Godwin for the gander - Senator Durbin shoots his fucking mouth off...

[FinnAgain]

@Mr. Moto

This is as it should be, as these comments really aren’t defensible, except to the extreme partisans here on this board.

Mmmm hmmmm.
Never realized I’m an extreme partisan. :rolleyes:

Let me put this question to you then, if the comparisons Durbin made aren’t valid, what would be? Which abuses of human rights can we cite as something that this looks like, or do we simply have to state that this is brand spankin’ new American Style inhumane treatment? Would that really make it any less abhorent?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Weirddave

All of you who parrot the phrase “Geneva Convention” as if it was the holy grail might want to actually read the damn thing. It applies to the treatment of uniformed combatants of signatory nations. If an enemy combatant attacks our troops while wearing civilian garb, there is a way to deal with them that is perfectly within the bounds of the GC.

Wanna know what that way is?
That photo generated outrage, but General Nguyen Ngoc Loan acted completely within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Perhaps you might want to base your arguments on something that actually applies to the situation at hand? I think that these men should have been processed through the legal system a long time ago, but pressing for a strict application of the GC would have allowed them to be stood up against a wall and shot. That didn’t happen, of course, because Senator Durbin and the lockstep loonie left notwithstanding this is not Nazi Germany, but they could have been by the terms of the Geneva Convention.

What is the evidence that anyone in Gitmo attacked our troops?

We attacked THEM, nimrod. The fact that they had the gall not to be wearing uniforms when we attacked them is about as stupid a fucking reason for ignoring the GC as you could ever come up with. A lot of them were civilians rounded up randomly and sold to us for bounties. You president is a war criminal. Accept that. Own it. Find a way to deal with it and quit defending it.

[mhendo]

@Weirddave

If an enemy combatant attacks our troops while wearing civilian garb, there is a way to deal with them that is perfectly within the bounds of the GC.

Just out of interest, dave, how many of the Guantanamo prisoners actually attacked American troops? And what percentage were simply rounded up based on suspicions or on the dubious word of paid or threatened informants?

If you could break down the numbers, i’d be most grateful.

What, you don’t know? You say that the US government declines to tell us exactly who each prisoner is and why they were taken into custody? You mean your implication that they were all “attack[ing] our troops while wearing civilian garb” was nothing but a rhetorical device to make your point?

[mhendo]

Simulpost, Diogenes.

[Metacom]

@UncleBeer

Eh? Where in the wide, wide world of sports did this “supporting torture” garbage come from? I’m genuinely puzzled what basis you have for attributing such a reprehensible view to me.

You’re a citizen in a democracy and are responsible for the actions of your government.

@UncleBeer

In any case, were we to accept that “the best things this country has going for it” are “traditional American values,” if that is what you’re saying, then just what are those “traditional American values?”

Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness; freedom of speech and religion; due process; etc.

@UncleBeer

'Cuz I’m pretty sure there’s a wide gap between what the dominant political parties in the U.S. would claim they are.

I doubt it. They might disagree as to how those values should be realized in specific instances, but you’d probably be hard pressed to find a US politician that thinks due process is a bad thing.

@UncleBeer

Even if the parties were in agreement, if the words are not borne out by our actions over history, just what makes 'em so “traditional?”

Our words ARE borne out over our actions in history. We fuck up plenty, but we’ve mostly done good. We’re not Nazis, even if we’re vaguely acting like them at the moment.

@UncleBeer

If a guy keeps mouthing platitudes but his actions don’t match his words, would those words then be the “best thing he’s got going for him?”

It depends. Is he genuinely trying to live up to the words? Does he believe in them and strive to uphold them? Does he mostly act in accordance with them, but occaisonally slip up? Is he remorseful when he does?

@UncleBeer

Or is he just a hypocrite?

We pledge liberty and justice for all: I’m just not ready to write us off as hypocrites just yet.

[John_Mace]

@Harborwolf

Because the comparison is the only way to get most people to take notice and to get the media to look into it.

But what are people talking about? The main buzz, and not just from “right wing” sources, is about Durbin, not Gitmo.

I’m sure the far left, and the hard-core Bush haters love this kind of stuff. But most people in the middle just roll their eyes.

[The_Tooth]

@Weirddave

All of you who parrot the phrase “Geneva Convention” as if it was the holy grail might want to actually read the damn thing.

I’ve read the damn thing. Including Article 5, which is the part about how prisoners whose status is in doubt are to be treated by signatory parties as though they were prisoners of war until their status can be determined by competent tribunal. Since Bush is neither a tribunal nor competent, his presidential fiat declaring the status of detainees places the United States in violation of the Geneva Convention.

