It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Washington prepares international network of permanent detention camps

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Ya gotta love it, folks. The Pentagon rounds folks up and can't get anything out of 'em. They have no basis to prosecute them so what do they do? Propose to throw them away for life. I'm no liberal. I support the death penalty for crimes that rise to that level of punishment. I also support the Geneva Conventions. This administration believes itself to be above the law. It isn't. And we will pay the price, as a nation, for allowing them to get away with these unlawful and evil acts.


Something everyone should consider: yesterday it was the Jews. Today it is the Muslim. Tomorrow it could be YOU!



Washington prepares international network of permanent detention camps
By Rick Kelly
5 January 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Bush administration is crafting a series of measures to secure the permanent detention without trial of alleged terrorists and those it designates as enemy combatants, the Washington Post reported Sunday. In gross violation of international law, detainees may soon be held in new US-constructed prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, without access to lawyers or family members.
www.wsws.org...




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   


the government has evidently concluded that the problem lies in excessive public and judicial review of its operations.


Thats just one quote from the article that you linked to, and if it is true
it makes for some very very frightening reading indeed.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
detainees may soon be held in new US-constructed prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, without access to lawyers or family members.

Permanent detention is perfectly legal for irregular militants. International Detention camps are a great idea, lock the thugs up and remove them from the society they are destroying. They do, of course, have to be treated humanely, and its obvious that this can only be done if international organizations have access to them and can monitor them. I don't even see much of a need to interrogate them, so that will avoid most of that problem. Just put them into permanent camps and keep them well fed and healthy and generally just move on.

Also, i have to wonder if this is somethign specifically stated, or something that the source, a socialist activist site, is speculating on. I hope its true and that their sources are correct. Permanent detention of the insurgents in iraq and throughout the world is probably the only thing thats going to work.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Permanent detention is perfectly legal for irregular militants.


Nothing about the way the administration has prosecuted the "war" on terror and invasion/occupation of Iraq has been legal. They've gone out of their way to skirt these laws we have adhered to since WW2.


International Detention camps are a great idea,


How easy it is to sit back and judge. If it was you or someone you knew/loved, you wouldn't feel that way.


lock the thugs up and remove them from the society they are destroying.


Those thugs are whomever the powers that be deem as terrorists. No proof needed. It could be you one of these days if you don't fit into their Stepford mold.


They do, of course, have to be treated humanely, and its obvious that this can only be done if international organizations have access to them and can monitor them.


The Bush administration has proven that they are incapable of treating people humanely and allowing those intl' organizations proper access. Rumsfeld has his operatives hide detainees from them.


I don't even see much of a need to interrogate them, so that will avoid most of that problem. Just put them into permanent camps and keep them well fed and healthy and generally just move on.


That kind of thinking is sadistic. In the end, you will recieve the same measure of judgement that you have given.


Also, i have to wonder if this is somethign specifically stated, or something that the source, a socialist activist site, is speculating on


The information found in the article is solid.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
QUOTE BY NYGDAN: Permanent detention is perfectly legal for irregular militants. International Detention camps are a great idea, lock the thugs up and remove them from the society they are destroying. They do, of course, have to be treated humanely, and its obvious that this can only be done if international organizations have access to them and can monitor them. I don't even see much of a need to interrogate them, so that will avoid most of that problem. Just put them into permanent camps and keep them well fed and healthy and generally just move on.


Except for one major point you dont realize. The LAWS HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN BY THIS ADMINISTRATION. They have the ability to declare ANYONE an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist". The term enemy combatant didn't even exist until this whole crap started. This gives them the power to throw even US citizens in one of these "camps" for simply crying out against them.

Sorry for the messy post, I can never get the quoting right when I want to respond to just a portion of another post.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by LogansRun]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The Bush administration continues to view themselves as above the law. How wonderful it will be to have Alberto "torture memo" Gonzales as our nation's top law enforment official.




