Obama's new politics of international apology

[Mick81]

Obama's new politics of international apology


By Susan Martinuk, Calgary HeraldApril 17, 2009

U. S. President Barack Obama should be extremely grateful to his wife for captivating Europeans and the world media with her "shock and awe" sweater campaign. Amidst her triumphant tour, few noticed that Obama was proving to be a major embarrassment to his own country.

In a February address to a joint session of Congress, Obama confidently declared, "there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America." Last week, he essentially tossed that same "powerful example" under the bus as he became the first president to criticize America on foreign soil. He grovelled before world leaders in an "America's example bad, everybody else good" apology tour to the Muslim world.

The word "grovel" is no exaggeration. At the G-20 Summit in London, the (formerly) most powerful man in the world bowed down to Saudi King Abdullah. According to protocol, American presidents don't bow to other leaders, let alone a Muslim king from a country governed by sharia law, and notorious for its subjugation of women, repression of human rights and financing of terrorists.

He went on to submit to, I mean address, the Turkish parliament in Ankara where he used the middle name (Hussein) that he never uses in America, denied America was a Christian nation, condemned America for its "darker period" (slavery)--without mentioning it was abolished long ago or considering that slavery is a cultural norm in some Muslim countries.

He then gave them a crash course in history saying, the U. S. conveys "our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world-- including my own country." Apparently, history books have missed the fact Islam played a huge role in building America, fighting in its wars, overcoming slavery, fighting for women's equality and the civil rights movement.

He's right in saying that Islam has shaped the U. S. (and its policies)--at least since Sept. 11, 2001. Or the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the attacks on U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And to Obama's credit, Islam has shaped the world since dozens were slaughtered at a Bali bar, the London Tube and on a Madrid train.

In France, he declared the U. S. has to "change our behaviour in showing the Muslim world new respect." He said America had been arrogant, dismissive and derisive. These comments line up with those from his first interview as president (granted to an Arab--not American--network) where he apologized for America's mistakes and said he wanted to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world . . . 20 or 30 years ago."

But who owes who "respect," based on the events of the past 20 or 30 years? The U.S. has done more to help Muslims than any other nation--including Muslim nations. They've engaged in five wars to liberate Muslims from oppressors and genocide (Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.)

After making it clear his America would humble itself to the Muslim world, Obama went to Prague, where he responded to the North Korean missile test with calls for "violations (to be) punished" and a "strong international response." Then he responded by cutting U. S. missile defence systems, including the Alaska-based interceptors able to shoot down North Korean missiles.

He further emasculated the U. S. by committing to nuclear disarmament and making a personal deal with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to renew dis-armament talks. Obama's first victory on the road to world peace? Hardly. Just 10 days later, Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a 550 kilotonne nuclear warhead. Russia is pouring millions into renewing its missile arsenal by 2016, but the U. S. interceptor system that protects America from Russian missiles will be long gone by then.

We're starting to see what America on the world stage will be like under Obama. It'll be a bit like Alice in Wonderland coming out the other side--everything's nonsensical, upside-down and bassackwards.



Wtf is going on in the world?:dunno: I know that this article comes across a little anti-Obama, but all the facts are legit. Sorry I couldn't post the link, not enough posts apparently

:feedback:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The "facts" and perspective therein were sparse and jaded, respectively. I know the word "humility" makes the skin of the American people break out in pustules, hives and cysts as if it were a plague, but the rest of the world regards humility as normal.

Given the total failures in Middle Eastern foreign policy by the previous administration, failures that resulted in a failed war and the proliferation [and not mitigation] of Islamofascism, maybe you [as the American people] should come to embrace a new approach?

 

[Irish Cannon]

The "facts" and perspective therein were sparse and jaded, respectively. I know the word "humility" makes the skin of the American people break out in pustules, hives and cysts as if it were a plague, but the rest of the world regards humility as normal.

Given the total failures in Middle Eastern foreign policy by the previous administration, failures that resulted in a failed war and the proliferation [and not mitigation] of Islamofascism, maybe you should come to embrace a new approach?

Obama's stepping on the dead bodies of every soldier that has protected this country; he's stepping on the face of our founding fathers. Appeasement is nothing to embrace. Everything Obama does is based off of his desire to be liked by everyone around him. The guy refused to visit the graves of our soldiers that died storming the beaches of Normandy; his excuse was that he didn't want to offend the Germans.

He's encouraging the prosecution of the last administration for war crimes...Correct me if I'm wrong; isn't that what 3rd world Latin-American countries do? Send previous administrations to trial over policy differences?

Today, he proposed another $2 trillion in spending for basically "Earth clean-up."

You clearly don't understand that Obama and his administration is destroying this country from every angle.

Mullet, you're very smart, but you're also an idiot, at least on this issue, and I say that in a loving manor.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Obama's stepping on the dead bodies of every soldier that has protected this country; he's stepping on the face of our founding fathers. Appeasement is nothing to embrace. Everything Obama does is based off of his desire to be liked by everyone around him. The guy refused to visit the graves of our soldiers that died storming the beaches of Normandy; his excuse was that he didn't want to offend the Germans.

He's encouraging the prosecution of the last administration for war crimes...Correct me if I'm wrong; isn't that what 3rd world Latin-American countries do? Send previous administrations to trial over policy differences?

Today, he proposed another $2 trillion in spending for basically "Earth clean-up."

You clearly don't understand that Obama and his administration is destroying this country from every angle.

Mullet, you're very smart, but you're also an idiot, at least on this issue, and I say that in a loving manor.

How so, to all of the above? I saw a lot of fervent conjecture and arbitrary lines being drawn in the political sand, with not a hint of your grasp on the actual situation; certainly not a large enough grasp to call me an "idiot" for disagreeing with your position.

An idiot, IC, is an individual who puritanically regurgitates the logically and factually flawed musings of the political party he is associated thereto. He also shows blatant disregard for an open-minded political approach, and cannot see the value in positions which differ from his. Which one of us does that sound like?

I disagree with your positions, but that does not make me naive or an "idiot"; not at all. With all due respect, I see very little of your politically motivated posts bolstered with any type of intellectual consistency and/or attention to factual "due process". (Example being your complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of feminism without knowing it.) Again, certainly not enough to take a "holier than thou" approach to these discussions!

