dont give me that international law bullshit. the same international law that sits back and watches millions die in africa everyday? please. fuck that.TSI wrote:
Now, for your second bit. These treaties form the backbone of international law. If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
You also say "different era". How so? Asymmetrical conflicts began in the 1950s, and that's part of the reason why they were signed. In fact, I'd say they are more relevant now than ever.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Where would innocent Gitmo Detainees go after trial?
FEOS made the claim in another thread that due process doesn't apply until hostilities have ended. Is that true?TSI wrote:
No. War doesn't supersede them. Have you heard of jus in bello? It stipulates that you have to conduct war under the principles of compassion and chivalry.usmarine wrote:
oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.
Violators of these constructs, such as the stateless combatants the US picked up, must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" (Fourth Geneva Convention (in force 1950), article 5). As the ICTY demonstrated in the Celebici case, these people do exist. The US has set up "courts" to try them, but hasn't respected its own laws in doing so. Problem, no?
These people, although they've violated International Humanitarian Law, are still to be treated with respect. Worse still, the US has tortured many of them (illegal) and has not all are found guilty either. Essentially then, the US is violating the GC.
Now, for your second bit. These treaties form the backbone of international law. If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
You also say "different era". How so? Asymmetrical conflicts began in the 1950s, and that's part of the reason why they were signed. In fact, I'd say they are more relevant now than ever.
ya sure. just like the french use the french foreign legion right? its funny how they have no association to the french govt yet conduct ops for french interests. and trust me, they dont follow "international law" most of the time. so get off your box.TSI wrote:
If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
Depends what you mean by "due process". Investigations and trials for war crimes of foreign nationals (Milosevic, Karadzic, etc...) can't start until the war has ended, yes. But the treatment (including trial) of prisoners (of war and otherwise) still has to comply with the GC. So if the US wants to try the Gitmo detainees, it has to follow the GC rules in doing so, which is currently not the case. I would be very interested to see the deatils of the actual charges; I don't think they are valid.Turquoise wrote:
FEOS made the claim in another thread that due process doesn't apply until hostilities have ended. Is that true?TSI wrote:
No. War doesn't supersede them. Have you heard of jus in bello? It stipulates that you have to conduct war under the principles of compassion and chivalry.usmarine wrote:
oh jeez. war supersedes stupid ass treaties that dont mean a damn thing and that only one side usually follows anyway. that crap was signed during a different era.
Violators of these constructs, such as the stateless combatants the US picked up, must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" (Fourth Geneva Convention (in force 1950), article 5). As the ICTY demonstrated in the Celebici case, these people do exist. The US has set up "courts" to try them, but hasn't respected its own laws in doing so. Problem, no?
These people, although they've violated International Humanitarian Law, are still to be treated with respect. Worse still, the US has tortured many of them (illegal) and has not all are found guilty either. Essentially then, the US is violating the GC.
Now, for your second bit. These treaties form the backbone of international law. If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
You also say "different era". How so? Asymmetrical conflicts began in the 1950s, and that's part of the reason why they were signed. In fact, I'd say they are more relevant now than ever.
However, were I before the military court or even Congress, I would state that the US technically hasn't declared war on any state--thus, there is no formal hostility. In that way, the detainees should be tried as civilians. At the very least, it should treat them as foreign nationals, i.e. try to extradite to country of citizenship. I do realize that this possibility is very slim, but it's worth exploring. I haven't studied enough US law to know exactly how I could make the civilian claim, but that's only an alternative. The international law bit is very clear.
I like pie.
usmarine wrote:
dont give me that international law bullshit. the same international law that sits back and watches millions die in africa everyday? please. fuck that.
First: international law isn't the problem in Africa. It's Russia and China vetoing any intervention, along with the lack of materiel given by UN member states. It's a good thing RTP is in place; should ease things now. Also, America doesn't want its sovereignty intruded upon; it uses that defense to support its refusal to involve itself.usmarine again wrote:
ya sure. just like the french use the french foreign legion right? its funny how they have no association to the french govt yet conduct ops for french interests. and trust me, they dont follow "international law" most of the time. so get off your box.TSI wrote:
If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
Second: why do you say that the FFL has no connection to the French gov? Also, can you show me how they don't respect international law?
I like pie.
Some of them can't be sent to their homeland because we don't want to get them killed by their government, Example: the Chinese Guys they want to release in the US.Flecco wrote:
Wasn't the problem that the countries like Albania wouldn't take them back?usmarine wrote:
well i wonder why they are fearful to go back to their home countries then? being innocent and all.Spark wrote:
If they're innocent, who cares?
no its europe and the french more specifically meddling around there also. but, its the people who make up the international law that sit back and do nothing. so you see, when the people who make up the law are useless, the laws they spew out are also useless.TSI wrote:
First: international law isn't the problem in Africa.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-05-25 09:12:38)
I've always felt that the UN is useless until we get rid of the Security Council.
If any one country has veto power, that makes the UN pointless.
If any one country has veto power, that makes the UN pointless.
Well, then stop contradicting yourself.usmarine wrote:
no its europe and the french more specifically meddling around there also. but, its the people who make up the international law that sit back and do nothing. so you see, when the people who make up the law are useless, the laws they spew out are also useless.TSI wrote:
First: international law isn't the problem in Africa.
Do you know what (it's what, not who) makes international law?
-Treaties
-Customs
-Classical writings (Aristotle, Goitius, etc...)
