Alara wrote:Once more, helpless frustration and fear of an amorphous enemy dictates policy rather than sensibility, reason, civility and that non too common common sense.
What else is new?
But this is different. Very different. Instead of the usual fear mongering creating new laws to restrict movement, interning local populations because they MIGHT be sympathetic, increased spying on it's citizens and the usual things we've seen over history (all proven needless) you'd really have to dig back a long way to see a country drastically back peddle on its entire moral system of handling prisoners of war purely to allow for torture and abuse.
As Bush claimed at the time, "This is a new kind of war" but is it really? After all, war is about as basic as it gets for us humans and lumping everyone into the same pot, no matter how they are fighting it defies the lessons learned from past wars. Sadly, the average soldier doing a job pays the price.
Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
MorbidKate wrote:Sadly, the average soldier doing a job pays the price.
He always has been and always will be - this, again, isn't news.
Yes, all in all it's regrettable and stunning, not only because it makes no sense morally, but also no sense rationally. I could somewhat understand, even if not support, if such actions if they were as effective as they are evil. Well, they aren't.
Alara wrote:Yes, all in all it's regrettable and stunning, not only because it makes no sense morally, but also no sense rationally. I could somewhat understand, even if not support, if such actions if they were as effective as they are evil. Well, they aren't.
History has shown that "Necessary evils" never pan out either in the short or long term.
Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
Can we ever have a discussion on point without conflating?
Kate, during the American revolutionary war, the colonies DID have an army- the Continental Army. But you never answered my question. Do you want this man running free in Canada?
Charging the guy with murder is actually pretty interesting. My first reaction was to think that it's a pretty preposterous charge, but on reflection, this guy is a Canadian citizen. He is not Afghani nor is he enlisted in any army. Yet he decides to fly over to Afghanistan nonetheless and kill someone in uniform. So what makes more sense: To treat him as a soldier and thus held as a POW until the end of the war, or to treat him as a civilian but put him on trial for murdering a soldier?
In that light, I tend to think the latter makes more sense. Kick it out to the civilian judicial system and try him for murder. I bet there's some precedent for this already.
Alara wrote:Yes, all in all it's regrettable and stunning, not only because it makes no sense morally, but also no sense rationally. I could somewhat understand, even if not support, if such actions if they were as effective as they are evil. Well, they aren't.
History has shown that "Necessary evils" never pan out either in the short or long term.
Kate
That's why, as I stated, I still wouldn't support them.
My point was that if at least there was some necessity - i.e. some "gain" in applying such tactics, I could see where the reason to use them comes from even if it's not a path anyone should pursue. However, in this case, most actions have been misguided by fear and frustration, making the actual longed for "victory" all the harder to obtain.
Which is where we differ I think, you believe there are no helpful evils, while I think there are some that are at least efficient in obtaining the goals.
ç i p h é r wrote:Can we ever have a discussion on point without conflating?
Kate, during the American revolutionary war, the colonies DID have an army- the Continental Army. But you never answered my question. Do you want this man running free in Canada?
Charging the guy with murder is actually pretty interesting. My first reaction was to think that it's a pretty preposterous charge, but on reflection, this guy is a Canadian citizen. He is not Afghani nor is he enlisted in any army. Yet he decides to fly over to Afghanistan nonetheless and kill someone in uniform. So what makes more sense: To treat him as a soldier and thus held as a POW until the end of the war, or to treat him as a civilian but put him on trial for murdering a soldier?
In that light, I tend to think the latter makes more sense. Kick it out to the civilian judicial system and try him for murder. I bet there's some precedent for this already.
If you read what I posted earlier, Military tribunals are already in charge and the Superior Court ruled that they only had jurisdiction over "Illegal enemy combatants". What you'd like to see has already been ruled illegal.
As for the Revolutionary War, I'm Canadian and even I know in the early days of the revolution there were at best local militias and bands of men who wore what they had used their own weapons. Common uniforms for the most part came later. I suggest you read David McCullough's book, 1776 if you get the chance. Anyway, I just wanted to give you an example of how Americans were once seen as terrorists themselves using your own descriptions.