White House Won't Release Gonzales Papers

Thursday January 6, 2005 3:31 PM


AP Photo NY112

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House refused Thursday to provide senators additional documents on attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales' role in the decision to allow aggressive interrogations of terrorism detainees. The top Democrat at Gonzales' Senate confirmation hearing said that questioning was ``tantamount to torture.''
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It's frightening how people can pass judgment on foreigners, but an accused American wife/baby-killer has the right to a trial. Those with Nygdan's eagerness to condemn will have their day. In this world, all we have left is compassion, with that comes fairness. When we, as a society, okay the damning of the accused without a fair trial, then we are as guilty of murder as anyone.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Oh this is great news


We have seen how the patriot act can be corrupted to prosecute any one. Just look at the regular joe that is being charged with shining a laser in a jet cockpit. Now no one will be safe from Bush and his inquisition. People, if this transpires, we Americans are ALL at risk of being hauled away to one of these camps for just voicing our opinion about our government. They could label it dissention and have us prosecuted under the patriot act, then haul us off to God knows where for God knows how long. If this doesnt compare to the Nazi regime............



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Nygdan

Permanent detention is perfectly legal for irregular militants.


Nothing about the way the administration has prosecuted the "war" on terror and invasion/occupation of Iraq has been legal.

What laws have been broken?


If it was you or someone you knew/loved, you wouldn't feel that way.

I wouldn't be getting arrested for commiting massive acts of murder and mayhem on the international scene tho, nor would anyone I particularly care about.


lock the thugs up and remove them from the society they are destroying.


Those thugs are whomever the powers that be deem as terrorists.
And?


No proof needed.

They merely need enough proof to convince themselves that such and such person should be held. There are no international laws about this that they are breaking.


It could be you one of these days if you don't fit into their Stepford mold.

That could be said about anytime anyone is arrested for a crime.



The Bush administration has proven that they are incapable of treating people humanely and allowing those intl' organizations proper access.

I agree, they've done terribly at it and need to reform their practices.


Rumsfeld has his operatives hide detainees from them.

I have not heard about this before, where did you hear it?


I don't even see much of a need to interrogate them, so that will avoid most of that problem. Just put them into permanent camps and keep them well fed and healthy and generally just move on.



That kind of thinking is sadistic.

Why? Since when is locking up terrorists sadistic?


In the end, you will recieve the same measure of judgement that you have given.

Good, becuase I have been considering the situation fairly, I myself deserve nothing more than fair treatment. If i have done something to give the government good reason to think that I am an international terrrorist who's been blowing up american soldiers in iraq and murdering civilians, lopping people's heads off in sharia courts or any of that, then I belong in jail. I haven't done any of that, therefore i don't deserve to go to jail.

I am not saying that the admin shold be given carte blanche to do whatever they want to who ever, but there are no international laws that prevent the US from doing what it is doing, and there is nothing inherently immoral about tracking, arresting, and holding criminals.

logans run
The LAWS HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN BY THIS ADMINISTRATION

The united states does not pen international law.

They have the ability to declare ANYONE an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".

Thats a domestic matter. We are talking about international matters here. The insurgents in iraq and the taliban and others like them are not recognized participants or covered persons under the geneva conventions.


ledbedder20
Those with Nygdan's eagerness to condemn will have their day.

All i have stated is that people who commit these heinus crimes should be held, and there is no reason as for why they need to be released, ever. The governement has no reason to hold innocent people so they should and will investigate the people, heck, they have ot investigate them to make the decision to hold them in the first place, it serves no purpose to arrest and permanently detain thousands of innocent people pointlessly.

[qouote]When we, as a society, okay the damning of the accused without a fair trial, then we are as guilty of murder as anyone
Hardly. We aren't talking about executions. Internationally they do not have a right to a trial, they can't be tortured and murdered and such, but they can be held without formal trial. There is nothing illegal about that. What possible kind of trial can even be held, iraq doesn't have the capability to do this, and neither does afghanistan. The US merely needs to find out who commited these crimes, and arrest them.


with that comes fairness

And fair is locking up people who commit these crimes and willingly support these insurgents in these countries.


Also, i have to wonder if this is somethign specifically stated, or something that the source, a socialist activist site, is speculating on


The information found in the article is solid.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ya gotta love it, folks. The Pentagon rounds folks up and can't get anything out of 'em. They have no basis to prosecute them so what do they do? Propose to throw them away for life. I'm no liberal. I support the death penalty for crimes that rise to that level of punishment. I also support the Geneva Conventions. This administration believes itself to be above the law. It isn't. And we will pay the price, as a nation, for allowing them to get away with these unlawful and evil acts.


Something everyone should consider: yesterday it was the Jews. Today it is the Muslim. Tomorrow it could be YOU!

Right.