So, to call me an idiot for disagreeing with your political frame of mind is a bit of stretch.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Obama's stepping on the dead bodies of every soldier that has protected this country; he's stepping on the face of our founding fathers. Appeasement is nothing to embrace. Everything Obama does is based off of his desire to be liked by everyone around him. The guy refused to visit the graves of our soldiers that died storming the beaches of Normandy; his excuse was that he didn't want to offend the Germans.

He's encouraging the prosecution of the last administration for war crimes...Correct me if I'm wrong; isn't that what 3rd world Latin-American countries do? Send previous administrations to trial over policy differences?

Today, he proposed another $2 trillion in spending for basically "Earth clean-up."

You clearly don't understand that Obama and his administration is destroying this country from every angle.

Mullet, you're very smart, but you're also an idiot, at least on this issue, and I say that in a loving manor.

And also: broadening and shallowing the parameters of the Geneva Conventions and blatantly disregarding the most basic of humanitarian rights contained therein is a war-crime; torture is a crime; denying due process is a crime. You may want to brush up on your war crimes.

 

[Irish Cannon]

Bro, I didn't mean what I said in a bashing. Don't think of it as me slamming you and calling you an idiot and a moron because we disagree...That's not what I meant...I said "in a loving manor." The way I meant it is I would only say that to someone like my brother or a close friend in a joking way.

 

[Irish Cannon]

And also: broadening and shallowing the parameters of the Geneva Conventions and blatantly disregarding the most basic of humanitarian rights contained therein is a war-crime; torture is a crime; denying due process is a crime. You may want to brush up on your war crimes.

So you're telling me you wouldn't dip someones head in some water to save innocent lives?...which WE DID DO with Sheikh Mohammed and the planned attack on LA. That information he held WAS NOT RELEASED until those measures were taken.

If they decide they want to move past water boarding, then fine, but they need to drop it and move on. Spending time prosecuting the past administration for having to make difficult decisions is no way to run a country.

Obama said he wasn't going to go through with this, and now he is...It's clear he's trying to divert attention from his recent mess in Europe, and now with Chavez, Ortega, and Castro.

 

[Irish Cannon]

I disagree with your positions, but that does not make me naive or an "idiot"; not at all. With all due respect, I see very little of your politically motivated posts bolstered with any type of intellectual consistency and/or attention to factual "due process". (Example being your complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of feminism without knowing it.) Again, certainly not enough to take a "holier than thou" approach to these discussions!

The intelligence I use in these matters is called common sense, and it seems all too uncommon in your neck of the woods. I don't need college professors telling me how to think. I'm an independent thinker, not an obedient one.

 

[Irish Cannon]

...and, Mullet, to add...

I understand humility. It's a good thing...but there is a time to use it, and Obama has chose the wrong place, wrong time, and the wrong crowd.

 

[Irish Cannon]

To continue, let me back track...

Why is it you haven't separated arrogance and assertiveness? It appears you believe Obama is actually HUMBLE lol, so, let's say he actually is...What's stopping him from also being assertive? Because surely you can have both... Sadly, he's traded assertiveness for meekness. Is that what you believe the United States needs in a president right now?...Meekness?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And also: broadening and shallowing the parameters of the Geneva Conventions and blatantly disregarding the most basic of humanitarian rights contained therein is a war-crime; torture is a crime; denying due process is a crime. You may want to brush up on your war crimes.

The parameters of the Geneva Convention in terms of human rights does not apply to "unlawful combatants" because they are not associated with any state military. They do not receive the rights associated with POW's defined by the 3rd Geneva Convention. As well, the President has the right to detain those deemed "unlawful combatants" until hostilities cease.

Non-citizen "unlawful combatants" have no right to habeus corpus.

The 2 latter issue have been upheld by the US Supreme Court which reaffirm the original definition set out by the Geneva Convention.


The issue of whether waterboarding is torture is the problem. According to OLC, it was not.

"As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning -- even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering"… The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering… We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject's mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute. Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, eg, mental harm lasting months or years.Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absense of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.[39]"



What is funny is that the people who were waterboarded for the most part would get the death penalty under the law in most states. :lol:

 

[Irish Cannon]

Plus, I'm sure they could have used a bath.

...but really what this comes down to is the fact that this current administration is persecuting the very people that protected this country from certain disaster and further terrorist attacks.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Bro, I didn't mean what I said in a bashing. Don't think of it as me slamming you and calling you an idiot and a moron because we disagree...That's not what I meant...I said "in a loving manor." The way I meant it is I would only say that to someone like my brother or a close friend in a joking way.

I see. That was most certainly my misinterpretation, then.

So you're telling me you wouldn't dip someones head in some water to save innocent lives?...which WE DID DO with Sheikh Mohammed and the planned attack on LA. That information he held WAS NOT RELEASED until those measures were taken.

If they decide they want to move past water boarding, then fine, but they need to drop it and move on. Spending time prosecuting the past administration for having to make difficult decisions is no way to run a country.

Obama said he wasn't going to go through with this, and now he is...It's clear he's trying to divert attention from his recent mess in Europe, and now with Chavez, Ortega, and Castro.

You are arbitrarily constructing the notion [...or the parameters thereof...] of saving lives to bolster your emotionally-based argument; particularly, you are confusing the [contested and debatable] successes of a particular instance with the possible success of a particular interrogation methodology. And this is not taking into consideration the fact that an actual lead interrogator, interrogating actual Islamofacists - not the myriad false accusations Abu Grahb and Guantanamo Bay is laden with - claims he never saw coercive/aggressive/torture-based methods work.

Amazon.com: How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq: Matthew Alexander, John Bruning: Books

Do you have some type of data, even an intellectually consistent conjectural base to suggest that torture > other interrogation methods? No, you do not. You are merely toeing the NeoConservative line that, "only Americans who will do anything for their country are real Americans". In my opinion, you do what is necessary, not anything; and you, my friend, are very broadly and shallowly defining 'necessary' to fit your particular pointed agenda. Strange that actual interrogators claim torture is completely ineffective, yet; here you are, regurgitating what FoxNews regurgitated from Tenet, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The intelligence I use in these matters is called common sense, and it seems all too uncommon in your neck of the woods. I don't need college professors telling me how to think. I'm an independent thinker, not an obedient one.

