I really should be working on other stuff but ... On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:32 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote:
> > > I am particularly focusing on human rights, in particular the right > > to be free of torture. > > Well, perhaps so. Now, how do you differentiate really the > difference between 'legal', or should I said internationally > accepted codified human rights, vis-a-vis, torture? As much as it pains me to say it, it really depends on what you classify as torture. It's quite the sticky wicket and there is no clear or obvious solution that is remotely workable. And yes, defining torture has specific and weighty meaning and import. Is keeping someone you captured on a battlefield locked in an 8x8 cell made of bars and concrete, in an environment that is healthier and warmer than the one they were originally in, getting them 3 squares a day, shower, prayer time and materials torture? I doubt you'd say it is. But *many* are claiming it is. *That* is why it is important. If everyone agreed formal (legal) definitions would be irrelevant. But as I am sure you know, clearly we do not all agree. Is hooking up electrodes to a mans testicle torture? Depends on the situation. ;) Seriously though this lack of a definition beyond "I know it when I see it" (sound familiar?) causes serious problems, along with the idea that you have "a right to be free of torture". You don't. Now before you get your knickers in a bunch, read me through here. Codifying rights is a mistake. A big nasty flea and tick infested hairball kind of mistake. This is why there was opposition to codifying them in the constitution. The more rights you explicitly state, the more the idea sets in that unless *explicitly* indicated, you don't have it. Think that's nuts? Look at today. The Supreme Court says the government has no right to interfere with your sexual escapades in your bedroom if you are consenting adults and suddenly they "created" a "right to sodomy". How many times have you been told "the constitution doesn't give you that right."? The more proper (IMO) way of looking at it is "Where is the GOVERNMENT given the right to torture?". *This* is where that argument should be applied, not to we the people. By expressing it as a "right to freedom from XX" type statement you inherently give credence to the very semantic that is taking away your rights. Just to be clear: No, you don't have a right to be free from torture. NOR do you or the government have a right to torture someone else. Expressing rights as a "freedom from" automatically and inherently place arbitrary and damaging limits on what freedom and rights are by limiting it to what can be defined. Looking at the arguments made for the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution you can see this awareness dating back then as many argued AGAINST specific rights, preferring a situation where the government had no rights/powers/authority that were not *expressly* given to it. > Some have suggested, as far as I know, that unless a nation has 'signed > on' to such a charter, they are exempt from following the rules. I > think Lowell mentioned that, and perhaps Bill (Anderson) did as well. It isn't a suggestion, it is a fact. Maybe you just didn't come across clear because I find it incredulous to think that *you* might imply a nation that did not sign a treaty is obligated to uphold it. I'm not saying you are (it seems too far out of realm to to me), but am letting you know that is almost how it came across here. I'm reasonably sure you didn't mean it that way. I don't think you'd agree that the US should abide by the Kyoto Accords even though we didn't sign on to it. Of course a nation that did not sign a treaty is not obligated to abide by it. It doesn't mater what the treaty is, either. > Such evasions seems to excuse the fact that the US > government (perhaps Britain also) seems to endorse the use of > torture if it is executed (no pun intended) by a government not > signing on to these principles. >From a legal standpoint, they would be correct. But the argument here was Tim raising the Geneva Treaties BTW Tim, there are *many* separate Geneva Convention Treaties you may want to be more specific. GC III is the one in question. Article 2, paragraph three: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." *IF* the non-signatory agrees to the convention *AND* abides by it, then the signatory power is obliged to abide by it. Otherwise, all bets are off. BTW, did you know the US is *NOT* a signatory to all of the accords? They were originally signed in 1949, but in the early 70's two additional sets were proposed. Neither the US, nor Iraq signed them. BTW, Article 3 prohibits "cruel treatment". How do we define this? Is it "cruel treatment" to confine someone. IMO, yes. Do we seriously believe that to mean you can't imprison enemy combatants. BTW, for those who think that the "enemy combatants" thing is a wide open gate, you are wrong. If the GC-III were applied, it opens the door *wider* for possible detainees. Under GC-III you don't have to be a combatant at all. If you see troops coming and so much as pick up a weapon you are legal capture waiting to happen. If you so much as are employed by the armed forces as a secretary you are a valid target again. GC-IV deals with non-combatant full civilians. It states you can also capture *any* civilian. There is no special protection regarding detainment that the enemy military doesn't get. Yes, that means you can keep them just like you can the soldier killing your troops. There is no requirement under the GC that detainees be released prior to the complete cessation of hostilities. Which means that as long as there are units attacking in the invaded country, under the GC, you can keep them prisoners. GC-IV also allows (even mandates!) the compartmentalization of the public. It does it because you are required to set the population aside in order to protect them from hostilities. Enemy POW are entitled to no better housing than the local troops, and can be imprisoned. They have to be taken far away from hostilities as well. Many of the things people complain are happening are expressly *permitted* or even *required* under the Geneva Conventions. FOr example, under the Geneva Conventions captured people are *required* to be tried by the "Protecting Power" unless the PP has specific laws allowing otherwise. If the US and Afghanistan (specifically the Taliban) and/or Iraq were signatories and the GC applied, then Bush would NOT have had to seek a military tribunal ruling: it would have been automatic. As I said when it all went down years ago: declaring war would have untied many hands. Technically though as long as both parties are signatories, you don't need one to use the GCs. BTW, on the detainment in foreign countries ... that's another requirement of GC-III. Yup. Can't keep them i the occupied country and you can NOT confine them in your country, nor *any* non-neutral country. So any country that aided the invasion is out. Guess what. That means you have to keep them in *gasp* other countries that did not go into Afghanistan/Iraq and/or provided military support for the operation including airspace or staging ground as they are not considered neutral parties. IOW, if you want the GC to apply, or at least be honored by the US, you can NOT bring them here. Nor can you keep them at sea. It *must* be on land. By the way, time of confinement is to be agreed upon by the parties involved, in th case of Iraq the US and Iraq. So if the interim Iraqi government says keep them until we are ready for them, the US can keep them indefinitely and be in accord with the GC. If you want to argue the Geneva Convention gives things and makes it better, you really should learn the truth about them first. Since Iraq, IIRC, signed the GCs did yu know they committed war crimes by not giving identification cards and communicating the particulars with the US/Uk/etc.? Most people only think war crimes are things like torture. But technically, a war crime is any violation of the GC treaties. The Geneva Conventions have other problems. First the big legal one. They have no accountability. Remember Al GOres "no controling legal authority" line? He was correct, and it applies to the GC treaties. There is no punishment, no mechanism for anything regarding accountability. Wonder why? The GCs were actually opposed by nearly ever signatory. So they remove the accountability. It is a practice maintained to this day. The "harm" in violating them? It's PR plain and simple. And it's never worked. Do a good walk through the history of war since they came into being in the late 1800's and you'll see that they were violated by every party in every war or conflict. Though the UK and US did it the least, they all still violated them. And always will. Why? War is hell. Which brings me to my personal problem with them. You can not, nor should you civilize war. War *must* be hell. The more "Acceptable" war is the more likely it is to occur. The less hellish it is the more acceptable it is. So on a personal level I am against all treaties making war less hellish. So if it makes you (Tim) feel good to claim I'm against human rights because I disagree with the GC, then go for the squishy, warm, empty feeling you get from it. Truth told, in my view supporting them leads to more war. Thus in my view, supporting them is a derivation of supporting war. But you won't find me accusing you of supporting war. Because it's an idiotic statement. > > Perhaps you could say if Kerry has ever advocated or supported > > the use of torture in the current context. > > My point was, during the 2004 election, he didn't make that a > very clear statement ever, did he? I doubt if it ever dawned on > him to bring this burning issue to light in the Presidential > campaign. Maybe he 'could have' but he didn't. Why not? Perhaps because he knows it's unavoidable? Maybe he knows better than some here that war is hell. Maybe on some level he knows it should be, too. Maybe he knows that the GC says all you are required to give is "name, rank, and serial number", and that technically they aren't even *allowed* to ask you even nicely for more information. And anyone who thinks that rule will be followed by any party is dancing on fantasy land's border? > > I guess I have a similar view on torture. If one weighs the > > benefits and disadvantages of allowing it, then one will come > > to the conclusion that it is not worth it. > > Well that's good, but it doesn't answer the burning question as > to the right of individuals NOT TO BE TORTURED, which I suggest > is the one you seemed to start out with in the first place. > Right? It isn't a question, as I understand your previous > commentary, that torture might perceivably have a possible good, > but rather I would suggest it never does. While I am against genuine torture, I disagree that it can never produce a good. Even the darkest evil can do that. > I suggest rather that this condition shows the true colours of > the so-called alliances in this 'war on terror'. I find it very > difficult to escape this premise! We are not so civilized after > all now really, are we? Why should "war" be civilized? > > I should also draw a distinction between civil liberties > > and human rights. > > I disagree. In my judgment anyway, there isn't any distinction at > all. But I'll listen, anyway. I'm with Frank. There is no useful nor beneficial (to liberty) distinction between "human" and "civil" rights. "Divide and Conquer" comes to mind here. Divide the rights into a (tiny) group that are allegedly sacrosanct, and a group that can be "taken away" on a whim or "justified excuse". Use the second group to skirt the first and subvert them. For example, sure you have a right to privacy, but not encryption or private email. Sure you have a right to a free press, but we the powers that be get to decide who said press is; and you aren't among that group. Ok, have a right to keep and bear arms. But only for hunting, and oh by the way those guns aren't good hunting guns so even hunters (and collectors) can't have them. OK, you have a right to earn a living, but you have to get our permission (licensing) to do it. Any of that sound familiar? The first half (the "human rights") are "accepted", but the *exercise* of them falls under "civil rights" which can be suspended, discarded, and regulated away. No thank you, we have enough of that already. Cheers, Bill -- Random Fortune of the moment: Today is a good day to bribe a high-ranking public official. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