And to correct you again, the Canadian boy was already living in Afghanistan when the US attacked and fought them in open battle as part of the Taliban forces. He and others were and are by definition soldiers who were captured on the battlefield. What he and others did, including any US forces wasn't murder, it was war.
To answer your original question, I would have no opposition to the boy living in Canada because hadn't acted illegally. Prior to leaving Canada he had no record so unless he commits an illegal act it doesn't matter what one thinks. Groups like the ones he was involved with as a boy and many Mosques are watched closely in Canada so if he ever returned and joined a cell to plan something he'd be arrested in due course. If that happens, he should be charged to the full extent of the law and given representation to defend the charges.
Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
Alara wrote:Which is where we differ I think, you believe there are no helpful evils, while I think there are some that are at least efficient in obtaining the goals.
I don't believe necessary evils applied on a large scale are helpful and history has shown that to be true. Incredibly targeted and very specific instances of "helpful evils" as you call them, can be. One would have to be ignorant not to think that sort of thing has always happened.
What Bush did was take what Clinton had originally proposed and make it exponentially bigger so that the net was cast so friggin wide that thousands of unknowing (finger-pointing) or loosely-involved combatants (paid fighters) were being tortured in secret prisons as though they all had "actionable intelligence" and inside info, even 5 years after capture.
It's just nuts.
Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
ç i p h é r wrote:Yet he decides to fly over to Afghanistan nonetheless and kill someone in uniform. So what makes more sense: To treat him as a soldier and thus held as a POW until the end of the war, or to treat him as a civilian but put him on trial for murdering a soldier?
So where would that leave mercenary soldiers?
Current PCs:
NWN1: Soppi Widenbottle, High Priestess of Yondalla.
NWN2: Gruuhilda, Tree Hugging Half-Orc
Stormseeker wrote:*looks to see folks still fighting in afghanistan* well it aint over yet so weither you call him a pow, criminal, or boy scout...you don't release the enemy till the fight is finished.
And that is where the problem is aint it?
I would have no problems with these detainees being properly treated as POW's and held until the conflict's end. That's the law.
It's plain morally wrong and also doesn't gain a shit.
Well, it does... it soothes the anxiety, fear and frustration felt against this enemy by making people think that everything that can be done is done, no matter the cost. For some people at least, I reckon that is a comfort, especially those that actually believe in their governments ulterior benevolence and dedication to their protection.
This is not analogous to the revolutionary war. This is not a consequence of rendition. He belongs exactly where he is. I have no problem seeing him held as a POW for the duration of the conflict or handed over to civilian courts. To me, both seem perfectly legitimate and just options.
It's startling to see how worked up you get about these issues, Kate. Unless it's your job to investigate them, you're either in the wrong career or letting yourself get upset over things you'll never fully understand.
Hopefully they'll convict the bastard and give him the death penalty. Seriously, legal status or no, I want to see him put on trial and convicted for his crime. Since he killed a man, death is a fitting punishment.
Sadly, the average soldier doing a job pays the price.
Kate, no politician has ever won a war. Men and women dying on the battlefield win wars. I think that if politicians fought wars, we would be rid of bad politicians, and war. *scary moment* I just agreed with MorbidKate. Someone shoot me. I feel less republican-y for that analysis I posted. I need an infusion of rhetoric.
ç i p h é r wrote:This is not analogous to the revolutionary war. This is not a consequence of rendition. He belongs exactly where he is. I have no problem seeing him held as a POW for the duration of the conflict or handed over to civilian courts. To me, both seem perfectly legitimate and just options.
It's startling to see how worked up you get about these issues, Kate. Unless it's your job to investigate them, you're either in the wrong career or letting yourself get upset over things you'll never fully understand.
Seriously Cipher, you really need to take time to actually read some posts before you hop in with unsourced opinions and subtle insults. YOUR definition of what constitutes a soldier is not the international definition nor is it informed. I gave you an example based on your definition to give you some perspective as well as a very good book title, 1776 that goes into depth about the lack of common uniforms in the early days of the Revolution, especially in the Militias.
