# "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:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yohanbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/91b2a8/32.png) [@yohanbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yohanbaby)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/41 "2006-03-05T14:12:18Z")
If you do a google search on “abbasi your conduct is unacceptable,” you can find what appears to be a transcript of the exchange. > [@](#): > > 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 It looks to me as though Abbasi repeatedly made an ass of himself, first preaching about Islamic Law; then claiming that Al-Quaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks; then making statements about the Geneva Convention. The tribunal kept trying to tell Abbasi to stick to the facts of what he did or didn’t do in Afghanistan. I don’t know if Abbasi was treated fairly or not, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that in many parts of the world, someone who behaved that way would be taken out and summarily shot. And no, I don’t have a cite for that. Anyway, read the transcript and decide for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/42 "2006-03-05T14:28:33Z")
> [@yohanbaby](#): > > If you do a google search on “abbasi your conduct is unacceptable,” you can find what appears to be a transcript of the exchange. > > It looks to me as though Abbasi repeatedly made an ass of himself, first preaching about Islamic Law; then claiming that Al-Quaeda was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks; then making statements about the Geneva Convention. > > The tribunal kept trying to tell Abbasi to stick to the facts of what he did or didn’t do in Afghanistan. > > I don’t know if Abbasi was treated fairly or not, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that in many parts of the world, someone who behaved that way would be taken out and summarily shot. And no, I don’t have a cite for that. > > Anyway, read the transcript and decide for yourself. If you force untrained people to represent themselves this is what you get. If you allow people to have representation by trained, legal advocates you greatly reduce the incidence of such things. And I don’t think the US should make its behavior contingent on what would be done “in many parts of the world.” The boast ot this administration, and many before it as well as countless laudatory speeches, is that we have a superior regard for individual rights and go out of our way to see that they are granted to all. Some of those rights are the right to face your accuser, to not be held in detention for an indefinite period, to have a speedy and public trial, and to be represented by counsel. The claim is that 9/11 changed everything. Well, I buy the need for increased alertness but there’s a lot of the crap that I don’t buy. ---
**Author:** ![yohanbaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/91b2a8/32.png) [@yohanbaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yohanbaby)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/43 "2006-03-05T14:47:51Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > If you force untrained people to represent themselves this is what you get. If you allow people to have representation by trained, legal advocates you greatly reduce the incidence of such things. I agree. And I don’t have any problem with letting these folks have advocates. > [@](#): > > And I don’t think the US should make its behavior contingent on what would be done “in many parts of the world.” I agree with this too. And I don’t even have a problem with people who single out the US for criticism even though other countries behave much worse. The tolerance of criticism is part of what makes the US such an excellent (and superior) nation. ---
**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 5, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/44 "2006-03-05T15:54:32Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Article or no article [it’s a safe be that he didn’t.](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/guan-a23.shtml) Can you quote the relavent section? I scanned the article quickly, but didn’t see anything that said that tribunals were held w/o the prisoners having access to counsel. I do know that there is a contingent of military lawyers there specificall to represent these guys, but I can’t claim to know that any were present at this guy’s particular hearing. (“Contingent” might not be the right word. I’m going from memory and I think to was 2 or 3 lawyers. I’ll see if I can dig up a cite later.) I’m not happy with the process that’s being used in Gitmo, so don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to get the facts straight in this particular case. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/45 "2006-03-05T16:09:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can you quote the relavent section? I scanned the article quickly, but didn’t see anything that said that tribunals were held w/o the prisoners having access to counsel. I do know that there is a contingent of military lawyers there specificall to represent these guys, but I can’t claim to know that any were present at this guy’s particular hearing. (“Contingent” might not be the right word. I’m going from memory and I think to was 2 or 3 lawyers. I’ll see if I can dig up a cite later.) > > I’m not happy with the process that’s being used in Gitmo, so don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to get the facts straight in this particular case. I don’t have exact information and I don’t think anyone else does either. That is one of the most egregious faults. The US government has established a secretive detention facility and installed it’s underlings to work both sides of the aisle. I don’t see how “a contingent of military lawyers,” government underlings, can adequately represent prisoners in defense against the government that makes the charges. The US has charged that the Red Cross was given an opportunity to visit GB and declined. However the Red Cross claims that the opportunity was more in the nature of a Potemkin Village exercise and that their inspectors weren’t free to go wherever they chose and talk to whomever they chose. Secrecy is always the enemy of truth and, as conservatives love to argue about things like warrentless wiretaps, if the US is doing nothing wrong at GB what’s the objection to having a completely free and open inspection of the place by outside observers? ---
**Author:** ![zuma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@zuma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zuma)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/46 "2006-03-05T17:07:01Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 he’s complaining? Sounds great to me. ---
**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 5, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/47 "2006-03-05T17:29:42Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I don’t have exact information and I don’t think anyone else does either. That is one of the most egregious faults. The US government has established a secretive detention facility and installed it’s underlings to work both sides of the aisle. I don’t see how “a contingent of military lawyers,” government underlings, can adequately represent prisoners in defense against the government that makes the charges. On the one hand, these are military tribunals, so you might need to have a military lawyer represent you. OTOH, I do agree that if it were me, I’d at least like to have the option of choosing who my advocate is. > [@](#): > > The US has charged that the Red Cross was given an opportunity to visit GB and declined. However the Red Cross claims that the opportunity was more in the nature