What are you talking about?
Many things which are immoral are perfectly legal. And thankfully so! It’s entirely possible to have completely seperate discussions on the morality and the legality of something. In many cases, determining what is moral is the easy part. Putting that into law is the hard part. So, unless you want to be able to arrest, try, and sentence people for morals violations, then it’s of paramount importance to understand what the law is.
Let me understand your plan in clear and simple terms.
Joe says: The detainees in Guantanamo are prisoners of war, as defined in the Geneva Convention, and the Geneva Convention forbids us from torturing them!
Correct response: Right you are!
Is that what you are urging?
Frankly, it seems more likely that your intent is not to simplify for understanding, but to oversimplify in order to ridicule. You will forgive, I am sure, my reluctance to cooperate.
I see nothing…noootthinnngg
Wherein you succinctly state the essential premise of radical political philosophy.
Ah, well. Nice while it lasted.
Not quite getting this. Is it your contention that the admirable intent of the GC was poorly enacted, poorly worded? In that case, wouldn’t it behoove us to follow that admirable spirit, rather than fussing vacuously over phraseology? Is the suffering of an “illegal combatant” more agreeable than the suffering of a “prisoner of war”, simply by the correct appellation? By what miracle?
The GC was not so much “poorly worded” as designed to deal with an entirely different set of circumstances. The GC simply was not designed to deal with the problems of international terrorism. The United States have been given the opportunity to expand the GC, to capture its “spirit” rather than its legal terminology. Rather than do such a thing as befits a noble county, it chose the low road of relying on semantic games and grey areas of the law to (pick one depending on your ideology: “protect itself” or “to justify atrocious conduct done in her name”). Me, I’m voting on the latter. And it’s a shame.
No, my contention is that we (lawyers and legal scholars, actually) have a very difficult time determining what the letter of the law is. It is much, much more difficult to reach agreement on what the spirit of the law is. Thus, it is better that we not count on an interpretation of the law that depends on divinging what it’s spirit is. If we wish to forbid torture (as most of us do), it would behoove us to do so explicitly rather than rely on someone’s interpretation of the spirit of the GC.
Suffering is suffering, regarless of who the sufferree is, as you correctly note. Determing the legality of an action that causes suffering is a matter of law, not of morals. And I frankly wouldn’t want it any other way. I don’t want judges or juries ruling on the morality of an action-- I want them ruling on the legality of an action.
Catching up here after a long day of errands, dinner, and a movie:
Elvis, 'luci, my friends, I can’t make sense out of what you’re saying. What Bricker and minty and John Mace are all saying here is that what is legal doesn’t magically coincide with what’s moral. You can debate whether torture is moral - and there’s be nobody on the other side here, AFAICT. But if you debate whether the Geneva Conventions themselves protect people we’ve detained in Iraq and Afghanistan from being tortured, that’s a different question from whether it’s moral to torture them.
Bricker and minty, I respect both of you guys a whole bunch, but I can’t tell what you are going on about either. Your emphasis seems to be on whether the detainees are eligible for POW status. My point is that, whether or not they can be classified as POWs, Articles 44 and 75 say that certain protections (including that they can’t be tortured) apply to them anyway. Doesn’t seem to matter if they sufficiently identify themselves as combatants that they’re POWs if captured, or if they’re “illegal combatants” who set off car bombs while dressed as civilians, or whether they’re noncombatants who got caught up in our “sweeps” of hostile areas.
Therefore, AFAICT, Colonel Hogan was right. Sometimes a TV comedy actually gets a fact correct, even if it’s like the monkeys typing Shakespeare.
OK, I’m going to bed now. Seeya in the morning.
You don’t seem to be going out your way to condemn it. Sure, you can argue legal technicalities all your want, and maybe you are right. But you don’t seem to be do doing the moral thing and saying “the current state of the law bedamned, this is bullshit!”
No, it does not say that. Not at all, even in the slightest. It says that they are to be treated as POWs IF one or more of those three criteria apply. Since none of the three criteria apply–and ain’t nobody in this thread made even the slightest attempt to argue that they do apply–they are most emphatically, assuredly, and by the utterly plain language of the Geneva Friggin’ Convention NOT entitled to POW status or treatment.
Damn, man, it’s written in plain English. I know there’s like, lots of clauses per sentence and stuff, but it’s right there in the text.
Moreover, to the extent that you can’t make heads or tails of it, as a simple question of statutory logic . . . why on earth would the GC define who is qualified for POW status if, as you claim, everybody is entitled to POW treatment?