I’ve also read Article 2, which states “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.” The Convention applies to anyone taken prisoner by a signatory nation. Also, I don’t see anything about how they’re fair game and subject to the whims of their captors if the Geneva Conventions don’t apply. They should be subject to their captor’s criminal justice system. If the U.S. criminal justice system includes executions in the street then fire away, but I think it has more to do with speedy trials and stuff.

And for the record, if I had been told about the events in question without being told they were committed by Americans, I wouldn’t immediately think about regimes 30 or 60 years gone. I’d think, “Hey, that sounds just like what the United States is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba! The kind of things that Bush apologists and American supremacists either try to gloss over or justify on internet message boards.” I don’t need to compare the actions of the U.S. to other totalitarian regimes to be disgusted, the actions speak for themselves.

Is this better? Is being disgusted for reasons that have nothing to do with Germany okay?

[Mr.Moto]

@FinnAgain

Let me put this question to you then, if the comparisons Durbin made aren’t valid, what would be? Which abuses of human rights can we cite as something that this looks like, or do we simply have to state that this is brand spankin’ new American Style inhumane treatment? Would that really make it any less abhorent?

That’s an honest question, and I’ll answer it honestly.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo most closely resemble abuses at domestic American prisons.

This article describes a culture of abusive behavior among guards at SCI-Greene, Pennsylvania. This is especially significant because notorious Abu Ghraib guard Chaarles Graner was a civilian prison guard at SCI-Greene. At least one other Abu Ghraib abuser was a prison guard in civilian life.

If a comparison should be drawn, this is a proper one. And in each case, human rights are being violated. But neither domestic prison abuse nor Abu Ghraib nor Gitmo rise to the range and scale of the brutality practiced by Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, so it would have been best to avoid that comparison altogether.

[elucidator]

Some French guy said something like “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”

Of course we are hypocrites, we are human, it goes with the territory. Our values and goals are set almost impossibly high, I don’t care how much we try and fail, so long as we never cease trying. Caligula was not a hypocrite.

Let the world see that Americans can change their minds, and having changed their minds, can change their govnerment. We have a lot of bridges to rebuild, the best way to get started is to chuck the buggers out!

If the people lead, the leaders will follow. And the tyrants will tremble. Its the American way.

[tagos]

@Weirddave

That photo generated outrage, but General Nguyen Ngoc Loan acted completely within the bounds of the Geneva Convention.

Perhaps you might want to base your arguments on something that actually applies to the situation at hand? I think that these men should have been processed through the legal system a long time ago, but pressing for a strict application of the GC would have allowed them to be stood up against a wall and shot. That didn’t happen, of course, because Senator Durbin and the lockstep loonie left notwithstanding this is not Nazi Germany, but they could have been by the terms of the Geneva Convention.

While nonprivileged or unlawful combatants cannot claim the same protections under interrogation as POWs, they are, like all detainees, protected from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights law and customary international law. Relevant international instruments include Article 75 of Protocol I, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. For instance, Article 2 of the Convention against Torture, which the U.S. has ratified, states: “No exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Violation of Article 2 is a criminal offense of universal jurisdiction.

While nonprivileged combatants are not entitled to the extensive trial rights of POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, they are entitled to a “fair and regular trial” and the trial protections provided by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to “all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to trial before a “properly constituted, non-political military court,” to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount an appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Article 2: The Convention Against Torture

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

4th Geneva Convention

While the Third Geneva Convention details the protections to which POWs are entitled, the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) stipulates different protections for “civilian persons in a time of war,” as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) – the organization that pioneered the concept of international humanitarian law and has monitored compliance with the Geneva Conventions for more than 140 years – has arguedPDF file that the so-called “unlawful enemy combatants” currently detained at Guantànamo Bay are entitled to protections under GCIV. Its 2003 legal analysisPDF file titled “The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants” concluded that “unlawful combatants” are entitled to “the right to ‘humane treatment’ as defined in Articles 27 and 37 [of GCIV], and thus the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment; as well as the fair trial rights contained in Articles 71-76 [of GCIV].”

Report on Red Cross opinion

Red Cross analysis (pdf)

Do detainees who aren’t formally POWs have rights under international law?

Yes. Such detainees are still entitled to fundamental guarantees of humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions and may not be tortured or degraded, according to international law. For example, while captured mercenaries or “unlawful combatants” are not entitled to formal POW status, they still must be treated humanely. The Bush administration says that its treatment of the detainees on Guantanamo easily meets those standards, but some human rights groups and some European allies have expressed concern about conditions in the jails. An April 2002 Amnesty International report accused the United States of violating international law by confining detainees to tiny cells and preventing them from communicating with their families or lawyers.