of a Potemkin Village exercise and that their inspectors weren’t free to go wherever they chose and talk to whomever they chose. I don’t agree that the Red Cross should be able to “go wherever they chose and talk to whomever they chose.” > [@](#): > > Secrecy is always the enemy of truth and, as conservatives love to argue about things like warrentless wiretaps, if the US is doing nothing wrong at GB what’s the objection to having a completely free and open inspection of the place by outside observers? I agree, but keep in mind that there have been LOTS of visitors to Gitmo including quite a few Democratic Congressmen/women. ---
**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 5, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/48 "2006-03-05T19:09:33Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Article or no article [it’s a safe be that he didn’t.](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/guan-a23.shtml) Actually, the safer bet is that he did. Your article, btw is from 2002. From a more recent New York Times article: > [@](#): > > [In Rising Numbers, Lawyers Head for Guantánamo Bay](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/politics/30detain.html?ex=1275105600&en=99019a493e7b55c3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) > > The increase in lawyers for Guantánamo detainees was set in motion last June when the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration and said the prisoners there were entitled to challenge their detentions in federal courts. > > The rate at which lawyers have stepped forward for the task may be a reflection of the changing public attitudes about Guantánamo Bay and its mission. > > “In the beginning, just after 9/11, we couldn’t get anybody,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group based in New York that is coordinating the assigning of lawyers to prisoners. The earliest volunteers, Mr. Ratner said, were those who regularly handled death-penalty clients and were accustomed to representing the reviled in near-hopeless cases. > > But in recent months, some of the nation’s largest and most prominent firms have enlisted in the effort and devoted considerable resources to it, including Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr; Clifford Chance; Covington & Burling; Dorsey & Whitney; and Allen & Overy. > > “People are now eager to take this on,” Mr. Ratner said. The law firms are bearing all the expenses, he said. This also means that the detainees have access to other than the “government underlings” assigned to them. Additionally, you were incorrect in stating that the Red Cross didn’t visit Guantanamo. [NYT Link](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?ex=1259470800&en=825f0a984565241f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland). They haven’t had a lot of nice things to say (note the link title: “Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo”), but the article clearly states that there have been multiple visits by the Red Cross since 2002. We still have a long way to go in cleaning up this progress, but there is reason to optimistic since things do seem to be improving (in part because of judicial rulings against the Bush administration). ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/49 "2006-03-05T21:47:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Actually, the safer bet is that he did. Your article, btw is from 2002. From a more recent New York Times article: > This also means that the detainees have access to other than the “government underlings” assigned to them. > > Additionally, you were incorrect in stating that the Red Cross didn’t visit Guantanamo. [NYT Link](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?ex=1259470800&en=825f0a984565241f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland). They haven’t had a lot of nice things to say (note the link title: “Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo”), but the article clearly states that there have been multiple visits by the Red Cross since 2002. Glad to hear it. > [@](#): > > We still have a long way to go in cleaning up this progress, but there is reason to optimistic since things do seem to be improving (in part because of judicial rulings against the Bush administration). In order for it to be cleaned up, those in charge really need to see that it needs cleaning up. If they don’t see that, foot dragging and minimum compliance will be the order of the day. Andrew Jackson proved that the courts have no real power over an executive that ignores their orders. I don’t see any evidence yet that SecDef and the President see any real need for change. ---
**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 5, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/50 "2006-03-05T23:14:44Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I don’t see any evidence yet that SecDef and the President see any real need for change. I don’t either. The OP should be aware that w/o the US legal system, there would be little if any progress made at that detention center. Pit Bush over Gitmo, but not “the entire US Justice system”-- they’re the good guys on this issue. BTW, I bet you were thinking about the UN Human Rights Commission earlier when you reference the Red Cross. They issued a report about a month ago calling for the US to close Gitmo, and they didn’t visit the facility because they claimed the US wouldn’t give them the access they required. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/51 "2006-03-06T01:12:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t either. The OP should be aware that w/o the US legal system, there would be little if any progress made at that detention center. Pit Bush over Gitmo, but not “the entire US Justice system”-- they’re the good guys on this issue. Right. A judge can’t jump in. The issue has to be brought to the court and by someone with standing. That’s what is so frustrating. The military lawyers aren’t going to bring the issue to an outside court. The prisoners can’t because they are in Cuba and few others have standing to sue. > [@](#): > > BTW, I bet you were thinking about the UN Human Rights Commission earlier when you reference the Red Cross. They issued a report about a month ago calling for the US to close Gitmo, and they didn’t visit the facility because they claimed the US wouldn’t give them the access they required. That sounds right. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/52 "2006-03-06T01:47:59Z")
…here are the unclassified Combantant Status Review Tribunals. > **[U.S. Department of Defense](https://www.defense.gov/)** > > The Department of Defense is America's largest government agency. With our military tracing its roots back to pre-Revolutionary times, the department has grown and evolved with our nation. It’s a lot of downloading and a heck-of-a-lot of reading, and it will take me a few days to read the lot. But I have one question at the moment, do any of you own [this model of digital watch?](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I551/103-4794665-5723843?v=glance&n=172282) ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/53 "2006-03-07T12:06:44Z")
…just out of interest, anyone else reading the Combantant Status Tribunal Reviews? Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053/54 "2006-03-07T12:10:40Z")
> [@Banquet Bear](#): > > …just out of interest, anyone else reading the Combantant Status Tribunal Reviews? Any thoughts? I started reading the first set. All I got from it was a sense that it was not a real court and was unlike any tribunal I have ever known. Everything was stacked against the accused/detained/kidnapped. A Kangaroo court by any other name… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-do-not-care-about-international-law/347053.md?page=2)