Okay, I’m a moron. I’m still right, but a moron nonetheless. Because the text you’ve been quoting for “Article 45 and 75” turns out to be the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. And if you take a look at the list of nations that have ratified that treaty (which modifies the 1949 GC we all know and love), it turns out that the United States ain’t on that list. Apparently, we signed it but never ratified it. So it’s a dead issue, as far as legal effect on the U.S. government is concernced.
Why the hell should he go out of his way to make such a statement–which he has done, in this very thread, by the way–when others are spouting the utterly false statement that a very specific law does prohibit what you call on him to condemn?
If you were to claim that the Tax Code prohibits child abuse, you should expect to be called on such an absurd assertion, and you should have no expectation that your being called out on the claim should be drowned in a sea of reassurances that child abuse is, in fact, a very bad thing.
OK, then. Perhaps we can stumble towards a consensus, here.
We stipulate that, according to the strictest interpretation of the Geneva Convention, and all subsequent protocols, Ms. Meier is not entitled to the protections of POW status during Senate interrogation. Nonetheless, we can all agree that waterboarding is right out.
I’m not sure if this is outside of how confirmation hearings work, but it seems to me the Senate Democrats only need to ask Miers one question: “Why, specifically, should we vote to confirm you to the Supreme Court?” The rest of the script, whether they should choose her or not, will probably write itself from there.
Ms. Miers: “Because you find me highly qualified. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and drive home safely.”
Glad I put that weasel word “specifically” in there at the last minute. 
Cop at a traffic stop: Why, specifically, should I give you a ticket?
Spectacularly dumb criminal: Because I have a headless rtorso in the trunk. Also, I stole a stick of gum in 1959. Anything else I can help you with, specifically, officer?
How many threads have we had on this board concerning e-mail glurge and the offended reactions by those that publish it to being called out by Snopes? The usual formula: sender puts out glurge, our SDMB hero replies with a Snopes link debunking the glurge, and the sender, rather than thanking the recipient for a little bit of education, is highly offended, becase the story was so nice, and if it’s not true, it should be, etc etc. As a general matter, we all chime in, nodding our heads sagely at how foolish such people are.
The same thing is happening here. Someone made a claim that the Geneva Convention prohibits torture of the detainees at Guantanamo. That’s not so, and I, along with minty and sua, pointed out this misstatement.
But just like the glurge-senders, we don’t have a simple, “Ah - thanks for clearing that up,” as a response. Instead we get a highly impassioned defense of the proposition that torture is wrong - as though anyone was defending torture - a denunciation of approaching things like this with legal exactitude, and a dark hint that perhaps the “legal technicalities” hide a secret approval for torture.
Stop this nonsense now!
If you didn’t want to discover the actual FACTS, you’re reading the wrong message board. I know I speak for minty and Sua as well as myself when condeming torture as utterly immoral, but the need to constantly repeat that assurance is utterly juvenile. The question is not whether torture is immoral: the question is whether the Geneva Convention - the version to which the United States is a signatory - operates to prohibit torture of these particular people. The answer is: it does not. Neither, as minty points out, does the Tax Code. And neither does the Seattle Municipal Code. Neither does the employee handbook for Bell South, or the honor code at University of Virginia. And if you claim that ANY of these documents operates to the contrary, you are deserving of scorn - or, at least, of correction. That’s what happens here on the SDMB.
If you’re a moron, then so am I, only more so. After all, I was the one relying on Protocol I to support my claim. I just assumed we’d ratified the Geneva Conventions, lock, stock, and barrel; never had reason to think otherwise. But that’s what happens when you assume. :smack:
If we had ratified the Protocol, I think I’d still have the better argument: it says the captives have the right to the status (words used in Articles 44 and 45, respectively) of POW if they meet the standards you mentioned - but if they don’t, they’re still supposed to be treated the same while under detention.
But that’s all pretty much moot now, since we never ratified this protocol.
I agree that that’s the question; and given that crucial parenthetical, AFAICT, it’s the right answer.
Since, like I said, I’m no expert on the Geneva Conventions, I really have no idea whether there’s something in the parts we have ratified that would protect the Gitmo detainees; I’ll assume arguendo that there isn’t, and leave it at that. I admit the ground’s been cut out from under the feet of the argument I’ve been making, and it’s time to let this thread get back to Harriet Miers anyway.
But tell me this: in all the back-and-forth we were having before minty noticed that I was relying on a Protocol that we hadn’t ratified, during which time you repeatedly asserted without supporting argument that I was wrong - did you know we hadn’t ratified Protocol I?
If so, why didn’t you just say so two days ago? And if not, why did you think assertions counted as refutations?