• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

What is GITMO about?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
I marvel...truly...I do.

Candidate Obama promised soft fluffy bunnies and hugs and his supporters believed it. And good on them. Its always nice to think of the world in such happy ways. Demonize Bush for the violation of rights, both US citizen and global citizens. Promise terrorists constitutional protections. promise to right all wrongs. That was then.

PRESIDENT Obama has not only continued but enhanced the Bush policies on fighting terrorism. Rather than close down GITMO he expanded black ops prisons. He increased the number of individuals detained. He denied them constitutional rights. He denies American citizens rights to privacy with regard to cell phone communications. He has increased the Homeland security presence. President Obama is dealing with the real world that candidate Obama had the luxury to avoid.

What is amazing is the number of people that still cling to the promises and fairy tale world of Candidate Obama. Its good to be an ideologue I suppose. Its wonderful to wish that there werent bad people in the world with evil intent. The real world...that fluffy bunny is more like the creature at the mouth of Caerbannog. I for one am grateful that President Obama is currently leading the war on terror and not Candidate Obama.
 
I'm not stuck on the GC being the end all. In fact, as this never ends, saying you'll hold them until the end of the war is silly. I'm saying follow rule of law, with rights.

I don't think you could actually cite an applicable rule of law and the rights thereunto appertaining.

Hint: US criminal law and the Constitution aren't it.


They are allowed to be shot because they are outside the law. There is a legal process that is followed.

I don't understand your thin air comment at all, but if you'll explain, I'll respond.

The "air" comment? Simply that there was a sudden push for entirely novel interpretations of the usual "international law" which applied. Like yours, below.


I will say, this isn't about what they do, but about what we do and value. If we value law and human rights, we behave like we value law and human rights.

Then you really have no idea what the laws of warfare are about. They have always been about countries agreeing with each other about how they'll conduct themselves with each other. They've never been about hamstringing a nation against an enemy which won't conform to that code of conduct.

Which is not to say that we should consider ourselves licensed to behave like savages. But the idea that someone who doesn't conform to the laws of war should have the "rights" of someone who does is just plain asinine. And suicidal.
 
They have always been about countries agreeing with each other about how they'll conduct themselves with each other. They've never been about hamstringing a nation against an enemy which won't conform to that code of conduct.
I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them? I'm more likely to treat them as spies than anything else - at least, that's the one historic role they can easily be pigeon-holed into. Even that's note a final answer, though, as spies don't usually act together as a quasi-military force. "Spontaneous combatants" is another possibility but that doesn't really fit, either. It's just a tough call.

But ...
CONVENTION OF JULY 27, 1929, RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
TITLE VIII. EXECUTION OF THE CONVENTION.
SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 82.
The provisions of the present Convention must be respected by the High Contracting Parties under all circumstances.

In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
(emphasis added)
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them? I'm more likely to treat them as spies than anything else - at least, that's the one historic role they can easily be pigeon-holed into. Even that's note a final answer, though, as spies don't usually act together as a quasi-military force. "Spontaneous combatants" is another possibility but that doesn't really fit, either. It's just a tough call.

But ... (emphasis added)

Yes. Between the belligerents who are parties.

Nation A and B are parties. Nation C is not.

A and B are fighting each other. The provisions are in effect. B and C are fighting each other. The provisions are not.
 
I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them?

That's one of the things the Geneva Conventions -- and customary "laws" of warfare -- were intended to prevent.

If all the combatants are in uniform, you don't have this problem.

If the combatants don't hide among civilian populations, you don't have to bomb civilian populations.

If the combatants don't stockpile weapons in schools, you don't have to bomb schools.

And so on.

When they don't follow these "laws," you have to do nasty things. But to hamstring yourself against such an enemy is to effect your own defeat.

War is terrible. Rewarding those who "play by the rules" and reserving dire consequences for those who don't can make it a bit less terrible.

