and try indicted war criminals?

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Why should we elevate those who fight for no nation or state to the level of those who do?

I didn’t come up with the idea of a ‘war’ on terrorism, or that we should lock people up without trial in some analogy to ‘war’ criminals.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

I didn’t come up with the idea of a ‘war’ on terrorism, or that we should lock people up without trial in some analogy to ‘war’ criminals.

Mike

This is a non-answer. Please answer the question as per forum guidelines.

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

This is a non-answer. Please answer the question as per forum guidelines.

? Nothing wrong with that answer. You asked why we should elevate them. They have already been elevated to the status of having a ‘war’ against them. Why should we elevate those who fight for no nation or state to the level of those who do? But we are doing in some respects, why not in others?

Mike

 

[thestickman]

? Nothing wrong with that answer. You asked why we should elevate them. They have already been elevated to the status of having a ‘war’ against them. Why should we elevate those who fight for no nation or state to the level of those who do? But we are doing in some respects, why not in others?

Mike

Sorry you’ve chosen not to answer the question or follow the forum guidelines.

The reality is these enemy combatants have not been elevated because they chose to put themselves in a postion considered against the rules of war by the rest of the world. The war on terror does not elevate these particular combatants being detained in Gitmo.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Sorry you’ve chosen not to answer the question or follow the forum guidelines.

The reality is these enemy combatants have not been elevated because they chose to put themselves in a postion considered against the rules of war by the rest of the world. The war on terror does not elevate these particular combatants being detained in Gitmo.

I think the question is being asked backward. The real question is “does the war on terror degrade American standards of conduct?” It shouldn’t, but too often it seems to be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the refusal to engage in torture, the insistence on maintaining habeas corpus and extending rule of law and due process to all persons in our custody, is not about them, it’s about us. It’s about who we are as a people, not who they are.

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Sorry you’ve chosen not to answer the question or follow the forum guidelines.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer, but in the interests of charity I will give it one more go.

You asked why we should elevate these people. I say we have already elevated them by declaring a ‘war’ on them and by taking ‘prisoners of war’. While we are doing so, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be ‘elevated’ to being covered by the Geneva Conventions, in the spirit if not the letter of the law.

I would prefer we didn’t use the silly phrase ‘war on terror’ in the first place, and do something with the people in Gitmo (either try them or let them go). But having a so-called ‘war on terror’ and keeping people at Gitmo aren’t my policies, they are the Bush admin’s policies, and are already ‘elevating’ these people.

Mike

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

How would that destroy it? You’ve clearly stated time and again that they don’t qualify for the Geneva Convention because they don’t identify themselves. Perhaps, if we are having a ‘war’ againist them, they should have the option to do so if they wish.

Ah, yes, waging war on something or surrendering to it are the only two options ever available. After nearly 5 years of President Bush in charge, I should have realised that by now, eh?

Mike

OK… Mike, how about this approach:

Mike, can you provide other options? In other words, instead of criticizing what is now being done, can you provide the alternative strategies, tactics and options that are demonstrably effective? Instead of telling us what doesn’t work or what we shouldn’t do, can you list the things that we can do, that will work to stop the “terrorists” from attacking?

 

[MikeWM]

Al Masetti:

Mike, can you provide other options? In other words, instead of criticizing what is now being done, can you provide the alternative strategies, tactics and options that are demonstrably effective? Instead of telling us what doesn’t work or what we shouldn’t do, can you list the things that we can do, that will work to stop the “terrorists” from attacking?

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with criticizing, as long as it is justified criticism. I am supportive of things I agree with, and critical of those things I am not.

Secondly, as I have already said in this thread, it can be better to do nothing at all than do something for the sake of doing something and making things worse.

On the ground, we have to have proper intelligence. We evidently don’t right now, as the WMD foolishness showed. We have to try to infiltrate these groups. We have to know who they are. We have to work behind the scenes. When was the last time terorrists were defeated by a massive military campaign against them? You create more terrorists than you destroy that way. Instead you work quietly, slowly cutting off their support, their funding, their lifelines.

You may have setbacks in the meantime. Attacks may happen, and that is deeply regrettable, but may well be the case. Terrorism has always been with us to some degree, and probalby already will. A knee-jerk response of new legislation, or more police powers, or declaring war against a country involved at most only peripherally, again fuels the problem rather than put it out. Do we pass more legislation every time a murder is committed? No. We learn lessons hopefully, but we don’t invent rafts of new laws.

You also have to work to not give the perception of injustice, and frankly the flame of injustice burns very brightly in this world right now. When people are bombed from 30,000ft by vastly superior technology, they feel injustice. When people look at the way the Palestinians are treated, they feel injustice. When people look at the way we trade, offering some countries special status and calling others pariahs, based on narrow economic or political aims, they feel injustice. When they feel America and other western countries can do what they like but they are tied to having to toe the line, they feel injustice. When they see thousands of children dying every say from avoidable poverty in Africa because of unfair trade rules, they feel injustice. When they see camps like Gitmo set up, that the US would decry if it were anywhere else in the world, they feel injustice.

Injustice, wrongly, leads in some to violence, and in others to vulnerability to indoctrination. The more badly-treated a person feels, the more likely they are to lash out, or turn to those who they feel have the ability to help them lash out. And they lash out at those they feel perpetrate the injustice.

There is of course a problem with extremist Islam as well, and that is less easily dealt with - but you will find their support withers on the vine if the other matters are dealt with. You are left with a small core of people who would like to do things, but have no power or influence left to do anything.

Basically, there is no easy answer. The problem is that people understandably want an easy answer to stop the ‘terror’, and want to feel comfortable with soundbites like ‘war on terror’. But, like many things in life, it isn’t an issue that can be solved easily or just by throwing enough firepower or men at it. We need patience, we need intelligence, and we need to work towards justice. Then we might make progress.

Mike

 

[estesbob]

Philip P:

I think the question is being asked backward. The real question is “does the war on terror degrade American standards of conduct?” It shouldn’t, but too often it seems to be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the refusal to engage in torture, the insistence on maintaining habeas corpus and extending rule of law and due process to all persons in our custody, is not about them, it’s about us. It’s about who we are as a people, not who they are.

ALL war degrades standards of conduct. That is true of every war ever fought and every nation tha tever waged it. However if one looks back on history America in this war and pevious war has always been a cut above others as far as their treatment of Prisioners go.

Sure there are isolated abuses but it is not Govt policy-that is the key.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

estesbob:

You are allowed your own opinion-you are not allowed you own facts. you have made serious allegations that slimed American troops

---

Name one time where I have slimed US troops?! I’ve said that I don’t agree with the GITMO situation because people deserve a fair trial and to have proof of their crimes presented. I’ve said it may be questionable whether our officials are being completely honest. That’s is not a slam against our troops.

-yet you provide no evidence to bakc them up. You also have claimed that the United States violated the Geneva Convention and then revealed you didnt know anything about it.

No I didn’t. Others are carping about the Geneva Convention, not me. My response to them was that the Geneva Convention is not the issue as it doesn’t address the GITMO situation and should.

BTW-lose the purple.
No. I like purple.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

I think the question is being asked backward. The real question is “does the war on terror degrade American standards of conduct?”

My answer to this question is no. American standards of conduct are unchanged. Unless someone can show us specifically what new law or military regulation has been implemented to prove otherwise-the answer is no.