Tru
Quote:2. Extradition. I have heard of Maher Arar. I would like to see what evidence we have on him before I make a decision on that. I do think however, that terror suspects deserve military tribunals.
Not Extradition, but Extraordinary Rendition. Or, in layman's terms, the process of 'disappearing' people and sending them to other countries to be... tortured?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Tru
Quote:2. Extradition. I have heard of Maher Arar. I would like to see what evidence we have on him before I make a decision on that. I do think however, that terror suspects deserve military tribunals.
Not Extradition, but Extraordinary Rendition. Or, in layman's terms, the process of 'disappearing' people and sending them to other countries to be... tortured?
Cycloptichorn
typo. check the name I provided.
Trupolitik wrote:1. Torture. There is a difference between legalizing Torture, and someone initiating a directive that is contrary to our laws and treaties. That being said, I dont have a problem with anyone speaking against those directives.
2. Extradition. I have heard of Maher Arar. I would like to see what evidence we have on him before I make a decision on that. I do think however, that terror suspects deserve military tribunals.
3. Getting there isnt THERE. This Guy's activism will PROPERLY be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Thanks. That's because I am REAL Neocon. (meaning I was a liberal at one time) I like talking to you guys too. It is good that we can get beyond the rhetoric that goes on. That kind of talk keeps everyone in ignorance.
Tru, we're just being mean. No worries.
Re 2.: it's not just about Maher Arar. You can start with
this article, if you haven't heard about this before.
The laws making rendition legal were signed into law by the president of the United States, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of concern whether torture is used in the process of "questioning" the abductees or not. Quite the opposite is true. After all, that's the purpose of 'rendition'.
old europe wrote:Tru, we're just being mean. No worries.
The laws making rendition legal were signed into law by the president of the United States, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of concern whether torture is used in the process of "questioning" the abductees or not. Quite the opposite is true. After all, that's the purpose of 'rendition'.
LOL!! I didnt take it as you being mean. I think I am special anyway, so you just go right ahead and feed my ego. :wink:
On this issue, I personally think the US should have the guts to do the "dirty work" ourselves, and take the heat that comes with it. I do not condone "torture"; However, I agree with humiliation, psychological strain, stress positions, and I am pretty conflicted about affording Geneva convention rights to combatants who do not uphold their end of that contract. But, I do believe suspects should have a vetting process, and not merely whisked away.
Then you must have some really big moral objections to the stuff we're doing nowdays, Tru, because in addition to the things you have said, you need to add in:
Dog bites
Beatings
Electrical Shocks
2nd degree burns
and everyone's favorite
Death
The Geneva convention isn't why we shouldn't torture people. We shouldn't do it because it is morally abhorrent to do so, no matter what the rules say we CAN or CANNOT do. It doesn't matter if they are uniformed or not.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Geneva convention isn't why we shouldn't torture people. We shouldn't do it because it is morally abhorrent to do so, no matter what the rules say we CAN or CANNOT do. It doesn't matter if they are uniformed or not.
Cycloptichorn
We are going to differ on what rights an enemy combatant (if they are an enemy combatant) should be afforded in War. That is ONE of things that makes me a Neocon as opposed to a Liberal. I take this position because I view it as an extension of "self defense" theory.
The Geneva convention is actually a contract. You may diagree idealistically about that, but it doesnt change the reality of its being.
Well, do you disagree that torture is morally wrong, unconditionally?
Cycloptichorn
Yes, but you are talking about POWs. People being abducted are exactly combatants. Especially if they are innocent, foreign citizens. Citizens of foreign countries. Not soldiers, not terrorists.
And, as Cyc implies, the Geneva Convention doesn't allow torture even in a combat situation.
Regarding an illegal invasion as an extension of "self defense" would make you a neocon indeed, I reckon.
Btw, why was the invasion of Iraq "self defense"?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Well, do you disagree that torture is morally wrong, unconditionally?
Cycloptichorn
"Torture" Yes. But we may disagree on what that is. For instance, the guy who held a loaded gun to the combatant's head, and then shot it off to the side, therefore making him believe he was going to be shot...It is dark and ugly, but justified.
old europe wrote:Yes, but you are talking about POWs. People being abducted are exactly combatants. Especially if they are innocent, foreign citizens. Citizens of foreign countries. Not soldiers, not terrorists.