Council for Foreign Relations

Conclusion

As this article has shown, it can hardly be maintained that unlawful
combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under international
humanitarian law. If they fulfil the nationality criteria of GC IV’s
Article 4, they are clearly protected by that convention. The fact that a person
has unlawfully participated in hostilities is not a criterion for excluding
the application of GC IV, though it may be a reason for derogating from certain
rights in accordance with Article 5 thereof. The specific protections of
GC IV depend on the situation in which such persons find themselves in
enemy hands. They are most extensive if unlawful combatants are in enemy
hands in occupied territory. For those in enemy hands in enemy territory the
protections of international humanitarian law are also quite well developed,
whereas on the battlefield, where no actual control is established — depending
on the interpretation of occupation — they may be the least developed.
The guarantees contained in Article 75 of PI constitute the minimum protections
that apply to all persons, including unlawful combatants, in the
hands of a Party to an international armed conflict, irrespective of whether
they are covered by GC IV or not.

Those freedom-hating Red Cross commies again

A Strategy of Deception

The Bush administration’s reliance on the Geneva Conventions to justify the differential treatment of detainees is deeply flawed but unsurprising. It offers the American government substantial political payoffs. For example, despite its questionable legal premises, the overall strategy has resonated with a post-September 11 public, more attuned to the killing of Americans and Vietnam-era images of POWs than the treatment of civilians under international law. Furthermore, framing the debate in terms of who is exempt from the protection of the Geneva Conventions automatically legitimates the potential mistreatment of prisoners, a preferred weapon in the government’s counter-terrorism arsenal. It is a short slippery slope from labeling prisoners “unlawful combatants” to subjecting them to indefinite detention, inhumane interrogation methods, and a policy of renditions (i.e., the extra-judicial transfer of detainees between governments, often tantamount to “disappearances”). More broadly, the administration’s paradoxical use of human rights language and its actual defiance of international law is nothing new, illustrated by U.S. opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court and its unilateral launch of a putatively preemptive war against Iraq.

Lured by a simplistic legal argument and fear-inducing rhetoric—“treaties as old as the Geneva Conventions are inadequate for the new threat of terrorism”—even the administration’s critics have become mired in a dispute over the status of prisoners, losing sight of a more central legal and ethical issue: certain behaviors are not permissible under any circumstances or against anyone, even purported terrorists. This fundamental claim is firmly ensconced in both international and domestic law. Not only does the Fourth Geneva Convention extend basic human rights to all civilians in armed conflict, but the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international customary law all bind the United States to the humane treatment of prisoners, despite any U.S. reservations and understandings attached to these treaties or any appeal to executive prerogative. The foreign domestic law of the United States places similar restrictions on the detention of foreigners abroad, notwithstanding legal machinations after September 11.

Foreign Policy in Focus

Under international humanitarian law, combatants captured during an international armed conflict should be presumed to be POWs until determined otherwise. Persons who do not fall under this POW status, including “unlawful combatants,” are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. In short, all detainees legally fall somewhere within the protections of these two conventions. Nevertheless, the rights of POWs vary significantly from those of so-called unlawful or non-privileged combatants. POWs may be interrogated but they are only required to provide their surnames, first names, rank, date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Unlawful or non-privileged combatants cannot claim these same interrogation protections. Regardless of these differences, both POWs and unlawful combatants are protected from torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights law.

[International Politics on the world stage](Under international humanitarian law, combatants captured during an international armed conflict should be presumed to be POWs until determined otherwise. Persons who do not fall under this POW status, including “unlawful combatants,” are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. In short, all detainees legally fall somewhere within the protections of these two conventions. Nevertheless, the rights of POWs vary significantly from those of so-called unlawful or non-privileged combatants. POWs may be interrogated but they are only required to provide their surnames, first names, rank, date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Unlawful or non-privileged combatants cannot claim these same interrogation protections. Regardless of these differences, both POWs and unlawful combatants are protected from torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights law.)

Execution without trial. Great. You know fuck all about international law or the Geneva Conventions. You are just a disgusting, know-nothing, murderous savage. It’s people like you that have irretrievably sullied the good name of the United States in the eyes of the world.

[Harborwolf]

@John Mace

But what are people talking about? The main buzz, and not just from “right wing” sources, is about Durbin, not Gitmo.

I’m sure the far left, and the hard-core Bush haters love this kind of stuff. But most people in the middle just roll their eyes.

True dat yo, but if it gets any sort of light on the crap that is rumored to be going on in gitmo (which is way to cute sounding to be a term for a prison imho) then it is a good thing.

