Well, the matter of 'Why not do it because they've done worse to us' bring to the front the matter of what makes the US and the terrorists different. A matter of morality, and since America keeps waving the banner as the moral high ground, it hurts when they act as poorly as their 'immoral' counterparts.
I agree with Telan on the matter that this is a policing matter as of the moment, until America finally throws aside this self-righteous veil and just says they're conquering Iraq and Afganhistan. If they want to claim morality, then they must show morality.
A terrorist is, by definition; one who uses terror to his or her advantage. By what rationale can a modern, civilized body like the western world United States denegrate itself to the point that in order to defend itself it must employ the tactics used by its enemy?
A police officer abides by rules and protocols of conduct. A criminal does not; this does not imply that Police should have the freedome to condone or utilize criminal tactics in the persuit of their job. This is just an example. And even when those situations stray beyond the definintion of those rules and protocols, thrid and forth paty non-partisan orginzations are called upon to mediate the situation.
This is an extension of America saying NO to the UN and going against the wishes of the international community America depends upon for its way of life. If you don't see that, fine. But again, and as I stated earlier; expect no quarter.
There is no rationale. As I've already stated, I'm not saying that Americans should treat the terrorists or insurgents as the said groups treat others; they shouldn't. If we do, we become as bad as the terrorists. The point is that in order to survive, the old must adapt to face new challenges, to face new circumstances. Trying to apply an old doctrine where its parameters are not applicable makes little sense, hence the example of the Coalition soldiers forming ranks up to attack.
But in order for America to effectively defend herself against the said threats, she must adapt and change policies in order to deal with the circumstances. I think that the Geneva Conventions do not effectively deal with the issues pertaining to current events. I think it's going to need to be somewhat changed or defined to deal with the current issues. As it is, I do not think that the rights stated in the Geneva Conventions do not even technically apply to terrorists or insurgents.
America saying no to the UN? The first of the Geneva Conventions was made before the UN's existence. Moreover, the only powers that enforce those conventions are the governments themselves, and they only have power within their respective nations. The Geneva Conventions are mutual agreements between nations, not between the nations and the UN. Certainly most nations that have the Geneva Conventions are part of the UN, but that does not make the UN the authority on such matters. It is between the nations themselves, and not through the UN. As such, America is technically not opposing the UN.
Moreover, I question the validity of any nation(s) to impose their will on a sovereign nation simply because it is their "wish" (with the exception of an internal crisis in which members of the said nation request help from outside sources).
I find it highly amusing if the UN organisation itself would even try to do it, since America is its main contributor in terms of funding and providing resources for the UN to use. It's generally not the wisest idea to attack your key supporter; for even if you do win, you have still lost their support.
If you're talking about the actual individual nations by themselves, I have to admit, and not to be arrogant, that I don't think there would be much they could do. The US does have a lot of work with the International Community, but in most cases, any economica action against the US by the said nation/community would hurt the members of the community as much as the United States. I doubt things would go well for any nation(s) that attempted to oppose the US militarily as well.
Yes, America could even survive with oil sanctions imposed on it, albeit admittedly it wouldn't be pretty. Alaska, Louisana, and Texas both produce a vast amount of oil. Each day, they produce 3,420,000 barrels of crude oil. That's not including other major oil-producing states such as Oklahoma or California, whose oil production is close to that of Texas now. (Most oil produced in Alaska is actually shipped off for sale to Japan.)
America is fairly well diversified economy and resources that it could probably adapt to its isolation relatively easily compared to most countries. Not that the isolation would be great for the country, but it definitely wouldn't be a death knell to it. After all, if South Africa survived the economic sanctions imposed upon it during the latter half of the 20th Century, why couldn't the US, given its economy and resources?
My point: I question if the US is actually totally dependent upon the international community. Sure, it would hurt, but I think the US could adapt. And hasn't international community depended on the US in the past? Particularly after the World Wars...
I don't believe we were even given quarter yet (with the terrorists) to begin with. The Treaty certainly applies to those other nations that do actually follow it.
Perhaps I phrased my intention poorly. I tried express that this was simply an extension of America going against the generally accepted "will" of the international community (in my perspective of events). More-over, when a thing like this takes place I find myself considering the deeper ramifications and the eventual outcome of said event.
The Geneva Conventions (don't forget the 's') are a set of guidelines for international law in regards to humanitarian concerns in a the broad spectrum. Henri Dunant is generally considered to be a major motivating factor for the enacting of the Geneva Conventions inspired by events witnessed by the same in the year of 1859.
For over one hundred and fifty years these Conventions have been relevant (if not enforced). There have been three or four seperate amendments to the Convetions all of which have been accepted by the roughly 160 member nations that endorse the Geneva Conventions.
George W Bush has not proposed a Protocol amendment. He has enacted a definition of the Geneva Conventions relevant only to American interests, not, I might add, a formal request to the Geneva Conventions member nations. The current Protocols reflect the desires of the International Community as a whole (more or less).
What worries me is that the American Establishment is increasingly less concerned with the attitude of the International Community despite the fact that it keeps making broader and bolder impositions upon outside parties.
It begs the question...
When American institutionalism makes opposition illegal, what recourse do the dissatisfied have but those actions deemed illegal? The violation of human rights is the same today as it was five hundred years ago and will be the same in a thousand years; only the perception of those values changes.
George W Bush would see the vagaries of the Conventions defined, which may well be a noble cause, but given the scope of the Conventions, is totally illogical. Certianly we expect the member nations to develop their own interpretations of the Conventions but they're not situational and that fact is a driving force behind the current push.
