Guantanamo vs. Iran

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Tell me, Ace, what is a "real" war?

DR

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.

Then you know no more of war than you do of fornication.

The Korean war was indeed war, whether or not the paperwork was perfect. It was a political act of armed force, undertaken by multiple parties to achieve political aims through said armed force. That is what war is, globally, regardless of what pinheads who live in Ivory Towers think war is. Whether or not all parties choose to abide by the "civilized" conventions of intramural homicide is irrelevant to whether or not there was a war on. The American prisoners captured in Korea were POW's. So too were the POW's in Viet Nam, even though Congress never had the sack to declare that a war. They played the silly "Gulf of Tonkin" Resolution dodge, just as Congress more recently played the "authorize use of force" dodge for Iraq. Police action in Korea? War. The fight in Afghatnistan? War. Acts of armed force, of blood and iron, for a political purpose. That is what war is.

It's a war, in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you care for how it was undertaken on the administrative side or not. Theory and practice don't always match, mister, but the hot lead always hits the flesh and bone.

Lead tends to win.

DR

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Again, I'm not arguing there is a real difference between war and non-war. I understand it's a technicality. WildCat is arguing that if people are our enemies in a war, it is okay to hold them until said war is over. I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over and who is our enemy and who is a civilian. I haven't even received an attempt at answers for any of those except the first one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Again, I'm not arguing there is a real difference between war and non-war. I understand it's a technicality. WildCat is arguing that if people are our enemies in a war, it is okay to hold them until said war is over. I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over and who is our enemy and who is a civilian. I haven't even received an attempt at answers for any of those except the first one.

I understand. The Gitmo deal was a dodge, due to the political nature of war. It was an attempt to deny the prisoners (terrorists in particular) the use of a show trial as a political venue for rhetoric and salvoes in the battles of images and symbols, the battle of perception. In truth, it was a gambit played that ignored the long term political context, but there it is. It's part of the information war, which Washington has been fuxoring up since about November 2002, on the international playing field.

War and courtrooms don't mix well.

DR

 

[Azure]

I did. This fourth Geneva convention seem to prohibit this. There is a distinction between civilians and combatants and it isn't up to the warring parties to decide what that is.

Sure. I never suggested otherwise. My point all along has been, people captured during a conflict, are to be held as POWs until the end of said conflict.

All this stems back to what parky said about it being 'wrong' to hold POWs for a certain period of time.

I specifically said you didn't. If it isn't a war, how is the rule that combatants are held to the end of a war relevant?

Well there is the whole argument. Is it a 'real' war? Are these people really POWs.

My personal opinion is that they are. The majority have been captured 'while' fighting against American forces. And if they weren't, they shouldn't be there in the first place. But this being a different sort of war, some people might object to the POW status.

Troops never make this sort of decision anymore than they make the decision to go to war in the first place. It's always politicians.

Aye. But it will be the troops that accomplish the mission.

Surely you agree that they should have the right to fly that banner?

 

[Azure]

One that's declared by Congress as required in the Constitution. I don't see how this is relevant as I'm not the one arguing there shoudl be different standards for behavior in a war vs a non-war anyway.

Actually that doesn't even matter.

even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

Perhaps the UN should write a convention regarding illegal combatants, and militias the do not follow the 'rules' of war.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

My personal opinion is that they are. The majority have been captured 'while' fighting against American forces. And if they weren't, they shouldn't be there in the first place. But this being a different sort of war, some people might object to the POW status.

That's the problem. A lot of them weren't and sometimes "there" is where they lived or worked. it's not like there have been designated battlefields drawn and civilians given sufficient warning to clear out. If we were only holding people who had been caught fighting the US and treating them with some minimum of decency while we held them, I wouldn't have much of a problem, but neither of these things are true.

 

[Azure]

That's the problem. A lot of them weren't and sometimes "there" is where they lived or worked. it's not like there have been designated battlefields drawn and civilians given sufficient warning to clear out. If we were only holding people who had been caught fighting the US and treating them with some minimum of decency while we held them, I wouldn't have much of a problem, but neither of these things are true.

I have a problem with that too.

But, I trust our troops to not randomly gather law-abiding civilians and ship them to Gitmo.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I did trust our troops to do that, until evidence showed that to be a foolish thing to do. It's not all our troops, either. We also have the mercenaries private military contractors to worry about.

 

[The Atheist]

So Nelson Mandela got put in prison. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans treated Charles Manson?

What could we possibly say to South Africa?

When, as always, unable to refute an argument, make up and post the most ludicrous analogy possible.

Glad you've been doing your homework.

 

[The Atheist]

So the Iranians blindfolded, shackled, isolated, and used psychological pressure on the 15 Brits. Now, how exactly is this so different from how the Americans or the Brits treat "enemy combatants"?

