# "I do not care about international law." **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 4, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053 "2006-03-04T17:21:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/1 "2006-03-04T17:21:44Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/ap\_on\_re\_la\_am\_ca/guantanamo\_detainees\_abuse\_1](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_detainees_abuse_1) \*A Briton detained at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claimed military police had sex in front of him, tried to feed him pork and misled him into praying toward America instead of Mecca, Pentagon documents released Friday showed. … The British government negotiated his release in January 2005, and British police freed him a day later, saying the only information against him was confidential intelligence. … Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused. **"“Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed."** \* So now we know what a military’Judge’ thinks of the law and how it should be applied to a British Citizen. I say that this one sentence means that any tribunal finding must be seen as completely outside the law. If a real judge said this they would be disbarred and removed from their position. But its par for the course in a kangaroo court in a detention/torture facility. What level has US justice sunk to for this admission to be made in open court by a supposed judge. I pit the entire US Justice system for allowing this to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/2 "2006-03-04T17:53:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Feroz Ali Abbasi, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and later transferred to the prison at the military base in eastern Cuba, tried to change his status from “enemy combatant” to prisoner of war in accordance with the Geneva Convention, **his handwritten testimony said**. > [@](#): > > There was no way to confirm the allegations. Wow. No one EVER lies in their own handwritten testimony. Especially a muslim extremist who hates America. :rolleyes: See, I can make handwritten testimony too. Watch! > [@](#): > > Feroz Ali Abbasi was at Stinkpalm’s house playing basketball with Stinkpalm and Lebron James in 2001 so he COULDN’T have been training as a terrorist because he was working on his J. Must be true right? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/3 "2006-03-04T17:55:34Z")
**Stinkpalm** , I believe you’ve missed the point here. Look at the thread title. Possibly he was a terrorist. Possibly not. However, the trubunal that judged whether or not he was should give a crap about international law! ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/4 "2006-03-04T18:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused. > > “Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed. > > Abbasi’s testimony was contained among thousands of pages of documents released to The Associated Press on Friday. Again, unless there is something missing from the article (which I’m sure there is) the way I read this is that this is Abbasi’s account of an encounter with the tribunal. Why should I believe he is credible? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/5 "2006-03-04T18:18:52Z")
Ah, I see your point. Sorry, I thought you were talking solely about his _innocence_, not his trustworthiness. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/6 "2006-03-04T18:29:26Z")
Yes, and US courts are not set up to enforce “international law”. To the extent that they would consider documents such as the GC, that is because the US is a signatory to that treaty, thus incorporating its provisions into US law. I don’t know how a US court could concern itself with international law (whateve that is) even if it wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/7 "2006-03-04T18:33:05Z")
> [@Stinkpalm](#): > > Wow. No one EVER lies in their own handwritten testimony. Especially a muslim extremist who hates America. :rolleyes: > > See, I can make handwritten testimony too. Watch! > > Must be true right? :rolleyes: Sorry to disappoint you but the quote was verbatim from the Transcripts released yesterday by the US Government, not from the accused. Did you read the Yahoo page where it says: “Abbasi’s testimony was contained among thousands of pages of documents released to The Associated Press on Friday.” ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/8 "2006-03-04T18:33:03Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > If a real judge said this they would be disbarred and removed from their position. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/9 "2006-03-04T18:39:46Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > However, the trubunal that judged whether or not he was should give a crap about international law! Like John Mace said, I don’t believe US courts recognize “international law”…He’d have to identify specific US law. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/10 "2006-03-04T18:42:12Z")
> [@](#): > > A Briton detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claimed military police had sex in front of him, tried to feed him pork and misled him into praying toward America instead of Mecca, a bit off topic, but: WOW- look at those painful torture methods being used by those savage Americans!!! (yes, I know that there are lots of really serious ethical issues with the whole concept of the Guantanmo prison–but this ain’t GD). ---
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/11 "2006-03-04T19:53:17Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Sorry to disappoint you but the quote was verbatim from the Transcripts released yesterday by the US Government, not from the accused. > > Did you read the Yahoo page where it says: > > “Abbasi’s testimony was contained among thousands of pages of documents released to The Associated Press on Friday.” Yes. I did. A persons testimony is only as credible as the person giving it. As I quoted twice already, this is Abbasi’s HANDWRITTEN TESTIMONY. These are not COURT TRANSCRIPTS. Anybody can SAY anything happened. That doesn’t mean they should be believed. I certainly have no reason whatsoever to believe an individual who ADMITTED to training in a terrorist (sorry, militant) training camp but that’s OK because he SAYS he’s not involved in Al Quaida. I understand the point you are trying to make, if the AF Colonel said those words, then I can understand why it would irk someone. I think it’s pretty damn short sighted to just assume that this extremist is telling thr truth just because he’s making those claims against US Military. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/12 "2006-03-04T20:11:51Z")
> [@Stinkpalm](#): > > Yes. I did. > > A persons testimony is only as credible as the person giving it. As I quoted twice already, this is Abbasi’s HANDWRITTEN TESTIMONY. These are not COURT TRANSCRIPTS. > > Anybody can SAY anything happened. That doesn’t mean they should be believed. I certainly have no reason whatsoever to believe an individual who ADMITTED to training in a terrorist (sorry, militant) training camp but that’s OK because he SAYS he’s not involved in Al Quaida. > > I understand the point you are trying to make, if the AF Colonel said those words, then I can understand why it would irk someone. I think it’s pretty damn short sighted to just assume that this extremist is telling thr truth just because he’s making those claims against US Military. This was a record of Abbasi’ testimony which included the claims about pork, mecca a screwing soldiers. The record also showed that the Colonel said those exact words: ““Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed.” as is explained in the previous paragraph of the report: Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused. The above quote is not part of Abbasi’s testimony, much as you would like it to be, but is part of the transcript of what was actually said in court. Now how do you feel about it? Was the Judge well out of order? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/13 "2006-03-04T20:18:40Z")
