Detainees to be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

[UtahDan]

Apparently Bush is about to reverse course on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470

I'm not as harsh on the president as some are for the position his administration took on detainees. I think this is the right decision, but it has taken me some time to become convinced of that. There is no question in my mind that the Geneva Conventions are an antiquated tool which do not adequately address modern realities, so I don't fault the administration for pointing this out and looking for a way around them.

That said, it appears that what was ultimately done may be on shaky consitutional footing, though this is arguable. Maybe more importantly Geneva is all we have at this point and it is better than nothing. Some will say that this is what we should have done all along, and maybe so, but I can only conclude that with the benefit of hindsight.

[MikeWaters]

is one of those rights, the right to be able to use a comb?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Apparently Bush is about to reverse course on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470

I'm not as harsh on the president as some are for the position his administration took on detainees. I think this is the right decision, but it has taken me some time to become convinced of that. There is no question in my mind that the Geneva Conventions are an antiquated tool which do not adequately address modern realities, so I don't fault the administration for pointing this out and looking for a way around them.

That said, it appears that what was ultimately done may be on shaky consitutional footing, though this is arguable. Maybe more importantly Geneva is all we have at this point and it is better than nothing. Some will say that this is what we should have done all along, and maybe so, but I can only conclude that with the benefit of hindsight.

I just don't see how it was ever that complicated. I'm not the smartest person alive, and I made the exact same arguments the Supreme Court made (and many others) loooong before the case was heard by the Court.

I truly don't see how the issue is incredibly complicated. People may not like giving terrorists some rights, but how can you possibly argue they don't get any rights? It isn't just the Constitution either, it is the Geneva Convention and our simple sense of human dignity (in addition to the fact that we believe rights derive from our mere existance, rather than from a government grant).


Many are saying, oh, well sure, now I see it, but how could we have known before? I ask, how could people have NOT known before?

[MikeWaters]

one of the main reasons I am against torture and the like is that it hurts US interests when it comes to capturing the moral high ground. We need to win the hearts and minds, of not just Muslims, but everyone else. It's hard to do that when you are waterboarding people til they look like raisins.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

one of the main reasons I am against torture and the like is that it hurts US interests when it comes to capturing the moral high ground. We need to win the hearts and minds, of not just Muslims, but everyone else. It's hard to do that when you are waterboarding people til they look like raisins.

lol! Perhaps the California Raisins are just Guantanamo detainees being forced to put on an annual televised Christmas show for our enjoyment! I have to hand it to them- terrorists or not, those guys have skills.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I just don't see how it was ever that complicated. I'm not the smartest person alive, and I made the exact same arguments the Supreme Court made (and many others) loooong before the case was heard by the Court.

I truly don't see how the issue is incredibly complicated. People may not like giving terrorists some rights, but how can you possibly argue they don't get any rights? It isn't just the Constitution either, it is the Geneva Convention and our simple sense of human dignity (in addition to the fact that we believe rights derive from our mere existance, rather than from a government grant).


Many are saying, oh, well sure, now I see it, but how could we have known before? I ask, how could people have NOT known before?

I can easily argue that blood thirsty cold blooded murderers who don't espouse a nation nor wear it's uniform deserve no rights. Then again I'd like to win the war on terror. Crazy notion I know. Liberals instead are too caught up in empowering terrorists instead.



L

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I just don't see how it was ever that complicated. I'm not the smartest person alive, and I made the exact same arguments the Supreme Court made (and many others) loooong before the case was heard by the Court.

I truly don't see how the issue is incredibly complicated. People may not like giving terrorists some rights, but how can you possibly argue they don't get any rights? It isn't just the Constitution either, it is the Geneva Convention and our simple sense of human dignity (in addition to the fact that we believe rights derive from our mere existance, rather than from a government grant).


Many are saying, oh, well sure, now I see it, but how could we have known before? I ask, how could people have NOT known before?

I understand what you're saying and can even agree; however does the Geneva Convention require any nation (not just the US) to treat enemies that have nothing to do with the Covention rules as if they did?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I haven't lost sleep knowing that terrorists are being treated like terrorists. Sure, it may not be the moral high ground, but morality is relative. It doesn't seem that strapping a bomb to one's body then killing several non-Muslims for no other reason than claiming them to be infedels is immoral.

[Archaea]

I see it as a much more complex issue, even in light of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, which many agreed was not crafted with the current realities in mind.

And after giving it the good try, the Bush administration can say we fought against the terroist, giving them as little rope as possible, but after putting up a fight, we lost.

These rights I agree are important for citizens or for persons lawfully within our boundaries.

I'll agree to disagree that we somehow grab the "moral" high ground by buying into European consensus and granting extraterritorial rights to enemy combatants. These are NOT the sorts of persons contemplated by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention contemplated warring nation states with legitimate armies, not loose cells of individuals living outside of law and order, unattached to country or army.

To me, these persons by shedding their nationality, living a lawless life, forfeit any liberties arising by virtue of birth.

We shall see how it plays out. Whatever tactic we use, we will be viewed as wrong.

My highly educated Lebanese friend, while in Beiruit predicted the first Gulf War, once the King of Kuwait started insulting Saddam. His analysis to cut to the short of course, is to stop killing the ants, but rather to go after the heads of State in Syria and in Iran. We're playing into their hands by attacking the ants.

However, Syria has not even lobbed a bomb at Israel, because its leaders are very, very wealthy and stand to lose too much. Blow up a palace or two of theirs, and they will cause Hezbollah to stop. Go after the leaders of Iraq. His opinion is that our targets were always wrong. And still are. Not saying I buy into it, but it is an interesting point of view.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Sure, it may not be the moral high ground, but morality is relative. It doesn't seem that strapping a bomb to one's body then killing several non-Muslims for no other reason than claiming them to be infedels is immoral.

I agree very little morality is absolute, despite Kant's moral imperative. And nation state morality is not the same as personal morality IMHO, current interpretations by the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

The fortunate or unfortunate fact is, we are no longer equipped to fight the war against radical Islam, as we are weak and unwilling to fight the fight. So perhaps, we should just invest in alternative fuel sources, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

It would be a godsend to ignore the Middle East altogether. After thousand s of years, those cultures still don't want peace. I could easily become an isolationist as soon as Middle Eastern oil can be replaced.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree very little morality is absolute, despite Kant's moral imperative. And nation state morality is not the same as personal morality IMHO, current interpretations by the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

The fortunate or unfortunate fact is, we are no longer equipped to fight the war against radical Islam, as we are weak and unwilling to fight the fight. So perhaps, we should just invest in alternative fuel sources, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

It would be a godsend to ignore the Middle East altogether. After thousand s of years, those cultures still don't want peace. I could easily become an isolationist as soon as Middle Eastern oil can be replaced.

I agree. If we could eliminate the dependency of Middle East oil, I'd be all for ignoring that part of the world entirely, except maybe Israel.

I believe that if we're going to win this war, we need to turn it up about 4 or 5 notches and be the bully the world thinks we are. Also, to hell with rebuilding after blowing them up. That's would be their problem.