Fair Warning

Fair warning is needed on many fronts. It's been well publicized by Israel that they would be attacking in the south of Lebanon. Fliers were dropped, broadcasts were made - so how is it that up to sixty "civilians," many said to be children were killed from an air strike in Qana? But we won't hear anymore about the warnings, that the area was identified as launching rocket strikes into Israel - and we'll probably never know how many of the so-called civilians were actually that, or how many were forced to remain there by Hezbollah.

Rice is said to have put off a planned trip to Lebanon after the attack. No doubt all the useful idiots will get tremendous mileage out of this. But Israel had better be careful. If they get backed down from this and leave Hezbollah armed, depending upon some international force for their security, they're crazy. Even the UN forces were prone to bribes and collusion. An international force likely won't be much better. In a few years Hezbollah will be able to target anything they want in Israel with munitions that can only be imagined right now.

It already disgusts me that so much of the free world appears to lack the nerve and the will to stand up to terrorist scum. I hope Israel doesn't follow suit. They might survive it for now. But down the road they will pay an incredible price.

Here's the war news: Pajamas Media, or read a few regional blogs. I like to check the JP headlines, as well.

Comments

[Gary Maxwell]

[b]it does not serve "universal human rights" for self-righteous toads, long on sentimentality and short on mentality, to cluster together in sanctimonious circles weeping for the US to abandon the universal human rights we DO have.[/B]

Here here.

[xxx]

It was admitted by the military that the 22 year old Afgani taxi driver who was hung from the ceiling and had his knees crushed by our soldiers was INNOCENT, factually innocent, not innocent because he wasn't tried and found guilty but INNOCENT in the true meaning of the word, having done nothing wrong and nothing to aide any terrorists, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got picked up in a sweep. He was tortured and killed by our own soldiers.

Anyone who thinks forcible sodomy of a prisoner isn't torture is truly, truly no longer worth my time.

You all can go back to talking amongst yourself about how Lebanon should be carpet bombed with Napalm and every single Arab muslim is a cold blooded born killer who wants to destroy American.

Have at it freaks.

[Gary Maxwell]

Promises promises.

[rwilymz]

"It was admitted by the military that the 22 year old Afgani taxi driver who was hung from the ceiling and had his knees crushed by our soldiers was INNOCENT, factually innocent, ..."

Funny, but I don't recall the military being the determiner of innocence...

Guess the courts are out of a job.

"Anyone who thinks forcible sodomy of a prisoner isn't torture is truly, truly no longer worth my time."

I'm not going to accede to somebody's inaccurate reinvention of legal definitions simply because he's Very Very Sincere® about it.

It is my personal opinion that fathers who do not get 50% of their children's time after a divorce have been denied Equal Protection by the courts, but I do not have the legal authority to declare my opinion authoritative, and neither do you.

Who gives a flying rat's ass what *you* think torture consists of? You're position on the matter is irrelevant.

[xxx]

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[xxx]

Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the “fundamental guarantees” of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

[rwilymz]

"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984"

I'm not sure the US ratified that one.

"Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions."

...detainees who are defined in common article 4 ...

You can't simply say "we are free to have abortions in this country" and expect that it blanketly covers those who are 2 minutes from term, or 15 year-olds without parents' permission. We have life, liberty and property rights in this country, but try signing a real estate contract when you're 12 and see how far you get. Try claiming right to life if you're on death row, or liberty if you're a convicted bank robber.

That's why you read and understand the WHOLE law before saying what it means.

"Article 75 prohibits murder, “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”"

Right. To those who are entitled to it. All laws not only define what, but to whom.

So ... to whom?

Read article 4 and tell me who gets those terms of treatment.

[xxx]

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

[rwilymz]

Simple regurgitation is not analysis, 'x'. Tell me what it **means**.

And I'll let you know if you're right.

I work in this stuff every day.

[xxx]

I stand corrected on my definition of torture by the United States.

Much of what I described would fall under the guise of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, also prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and prohibited by the U.S. Constitution prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. I believe the 'reasonable man' standard would apply and thus, believe a reasonable man would conclude that forceable sodomy, would constitute both cruel and unusual punishment and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and would thus be prohibited for any person in U.S. custody.
------------------------

This commentary was written by Boalt Law School Professor John Yoo, who is also a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003. He wrote this article for the San Jose Mercury News.

As counsel to the president for the past four years, Gonzales helped develop the United States' policies in the war on terror. He demonstrated leadership and, as is often the case in perilous times, generated controversy.

He will encounter questions about the decision to deny prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions to Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters and about his role in what have come to be known as "torture memos.'' As a Justice Department lawyer, I dealt with both issues – I worked on and signed the department's memo on the Geneva Conventions and helped draft the main memo defining torture. I can explain why the administration decided that aggressive measures, though sometimes unpopular, are necessary to protect America from another terrorist attack.

John Yoo

Sept. 11, 2001, proved that the war against Al-Qaida cannot be won solely within the framework of the criminal law. The attacks were more than crimes – they were acts of war. Responding to the attacks and protecting the United States from another requires a military approach to the conflict. But Al-Qaida, without regular armed forces, territory or citizens to defend, also presents unprecedented military challenges.

One of the first policy decisions in this new war concerned the Geneva Conventions – four 1949 treaties ratified by the United States that codify many of the rules for war. After seeking the views of the Justice, State, and Defense departments, Gonzales concluded in a draft January 2002 memo to the president that Al-Qaida and the Taliban were not legally entitled to POW status. He also advised that following every provision of the conventions could hurt the United States' ability to protect itself against ruthless enemies.

