----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Egg on my face (was Re: Treatment Of Prisoners)
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeffrey Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:21 PM > > Subject: Re: Egg on my face (was Re: Treatment Of Prisoners) > > > > > > I'd like to see us (the US) have a consistent moral stand in this - what > > > possible reason could we have for not affording them the full rights of > > > POWs and human & sensitive treatment? > > > > As far as I know, if they had followed the "if" clauses, and attacked the > > WTC and the Pentagon with conventional bombers flown by pilots wearing > > uniforms, then those pilots would not be subject to prosecution. The > > Pentagon is certainly a legitimate war target, and if factories are > > legitimate targets, I'm guessing that the WTC would be too. After the end > > of the war, we would be required to free them unless they did something > > besides attacking these two targets. > > So one possible reason we could opt for a legal interpretation versus a > moral interpretation is to be able to hold them afterwards, or otherwise > subject them to our system of justice (military or otherwise)? I think the point I'm trying to make isn't clear. The Geneva convention gives protection to people who fight wars a certain way. In a sense, its like saying that cops who get warrants can't be sued for searching the house of an innocent man...they are warranted against prosecution. Prosecuting the cops who search without warrants doesn't undermine the legal system, it upholds it. members of private armies that deliberately work outside of the bounds of the Geneva convention doesn't undermine the convention, it supports it. So, while its immoral to try a POW for murder simply because he shot an enemy soldier, it is moral to try a member of AQ, because they deliberately flout the convention. > > I suppose moral vs legal isn't a good phrasing, but I think they should > receive the same treatment as a POW even if they're not - the odd > hedging about "they don't deserve the same rights" that Rumsfeld spouted > months ago seems to be coming true, and I can't imagine how it plays > abroad. Why should they deserve protection from prosecution for murder? AQ is not a normal army and doesn't play by the rules. If the GC says "if you play by the rules, you get these protections", then by not playing by the rules, one should be bereft of the protection. That doesn't mean anything goes, and torture is OK. Inhumane treatment is wrong, even when it is not covered by the Geneva convention. Indeed, I think even AQ has some legal protection IIRC, it is illegal under military law to torture even unlawful detainees. > Are our SpecOps subject to treatment as POWs then, if they're not > wearing the uniform? If they kill people dressed in civilian clothes, I would guess that they would be liable for trial for murder. If they dress like the army of people they are aiding, then I would guess that they would be as covered as those they were aiding. > 2 weeks after they arrive, and only after fairly intense pressure from > human rights groups and the RC for access. Again, I can't imagine how > that looks. Well, they've been there a week, and CNN already has a nightly special showing the prison. It is hard to quickly build a maximum security prison for people who are especially talented at finding unusual ways of killing people...especially people who are willing to die just to take one person with them. And, as I said before, I'd much rather be there than in any maximum security prison in the US. > Too many people around here have been using terse, angry words designed > to bludgeon other people into silence. Instead of making themselves > feel good at the expense of other's intellectual exploration, they > should, in a polite and civil arena, foster vigorous yet respectful > debate, presentation of facts that others do not have access or exposure > to, and general good will. Well, I've thought about this and let me give my general perspective. I usually work fairly hard to come up with data to support what I say and to come up with arguments that flow at least decently well. The people I most enjoy discussing issues with come up with different facts or a different interpretation of the facts than I have, and make their own arguments that hold together. I do admit to being a bit perturbed with quick statements that indicate that next to no effort was made researching the facts. There were multiple references to the Geneva convention in the past. So, the argument that you made that ignored all that was said bothered me. Further, it isn't that hard to get decent information before posting. I can get data in just a few minutes. Even assuming that I'm talented in that area, it shouldn't take all that long to write "Geneva Convention" in HotBot. Why was my question disrespectful? I'll agree that I was giving a strong signal that you haven't done your homework, but I really don't think that its rude to give such a signal. Its not just you, so don't take it personally. Today I wrote an email in response to an editorial that appeared on line and I was told that I was the first person out of about 100 who responded who gave any indication of having read the Geneva convention. I don't see why the other writers would state something before getting at least a few facts straight Is it unreasonable to assume someone should have some familiarity with the convention before stating what someone has to do to follow it? Again, its not just you, but this is a good excuse to bring this up. I don't think that one has a good debate when people just write off the top of their head. I try to give consideration to what I write. I thought about just cutting and pasting my previous post that, I thought, responded to what you wrote. Instead, I decided just to put the ball back in your court, to see how you would justify that statement you made. > > If I missed your quotes of the GC before, it is because I only read > every 4th or 5th message these days - too often its yet more vicious > pro-/anti-Israeli arguments that go something like this: > > "Israelis did ____" > > "Well Palestinians did ____" > > "I'm right" > > "No, I'm right" > > "Ha! You just said I'm right!" > > "No, you misunderstand." > > "Sorry" > > "That's okay, I'm right." You can interpret arguments any way you want. I would very much appreciate it, though, if you would dissect one of my arguments on Israel and show how it has sunk to that level. Finally, I get no joy out of responding to posts that, to me, indicate that the post was simply typed up off the cuff. My favorite exchanges are ones like my discussions with Zimmy on the brain, QM and free will. I love discussing things with people who bring a knowledgeable and different perspective to a topic I've thought about. Dan M.
