Gonzales gets the boot

[taks]

As such they are not obsolete, they are just not relevant to guerrilla warfare. The question of guerrila warfare split the conference. Were partisans to be accorded the same rights as regular combatants, or were they to be treated as 'franc-tireurs'* and summarily executed.

i think that was the context, however, and in terms of the current state of warfare in the world, yes, it is obsolete. none of the signatories are really battling with each other (at least, not to the point of gunfire) nor is there any legitimate chance of that in the reasonably near future. at the time it was originally conceived, there was a very real danger of more world war, particularly among developed nations.

 

personally, i've always felt the geneva convention was "obsolete," or at least, unnecessary. the only countries that would sign up to something as such are the ones that would already behave in a manner consistent with "rules of war." really, it is nothing more than countries that are otherwise "civilized" agreeing they won't torture each other, or drop nerve gas, if push comes to shove. those we're battling now wouldn't ever sign up to something given the chance anyway.

 

yes, it wasn't the brightest proclamation from an AG, that's for sure. btw, the geneva convention does not grant habeas corpus to POWs, whether signatories or otherwise, so w.r.t. guantanamo, it is mostly an irrelevant point.

 

taks

Edited August 28, 2007 by taks

[Tale]

btw, the geneva convention does not grant habeas corpus to POWs, whether signatories or otherwise, so w.r.t. guantanamo, it is mostly an irrelevant point.

 

taks

The discussion about habeas corpus had towards Guantanamo was never implied to be related to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court extended to them that right. Congress turned around and passed a law that stripped federal courts of the authority to hear it. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to speak to them, presumably in regards to this, where he said to them that "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas.''

 

If anything, bringing up Guantanamo is the mostly irrelevant point as the controversy most explicitly comes from that the man was speaking of citizens of the United States.

 

not taks

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

I kind of see your point, taks. But having a written document doesn't hurt. I mean I have clients who are well known to me, and so are all our expectations. But a written contract reminds everyone what those expectations are, and allows us to point at them in the event of a slide of standards.

 

On the subject of franc tireurs I'm no lawyer but reading the convention it seems to me that irregulars are protected even without being signatories provided they are acting in defence of their own territory (particularly in the event of an illegal invasion*). However, what is absolutely clear is that the irregulars must 'act within the laws of war'. This means they must accord rights of surrender, and not abuse captives. Given that Al Qaeda cells routinely abduct, torture, and murder captives for the purpose of home movies, it would seem they are voluntarily renouncing the protection of the convention.

 

In all, I'm beginning to think that the convention is actually very useful, in elucidating these points. What is obsolete is the public understanding of the convention, and matters military in general.

 

Incidentally I consider this all releveant as a critique of the AG's statements and opinions. What worries me now is who will GWB in his dingbat end of second term foist on the American people?

 

*I don't consider Iraq or Afghanistan illegal invasions, but many do, so the point is moot.

[taks]

The discussion about habeas corpus had towards Guantanamo was never implied to be related to the Geneva Convention.

no, but that's the only remotely relevant document pertaining to the guantanamo detainees, so it is relevant.

 

The Supreme Court extended to them that right. Congress turned around and passed a law that stripped federal courts of the authority to hear it. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to speak to them, presumably in regards to this, where he said to them that "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas.''

hence it was a debate that had never occurred before, so there's nothing wrong with his opinion, particularly given that the original comment (by you as i recall) was much more general than the few cases this extended to. gonzales context was rather specific, whereas your comment was not. that's all...

 

If anything, bringing up Guantanamo is the mostly irrelevant point as the controversy most explicitly comes from that the man was speaking of citizens of the United States.

but he was speaking about a case that resulted from guantanamo, particularly regarding the few citizens that had been detained there. in that regard, and w.r.t. the constitution, he was correct, and the context is completely relevant.

 

taks

[taks]

But having a written document doesn't hurt.

never said it does, merely that the written document really holds no realistic power. i.e. those that it would apply to likely already abide by such rules.

 

taks

[taks]

i tell you what, the wiki on the habeas corpus mess is rather detailed and much more complicated than i had originally assumed (it is fairly up to date, btw). i'd say this is no where near completely resolved.

