 |
|
Lefty Scaevola
|
 |
San Antonio TX USA
Oct 2000 time: 23:31
|
|
wrong button
Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 05-12-2003 at 03:05
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"RE: UN charter of 1945. It does not outlaw war"
And I have not said so. Right to war (ius ad bellum) is terminus technicus for the unrestricted right of the state to start a war. That was abolished with the restrictions you mention.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Oerdin, are you trying to win the Joe Retard Prize for Legal Ignorance? If so, you're on a good track.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
****ed-up server dp....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
This is just precious: a group of individuals uses methods outside accepted civilized practices and any measure of legality, and then their supporters cry foul when they are dealt with summarially. LOL. Here's an idea: How about not being an unlawful combatant in the first place?
Assessing their guilt is a different matter from them being detained as unlawful combatants, child or not. Its the actions of a faction of individuals that initiated this whole situation, anyway...
Last edited by MrBaggins on 06-11-2003 at 22:48
|
|
|  |
 |
|
oedo
|
 |
and the revolution
Feb 2000 time: 05:31
|
|
my main concern is, that some (or maybe even most) people in Gitmo have nothing to do with the accusations brought up here. I can´t think of any greater injustice than punishing someone for something he had never even thought of.
you can state a thousand times, that you don´t care for so called unlawful combatans, it doesn´t make the thing better as long as their guilt hasn´t been proven or at least linked.
if they even would be remotely guilty, then why do they get no trial? even a military tribunal would be better than nothing. so what does the Pentagon hide here?
my second concern is that a goverment, who says it only wants to spread freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, is not even able to care for these values in its own country. the world doesn´t want that kind of "freedom" as the world didn´t want Stalin´s, Hitler´s, Nero´s or Saddam´s "freedom".
my third concern is that this kind of policy will provoke even more terrorist attacks 911-style. that would only cause more innocent casualties. believing, that Gitmo would prevent future terrorist attacks is ridiculous.
the Bush goverment has zero credibility anymore. worldwide. not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, but the American people will pay the price for it.
Last edited by oedo on 06-11-2003 at 23:44
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Guantanamo and Stalin/Hilter/Saddam et al aren't apples to apples.
Firstly, we aren't talking numerically significant numbers.
Secondly, whilst it might be utterly inconvienient (at least) for these folks, as long as they aren't physically harmed by the process, I have no moral objection. Better to harm the civil rights of a dozen people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught, than to let one terrorist go free.
Thirdly, the attitude that detaining terrorists MIGHT cause more people to become terrorists, is irrelevant. Yes, outsiders MIGHT... but at least those terrorists detained absolutely WONT. Plus, intelligence gained from them can be used to infiltrate and destroy the secretive organizations.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"people, who acted suspiciously enough to get caught"
Well there are obvious problems with that standard. Not to mention that even that standard is not subject to review.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Right. The problem with having full judicial process for terrorists, is that they work outside the system, and subvert it wherever possible.
If you have a full system of checks and balances, and a generous commitee to oversee things, you'll catch no-one, and the terrorists will go on their merry way, killing civilians, unchecked.
One terrorist working outside the system necessitates a new less resistrictive (or unrestricted) system to deal with that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Every criminal works "outside the system". Also, the higher efficiency of police state methods is highly questionable.
As for "checks and balances, and a generous commitee", I can't comment because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean in the given context.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Not quite. The system had been perfectly fine dealing with existing criminal behavior. The regular kind based on personal or corporate greed, revenge or insanity.
Terrorists commit crimes against random targets based on a ideology.
Its the fact that they are non-discriminating that are the problems.
The organization that they've set up are "at war" with a nation... but there is no target to fight back at, except for these individuals.
So... the response is to go after individuals. You don't *know* they are terrorist until after you've interrogated them and others. And you can't let them have access to outsiders, either.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
lord of the mark> I agree.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"To deal with that various states have adopted techniques that go beyong what they use with ordinary criminals."
And there is no problem with that as long as they stay within the limits of fundamental rights. That's always a tricky problem.
Also, Germany stayed within those limits and broke the RAF. The UK did not and arbitrary arrests did crap against the IRA. So while the situations were different of course, it's not like ****ing fundamental rights is a sure fire way to fight terrorism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Don't even start to try to compare these specifically targetted unlawful combatants, with the indescriminately KILLED 9-11 victims. There is no moral equivalence.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Well, thats not a common sentiment, or, for that matter not one held by anyone of import.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Honestly.
I really could care less about the freedom of those in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan or Diego Garcia, India.
There is obviously selection taking place. If the selection process were indescriminate there would be millions/billions of detainees.
I don't care about their rights to a regular trial. They haven't been killed, as those who died on 9-11
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Luckily... I don't know the identity of the people in the camps. If I had that information readily available... I'd consider that a problem
I have some guaranteed innocents:
The unborn children of pregnant mothers who died during 9-11.
Prove their guilt.
Can you prove the innocence of ANY of the detainees?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The contention is that any system dealing with these terrorists REQUIRES a lesser standard for the detention, than normal criminal trials, and freer discretion on length of detention. The fact that anyone has been released from detention... alive... proves that the system works. *smiles*
Of course... if you could provide a GUARANTEED method of effective terrorist hunting, that protected their civil rights, that would be OK...
But, can you?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
A "fair trial" isn't viable: a fair trial allows the terrorist to communicate to other terrorists in his organization. His right to that speech is overridden by (the many) others rights to live.
Anyway, since the innocent are being released, there is no problem anyway... you yourself provided an example of an innocent being released.
As for its effectiveness... I'd say OBL isn't caught. YET. (But a number of high ranking al Qaeda ARE)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:31
|
|
I'm not going to argue with the legality of this whole thing. I don't have a problem with this.
But I do think, we need to be very careful.. Because someone else might come up with this idea too, and they might not be so sincere about it, maybe 10 years later. So we need to be careful.
The other thing, I think the prosecutions needs to speed up. Indefinite time without legal help or pretty much anything doesn't sound good, even if we are talking about the trash of the human. For example: If we had one of our nationalities there in the camp right now, I'd demand some kind of evidence that justifies further detention without actual prosecuting. After all, we need to have control our citizens over anyone else. That includes the US too. If they commit crimes against the US, like this, then they are to be captured and tried there for sure, but .. their status can't be held as question mark forever. I don't know, what kind of co-operation there is between the countries that has their nationalities in there, but I'd suppose they are giving some kind of proof, at least the something to show that they have some bad element that they captured. Right?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|