I understand that they (the Feds) have reserved the following just for you:

2005-0000000001




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Oh this is great news


We have seen how the patriot act can be corrupted to prosecute any one. Just look at the regular joe that is being charged with shining a laser in a jet cockpit.

There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says all its provisions only apply to terrorists. It deals with and alters many laws and is not only concerned with terrorists. This guy shone a laser into a cockpit. He commited, obviously, a crime, and its a crime that is covered under the Patriot Act. Therefore, the law he is charged under is the Patriot Act, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.


Now no one will be safe from Bush and his inquisition.

The guy shone a laser light into a cockpit of air transport! What do you mean no one is safe? He was interfereing with and effectively sabotageing it!


They could label it dissention and have us prosecuted under the patriot act

The patriot act does not make dissent illegal and having all these people pretending it does make valid concerns about it go unnoticed.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   



They could label it dissention and have us prosecuted under the patriot act

The patriot act does not make dissent illegal and having all these people pretending it does make valid concerns about it go unnoticed.

Yeah but the PATRIOT Act allows the gov. lock u up solely on the President's word. If u criticize the gov. and he decides to lock u up and throw away the key, ur screwed. And under the PATRIOT Act and its follow-up laws protesting falls under the definition of a terrorist act.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Some of you either have to be too dumb or too young to not see what is happening in this country.

You know who you are


Its a nice evening to ride your tricycles


PS: i'd like to know how the blind will handle the truth when it becomes too late


[edit on 6-1-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

The patriot act does not make dissent illegal and having all these people pretending it does make valid concerns about it go unnoticed.


Yes it DOES make it illegal to say certain things about the government. You cant demonstrate within a certain amount of distance (in miles) from a presidential appearence. If you do, under the patriot act, you can be labled a dissenter and they will be able to do what ever they want with you. See the RNC convention for that fiasco. Also, all the President has to do is get a wild hair up his arse and name someone he does not like. The patriot act gives to much power to the government.

About the guy with the Laser. Personally, I think he is covering for his daughter. First he told the Feds his daughter did it. Then when he found out there were federal charges involved, he changed his story to himself being the perpitrator. Its what I would do for my daughter. I would do what ever it took to keep her out of a Federal Prison. Even if it ment to take the blame for her doing something she didnt think was a crime, but was.

HOWEVER. With that being said, if this guy IS guilty, then he deserves to be charged for endangering the passengers and staff of the airplane as well as the helocopter. This falls under Federal juridiction, but is not mentioned in the patriot act.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeyer
it does make valid concerns about it go unnoticed.

Yeah but the PATRIOT Act allows the gov. lock u up solely on the President's word. If u criticize the gov. and he decides to lock u up and throw away the key, ur screwed.
No, it doesn't. The only citizen being held is Jose Padilla, and that was after the gov monitored him meeting with terrorists and comming back to scope out sites for a radiological attack. He is not being held under Patriot.


And under the PATRIOT Act and its follow-up laws protesting falls under the definition of a terrorist act.

No, protesting does not.


kidfinger
Yes it DOES make it illegal to say certain things about the government.

Such as what?


If you do, under the patriot act, you can be labled a dissenter and they will be able to do what ever they want with you.

Perhaps I am mistaken, since you say it so definitvely. What section makes dissent illegal?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Nygdan

Permanent detention is perfectly legal for irregular militants.


Nothing about the way the administration has prosecuted the "war" on terror and invasion/occupation of Iraq has been legal.

What laws have been broken?


It could be argued that legal precedent has been set by Federal handling of ununiformed confederates early in the civil war.
All of us know that war, declared and conventional or otherwise is a mutual fight and wrong as it might be it is a part of international relations. It can not be prosecuted as a crime and the combatants have an obligation under the spirit of international law to return prisoners and cease all wartime measures as soon as practical. The case of these terrorists is not too far away from American servicemen who were illegally kept after the end of the Vietnam war in Soviet gulags.




If it was you or someone you knew/loved, you wouldn't feel that way.

I wouldn't be getting arrested for commiting massive acts of murder and mayhem on the international scene tho, nor would anyone I particularly care about.