We know far too few things about that place. I personally don’t care if Ted Kennedy strips naked and screams from the capitol dome that Satan is in Gitmo if it gets people to ask questions.

Enjoy the mental picture,

David

[UncleBeer]

You’re a citizen in a democracy and are responsible for the actions of your government.

So you’re a supporter of torture, too? Vietnam protestors were actually supporting that “police action?” Martin Luther King was a supporter of Jim Crow laws? Harriet Beecher Stowe supported black slavery? Upton Sinclair supported wage slavery? That’s a particularly fucking stupid thing to say.

Our words ARE borne out over our actions in history. We fuck up plenty, but we’ve mostly done good. We’re not Nazis, even if we’re vaguely acting like them at the moment.

But by your own logic, we, being citizens of a democracy, it is incumbent upon us all to be supporters of these reprehensible actions. Thus, we’re backers of actions that are in conflict with “traditional American values.” And that makes our mouthings of those so-called values utterly meaningless.

[tagos]

Sorry - I screwed that last link. For what it’s worth it was to a law course book at one of the big US universities. Not as authoritative as neo-con snuff-porn but it’s the best I could come up with.

Some people just absolutely disgust me, I don’t know how they can bear being inside their own skin. :mad:

[elucidator]

@UncleBeer

…And that makes our mouthings of those so-called values utterly meaningless.

Not if we chuck the buggers out!

[Squink]

@John Mace

But what are people talking about? The main buzz, and not just from “right wing” sources, is about Durbin, not Gitmo.

I’m sure the far left, and the hard-core Bush haters love this kind of stuff. But most people in the middle just roll their eyes.

They roll their eyes because they know that the only proper thing to do is to wait for someone to derive the “time-dependant wave equation” for Gitmo. Only then will we be able construct pure arguments, and have reasoned debate.

[Metacom]

@UncleBeer

So you’re a supporter of torture, too? Vietnam protestors were actually supporting that “police action?” Martin Luther King was a supporter of Jim Crow laws? Harriet Beecher Stowe supported black slavery? Upton Sinclair supported wage slavery?

Yes, yes, no, no, and yes.

@UncleBeer

That’s a particularly fucking stupid thing to say.

I think it’s what makes democracies so powerful–Would the Vietnam protestors have existed if it was some other country invading Vietnam? Would Upton Sinclair have been as personally outraged over wage slavery in British textile mills? We’re all vested with a certain degree of political power. We’re all responsible of our government and what it does, and, corporately, we support it.

But by your own logic, we, being citizens of a democracy, it is incumbent upon us all to be supporters of these reprehensible actions. Thus, we’re backers of actions that are in conflict with “traditional American values.” And that makes our mouthings of those so-called values utterly meaningless.

If those values move us to stop acting reprehensibly, even when it entails sacrifice, then they’re NOT meaningless.

[John_Mace]

@Harborwolf

True dat yo, but if it gets any sort of light on the crap that is rumored to be going on in gitmo (which is way to cute sounding to be a term for a prison imho) then it is a good thing.

We know far too few things about that place. I personally don’t care if Ted Kennedy strips naked and screams from the capitol dome that Satan is in Gitmo if it gets people to ask questions.

Enjoy the mental picture,

David

Now I have to go take a shower…

This really is much ado about nothing. He’s not the first guy to use the Hitler/Nazi analogy and he won’t be the last. The press picks up the shoundbite and runs with it. Even we (the enlightened ones ) devote a thread or two to it.

Sadly, the political process grindes slowly in the US, unless a brain damaged Florida woman is involved.

[UncleBeer]

Not if we chuck the buggers out!

A-ha! Another supporter of torture. Tell me, which of these is your favorite? Pulling wings off flies, swiping candy from babies, or ramming broomsticks up the asses of political prisoners?

[ElvisL1ves]

Unc, do you really not get it or are you simply being obtuse? :rolleyes:

The responsibility of a citizen of a democracy is not limited to simply supporting whatever the administration du jour may be doing. That’s fascism. In a democracy, the citizenry’s responsibility includes objecting to and resisting the administration’s illegal and immoral actions, and voting out those responsible. There’s a lot more than that, but you’d have had to be awake and sober during Civics class to get it.

But then you must know that, schmuck.

[UncleBeer]

@Metacom

I think it’s what makes democracies so powerful–.

What? The propensity to say particularly fucking stupid things?

You’ve completely lost me. Somehow you’ve turned protestors into supporters of the the government actions they profess to abhor. And in the process, you’ve become a supporter of Bush’s actions in Iraq. Quite an amazing feat.