Gonzales' memo agreed with the Justice Department and disagreed with the State Department, which felt the Taliban (though not Al-Qaida) qualified as POWs.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel – where I worked at the time – determined that the Geneva Conventions legally do not apply to the war on terrorism because Al-Qaida is not a nation-state and has not signed the treaties. Al-Qaida members also do not qualify as legal combatants because they hide among peaceful populations and launch surprise attacks on civilians – violating the fundamental principle that war is waged only against combatants. Consistent American policy since at least the Reagan administration has denied terrorists the legal privileges reserved for regular armed forces.

The Taliban raised different questions because Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban arguably operated as its de facto government. But the Justice Department found that the president had reasonable grounds to deny Taliban members POW status because they did not meet the conventions' requirements that lawful combatants operate under responsible command, wear distinctive insignia, and obey the laws of war. The Taliban flagrantly violated those rules, at times deliberately using civilians as human shields.

According to Gonzales' memo, the State Department argued that denying POW status to the Taliban would damage U.S. standing in the world and could undermine the standards of treatment for captured American soldiers. Gonzales also passed on the department's worry that denying POW status "could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries.''

The press has consistently misrepresented Gonzales' views and latched onto a sexy sound bite used out of context. When Gonzales said in the memo that this new war made some provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint,'' he referred to the requirement that POWs be given commissary privileges, monthly pay, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Many stories cut the quotation short, making it seem as if he had deemed the conventions themselves "quaint.''

'Obsolete' limitations

Gonzales' memo did, however, say that the terrorist threat rendered "obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.'' Why? Because the United States needed to be able "to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.'' Information remains the primary weapon to prevent a future Al-Qaida attack on the United States.

Gonzales also observed that denying POW status would limit the prosecution of U.S. officials under a federal law criminalizing a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. He was concerned that some of the conventions' terms were so vague (prohibiting, for example, "outrages upon personal dignity'') that officials would be wary of taking actions necessary to respond to unpredictable developments in this new war.

The president took Gonzales' advice and denied POW status to suspected Al-Qaida and Taliban members.

Gonzales' advice raised legal and policy questions. Legally, could the president determine by himself that Al-Qaida or the Taliban were not entitled to POW status? No one doubted that he had the constitutional authority. Presidents have long been the primary interpreters of treaties on behalf of the United States, especially in the area of warfare. Federal judges have since split on the POW issue.

The other question was what standards the United States should follow as a matter of policy if the Geneva Conventions did not legally apply. Gonzales recommended that the United States should continue "its commitment to treat the detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles'' of the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners would receive adequate food, housing and medical care, and could practice their religion. Gonzales advised that as long as the president ordered humane treatment, the military would follow his orders.

Gonzales has also received criticism for a memo he requested from the Justice Department to provide the legal definition of torture. According to press reports, Gonzales made the request after the CIA had captured high-level Al-Qaida leaders and wanted clarification of the standards for interrogation under U.S. law.

Congress' role

While the definition of torture in the August 2002 memo is narrow, that was Congress' choice. When the Senate approved the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, it stated its understanding of torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.'' The Senate defined mental pain and suffering as "prolonged mental harm'' caused by threats of severe physical harm or death to a detainee or third person, the administration of mind-altering drugs or other procedures "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.'' Congress adopted this definition in a 1994 law criminalizing torture committed abroad.

The Senate also made clear that it believed the treaty's requirement that nations undertake to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' was too vague. The Senate declared its understanding that the United States would follow only the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The Senate and Congress' decisions provided the basis for the Justice Department's definition of torture:

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.''

Under this definition, interrogation methods that go beyond polite questioning but fall short of torture could include shouted questions, reduced sleep, stress positions (like standing for long periods of time), and isolation from other prisoners. The purpose of these techniques is not to inflict pain or harm, but simply to disorient.

On Thursday, the Justice Department responded to criticism from the summer, when the opinion leaked to the press. The department issued a new memo that superseded the August 2002 memo. Among other things, the new memo withdrew the statement that only pain equivalent to such harm as serious physical injury or organ failure constitutes torture and said, instead, that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain.

Although some have called this a repudiation, the Justice Department's new opinion still generally relies on Congress' restrictive reasoning on what constitutes torture. Among other things, it reiterates that there is a difference between "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' and torture – a distinction that many critics of the administration have ignored or misunderstood.

For example, according to press reports, the International Committee for the Red Cross has charged that interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, which included solitary confinement and exposing prisoners to temperature extremes and loud music, were "tantamount to torture.'' This expands torture beyond the United States' understanding when it ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture and enacted the 1994 statute. Not only does the very text of the convention recognize the difference between cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, but the United States clearly chose to criminalize only torture.

[rwilymz]

Here, 'x', read up on the history:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Click on the "history" link, and pay attention to the exceptions, particularly where it mentions "mercinaries" and combatants who deliberately violate the rules.

This is from the Geneva Conventions folks themselves; the ICRC.

[rwilymz]

"This commentary was written by Boalt Law School Professor John Yoo..."

A law professor is also not authoritative, 'x'.

You're dancing and dancing trying to avoid the only answer you know to be correct because it galls you. That's just too bad. Sometimes you need to acknowledge the facts that you don't like in order to be considered honest.

[xxx]

guerrillas

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art.