But they didn't all go "onto the international scene" and "commit massive acts of murder and mayhem". Without judicial review or governmental checks and balances there is AMPLE opportunity for this fate to befall an innocent Iraqi who happened to scuffle with foreign troops in his own home!
Suppose somebody invaded your country and had armed men coming in to the neighborhood where you live, dropping bombs and guns blazing, because their notoriously flawed intelligence said that somebody they haven't been able to catch for YEARS -MIGHT- be in there (and of course it always turns out that he wasn't). Would you stand for that, or would gunplay in the immediate vicinity of your children prompt you to do something rash and get yourself into trouble when you were no terrorist at all?
I'm not going to comment on the legality of the invasion of Iraq, nor will I speak ill of our troops or catagorically defend the insurgents. I'm only saying that the situation and the attendant system provide substantial opportunity for unintended injustices.




lock the thugs up and remove them from the society they are destroying.



Those thugs are whomever the powers that be deem as terrorists.

And?


No proof needed.

They merely need enough proof to convince themselves that such and such person should be held. There are no international laws about this that they are breaking.



You can only punish them after proving that they are thugs who destroy their societies and giving them whatever due process that human rights and the laws of the presiding nation dictate.




It could be you one of these days if you don't fit into their Stepford mold.

That could be said about anytime anyone is arrested for a crime.


Thats the entire point! That's the reason we have due process!





The Bush administration has proven that they are incapable of treating people humanely and allowing those intl' organizations proper access.

I agree, they've done terribly at it and need to reform their practices.


Then what exactly would be the arguement here? That we agree its wrong and yet we shouldn't do anything about that because it might be -technically- legal if you twist it hard enough?





I don't even see much of a need to interrogate them, so that will avoid most of that problem. Just put them into permanent camps and keep them well fed and healthy and generally just move on.



That kind of thinking is sadistic.

Why? Since when is locking up terrorists sadistic?


Locking up a terrorist isn't sadistic. Locking up a man who has never been convicted of a terrorist crime is sadistic.




In the end, you will recieve the same measure of judgement that you have given.

Good, becuase I have been considering the situation fairly, I myself deserve nothing more than fair treatment. If i have done something to give the government good reason to think that I am an international terrrorist who's been blowing up american soldiers in iraq and murdering civilians, lopping people's heads off in sharia courts or any of that, then I belong in jail. I haven't done any of that, therefore i don't deserve to go to jail.


I have underlined "good reason" because that is precisely the point here. Good reason is established in courts of law- in the case of an international situation related to war, it is decided by an international court. The "fairness" you speak of ignores all law, precedent, jurisdiction, and due process. By your standard, California could invade Arizona and New Mexico and summarily imprison Bush voters for aiding and abetting violators of international law. No arguement, however valid, which you might want to present right now would be valid because California would say so and call it fair, just like you are doing to the "terrorists" right now.



I am not saying that the admin shold be given carte blanche to do whatever they want to who ever, but there are no international laws that prevent the US from doing what it is doing, and there is nothing inherently immoral about tracking, arresting, and holding criminals.

logans run
The LAWS HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN BY THIS ADMINISTRATION

The united states does not pen international law.

They have the ability to declare ANYONE an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".

Thats a domestic matter. We are talking about international matters here. The insurgents in iraq and the taliban and others like them are not recognized participants or covered persons under the geneva conventions.


The application of the Geneva conventions is irrelevant because the Geneva convention only governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The international legal precedent set by the capital punishment of Nazis for domestic crimes arguably supercedes the silence of the Geneva convention on this matter.
Take what follows as a hypothetical question instead of an accusation: If it came up that American soldiers were intentionally killing people who they knew were innocent civilians, would that be OK just because it is not addressed by the Geneva convention? Of course not, because their are other laws, precendents, and moral absolutes apart from law which govern such matters.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
One thing about the patriot act is as how will be used to control the regular joe like you and me.

One case will become two, three and then it will be the common law for under all citizens in this country will be judge.

That is the whole idea of the patriot act, to find an excused to bring it up for "terrorist" and then to bring it to replace the laws that we have uphold for so long.

Get ready people the NWO is here already.

Bush definitely is going to need some detention camps to hold the people that will opposed his NWO.

As US gains world domination we need more of these camps all over the world.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What section makes dissent illegal?


I get my news on the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act 2 straight from the people who invistigated them both, and continue to do so. The ACLU has documented examples of many of the things I mentioned above. Ill give you thier generalization of the matter.


............several actions recently taken by the Federal government, including the adoption of sections of the USA Patriot Act and several executive orders, now threaten these fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy; the rights to due counsel and process in judicial proceedings


www.aclu.org...

