Originally posted by nenothtu
There is a law against holding someone indefinately without trial.
Unless you can cite that law, I'll have to say no there isn't. I've never run across it any where, so toss a citation my way.
In your country, you can be held without charge? By Police or any other authority. I cannot. The Police have a fixed period, which has been
extended in response to the threat of ‘terror’, in order to question me. If after that period they have insufficient evidence to charge me, they
have to let me go, or go to a Judge or Magistrate and request an extension.
Additionally, as a citizen of a signee of the United Nations Bill of Human Rights, I am entitled to recourse with the Court of Human Rights if at any
time my country fails to protect those rights that it affords me. As is every other citizen of a signed country. Additionally, any other national,
under threat of and/or suffering persecution in their country, can come to my country and apply for asylum, and fight their case for justice from
here.
So while I agree, that specifically, there may be no law on an international level to prevent detention without charge, and subsequently trial, the
precedence and provision does exist within the laws of participating states. A UK citizen, for example, held under US law without charge, is entitled
to the full support and protection of the UK in order to rectify that situation, and should expect to be extradited at the very least. As is UK
national held hostage by Somali pirates. But, and of course it is a very, very, very big but, that is entirely dependent of the individual, their
resources, financial and intellectual, and how informed they are of those rights. If you don’t know you have something, how can you exercise it?
Either way…we digress…and I do get your point…but also understand mine, that we have been here many times, and those that went before us have
tried to make provisions so that we can help ourselves and help prevent injustice. They did that for us, we have to fight as hard to preserve and
exercise those rights, as those that are fighting to destroy them for our children.
Originally posted by nenothtu
There is a law regarding the treatment of detainees.
Yes, there is - the Geneva Conventions again. I'd like to see the specific argument contending that those provisions have been violated, and how.
I think we could pull photos up, if we tried just a little, of the various abuses and humiliations that detainees have suffered in recent years.
The US, like the UK, has signed the UN bill of Human Rights, and therefore committed itself to the provision and protection of those rights. To date
of course, the US has failed to even make those provisions, fully, available to it’s own people, let alone to those peoples it comes into contact
with during the course of conflict.
Originally posted by nenothtu
This is in error. Neither the UN nor NATO are law-making bodies. Their approval or disapproval carries exactly NO weight in legal matters.
I’ll concede NATO, but the UN has the power to prosecute violations of International Law. That is what the International Court of Justice at the
Hague is for. As I have always understood it.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Personally, I don't need any commentary from the intelligence services. It's a matter of public record that NATO interfered in the internal affairs
of Libya by dropping bombs in support of one side of an internal conflict. In light of that, intelligence involvement is a moot point, and would be
more difficult a case to make than making the case against what interference is already known and public.
It is a matter of public record that intelligence operatives were on the ground 6 months prior to kick off too. As I stated it was reported by the
BBC. They also reported that those operatives, and their trainees, were on the ground during those air strikes, providing targeting information. So
for me, when I have the such a big picture to work from, I know that there was absolutely no need for any collateral damage. The planes just provided
the public show. Tell me, from your experience, why, if they were that
deeply in there, didn’t they just do the decent thing and carry out a
straightforward coup, and take out the leadership in a single airstrike? All things considered, weighing it up, they coulda? Why the pretense?
Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm of the opinion that it's not my world to change. We (the US) have trouble enough at home to work on changing, and the rest of the world ought to
be capable of looking out for itself for a while until we get ourselves sorted out. I've never been very big on policing the world - if it's not our
problem, and can't be made our problem, then we've got no dog in that fight. Iraq was one such situation, Libya another, and Syria yet another. We
had no business kicking around in any of those places when we did.
Again, I agree, but we did, and that is what I want us to stop doing. It is my world though, and while most of it I wouldn’t even consider
changing, there are some things that are preventing others from living in peace. I want them to enjoy the peace I do. I think it’s only fair.
Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm not sure I understand you here, but I think I do. Allow me to throw out a story by way of illustration. Most people who know me personally don't
really know that much about my history. I'm neither Sergeant Rock nor Rambo - I'm just a tall scrawny guy among the crowds. Most know that I'm not
to be trifled with, but that's more a function of my bad attitude than a function of practical demonstrations of going around tearing folks up. I
just don't do that. I don't find it to be necessary in most cases. I tend to see most situations differently than other folks, and find that there
are damned few that really, truly, call for direct action, where other folks will just jump.
My son, however, does know some of my history. He spent his childhood wanting to be "just like dad", and always had intentions of joining the
service (which I did not do, by the way - but it was the only way he could figure out to get himself on to a battle field, where I HAVE been). he had
visions of glory and honor and all that crap that kids think it is, which were fostered and nourished by a friend of mine who is a former Marine,
feeding that fantasy. I've always discouraged all that flag waving baloney, and tried to explain to him how it really was. It's not parades and
confetti, glory and honor. It's rain, and mud, and blood, and dead bodies that would look more at home in a butcher shop than they do laying in the
road. Still, most of what I said didn't sink in to him in any sort of visceral way.
One evening, he wanted to watch some war movie or another, so we sat and watched it. One particular scene cut a little close to the bone, and it
brought tears to my eyes. He'd never seen that happen before, ever, in his whole life.
THAT got his attention, and helped him to adjust his priorities more than all the preaching I could have ever done. That brought it home to his gut.
That gave him an understanding of what it took to be me, and more importantly, perhaps, in his own words "what it took away" from me. It made him
pay closer attention to the other things I said, and evaluate them in a different light.
You're right about passing on the lessons learned from mistakes. Kids WILL make enough mistakes of their own to pass on, and shouldn't have to do
over again the mistakes we made, reinvent the wheel, and relearn what could have been taught less painfully. It's been said that anyone who never
screws up isn't doing anything TO screw up. Everyone will make their own mistakes as they go along, and I don't think they should have to make mine,
too.
You understood me perfectly, thank you that was just the answer I was hoping for, and you have nothing but my respect.
