I get really tired of this "let's show the world" that we care bs.

Right, Island...instead, we should hit 'em hard and fast, and by doing so, show them how "civilized" we are.

Sorry, but, I have a saying that goes a long way back, that "someone has to be the big guy". I truly believe that the ideals embodied by the Constitution are the best ideals anywhere, when practiced correctly. Besides, didn't our founding fathers refer to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as SOME of the rights that are "inalienable" (meaning they extend to ALL persons, regardless of citizenship, and can't be revoked)?

Frankly, my GUT reaction is to want to see all of the terrorists that are proven guilty hanging high on the public square. But that is the way our enemies react; the way those we oppose treat their criminals. If we can't be better than them, then what the hell are we fighting?

You're assuming that our enemies are reasonable people, and that the only thing influencing their perceptions is American behavior. This is totally untrue.

No, actually, I'm playing devil's advocate because I believe we need to avoid the other extreme. We can't be guilty of the same kinds of things of which these terrorist nations are guilty. There are some who claim (I can't state this for fact; I don't have enough information); that some (not all) Gitmo detainees were turned over to the American forces under false allegations for the reward money. If this is true, these are men who should be subject to due process and restored to their families as soon as possible. (Again, assuming the statement is true), these men are innocent and have suffered more than enough. We can't assume that every Muslim in the Middle East is the enemy.

 

that some (not all) Gitmo detainees were turned over to the American forces under false allegations for the reward money.

Here's a gedankenexperiment: imagine something similar, somewhere else. Would there be miscarriages of justice? Would old scores be settled? Now factor in the relative desperation of the actual people involved. Money for injustice? Not a good way to get at the truth - see the Jackson trial for example.

Another known factor: people in desperate circumstances, especially in the presence of occupying forces, will often turn against each other, especially if they know that paid agents provocateur are in their midst.

Look at pre-democracy South Africa, where the biggest game in town among the oppressed masses during the uprising was exposing 'police spies', who were then executed by having a blazing car tyre put around their necks. here too, old scores were settled, and power shifted, by denouncing innocent people to the mob - who were only too happy to have a visible enemy to get back at. I imagine that it was like that for Jesus.

Rounding up everyone with a hint of suspicion is sometimes necessary in a life&death situation, but you can't just move from there straight to sentencing and imprisonment. It's this, it seems to me, the the rest of the world is complaining about.

America seems now to be taking the stance that this is the US's problem, and they don't need or want advice from other countries. So sad, when in the days after 9/11 every sane person in the world stood shoulder to shoulder with you, ready to give our support, and if necessary our LIVES, to fight your enemy with you. The world was one, for a brief moment.

Since then we've seen the US metamorphose into the bully of the global playground. The mountain of moral capital is gone, and where once we all joined to help in your just opposition to evil, we're now watching nervously as you create new enemies that we all have to deal with. Not only is the world no safer for all the conflict, it's more dangerous than ever.

I get really tired of this "let's show the world" that we care bs

A television stand-up comic some nights back was doing a little piece on US aggressiveness. Nothing special - it's become a regular subject for humour nowadays. 'There's 350 million Americans,' he mused at one point. 'That means there's about five-and-a-half billion of the rest of us, right?' He paused. 'I reckon we could take 'em,' he concluded to loud laughter.

CD

One of your guys seems to think there is: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm And here it is from the people themselves (but then they're biased, of course): news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm Here's one of the guys who wasn't shooting at anyone: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4467825.stm And here's one who wasn't even in the country: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240107.stm Well, as Mr. Macleish himself say at the start of the article: "The point is, we are waging a war that's as much about perception as anything." How true. And perception is so malleable if you have the tools. It's a thermosetting plastic, that hardens as its temperature rises. CD

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!!

Did she touch him sexually? Did she rape him?

Wait a minute, doesn't that go on everyday? Isn't it a woman's right to do with her body what she chooses? Haven't the liberals spent the last 2 decades telling us that how a woman dresses is her right no matter how it affects the men around her?
Just more liberal stupidity if you ask me. So she used sex as a weapon... That's what you call "abuse"??? If so, I guess advertisers "abuse" us all every day.

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!!

Well yes, quite: any time I'm stuck in prison, gurlies can rub up against me as much as they like. So perhaps the person in question is an utter pussy for complaining.

In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset.

But maybe this sort of relativism is a load of crap: maybe these things ought to be absolute, and no real man should be unhappy about a woman fondling his undercarriage. Of course, there are ordinary, straight, Western guys who really want to stay faithful in thought and deed to their spouses, or their marriage vows, and would be upset anyway when someone comes in and gives them a hard-on they don't want. More pussies? Perhaps.

I suppose the bottom line is that if this sort of thing didn't drive the detainees nuts, they woudn't do them.

CD

Oh No, girls making unwanted sexual advances towards detainees! The Horror!! This has never happened in the history of civilization!! Well yes, quite: any time I'm stuck in prison, gurlies can rub up against me as much as they like. So perhaps the person in question is an utter pussy for complaining. In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset. But maybe this sort of relativism is a load of crap: maybe these things ought to be absolute, and no real man should be unhappy about a woman fondling his undercarriage. Of course, there are ordinary, straight, Western guys who really want to stay faithful in thought and deed to their spouses, or their marriage vows, and would be upset anyway when someone comes in and gives them a hard-on they don't want. More pussies? Perhaps. I suppose the bottom line is that if this sort of thing didn't drive the detainees nuts, they woudn't do them. CD

No matter how you spin this, it would NOT be considered torture by the majority of international opinion.