[rwilymz]

You are still cutting and pasting, 'x', and not thinking about what you're doing. My dogs do this with rabbits they catch. Swallow it whole and barf it up on the garage floor twenty minutes later. They don't think about it either.

You've simply replaced some internet message board for the garage floor so you can puke up a semi-chewed rabbit.

Try Protocol I, article 47. They are not allowable "combatants" and if captured are not POWs. They do not get protections as captured combatants. They.Are.Outside.The.Law.

[xxx]

Apparently your position is that it is legal, moral and acceptable to torture, degrade and abuse a prisoner if he or she resides in a country that did not sign the GC, or if they belong to a group that allegedly does not conform to the strictures of the GC with regard to carrying their weapons openly, chain of command, etc.

Is that it?

Did I get it right?

That is your position, that it is moral, legal and acceptable to torture, physically and mentally abuse and degrade "enemy combantants' or those deemed to be terrorists.

It is okay to torture, abuse and degrade members of Al Quada, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Your position was more palitable before I understood it, I had misunderstood you to simply be quibbling about the legal meaning of torture and which specific category 'terrorists' and enemy combatants fell under, e.g. full rights of POW's or the lesser categories.

Now that I see your point is that we can do anything we want to them, torture them, abuse them, sodomize them, inflict any punishment or treatment on them that we desire because They.Are.Outside.The.Law I think I really may have to go vomit on the garage floor.

[rwilymz]

"Apparently your position is that it is legal, moral and acceptable to torture, degrade and abuse a prisoner if he or she resides in a country that did not sign the GC"

No

"or if they belong to a group that allegedly does not conform to the strictures of the GC with regard to carrying their weapons openly, chain of command, etc"

Yes.

Furthermore, that is the consistent position of all nations up to roughly the mid-70s when the severe influx of new nations carved out of third world colonies developed, learned that they weren't considered "legitimate" and said, "No, no!! we want to be able to fight wars using civilian cover and bounce between civvie and war-fighter on a moment's notice!!"

"That is your position, that it is moral, legal and acceptable to torture, physically and mentally abuse and degrade "enemy combantants' or those deemed to be terrorists."

The US military does not allow the use of "torture". So we don't do it. No matter how many times you say we do, we do not.

The answer isn't changing.

When US soldiers are found to violate international law, we prosecute; when US soldiers are found to violate US military regulation, we prosecute. We. Do. Not. Torture.

Do we change the regulations to suit current needs? Yes.

Is that cold, calculating and cynical? Yes.

But it follows the protocol for doing such things, and we're allowed to.

Do we transfer certain prisoners to the authority of other nations whose definitions of torture are different from ours? Yes.

Is THAT cold, calculating and cynical? Yes.

But it is still allowed.

"Now that I see your point is that we can do anything we want to them, torture them, abuse them, sodomize them, inflict any punishment or treatment on them that we desire because They.Are.Outside.The.Law I think I really may have to go vomit on the garage floor."

We do not torture them.

International law was written the way it was written, to ALLOW torture and summary execution of those who do not follow the rules of war, because it serves to dissuade people from violating the rules of war, and thus war becomes more humane.

If war-fighters who hide behind civilians are to be treated the same as those who do not, then every soldier will be hiding behind civilians, and war reverts to the middle-ages form where war is indifferentiable from indiscriminate slaughter.

Hence: those who hide behind civilians do not get guarantees of humane treatment.

If war-fighters are allowed to claim civilian status by virtue of not being in a uniform, then every soldier will wear civvies and war reverts to the middle-ages form where war is indifferentiable from indiscriminate slaughter.

Hence, those who fight in civilian clothes -- unless he is openly armed -- does not get guarantees of humane treatment.

Do you get it yet?

What type of war do you prefer?

Here are your choices:
1] war that does its best to avoid civilians and where all fighters come out in the open to fight, or
2] indiscriminate slaughter.

Please note: "no war at all" is not a choice.

[xxx]

We do not torture them.
-----------------------

Yes. We. Do. Now.

We just don't call it torture and don't call it cruel, inhumane or degrading or abuse. We changed the definition.

That may work in a courtroom from a legal perspective, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter which is that Bush wants to redefine what these terms mean so that, in effect, we torture without calling it torture, we degrade and dehumanize without calling it such.

If you sodomize a prisoner or beat him to a pulp or keep him awake for 8 days straight or force him to orally copulate another prisoner or make him eat his own feces you are abusing him. It doens't matter what you call it in the military handbook or whether you make it "legal" or not.

You have a point about civilian warfare but I still don't believe that means that we can torture and abuse these people just becuase they don't follow the same rules as we do.

[rwilymz]

"We changed the definition."

Then it's not torture.

This is a QED moment, 'x'; accept it and move on.

"I still don't believe that means that we can torture and abuse these people just becuase they don't follow the same rules as we do"

I pointed you at the history of the GenCons; read for yourself, from the ICRC, why some people who fight wars are deliberately left on the outside of mandatory humane treatment. We are allowed to summarily execute "terrorists"; we are not obliged to accept the surrender of those who conceal themselves among civilians.

In WWII, "terrorists" were known as "saboteurs" and they were typically shot on sight. When they weren't shot on sight they were invariably handed to MI5 or OSS and they were -- what is the term in such disrepute today...? -- ah yes... "rendered"; they were "rendered", and not a single soul [apart from maybe the saboteur's mother and father] worried about "protecting his human rights".