 

taks

[Tale]

but he was speaking about a case that resulted from guantanamo, particularly regarding the few citizens that had been detained there. in that regard, and w.r.t. the constitution, he was correct, and the context is completely relevant.

 

taks

So, let's get this straight. There were U.S citizens detained in Guantanamo. But because they're classified as POWs, they don't get habeas corpus.

 

Is that what you're supporting? How is he correct?

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[Meshugger]

Phew taks, you're one stubborn fella. And not only that, you now have a guard dog barking when you're gone

 

Everyone who has a relative that has been or is currently at a war, understands that the fine line between sanity and a lord of flies-scenario isn't that far apart. However, standards should be applied, like the Geneva convention. What made me very skeptic about Gonzalez was the clear intention of his statement, that the more power to the state and less to the individual. Especially in this 'war against terror' (what aren't your government war against?) these kinds of statements should be met with great skepticism, since they leave a lot of room to be abused, if they turn into law.

 

Granted, we don't live in a world where states are at war with each other in the classical sense. But that doesn't excuse us from deny basic human rights to one another, and here as Walsingham stated, a piece of paper, a code of conduct is essential. Having a lawyer cherry-pick who and to whom this applies to their own needs is abuse. And looking at the current American administration previous intentions and doings with individual and human rights, Gonzalez statements should definitely raise some eyebrows.

[taks]

So, let's get this straight. There were U.S citizens detained in Guantanamo. But because they're classified as POWs, they don't get habeas corpus.

 

Is that what you're supporting? How is he correct?

uh, no, read the constitution. there's an "out clause" on the habeas corpus concept in which habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." clearly anyone participating in terrorist acts against the US, particularly on foreign soil, is committing not just treason, but an act of rebellion. habeas corpus is not an absolute right, which is where you seem to be misled. the same can be said for freedom of speech: not all speech is protected, like it or not.

 

he's right, face it, you're wrong.

 

taks

[taks]

However, standards should be applied, like the Geneva convention.

i'm not sure what you don't get here. i never said there shouldn't be rules, i merely agreed with gonzales that geneva is obsolete. it does not apply to _any_ situation we've seen in over 30 years, maybe even 50. certainly something probably needs to replace it, but even then, only the signatories are held to it, and those are the countries that really don't need to sign onto anything they're going to follow anyway.

 

why is this so hard to understand? why do you keep misreading my statements and intent?

 

What made me very skeptic about Gonzalez was the clear intention of his statement, that the more power to the state and less to the individual.

nonsense.

 

But that doesn't excuse us from deny basic human rights to one another, and here as Walsingham stated, a piece of paper, a code of conduct is essential. Having a lawyer cherry-pick who and to whom this applies to their own needs is abuse. And looking at the current American administration previous intentions and doings with individual and human rights, Gonzalez statements should definitely raise some eyebrows.

what rights are being denied? our guantanamo detainees are treated more fairly than any other POWs any enemy has ever treated ours. habeas corpus ain't a geneva right, so what's being denied?

 

taks

[taks]

Having a lawyer cherry-pick who and to whom this applies to their own needs is abuse.

no, it is his defined job: to interpret and enforce the laws of the land, including the constitution. should an infringement occur, the case can be taken to SCOTUS for review. this idea that congress somehow has domain over the AG is a joke, and THAT is the abuse of power which should be raising the eyebrows.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

i'm not sure what you don't get here. i never said there shouldn't be rules, i merely agreed with gonzales that geneva is obsolete. it does not apply to _any_ situation we've seen in over 30 years, maybe even 50. certainly something probably needs to replace it, but even then, only the signatories are held to it, and those are the countries that really don't need to sign onto anything they're going to follow anyway.

 

why is this so hard to understand? why do you keep misreading my statements and intent?

 

I don't think that we're communicating well today. My point is that we need such a document as a standard. Your point is that it is irrelevant. In realpolitik this is true, but we shouldn't lower our standards either to the lower denominator.

 

nonsense.

 

Is he a champion of human and individual rights then? I know that i an pushing your buttons, but you have to convince me in a better way than that

 

 

what rights are being denied? our guantanamo detainees are treated more fairly than any other POWs any enemy has ever treated ours. habeas corpus ain't a geneva right, so what's being denied?

