Needless to say, I think it is a bad idea and a bad situation. Seems like the ICC thing all over again. At any rate, it is going to get pretty difficult for the US to preach and lecture with a straight face China and other countries.
IMHO, this is another typical example of Republicans playing to the conservative “America Uber Alles” crowd. They just can’t tolerate the idea that any other country or independent body has a right to question or oppose American policy or American actions.
I shouldn’t single out America. Virtually every nation pays lip service to international law until their interests clash with it. America (as a government) has had only two consistent and bipartisan foreign policies. One is to oppose communism. The other is to protect American business interests.
Everything else swings with the domestic political wind. Right now, GW is playing to the “Black Helicopter” crowd; who, again in IMHO, are just a few rungs up the ladder from the “tin foil hat will protect me from alien mind control” crowd.
Physical and independant inspections of US prisons is more than questioning or opposing American policy or action. It is directly becoming involved with internal US affairs that is being opposed.
I am against Kyoto, I am against the ICC. I guess now I have one more thing to research and decide on.
Treatment of POWs is not an “internal American action”. There are international protocols that America signed onto many years ago.
Why?
BTW, when reading this thread title, I thought of Kofi Annan saying “I propose that we stick red-hot file under his fingernails” and Bush replying “Nooo… I oppose that proposal. How about we start out beating him repeatedly?”
hence the US’ refusal to identify the Gitmo folks as “POW’s”.
And, frankly, the stance of ‘don’t tell us how to treat our prisoners’ isn’t a new one at all - my governor ordered that federal inspectors not be allowed into Michigan women’s prisons to question/investigate allegations that the female prisoners were being sexually assaulted by guards.
IIRC, both MI and AZ refused federal inspections. and were sued.
I was waiting for this one to pop up. Needless to say my sentiments swing to the same side as the OP, bad idea.
What I really love with this is the knee jerk opposition to any international treaty it displays and engenders amongst the electorate.
Should we expect you to surprise us and be pro this one then, Monstro104?
Honestly, the real rub here is that the US places itself in one untenable position after the other by sending out a signal of holier than thou isolationism. To boot it’s on issues that by standards of its own founding principles the US should support. But nay, instead GWB and his cronies go ahead and send out not so subtle signals that the US wishes to retain the possibility to be the neighborhood bully if it so likes.
And if you ask me arguments like these…
…reek of confirming the bad image that is already achieved by being uncooperative on the international arena, by actually confirming that the US can deny to others the same kind of thing that the US demands the right to do in the rest of the world. Alarmingly enough that is the level that even the White House argues it on.
Let me ask this; does the membership in favor of this policy feel that it is promising that opposed to the majority of the free world the US finds itself on the same side of the fence as oppressive regimes that it has openly criticized for lack of democracy, international cooperation and transparent governance?
I just can’t wait for Ari Fleischer to step up to the cameras shrug his shoulders, wave his hands around and tell us how the President feels that you just can’t cooperate with a process where ‘certain countries’ that will sign the treaty have negotiated their own right to torture and mistreat prisoners and until the US gets the same thing there will be no signature.
Once again it’s not so much ‘what’, but mostly ‘how’ the White House does that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Sparc
…and of course it’s not a treaty as my tired early morning typing misposted, it’s a protocol or side agreement to a treaty that the US has already ratified. Should it pass (as it probably will) the US has nay chance but to cooperate.
The best part is that this isn’t even directed against the US…
If it were not for Guantanamo eh!
Sparc
I think you have it exactly wrong. We don’t have to cooperate.
Anyway, I oppose this on the simple grounds that you have no right to know what we are doing! I don’t give a flying frag if everyone in Europe thinks we eat our suspects alive! Think what you will, we don’t torture people, and we don’t care what you think! Patheric appeals to International Cooperation wil get you nowhere! Accusations of “unilateralism” will only piss us off.
Suck it!
Are you serious? Really? 
Your attitude is the very definition of “unilateralism”.
I have to agree with smiling bandit
We have no rights whatsoever.
What are those anyway rights, they don’t exist.