As for the 15 year old, nobody is arguing that he should be imprisoned for his actions. The crux of the matter is that he's being charged with MURDER and could get the death penalty for open fighting on the battlefield during an invasion of the country he was already living in at the time. That is a very dangerous standard to apply because it means anyone who ever fights openly in a war or conflict on either side could be tried and executed for taking a life during battle, after spending years in prison being tortured and abused with no rights or protections or immediately after capture. It's wrong. If US forces were ever captured, tortured, tried and executed the outcry would be massive, deservedly so.
And since you've missed it or ignored it, the Canadian and EVERYONE currently at Gitmo are classified as "Enemy Combatants" aka soldiers and not "Illegal Enemy Combatants" aka Terrorists. The Military Tribunals arranged for by the Bush Administration DO NOT have jurisdiction over Enemy Combatants which is why the case was tossed pending appeal. I'll also point out that the original tribunals were deemed unconstitutional and illegal.
So, I'm not upset about it or anything else for that matter but thanks for the concern
It's an area of concern for me and many others who believe that the abuses and illegal activities surrounding the secret prison system will come back to haunt the US and most of the western world as a result.
Kate
"We had gone in search of the American dream. It had been a lame f*ckaround. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. F*ck no, not today thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger. A man on the move... and just sick enough to be totally confident." -- Raoul Duke.
Kate, at no point have I ever expressed anything other than an opinion on this thread. If you're presuming that I'm speaking from some position of authority on the subject of military tribunals, international law, or conventions of war, then let me be very clear. I'm not, and I doubt very much anyone else on this thread is either. That does not mean I cannot and should not have an opinion on how a situation like the one you posted about SHOULD be handled, which I think I've already clearly stated. After all, in a democratic society, the law is intended to reflect the will of the people.
As well, lawyers can, and do, argue various interpretations of the law, which is precisely what is taking place here. Just because you do not agree with the interpretation being argued does not mean that everyone should not agree with it, irrespective of what a judge has ruled. Such differences of opinion are common within a pluralistic, multicultural, and racially diverse society, and some might say it's what makes us stronger.
As to the implication of an insult, there isn't one. You consistently post on topics relating to the Bush administration and the actions of our military. I understand. You're opposed to the administration. You're opposed to our presence in Iraq. You're opposed to the situation in Guantanamo. If you are a journalist or investigative reporter (or perhaps even in politics), I can understand your compulsion to post with such frequency and voracity about these matters, but otherwise it's an obsession *I* have trouble understanding. I could not, and would not, commit so much of my own time to researching and debating every [mis]step of this administration, let alone those of another nation, but I also have a great deal of other responsibilities to mind.
Regarding your analogy to the revolutionary war, how do you reconcile the fact that the British colonists were once citizens of England, subject to the rule of the English King, who fought for their own independence with the fact that Khadr is a citizen of CANADA, fighting in Afghanistan, and defending the Taliban, a regime which was harboring an international terrorist leader and organization. How are these circumstances comparable enough that we should draw some conclusion from history? A narrow perspective (or label) doesn't do anyone any justice.
Furthermore, it's strange (and convenient) that your analogy stops at the perception of the revolutionaries. What you are leaving out is that the British underestimated the rebels (as the west underestimates Islamic extremists) and were very much divided on how best to deal with the rebellion (much as the Democrats and Republicans are divided). These analogies though are only truly appropriate in the broadest sense of the conflicts, then and now.
Last edited by ç i p h é r on Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I could not, and would not, commit so much of my own time to researching and debating every [mis]step of this administration, let alone those of another nation,
And yet you do commit so much of your own time to debating every [mis]step of Kate's - it seems while she is fascinated with the U.S. administration, you are fascinated with her. Interesting.
ALFA1-NWN1: Sheyreiza Valakahsa
NWN2: Layla (aka Aliyah, Amira, Snake and others) and Vellya
NWN1-WD: Shein'n Valakasha
.