The GenCons didn't have a thing to say about it, and no groups of self-righteous messianic world-saving crusaders wept a single tear.

Fast-forward to today. Human rights for all, especially those who do not extend any to others; human dignity for all, especially the deliberately undignified.

And when people deliberately endanger the civilian population, in violation of the only rules of "humane" behavior the world has *ever* agreed on, we must allow them to get away with it, with no consequences, because to do anything less is "inhumane" on our part. So us being "humane" means they get to be INhumane and endanger everyone else.

Izzat the way you think it works?

The cops aren't allowed to execute criminals without a trial, are they?

Of course not.

So ... when a criminal pulls a gun and holds a 7-11 customer hostage ... the cops have to say, "Oh, well, there ya go, then; we can't do anything about this, because we aren't allowed to shoot you. On your merry way, then, Mr Robber..."

Right?

No. The rules themselves say that when criminals violate certain boundaries, the cops get to do things that are "rude", "violent", and "inhumane".

Ditto international law.

We followed the GenCons to their letter and intent, and following the GenCons means that, for certain types of war-fighters, we don't have to follow the rules.

[xxx]

So if we pass a law that says giving electric shocks to prisoners' genitals isn't torture, then it isn't? If we pass a law that says skinning a prisoner alive isn't torture, then it isn't?

If George Bush passes a law that says the sky is red, is it?

[rwilymz]

"if we pass a law that says giving electric shocks to prisoners' genitals isn't torture, then it isn't?"

Pretty much, yes. "Torture" is a legal term, and subject to the mechanations of legislative deliberation, by whatever protocol any given jurisdiction governs the legislative process.

Society A may be a dictatorial tyranny, and the legislators will do what the tyrant says -- like Chicago, or Cuba, or China -- and therefore what *el Heffe* says is law becomes so.

Society B may be a democratic republic where the hmfwic is, under the rules of legislative debate, little more than a cheerleader, and laws may end up not reflecting Mr Big's desires.

"If George Bush passes a law that says the sky is red, is it?"

1] Bush cannot pass laws; though he can cheerlead for laws, and he can sign Executive Orders;
2] if a law were to be passed delcaring the sky to be red, then, for legal purposes, the sky would be red, yes.

Don't laugh; don't get disgusted; don't throw up your hands and quit. Stupid things like that have been passed into law over and over and over again, and more often certain legislatures *want* to do even more.

Alabama wanted to pass a law 30, 40 years ago declaring pi to be == 3, because 3.14159etc was "too difficult" for grade school math classes. Pi = 3 turns circles into spirals, and otherwise violates physical reality. But legal definitions are legal definitions, and must be accepted as such for the time they are in effect.

...which does not diminish anyone's capacity to free-speech their way into cheerleading for changes to those legal definitions.

But it DOES mean that saying "'X' is torture even if the law doesn't say so" is wrong, untrue, unrealistic and dishonest, and means that the person saying such things is incapable of getting beyond ideology to have an honest discussion on reality.

[xxx]

Lastly,

What you refuse to acknowledge is that truth and law do not always coincide and that there are simply some UNIVERSAL truths that all civilized people agree on: killing innocent civilians is wrong and to be avoided, rape=bad, torture=bad, etc.

Legislating something into or out of existance does not change the fundamental truth, though it may change the situational reality...just like being convicted or exonerated in a court of law does not change the fundamental reality of guilt or innocence. OJ killed his wife but he is 'not guilty'.

It is legal in my state for the government to demand I provide fingerprints in order to get a gun permit even though I have never been accused of anything beyond speeding. IMO that is patently unconstitutional just like all the rest of the laws that seek to save me from myself..seatbelts, smoking, drinking age and that seek to absolve me from my own stupidity...blaming the manifacturer of the window blind that I let my kid get strangled with, blaming the pool owner where I left my kid unattended to drown. But, legally, all these things are constitutional at present. Legally OJ Simpson is not guilty of killing his wife. Legally, apparently, torture is no longer torture in the US and abuse is no longer abuse in the US, of course depending on who you are, if you are some poor schmuck arab who got picked up in Afganistan then you can be hung up from the ceiling and beaten to death but god forbid you are an actual criminal, found guilty of a hideous crime like child rape and murder, for you, we've got free college and HBO and a nice parole hearing on the horizon to let you back out to commit more mayhem, but a political prisoner...bring on the rack.

Just. Plain. Stupid.

[rwilymz]

"What you refuse to acknowledge is that truth and law do not always coincide and that there are simply some UNIVERSAL truths that all civilized people agree on: killing innocent civilians is wrong and to be avoided, rape=bad, torture=bad, etc."

No matter how many times you try to define me you don't have the authority, and in any event you haven't gotten it right yet.

I have not "refused to acknowledge" any such thing. In fact, I pretty much DID acknowledge that. ... without using those exact words.

"Legislating something into or out of existance does not change the fundamental truth, though it may change the situational reality"

Yeah? And? If Congress passes a law saying the sky is red, the sky doesn't turn red. But in a court of law, "red" holds sway. ...until such time as the law is rescinded by another law or voided by a court having jurisdiction.

What. Is. Your. Point?

Are you demanding the authority to work outside the law because "your reality" is superior?

Again: who died and made you king?

"Morally" superior?

Who died and made you god?

What makes you so frigging special that the accepted norms and definitions don't apply when you're in the room?

"IMO that is patently unconstitutional just like all the rest of the laws that seek to save me from myself..seatbelts, smoking, drinking age ..."

