Quote:We can say all the fine words we like, but in practice, don't countries just do whatever they damn want until something actually stops them?
Saddam's Iraq did just that, and would still be doing just that had we not stopped them.
That is not true of any country. Saddam's Iraq most positively did not "do whatever they" wanted.
No country does.
Has the U.S. ever been forced against it's will to pay a fine, cease and desist, or face legal consequences for any action, anywhere?
Is there international law that has been enforced, rather than politely saying "Yeah, yeah, we go along, sure" as long as it helps us?
The question sounds cynical, and I probably am, but I've been trying to find some cases. Is law just a group charade within a country, but not between countries?
CodeBorg,
That's a bit of a paradox. If I hold a gun to your head what you "want" to do changes very quickly.
It's a silly question because there is no such thing as being forced by law. Law etc offers penalties that should change your wishes.
Everyone can't do what they want and everyone can do what they want. It all depends on where you draw the line between normal evaluation of cause and effect and the notion of forced actions.
Paradox, true, true, ... thinking.
Definitions:
Law -- The rules that were voted into place. Useless without...
Law enforcement -- when laws are applied with vigor.
Wishes -- what ones ultimate goal is, regardless of law, based on free decision.
Fantasy -- what one feels like doing but decides they don't actually wish to act on, regardless of circumstance.
A gun to my head doesn't change my wishes one bit, only my actions. If anything it strengthens my wishes, just on principle!
A law doesn't change my morality or wishes one bit, only my actions. I don't really think about the law until actual enforcement collides with my wishes. Most people and countries seem to do what they want according to their own ideals, until constrained otherwise.
And being selfish, we follow unique ideals not universal ones.
So in real life it's a free-for-all out there!
But why talk about international law if it's not enforced?
Can such exist, if the U.S. won't allow enforcement against itself?
Outlawing anything makes no difference if the prisoner always escapes.
Any talk about law, justice, and rights would then just be a con game.
So is there any international law actually enforced? The U.S. doesn't seem very constrained by it, but I'm still searching through Google for any cases...
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for rule of law. 'Twas a circle thought.
Scrat, last time I looked Burma and Colombia (just picking two examples) are still at it! What's it going to take to enforce a 'regime change' there?
Oh right, a country like Burma is a little earner for the 'civilised' West, spending its oil revenues on $2billion worth of military technology and weapons last year. Colombia's military spending matches that of Burma, although they don't seem to have the need to match the military purchases made to keep its neighbours at bay. The police, military and paramilitary just use it to terrorise the entire population whilst also doing a delicate balance of ensuring direct aid from the US to combat narco-trafficking with the profits to be made from their involvement in narco-trafficking (can't let one overtake the other).
Scrat wrote:Saddam's Iraq did just that, and would still be doing just that had we not stopped them.
Just out of curiosity: what do you mean by "did just that"? You appear to be under the impression that Iraq did something that threatened the US so much it had to "stop them". I'm curious what that might be.
-- Thomas
I'm not sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I did want to point you to
this story by The Economist, which casts an illuminating if unfavorable light on the legal standards question. Using an appropriate set of legal benchmarks -- or so they seem to me, anyway -- it compares the trials awaiting the prisoners in Camp X-ray with other legal processes that have been employed against terrorists throughout world history. It turns out that the military commissions established by the Bush administration compare unfavorably with US martial law and even South Africa's apartheid regime. Whether or not one should expect America to do better than that is, of course, everyone's own decision. I for one did, and stubbornly continue to do.
For those who don't want to read the full article, here's the comparison in a nutshell.
-- Thomas
Scrat wrote:
As an enlisted man in the navy, I was not entitled to a lawyer when I went before Captain's Mast. The "due process" to which I was entitled did not include such niceties. This was not a denial of my rights; those were my rights at that time and in that context.
My Army experience doesn't include nomenclature like Captain's Mast. Is it possible it is action under UCMJ Article 15. If so, it is elective. That is, you are offered the chance to be charged under Article 15 instead of Summary Court Martial, and you choose to give up certain rights in favor of avoiding the consequences of an unfavorable ruling in an actual court martial. By this, I mean that your lack of certain rights is not comparable to that of prisoners at Camp X-Ray.
Good source, Thomas.
The Economist is the most straight forward source of news I have been able to find.
roger wrote:Scrat wrote:
As an enlisted man in the navy, I was not entitled to a lawyer when I went before Captain's Mast. The "due process" to which I was entitled did not include such niceties. This was not a denial of my rights; those were my rights at that time and in that context.