The only true right is the right of the strongest, as this situation clearly points out again.
The US is the strongest nation on earth and it can do as it bloody well pleases, and it does.
Don’t believe all the moral claptrap, it is just propaganda.
All we can do is be a loyal ally and keep our mouths shut.
Really?
You see I think you’re talking out of your derriere there once again Smiling Bandit.
Read sslloowwllyy, and carefully now; the issue at hand is a protocol for prison inspections as a side agreement to the ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ the US has signed and ratified that convention. The US is a member of the UN and has ratified its charter, which states:
Would you care to explain in what way the US will be exempt to those clauses in this specific case?
Since the only accusation of unilateralism that has been made was directed at the White House, I take it that the SDMB has been graced by the presence of a member of the US administration. This should raise the debate level a little one would vainly hope (with the caveat that we’re not dealing with Ari or the Big Guy himself).
Thanks, but no thanks - I usually prefer to stick it.
Sparc
Note that the part after in the quote are my words due to to error in coding. Any fly by mod, feel free to edit.
I find debates like this concerning prisons to be interesting. After all, prison isn’t supposed to be a comfortable place. As a matter of fact, it should be uncomfortable, otherwise it isn’t exactly punishment, is it? True, we are talking about Prisoners of War, but why should that make a difference? Ultimately, you have taken into custody people allied with the other side in a war. So, I don’t see why kindness should be required for prisoners of war over internal prisoners. So, aren’t we really just talking about levels of discomfort? Prisons are not meant to be comfortable (though I concede that some are). So…when exactly does it go from “acceptable discomfort level” to “inhuman cruelty?” Oh, and this is a sincere question. I can’t say that I’m educated enough in the matter to state that the above statements are factual, just that I am confused by the concern about prison cruelty.
That makes A HUGE difference, they are not criminals.
Normally the other side would have POW’s as well.
A gentlemen agreement not to hurt POW’s will benifit your own nationals in enemy captivity.
Are you by any chance related to a Mr. S. Hussein, Room 3,000, Presidential Palace, Baghdad, Iraq?
smiling bandit, the basis of the US and western civilization in general is that people have certain rights which cannot be taken away by governments and that governments exist to serve the people and not the other way around. I deny the right of any government to torture people or to do many other things. I deny the rights of any government to execute or torture or imprison for no reason or for genocidal reasons etc. National sovereignty cannot be a shield for criminal behaviour on the part of governments.
Now, the US seems to agree with this view when it deals with China and keeps lecturing China on Human Rights and conditions in their prisons. Why does the US think it has a right to meddle in Chinese internal affairs? Why doesnt it apply the same theory and leave the Chinese alone? Why the response of the Chinese along the lines of “it is our internal affair and no concern of yours” is not acceptable to the US. Either every country can claim national sovereignty in this regard or no one can. How much more hypocritical can the US get?
I say governments do not own their people and should not be allowed to abuse them. National Sovereignty cannot be a shield for human rights abuses. The USA has said this about every communist country and every dictatorship and it should accept that those rules apply to the US also.
The US uses its influence in Cuba, China and other countries to get them to improve their human rights records. It would be comical but sad if the day came when the EU and other countries started pressuring the US in this department by bringing it up in trade and other negotiations. “You know we are considering buying those Boeings but you really have to make an effort to improve your human rights record and sign all those treaties”. Speak of an upside-down world.
I am concerned about the possibility of terrorists at Gito being “interviewed” by people who could act as information couriers for them, allowing them to continue their anti-American operations much like organized crime leaders in the US that have on occasions continued to head their respective criminal enterprises from prison.
That being said, I agree with every word of Sailor’s last post. We talk the talk; we have to walk the walk.
How are prisoners of war different than criminals? Ultimately, the person captured was attacking the country in question, yes? Now, what if a citizen bombed the White House? They have attacked their own country, but yet would be considered a conventional criminal. The rules of war fascinate me. Why should war be a gentlemanly thing? It would seem that pitting forces of men against each other with the sole purpose of killing as many men on the other side as possible would not require gentlemanly rules.