If "uncommon" constitutes objectively and rationally considering issues; not taking a bigoted and clouded approach to certain issues; not muddying the views of my perception with religion, and; considering data prior to conjecture, then, yes, I am "uncommon". And no: you do not depend on Professors to instruct you, you rely on Fox News almost exclusively.

Again, you are equivocating disagreement with a lack of intelligence and/or adherence to a particular set of ideologies, when; in reality, it is you who seems to be presenting the more pre-packaged out of the two arguments. You are an easily definable extreme socio-religious Conservative, with Reganist economic tendencies and a keen focus on NeoConservatism in foreign policy - I tend to shy away from being pigeonholed or presenting myself in a way that may do so. Who is a parrot, again?

...and, Mullet, to add...

I understand humility. It's a good thing...but there is a time to use it, and Obama has chose the wrong place, wrong time, and the wrong crowd.

Again: how so? It seems your short term political memory has forgotten about U.S. - Saudi relations stretching as far back as FDR. You speak about "appeasement" seemingly forgetting that Regan funded the Muhajadin who would later become the Taliban, and harbor Bin Laden himself, and; corollary, you seem to be forgetting that the United States' appeasement of certain oppressive regimes in a bid to safeguard the Middle East against the encroaching Communism significantly proliferated and empowered the religious extremists who would later come to attack domestically.

From Aziz and FDR to Kennedy and Saud, United States Presidents have always acted in a certain manner with Saudi Kings: both economic and counterterror practicality dictated as such. This ridiculous fervor over a bow is hot-air of the highest magnitude; I prefer to engage with the actual policy programme implications of a particular individual's actions, not hollow speeches he/she may give in a particular setting - this is where you and I differ.

You are speaking about things with a complete disregard to and/or knowledge of the historicity of these events.

To continue, let me back track...

Why is it you haven't separated arrogance and assertiveness? It appears you believe Obama is actually HUMBLE lol, so, let's say he actually is...What's stopping him from also being assertive? Because surely you can have both... Sadly, he's traded assertiveness for meekness. Is that what you believe the United States needs in a president right now?...Meekness?

This quote is laden with so many fallacies I do not know where to begin. Please do not falsely state a premise of mine, and then draw some easily defeated and contrived conclusion.

"Humility" was used in a blanket fashion:a term describing a particular set of policy values juxtaposed against the cowboy foreign policy of the previous administration; this was not used to describe an individual in particular.

Simply put, Irish: the United States has not seen foreign policy success in the past eight years save for a few isolated enclaves - sub-Saharan Africa, the U.K., Australia and so on - due to a marked "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to diplomacy. Even simple logic dictates that a change from this approach is not only effective in the practical senses of increased economic opportunities, effective counterterrorism and more productive human relations, but necessary. An effective leader is not "meek", but; rather, he is most certainly assertive. It seems you, unfortunately, are unable to separate the traits which constitute assertive from those that constitute short-sighted and arrogance.

The fact is, foreign policy decisions have caused even Saudi relations to cool considerably under the Bush administration, contrary to popular belief [see: Saudi Princes lauding S.A., new strategic relationship with China]. al Qeada has deepened, broadened, and become stronger due to this mishandling of Iraq. And the stability of formerly stable states [see: S.A., itself, Jordan and so on] is now in question due precisely to the magnification of the Islamofacism that these ineffective tactics have expanded.

You claim I am an idiot, then demonstrate very blatantly you know absolutely nothing about Middle Eastern Foreign Policy and the partnership of United States with strategic middle eastern allies.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The parameters of the Geneva Convention in terms of human rights does not apply to "unlawful combatants" because they are not associated with any state military. They do not receive the rights associated with POW's defined by the 3rd Geneva Convention. As well, the President has the right to detain those deemed "unlawful combatants" until hostilities cease.

What is funny is that the people who were waterboarded for the most part would get the death penalty under the law in most states. :lol:

All correct. What you have strategically decided to omit, though, is the substantial maneuvering of the term "unlawful combatants" that took place in order to deem many of these individuals "as such". You have also decided to omit the various other techniques that make waterboarding look pedestrian that, as you know, are defined as torture under International Law.

But hey, keep going!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

All correct. What you have strategically decided to omit, though, is the substantial maneuvering of the term "unlawful combatants" that took place in order to deem many of these individuals "as such". You have also decided to omit the various other techniques that make waterboarding look pedestrian that, as you know, are defined as torture under International Law.

But hey, keep going!

To expand on this, the Bush Administration specifically altered U.S., Law to remove the restrictions of the Geneva to so-called "unlawful combatants", and allow the president to broadly define this term.

The fact is, B, that several international war tribunals and agreements accord citizen combatants the exact same rights as POWs covered as per section III, via section IV. Without the Bush Administration's careful maneuvering of these key terms, these "unlawful combatants" [not a term under Geneva, btw] are considered citizen combatants and deemed the associated rights thereto.

Now, even in the unlikely circumstance that a combatant does not qualify for POW status, the actions of the United States are still illegal under International Law. Even "unlawful combatants" are to be treated humanely and to be granted due process. As I say, the President altered the MCA in '06 specifically to avoid these illegal activities.

So, as I said originally, it is and was a crime.

 

[Irish Cannon]

When did I bring up the issue of bowing to the Saudi King? That was probably the furthest thing from my mind. All I've talked about are Obama's crappy policies and administrative decisions.

And no, I do not rely on Fox News exclusively, or even "almost exclusively" but I do rely on various news sources such as Drudge and WND to provide me with current events that I may research myself throughout the day. I've spent my fair share of time reading American history, politics, and western philosophy, but spend little time studying it collectively; I'm not on this Earth merely to make myself a better internet conversationalist.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Demeaning me or my intentions to obtain knowledge does not strengthen your position whatsoever. My goal is not to be a great "internet conversationalist", but to make sure I don't speak with my head in my ass. You may consider it.

 

[Irish Cannon]

Demeaning me or my intentions to obtain knowledge does not strengthen your position whatsoever. My goal is not to be a great "internet conversationalist", but to make sure I don't speak with my head in my ass. You may consider it.

We have a fundamentally different understanding of the word "wisdom" and I care little what you think of me or my stance on the issues. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not here to be politically correct. My opinion is formed through integrity, virtue, character, and faith; you can consider that rubbish if you wish, again, I don't really care.