I would agree with you, especially from a theoretical aspect, on each and every one. And then some. I don't smoke and am glad to be free of it when I eat out, but, sure, it's anti-freedom to prevent smokers from doing things in public that I don't like.

BUT.

That doesn't change anything.

"torture is no longer torture in the US and abuse is no longer abuse"

Torture is what torture is defined to be by those who have the authority to define it. Just like the speed limit on Main Street.

The US did not ratify the UN's prefered definition of torture and abuse, we created our own. As long as we uphold our own, the GenCons can't quibble. When we find our own who violate *our* definitions, we are obliged to prosecute. If we prosecute, then nobody has room to complain. I've yet to see anyone hyperventilating about stacking naked Iraqis like gay cordwood protesting because there have been no al Qaida hearings into Nick Berg's beheading.

We prosecute our own who violate the rules; they celebrate theirs who violate the rules.

And we're the bad guys??

Take in the big picture here; quit living in your navel.

[xxx]

Are you demanding the authority to work outside the law because "your reality" is superior?

YEP. Who said that it was the responsibility of just men to oppose unjust laws or something like that?

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. If you pass a law that says using a cattle prod on a prisoner is legal and moral then I am going to oppose it, I am going to shout from the rooftops that we have lost our minds and our way and that this is torture and must be stopped.

Hiding behind the law is what cowards do. This is what the Nazis did, why can't you see that. Everything the Nazis did...killing the mentally ill, killing, torturing and starving the jews and the gypsies was LEGAL in Germany, since what they did was legal why did we bother to have the Nuremberg trials? If any country can legislate whatever they want then there would be no war crimes, it would be impossible to prosecute anyone for anything as long as they had made it legal in their country.

The civilized world has decided that slavery is wrong, it used to be legal, but it was always wrong.

Raping and kidnapping women as spoils of war used to be legal, but it was always wrong and immoral.

Your whole premise is bullshit and you know it.

If you want to argue that the war on terror demands a different latitude and a different set of rules that is one thing, but to keep on saying that if we legislate torture out of existance then it doesn't really exist is the same disgusting, semantic legaleze game that Bush is playing. It doesn't change the fact of what constitutes torture in a civilized society.

[xxx]

If your view of morality is correct then the Nazi defense of "I was just following orders" should have absolved them of all guilt, no matter what they did. They were following lawfull orders and the chain of command, even when those orders included rounding up and shooting innocent civlians and a litany of other atrocities.

Is this really the world you want to live in?

I think you are arguing a rhetorical point that you don't actually believe in any more than I do.

[rwilymz]

"Who said that it was the responsibility of just men to oppose unjust laws or something like that?"

Then oppose them. But do not redefine them on your authority.

You are allowed to oppose them. You are NOT allowed to redefine them. And that is what you are trying to do: "this is torture and must be stopped."

No, it is NOT torture. You simply believe it SHOULD be.

Saying "it shouldn't be this way" is opposing the definition you dislike; saying "it isn't this way" is redefining reality. And it makes you just as superficial a twit as any Congress who'd pass a law saying the sky is red, or the Alabama legislature passing a law declaring pi = 3. Only ... they would have the authority to do those stupid things, while you don't.

"Hiding behind the law is what cowards do. This is what the Nazis did, why can't you see that."

Hiding behind the law also goes in the direction of letting OJSimpson walk out of jail because he was found falsely "not guilty" by a jury of his peers. Are these Nazis too?

Why can't you see the flip side of "hiding behind the law" like a coward?

"since what they did was legal why did we bother to have the Nuremberg trials?"

Because history is written by the winners. That's a histoical constant and it's one of the things that will never change. We Nuremberged the Nazis because we could.

"If any country can legislate whatever they want then there would be no war crimes"

Not exactly. In order to be admitted to the UN you have to agree to abide by a collection of the international conventions. I don't recall which specific ones they are, but there's a few.

"Raping and kidnapping women as spoils of war used to be legal, but it was always wrong and immoral."

"Wrong" and "immoral" are entirely subjective. There are people who will very adamantly and pointedly describe how slavery is a moral institution, how women-as-chattel is "the way it should be", how infibulation and immolation are right and proper, ... and when the British Empire goes to places like India and east central Africa and so horribly colonizes these places and puts an end to the practices of slavery as backward, female subserviance as demeaning, infibulation as simply horrific and grotesque, and immolation as barbaric, the locals get up in arms and when they gain independence we teach our kids that it was, instead, the Brits who were cruel for colonization, while the local practices of slavery, female subserviance, cutting the naughty bits off girls and burning widows and unmarried daughters alive are to be "understood in context".

It is exactly this type of moral equivalence that lies beneath the surface of the war on terror. *We* can't do thiese things, because we're civilized... but they, well *they* have been held down by da western man for eons, and they have no choice but to get all uppity.

So we only look at ourselves and our own actions. Can't judge them; of course not. That would be all, like, *judgmental*.

And in order to accentuate the contrast between our two cultures, when the rules allow us to act certain ways in war that we'd never dream of acting in peace, well, let's apply the peace-standard to war. We'll show them how morally superior we are ... as we consign ourselves to fighting wars by deliberative resolution.

We see how well 686, 687, etc through 1441 kept Iraq so well-behaved; we see how well 1559 kept Hezbollah from attacking Israel.

Wars are fought by the rules of war. And some of those rules say: when the people you capture haven't been fighting fair, you aren't required to be nice. And others say: some of these definitions can be changed by the nations that have to follow them.

