slippery slope getting steeper

[ericb]

Only if accompanied by a Cello player....know any?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

[ericb]

sorry...I'm confused...last I checked, we were looking for a Cello player

[Crux]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

Way to go, I'm going to burninate by voting a straight Republican ticket this November!

[Dechristo]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

 

...and the rest of the world, seeing our self-imposed lack of liberty, will like us.

[StevenSeagal]

Only if accompanied by a Cello player....know any?

 

No but I heard kevbone plays the skin flute.

 

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Clearly dechristo and I are masters of global politics. Look for us on a split ticket this november.

[JayB]

So I found a copy of what I think is the most recent update of the bill here:

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+6054:

 

I have limited time today, so can somone post a link to a source that pinpoints the pertinent section of the bill? If the arguments have merit, then I'll contact any representatives that may have voted for the bill, but considering the fact that I'm currently represented by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, I hardly think it'll be necessary to get in touch with the folks in that branch of Congress. Folks like Padilla and the lad from Marin County who engaged in a voyage of self discovery and spiritual growth by joining Islamic millitants are pretty well covered by existing law concerning treason, so I don't see any need to change the law concerning the manner in which US citizens that voluntarily take up arms against their country are treated.

 

Having said that, I think that the odds are pretty good that from this point forward, the number of conflicts we're in that involve non-state actors who have no formal affiliation with or obedience to a millitary operated by a nation state warrants a bit of serious thinking about how well the Geneva conventions apply to the type of people that we're likely to be apprehending in the future. Maybe they're appropriate, maybe they're not, but I haven't heard or seen much in the way of folks asking whether or not their isn't something fundamentally different about a uniformed soldier acting at the behest of his government, and the likes of Osama, Richard Reid, etc.

 

My main reservation about the application of the Geneva Conventions to the likes of Osama is that by extending conventions which were primarily intended to govern the treatment of soldiers acting in a conflict between states, we've announced that we consider both the conflicts and the participants to be morally equivalent.

 

I think if the world were serious about this issue, there'd be an effort to define a set of standards for the treatment of terrorist suspects that everyone could agree upon. I could care less if these standards guarantee terrorist suspects weekly massage treatments and a suite at the Hilton with pay-per-view footage of beheadings, car-bombings, and the occaisional stoning of a pregnant adultress to keep their morale up, so long as there was some formal recognition of the distinction between them and say, you're average Canadian private serving in Afghanistan.

[catbirdseat]

You are falling into the same way of thinking that the Bushies have fallen into. The idea that someone is guilty until proven innocent. It's one thing to say someone is a terrorist, but it's another thing to prove it.

[JayB]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

 

...and the rest of the world, seeing our self-imposed lack of liberty, will like us.

 

Looks like the Euros are way ahead of us on this one.

 

"Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad

 

BERLIN, Sept. 26 — A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/...&ei=5087%0A

 

Maybe next, virtually every newspaper in the western world will refuse to publish some editorial cartoons which are mildly critical of Islam.

[JayB]

You are falling into the same way of thinking that the Bushies have fallen into. The idea that someone is guilty until proven innocent. It's one thing to say someone is a terrorist, but it's another thing to prove it.

 

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists. I could care less if they get trials that make the Milosevic trial look like a model of brevity, so long as there's some recognition that there's a moral distinction to be made between the average private in an interstate conflict, and Mohammad Atta et al. Applying the Geneva convention to members of Al-Queda or their jihadi counterparts seems to repudiate the notion that such a distinction exists.

[ericb]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

 

...and the rest of the world, seeing our self-imposed lack of liberty, will like us.

 

Looks like the Euros are way ahead of us on this one.

 

"Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad

 

BERLIN, Sept. 26 — A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/...&ei=5087%0A

 

Maybe next, virtually every newspaper in the western world will refuse to publish some editorial cartoons which are mildly critical of Islam.

 

Yes...appeasement would be a tough road - even for the left

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/14/MNGHO5165I1.DTL

 

"The most vocal response to Newsom's same-sex marriage move came from a group of San Francisco Muslims. About 70 Muslims from the Al-Sabeel Masjid Noor Al Islam mosque on Golden Gate Avenue assembled on the City Hall steps Friday to protest same-sex marriage.