What could we possibly say to Iran? "Only we can declare people enemy combatants and withhold Geneva Conventions protections. You do not have this discretion."

Perphaps things are coming full circle. Perhaps we are seeing the danger of legalizing the suspension of legal and humanitarian protections during wartime. If its ok for the USA to do it...then its also ok for Iran.

Deja vu. I said a very similar thing a few days ago on one of the British prisoner threads.

Goose/gander arguments don't apply.

 

[The Atheist]

I have a problem with that too.

But, I trust our troops to not randomly gather law-abiding civilians and ship them to Gitmo.

Yeah, well the troops have proven so trustworthy to date, so I can see why you're so satisfied.

Those trustworthy blokes wouldn't ever rape and murder anyone, or blow up a wedding party because someone crapped their pants when a few rifles were fired. It's just marvellous that they're so trustworthy that they always check their targets prior to firing so they don't kill a whole load of blokes on their own side.

Get off'n their case, Ace. These blokes have been chosen by god's earthly messenger to fight the Crusade War on Islam Terror.

 

[Azure]

Yeah, well the troops have proven so trustworthy to date, so I can see why you're so satisfied.

Those trustworthy blokes wouldn't ever rape and murder anyone, or blow up a wedding party because someone crapped their pants when a few rifles were fired. It's just marvellous that they're so trustworthy that they always check their targets prior to firing so they don't kill a whole load of blokes on their own side.

Get off'n their case, Ace. These blokes have been chosen by god's earthly messenger to fight the Crusade War on Islam Terror.

God.

Stereotype much?

UN troops rape women and children too....oh wait...

 

[Azure]

I did trust our troops to do that, until evidence showed that to be a foolish thing to do. It's not all our troops, either. We also have the mercenaries private military contractors to worry about.

All of whom are former military personnel, and some of whom I know personally and would call my close friends.

I guess you have to rely on such people when the government cuts funds and fires field agents that did what the mercenaries are doing now.

 

[The Atheist]

God.

Stereotype much?

UN troops rape women and children too....oh wait...

No stereotype involved - you were saying they were trustworthy. Probably most of them are, but the unthinking generalisation was all yours.

 

[Tony]

#4. Parky is an idiot.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am asking hwo we determine when we're at war and when it's over

Congress decides that in whatever manner they feel is appropriate.

and who is our enemy and who is a civilian.

Military tribunals authorized by congress make that determination for detainees.

 

[Azure]

No stereotype involved - you were saying they were trustworthy. Probably most of them are, but the unthinking generalisation was all yours.

And most of them are trustworthy, just like I said.

 

[Beerina]

Nor does [Iran] insist on invading other countries, ostensibly to impose its way of life and 'freedoms' on them,

I will continue to say this: Stopping a dictator from lording over you is not "imposing freedom" on someone any more than killilng a bank robber holding a teller hostage and threatening to kill her is "imposing freedom" on the bank teller.

How dare you impose freedom on me! And it's curious this feeling we shouldn't impose freedom on people always comes out of the mouths of people free and safe in the West.

And if I were a person living in a dictatorship, I might understand if a free nation didn't want to go to war with my dictator to free me, for practical reasons. But if I heard a free person wringing their hands, wondering if they had the "right" to free me, I would feel something akin to a mixture of deep hatred and vile contempt for them.

when really its rulers are just after the invadees' natural resources (which is, after all, and as any fule kno, why all wars are started - to strengthen and perpetuate the initiating society's rulers' grip on power and wealth).

As a subject of a country that used to do both of the above, I can recognise hypocrisy when I see it.

With Cuba, the US did the right thing -- refused to deal with the dictator. And paid the price as they went to the USSR instead and suddenly Castro decided to be communist, which he was not when he made his initial forays and appeals to the US.

So is it ethical to prefer dictators friendly to us if there are going to be dictators there anyway? I don't know. And you wring your hands about freeing them, anyway, so what do you care? Not buy their oil, which will make it onto the free, international market anyway, and thus lower your prices anyway, even if indirectly?

Now if you want to suggest the West should band together and apply pressures to said dictatorships to increase freedoms, then I'd be all for it, especially now that there's no USSR for the dictators to "switch sides" to.

 

[Beerina]

Zig- the London bombers and the Madrid bombers are not in Guantanamo. They are dead. But the copycat bombers are on trial and this is a good thing. They will be convincted but they will have the right to defend themselves and actual evidence will be presented against them. I hope this is the same outcome with the folks at GITMO.

You understand that the first World Trade Center bombing, treated as a criminal case, is considered to be a failure point that lead to 9/11? It's precisely because it was treated "only" as a criminal case, rather than an act of war, that insufficient resources were applied to preventing it in the future.*

* Which isn't to say protections aren't necessary, nor that it must be a military response rather than a CIA/spy/diplomatic type response.