And what worries me most is the road we're on. They say the slope is a slippery one, and if you ask me, it ends at the bottom of a very, very long fall.
I don't disagree with that, in theory. I disagree with it in application.
It's not like this is some new and outrageous situation. Similar events have occured throughout history time and time again and will doubtless propogate forward.
I agree with you on most of what you've said before this.
I'm not quite sure if I am understanding you correctly on this. If you mean outlawing freedom of speech, that would certainly be against the American tradition, law, and constitution, and I doubt that will ever be able to get passed. And if it does, I'm pretty sure there will be an internal rebellion that will topple the government then.
Or do you mean the opposition as in the Terrorist's rights to an open jury with due process of law? I am not in agreement with the idea of secret military tribune passing down judgements. That is something I will have to go against Bush on.
I think it's too early to tell if this is purely a situational matter yet or if this will indeed become more permanent. If it is situational, then yes, I am inclined to agree with you. But if it is permanent, I think it would be prudent if it was adapted to deal with the new changes.
I think it's too early to tell. If things continue like this after a decade, I would be inclined to agree with you. But I doubt they will; many Americans are less than fond of the current turn events. I'm a moderate, and I'm not so happy with how some things have turned out...
I find this laughable. The only reason such things as Guatanamo Bay and some of the prison incidents have become public is that our freedom of the press laws means that we can't clamp down on information release as easily as other nations can. All nations have, let's call it, problems with dealing with prisoners. In Canada it's probably a group of horse mounted redcoat riders (what's their names) that are too liberal with their fists when bringing in a suspect. Perhaps their drunk when they do their duty. But all nations have transgressions that would defy the Convention. There simply is no such thing as anyone perfectly adhering to the laws of the Convention.
We've come a long way since, say, WW2. WW2 is a prime definition of how the convention was misused. Enemy surrendered combatants were tried to the full extend of the international law, while friendly combatants were not, in the sense that "the ends justified the means", or more like, "all things are forgiven in victory". The trials for the beating of the prison guards, no matter how much of it is for saving face, clearly shows that we've come a good ways from back in those old days.
The point was made - police officers abide by the rules and criminals do not. I can speak on this as a law enforcement officer.
Yes, we have a great deal of standards of operation and such as they hamper us in our prosecution of the guilty. The criminals are bound by no stabdards. And using the standards of our own operation, usually we get them - but more often than not, they are released by the legal system meant to bring them to Justice. Justice is the end to which law is emant to serve, where now Justice is the veil used by the law to its own ends.
Off the beaten path - redirect, your honour. In some cases, this works - when hunting a car thief or mugger, yes. But what of a man that kills fifty women and rapes them before their gruesome demise. Does he deserve to be handcuffed like a regular criminal, and treated with respect and dignity? I leave that answer to your mind, but let me illustrate this point - America's incareration rate is higher than the Soviet Union;s in the 60s.
Point 2 - a country in Europe has as the punishment for paedophilistic rape the torture to death of the guiltuy party. The executions are watched and not at all quiet. They have on average only three cases a year - why? because the punishment IS horrendous and people know if they do something they will be held accountable, not coddled in a warm building for ten years receiving full medical care, complete meals, and a safe environemtn - - most often better than what they had on the streets.
Irregular combatans are not participants in active war. They have relinuqished their rights to be treated as regular combatants when they failed to enlist in recognized military forces when the conflict was in full-swing. People cannot be faulted for defending their homes, but they can be dealt with accordingly.
The matter at hand is semantics. When the British Empire ruled a quarter of the known world, insurgency was dealt with sternly and brutually and until the United States started BACKING insurgents, it lead a relatively peaceful life. There was, however, no falsehood in what they did. When the British Royal Navy arrived, the message was clear: we are going to conquer you, amalgamate you into our culture, lord over you, and improve your quality of living for the benefit of the people we will place here, and you will prosper as a result. So the natives fought, lost, and were conquered and eventually improved. I point to Hong Kong, Singapore, India and South Afrika as evidence.
The message the American Army bring swith it into battle is ambiguous at best. We are going to destroy your army when it resists, call you our friend, impose our own form of government lead by puppets from your own people, do what we consider right, and shove your culture onto the back burner while saying we're not. We will never go away - but you are free to do what you want. (((whispered - -so long as we say its ok))))
And one wonders why there is insurgency.
The problem remains then what to do with insurgents. For Americans I am sure it is difficult to deal with that question since the nation was founded from a rebellion. But on that note, the Union Army had no qualsm about executing people for treason and prisoners out of hand when part of its nation dared to rebel and say no. One simply does not leave paradise, and the south was punished as aresult. So you have both precedents.
The Geneva convention is in place to protect and guide those who wish to observe the rules of honour and the rules of war. Mistales and excesses will always be made, but the convention will protect you. If you go egregiously outside of the scope, then you will be dealt with accordingly and not protected by it.
What disgusts me the most is that the Geneva convention was mentioned at all. How would the US deal with people from Montana if they suddenly rose in revolt? Ghey would imprisoned and many executed. Insurgents against a new Iraqi government should be dealt with by Iraqis and not moved from Iraq, and thusly dealt with by the Iraqi people. Would the US ship the rebellious Montana-citizens to France? Or central China for safe-keeping???
I find this laughable... and inflamatory above and beyond what is called for, Park. Really.
... You're kidding, right T?
Many good points have been made, and counter points... and counter counter points. I take exception to How the Bush Administration is conducting itself with regards to The Issue. I fee that it is a valid concern that needs to be adressed, though perhaps not as it has/is.