There is a big difference between illegal/legal, and right/wrong. I'm not arguing administrations legality; I'm arguing the ethics. I'm not arguing the current administrations foreign diplomacy, and what Europe, the Middle East, or Canada for that matter, thinks of the United States; I'm arguing the protection of my country, and it's innocent citizens from immediate danger.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

We have a fundamentally different understanding of the word "wisdom" and I care little what you think of me or my stance on the issues. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not here to be politically correct. My opinion is formed through integrity, virtue, character, and faith; you can consider that rubbish if you wish, again, I don't really care.

There is a big difference between illegal/legal, and right/wrong. I'm not arguing administrations legality; I'm arguing the ethics. I'm not arguing the current administrations foreign diplomacy, and what Europe, the Middle East, or Canada for that matter, thinks of the United States; I'm arguing the protection of my country, and it's innocent citizens from immediate danger.

I am concerned with counterterrorism as well: my points are focused around the ineffectiveness of torture techniques, not their morality.

 

[Irish Cannon]

I am concerned with counterterrorism as well: my points are focused around the ineffectiveness of torture techniques, not their morality.

But see, that puts us right back at the beginning. You could provide me with factual data stating when it HASN'T worked, and I can provide you with factual data stating when it HAS worked.

I honestly don't fall into the category of people that would define this as torture, and that's my personal opinion. It's not ripping off finger nails. It's not breaking shoulders. It's not starvation.

I just feel it's a lot of whining and moaning over something that's not very serious (waterboarding specifically, not torture in general). The fact of the matter is WE DID gain intelligence and it DID save lives in a few specific cases that the United States implemented it...according to what I've read, that is.

I say again, if the administration doesn't want to do it, fine. Yes, I believe coming out and saying that already robs us of some security, but I digress...If they won't do it, fine, but drop the talk of charging the past administration.

Ford was wise in pardoning Nixon. As such, get on with things, let the country move forward...or back...or to Hell...or wherever we're going.

I've still yet to decide what this will do to the Obama administration if they follow through with it...Now if they go through with it, and there are more terrorist attacks on his watch, then that's obviously going to look pretty bad. I think that would be the end of Obama.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

All correct. What you have strategically decided to omit, though, is the substantial maneuvering of the term "unlawful combatants" that took place in order to deem many of these individuals "as such". You have also decided to omit the various other techniques that make waterboarding look pedestrian that, as you know, are defined as torture under International Law.

I have not omitted anything. Current terrorists (Al Qaeda) do not fall under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention which is the reason further clarity was needed. As stated "The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states". If the Articles of the Geneva Convention do not apply, there is no law being broken.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

But see, that puts us right back at the beginning. You could provide me with factual data stating when it HASN'T worked, and I can provide you with factual data stating when it HAS worked.

I did above. Click the link I provided, where a lead interrogator for known al Qeada suicide bombers claims he never saw such methods work.

I honestly don't fall into the category of people that would define this as torture, and that's my personal opinion. It's not ripping off finger nails. It's not breaking shoulders. It's not starvation.

I am not speaking about just waterboarding any longer.

I just feel it's a lot of whining and moaning over something that's not very serious (waterboarding specifically, not torture in general). The fact of the matter is WE DID gain intelligence and it DID save lives in a few specific cases that the United States implemented it...according to what I've read, that is.

I feel starvation techniques are torture, and we may disagree here. I also feel that prolonged exposure to the elements while nude, being kept in a box with insects and so forth are torture as well - these are illegal activities under the Geneva Conventions, and were determined to be illegal during other major war tribunals dealing with CC [civilian combatants].

I say again, if the administration doesn't want to do it, fine. Yes, I believe coming out and saying that already robs us of some security, but I digress...If they won't do it, fine, but drop the talk of charging the past administration.

In which way? How does revealing the tactics which these terrorist organizations surely knew about any way diminish security?

I've still yet to decide what this will do to the Obama administration if they follow through with it...Now if they go through with it, and there are more terrorist attacks on his watch, then that's obviously going to look pretty bad. I think that would be the end of Obama.

I highly, highly doubt this administration will pursue formal charges against the last. Despite the illegality of the Bush Administration's actions, there are more pressing matters.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I have not omitted anything. Current terrorists do not fall under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention which is the reason further clarity was needed. As stated "The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states". If the Articles of the Geneva Convention do not apply, there is no law being broken.

As I said, particular GC articles accord the terrorists habeus corpus and other rights covered under Section IV. "Unlawful combatants", as a term, is not covered in either the Hague or Geneva Conventions, and; as such, individuals the U.S., has deemed to fall into this fabricated category through both the Military Commission Act of 2006 as well as the 2001 War Powers Act are to be considered civilian combatants. The Bush Administration deliberately created both of these acts for one, primary reason: the intended treatment of detainees violate international law. These detainees are covered under Article Part I (4)(1)(2) of the GC, most principally.

The other violations include the strategic locations of prisons and CIA renditions which violate Part II (12); the initial denial of Guantanamo Bay prisoners access to the U.S., Judicial System [which the Supreme Court found to be unlawful]; and so on. Guantanamo as a site, for example, was specifically chosen due to a lack of de facto jurisdiction, making the detention of prisoners and associated interrogations tactics committed thereto beyond the scope of congressional oversight - as said, however, the Supreme Court overturned an initial ruling to give Guantanamo jurisdictional status. On the note of rendition, prisoners may only be transported to belligerent nations who are a party thereto the struggle at hand and/or are parties to the Geneva and/or Hague Conventions; the United States chose strategic locations due to a lack of jurisdiction, and this is in violation of the Conventions as well.

The United States' actions are completely illegal under international law, and the Bush Administration changed domestic law in recognizing this. (Tribunals on ad hoc bases are conducted as per the domestic law of a belligerent nation-state so long as that state is a party to the Convention as well - changing domestic law allowed torture domestically, despite the fact it is prohibited internationally.)

 

[Dwight Schrute]

To expand on this, the Bush Administration specifically altered U.S., Law to remove the restrictions of the Geneva to so-called "unlawful combatants", and allow the president to broadly define this term.