That's war.

[xxx]

So we only look at ourselves and our own actions. Can't judge them; of course not. That would be all, like, *judgmental*.
----------------

Of course we can judge them, we just should not get down in the gutter with them to wallow in the same immorality and brutality that we decry ourselves, except when it is convenient.

Throwing the widown on the burning funeral pyre was always wrong, just like genital mutilation of girls was always wrong, footbinding in China, always wrong, context be dammed...just like certain treatments of prisoners WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM are wrong, were always wrong and will always be wrong.

In my judgement we just might be a lot better off if the Brits and the French had held onto their empires a teeny, tiny bit longer, long enough to build some democratic institutions and modern thinking from the inside out or at the very least, put a teeny, tiny bit more thought into the "countries" that they created and then left to their own devices with no thought of tribal/historic/religious issues of the new inhabitants of their shiny new country.

I guess the answer is that we're all f***d, we are a brutal species with a tendency toward violence and committing atrocities in the name of whatever suits our fancy at a particular point in time.

I guess that means you win.

[rwilymz]

"If your view of morality is correct then the Nazi defense of "I was just following orders" should have absolved them of all guilt, no matter what they did."

Pretty much, yes. Nuremberg was an exercise in extracting a pound of flesh from what was left of a regime that horrified the rest of the world.

The Allies as much as admitted: we SNAFUed royally by not stopping this when Germany was *merely* in violation of Versailles, and the leaders who did this are pretty much ashes now, but we have this moral outrage and aso we're going to take it out on anyone we can.

Wanna know what happened to a Birkenau guard who refused to follow orders? he was shot.

The self-righteous prosecutors at Nuremberg said that the guard should have committed suicide by SS firing squad rather than prevent jews from escaping. It was just as immoral to hold guards responsible for the operation of Auschwitz as it was to operate Auschwitz.

That is the whole concept of the Geneva Conventions rules of war: a soldier is not responsible for carrying out the orders given by a superior. You cannot punish a soldier for taking part in war.

"Well, they should have known better" is an abstract dodge. It is imposing on them an authority that those same rules of war you're claiming to uphold do not give them.

So we execute a few low-level guards because we can't find more than one or two of their commanders, and it purges us of guilt for not stopping Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland; or when they Anschlussed Austria; or when they dittoed Sudetenland, or occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain and Charles Lindbergh can now sleep nights.

[rwilymz]

"...WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM are wrong, were always wrong and will always be wrong."

That's very self-righteous of you.

"we are a brutal species with a tendency toward violence and committing atrocities in the name of whatever suits our fancy at a particular point in time."

Except The West follows the rules when we change our fancy. Which is as far as collective human enlightenment has progressed.

And rather than congratulating ourselves on at least going through the formalities while being temporarilty bloodthirsty, you declare that going through the formalities is no different than being a marauding band of Mongols.

So I suppose it doesn't matter if a child sits on the floor because he can't walk, or if he sits on the floor because he's learning to walk and doesn't have it right yet.

Scold him either way.

Gotcha.

[xxx]

Scold him either way.
----------------------

Nah, just pass a law that what he is actually doing is standing up and walking around then you are all set, you can conveniently forget about the need for him to learn to walk at all, presto chango, he walks, the Geneva Convention says so.

Either we, as a country and a species, believe that there are universal rights that cannot be abridged for any reason, or we don't. If everything is relative and situational then our collective human enlightenment is a pretty sorry affair.

What's next, bring back crucifiction? That'll show them terrorists, we can just line them up from Bagdad to Ramulla to Tehran.

[rwilymz]

"If everything is relative and situational then our collective human enlightenment is a pretty sorry affair."

And thirty thousand years ago if the best we had was neanderthals brutalizing the fledgling cro-magnon, then the prospects of the human race existing at all was equally sorry.

There's a purpose to holding a vision of a brighter future, but when that brighter future differs from the reality, it doesn't serve the purpose of getting to that brighter future OR surviving the present reality to stop, drop and have a hissy fit in the middle of the road.

Each and every stage of human civilization has declared that its concept of "morality" was the epitome, was the pinnacle, WAS always, IS always, EVER SHALL BE always, et cetera. Hasn't ever mattered what age. Or what circumstances.

Spaniards obliterated the Maya and Aztec, and called it "moral", because the Maya and Aztec sacrificed humans without the exigencies of warfare. To them is was often **in place of** war. Send the neighboring tribe a nubile young virgin and a strapping young youth, have them gutted on the temple, voila, don't need to have a war now and dozens, hundreds or thousands are spared.

An agrarian society in which the stronger male provides sustanence for his family has a whole bunch of women either starving to death or turning to other "always immoral" activities to survive when the man dies. Is it immoral to sentence such women to a long, lingering death because there's no one to provide for them? or kill them now when their beliefs say they'll be rewarded?

There are no moral constants, and people who think there are are rationalizing fools, usually with no historical grounding.

Frankly, there is no "moral" nor "immoral". I tolerate people who throw those terms out only for so long -- which is usually not very.

Neither is there "right" or "wrong". Those are simply equivocated and religion-extracted versions of "moral" and "immoral".

There is "what benefits me/us" and "what does NOT benefit me/us". It's the intellectual abstraction possible from 20th-century idleness that allows us to shift from tangible benefits to theoretical benefits.

