Defending the Truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

enjoy.

You really should read these things before you post.

That's precisely what I thought...

I don't get why all people don't realize how fast and loose Bush plays the law...

no problem, here goes.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or search without probable cause.

that's basically the whole deal with debate, you have to be able to argue pro and con on something no matter what just as convincingly both ways. forget how you really feel, it comes with the territory.

When I was in high school many moons ago, the resolutions were always picked to try and ensure that neither the affirmative or the negative side had an obvious advantage.

Elderly care could be confronted on solvency and disadvantage issues.
South American stability could be confronted as the same, along with inherency.

In the area we are discussing, this resolution seems to give a clear advantage to the affirmative, IMO. The main response might seem to center around significance or disadvantages (IMO), but even then the affirmative team has a fairly obvious means to proceed.
Possibly an inherency issue response? But even then I would say that would be negated by the issue we are discussing. The solution is significantly different from the status quo.

Proving the resolution, just by itself, seems almost simple for the areas we are discussing.

here are human rights for you that amnesty international protects. if you are going to prevent the torture of terrorists in a place like gitmo so that their rights arent violated, then what about the violation of the human rights of those that are murdered by a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the torturing of a terrorist?? arent those right being violated?? so would you rather torture a terrorist/murderer for information or let people die because you did not obtain that information?? im all for the torture of terrorists just as long as it has a purpose other than "having fun" that is sadistic and messed up.

You might have forgotten to give the link, if you meant to give one.
But beyond that, I think there are other issues involved. Like the Geneva convention.
Making up new categories to put people in doesn't negate the ones that have existed for years and agreed upon by an international contingent.


1) Who decides if we are actually torturing a "terrorist" in the first place? I doubt the suspect is going to say, "Hey! Look at me! I'm a terrorist and I have info that could save lives but won't give it unless I'm tortured!"
These people at Gitmo are mostly (from the accounts I have heard) captured from a foreign land where they were fighting against U.S. troops that had "invaded" their land.
How much relevant "terrorist" knowledge do you really think they are going to have?

2) Is this the "two wrongs make a right" argument?
So it's okay to act like them if we're trying to stop them?

3) Torture is a notoriously unreliable means of obtaining accurate information.
Shouldn't that actually mean something for how we do business?

4) In the Christian theology, there is a concept of dying for your religion.
For American philosophies and humane treatment, should we be no less stringent about observing these ideals when it is somebody else's life or pain and suffering on the line?


The flaw in that question is assuming it's an either/or scenario. That those are our only two options.
A flaw which can be exemplified by pointing to any REAL LIFE example of where this has been the case.
How many potential terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been thwarted because of torture?


Understood, but hopefully you understand that there are other issues in play as well...

Who is to say that you have a "terrorist" in the first place?
Who is to say whether or not the suspect actually has knowledge that you need in the first place?
Who is to say that "torture" is an effective means of information procurement?

How many non-terrorists or terrorists with no information to give should we torture before figuring out the flaws in the whole "torture" issue...

Anybody heard this one before?


WASHINGTON - Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.

....

Military interrogators "were being encouraged at times to use aggressive interrogation tactics in GTMO (Guantanamo), which are of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation," said a separate e-mail, dated May 30, 2003. "Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by U.S. law enforcement agencies in the United States but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13945827.htm

How much more of this CRAP are we as Americans going to put up with?

I mean, the scenario where thousands (or millions) are going to die unless we torture some terrorist is just grand. It's a great FICTION PIECE.

But let's live in the real world for a minute and look at what's REALLY going on in Gitmo. What's really going on with "torture".

Don't get me wrong. If there ever comes a day where a terrorist is tortured because it's the only way to save lives, I will applaud. If by some miracle it were to go to trial, which in all rationality it just plain wouldn't, I would be happy to acquit if I were on the jury.

But let's face reality. That IS NOT the scenario we have today.
That's not what's going on in Gitmo.
And I think it's rather interesting that NOBODY here (unless I missed a post or something) is really defending what is going on in Gitmo...

The scenario we have today is listed above. The scenario we have today is one where people are humiliated and abused FOR NO REAL REASON, and only the lower peons get a slap on the wrist, while everybody else is ignored.
(And THAT is why I say it would be a miracle if the afore-mentioned scenario would go to trial. Because the obviously more heinous situations DO NOT go to trial for the most part...)

Let's address the situation we DO have instead of holding out to keep legal a situation which will probably never come unless it's in a Tom Clancy novel...

...God damn it.

An Israeli flag. Greaaat. Because you know what? Israel totally doesn't have enough problems with terrorism right now. More salt is obviously needed for the wound.

First, lets clear up this misguided notion about the term "Enemy Combatants". It was not made up by President Bush or anyone in the Bush administration. The term dates to 1942 and decision by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin.

Its is from this ruling that the decision to hold members of terrorist groups like al-Queda and the Taliban originated. The Court held that lawful combatants were deemed prisoners of war and afforded the protection under Article 3 of the Geneva convention. The court also found that unlawful combatants were not entitled to prisoner of war status. Furthermore, the Geneva Convention in Article 5 states that any persons who status is uncertain will be treated as a Prisoner of War and afforded the same rights under Article 3. However, members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to qualify as prisoners of war, thus, their status has been termed Enemy Combatant in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in 1942 Ex Parte Quirin.

So despite the rhetoric going on about the term Enemy Combatants, it would seem that it is established in American jurisprudence. As for international law, there is none that recognizes these members held at Gitmo. Since the Geneva Convention does not apply to them, one must look only to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, under Article 8 of the UDHR, allows for “an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals” only for “acts violating the fundamental rights granted by the constitution and by law.” And Article 9 of the UDHR provides that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”

Article 4 of the ICCPR, however, provides that:

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law.

So it would again seem that the President is supported not only by American jurisprudence but under International Law as well. None of the individuals in Gitmo can qualify as being arrested arbitrarily, most were caught on the field of battle in Afghanistan in armed conflict with the United States.

Furthermore, since they are considered to be unlawful combatants and deemed Enemy Combatants they are outside the Criminal Justice System. They are not criminals for fighting for the al-Qaeda or Taliban. If it can be proven that the individuals committed war crimes, then they may be tried criminally, however, if not, they can be detained until the ending of all hostilities in the region, no different than a lawful combatant.

dmk