And, as Cyc implies, the Geneva Convention doesn't allow torture even in a combat situation.
Regarding an illegal invasion as an extension of "self defense" would make you a neocon indeed, I reckon.
1. Right. that is why I said, there should be a hearing where the status of the foreign citizen can be determined.
2. I was saying that the geneva convention as a legal doctrine does not apply to all combatants.
3. I was saying "self-defense" theory justifies the coersive interrogation policies I support (although it does not justify outright torture).
4. Illegal? The US would have been justified in toppling Saddam the first time one of his anti-aircraft batteries fired on one of our planes that was patrolling the UN No-fly zones.
5. How did this turn into another damn discussion about Iraq??? You tricky Libs!
Heh.
You say there should be a 'hearing' where the status of a foreign citizen is determined; but do you advocate snatching the guy in order to bring him to that hearing?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Heh.
You say there should be a 'hearing' where the status of a foreign citizen is determined; but do you advocate snatching the guy in order to bring him to that hearing?
Cycloptichorn
When there is probable cause. ABSOLUTELY!
So, you think that with 'probable cause,' anyone, anywhere, can be taken with no regard to the laws of arrest, without telling them what they are charged with or reading the miranda rights, and fly them to an undisclosed location to sit for an undisclosed amount of time until we get around to determining whether or not they did anything bad or not? And then fly them to other countries, perhaps, where they can be tortured?
Are you serious?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:So, you think that with 'probable cause,' anyone, anywhere, can be taken with no regard to the laws of arrest, without telling them what they are charged with or reading the miranda rights, and fly them to an undisclosed location to sit for an undisclosed amount of time until we get around to determining whether or not they did anything bad or not? And then fly them to other countries, perhaps, where they can be tortured?
Are you serious?
Cycloptichorn
That is not what I said. First, Probable cause is enough for civilian arrests now.
Miranda rights. Read em their rights. All for that.
Indefinite period of time? I definitely have a problem with that.
Flown to other countries for Torture. I have already addressed that. Did you not read my opinion on that in your haste to fit me back into your box? :wink:
Trupolitik wrote:1. Right. that is why I said, there should be a hearing where the status of the foreign citizen can be determined.
Good. Like, asking the government of, e.g. Canada or Germany, before snatching a guy and bringing him to some remote location? Probably a first step. So I take it you don't agree with the 'rendition' law?
Trupolitik wrote:2. I was saying that the geneva convention as a legal doctrine does not apply to all combatants.
I think it should, but it's not a matter of the Geneva Convention, but a matter of moral.
Trupolitik wrote:3. I was saying "self-defense" theory justifies the coersive interrogation policies I support (although it does not justify outright torture).
Okay... when would you say it was torture?
- Dog bites? Yes? No?
- Beatings? Yes? No?
- Electrical Shocks? Yes? No?
- 2nd degree burns? Yes? No?
Trupolitik wrote:4. Illegal? The US would have been justified in toppling Saddam the first time one of his anti-aircraft batteries fired on one of our planes that was patrolling the UN No-fly zones.
Yes, illegal. Remember when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet? 290 civilians died. Would you consider it legal had Iran (given the capability) subsequently invaded the US?
Trupolitik wrote:5. How did this turn into another damn discussion about Iraq??? You tricky Libs!
Oh, we're not really talking about Iraq, I think. We're talking about what
they are doing, what
we are doing, what
we are critizising about them while doing it ourselves and so on. I didn't mention Iraq first, did I?
<looks around>
old europe wrote:Trupolitik wrote:1. Right. that is why I said, there should be a hearing where the status of the foreign citizen can be determined.
Good. Like, asking the government of, e.g. Canada or Germany, before snatching a guy and bringing him to some remote location? Probably a first step. So I take it you don't agree with the 'rendition' law?
Trupolitik wrote:2. I was saying that the geneva convention as a legal doctrine does not apply to all combatants.
I think it should, but it's not a matter of the Geneva Convention, but a matter of moral.
Trupolitik wrote:3. I was saying "self-defense" theory justifies the coersive interrogation policies I support (although it does not justify outright torture).
Okay... when would you say it was torture?
- Dog bites? Yes? No?
- Beatings? Yes? No?
- Electrical Shocks? Yes? No?