When our livelihoods or our lives are materially affected by a deplorable thing, then it has morality attached. And the Brits who invade India and topple the various local kings -- thus materially affecting them -- are "immoral", and when the Brits changes the rules about widows starving from lack of support -- thus materially affecting the society which must now deprive itself to care for the supportless -- becomes "immoral" as well. Morality is based upon nothing else.

By its nature, it changes over time. It was immoral to keep alive a horribly birth-defected baby a thousand years ago because no matter what you did it would die. It would die after consuming a LOT of the family's resources... or after consuming none. When the family has virtually no resources, are you willing to consign an entire family to death because they had a child born with spina bifida?

Today is not a thousand years ago, and the answers are different, particularly in a modern first-world nation.

Context counts. It's critical. The Wayback Machine hasn't been invented yet.

This is considerably afield of the War on Terror, but the concepts apply. We do not live in a worldwide society which has the luxury of pooh-poohing people who dislike us and our way of life and don't feel like following the rules when punctuating that dislike, becuase the issue is, eventually, survival. Whose survival would you prefer to see? the culture that has a *concept* of following a set of rules even if it sets them aside from time to time? or the culture which does not consider those rules important enough to even follow in peace time?

[xxx]

How sad.

If all morality is relative, and there are no universal imperatives then, what are we doing in Iraq? Why do we care about Israel, when, from a purely long term strategic standpoint, the ME would be a lot less violent if we cut off all aid to Israel and let the Arab world consume her, no? They could just kill off all the Israelis, rename the entire area Palestine and get back to the business of repressing their own people and pumping out oil. If there was no Israel and no American support of Israel then the Arabs wouldn't have anything to bitch about, there would be no Hamas or Hezbollah, in fact, you could even argue that with no Israel all the money that ME spends to support these rogue groups would be spent on health care or education instead of missles and bombs. In fact, the reason that Israel was created in teh first place had nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with morality, it was the West's guilt at the Holocaust that motivated them to finally accede to the zionist dream of an Israel, a refuge for jews to be free from persecution. Sure sounds like there was some moralizing going on to me.

If everyone's moral compass is pretty much irrelevant, then why so much horror when our guys are beheaded? Apparently, in the context of the beheading and in their own minds what they were doing was right and just...so who are we to argue.

Context and culture play a part, but that can't be the full answer. Killing babies is always wrong. Is there a difference between the starving Chinese family who kill their baby daughter because she won't be anything but a drain on the family and killing an infant for the fun of it or a Roman leader murdering the baby of his closest rival to prevent any future political problems?

A world where the only thing we are about is our self interest will inevitably descend into barbarism. You want to give up, say forget striving for justice, freedom and equality, let's do what benefits us in the short term, since our idea of morality may be just as barbaric as those of our ancestors, why sweat it...

There is much that our society still condones that is barbaric, which I won't get into since it will show me up for the lefty tree hugger that I am, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the strides that have been made and start backsliding on issues that should no longer be open to debate, like torturing your enemy.

[rwilymz]

"If all morality is relative, and there are no universal imperatives then, what are we doing in Iraq?"

You don't pay attention do you? I just told you: It. Benefits. Me/Us.

Morality is what benefits us.

Immorality is what doesn't.

What benefitted us two thousand years ago is sometimes very different from what benefits us today.

We are in Iraq because we were put on guard around it by the UN who told us to stay there until the UN gave us permission to leave. We kept taking pot-shots and drew a line in the sand, had the UN verify that the rules had crossed-Ts and dotted-Is, and then invaded.

"Why do we care about Israel, when, from a purely long term strategic standpoint, the ME would be a lot less violent if we cut off all aid to Israel and let the Arab world consume her, no?"

Because it benefits us to have customers; keeps our businessmen in business, making profits, paying taxes on those profits and paying for our government. People who are constitutionally averse to consumerism -- like fundamentalist muslims -- don't buy massive amounts of consumer products, and we DON'T profit.

"They could just kill off all the Israelis, rename the entire area Palestine and get back to the business of repressing their own people and pumping out oil."

That isn't the way their ideology works. Crack a history book. When they tire of repressing their own, they search out others to repress. A thousand years of Ottoman vassal states weren't for nothing. Five hundred years of Barbary piracy weren't to give the Marines a line in their future hymn.

Pan-islamism means just that: all the world will be islamic, by conversion or elimination. And that means you.

"Apparently, in the context of the beheading and in their own minds what they were doing was right and just...so who are we to argue."

We are us to argue because to US it is wrong and does not benefit US. It benefits them, which is why they firmly believe they are going to be rewarded for it. Hence the clash of "morals".

"there would be no Hamas or Hezbollah"

There have always been Hamases and Hezbollahs, since a few minutes after Mohammed's death. Eliminating Israel won't change that. They simply went by different names. Sometimes they were called by their tribal names -- Moors, Seljuks, Berbers -- sometimes as political affiliations that transcended tribal affiliation -- Saracens, Ottomans -- and sometimes just by plain old blocs of tribal affiliations masquerading as "religion" -- Sunni, Shi'a.

They all have a fundamental belief that islam is to rule the world. And in the muslim-dominated portions of the world, the predominant view is that islam will literally rule the world, and by conquest. It is only among the western muslims that the figurative ruling the world -- ruling by example and collaberation and divine spirit -- is even contemplated.

"Is there a difference between the starving Chinese family who kill their baby daughter because she won't be anything but a drain on the family and killing an infant for the fun of it or a Roman leader murdering the baby of his closest rival to prevent any future political problems?"