My Army experience doesn't include nomenclature like Captain's Mast. Is it possible it is action under UCMJ Article 15. If so, it is elective. That is, you are offered the chance to be charged under Article 15 instead of Summary Court Martial, and you choose to give up certain rights in favor of avoiding the consequences of an unfavorable ruling in an actual court martial. By this, I mean that your lack of certain rights is not comparable to that of prisoners at Camp X-Ray.
Good source, Thomas.
The Economist is the most straight forward source of news I have been able to find.
Roger - My point was simply to demonstrate that people have different rights in different settings, under differing jurisdictions, etc.. To argue that Camp X-ray detainees do not have the rights of US Citizens is to argue nothing, since they are not US Citizens. The real question (which some have addressed here) is what should their status be, and are they being afforded the rights due persons being held under that status.
Scrat wrote: Roger - My point was simply to demonstrate that people have different rights in different settings,
Nobody denies that. But unless you deny them the status of being humans -- a claim I haven't heard you make, and don't believe you're making -- the UN declaration of human rights establishes minimum standards as to how threadbare a monkey trial the US can give them. The military commissions in Guantanamo Bay needlessly fall short of these minimum requirements. "Needlessly" because Northern Ireland and even South Africa during its worst times were able to fight what they considered to be terrorists while keeping up much higher standards of due process.
Questions which - so far - have not been answered. And gets complicated when apparently each of the prisoners is a ctizen of another country, which haas its own rules and reulations. So the question of legality becomes sticky. As a country that will enter into no international legal agreement unless our citizens are fully protected from any prosecution anywhere, we apparently can do what we please, since we have not agreed to anything. But politically it creates a problem. While England and Australia can argue about their citizens rights', what about other countires? Technically, we did not have a war against Iraq no matter what Bush proclaimed it - it was an invasion. Therefore, what rights do a citizen of another country have when it has been invaded by a foreign power? But then, that puts us exactly where scrat says Saddam was (which isn't exactly so). Doing what we want. Maybe there is another power out there which thinks we should be stopped.
And thank you, Thomas, again. And again for being clear.
I'll second that. Thanks Thomas!
mamajuana wrote:As a country that will enter into no international legal agreement unless our citizens are fully protected from any prosecution anywhere, we apparently can do what we please, since we have not agreed to anything. . .
And thank you, Thomas, again. And again for being clear.
I believe this statement to be in error, mamaj. My understanding is that US citizens abroad are subject to both US law and that of the host country, our only expectation being that our citizens be permitted to contact a consular officer.
I'll second the comment to Thomas. He is as clear as nimh.
mamajuana wrote:Questions which - so far - have not been answered. And gets complicated when apparently each of the prisoners is a ctizen of another country, which haas its own rules and reulations. So the question of legality becomes sticky. As a country that will enter into no international legal agreement unless our citizens are fully protected from any prosecution anywhere, we apparently can do what we please, since we have not agreed to anything. But politically it creates a problem. While England and Australia can argue about their citizens rights', what about other countires? Technically, we did not have a war against Iraq no matter what Bush proclaimed it - it was an invasion. Therefore, what rights do a citizen of another country have when it has been invaded by a foreign power? But then, that puts us exactly where scrat says Saddam was (which isn't exactly so). Doing what we want. Maybe there is another power out there which thinks we should be stopped.
And thank you, Thomas, again. And again for being clear.
Do you mean to speak of Iraq when the detainees being held in Guantanamo are from the UN sanctioned affair in Afghanistan? To my knowledge, there are no detainees being held there from our conflict in Iraq.
But both the International Committee of the Red Cross and U.N. Human Rights Commissioner consider the captives held by the US at Gitmo to be prisoners of war and have reqested that they be accorded such rights as are listed in the convention, the US has refused.
Thomas wrote:Scrat wrote: Roger - My point was simply to demonstrate that people have different rights in different settings,
Nobody denies that. But unless you deny them the status of being humans -- a claim I haven't heard you make, and don't believe you're making -- the UN declaration of human rights establishes minimum standards as to how threadbare a monkey trial the US can give them. The military commissions in Guantanamo Bay needlessly fall short of these minimum requirements. "Needlessly" because Northern Ireland and even South Africa during its worst times were able to fight what they considered to be terrorists while keeping up much higher standards of due process.
Can you support your statements with some citations of fact? Thanks.
mj - I allow you to speak (write) for yourself. Please afford me the same courtesy and refrain from instructing others as to what I "say". I will do that for myself, thanks.
Dys - The US disagrees as to their status. My limited understanding of International law in this area indicates that this issue of status can be appealed, has any formal appeal been instigated? If so, by whom and when, and if not, why?
Scrat, we are usually together on philosophies, but here, I do not see how they are going to appeal anything without access to lawyers or any other part of the legal system. I think you've come to the root cause of the dissatisfaction with the situation.