No matter how you spin this, it would NOT be considered torture by the majority of international opinion

If you believe that to be so, then discard the point. I wasn't aware of trying to 'spin' it. I was just trying to figure it out.

If the absence of this point is enough to discredit everything else, then discard it all. I'm not trying to tell you how to think. I'm just looking at how some people do think.

CD

The problem with denying rights to prisoners on the basis that they are illegals or potential criminals is that it opens up the opportunity to treat other illegals the same way. For example if it's enshrined in law that those captured by the US who are not citizens and are illegally involved in something deserve no rights then what happens to all those Mexicans illegally in the US? Are they too going to be disappeared to Cuba?

Sure, that could be considered a seperate issue, but if it becomes necessary to have legislation to justify gitmo, then other more negative uses are going to turn up. It happens with every law.

So, on the one hand, you could rightfully be executed by England, on the other hand, no nation would have to acknowlege that you even exist.

Just a technical point, but no one could be "rightfully executed by England". The UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Protocol 13 under which no-one can be rightfully executed for anything, including treason in time of war. Liberal madness, or a higher level of civilisation? (I'm sure there are strong feelings on that one on both sides )

CD

In order to see it from this prisoner's point of view, I suppose you have to imagine that you were captured by, say, an all-homosexual nation. And they sent in some cute boy wearing a speedo to tickle your nuts and waggle his ass in your face. That wouldn't bother some people, but others would be very upset.

It is neither torture, nor abuse to play on the perceived "weaknesses" of the enemy. As a Mormon, if I were captured during war, I would Expect the enemy to play on my religious beleifs. As an American, I would expect them to play on my cultural beliefs. To me, it wouldn't be "abuse", it would be simple psychological warfare. A tactic used to either get information out of me, or get me to turn to voluntarily help their cause. Nothing more.

Just a technical point, but no one could be "rightfully executed by England". The UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Protocol 13 under which no-one can be rightfully executed for anything, including treason in time of war. Liberal madness, or a higher level of civilisation? (I'm sure there are strong feelings on that one on both sides )

Just a further technical point. You may want to read the "rest" of protocol 13. It states:

Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

In other words: You mess up during war and we can kill you. So can "England" or any other signee of the treaty.

I believe in the superiority of the US Constitution

as do i. our constitution is not a font from which human rights flow or are granted but a legal document enumerating certain specific rights our government officialy recognizes and secures to us(securing in the sense of guaranteeing them).

the declaration of independence asserts all men are possessed of rights beyond the authority of government to extend or limit.

the question should be: do you really want to oppose the basic principal upon which this country is founded by attributing to government authority to grant or limit our intrinsict rights? i don't.

if government is able to deny these basic rights to anyone, it can deny them to everyone.

The problem with denying rights to prisoners on the basis that they are illegals or potential criminals is that it opens up the opportunity to treat other illegals the same way.

Another point worth noting is that Geneva and similar agreements on behaviour of warring parties are intended for the benefit of both: I won't shove sharpened sticks up my prisoners if you don't do it to yours. Well, I guess those days are gone. It's always been part of major conflict to carry out a campaign of dehumanising the enemy, and never has this been so successfully done as it is now: both sides believe that the other are inhuman animals, bent on pure evil. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support that belief. Can we be sure that only the other side is wrong?

CD

Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

You are absolutely correct about Protocol 6. The purpose of Protocol 13 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all circumstances" was to supersede this by requiring parties to abolish the death penalty completely.

Your quotation is entirely accurate, but partial. The text, while "noting that Protocol No. 6 ... does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war", states that the new protocol is resolved to "take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances".

Protocol 13 entered into force for the UK on 1 February 2004, following ratification on 10 October 2003.

Another point worth noting is that Geneva and similar agreements on behaviour of warring parties are intended for the benefit of both: I won't shove sharpened sticks up my prisoners if you don't do it to yours. Well, I guess those days are gone. It's always been part of major conflict to carry out a campaign of dehumanising the enemy, and never has this been so successfully done as it is now: both sides believe that the other are inhuman animals, bent on pure evil. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support that belief. Can we be sure that only the other side is wrong? CD

Agreed. However, wouldn't it be great if Nick Berg and other captors of our enemy were treated as well as we treat those at Guantanimo Bay?

Again, there is a difference between "torture" and legitimate interrogation techniques. If we really can expect better treatment for our troops who fall into the hands of future enemies because of our treatment of those who fall into our hands, shouldn't the press and politicians be more careful about what rumors about "torture"? Wouldn't it be sad if we treated our captives well, but because the press and politicians spread rumors about awful treatment, our enemies chose to take revenge on our troops in their hands?

Loose lips sink ships, and create problems where none existed.

So far we have a pretty good record of investigating and prosecuting incidents of true abuse. It seems we have gained no good will for it though, the rumor mongers still love a good anti US scandal.