- 2nd degree burns? Yes? No?
Trupolitik wrote:4. Illegal? The US would have been justified in toppling Saddam the first time one of his anti-aircraft batteries fired on one of our planes that was patrolling the UN No-fly zones.
Yes, illegal. Remember when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet? 290 civilians died. Would you consider it legal had Iran (given the capability) subsequently invaded the US?
Trupolitik wrote:5. How did this turn into another damn discussion about Iraq??? You tricky Libs!
Oh, we're not really talking about Iraq, I think. We're talking about what
they are doing, what
we are doing, what
we are critizising about them while doing it ourselves and so on. I didn't mention Iraq first, did I?
<looks around>
1. I dont like the rendition law. There are better ways, as I explained.
2. Geneva: We disagree on this one.
3. Dog bites? Yes it is torture
- Beatings? Yes it is torture
- Electrical Shocks? Depends on the strength and purpose. Mild shocks that do no physical damage but used in psychological strain is acceptable.
- 2nd degree burns? Yes it is torture.
4. Illegal: You completely ignored the facts of the cease-fire agreement and no fly zones. If they break the cease fire agreement as established by the UN, then we are legally justified in ending the ceasefire. Period.
Off-topic, I know, but here's my thought on the Iraq invasion:
If Bush pere had done the sensible thing during the Gulf War and continued on into Bagdad in pursuit of the Iraqui army fleeing from Kuwait, and had then deposed Saddam, few people would have had a problem with that. There was a true "coalition of the willing"* behing the old man at the time. He fudged and let Saddam go on being, well, Saddam.
[*The coalition that Bush fils has now is not a coalition of the willing but a coalition of the coerced and co-opted.]
If, after our planes got fired on in the no-fly zone, we had fired a few rockets into those anti-aircraft batteries and maybe dropped a couple of incendiaries on the presidential palace, there might have been a stifled outcry, and that's all. That's self defense.
That Dubya cannot come up with a credible "self defense" scenario is evidenced by the fact that he initially gave as reasons for the invasion (1)Iraqui complicity in 9/11 (for which there is no evidence whatever); and (2)the presence of WMDs (none have been found, nor will be).
Let me make an analogy here. If a man on my front lawn -- a stranger or a neighbor, doesn't matter -- has a gun in his hand and is approaching the house with very apparent intention of starting to shoot when he reaches the front door, I could shoot him first, from ambush, and claim self defense. To wait for him to shoot first would be foolish. But, now, if I go that man's house, because I've heard that he has a new rifle and has been heard to make threatening remarks about me, and shoot him in cold blood -- well, that's murder, not self defense. And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this belated invasion of Mesopotamia. Bush acted on faulty (or manufactured, take your pick) intelligence regarding WMDs as an excuse to go to a neighbor's house and kill the watchdog guarding the house, anyone else in his way, and then take the neighbor hostage with every apparent intent of killing him in the near future.
Like I said, I know that's off-topic and has nothing to do with Turkey. But, as Old Europe said, I didn't bring up the topic of Iraq.
Nevertheless, Merry Andrew, je suis d'accord, completement d'accord with what you're saying. Nobody had a problem with Afghanistan. It's Iraq. People are wondering, ya know...
This thread has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. I thought you were discussing the islamist twitchings in Turkey?
OK, here's my opinion as a Turk, living in Turkey: The EU should, under no circumstances, tolerate any kind of violation in terms of human rights occuring in Turkey. BUT, and that is a big one, I do not think EU has anything to worry about an extremist/fundamentalist islamic movement to bring down the democratic/secular regime in Turkey. There is absolutely NO way that will ever happen. The army is very determined about defending and upholding the regime, and the average citizen is quite happy about the democratic system.
The reforms in Turkey HAVE declined, and I am not happy about the newer, more conservative laws that the government is trying to establish. But that is the nature of politics - they are playing for the crowd - trying to collect the votes of the more conservative muslims. That is only a natural manipulation in a democratic country, isn't it?
Doesn't President Bush mention "God" in his speeches? The same kind of manipulation there...
Those laws will never be accepted by the supreme court - they will be overruled. However, if those laws are passed and established, I think EU should deny Turkey from joining the union. Because in that case, Turkey would have shown that she is not ready for such a move yet.
And I will leave this country ASAP if that happens, but that is another story.