The fact is, B, that several international war tribunals and agreements accord citizen combatants the exact same rights as POWs covered as per section III, via section IV. Without the Bush Administration's careful maneuvering of these key terms, these "unlawful combatants" [not a term under Geneva, btw] are considered citizen combatants and deemed the associated rights thereto.

Now, even in the unlikely circumstance that a combatant does not qualify for POW status, the actions of the United States are still illegal under International Law. Even "unlawful combatants" are to be treated humanely and to be granted due process. As I say, the President altered the MCA in '06 specifically to avoid these illegal activities.

So, as I said originally, it is and was a crime.

Once again you are applying Geneva Convention standards which simply did not apply. You keep quoting International Law when in fact if you even applied these standards then domestic law would override any international law...hence the AUMF of 2001, hence the military order "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". hence the MCA.

 

[Irish Cannon]

I did above. Click the link I provided, where a lead interrogator for known al Qeada suicide bombers claims he never saw such methods work.

But that's also just one man.

I'm agreeing with you to an extent...Both sides of this have merit. They have worked, and they have not worked.

Let's say they didn't use these techniques, didn't obtain the information, and then the US suffered more attacks. What then? I don't think the Bush administration could win in this situation...unless they didn't do anything and there were no attacks...But then that sets the bar and we go down a cowardly-spiral and so on and so forth.

I am not speaking about just waterboarding any longer.



I feel starvation techniques are torture, and we may disagree here. I also feel that prolonged exposure to the elements while nude, being kept in a box with insects and so forth are torture as well - these are illegal activities under the Geneva Conventions, and were determined to be illegal during other major war tribunals dealing with CC [civilian combatants].

Starvation is definitely a form of torture as far as I'm concerned...The exposure to the elements, meh, yea...Being kept in a box with insects, well, what insects? This was done using a type of caterpillar that doesn't even bite.

In which way? How does revealing the tactics which these terrorist organizations surely knew about any way diminish security?

It's not releasing the tactics used, it's now releasing the information that we WILL NOT CONTINUE using those said tactics...Basically, what now do they have to lose?

They're trying to impose using no more than field techniques for interrogation. What do these guys have to be afraid of now? Playing 20 questions?

I highly, highly doubt this administration will pursue formal charges against the last. Despite the illegality of the Bush Administration's actions, there are more pressing matters.

This is exactly what I mean. There's better things to worry about, and bickering over this will get us nowhere good.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The Bush Administration deliberately created both of these acts for one, primary reason:

At least you getting somewhere. The laws were created because the Geneva Convention did not apply. You are using standards that even by its own definition does not apply. Even IF you COULD apply them then domestic law would override international law because of their status...but they are not granted anyway because:

"The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states."


This is not me saying it, its the US Supreme Court.

Al-Qaeda is not associated nor involved with any state. The Geneva Convention does not apply. The Taliban were granted the rights of the Geneva Convention because they had a loose tie and were a party in Afghanistan.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

But that's also just one man.

I'm agreeing with you to an extent...Both sides of this have merit. They have worked, and they have not worked.

Let's say they didn't use these techniques, didn't obtain the information, and then the US suffered more attacks. What then? I don't think the Bush administration could win in this situation...unless they didn't do anything and there were no attacks...But then that sets the bar and we go down a cowardly-spiral and so on and so forth.



Starvation is definitely a form of torture as far as I'm concerned...The exposure to the elements, meh, yea...Being kept in a box with insects, well, what insects? This was done using a type of caterpillar that doesn't even bite.


It's not releasing the tactics used, it's now releasing the information that we WILL NOT CONTINUE using those said tactics...Basically, what now do they have to lose?

They're trying to impose using no more than field techniques for interrogation. What do these guys have to be afraid of now? Playing 20 questions?





This is exactly what I mean. There's better things to worry about, and bickering over this will get us nowhere good.

I cannot recall the exact bug, but I believe it was a predatory bug [spider or scorpion, I believe]. I mentioned the insect example because the prisoner had an extreme phobia of insects, and so he was enclosed in a box to elicit immediate mental harm.

Yes, and some prisoners were fed only water for a duration of seven consecutive days.

Far and away the U.S., engaged in torture, and it is a sad blight on your nation's history, IMO. Despite what some may say, these were blatant violations of international law, and only seem acceptable when definitions of combatants not recognized by international tribunals are used to obfuscate the status of the detainees.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

At least you getting somewhere. The laws were created because the Geneva Convention did not apply. You are using standards that even by its own definition does not apply. Even IF you COULD apply them then domestic law would override international law because of their status...but they are not granted anyway because:

"The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states."


This is not me saying it, its the US Supreme Court.

Al-Qaeda is not associated nor involved with any state. The Geneva Convention does not apply. The Taliban were granted the rights of the Geneva Convention because they had a loose tie and were a party in Afghanistan.

The Geneva Convention applies to civilian combatants engaged in willing and/or voluntary organizations which meet several internationally recognized provisions.

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions".

As I have said, the term "illegal/unlawful combatants" is not defined anywhere in either the Hague or Geneva Conventions: it was created for the specific purpose of mitigating the restrictions placed on civilian combatant detention under the G & H Conventions. Period. These individuals are otherwise considered civilian combatants under the Geneva Convention, Bobo.

The 2001/2006 acts were made specifically to address this.

Further, the U.S., signed specific extensions of the Hague Convention [cannot recall, I do not have my international law text here] that altered the definition of civilian combatants I gave above, in recognition that certain militia and otherwise civilian combatants could not strictly adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the interest of combat.

As I say, they are covered under Geneva. They are not covered under the 2006 act, so they could be tortured. End of story.

 

[Irish Cannon]

I cannot recall the exact bug, but I believe it was a predatory bug [spider or scorpion, I believe]. I mentioned the insect example because the prisoner had an extreme phobia of insects, and so he was enclosed in a box to elicit immediate mental harm.

Yes, and some prisoners were fed only water for a duration of seven consecutive days.

Far and away the U.S., engaged in torture, and it is a sad blight on your nation's history, IMO. Despite what some may say, these were blatant violations of international law, and only seem acceptable when definitions of combatants not recognized by international tribunals are used to obfuscate the status of the detainees.