_“…misled him into praying toward America instead of Mecca.”_ Does this mean it won’t work? ☹ > [@Pjen](#): > > …pork, mecca a(nd) screwing soldiers. Band name!!! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/14 "2006-03-04T20:23:09Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > This was a record of Abbasi’ testimony which included the claims about pork, mecca a screwing soldiers. > > The record also showed that the Colonel said those exact words: > > ““Mr. Abbasi your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words International Law again. We are not concerned about international law,” the colonel insisted before having Abbasi removed.” > > as is explained in the previous paragraph of the report: > > Abbasi was not allowed to see that classified evidence during his hearing, where he tried repeatedly to explain that he was unfairly classified as an enemy combatant. An Air Force colonel whose identity remains blacked out refused. > > The above quote is not part of Abbasi’s testimony, much as you would like it to be, but is part of the transcript of what was actually said in court. > > Now how do you feel about it? Was the Judge well out of order? Which international law should the judge have been concerend about? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/15 "2006-03-04T20:24:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Which international law should the judge have been concerend about? Geneva Convention. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/16 "2006-03-04T20:28:50Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Geneva Convention. Well, as I explained above, that’s not the same thing. To be honest, I can see where this judge might have been acting like a prick if he was just arguing semantics with the guy. It’s one thing for us to that here, but in a court I think it’s not too much to ask for the judge to cut the guy some slack. That is, if the guy was honestly trying to make an appeal to the GC, and not just trying to cause a ruckus. But let’s for the moment assume that the GC = international law. Which provision of the GC was applicable? I assume you mean the part about classification of POWs. What evidence do you have that this guy should be classified as a POW? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/17 "2006-03-04T20:53:56Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Like John Mace said, I don’t believe US courts recognize “international law”…He’d have to identify specific US law. Surely when, as in this case, the prisoner is a foreign national with whom the US has strong ties, international law could indeed be applicable? Or, at the very least, something to _consider_, rather than to reject out of hand? ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/18 "2006-03-04T20:56:48Z")
Depends on what he wanted to rely on “international law” for, really. Maybe he was going on about “international law says you have to do this! International Law says you can’t do this to me!” If I were the judge, I’d be using pretty strong language, too. Also, “International law” doesn’t really apply to domestic issues. I’m not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK, “international law” (Treaties like the GC) are only part of domestic law if Parliament makes a law that says so. Even then, it is what Parliament says, and not what the treaty says, that the courts follow. Think about it, what is a treaty? A treaty is simply an agreement between two governments. Nothing to do with law at all. In fact, there was a case in the UK where the courts explicitly said that the government could act contrary to their international obligations, and the courts could do nothing, because they only apply “the law”, and “the law” only refers to Parliament. The court is not bound by treaties. I expect similar considerations apply to the US courts. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/19 "2006-03-04T21:05:26Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Surely when, as in this case, the prisoner is a foreign national with whom the US has strong ties, international law could indeed be applicable? Or, at the very least, something to _consider_, rather than to reject out of hand? It depends. If a UK national goes to the US and kills someone, the US would naturally prosecute under US law, and UK law would be irrelevant. If the UK national flees to the UK, then whether he could be prosecuted in the US depends on extradition treaties (which have been implemented by the UK Parliament). If there is no such extradition treaty implemented, the UK courts would then refuse to extradite, and apply UK law. NOT US law, even though the crime was committed in the US. The courts have no reason to take notice of anything not from Parliament. And certainly not a mix of both. Notice that the bare treaty itself does not matter. Many of you somehow think that the courts are supposed to come up with the “just” outcome, taking into account whatever is necessary. That’s not true. They are constrained by statue and precedent, and can’t simply take whatever they want into consideration. The only things they can take into consideration are Statues and Cases, as sources of law. Strictly speaking, there is “law that relates to international subject matter”, not “international law”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/20 "2006-03-04T21:22:22Z")
**Tabby\_Cat** : It’s similar in the US, but there is one difference. The US Constitution explicitly states that treaties ratified by Congress are the Supreme law of the land. I’m not sure if a court would uphold a law that clearly violated a treaty. Maybe one of our legal experts will come into this thread and comment. Still, the GC doesn’t require all enemy combatants that are captured to be classified as POWs. It’s clear that al-Qaeda fighters do not need to be classified thusly. Taliban fighters may or may not be, depending on if they fit the GC definition: > [@](#): > > A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: > > 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. > > 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: > > (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; > > (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; > > © That of carrying arms openly; > > (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. > > 1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > 2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. > > 3. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. > > 4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. > > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: > > 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. > > 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. 2d and 6 in Section A give a lot wiggle room to the US, since they require that the fighters act in accodance with “the laws and customs of war”. I’m not sure if those laws and customs are defined anywhere. Having said all that, I don’t like the way this whole Gitmo thing has been handled. Bush seems to think he just hold anyone he wants indefinitely without even charging them. The tribunal process seems unecesarily slow, and the guys who are just “suspects” can’t have much useful information anymore-- at least not the ones we captured years ago. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053.md?page=2)