Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> John Garcia wrote:
>
>
>> If Al Queda does not follow the Geneva Convention, if it does
>> not adhere to the laws of armed conflict, why should its
>> members be accorded the Convention's protections?
>>
>
> Because _we do_ follow the Geneva Convention. They aren't
> civilized so we don't have to treat them in a civilized manner?
>
> Please note that I'm not contending that there have been rights
violations,
> only that as a matter of principal we should adhere to the
> moral high ground despite the despicable acts that have been
committed
> against us.
>
> Doug
>
> If we do follow the Geneva Convention, then we _don't_ accord
> them the protections, because part of the convention is that
> only signatory powers and those who abide by the Conventions
> get the protection of the Convention (this is why the US is
> protected and the North Vietnamese were full of it - although
> it is not a signatory, it does in fact abide by the Conventions
> and considers itself legally bound to do so, to the extent
> that they are incorporated into military law). There is no
> legal or moral obligation to treat them according to the (very)
> strict protocols of the Convention. Now, because we are
> civilized there are things we won't do. We will give them trials,
> and we won't torture them, and so on. But if it is convenient
> to us to shackle them in an airplane because they are threats
> to the guards and pilots then I have no problem with doing so.
> There is no legal problem with us doing so. And there is not
> a moral problem with us doing so. Indeed, I would argue that
> doing _otherwise_ is morally problematic, for unnecessarily risking
> the lives of the (innocent) Americans who are protecting
civilization
> by fighting Al Qaeda is an immoral act. It's so easy for critics
> (who, after all, have no stake in what's happening) to
> conveniently forget that there are _other_ moral duties than
> the protection of captured terrorists. One of them is the
> moral duty to not spend the blood of your _own_ soldiers
> needlessly. Morality, oddly enough, runs both ways.
If you've been reading all my posts carefully you would know that I
agree with the above.
>
> If people criticize us for something as marginal as shackling
> members of Al Qaeda captured in Afghanistan - so what? It's
> clear to any person with eyes to see it that there are lots of
> people in Europe and the rest of the world who have no interest
> whatsoever in the justice or injustice of anything the US or
> Israel does - they seek only to criticize to satisfy some
> internal compulsions that we cannot, and should not, take
> seriously or allow to constrain our actions. As Jeroen
> (unintentionally) and Dan (intentionally) have shown, the
> shackling would be legitimate under the conventions even if Al
> Qaeda members _were_ protected, which they, again, are not. I,
> for one, don't buy the school of interpretation that seems to
> say that both law and morality must always be interpreted in
> the manner that makes protecting the United States maximally
> difficult. If the law says that we can do things, and it is
> necessary (or even useful) to do those things, and it is not
> obviously immoral to reasonable people to do those things, then
> why is it necessary to stretch readings of the law and
morality > beyond all recognition to make them say that we
_cannot_ do those
> things? We can, in my opinion, maintain the moral high ground
> while effectively fighting terrorism, because part of morality
> is that you act differently towards people in different moral
> positions.
>
I have no problems with shackling or sedation. I don't think that
they violate the G.C.., and I can understand the justification for
doing it. I'm not sure I understand the justification for
blindfolding (if it is being done) but then I'm not a security expert.
What I've been trying to say is that we should adhere as closely as
possible to the established humanitarian criteria. That and allow
the court to judge them. I don't like the military tribunal and I
don't like the Guantanamo setting. I think that the format should be
open and fair according to standards we have set for ourselves.
This is important to our position as world leaders as well as from a
historical perspective. The only reasons to allow cruelty and
vindictiveness to creep into the picture are hatred and vengeance.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
Irreverence is the champion of liberty.
Mark Twain - Notebook, 1888