I could probably come up with something diplomatic and non-offensive, but for some reason I don't feel like it...These people forfeit their rights as humans as far as I'm concerned. Most of these were not POW's, they were terrorists plotting to kill innocent people...Honestly, I really don't care what was done to them assuming it held a purpose and wasn't done out of malice.

Am I wrong in thinking it? Maybe. I'd have to give it some further thought.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I am tired, so I want to lay this out in black and white and go to sleep. I found my text, and this is the ratification I was speaking about:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949

"Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."

Now, as I said: these individuals are covered under the provisions pursuant to or equal to the articles III, IV and V of the Geneva Conventions. "Unlawful combatants" is a bullshit term, made up to torture detainees. Case closed.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The Geneva Convention applies to civilian combatants engaged in willing and/or voluntary organizations which meet several internationally recognized provisions.

when both parties are members of two or more states.

Under Article 4 they have to fulfill the nationality criteria. Al Quaeda does not. The Taliban did.

As I have said, the term "illegal/unlawful combatants" is not defined anywhere in either the Hague or Geneva Conventions: it was created for the specific purpose of mitigating the restrictions placed on civilian combatant detention under the G & C Conventions. Period. These individuals are otherwise considered civilian combatants under the Geneva Convention, Bobo.

It was not created then. It was referenced for years:

"The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[3]. The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin.[26] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. "

As I stated before, even IF they were covered under the Geneva Convention then domestic law would apply:

"They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Then the definition according to domestic, not international law, would apply.

The 2001/2006 acts were made specifically to address this.

The 2001 and 2006 bills gave clarity. I have no problem with this as one was a Presidential Military Order and another was a bill that was passed legally.

They could have dunked his head and threw a cinder block on top for all I care.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Once again you are applying Geneva Convention standards which simply did not apply. You keep quoting International Law when in fact if you even applied these standards then domestic law would override any international law...hence the AUMF of 2001, hence the military order "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". hence the MCA.

Thank-you for reminding me why I have brought those treaties up several times.

I am tired of arguing about this.

"18. State law must yield when it is inconsistent with or impairs the policy or provisions of a treaty or of an international compact or agreement. P. 315 U. S. 230."

United States v., Pink.

Provisions pursuant to the Articles of the Geneva Convention apply domestically when domestic laws are rendered inconsistent with internationally recognized law.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

This is my final post on the matter, as things are apparently getting heated.

Pursuant to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Sec. 4, these so-called "unlawful combatants" are privy to the rights accorded to civilian and belligerent combatants as per the IV and IV conventions of Geneva. This is summated below:

"4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."

The above ratification was made in reference to Article Four of the Third Geneva Convention, which details the nature of civilian combatants as detainees. This ratification above was signed by the United States upon its drafting. As a result, "unlawful combatants" are accorded the provisions pursuant to the Third Convention.

In regard to domestic law v., international law, the Supreme Court of the United States has, in several rulings, included international law as an overriding law of the land; they negated the ability of individual states to derogate international law. This stems from decisions early as 1776, to the United States v., Pink decision I quoted earlier.

The only controversy is this: international law only reciprocates domestic law when there are sanctions in place to lawfully punish the unlawful parties under international law. The MCA of 2006, while clearly defining unlawful combatants as to obfuscate the United States' adherence to the Geneva Conventions, did not allow internationally-recognized torture; as a result, the torture committed as interrogation techniques were illegal, both domestically and internationally.

The primary contention and cause for the Obama administration's upheaval is the torture and rendition specifically, as the detention of certain insurgents and denial of habeus corpus was amended vis-a-vis Presidential order. Even with this being said, the Supreme Court made several decisions in 2005 which found the imprisonment without access to the U.S., judicial system to be unlawful, and; subsequently, these "terrorists" were granted trial.

Rendition and torture are both illegal under international law, and the provisions of the acts in 2001 and 2006 we have discussed do not disagree with these points; the only point of contention is the recognition of combatant status.

When viewed in a rational-legal context, the Bush Administration committed internationally-recognized war crimes. Morally, that decision is up to one's self.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

This is my final post on the matter, as things are apparently getting heated.

Pursuant to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Sec. 4, these so-called "unlawful combatants" are privy to the rights accorded to civilian and belligerent combatants as per the IV and IV conventions of Geneva. This is summated below:

"4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."

The above ratification was made in reference to Article Four of the Third Geneva Convention, which details the nature of civilian combatants as detainees. This ratification above was signed by the United States upon its drafting. As a result, "unlawful combatants" are accorded the provisions pursuant to the Third Convention.

In regard to domestic law v., international law, the Supreme Court of the United States has, in several rulings, included international law as an overriding law of the land; they negated the ability of individual states to derogate international law. This stems from decisions early as 1776, to the United States v., Pink decision I quoted earlier.

The only controversy is this: international law only reciprocates domestic law when there are sanctions in place to lawfully punish the unlawful parties under international law. The MCA of 2006, while clearly defining unlawful combatants as to obfuscate the United States' adherence to the Geneva Conventions, did not allow internationally-recognized torture; as a result, the torture committed as interrogation techniques were illegal, both domestically and internationally.

The primary contention and cause for the Obama administration's upheaval is the torture and rendition specifically, as the detention of certain insurgents and denial of habeus corpus was amended vis-a-vis Presidential order. Even with this being said, the Supreme Court made several decisions in 2005 which found the imprisonment without access to the U.S., judicial system to be unlawful, and; subsequently, these "terrorists" were granted trial.

Rendition and torture are both illegal under international law, and the provisions of the acts in 2001 and 2006 we have discussed do not disagree with these points; the only point of contention is the recognition of combatant status.

When viewed in a rational-legal context, the Bush Administration committed internationally-recognized war crimes. Morally, that decision is up to one's self.

Mullet,

I understand your point of view but your argument was deemed invalid by appellate courts all the way up to 2006 until it was overturned.

"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni.

More broadly it said that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members. That supports a key assertion of the Bush administration, which has faced international criticism for holding hundreds of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without full POW protections."

Nobody disputed the Taliban as Bush himself stated they protected under the Geneva Convention. You are basically saying that your point of view was law, defined and well interpreted from 2001-2006 and it was not.

Even the interpretations within the Justice Department as well as George Tenet, a Clinton appointee stated what Bush was doing was legal. When the Office of Legal Affairs states you are not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Mullet,

I understand your point of view but your argument was deemed invalid by appellate courts all the way up to 2006 until it was overturned.