-Rulings of courts
Thus, it isn't people who draft them. They're the fruit of treaties and customs, some (Magna Carta) dating back to the Middle Ages and the interpretations thereof. Modern international law (especially the GCs) is a continuation of this.
But I think this is lost on you; why do you say the law is useless? What makes a law useful? I'd say it's useful if it saves just one life (which has been done many times over). If you want to create a law that works, and that will be accpeted by the US, go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.
I don't know if you're aware that the US (China and Russia too) refuses that its citizens be tried before international courts, even as it willingly prosecutes those of other countries. That's the problem with the law; some think they're above it.
But back to Africa, even though it really isn't the issue at all. Coul you explain to me how Europe ("and specifically the French") is meddling there? Last I checked, the wars in Africa were mostly internal, and mostly taking place in areas with many resources. Beyond a personal attack, I think your point is moot.
In fact, I think it's the other way around. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus? That is the real reason behind Africa's poverty and inability to break from it.
Last edited by TSI (2009-05-25 09:49:53)
I like pie.
last time i checked the FFL still have outposts/bases there, so what are they doing there? safari? site seeing? please.TSI wrote:
But back to Africa, even though it really isn't the issue at all. Coul you explain to me how Europe ("and specifically the French") is meddling there? Last I checked, the wars in Africa were mostly internal, and mostly taking place in areas with many resources. Beyond a personal attack, I think your point is moot.
In fact, I think it's the other way around. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus? That is the real reason behind Africa's poverty and inability to break from it.
So you're saying that because the military has bases in Africa, they're automatically "meddling". I'll not say more; I hope you understand the foolishness behind that statement. But for argument's sake, and to stick you, it'd be like saying the US bases in Saudi Arabia are the cause of Islamic extremism.usmarine wrote:
last time i checked the FFL still have outposts/bases there, so what are they doing there? safari? site seeing? please.TSI wrote:
But back to Africa, even though it really isn't the issue at all. Coul you explain to me how Europe ("and specifically the French") is meddling there? Last I checked, the wars in Africa were mostly internal, and mostly taking place in areas with many resources. Beyond a personal attack, I think your point is moot.
In fact, I think it's the other way around. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus? That is the real reason behind Africa's poverty and inability to break from it.
I like pie.
erm..there is no genocide in saudi currently so apples to oranges. plus the saudis asked us to come there in 1990 because of saddam...TSI wrote:
So you're saying that because the military has bases in Africa, they're automatically "meddling". I'll not say more; I hope you understand the foolishness behind that statement. But for argument's sake, and to stick you, it'd be like saying the US bases in Saudi Arabia are the cause of Islamic extremism.usmarine wrote:
last time i checked the FFL still have outposts/bases there, so what are they doing there? safari? site seeing? please.TSI wrote:
But back to Africa, even though it really isn't the issue at all. Coul you explain to me how Europe ("and specifically the French") is meddling there? Last I checked, the wars in Africa were mostly internal, and mostly taking place in areas with many resources. Beyond a personal attack, I think your point is moot.
In fact, I think it's the other way around. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus? That is the real reason behind Africa's poverty and inability to break from it.
plus we are not conducting ops inside saudi, so try and "stick" me all you want i guess.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-05-25 10:09:33)
Of course, the FFL are the root cause of genocide. If you're referring to Rwanda, then I suggest you try to find the evidence. Because no-one has.usmarine wrote:
erm..there is no genocide in saudi currently so apples to oranges. plus the saudis asked us to come there in 1990 because of saddam...TSI wrote:
So you're saying that because the military has bases in Africa, they're automatically "meddling". I'll not say more; I hope you understand the foolishness behind that statement. But for argument's sake, and to stick you, it'd be like saying the US bases in Saudi Arabia are the cause of Islamic extremism.usmarine wrote:
last time i checked the FFL still have outposts/bases there, so what are they doing there? safari? site seeing? please.
plus we are not conducting ops inside saudi, so try and "stick" me all you want i guess.
But speaking of bases--what about Uzbekistan? Where civs were being killed by Americans, and the soldiers were only getting slapped on the wrist?
Either way, it's very true that western countries have overreached in the third world. The ills they've perpetrated are massive; that's why laws are created, to stop it happening again. In fact, the Washington consensus has begun to be abandoned by America--see Obama's speech at the G20 summit. That should immensely help with the situation.
Nonetheless, the question remains, what will happen to the Gitmo residents. If the US will respect the law, they'll walk free, or at least be tried as civilians. But we all know that won't happen.
I like pie.
PLAN A
Let the Gitmo prisoners run for Congress... we've got crooks and liars, we're just missing a few terrorists.
Now that would be some partisan fighting that I would like to see on C-SPAN. and after a while we could just turn Congress into a super max and start over with a clean slate.
PLAN B
Cheney seems to want to do something about them, I mean he won't shut up about it so, might as well house them in one of his private prisons and make Cheney personally responsible for their captivity and our safety.
Let the Gitmo prisoners run for Congress... we've got crooks and liars, we're just missing a few terrorists.
Now that would be some partisan fighting that I would like to see on C-SPAN. and after a while we could just turn Congress into a super max and start over with a clean slate.
PLAN B
Cheney seems to want to do something about them, I mean he won't shut up about it so, might as well house them in one of his private prisons and make Cheney personally responsible for their captivity and our safety.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Where would innocent Gitmo Detainees go after trial?