 

taks

 

That's wasn't my point on how well they are treated compared to other countries. They aren't treated as POWs as described in the Geneva convention, which is in my case, the basic treatment of any human being. But i understand your point though, there are several at guantanamo that are refusing to leave, since they fear *real* torture awaits them in their home-countries.

[Calax]

So, let's get this straight. There were U.S citizens detained in Guantanamo. But because they're classified as POWs, they don't get habeas corpus.

 

Is that what you're supporting? How is he correct?

uh, no, read the constitution. there's an "out clause" on the habeas corpus concept in which habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

taks

who determines if the public safety requires it? a lengthy court battle in a politicized justice system that could take anywhere between 1 and 30 years before it moves? or POTUS who can then start to detain people without habeas corpus because he thinks it's in the interests of public safety? or is it congress who is so deadlocked about minor crapola that they'd never touch this with an eleven foot pole because of the political damage it might do to each representatives cause?

[Meshugger]

Having a lawyer cherry-pick who and to whom this applies to their own needs is abuse.

no, it is his defined job: to interpret and enforce the laws of the land, including the constitution. should an infringement occur, the case can be taken to SCOTUS for review. this idea that congress somehow has domain over the AG is a joke, and THAT is the abuse of power which should be raising the eyebrows.

 

taks

 

Again we're viewing the issue from complete different angles. I see it for any human being in an armed conflict, which is not up to interpretation. Illegal combatant just sounds silly.

[taks]

Your point is that it is irrelevant. In realpolitik this is true, but we shouldn't lower our standards either to the lower denominator.

er, not really. my point is that the current document is obsolete. any future document is not necessarily irrelevant, but it certainly does not place any burden on those willing to sign it. that we would choose to live, and fight, buy any standard is evidence enough that we are civilized enough not to commit what would otherwise be considered "war crimes." london ain't gonna torture US POWs should something go awry between us. those that need to work to live up to such a standard, namely every devloping nation on the planet, won't sign anyway. those are the countries that "need" something like geneva, but will never abide by it.

 

of course, violating geneva only means something if a) you lose your war/battle/skirmish and b) the conditions of your eventual surrender result in pardons for any war crimes that may or may not have been committed. the only "developed" nation i would truly worry about not upholding such a document, btw, is russia, but they're barely "developed" in any real sense of the word. their history indicates very little regard for human rights.

 

Is he a champion of human and individual rights then? I know that i an pushing your buttons, but you have to convince me in a better way than that

he doesn't have to be. his job was to interpret and enforce the constitution. the "more power to the state" concept is thwarted simply by the fact that the constitution already gave the power in question to the state. the AG's job is to uphold that. he was merely advocating exercising the power already granted his branch by the constitution.

 

That's wasn't my point on how well they are treated compared to other countries. They aren't treated as POWs as described in the Geneva convention, which is in my case, the basic treatment of any human being. But i understand your point though, there are several at guantanamo that are refusing to leave, since they fear *real* torture awaits them in their home-countries.

my point is that they did not uphold their end of the geneva in the first place, so it does not apply. that they are being treated as well as they are is testament to how civilized WE are, and further proof that the geneva doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

taks

[taks]

Again we're viewing the issue from complete different angles. I see it for any human being in an armed conflict, which is not up to interpretation. Illegal combatant just sounds silly.

uh, the guys held in guantanamo were in armed conflict, or caught committing treasonous/rebellious acts? not sure what your point is here... those later found to be semi-innocent were released (some of which ended up getting killed while in combat against US troops, or suicide-bombing).

 

the phrase "illegal combatant" was applied merely because they needed _some_ way to describe these guys since there is no war, and none of the conditions for geneva have been met. potato, potahto, same difference.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

Bush made comedy when commenting "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons". What about those 8 guys Gonzales fired... for political reasons?

uh, no different than any other political appointee, and their names weren't dragged through the mud in the media. we wouldn't have even heard of them till somebody decided to take gonzales to task over the non-issue. so, sorry, your hypothesis that these guys were "dragged through the mud" is nonsense.

 

 

I didnt make any hypothesis, I was just poking fun at Bush being sour abot Gonzales having been pressured out of office for political reasons, while the Bush administration themselves have pressured countless people to resign, among them the 8 people Gonzales was involvled in sacking. See?