But if you treat everyone as though they're playing by the rules, there's no reason why they should bother -- there's no penalty for being savages. Thus, savagery ensues.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Between the belligerents who are parties.

Nation A and B are parties. Nation C is not.

A and B are fighting each other. The provisions are in effect. B and C are fighting each other. The provisions are not.
Yep - my bad. The 1949 GC makes it more clear:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
(emphasis added)
Obviously, they haven't done so.

Edit:
To your second post, I agree and I never really disagreed with that part - I was just noting that the nature of this kind of war was never really considered. But since they (and therefore, we) aren't bound by it anyway, the rest doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
That's one of the things the Geneva Conventions -- and customary "laws" of warfare -- were intended to prevent.

If all the combatants are in uniform, you don't have this problem.

If the combatants don't hide among civilian populations, you don't have to bomb civilian populations.

If the combatants don't stockpile weapons in schools, you don't have to bomb schools.

And so on.

When they don't follow these "laws," you have to do nasty things. But to hamstring yourself against such an enemy is to effect your own defeat.

War is terrible. Rewarding those who "play by the rules" and reserving dire consequences for those who don't can make it a bit less terrible.

But if you treat everyone as though they're playing by the rules, there's no reason why they should bother -- there's no penalty for being savages. Thus, savagery ensues.

Well said, but I think its important to consider the other side of this coin. The perspective of the "enemy".

The US has such incredible military superiority that we can crush most opposition like insects.

It amounts to the ability to bully, when all is said and done.

So what do you do if you believe you are actually defending your home and way of life. The kind of fighters we "approve" of, philosophically.

Tongue in cheek, requiring all "enemy" combatants to gather in one place and provide cruise missile targeting coordinates isn't a reasonable demand.

Considering the gross asymmetry our military might represents.
 
Well said, but I think its important to consider the other side of this coin. The perspective of the "enemy".

The US has such incredible military superiority that we can crush most opposition like insects.

It amounts to the ability to bully, when all is said and done.

So what do you do if you believe you are actually defending your home and way of life. The kind of fighters we "approve" of, philosophically.

Tongue in cheek, requiring all "enemy" combatants to gather in one place and provide cruise missile targeting coordinates isn't a reasonable demand.

Considering the gross asymmetry our military might represents.
I made a mental note long ago when reading the GC that many Americans in 1776 would not have qualified or would have been hard to classify. ;)
 
I made a mental note long ago when reading the GC that many Americans in 1776 would not have qualified or would have been hard to classify. ;)

And many were hanged and shot as spies.

However, for the most part, the Revolution was military-to-military. Even militia were under military command and they were easily separated from the population at large.
 
Well said, but I think its important to consider the other side of this coin. The perspective of the "enemy".

The US has such incredible military superiority that we can crush most opposition like insects.

It amounts to the ability to bully, when all is said and done.

So what do you do if you believe you are actually defending your home and way of life. The kind of fighters we "approve" of, philosophically.

Tongue in cheek, requiring all "enemy" combatants to gather in one place and provide cruise missile targeting coordinates isn't a reasonable demand.

Considering the gross asymmetry our military might represents.

Our superiority doesn't require us to give anyone a special pass.

I mean, we do, and often to our considerable detriment. We tolerate far more than we should. But there's nothing in "the rule of law" which demands this.

Simply put, the weakness of the enemy isn't our problem.

So what do you do if you believe you are actually defending your home and way of life. The kind of fighters we "approve" of, philosophically.

That's quite an overstatement. This could be used to describe anyone trying to repel an invasion of anywhere, including the Nazi insurgents fighting Allied occupation.
 
Our superiority doesn't require us to give anyone a special pass.

I mean, we do, and often to our considerable detriment. We tolerate far more than we should. But there's nothing in "the rule of law" which demands this.

Simply put, the weakness of the enemy isn't our problem.



That's quite an overstatement. This could be used to describe anyone trying to repel an invasion of anywhere, including the Nazi insurgents fighting Allied occupation.