 

The group approached the steps quietly, some holding signs quoting from the Koran or labeling omosexuality "inhuman."

 

"We have records that God destroyed one city because of this," said Gabriele Strasser, referring to the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. "We don't want that to happen to San Francisco."

 

"It's unnatural," said Mohammed Al-Lababidi, an official with the mosque."

[catbirdseat]

You are falling into the same way of thinking that the Bushies have fallen into. The idea that someone is guilty until proven innocent. It's one thing to say someone is a terrorist, but it's another thing to prove it.

 

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists. I could care less if they get trials that make the Milosevic trial look like a model of brevity, so long as there's some recognition that there's a moral distinction to be made between the average private in an interstate conflict, and Mohammad Atta et al. Applying the Geneva convention to members of Al-Queda or their jihadi counterparts seems to repudiate the notion that such a distinction exists.

Damn, you just don't get it, man. Everyone should have the same standard of justice applied to them. EVERYONE.

[JayB]

Terrorists hate freedom. They want to take away our freedom. Clearly the best thing to do is take away our freedom ourselves. That way we can thumb our noses at Osama and show him who is boss.

 

I hear the snarky "They hate freedom, tee hee." kind of thing all of the time, and I'd agree that the argument that terrorists hate some kind of grand nebulosity known as "freedom" is neither serious nor accurate.

 

However, if you take the time to read through some of the rhetoric that issues forth form Islamic extremists, I think that you could make the argument that they do seem to harbor a considerable amount of hostility towards the kind of society that results when people are free to dress how they want, drink what they want, sleep with who they want, and think what they want in an environment that's free from religious compulsion in general, and the sort that results from a rigid enforcement of Sharia law in particular.

[catbirdseat]

It doesn't matter what THEY believe in. It's what WE believe in.

[Jim]

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists....... Applying the Geneva convention to members of Al-Queda or their jihadi counterparts seems to repudiate the notion that such a distinction exists.

 

I partially agree. But once that distinction is made it should not follow that there is no rule of law. There are quite a few stories of people caught up in this web who were innocent, dragged out of line at JFK (for instance) and eventually sent to Jordan and such to get beaten and tortured - all four naught. They were innocent and were released. The rule of law is there to protect all, innocent and guilty. To make sure there is due process. If they are guilty and we can prove it - lock 'em up and throw away the key. If you can't prove it what then? Keep them locked up anyway, just in case? That is not what our country (supposedly) stands for.

[JayB]

You are falling into the same way of thinking that the Bushies have fallen into. The idea that someone is guilty until proven innocent. It's one thing to say someone is a terrorist, but it's another thing to prove it.

 

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists. I could care less if they get trials that make the Milosevic trial look like a model of brevity, so long as there's some recognition that there's a moral distinction to be made between the average private in an interstate conflict, and Mohammad Atta et al. Applying the Geneva convention to members of Al-Queda or their jihadi counterparts seems to repudiate the notion that such a distinction exists.

Damn, you just don't get it, man. Everyone should have the same standard of justice applied to them. EVERYONE.

 

I'm not sure I'm the one who's not getting it, actually. We don't use the Geneva conventions to try people who are guilty of shoplifting or failing to use their turn signals, and soldiers tried for war crimes are subject to the UCMJ rather than, say, civil law. Just because you have different set of legal principles that you apply to massively different offenses in completely different contexts doesn't mean that you are betraying all of your legal traditions, so long as you apply the same rules to any individual who is in a situation where the pertinent legal standards apply. If anything - setting a single internationally recognized standard for the treatment of terrorist suspects would probably improve the odds of their getting treated in a manner that the grand vaporosity known as the "international community" recognizes as humane and just.

[cj001f]

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists.

Why should there be one? The terrorists of today are far better armed, educated, trained and unified than soldiers were at the first geneva convention, or even compared to sections of the North Korean or Chinese militaries.

[Alpinfox]

The goal of of these Islamic fundamentalists is to destroy our "heathen" society. Since they do not have the power/tools to attack us conventionally, they have adopted neo-guerilla warfare tactics which we label "terrorism" with the goal of disrupting our society by spreading fear. If we pass legislation that disolves the heart and soul of our legal system - the right of the accused to a speedy, fair, transparent, and just trial and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven - I would argue that the terrorists have achieved at least one of their goals.