"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni.

More broadly it said that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members. That supports a key assertion of the Bush administration, which has faced international criticism for holding hundreds of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without full POW protections."

Nobody disputed the Taliban as Bush himself stated they protected under the Geneva Convention. You are basically saying that your point of view was law, defined and well interpreted from 2001-2006 and it was not.

Even the interpretations within the Justice Department as well as George Tenet, a Clinton appointee stated what Bush was doing was legal. When the Office of Legal Affairs states you are not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.

As you know, the OLC is a very elastic entitiy which boarders between exclusivity and reciprocity ideologies of constitutional v., executive powers. As I stated in my private message, there is a considerable body of evidence that argues the MCA of 2006 was unconstitutional in-and-of-itself due to the hampering of the provisions of international treaties; such hampering of international treaties, as I say above, has been recognized as a derogation of supreme law as early as 1776.

The Supreme Court, especially in the Youngstown matter, has set the precedent in regard to the President's adherence to either the Congress or the constitution as his governing body. While the OLC initially approved the torture memo, this is not a resounding endorsement of the AUMF2001 and/or the MCA2006 in constitutional terms.

As you know, and as I posted in this thread and PM'ed you, state laws which inhibit the provisions of international law are also deemed unconstitutional - and these are musings that several Justices speak about in their dissensions/concurrences in the '04 court proceedings of Hamdi v., Rumsfeld.

The issue here is constitutionality: if you feel the Executive Branch has the ability to commit illegal acts defined by both the U.S., Constitution, and International Law [Hague and Geneva Conventions] as his power is derived from the statutes of Congress, than what the Bush Administration did is not illegal; if, however, you subscribe to a more international view of the situation, the alteration of governance which gave Bush the ability to commit international war crimes was unconstitutional in-and-of-itself.

We have fundamentally different interpretations of the power of governance of the executive branch, and; so, we are going to disagree fundamentally on this issue. I believe you are taking your cues from Scalia in particular, whose comments of the key cases in '04 I disagree with supremely. In my opinion, rendition, torture and denial of due process is both unconstitutional and illegal, as are the acts which paved the way for these events. I am a reciprocal nature of governance person, though; I will never believe in full executive power.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

As you know, the OLC is a very elastic entitiy which boarders between exclusivity and reciprocity ideologies of constitutional v., executive powers. As I stated in my private message, there is a considerable body of evidence that argues the MCA of 2006 was unconstitutional in-and-of-itself due to the hampering of the provisions of international treaties; such hampering of international treaties, as I say above, has been recognized as a derogation of supreme law as early as 1776.

Yes but the argument revolves around actions taken pre 2006 and pre Rumsfeld v Hamran. Between that time period what was being done was considered legal, by most estimations.

It would be an unbelievable precedent to clarify a law 5 years later and prosecute someone for an act they were told was legal and what was deemed legal for years. In fact, they don't even want to prosecute those who committed the alleged "torture", they want to go after the interpreters of the law.....which should tell you what kind of fact finding mission they are on.

As you know, and as I posted in this thread and PM'ed you, state laws which inhibit the provisions of international law are also deemed unconstitutional - and these are musings that several Justices speak about in their dissensions/concurrences in the '04 court proceedings of Hamdi v., Rumsfeld.

As stated:

"the government conceded that some very limited due process rights allowing for hearings to determine the detainees' status as enemy combatants and the right to legal counsel would be extended to all of the Guantanamo detainees, citizen and non-citizen alike."

Which led to the Hamran decision:

"Although the Court struck down the military commissions as created by the Executive Branch, they did not provide the detainees with direct access to the federal courts, but only with access to a fair and impartial hearing to a tribunal constitutionally authorized by Congress and proceeding with certain due process guarantees (such as one operated under terms similar to those provided by Article I courts under the UCMJ or according to the terms of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949)."


.....and that wasn't even clarified until 2006.

The issue here is constitutionality: if you feel the Executive Branch has the ability to commit illegal acts defined by both the U.S., Constitution, and International Law [Hague and Geneva Conventions] as his power is derived from the statutes of Congress, than what the Bush Administration did is not illegal; if,

Lincoln would be a prime example.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

In my opinion, rendition, torture and denial of due process is both unconstitutional and illegal, as are the acts which paved the way for these events.

As with all things, the above are subjective to interpretation. I do not believe in denial of ALL due process.

I do not consider water boarding torture. Its not the rack, the iron Maiden nor thumb screws....

Then again if I am water boarded I could change my mind. I do know that given the question of water boarding someone to save say my wife, son, etc...? He's getting dunked...


Bedtime...

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes but the argument revolves around actions taken pre 2006 and pre Rumsfeld v Hamran. Between that time period what was being done was considered legal, by most estimations.

It would be an unbelievable precedent to clarify a law 5 years later and prosecute someone for an act they were told was legal and what was deemed legal for years. In fact, they don't even want to prosecute those who committed the alleged "torture", they want to go after the interpreters of the law.....which should tell you what kind of fact finding mission they are on.

Well, the precedent-setting case is not Hamdan v., Rumsfeld as a I said, but Hamdi v., Rumsfeld which came by two years earlier. Particularly engage with the Pluralities of Souter and Ginsberg, who feel, as I do, that the AUMF or 2001 and MCA of 2006 were unconstitutional in and of themselves. Post-Hamdi v., Rumsfeld actions clearly violate the Geneva Convention, as per the opinion of the Supreme Court.

We are also speaking about fundamentally different things: you are speaking about habeus corpus denial, and I am speaking about the treatment of combatants pursuant to Article III of the Third Geneva Convention; the detainment was found to be lawful, torture was never tried. Considering the Hamdi v., Rumsfeld and Hamdan v., Rumsfeld clearly grant non-citizens the basic rights pursuant to the Third Geneva Convention, torture would then be an illegal act; considering Hamdi v., Rumsfeld came in 2004, the Administration committed illegal acts in the context of rendition and torture. One can debate about the legality of unlawful combatant status, B, but these individuals were granted the provisions of the Geneva Convention by the Supreme Court - torture is illegal.