I wasn't dismissing your point, more of a "mile in the other guys moccasins" perspective.
 
I wasn't dismissing your point, more of a "mile in the other guys moccasins" perspective.

OK, but what does that really do?

Any weaker opponent would like to have advantages and ways to handicap the stronger opponent.

That may be all well and good in a sport, but in war, what does it do but increase misery, death, destruction, and injury?
 
When you believe info from the CIA, you are the victim and they are the perpetrators, or perps as your local gendarme might say. You better read the poll "The CIA and the Media" in the POLLS forum.

:roll:

So where's your documentation that waterboarding ever happened, then? I mean, if you dismiss everything from the CIA.

And where's your documentation that it happened in Cuba?
 
I don't think you could actually cite an applicable rule of law and the rights thereunto appertaining.

Hint: US criminal law and the Constitution aren't it.

I'm not sure why those wouldn't work, as these are criminal acts. The questions why would we not want to follow a rule of law that treated people legally and with rights?



The "air" comment? Simply that there was a sudden push for entirely novel interpretations of the usual "international law" which applied. Like yours, below.

Nothing there is out of thin air, but a history of us signing agreements on human rights and treatment of all types of prisoners. we ahve denounced torture, including waterboarding, and imprisoning people without due process throughout our history. There is nothing fomr thin air about it.


Then you really have no idea what the laws of warfare are about. They have always been about countries agreeing with each other about how they'll conduct themselves with each other. They've never been about hamstringing a nation against an enemy which won't conform to that code of conduct.

Which is not to say that we should consider ourselves licensed to behave like savages. But the idea that someone who doesn't conform to the laws of war should have the "rights" of someone who does is just plain asinine. And suicidal.

It's neither. The notion that following the law is suicial is what is really silly, especially when you concider this enemy has no chance at defeating us. None. The type of struggle that it would take to throw all laws out the window is of such a desperate nature that it be would something of apoclyptic proportions. We are simply not there.

In fact, I would argue we would be safer if we behaved like we really believed in our ideals. Giving them lip service makes us more like the worse vision of us our enemies have, and helps them promote that vision. I suggest we be bold and behave like people brave enough to live by our ideals, and not cowards so scare, of so little, that we make excuses for not following rule of law.
 
I'm not sure why those wouldn't work, as these are criminal acts. The questions why would we not want to follow a rule of law that treated people legally and with rights?

No, they aren't. Nobody in Gitmo is there on arrest for a criminal act. The rest is gibberish based on a false premise.

Nothing there is out of thin air, but a history of us signing agreements on human rights and treatment of all types of prisoners. we ahve denounced torture, including waterboarding, and imprisoning people without due process throughout our history. There is nothing fomr thin air about it.

Talking about international customary and treaty law of warfare.


It's neither. The notion that following the law is suicial is what is really silly

You say all this based on an extremely faulty grasp on what "the law" actually is.


especially when you concider this enemy has no chance at defeating us. None.

We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. Have we won? Are we close?


The type of struggle that it would take to throw all laws out the window is of such a desperate nature that it be would something of apoclyptic proportions. We are simply not there.

In fact, I would argue we would be safer if we behaved like we really believed in our ideals. Giving them lip service makes us more like the worse vision of us our enemies have, and helps them promote that vision. I suggest we be bold and behave like people brave enough to live by our ideals, and not cowards so scare, of so little, that we make excuses for not following rule of law.

Holding others to the civilized rules of warfare and not coddling those who don't IS one of our ideals.
 
:roll:

So where's your documentation that waterboarding ever happened, then? I mean, if you dismiss everything from the CIA.

And where's your documentation that it happened in Cuba?

I presume you are joking or else have been hiding under a mushroom for the last 6 or 8 years.
Your GC arguments are all hinged upon the presumption that all these terrorists in GITMO or BlackOps centers are guilty. They're not, and that is the problem and the flaw. Why don't you google KSM waterboard and see if you can get any acceptable results. You must be getting paid to promote such absurd propaganda.
 