 

We must not allow them to scare us into becoming an unjust society. Not only will we be losing what America stands for, but by condoning torture, unfair and secret trials, we will give substance to the claims of the Islamic fundamentalists who claim we are evil oppressors.

 

We must remain true to our ideals - the ideals of freedom, justice, and dignity for all people - if we are to defeat the murderous, bigoted, and repressive ideology of these terrorists.

 

I may be a touch paranoid, but I can easily imagine a future where American citizens are scared to voice anti-governmental opinions for fear of being labelled a "terrorist", jailed, intimidated, etc. Some Republicans are already throwing around labels like "terroist aider" or something like that for those that are trying to stand up for justice. I see a new age of McCarthyism being born.

[JayB]

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists....... Applying the Geneva convention to members of Al-Queda or their jihadi counterparts seems to repudiate the notion that such a distinction exists.

 

I partially agree. But once that distinction is made it should not follow that there is no rule of law. There are quite a few stories of people caught up in this web who were innocent, dragged out of line at JFK (for instance) and eventually sent to Jordan and such to get beaten and tortured - all four naught. They were innocent and were released. The rule of law is there to protect all, innocent and guilty. To make sure there is due process. If they are guilty and we can prove it - lock 'em up and throw away the key. If you can't prove it what then? Keep them locked up anyway, just in case? That is not what our country (supposedly) stands for.

 

I am in total agreement with you here, Jim. I just think that we'd be better off if we initiated a new international treaty that specifies how to treat and try terrorist suspects. As things are now, I think that using the Geneva Conventions as the immutable standard for detaining and trying terrorist suspects is like applying the rules for civil aviation to aerial combat, and we'd be less likely to see renditions, etc if there was some kind of standard in place that addressed some of the aspects that make terrorism different from interstate warfare. As things stand now, I'd rather have the US follow the Geneva Conventions because I think that the strategic losses that not being seen to do so are more costly than the benefits we're likely to gain from the intelligence that we get. However, I would like to see us at least press the case with the Euros and others and get them to spell out exactly how they intend to apply the conventions to terrorist suspects, so that they have to abide by the same principles that they're asking the US to apply.

[catbirdseat]

I want to have due process applied to ME, if someone points a finger at me and says, "you're a terrorist!".

[Jim]

I'm not sure I'm the one who's not getting it, actually. Just because you have different set of legal principles that you apply to massively different offenses in completely different contexts doesn't mean that you are betraying all of your legal traditions, so long as you apply the same rules to any individual who is in a situation where the pertinent legal standards apply. If anything - setting a single internationally recognized standard for the treatment of terrorist suspects would probably improve the odds of their getting treated in a manner that the grand vaporosity known as the "international community" recognizes as humane and just.

 

But that is not what is being put forward. The proposed legislation would allow torture, secret evidence you, as the accused, could not see, and restrict any judical review. Those are not just "different" standards, they set a new low. The other examples you floated are all based in common standards for the accused: respectable treatment, no coerced evidence, right to view evidence against you, and judicial review. Creating a new category whereby someone can be picked up in the US or a foriegn country, jailed, tortured, and kept without any recourse or appeal, indefinetly, is un-American. Or so I thought.

 

Hmmm, edited to acknowledge JayB's resonable and logical response.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Jim

[JayB]

I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt, actually. Just arguing for a set of standards that distinguishes soldiers from terrorists.

Why should there be one? The terrorists of today are far better armed, educated, trained and unified than soldiers were at the first geneva convention, or even compared to sections of the North Korean or Chinese militaries.

 

I'd argue that it's possible to make moral distinctions between two individuals who are equally well armed according to the manner in which they use their weapons, the ends for which they - and by extension the entity that they represent - are using them to advance.

[cj001f]

I'd argue that it's possible to make moral distinctions between two individuals who are equally well armed according to the manner in which they use their weapons, the ends for which they - and by extension the entity that they represent - are using them to advance.

I'm not surprised you'd argue that; like the Bushies you'll find it very difficult to craft a lasting code. The Geneva convention has proved quite durable; far more than anything produced in this era.

[ericb]

Isn't directly targeting innocent civilians, using them as human shields, and destroying/targeting places of worship against the Geneva convention?