They prefer to be called “Chupacabras”.
How about, “If you act like a monster, you are still a monster no matter how legal you declare it to be” ? I don’t care in the slightest if torture and rape and murder are declared legal; they are still evil.
I for one care very much whether torture and rape and murder are declared legal in this situation; if they are, it means that perpetrators cannot recieve comeuppance for these evil acts.
How about… we were having a legal discussion so your comment is meaningless. There is an important distinction to be made between acts which are legal and those which aren’t. If you have something factual to contribute to that discussion, we’d like to hear it. Otherwise, you’re just adding noise.
I worded that poorly; I meant that they are still wrong, even if we do declare them legal. I most certainly do think they should be illegal; I wish I could add “obviously” to that, but apparently a lot of Americans have no problem all all with that sort of behavior.
How about the fact that the vast majority of humanity isn’t going to care in the slightest if it’s legal or not ? Legal word games impress lawyers and people looking for excuses; they don’t impress our victims, or their friends and relatives, or those who think they might be next on our list, or people who actually care about right and wrong.
Der Trihs, your last two paragraphs seem opposed.
(my bolding)
How can both a lot of Americans think these actions aren’t troubling, and also that these actions are so horrible that regardless of legality it’s evil? You can’t attack something from both sides of an issue.
Americans aren’t the vast majority of humanity. Most Americans don’t care what we do; most people don’t care if we declare something legal or not.
So in general, Americans are considerably less moral than everyone else?
How about the fact that only a tiny fraction of humanity is participating in this discussion and at least one of them has expressed an interest in the legality isuse? But, if you don’t care whether it’s legal or not, let’s declare it to be legal, OK? Then I assume you well agree that no one should be held legally responisble for any actions at Gitmo. Right?
I actually have read the Conventions (which I assume is what you’re referring to) - perhaps you ought to do the same before using them to bolster an argument. I know a lot of people are laboring under the illusions that the Geneva conventions come with a sort of “Gotcha” clause that strips someone of all rights and protections, if they break the rules. It is not so.
The conventions cover illegal attacks (which is what the Guantanamo detainees are supposedly guilty of) in some detail. The consequences for those who attack illegally are twofold: On the battlefield, they lose their protected status as civilians. (Obviously.) And they may lose their protection as POW - if a “competent tribunal” finds that their acts remove them from the protected status. This does not make them non-persons that can be whisked away on a whim - it makes them civilians guilty of a grave crime, and they still have every right to a trial.
(Protocol I (1977) clarifies the status of civilians attacking regulart forces, but the US has so far refused to sign.)
A link: http://www.genevaconventions.org/ - what you’re looking for is article 64 under the IVth convention.
Towards actions committed by Americans certainly.
I already responded to this.
That’s fair. Pretty much any population with a strong sense of cohesiveness are more forgiving towards their own.
I’m confused. You’re saying that a document that the US has not signed is legally binding on the US? By what legal code do you make that decision?
I can assure you that the GC is not so specific as you seem to think. We’ve had lawyers who are no friends of Bush confirm that on this board. Here’s the part that’s applicable:
Item A6 is enough to declare these guys as not qualifying for POW status, but there are plenty of other options as well. As for the last apragraph, “Should any doubt arise…”, there isn’t anyting to say who has to have the doubt, nor is there any clear requirements of what constitutes a “competent tribunal”. Now, lawyers on both sides can argue one way or the other, but it’s unclear how the SCOTUS would rule, and anyone saying otherwise doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Good. Then will you stop injecting strictly moral arguments into a discussion about the legality of something? There are many things that all of us wish were illegal. In fact, iI share your wish about the Gitmo facility-- I wish it were illegal. But that’s the easy part. The hard part is establishing what is and what isn’t legal.
Given that the Republicans are in charge and care absolutely nothing for laws or treaties, what’s legal is irrelevant. They’ll just ignore or rewrite the law anyway.
I’ll give a shot at it. These legal acrobatics are a complete farce and a slap in the face of common decency, commitment to freedom and the basic values the USA is supposed to stand for.
Besides, if Guantanamo isn’t American territory, then it’s a Cuban territory. There’s no “terra nullius”. So, let’s Cuban courts hear and settle the matter.
Manwhile, this is hypocrisy at its highest level. And of course it doesnt escape to anybody outside the USA where apparently some people came to accept this ludicrous rethoric. In particular it most certainly doesn’t escape to the populations of countries where the USA is currently supposed to be bringing “freedom” or of countries the USA is lecturing each chance it gets, like Iran, or, precisely, Cuba.
P.S. : I know you’re not supporting this position, so this post isn’t intended against you.
clairobsur: I don’t think the legal acrobatics are of such an Olympic caliber as you are suggesting, based on input I’ve gotten from lawyers who, as I mentioned, are no friends of Bush’s. But you’re right in that regardless of the legality, I do not support the administration’s posittion because I think it is exteremely unwise policy for much the same reasons you list. I just don’t see the value in screaming “IT’S ILLEGAL” when it simply isn’t that cut and dry. There are some things that Bush has done which are pretty clearly illegal, but Gitmo isn’t one of them-- at least not on the simple basis of detentions that violate the GC, nor on the faulty logic that rights recognized as applying to US citizens are automatically offorded to everyone else in the world.
I don’t think that very many in the US worry much about the Geneva Convention. Even without any written down and agreed to set of rules I still think it is wrong for the executive to claim, and have, the sole power to determine whether or not an individual is in the class that is allowed no recourse from the decisions of the executive.
And I find it most troubling that many Americans don’t see anything wrong with it but rather indulge in what appears to me to be narrow pettifogging for justification. I know that many people in the US down deep don’t really accept the Bill of Rights for “those guys” but it always disappoints me when it is proved so blatantly.
Yeah. I mean, if there are groups opposed to you because they think you’re immoral, evil, and out to screw people like them, it’s just plain common sense not to give them actual evidence for this. Since when did it become great diplomatic sense to say “Hey, these guys think we’re bastards…let’s act bastardly, and see if that helps the situation!”.
IMHO (though it seems to be shared) the U.S. administration is utterly fucking up diplomatic relations with not only their enemies, but neutrals and their friends, and ensuring the present and near future of America is much less stable, for the sake of public approval and pride.
Having said that; there’s nothing clearly illegal about what’s going on, otherwise the left would have jumped on it like a rabbit on another rabbit. It’s possible there’s illegality, but it’s debatable. They may be bastards, but they’re smart bastards.
That would be true - if the American left had a spine.