I presume you are joking or else have been hiding under a mushroom for the last 6 or 8 years.
Your GC arguments are all hinged upon the presumption that all these terrorists in GITMO or BlackOps centers are guilty. They're not, and that is the problem and the flaw. Why don't you google KSM waterboard and see if you can get any acceptable results. You must be getting paid to promote such absurd propaganda.

Hey, inane blather. A first for Debate Politics. Oh, wait; no it's not.
 
We get it. You guys hate Obama and his corupt nature and the fact that he has expanded black ops prison use. Very clear. I know thats why you will be joining the protests against him, calling for his imprisonment as a war criminal and why there is no way in HELL you would ever consider voting for such an evil corrupt individual.

Right?

Riiiiiiiiight...
 
If the prisoners at Guantanamo were little white girls accused of murder in Italy, more people would probably be against their wrongful imprisonment. However, since a minute percentage of Arabs like to blow themselves up from time to time and take innocents with them, it's only fair we lock up Arabs in general with or without reason.

Can't agree with you...
 
Why is there a new thread about Gitmo now? Obama closed it in his first year as President. I'm sure he did. I mean, he promised.

.

Dear Suckers,

"Make no mistake, we will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda,"

May the farce be with you.
 
Sorry Dave, but I have absolutely no faith in anything the United Nations says, therefore I clicked The UN is lying.

This corrupt organization considers the US an obstacle to it's prime objective which is the extermination of western culture.

Americans should strongly consider any advise or opinion of the United Nations concerning the United States to be suspect.
 
I presume you are joking or else have been hiding under a mushroom for the last 6 or 8 years.
Your GC arguments are all hinged upon the presumption that all these terrorists in GITMO or BlackOps centers are guilty. They're not, and that is the problem and the flaw. Why don't you google KSM waterboard and see if you can get any acceptable results. You must be getting paid to promote such absurd propaganda.
What's the problem with "water boarding"?

It was reported to have saved american lives.
 
What's the problem with "water boarding"?

It was reported to have saved american lives.


Reported? Do you believe everything reported? The fact is, no verifiable example has ever been given. And what examples were given proved false. So, why would anyone believe the claim?
 
No, they aren't. Nobody in Gitmo is there on arrest for a criminal act. The rest is gibberish based on a false premise.

I'm not sure we know why any of them were taken, let alone all of them. There was that cab driver who we killed in Afghanistan. He was fighting. He was driving a cab. A bad guy, the actual enemy, told us he was bad. We tortured him and he died. Not sure what category we put him under, but he wasn't a solider firing weapons at us. He was a cab driver.

Talking about international customary and treaty law of warfare.

Of which we are not engaged. We are at war with no country. True, we invaded countries, countries that did not attack us or declare war on us, but we are not fighting countries. The point I make is that we have signed and agree to human rights across the board, always, regardless. We did sign and agree to thiese things, so there is no out of thin air.


You say all this based on an extremely faulty grasp on what "the law" actually is.

Well, while I think I do understand the law, and what we've agree to, the point you respond to is about our risk. Our enemy has no chance of beating us, period. So, as we don't face that extreme threat, there is no rational reason to argue that we forsake all our core values.

We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. Have we won? Are we close?

What's winning? The country was defeated fairly quickly. Occupation is harder. But, define winning.

Holding others to the civilized rules of warfare and not coddling those who don't IS one of our ideals.

No one said a thing about coddling. That's merely hyperbolic nonsense when you don't want to address rule of law. Let me ask you, if we behave like our enemy, are we any different?
 
The point I make is that we have signed and agree to human rights across the board, always, regardless. We did sign and agree to thiese things, so there is no out of thin air.
I for one would like to know what specific treaties or agreements you are referring to here. A link would be nice but I can use Goggle if you provide an accurate title for the document(s).


Edit: If you think it's the GC then think again. I've already been through that document and what you're saying isn't there.
 
Back
Top Bottom