And the afor mentioned RNC debacle where people were arrested on the sidewalk infront of the RNC for PEACEFUL protesting. They were herded together in what has been described as a makeshift concentratin camp. I dont mean these people were gassed or anything. But they were soccer moms with thier hands strapped together with tiestraps, behind thier backs! All for saying they dissagree with Bushes policies and his supporters ideology? But thats not an abuse of the patriot act is it?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
we already have camps being set up here in the usa, check past ats articles, they are prepairing for something



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
the combatants have an obligation under the spirit of international law to return prisoners and cease all wartime measures as soon as practical.

The problem however is this applying to current insurgents. Surely iraqi army soldiers under saddam have to be treated as POWs. But the insurgents aren't uniformed soldiers and aren't part of any recognized military or state. They can be treated as criminals, and probably only have the most basic of international law protections. I very much doubt that they can be tortured at all and almost certainly can't be executed without trial.




The case of these terrorists is not too far away from American servicemen who were illegally kept after the end of the Vietnam war in Soviet gulags.

Well, the vietnamese might've considered them to be criminals, but that hardly holds up. It was a declared war, they wore uniforms, they were part of an organized command structure and were the regular army of a recognized nation.

On the other hand, this shows just how weak and pointless the geneva conventions might be. The US, conceivably, isn't going to be spending toomuch time fighting the legit armies of convention signatories.

The only case for the insurgents that I can figure is that, since hussein never surrendered or signed any articles of surrender, then the war is still going on, and they might get some form of protection as ad hoc volunteers for saddam's army, even tho saddam is captured.





If it was you or someone you knew/loved, you wouldn't feel that way.

I wouldn't be getting arrested for commiting massive acts of murder and mayhem on the international scene tho, nor would anyone I particularly care about.



there is AMPLE opportunity for this fate to befall an innocent Iraqi who happened to scuffle with foreign troops in his own home!

Scuffling with american troops is an act of terrorism, unless the scufler is a foreign soldier, in which case its an act of war. Lets be realistic, the Us isn't running around snatching people at random. They want to win and are monitoring people involved in these groups. Besides, the very act of capture is going to result in an attack on the 'arrestors' by the insurgents, which will reveal that they are part of the resistance. I generally agree tho, there is definite oppurtunity for error and outright abuse. Thats why the administration must absolutely make a major reform and really investigate, prevent, and prosecute, abusers and be certain, at least for their own purposes, that the person they are holding is in fact a threat. And it also requires that they work with international human rights orgs and protective orgs like the Red Cross. Atop of all that, its imperative that they not execute anyone that they hold in this way. Its entirely uncessary and the rammifications of executing possibly large numbers of people that are more or less innocent is just not worth any benefit that they are getting by not doing so.


Suppose somebody invaded your country and had armed men coming in to the neighborhood where you live, dropping bombs and guns blazing, because their notoriously flawed intelligence

I'd go out and help attack anyone that invaded my home country with its legitimate democratic government. I would not attack the americans if i was an iraqi right now. And if, for the sake of arguement, i did attack the people invading my country, I certainly wouldn't expect them to not capture me, to give me a trial, they'd know I was guilty and I'd know it too. I'd like for them to do somethign so incredibly stupid as let me go.


the immediate vicinity of your children prompt you to do something rash and get yourself into trouble when you were no terrorist at all?

This is unfortunately to tight a time for mistakes like that. People that make them are regretably going to get caught up in the system when they shouldn't. Nothing can prevent it and its worth the cost.


I'm not going to comment on the legality of the invasion of Iraq


I'm only saying that the situation and the attendant system provide substantial opportunity for unintended injustices.

I agree entirely. Its not a good situation. Not much that can be done about that, short of abandoning the whole of the middle east.


You can only punish them after proving that they are thugs

But prove it to who? The interim government? The people that are holding these terrorists(if this all pans out anyway) are the ones that need to decide. One way to decide is to have an adversarial trial system like in the Western world, with a defending and prosecuting representative, a jury and a judge. Another is to eliminate the jury and just have a panel of judges. Another is to have a single panel that investigates, judges, and sentences. Or another is to leave it up to the people responsible for capturing these guys in the first place. Also, lets keep in mind that this isn't going to invovle great sleuthing and patient attempts to break an intricate series of clues. These insurgents are going to be killed in the field for the most part, and the ones that are captured on the field of battle are guilty practically by definition.


