|
Crazy lawyers
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I'm writing a paper on what domestic and international laws apply to the terror suspects captured by the U.S. in the "war on terror," i.e. basically whether the Bush admin can legally use torture and indefinite detention with impunity in Gitmo and elsewhere.
Anyone have an opinion on this topic?
[And no, I'm not asking you to write my paper for me. I just find the subject interesting, which is why I'm writing about it.] |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| put yourself in their shoes.... obviously is a horrible thing they are doing. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| but, they don't do torture |
|
|
| Theresa |
Personally, I think it's not only horrid, but stupid too.
Any person who is being tortured is going to admit to things he has been coerced to admit simply to have his torture alleviated. This encourages false and misleading information. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
If I were you I'd focus on the bush admin's sneaky means of side-stepping the geneva accords, and how they've managed to have their cake and eat it too ie able to arrest people for (supposed) crimes whilst denying them the same rights all other criminals receive upon arrest. Examine what legal loopholes were used to make these enemy combattants personas non gratia. Somehow they've managed to avoid proper treatment to the enemy fighters (ala geneva) but also avoid normal legal proceedings applicable to your average criminal.
At least, that's what I find interesting about the whole thing. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN |
Yeah, I've already done some work in that direction. The basic arguments of the Bush lawyers go like this:
A. At the time of the war on terror, Afghanistan was a failed state and therefore was no longer a party to the Geneva Conventions; hence combatants captured there are not subject to those Conventions.
B. The Geneva Conventions specify two categories of conflict: international (state vs. state) and non-international (i.e. civil) war. The war on terror does not fall into either one of those categories, so it is not governed by the Geneva Conventions.
C. The Geneva Conventions apply exclusively to four categories of people: enemy soldiers, militia members, military medical personnel, and non-combatant civilians. The combatants captured in the war on terror do not fall into any of those four categories because they are "unlawful combatants," i.e. combatant civilians who are not part of a militia and do not obey the laws of war. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Anyone have an opinion on this topic?
|
It sucks. |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm writing a paper on what domestic and international laws apply to the terror suspects captured by the U.S. in the "war on terror," i.e. basically whether the Bush admin can legally use torture and indefinite detention with impunity in Gitmo and elsewhere.
Anyone have an opinion on this topic?
[And no, I'm not asking you to write my paper for me. I just find the subject interesting, which is why I'm writing about it.] |
Honestly i don't believe that they conduct torture in Gitmo. Since Gitmo is under control of the U.S Military, its falls under FM 2-22.3 (which was updated due to Abu Graib incident). There is no exceptions where torture is authorized. If any military commander "authorizes" torture and the soliders comply, they can all be charged under the united states code of military jusitce. The soldiers are required to know that anorder like that is not a lawful order and they MUST report that type of action. Statistically speaking, in the entire base, it just takes one person low on the totem pole to send an email to get a full inquire started.
Now the CIA on the other hand can get authorization for torture. Its listed what the agency can and cannot do. I'm sure the military will not be involved for the same reasons mentioned above. CIA does not fall under the DoD, therefore military policies and UCMJ does not apply to them.
On a personal note, I do agree with torture...but with some big stipulations:
1. The issue at hand must be of Great National Security.
2. The president personally signs off on each person. This way no person will have a blank check to do whatever they want, to whoever they want. The president will ultimately be the one held responsible if a person was tortured due to "bad intelligence"
3. The memo must state exactly what is authorized and what is not. This way the president can't say, "Well I didn't know that type of punishment was being given?" type of statement.
4. A paper trail of the authorization for torture must be given to a special court, such as FISA or one to be created. This will at least put a check and balance on the president. This will make sure that the president just doesn't have a pre-filled-out notepad on his top drawer on his desk signing off on everybody.
5. The military is in no way involved. Must be handled by a non-dod agency. Having the military involved would contradict FM 2-22.3. Something of GREAT national security would be outside the bounds of the military anyways.
With information that is deemed critically time sensitive, such as major terrorist attack, sometimes the only way would be get jack bauer on them. I would have a person feel alot of pain if it can save hundreds or thousands of lives. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| I'm starting a legal philosophy 200+ pages dissertation on this very topic. Can I get back to you in ..say..2 years? |
|
|
| Eis |
Interesting discussion, I'm studying the Geneva Convention in my Public International Law -Class....
Basically the Bush lawyers could also argue that the "illegal combatants" don't offer the treatment according to the Geneva Convention to the US soldiers so why should they, even though the Geneva convention prohibits this in a way. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| it really all semantics, redefining combatants, redefining torture, redefining anything they want. Once you control the definition of the words used in laws you can have the ultimate power. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
it really all semantics, redefining combatants, redefining torture, redefining anything they want. Once you control the definition of the words used in laws you can have the ultimate power. |
Ah, the wonders of language :tongue2 |
|
|
|
|