I believe you are claiming pre-Hamdan v., Rumsfeld torture and rendition are constitutionally justified when, they are not: it is only their detention and denial of habeus corpus which was [...principally to unconstitutionally...] justified under the AUMF 2001 and MCA of 2006. In regard to clarification, I feel none is needed there: it was torture, which is illegal. The statute of limitations on international war crimes [which were committed here] is incredibly lengthy; again, pursuant under certain provisions of the Third Geneva Convention. As the use of torture, as per the so-called "torture memos" was encouraged by the Administration and carried out by certain individuals, both are liable to prosecution by a U.N.,-sanctioned war tribunal.

As stated:

"the government conceded that some very limited due process rights allowing for hearings to determine the detainees' status as enemy combatants and the right to legal counsel would be extended to all of the Guantanamo detainees, citizen and non-citizen alike."

Which led to the Hamran decision:

"Although the Court struck down the military commissions as created by the Executive Branch, they did not provide the detainees with direct access to the federal courts, but only with access to a fair and impartial hearing to a tribunal constitutionally authorized by Congress and proceeding with certain due process guarantees (such as one operated under terms similar to those provided by Article I courts under the UCMJ or according to the terms of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949)."

.....and that wasn't even clarified until 2006.

Again, Hamdi v., Rumsfeld came in 2004 which, while it centered around the constitutionality of denying U.S.,-citizens habeus corpus, extended provisions to non-U.S., citizens as well. You are speaking about the detention of so-called, "unlawful combatants"; I am speaking about their treatment pursuant to the articles of the Geneva Convention. As I have shown here, all detainees were retroactively granted basic inalienable rights as per international law - considering these episodes of rendition and torture continued beyond Hamdi v., Rumsfeld/Hamdan v., Rumsfeld, including rendition to non-belligerent nations, torture and lack of due process, the Bush Administration enforced and administered illegal acts. There is really no controversy about this point in the legal community. As well, the quote is slightly out of context as it is speaking about detention and trial rights pursuant to the third Convention, not the inalienable basic human rights in the Third Article of Geneva, B. The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of war trials as enemy combatants did not apply to al Qa'ida, it made no such ruling as to their basic human rights - i.e., torture was still illegal.

I will grant you that the denial of habeus corpus and access to the U.S., Supreme Court was legal pre-Hamdi v., Rumsfeld, but only in the context of the AUMF or 2001 and MCA of 2006 which, as you know, specifically removed the inalienable rights granted via the Geneva. This is to say, for example, I unlawfully removed restrictions on murder to kill some guy that hit on my girlfriend - removal of the restrictions infringed on his inalienable right to live [under the constitution, or, in my case, the Charter and Rights and Freedoms principle to a constitution] in order to commit a further illegal act. As I have said all along, this entire scenario is only justified post-hoc due to careful maneuvering of the term, "unlawful combatants". As I say, the U.S., Supreme Court can only try the cases put before it; plainly, torture and rendition charges were never brought to the court - most likely because the victims were being illegally detained in the first place - and so a decision was never made in that regard. We cannot extrapolate certain decisions to those which were never tried. Torture is illegal my friend, no matter how long-winded we get!

Again, I am not arguing the legal status of "unlawful combatants" - though, as you have shown, they are considered as covered under Geneva, and were by proxy all along - but rather; I am arguing their treatment under those same articles. We must not confuse our terms here: habeus corpus was debated, torture was not. As to whether or not these will be tried, it is very unlikely: rendition and torture occurred mostly in the C.I.A., overseas prisons, and; as such, the Obama administration would need to convene a U.N.-sanctioned war tribunal as the United States would not have supreme jurisdiction where the torture took place. (You try crimes where they took place, unfortunately.)

So, at base, we may have a confusion at foot here: whether or not we are debating the Third Convention, or the Third Article. Again, this is the "meat and potatoes" of the debate as a whole. What were originally suspended were the rights to trial and so forth contained in the Third Convention, but the provisions of the Third Article were still held, and found to be held, by Supreme Court rulings; so, while detention was legal pre-'04, torture was not. Even in the context of the Third Article, we will not come to a full-fledged head!

I have pretty much exhausted what I feel should be said on this issue, and articulated what I meant to articulate!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I have pretty much exhausted what I feel should be said on this issue, and articulated what I meant to articulate!

As have I...therefore we will agree to disagree as you pointed out.


So I will end with an appropriate smiley.


:bling1:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

As have I...therefore we will agree to disagree as you pointed out.


So I will end with an appropriate smiley.


:bling1:

LOL..

:sleeping:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Thats a good idea.

 

[RobInKuwait]

The answer to all these moral dilemmas can be summed up in one statement:

WWJBD- What would Jack Bauer do?

okey:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The answer to all these moral dilemmas can be summed up in one statement:

WWJBD- What would Jack Bauer do?

okey:

Haha, nice Rob!

 

[Red Dog]

The answer to all these moral dilemmas can be summed up in one statement:

WWJBD- What would Jack Bauer do?

okey:

he'd transition into marketing! -- [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUVrYgo5Bu4&feature=related"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

 

[Mick81]

Now thats what I call an educated debate!! Most of that went wayyy over my head...... At least we've proved that there are still some intelligent people on the internets :type:

Ron Burgundy: Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.
Champ Kind: It jumped up a notch.
Ron Burgundy: It did, didn't it?
Brick Tamland: Yeah, I stabbed a man in the heart.
Ron Burgundy: I saw that. Brick killed a guy. Did you throw a trident?
Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.

 

[suncloud]

The "facts" and perspective therein were sparse and jaded, respectively. I know the word "humility" makes the skin of the American people break out in pustules, hives and cysts as if it were a plague, but the rest of the world regards humility as normal.

Given the total failures in Middle Eastern foreign policy by the previous administration, failures that resulted in a failed war and the proliferation [and not mitigation] of Islamofascism, maybe you [as the American people] should come to embrace a new approach?

i agree 100% here. when 9/11 happened, we diverted all planes away from New York. they flew to Chicago, Minneapolis, and Toronto. in case you haven't noticed, Toronto is in Canada. we refused to reimburse the Canadian government for any expenses they occurred when we did this. after the collapse of the stock market in post 9/11 days, we tripled the tariff on Canadian lumber to stop the economy from collapsing (as soon as house building stops, we're in trouble - see 2008). don't you think we at least can say "oops" or "sorry".