Thats the entire point! That's the reason we have due process!

The claim is that the government can, conspiracy like, just start arresting tons of innocent people, just to be mean, even tho the law doesn't allow it. If the law don't allow it and they do it anyway, then due process isn't going to stop them. If there is no rule of law then there is nothing. It doesn't matter how close to the 'slippery slope' the government gets, it can cross the line by a small step or by a large leap, it doesn't need to 'trick' people into thinking that its allright for mass arrests, star chamber courts and suspension of habeous corpsus.


Then what exactly would be the arguement here?

That this is probably a necessary step and that the administration needs to make some reforms also.

That we agree its wrong and yet we shouldn't do anything about that because it might be -technically- legal if you twist it hard enough?

There is no need to twist. Insurgents do not have any protection from arbitrary permanent imprisonment.

Locking up a terrorist isn't sadistic. Locking up a man who has never been convicted of a terrorist crime is sadistic.

Why? A terrorist doesn't need to be convicted to be a terrorist. I would expect that they aren't going to be driving trucks into town and arresting every tenth person on the street. They will attack terrorist strongholds and fortifications and arrest most if not everyone in them. Or they will monitor potential terrorists and arrest/capture them when they are convinced that they are up to something. In all honesty, its good enough for me. The stakes are simply to high to remain inactive or have trials for each of these guys, which will, inevitably, lead to many of them who are actually guilty being released.

I have underlined "good reason" because that is precisely the point here. Good reason is established in courts of law- in the case of an international situation related to war, it is decided by an international court.

This is not a requirement.

The "fairness" you speak of ignores all law, precedent, jurisdiction, and due process.

Thats because there is no law, precendent, jurisdiction, or any process by which they can be tried. The 'trial' is up to the occupying powers, and it needn't be one in which the accused can have a defense team.

By your standard, California could invade Arizona and New Mexico and summarily imprison Bush voters for aiding and abetting violators of international law.

No, since federal law prevents that. What law prevents the US from holding these insurgents without trial?

No arguement, however valid, which you might want to present right now would be valid because California would say so and call it fair, just like you are doing to the "terrorists" right now.

If california did something liek that then the federal government would invade and occupy california and execute the traitors to the Federal government and States. What organization has any claim to iraq or the US like the federal government has to california and arizona? California would feel justified, but so what, in a sense they are, if there is no law, then there is no crime and they are justified in doing practically anything. Since there is, and they are in obvious violation of it, then, well, no one else need be convinced by the fact that California feels that it is justified.


The international legal precedent set by the capital punishment of Nazis for domestic crimes arguably supercedes the silence of the Geneva convention on this matter.

Arguably yes, but not definitively, especailly since the nazi heads that were captured were, well, officers of the state. These guys now are thugs, not elected and appointed members of government. That does make a difference. A post war german (nazi partisans were going to be called 'werewolves') who blew up a jewish market would not be tried at the hague. He'd be arrested and thrown in jail. The occupier could give him a trial and, if they find him guilty, execute him. Or they could not give him a trial and hold him indefinitly but do no more.

If it came up that American soldiers were intentionally killing people who they knew were innocent civilians, would that be OK just because it is not addressed by the Geneva convention?

Firstly, it would obviously be wrong, regardless of international, federal, state, or any other, law. Also, there are some Human Rights that the US agrees to as a member of the United Nations, and there are multiple International Laws that the United States has ratified. This does not mean that every insurgent gets a full blown trial. Also, it would be illegal because its against the laws of the United States.


Of course not, because their are other laws, precendents, and moral absolutes apart from law which govern such matters.

I agree entirely, which is why I insist that there be reform to make sure that these people are not tortured and that any penalty other than detention not be metted out. In fact, I have argued that they shouldn't even be interrogated, at least not on matters outside their own arrest, since, apparently, some are willing to use unacceptable interrogation methods. Thats because we can expect that there will be many people held there that are entirely innocent. The system can't prevent it. Full blown trials (forget about international courts, thats simply not an option) will not prevent innocents from getting detained, and will result in the guilty being released. While that is acceptable in the US, its not acceptable in post war pre-democratic iraq. This is nation building, not nation operating. It, probably, cannot be done any other way.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join