There'd better be. If there isn't, then you'd better get the Civilizational Cuisinart going, put 6+ billion people into it, whip us all up on 'puree' and pour us into 6+billion identical molds.

"A world where the only thing we are about is our self interest will inevitably descend into barbarism."

"forget striving for justice, freedom and equality, let's do what benefits us in the short term"

1] Self-interest is only a pavlovian response among those who operate in a pavlovian manner, which is arguably those whose higher brains do not work.

2] Self-interest is not equivocal with short-term benefit.

3] Self-interest is what drives the only political and economic system yet devised which provides the masses with the means to avoid becoming grease in the gears of someone else's self-interest.

My self-interest demands either:
1] my superiority to others, or
2] my equality to others.

What is NOT in my self-interest is:
1] my subordination to others.

If I work toward my self-interest, I am going to undertake actions that prevent me becoming subordinated to others. And, being rational, I would expect everyone else to do the same. Which means that if I undertake action that make me superior to others, that I will be encouraging them to work against me. Which is not in my interests.

Is it?

The answer is "no".

Now people who cannot think beyond the ends of their noses might not be able to see that, but then you've just clearly described the fundamental difference between "the west" and "the east". Altruism is, in a lot of ways, self-interest through the medium of sacrifice.

Freedom, equality, peace, love, brotherhood, due process, all that happy horseshit lies very very firmly in the bailiwick of self-interest. Self-interest is not interchangeable with self-ISH.

[xxx]

As a better student of history than I am, I assume you haven't forgotten that the West and Christianity had the exact same mandate and mantra that the entire world needed to be Christianized and if you weren't a Christian then you would be converted like it or not. In fact, we civilized Westerners fought many wars not just about being Christians but about what kind of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant or subsets. We killed each other by the thousands over such idiotic disputes as to the which version of the bible was official and what the sacrament rituals consisted of.

We got over it, they will too. They just need time and prospertity.

[Rick]

"I assume you haven't forgotten that the West and Christianity had the exact same mandate and mantra that the entire world needed to be Christianized and if you weren't a Christian then you would be converted like it or not."

Absolutely and the muslims are still fighting the same 1000 year old war!

[xxx]

Like I said, they will get over it.

And while we are talking about Christianity, think about what America would look like if our own home grown right wing, Christian religious zealots were running the country the way they wanted. No sex education, no contraception for unmarried people, no abortion for any reason, the bible taught as science in school.....

Wouldn't America begin to more closely resemble the islamic world than secular Europe?

So far, the rapture believing evangelicals have not yet turned our country into a theocracy....the ME has not been so lucky because they didn't have any tradition to prevent this from happening and poor and uneducated people dont' have the tools to know better.

That's why evangelicals are rare in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut....the yankee tradition of minding your own business trumps everything and they never got a foothold, it also doesn't hurt that the per capita income in these states and the rest of the indicators all show a higher over all standard of living, more 'middle class' than the red states that are chock full of poor, dumb evangelicals who want to bome the Arabs back to the stoneage.

[Rick]

'X' As usual you're historic perspective is flawed and I take back that you're under 30. You must be in college, no older than 23. However, I will not disagree with your main point. If the very small minority of "evangelicals" ran the country it would definately be a theocracy not unlike the Muslims want the world to be. That said, let's pretend that history is older than your 35 year old leftist professor.
1) Most of the things you cited as the evils of Christianity were fought hardest by the Catholic Church...evangelicals were Johnny come lately on teh subject.Catholics, by the way, are FAR more numerous in teh north east than in teh "red states". The Bible was never taught as science in schools, why would it change? Their cry has been to offer it as an alternative, another "theory". Still we agree that it has no place in science class.
2) My God, I hope we never get to be like Europe!
3) Of course when you finish college, you will be building schools in the ME.....of course you could put down teh bong for a while and start right here at home
4) Actually, again, history proves that the "yankees" have no predilection toward "minding their own business". They are too busy telling everyone else how to live....a major cause of America's Civil War.
5) About that civil war and the disparity in standards of living....one word; RECONSTRUCTION. The only issue of the civil war that was solved was slavery....rather poorly actually.
6) The majority of "red staters" are now yankee republicans who could no longer afford to live in the northeastern utopia that they built...something about high taxes, high crime rates and of course, the weather sucks. They are well educated, upper middle class and they vote. Thank goodness too, or we would still be under democrat domination.
All in all though, I will agree that living in any theocracy screams revolution.......Especially a muslim theocracy.

[xxx]

I think you need to check your stats on crime, abortion, divorce and teen pregnancy, because they are all higher in Red States than Blue.

There is no amount of bong hits that a rational person can consume that makes Genesis a scientific theory.

It is religion, philosophy or literature.

Take your pick, it ain't science and never will be.

[xxx]

1) Christianity and the Catholic Church where one in the same for a thousand years.

2) Yeah it would suck to have a lower crime rate, a more educated population, fewer teenage pregnancies and universal health care, wouldn't it. Perish the thought.

3)I am probably older than you you dumbass.

4)&5) I agree on that note. Civil war was about a lot more than slavery, but that's another story.

6) You need to do some more research, bro. You are wrong on all counts. The wealth disparity between the rich and poor is MUCH greater in Red America, and all the requisite statistics would point to you being a lot better off if you are not rich living in a Blue state than a red one, a couple midwestern red states nothwithstanding.

[Rick]

'X' did the ganja boat come today? You're so frustrated you can't even agree with yourself. When do classes start back?