 

 

Jokes are never fun when you have to explain them

[Tale]

So, let's get this straight. There were U.S citizens detained in Guantanamo. But because they're classified as POWs, they don't get habeas corpus.

 

Is that what you're supporting? How is he correct?

uh, no, read the constitution. there's an "out clause" on the habeas corpus concept in which habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." clearly anyone participating in terrorist acts against the US, particularly on foreign soil, is committing not just treason, but an act of rebellion. habeas corpus is not an absolute right, which is where you seem to be misled. the same can be said for freedom of speech: not all speech is protected, like it or not.

 

he's right, face it, you're wrong.

 

taks

Both rebellion and invasion are instances where the system may be too busy. A handful of citizens do not require the suspension for public safety. Public safety isn't helped in the least by that. Nobody's saying it's absolute, just like I wasn't speaking specifically of Guantanamo, just like I wasn't speaking anything about wiretapping. But it's inherent except in extreme cases where it's not feasible. This is not one of those times. Even the bill of rights are not a absolute, so claiming that it's simply not absolute is irrelevant, it's merely academic.

 

not taks

Edited August 29, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

A soldier is a soldier, in or out of uniform.

[taks]

Both rebellion and invasion are instances where the system may be too busy. A handful of citizens do not require the suspension for public safety. Public safety isn't helped in the least by that. Nobody's saying it's absolute, just like I wasn't speaking specifically of Guantanamo, just like I wasn't speaking anything about wiretapping. But it's inherent except in extreme cases where it's not feasible. This is not one of those times. Even the bill of rights are not a absolute, so claiming that it's simply not absolute is irrelevant, it's merely academic.

but your complaint was about something gonzales said in regard to guantanamo, so yes, it was specific even if you didn't intend it to be. you can't expect to extrapolate a very specific instance to the broader case then claim you weren't speaking of specifics, without some notice from folks like me. that's disingenuous.

 

given that gonzales' comments were simply that the habeas corpus clause is not absolute, and that's what you guys are complaining about, it is more than relevant: he merely restated what we already know to be true, because it is written into the constitution.

 

kaftan said:

I didnt make any hypothesis, I was just poking fun at Bush being sour abot Gonzales having been pressured out of office for political reasons, while the Bush administration themselves have pressured countless people to resign, among them the 8 people Gonzales was involvled in sacking. See?

the hypothesis you made, intentionally or otherwise, was that those people that were pressured to resign were dragged through the mud, merely because you highlighted that whole comment. bush's complaint was that gonzales was being dragged through the mud for political reasons, which is different than what happened to those that got fired.

 

btw, to anyone that thinks political appointees don't serve at the whim of the president: does that mean the cabinet, or better, the entire white house administration should be able to keep their jobs, too?

 

taks

[taks]

A soldier is a soldier, in or out of uniform.

uh, they are being treated according to the geneva, actually better, in spite of failing to live up to their end of the bargain. regardless of how you classify the detainees, they're still being treated as POWs, and POWs are not afforded constitutional rights by any document, geneva or otherwise.

 

taks

[Xard]

You yanks suck at torturing.

 

Just threaten to wrap them in pig skin and they're ready to do pretty much everything.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Xard

[Walsingham]

I've been trying to remember the British experience in N Ireland. I think we opted to refuse them POW status and treated them basically as simple criminals. Of course we also didn't have the international element. Plenty of Irish Americans happy to send arms and cash, not so many keen to risk mixing it up with the Army.

[Tale]

but your complaint was about something gonzales said in regard to guantanamo

That complaint was downgraded and clarification was requested. Fairly early on in the thread. I even made public note of it.

 

given that gonzales' comments were simply that the habeas corpus clause is not absolute, and that's what you guys are complaining about, it is more than relevant: he merely restated what we already know to be true, because it is written into the constitution.

I also requested clarification on your claim thus. And stop grouping people on a forum together. It's blatantly retarded. "You guys?" You think we're sitting together planning arguments? Each poster is an individual.

 

Unless you're accusing me of having DID. Or are calling me fat and being particularly insensitive about it.

 

you can't expect to extrapolate a very specific instance to the broader case then claim you weren't speaking of specifics, without some notice from folks like me.

Just like you noticed I was speaking of wiretapping and habeas in geneva, amirite?

 

not taks

Edited August 29, 2007 by Tale